Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then true adventist don't listen to EGW. Frogster would go bahaha gaga bahaI would like to stress that true Adventists believe we are saved by faith alone, without the works of the law. But neither are we saved in disobedience to the law.
Without the works of the law means that the believer cannot offer his obedience to God in exchange for salvation, yet the sinner cannot be saved in rebellion and disobedience. All sin must be repented of, confessed, and forsaken before the believer is accepted in Christ. We must show our faith by our good works. Faith without works is dead (James 2:17,18,24,26) and whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23).
All of God's commandments can only be kept by faith. No human being that makes it to heaven will have been saved by any works they did. Only by faith. Even at Sinai and after. This is precisely why the Old Covenant failed, they were attempting to keep God's commandments by works, not by faith.
This proves that whether the law is written on paper or not, it still has to be written in the heart. It was never God's intent that Israel would attain righteousness by works. It is the faith of Abraham that they had forgotten.
Not all laws need to be written on paper for them to be in our heart, but God wants us to read the Bible, and the Bible identifies sins we never knew about. We can only have written in our hearts what we know about, and that is limited. James 4:17 says to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. But Hosea 4:6 also tells us that God will reject us if we willfully reject knowledge. Therefore, if we have the opportunity, and our hearts are right with God, we will take advantage that we have access to God's written word, and we will open it and we will read it to find out what more is sin so that we can put it out of our lives.
If we purposely avoid reading God's laws and finding out what sin is, then that reveals that our hearts are not really where they ought to be, and that we are not really too anxious to put sin out of our lives.
This is simply not what God said through Jeremiah.An Assumption: That the Testimony in Heaven is "Different":
It is an assumption that just because the testimony or covenant is different, that the laws must read different. I would argue that a new covenant has nothing to do with the moral law changing. I believe it has to do with a change of location, from tables of stone to the tables of your heart. These Ten Commandments must be written in our hearts, and that is the New Covenant promise to all those who love Jesus and surrender their lives to Him. Once that happens, these laws will be manifested in the character in an untold number of ways--for which Christ greatly elaborated upon.
Are we to suggest that heaven's testimony reads "This is the Law of Love"? May I ask what that means?
What does "love" mean? and how does "love" translate? How is it "manifested"? There has to be a foundation. Picture Jesus the embodiment of love. On his right hand hangs Table 1 (love to God), and on his left hand hangs Table 2 (love to man). From these 2 principles of love, hang ALL the law and the prophets (Matt. 22:40). Or picture Jesus the "chief cornerstone", holding up the foundation (Tables of Stone), and the great principles of love, embodied in His Temple, the Church or God's people, built on that foundation.
The Ten Commandments, out of the 613 laws, were seared in solid stone--to impress an indelible reminder concerning their perpetual and eternal nature. All of Christ's laws were extensions, or magnifications rather (Isaiah 42:21) of this sacred law, for which Paul said was "holy", "just", and "good" (Rom. 7:12).
Keeping the commandments is going to be an automatic fruitage and revelation of love. Love is revealed and translated in how we treat one another, and how we treat God. When we break the Sabbath, we are showing disrespect to God. God put the Sabbath there as a test for Christians, just like he put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil for Adam and Eve. Those who fail the test will exchange eternal life for eternal death.
But it doesn't end there. Jesus wants to go BEYOND the elementary basics of the Ten Commandments.
Jesus gave two examples of what it means to be living in the New Covenant:
Example 1:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:21,22)As we can see, Jesus is in no way negating the law. In just 3 verses earlier, he said "till heaven and earth pass" not one jot or tittle will pass away from the law, then He goes on to give examples of what it means to live out that law in your life. He shows here that it is more than just "not killing". It also has to do with the intents of the heart---beyond not killing, don't even be ANGRY with your brother! Is it possible to kill your brother, yet not be angry with him? Of course not. The spirit never erases the letter. But if it is done only in letter, it means nothing for the soul.
Example 2:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:27,28 )As we can see, Jesus is not "negating" or "replacing" the "commandment of old" to not commit adultery. But He is AMPLIFYING it. Is it possible to commit adultery yet not lust after another woman? Of course not. Jesus is talking about our thoughts. These were principles that the Jewish nation had lost sight of. They didn't understand that God's law was to be kept from the heart. There were few men, however, that did. David's Psalms and Solomon's Proverb's are two examples.
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jeremiah 31:31-33)As we can see, Israel broke the covenant because they relied on their own strength (see Exodus 24:7), their own human weakness to keep God's laws, but it was not the Lord working in and through them to give them strength (see Phil 2:13), because they kept it out of legalism. Not out of love. The New Covenant promise is where God will take those SAME moral laws (not new moral laws), and write them in their hearts.
Paul repeats the words of Jeremiah in Hebrews:
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." (Hebrews 8:7-10)We see how Israel broke their end of the covenant, their "agreement". We see then why it became absolutely necessary to make a new covenant. God never broke the covenant, but Israel did. The covenant became faulty, but God's law is always perfect (Psalm 19:7). Therefore, it was a new covenant that needed to be made, not a new law. The covenant became imperfect when Israel broke it, and this is why God said he found fault with "them" (Israel), not the law. This is why the old covenant had to "vanish", because it was based on legalism, and trying to attain the law of righteousness by works, and not by faith. (See Romans 9:31,32). New Covenant Christians keep God's commandments by faith, not by works. Works has to do with a wrong motive, by trying to earn a ticket to salvation, and save ourselves. It has nothing to do with a heart-felt motive where faith is exercised that works by love and purifies the soul. When those same laws are implanted in the heart, it springs forth in our soul into good fruit!
"Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (Hebrews 10:15-17)
If John saw the stone tablets in heaven the Ark of the Covenant had to be opened. It simply wasn't and John didn't see the stone tablets and neither did EGW.I never said the Ark was opened. Or perhaps I misunderstand you? What does this have to do with anything?
The point is, the Temple of God was opened in heaven, and in it was seen the Ark of His Testament. Just what it says.
If John saw the stone tablets in heaven the Ark of the Covenant had to be opened. It simply wasn't and John didn't see the stone tablets and neither did EGW.
Whatz z matta can't handle the heat? Get out of the kitchen. Don't tell me to let your stuff go unrebutted for any length of time.Listed,
Don't you think you're a little too stressed out? I know I'm not a good example, because I used to really allow people's comments to irritate me, but I've prayed to God over the last few months on this issue, and He has helped me calm down quite a bit. Perhaps you have not seen my past posts on this site.
At any rate, my encouragement to you is to meditate on all arguments presented. Let's not be so quick to react. Let's zoom out and look at the "big picture" rather than zooming in to get snagged on technicalities.
Whatz z matta can't handle the heat? Get out of the kitchen. Don't tell me to let your stuff go unrebutted for any length of time.
No I want and only will accept sight of the tablets. Moses didn't see them in heaven and neither did John. You're going on nothing more that assumption for lack of evidence to establish a nonexistant varifiable fact for the purpose of establishing a false doctrine.I never said John saw the stone tables. He saw the Ark of the Testament. But the Ark was "evidence" that the Testament was inside of it. Otherwise, it would be an oxymoron to call it the "Ark of His Testament" if His Testament (or tables of the covenant) are not inside it. Whether one can see the tables in the Ark or not is not the point. God already recorded what's in it in Exodus 20, so we don't need to see what it reads in heaven. God didn't make the earthly sanctuary a "pattern after nothing". He made it a pattern of the heavenly. We should just take His Word for it.
Asking God to open up the Ark of the Covenant in heaven for you so that you can see exactly what the Tables of the Testimony read is like an atheist asking God to show Himself so that he might believe.
Ah yes and seasoned tempered iron will only whittle pot metal to pieces when they meet.Iron sharpens iron, so bring it on.
No I want and only will accept sight of the tablets. Moses didn't see them in heaven and neither did John. You're going on nothing more that assumption for lack of evidence to establish a nonexistant varifiable fact for the purpose of establishing a false doctrine.
What did Moses see in heaven? The Ark or the Ark of the Covenant? Aren't both referring to what Moses saw in heaven? Or did it become a house only after being inhabited?
What you're arguing for is the stone tablets are in heaven and have no proof. You apparently need this to prove obligation to the law and invalidate the NC. I certianly understand.
which one of you 2 is whichAh yes and seasoned tempered iron will only whittle pot metal to pieces when they meet.
So you're saying that the stone tablets were made as part of the Tabernacle. No way Jose. They were brought into the Tabernacle and they were also removed from the Tabernacle. According to what you say they would also be removed from heaven if you can even prove they are there. The stone tablets aren't part and parcel of the Tabernacle.Then I'm sorry, as this is where we must part ways in our disagreement. Hebrews is clear that the earthly sanctuary was patterned after the heavenly. If you can't accept that the earthly tables read the same as the heavenly, then that is your problem. Not mine.
You can manipulate "proof" so that it no longer sounds as proof. If it is not "proof" to you, then so be it. It certainly is proof for me.
Interesting statement seeing you have witnessed previous exchanges Lysimachus has had with others. Of course I'm assuming you read all the law and sabbath threads here at CF and have been around much longer than either one of us. I've done my research and know what I'm dealing with.which one of you 2 is which
So you're saying that the stone tablets were made as part of the Tabernacle. No way Jose. They were brought into the Tabernacle and they were also removed from the Tabernacle. According to what you say they would also be removed from heaven if you can even prove they are there. The stone tablets aren't part and parcel of the Tabernacle.
Look you need the stone tablets to prove one is obligated to the law. I don't need them with the administration of mercy by Grace. Then we have the differences of the covenants which violate each other even if you could produce the stone tablets. You will never prove a superceded law (covenant) has authority over its replacement. I send you back to Jeremiah. It says very plainly not according to. It says nothing about moving that covenant into the heart. It says very plainly make a new covenant. Sorry. I like Regan's statement on communism, We win, they lose.
You just exposed your basis for doctrine, basically you can do whatever you want regardless of the 10 Commandments or the example of Jesus! That is the same mindset that secular people have, they just do whatever they wish ignoring the will of God.
Gatherings on any day are not against scripture, hence prayer meetings, Bible studies, choir, on any day; etc., yet none of those things replaces the need to obey God in the 4th Commandment.
There is nothing wrong to assemble for worship on Sundays, only if it is being done as a "meeting", but not regular "Church Service" in place of the Sabbath. But the Sabbath is God's Holy Day of rest where we are to distinguish it from the other days. If you treat Sunday sacred just like you do the Sabbath, you are trying to sanctify another day that God never made Holy.
"Cheap Grace" is what we see commonly practiced in North American. For example, Evangelicals claim to love God, but even on Sunday you will millions watching the Super Bowl on Sunday, which if they really believe was a holy day, they should give that day reverence, but for the most Sunday is not even kept as a "sabbath", let alone the 7th day Sabbath.
Lysimachus-
I must disagree with the SDA's teaching that we Christians are to show our faith through the keeping of OT laws and commandments. But it's because our conduct is to far outdistance that of anyone who is bound by any set of laws and commandments:
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)
In the first paragraph of this passage, is it Moses or The Spirit that we are to be led by in order to no longer be under the law? It's the Spirit, of course. And is the Spirit greater or lesser than Moses? He is greater.
And in the third paragraph of this passage what does it say concerning those who have the fruit of the Spirit implanted within us? It says that against such things there is no law. And why would it say that? It's because in those 'fruit' lies the core of everything that God truly wants of us. If we have them as our guiding force then we can succeed in doing what God wants of us. But without them all the ritualism, traditionalism, legalism, pietism, and even elitism in the world will not make our words or actions appear any closer to what God would have of us than a caricature.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?