St. Patrick kept the 7th Day Sabbath!

Lysimachus · Mar 22, 2012

Now it is true there plainly is a new covenant and an old covenant. But think about it, if you were an Israelite in 1000 B.C., for example, and you died in the Lord, were you saved under the Old or New Covenant promises? Obviously if the Old Covenant is based on works, and salvation is not by works, then it is only reasonable to conclude that any Israelite that died in the Lord was saved by virtue of the New Covenant.

How do we know this?

Very simple. Hebrews 10:4,11 is unequivocally clear that the Old Testament sacrifices and offerings could "never take away sins". Therefore, while the sacrifices and offerings SYMBOLIZED a REAL future Redeemer that WOULD come to take away sins, those sacrifices were not what "actually" took away the sins of the confessing Israelite. But because their sins were blotted out, and the blotting out of sins took place on the cross, it is only correct to say that every single Israelite (or Gentile for that matter) that died in the Lord, died by the virtue of the New Covenant. After all, Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. While the physical transaction did not occur until the future, legally it was already in effect for the Old Testament saints.

And yes, it is impossible for any man to be righteous---but that is, "of himself". Our righteousness only comes from Christ. And once Christ lives and dwells in us, He will transform us into His likeness, His image. And if this is the case, through the power of Christ dwelling in us, we will exercise the strength to overcome all known sin in our lives--and this is the message to the Churches in Revelation.

Pythons · Mar 22, 2012

TruthWave7 said:
You love to play foolish little word games to divert attention from "elephant standing in the middle of the room", namely, that you know that there is no Commandment from God to keep the Sunday holy, except from church tradition, while there is the 4th Commandment written by the finger of God to
keep the Sabbath holy.

No foolish word games here TruthWave - just a simple question....
...Could a person who ate pork for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
...Keep the Sabbath "holy" in your view if they ate the pork.
...Specifically if YOU ate pork on the Sabbath would you still be keeping the Sabbath holy?

The commandment from the Apostles was for Christians to not forsake the assembling of THEMSELVES together...
...Sacred Scripture as well as Secular History say that the time the Christians assembled -WAS SUNDAY.

TruthWave said:
Why do you refuse to obey what God clearly asks of you? What is it that is holding you back from simply obey what our loving God asks of you? In light of all that Jesus has done for you, can you not keep the Sabbath holy, and all the other 9 Commandments as well?

I don't - the Bible tells us that Christ continued to issue "commandments" through the Apostles He selected....
...And the Tradition of Christians assembling themselves together AS CHRISTIANS.
...Come straight from the Apostles - as recorded in the Bible and confirmed by secular history.
...The Jews are even frank about this fact.

listed · Mar 22, 2012

Lysimachus said:
In that case, what John would have seen is the "Ark", not "Ark of the Testament". If there is no covenant inside it, it cannot be called the "Ark OF the Covenant".

Now take a look at what the author of Hebrews identifies as those items that are a "figure" of the true:

Hebrews
8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore [it is] of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, [that] thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.

9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
9:2 For there was a tabernacle made [Note: he now goes on to explain what "consists" of this "tabernacle"]; the first, wherein [was] the candlestick, and the table, and the showbread; which is called the sanctuary.
9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
9:4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein [was] the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.
9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service [of God].
9:7 But into the second [went] the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and [for] the errors of the people:
9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9:9 Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience

9:10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.
9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

9:23 [It was] therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us

Keep in mind that in verses 1-5, Paul is taking the meticulous time to describe the earthly sanctuary, and provides all the items, including the tables of the covenant. Then Paul goes on to explain how this entire "sanctuary" (which consists of all the items) is patterned after the true. Thus we see that the Tables of the Covenant are located inside the heavenly ark.

I just did prove it. I would encourage all to avoid at all cost playing semantic jugglery, theological hopscotch, ring around the rosy, and dancing between the raindrops. Let's do the right thing and handle the scriptures responsibly.

I've dealt with the toughest anti-Law proponents now for the last 15 years, and I'm not convinced any of their arguments hold water. Please be informed, I am well familiar with argument you will possibly bring up. I've worshiped and fellowshiped with evangelicals of every kind, sometimes debating them 1-v-5.

If you want to know what the anti-Ten-Commandments proponents are up against, I invite you to listen to the 5-part audio/radio shows entitled:

85 Stupid Questions Presented to Sabbatarians Series:

85 Stupid Questions Presented to Sabbatarians - Part 1

85 Stupid Questions Presented to Sabbatarians - Part 2

85 Stupid Questions Presented to Sabbatarians - Part 3

85 Stupid Questions Presented to Sabbatarians - Part 4

85 Stupid Questions Presented to Sabbatarians - Part 5

I suggest you become well acquinted with these arguments in these radio shows, so that before you pose challenges to us, you already know our answers to them.

They should load in M3U streaming format, in your default media player. They are each about 1 hour long.

Did Mose have made a coffin as the word ark means or did Moses have made the Ark of the Covenant. Still a coffin BTW. Very fitting for the minsitration of death II Cor 3:7 if you want to look it up.

listed · Mar 22, 2012

Lysimachus said:
I don't know what you mean. Adventists do not keep any OT laws. While the Ten Commandments were given in the OT time, they are New Covenant laws. They transcend the Old Covenant, as they were given before the ratification of the Old Covenant. The Sabbath, and all the OT laws were in force before the OT existed, and they are intrinsically tied to the Everlasting Covenant which encompasses all the covenants. It is the covenant between the Father and the Son. The only laws that were done away with at the cross were the ceremonial laws---circumcision, priesthood, sacrifices, festivals, shadow sabbaths (there were 11 of them--not associated with the 4th Commandment Sabbath of Creation--which was the "Sabbath of the Lord", not "her sabbaths", meaning "Israel's sabbaths"), meat offerings, drink offerings, etc. All that was done away with. Not the Ten Commandments which resided in the Ark of the Covenant. These stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

The Ten Commandments are not the laws of Moses. Read 2 Corinthians 3, and you will see what it means to be in the Spirit. The Spirit is where the law is written in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and you obey otu of love, not out of your own selves.

Notice that Paul quotes from the second table of the Ten Commandments:

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

Are only laws that Paul does not quote ones that you say are not "OT" laws? You know that even the commandment to love your neighbor and love God are also "OT" laws? Check out Leviticus 19:18; Deut 6:5.

I guess we better not keep these laws Harry, because these laws were also OT laws.

Scriptures are very clear that the Sabbath is also in force in the New Covenant. See Matthew 24:20; Luke 23:56; Acts 13:42-44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4.

Isaiah 66:22,23 tells us that all flesh will be worshiping God from one Sabbath to another, and from one month to another.

This is way after the New Covenant.

It is only a matter of simple logic. If the Sabbath was instituted in the Old Creation, and it will be kept after the New Creation, then wouldn't you think we keep the Sabbath in between, in honor of the Old Creation, and as a memorial pointing forward to the New Creation?

Most certainly.

Also, the words in Psalms are too clear:

"The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They STAND FAST FOR EVER AND EVER, and are done in truth and uprightness. He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever." (Psalms 111:7-10)

You can't get around the clear language. This covenant that is "for ever" is talking about the Everlasting Covenant, and God's commandments, which are the very original Ten in heaven, were given as a copy to Moses, but have always existed.

The Ten Commandments are NOT THE LAWS OF MOSES.

They are the Laws of God!

And I'll prove it to you:

It seems quite obvious that one would effectively do away with the Ten Commandments by mingling them with ninety or a hundred others and calling them ordinances instead of commandments. Such a radical effort has been made to dilute the force of the only words of the Bible which God wrote with His own hand. Furthermore, the claim has been advanced that since the Ten Commandments were a part of the mosaic law of ordinances which ended at the cross, we are no more obligated to obey the decalogue than we are to offer lambs in sacrifice.

Is there proof positive in the Scriptures that there was no such blending of the ceremonial and moral law into one? Can it be shown that the Ten Commandments were of a permanent, perpetual nature while the ceremonial law of statutes and ordinances came to an end when Jesus died? Indeed there is abundance of evidence to answer these questions with a resounding yes!

God made known this distinction to His servant Moses, and Moses explained it to the people at Mt. Horeb.

And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it (Deuteronomy 4:13, 14).

Please notice how Moses clearly separated the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you, from the statutes which he commanded me to give the people. The big question now is whether those statutes and judgments, which Moses passed on to the people, were designated as a separate and distinct law.

God answers that important question in such a way that no doubt can remain.

Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them (2 Kings 21:8).

Here we are assured that the statutes which Moses gave the people were called a law. Any child can discern that two different laws are being described. God speaks of the law I commanded and also the law ... Moses commanded. Unless this truth is understood properly, limitless confusion will result.

Daniel was inspired to make the same careful distinction when he prayed for the desolated sanctuary of his scattered nation.

Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him (Daniel 9:11).

Once more we see thy law and the law of Moses, and this time the two are recognized as different in content. There are no curses recorded in the Ten Commandments that God wrote, but the law which Moses wrote contained an abundance of such curses and judgments.

The major point of difference between the law of God and the law of Moses, though, lies in the way they were recorded and preserved. We have already cited Moses statement that God wrote them (the Ten Commandments) upon two tables of stone (Deuteronomy 4:13). Compare that with Exodus 31:18, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

No one can confuse this writing with the way the mosaic law was produced. And Moses wrote this law ... And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24-26). This book of statutes and judgments which Moses wrote in a book was placed in a pocket on the side of the ark. In contrast, the law written by God on tables of stone was placed inside the ark of the covenant. And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee (Exodus 25:16).

At this point we can note several distinctions in the two laws. They had different authors, were written on different material, were placed in different locations and had totally different content.

In closing....

There is only one time that God ever spoke His law with His lips in an audible format to all of God's people at one time. And the only law God ever spoke with His lips to the people was the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. See Exodus 20 and Dueteronomy 5.

This is the covenant which He spoke from His own lips.

What does God say concerning this covenant?

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips." (Psalms 89:34)

There! It's final!

There is really only ONE covenant. That is, the Everlasting Covenant which began at Creation.

How is it possible to say that when Christ died on the Cross, it was the blood of the New Covenant, yet in Hebrews 13:20, Jesus' blood was the "blood of the Everlasting Covenant"?

Didn't the Everlasting Covenant begin way back in Genesis 9:16, long before the Old Covenant was ratified?

In a nutshell, I believe the following sums up how to look at this "covenants" perplexity. How can there be so many covenants, yet only one covenant at the same time?

The answer to this is that the Old Covenant originally given at Sinai was the Everlasting Covenant broken by the poor promises of Israel, which rested in their own merits, and not the merits of the Lord working in and through them. The New Covenant was the Everlasting Covenant recaptured, restored, and made better by the blood of Christ. This is why in Daniel 9:27, we are told that "he", meaning Christ, "made strong the covenant with many for 1 week". In other words, during the last week of the 70 weeks, from A.D. 27 to A.D. 34, Christ "strengthened" the Everlasting Covenant with God's people by introducing a New Covenant.

(Continued...)

As SDA folks you and Truthwave7 need to get on the same page.

listed · Mar 22, 2012

Lysimachus said:
I don't know what you mean. Adventists do not keep any OT laws. While the Ten Commandments were given in the OT time, they are New Covenant laws. They transcend the Old Covenant, as they were given before the ratification of the Old Covenant. The Sabbath, and all the OT laws were in force before the OT existed, and they are intrinsically tied to the Everlasting Covenant which encompasses all the covenants. It is the covenant between the Father and the Son. The only laws that were done away with at the cross were the ceremonial laws---circumcision, priesthood, sacrifices, festivals, shadow sabbaths (there were 11 of them--not associated with the 4th Commandment Sabbath of Creation--which was the "Sabbath of the Lord", not "her sabbaths", meaning "Israel's sabbaths"), meat offerings, drink offerings, etc. All that was done away with. Not the Ten Commandments which resided in the Ark of the Covenant. These stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

At last some real truth from an SDA.

That is very correct the SDA don't keep the law. The ten commandments pare part of and cedntral to the law as stated in The Antichrist Agenda Ten Commandments Twice Removed By SDA authors no less.

Sure the Law was before ratification. Otherwise it couldn't be ratified.There is no such thing as the Everlasting covenant you refer to. It is a made up covenant that doesn't exist as far as the law is concderned.

No the complete covenant made with their fathers was done away with as promised by God through Jeremiah.

listed · Mar 22, 2012

Lysimachus said:
I don't know what you mean. Adventists do not keep any OT laws. While the Ten Commandments were given in the OT time, they are New Covenant laws. They transcend the Old Covenant, as they were given before the ratification of the Old Covenant. The Sabbath, and all the OT laws were in force before the OT existed, and they are intrinsically tied to the Everlasting Covenant which encompasses all the covenants. It is the covenant between the Father and the Son. The only laws that were done away with at the cross were the ceremonial laws---circumcision, priesthood, sacrifices, festivals, shadow sabbaths (there were 11 of them--not associated with the 4th Commandment Sabbath of Creation--which was the "Sabbath of the Lord", not "her sabbaths", meaning "Israel's sabbaths"), meat offerings, drink offerings, etc. All that was done away with. Not the Ten Commandments which resided in the Ark of the Covenant. These stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

The Ten Commandments are not the laws of Moses. Read 2 Corinthians 3, and you will see what it means to be in the Spirit. The Spirit is where the law is written in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and you obey otu of love, not out of your own selves.

Notice that Paul quotes from the second table of the Ten Commandments:

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

Are only laws that Paul does not quote ones that you say are not "OT" laws? You know that even the commandment to love your neighbor and love God are also "OT" laws? Check out Leviticus 19:18; Deut 6:5.

I guess we better not keep these laws Harry, because these laws were also OT laws.

Scriptures are very clear that the Sabbath is also in force in the New Covenant. See Matthew 24:20; Luke 23:56; Acts 13:42-44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4.

Isaiah 66:22,23 tells us that all flesh will be worshiping God from one Sabbath to another, and from one month to another.

This is way after the New Covenant.

It is only a matter of simple logic. If the Sabbath was instituted in the Old Creation, and it will be kept after the New Creation, then wouldn't you think we keep the Sabbath in between, in honor of the Old Creation, and as a memorial pointing forward to the New Creation?

Most certainly.

Also, the words in Psalms are too clear:

"The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They STAND FAST FOR EVER AND EVER, and are done in truth and uprightness. He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever." (Psalms 111:7-10)

You can't get around the clear language. This covenant that is "for ever" is talking about the Everlasting Covenant, and God's commandments, which are the very original Ten in heaven, were given as a copy to Moses, but have always existed.

The Ten Commandments are NOT THE LAWS OF MOSES.

They are the Laws of God!

And I'll prove it to you:

It seems quite obvious that one would effectively do away with the Ten Commandments by mingling them with ninety or a hundred others and calling them ordinances instead of commandments. Such a radical effort has been made to dilute the force of the only words of the Bible which God wrote with His own hand. Furthermore, the claim has been advanced that since the Ten Commandments were a part of the mosaic law of ordinances which ended at the cross, we are no more obligated to obey the decalogue than we are to offer lambs in sacrifice.

Is there proof positive in the Scriptures that there was no such blending of the ceremonial and moral law into one? Can it be shown that the Ten Commandments were of a permanent, perpetual nature while the ceremonial law of statutes and ordinances came to an end when Jesus died? Indeed there is abundance of evidence to answer these questions with a resounding yes!

God made known this distinction to His servant Moses, and Moses explained it to the people at Mt. Horeb.

And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it (Deuteronomy 4:13, 14).

Please notice how Moses clearly separated the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you, from the statutes which he commanded me to give the people. The big question now is whether those statutes and judgments, which Moses passed on to the people, were designated as a separate and distinct law.

God answers that important question in such a way that no doubt can remain.

Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them (2 Kings 21:8).

Here we are assured that the statutes which Moses gave the people were called a law. Any child can discern that two different laws are being described. God speaks of the law I commanded and also the law ... Moses commanded. Unless this truth is understood properly, limitless confusion will result.

Daniel was inspired to make the same careful distinction when he prayed for the desolated sanctuary of his scattered nation.

Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him (Daniel 9:11).

Once more we see thy law and the law of Moses, and this time the two are recognized as different in content. There are no curses recorded in the Ten Commandments that God wrote, but the law which Moses wrote contained an abundance of such curses and judgments.

The major point of difference between the law of God and the law of Moses, though, lies in the way they were recorded and preserved. We have already cited Moses statement that God wrote them (the Ten Commandments) upon two tables of stone (Deuteronomy 4:13). Compare that with Exodus 31:18, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

No one can confuse this writing with the way the mosaic law was produced. And Moses wrote this law ... And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24-26). This book of statutes and judgments which Moses wrote in a book was placed in a pocket on the side of the ark. In contrast, the law written by God on tables of stone was placed inside the ark of the covenant. And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee (Exodus 25:16).

At this point we can note several distinctions in the two laws. They had different authors, were written on different material, were placed in different locations and had totally different content.

In closing....

There is only one time that God ever spoke His law with His lips in an audible format to all of God's people at one time. And the only law God ever spoke with His lips to the people was the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. See Exodus 20 and Dueteronomy 5.

This is the covenant which He spoke from His own lips.

What does God say concerning this covenant?

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips." (Psalms 89:34)

There! It's final!

There is really only ONE covenant. That is, the Everlasting Covenant which began at Creation.

How is it possible to say that when Christ died on the Cross, it was the blood of the New Covenant, yet in Hebrews 13:20, Jesus' blood was the "blood of the Everlasting Covenant"?

Didn't the Everlasting Covenant begin way back in Genesis 9:16, long before the Old Covenant was ratified?

In a nutshell, I believe the following sums up how to look at this "covenants" perplexity. How can there be so many covenants, yet only one covenant at the same time?

The answer to this is that the Old Covenant originally given at Sinai was the Everlasting Covenant broken by the poor promises of Israel, which rested in their own merits, and not the merits of the Lord working in and through them. The New Covenant was the Everlasting Covenant recaptured, restored, and made better by the blood of Christ. This is why in Daniel 9:27, we are told that "he", meaning Christ, "made strong the covenant with many for 1 week". In other words, during the last week of the 70 weeks, from A.D. 27 to A.D. 34, Christ "strengthened" the Everlasting Covenant with God's people by introducing a New Covenant.

(Continued...)

So you can prove that some of the law is quoted in the NT. So what. Now prove that it is required to observe or keep. Acts 15 says otherwise. The Gentiles weren't required to keep the sabbath. Paul doesn't promote the sabbath either. Showing that Paul attended the synagogue isn't proof of sabbath keeping. That would make worshipping synomoyus with keept the sabbath. That isn't mentioned on the stone tablets.

listed · Mar 23, 2012

Lysimachus said:
I don't know what you mean. Adventists do not keep any OT laws. While the Ten Commandments were given in the OT time, they are New Covenant laws. They transcend the Old Covenant, as they were given before the ratification of the Old Covenant. The Sabbath, and all the OT laws were in force before the OT existed, and they are intrinsically tied to the Everlasting Covenant which encompasses all the covenants. It is the covenant between the Father and the Son. The only laws that were done away with at the cross were the ceremonial laws---circumcision, priesthood, sacrifices, festivals, shadow sabbaths (there were 11 of them--not associated with the 4th Commandment Sabbath of Creation--which was the "Sabbath of the Lord", not "her sabbaths", meaning "Israel's sabbaths"), meat offerings, drink offerings, etc. All that was done away with. Not the Ten Commandments which resided in the Ark of the Covenant. These stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

The Ten Commandments are not the laws of Moses. Read 2 Corinthians 3, and you will see what it means to be in the Spirit. The Spirit is where the law is written in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and you obey otu of love, not out of your own selves.

Notice that Paul quotes from the second table of the Ten Commandments:

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

Are only laws that Paul does not quote ones that you say are not "OT" laws? You know that even the commandment to love your neighbor and love God are also "OT" laws? Check out Leviticus 19:18; Deut 6:5.

I guess we better not keep these laws Harry, because these laws were also OT laws.

Scriptures are very clear that the Sabbath is also in force in the New Covenant. See Matthew 24:20; Luke 23:56; Acts 13:42-44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4.

Isaiah 66:22,23 tells us that all flesh will be worshiping God from one Sabbath to another, and from one month to another.

This is way after the New Covenant.

It is only a matter of simple logic. If the Sabbath was instituted in the Old Creation, and it will be kept after the New Creation, then wouldn't you think we keep the Sabbath in between, in honor of the Old Creation, and as a memorial pointing forward to the New Creation?

Most certainly.

Also, the words in Psalms are too clear:

"The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They STAND FAST FOR EVER AND EVER, and are done in truth and uprightness. He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever." (Psalms 111:7-10)

You can't get around the clear language. This covenant that is "for ever" is talking about the Everlasting Covenant, and God's commandments, which are the very original Ten in heaven, were given as a copy to Moses, but have always existed.

The Ten Commandments are NOT THE LAWS OF MOSES.

They are the Laws of God!

And I'll prove it to you:

It seems quite obvious that one would effectively do away with the Ten Commandments by mingling them with ninety or a hundred others and calling them ordinances instead of commandments. Such a radical effort has been made to dilute the force of the only words of the Bible which God wrote with His own hand. Furthermore, the claim has been advanced that since the Ten Commandments were a part of the mosaic law of ordinances which ended at the cross, we are no more obligated to obey the decalogue than we are to offer lambs in sacrifice.

Is there proof positive in the Scriptures that there was no such blending of the ceremonial and moral law into one? Can it be shown that the Ten Commandments were of a permanent, perpetual nature while the ceremonial law of statutes and ordinances came to an end when Jesus died? Indeed there is abundance of evidence to answer these questions with a resounding yes!

God made known this distinction to His servant Moses, and Moses explained it to the people at Mt. Horeb.

And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it (Deuteronomy 4:13, 14).

Please notice how Moses clearly separated the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you, from the statutes which he commanded me to give the people. The big question now is whether those statutes and judgments, which Moses passed on to the people, were designated as a separate and distinct law.

God answers that important question in such a way that no doubt can remain.

Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them (2 Kings 21:8).

Here we are assured that the statutes which Moses gave the people were called a law. Any child can discern that two different laws are being described. God speaks of the law I commanded and also the law ... Moses commanded. Unless this truth is understood properly, limitless confusion will result.

Daniel was inspired to make the same careful distinction when he prayed for the desolated sanctuary of his scattered nation.

Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him (Daniel 9:11).

Once more we see thy law and the law of Moses, and this time the two are recognized as different in content. There are no curses recorded in the Ten Commandments that God wrote, but the law which Moses wrote contained an abundance of such curses and judgments.

The major point of difference between the law of God and the law of Moses, though, lies in the way they were recorded and preserved. We have already cited Moses statement that God wrote them (the Ten Commandments) upon two tables of stone (Deuteronomy 4:13). Compare that with Exodus 31:18, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

No one can confuse this writing with the way the mosaic law was produced. And Moses wrote this law ... And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24-26). This book of statutes and judgments which Moses wrote in a book was placed in a pocket on the side of the ark. In contrast, the law written by God on tables of stone was placed inside the ark of the covenant. And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee (Exodus 25:16).

At this point we can note several distinctions in the two laws. They had different authors, were written on different material, were placed in different locations and had totally different content.

In closing....

There is only one time that God ever spoke His law with His lips in an audible format to all of God's people at one time. And the only law God ever spoke with His lips to the people was the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. See Exodus 20 and Dueteronomy 5.

This is the covenant which He spoke from His own lips.

What does God say concerning this covenant?

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips." (Psalms 89:34)

There! It's final!

There is really only ONE covenant. That is, the Everlasting Covenant which began at Creation.

How is it possible to say that when Christ died on the Cross, it was the blood of the New Covenant, yet in Hebrews 13:20, Jesus' blood was the "blood of the Everlasting Covenant"?

Didn't the Everlasting Covenant begin way back in Genesis 9:16, long before the Old Covenant was ratified?

In a nutshell, I believe the following sums up how to look at this "covenants" perplexity. How can there be so many covenants, yet only one covenant at the same time?

The answer to this is that the Old Covenant originally given at Sinai was the Everlasting Covenant broken by the poor promises of Israel, which rested in their own merits, and not the merits of the Lord working in and through them. The New Covenant was the Everlasting Covenant recaptured, restored, and made better by the blood of Christ. This is why in Daniel 9:27, we are told that "he", meaning Christ, "made strong the covenant with many for 1 week". In other words, during the last week of the 70 weeks, from A.D. 27 to A.D. 34, Christ "strengthened" the Everlasting Covenant with God's people by introducing a New Covenant.

(Continued...)

That is odd, even Jesus refers to the law meaning the law of Moses and cites the ten commandments like every one else. Even when ask what the greatest commandment was Jesus didn't quote anything on the stone tablets. In fact the rite of circumcision supercedes the sabbath.

LittleLambofJesus · Mar 23, 2012

listed said:
As SDA folks you and Truthwave7 need to get on the same page.

.

LittleLambofJesus · Mar 23, 2012

listed said:
That is odd, even Jesus refers to the law meaning the law of Moses and cites the ten commandments like every one else. Even when ask wha tthe greatest commandment was Jesus didn't anything on the stone tablets. In fact the rite of circumcision supercedes the sabbath.

Could a circumcision be lawfully performed on a sabbath?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7411038/
Galatians,still stands today against the circumcision.

John 7:22 "Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath.

Galatian 2:8 For the inworking to Peter into Apostleship to the circumcision/peritomhV <4061>, inworks also to me into the nations.

listed · Mar 23, 2012

LittleLambofJesus said:
Could a circumcision be lawfully performed on a sabbath?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7411038/
Galatians,still stands today against the circumcision.

John 7:22 "Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath.

Galatian 2:8 For the inworking to Peter into Apostleship to the circumcision/peritomhV <4061>, inworks also to me into the nations.

yes

Harry3142 · Mar 23, 2012

Lysimachus-

Where are you finding salvation attached to any laws found in the Old Testament, including The Ten Commandments? The law's original purpose was not to provide the groundwork for perfection, but instead to provide a foundation for the society that they would have to build in order to ensure that each citizen felt secure. Each citizen would know his or her responsibilities to that society as a whole, and the citizenry could come together in times of danger in order to protect their society. But there was never to be a thought of their earning their way into an afterlife, or even of an afterlife existing, through the keeping of any of the laws found in Torah. It would be comparable to our saying today that if we obey the U. S. Constitution that it will cause us to be perfect.

Even the promise made to the hebrews by God was purely societal in nature. Here is what God said would be their reward for keeping his laws and commandments, including The Ten Commandments:

If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord you God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers. He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land - your grain, new wine and oil - the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land that he swore to your forefathers to give you. You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor any of your livestock without young. The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. (Deuteronomy 7:12-15,NIV)

There is the contract. The people would obey the laws and commandments of Torah, including The Ten Commandments, and in exchange God would increase their material wealth and see to it that they had children (children were seen at that time as the means whereby a society became ever stronger). But the same Torah that told them of these promises also told them what they were to expect as their only fate upon death:

"By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." (Genesis 3:19,NIV)

Even today many Jews see death as a wall, not a doorway. We're born, we live, we die, the end. Some even call themsepves atheists, not because they don't believe that God exists, but instead because they don't believe that any afterlife exists. Their only immortality is the memory that they leave behind in others. That's why there is the custom of placing a stone on a Jew's gravemarker; it's a means of telling others that the person is still being remembered.

Even in the New Testament in order to transform The Ten Commandments from their original societal nature into a means whereby one could achieve perfection numerous laws were attached to them (there were over 1,000 laws in a subset under the Sabbath commandment alone). When 'the law' is referred to in the gospels and epistles, it's not the 613 laws and commandments found in Torah that they are referring to (which includes The Ten Commandments); it's the 613 laws and commandments + all the laws in subsets under each of those laws and commandments. That's why Jesus denounced the Pharisees for placing such heavy burdens on the people. It was they who had written the vast majority of these extra laws.

Now if you want to obey The Ten Commandments because in that way you can ensure that our society will remain strong and cohesive, that's great. I wish you well. But if you think that by keeping The Ten Commandments you will achieve and/or maintain perfection, then you will need to attach to those Ten Commandments all the laws in subsets that were attached to them at the time that Christ came among us (and there were literally thousands of laws), because as they are written in the Old Testament that is not their intended purpose.

Lysimachus · Mar 23, 2012

Harry3142 said:
Lysimachus-

Where are you finding salvation attached to any laws found in the Old Testament, including The Ten Commandments? The law's original purpose was not to provide the groundwork for perfection, but instead to provide a foundation for the society that they would have to build in order to ensure that each citizen felt secure. Each citizen would know his or her responsibilities to that society as a whole, and the citizenry could come together in times of danger in order to protect their society. But there was never to be a thought of their earning their way into an afterlife, or even of an afterlife existing, through the keeping of any of the laws found in Torah. It would be comparable to our saying today that if we obey the U. S. Constitution that it will cause us to be perfect.

Even the promise made to the hebrews by God was purely societal in nature. Here is what God said would be their reward for keeping his laws and commandments, including The Ten Commandments:

If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord you God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers. He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land - your grain, new wine and oil - the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land that he swore to your forefathers to give you. You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor any of your livestock without young. The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. (Deuteronomy 7:12-15,NIV)

There is the contract. The people would obey the laws and commandments of Torah, including The Ten Commandments, and in exchange God would increase their material wealth and see to it that they had children (children were seen at that time as the means whereby a society became ever stronger). But the same Torah that told them of these promises also told them what they were to expect as their only fate upon death:

"By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." (Genesis 3:19,NIV)

Even today many Jews see death as a wall, not a doorway. We're born, we live, we die, the end. Some even call themsepves atheists, not because they don't believe that God exists, but instead because they don't believe that any afterlife exists. Their only immortality is the memory that they leave behind in others. That's why there is the custom of placing a stone on a Jew's gravemarker; it's a means of telling others that the person is still being remembered.

Even in the New Testament in order to transform The Ten Commandments from their original societal nature into a means whereby one could achieve perfection numerous laws were attached to them (there were over 1,000 laws in a subset under the Sabbath commandment alone). When 'the law' is referred to in the gospels and epistles, it's not the 613 laws and commandments found in Torah that they are referring to (which includes The Ten Commandments); it's the 613 laws and commandments + all the laws in subsets under each of those laws and commandments. That's why Jesus denounced the Pharisees for placing such heavy burdens on the people. It was they who had written the vast majority of these extra laws.

Now if you want to obey The Ten Commandments because in that way you can ensure that our society will remain strong and cohesive, that's great. I wish you well. But if you think that by keeping The Ten Commandments you will achieve and/or maintain perfection, then you will need to attach to those Ten Commandments all the laws in subsets that were attached to them at the time that Christ came among us (and there were literally thousands of laws), because as they are written in the Old Testament that is not their intended purpose.

I have never once emphasized that we need to keep the Ten Commandments to attain salvation or maintain perfection. I believe salvation is in Christ Jesus alone, and not the works of the law.

The problem is, so many of you completely understand what Adventists REALLY believe on this matter.

How can Adventists believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, and not the works of the law, yet at the same time emphasize that we need to keep the Ten Commandments if we are going to go to heaven?

Ah, that is a mystery! And I challenge you to crack the code as to why we say this.

It's DEEP. You're gong to have to figure it out bro, sooner or later. How are the two compatible?

Let's put it this way. Peter warned that many people would distort Paul's writings that would lead them into "lawlessness".

If you are going to be saved by grace through faith alone, works will be the automatic fruitage. Not because we are saved by doing those works, but only those with faith will do works. The works don't save, but the works are the evidence.

The bottom line is this:

A careful study of scripture reveals that the Sabbath is the Seal of God and Sunday is the Mark of the Beast.

Now you might disagree and say that scriptures say that the Holy Spirit is the Seal, right? yes, that's the first reaction you guys come up with.

However, what you fail to ascertain is that #1. The Holy Spirit is the applicator of the Seal, it is not the Seal itself. #2. The Sabbath Seal is the "Apocalyptic Seal", not the same Seal mentioned in Ephesians. This is a "last generation seal", not to mention the fact that this seal has 3-stages in and of itself. Keeping the Sabbath itself will not save you, but it will be an automatic distinguishing mark of those who want to do what is right and be saved.

All those who refuse to keep the Sabbath Holy will receive the Mark of the Beast.

listed · Mar 23, 2012

Lysimachus said:
I have never once emphasized that we need to keep the Ten Commandments to attain salvation or maintain perfection. I believe salvation is in Christ Jesus alone, and not the works of the law.

The problem is, so many of you completely understand what Adventists REALLY believe on this matter.

How can Adventists believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, and not the works of the law, yet at the same time emphasize that we need to keep the Ten Commandments if we are going to go to heaven?

Ah, that is a mystery! And I challenge you to crack the code as to why we say this.

It's DEEP. You're gong to have to figure it out bro, sooner or later. How are the two compatible?

Let's put it this way. Peter warned that many people would distort Paul's writings that would lead them into "lawlessness".

If you are going to be saved by grace through faith alone, works will be the automatic fruitage. Not because we are saved by doing those works, but only those with faith will do works. The works don't save, but the works are the evidence.

The bottom line is this:

A careful study of scripture reveals that the Sabbath is the Seal of God and Sunday is the Mark of the Beast.

Now you might disagree and say that scriptures say that the Holy Spirit is the Seal, right? yes, that's the first reaction you guys come up with.

However, what you fail to ascertain is that #1. The Holy Spirit is the applicator of the Seal, it is not the Seal itself. #2. The Sabbath Seal is the "Apocalyptic Seal", not the same Seal mentioned in Ephesians. This is a "last generation seal", not to mention the fact that this seal has 3-stages in and of itself. Keeping the Sabbath itself will not save you, but it will be an automatic distinguishing mark of those who want to do what is right and be saved.

All those who refuse to keep the Sabbath Holy will receive the Mark of the Beast.

The old approach wasn't working was it? I see you're the second one taking a back step to make forward progress. This is nothing new but more deception. Look I'm not trying to be nasty. I'm just talking about what it read here.

It may very well be that some of us do understand the SDA position and belief. It may also be true the some of us have read the complete Bible and know it because it is part of us and spring up in our soul.

The truth is they don't believe saved by grace through faith alone, and not the works of the law. They may say this while the reality of practice is they simply don't. One can read the testimonies of ex SDA folks all over the net. We have a very fine couple who participate here that graduated from Andrews and pastored SDA churches as an example. SDA folks wish to say these people are the exception. Swell, post the true facts about the membership decline in the US for say the last 10 years. I understand they are leaving faster than they come in. I've enven heard that they will have very large numbers on the rolls and very few attendees. This is true of other churches as well to be fair. Church membership roles are generally poorly managed except when it comes to their legal obligation. Ask me how I know.

So my question is would you like to see testimonies of formers posted here?

I know the SDA speak in code. It has even been joked about here. It has been asked to be given and refused. It is the same for some other well known religious organizations. It is the primary means of deception. The same words are used with different meanings.

The SDA folks here won't define anything. The problem is it gets them into trouble with their doctrine. Just read the forum and count on probably one finger the number of times they cooperate and define anything using standard meanings from the dictionary or demand exclusive meanings to words such as commandments.

The first thing ans SDA brings up is do you love God? The answer ususally is Yes.

Then the second question is do you keep the commandments? It too ususally gets a yes.

Then John 14:15 is always used to make it appear they are lying and really hate Jesus. Now the average person is really trapped. Some fall and other are just stubborn and still don't understand why and what they believe. Ask me how I know. Well in case no one does, it is personal first hand experience in person.

Some years ago I ask Truthwave7 then BrightCandle about John 15:10 and he never heard of it. I'm sure that this would be catagorically denied. That is standard procedure. Few understand the predicament this puts an SDA in. None of their choices are good. I have yet to find any that will face the music of the truth. It will be very costly to them. Oh would I love to get into that.

A very common tactic is to just withdraw. If it is a public thing such as asking a pastor of most any church questions if one doesn't take the answer given hook line and sinker with no questions, see how fast one becomes a black sheep and branded nothing but a trouble maker. Just as well not go to church there any more. Very few pastors are humble in any church. Never disagree or think for youself. How many pastors consistantly push reading the Bible. Usually happens once a year with the new read through the Bible program with a half hearted presentation. It spells trouble and maybe big trouble.

There is this minor (Hmm! cough, um being nice) problem here that won't allow such a discussion. I would suggest reading the many testimonies of ex SDA folks found on the net. If I was exercising hate here I would really attack the SDA. I'm doing my very best at exposing the fraud and showing the truth. It is why some won't use an SDA faith icon while spouting SDA doctrines. Their speech betrays them. Ya just can't hide. Ask Peter who got nailed at Jesus' trial.

Nuff soap box preaching. Now back to what I'm doing here. I share the truth and the Scripture with those who will post and those who really are looking for the truth and are smart enough to not get involved (the lurker). This is love that some call hate.

I'm truely sorry for anyone who has a problem with this post.

Lysimachus · Mar 24, 2012

listed said:
The old approach wasn't working was it? I see you're the second one taking a back step to make forward progress. This is nothing new but more deception. Look I'm not trying to be nasty. I'm just talking about what it read here.

A step back? Actually, I'm trying to be among the first to express the heart of what true Adventism believes. Sadly, and unfortunately, most SDA's defend their doctrine on a superficial leve, not understanding just how intricate and massive this theological structure is--it is built on a firm platform of 2000 years of solid hewn bricks.

If you would like to evaluate a full study on the subject of the Seal of God vs. the Mark of the Beast, I wrote an article dealing with it here:

Is The Seal of God the Law or the Holy Spirit?

listed said:
It may very well be that some of us do understand the SDA position and belief. It may also be true the some of us have read the complete Bible and know it because it is part of us and spring up in our soul.

I made a typo. I meant "do not understand".

listed said:
The truth is they don't believe saved by grace through faith alone, and not the works of the law.

That is wishful thinking. People who are saved by grace through faith alone will keep all 10 commandments to prove it. "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13)

Notice that Paul is not saying that the "law justifies". No, the law does not justify. Only Jesus can justify you. Only faith can save you. Yet Paul is dogmatic about the fact that only "doers" of the law will be justified. Doing does not justify, but only doers will be justified. Get the difference?

And this is something you don't want to see listed.

I'm sorry, but I must take these scriptures seriously. You can cling to all the verses that talk about grace and faith, and leave out the ones on works, but that's not my style of Biblical exegesis. My style is to take in the Bible in its totality, and form doctrine from here a little there a little, precept upon precept, line upon line.

Just like it may appear that Paul contradicts itself, in a similar manner, consider the possibility that this may be exactly why SDA's and even Ellen White "contradict" themselves.

True Adventism strives to reflect what the Scriptures teach in its totality, despite the fact that a number of missinformed Adventists fail miserably in performing this balance.

listed said:
They may say this while the reality of practice is they simply don't. One can read the testimonies of ex SDA folks all over the net. We have a very fine couple who participate here that graduated from Andrews and pastored SDA churches as an example. SDA folks wish to say these people are the exception. Swell, post the true facts about the membership decline in the US for say the last 10 years. I understand they are leaving faster than they come in. I've enven heard that they will have very large numbers on the rolls and very few attendees. This is true of other churches as well to be fair. Church membership roles are generally poorly managed except when it comes to their legal obligation. Ask me how I know.

I don't doubt there are false SDA's out there that live by works. That's their problem. But that's not how I judge the foundations of a belief structure. I don't judge the theological structure based on how the people act. I judge it on its own merits, then if it lines up with the Bible, I determine myself to live up to it the right way, despite those who advocate it may be poor representations of it. A decline in numbers in the SDA Church means absolutely nothing to me. In the time of the flood, it narrowed down to only 8 people left.

listed said:
So my question is would you like to see testimonies of formers posted here?

I've even engaged in debates with them. No need to show me. There are ex-Arminians, ex-Catholics, ex-Baptists, ex-Dispensationalists, ex-Calvinists--and all are throwing anathemas at one another calling eachother cults. I've been out in the real world amongst Christian evangelicals. There are pastors leaving every imaginable church to join the next one--swapping even! And writing books about why their former religion was garbage and built on heresy.

I've seen it all listed.

listed said:
I know the SDA speak in code. It has even been joked about here. It has been asked to be given and refused. It is the same for some other well known religious organizations. It is the primary means of deception. The same words are used with different meanings.

The SDA folks here won't define anything. The problem is it gets them into trouble with their doctrine. Just read the forum and count on probably one finger the number of times they cooperate and define anything using standard meanings from the dictionary or demand exclusive meanings to words such as commandments.

You need to quit worrying so much about SDA folks, and just focus on the scriptures they have presented. Forget people, focus on what is right--despite the fact that the people advocating it may be terrible representations of it.

listed said:
The first thing ans SDA brings up is do you love God? The answer ususally is Yes.

Then the second question is do you keep the commandments? It too ususally gets a yes.

Then John 14:15 is always used to make it appear they are lying and really hate Jesus. Now the average person is really trapped. Some fall and other are just stubborn and still don't understand why and what they believe. Ask me how I know. Well in case no one does, it is personal first hand experience in person.

If you think that I agree with how many SDA folks go about expressing their religion, then you're wrong. Have you read the sermons of A.T. Jones and Waggoner--powerful SDA pioneers? Their entire focus was on Christ and Him Crucified. Yet they understood the importance of keeping the commandments. But they didn't go around emphasizing this. Those who were converted as a result of understanding the love of God and the great sacrifice of Jesus were automatically convicted to keep God's commandments without having to be urged.

Even Ellen White herself warned the SDA Church of focussing too much on "the law", "the law", "the law". Yes, while it was true that the Adventist Church had the correct understanding of the law, they were presenting it in a wrong light--as if that was the focus.

Ellen White highly emphasized the importance of looking to Christ Jesus and Him Crucified. She talked about how we are to emphasize Christ--as He is a living and walking manifestation of the righteousness of the law. It is a transcript of His character. Why? The law is perfect, converting the soul (Psalms 19:7), and Jesus is perfect.

listed said:
Some years ago I ask Truthwave7 then BrightCandle about John 15:10 and he never heard of it. I'm sure that this would be catagorically denied. That is standard procedure. Few understand the predicament this puts an SDA in. None of their choices are good. I have yet to find any that will face the music of the truth. It will be very costly to them. Oh would I love to get into that.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, because John 15:10 seems to support what we've been trying to help you see, so what are you trying to say?

listed said:
very common tactic is to just withdraw. If it is a public thing such as asking a pastor of most any church questions if one doesn't take the answer given hook line and sinker with no questions, see how fast one becomes a black sheep and branded nothing but a trouble maker. Just as well not go to church there any more. Very few pastors are humble in any church. Never disagree or think for youself. How many pastors consistantly push reading the Bible. Usually happens once a year with the new read through the Bible program with a half hearted presentation. It spells trouble and maybe big trouble.

Again, too much focus on individuals and people rather than if the core, historic doctrines line up with Scripture.

listed said:
There is this minor (Hmm! cough, um being nice) problem here that won't allow such a discussion. I would suggest reading the many testimonies of ex SDA folks found on the net. If I was exercising hate here I would really attack the SDA. I'm doing my very best at exposing the fraud and showing the truth. It is why some won't use an SDA faith icon while spouting SDA doctrines. Their speech betrays them. Ya just can't hide. Ask Peter who got nailed at Jesus' trial.

Nuff soap box preaching. Now back to what I'm doing here. I share the truth and the Scripture with those who will post and those who really are looking for the truth and are smart enough to not get involved (the lurker). This is love that some call hate.

I'm truely sorry for anyone who has a problem with this post.

Then are you willing to deal with the scriptures that Revelation 14:6-12 has provided?

There are a lot of them that seem to get ignored I noticed.

listed · Mar 24, 2012

Lysimachus said:
A step back? Actually, I'm trying to be among the first to express the heart of what true Adventism believes. Sadly, and unfortunately, most SDA's defend their doctrine on a superficial leve, not understanding just how intricate and massive this theological structure is--it is built on a firm platform of 2000 years of solid hewn bricks.

If you would like to evaluate a full study on the subject of the Seal of God vs. the Mark of the Beast, I wrote an article dealing with it here:

Is The Seal of God the Law or the Holy Spirit?

I made a typo. I meant "do not understand".

That is wishful thinking. People who are saved by grace through faith alone will keep all 10 commandments to prove it. "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13)

Notice that Paul is not saying that the "law justifies". No, the law does not justify. Only Jesus can justify you. Only faith can save you. Yet Paul is dogmatic about the fact that only "doers" of the law will be justified. Doing does not justify, but only doers will be justified. Get the difference?

And this is something you don't want to see listed.

I'm sorry, but I must take these scriptures seriously. You can cling to all the verses that talk about grace and faith, and leave out the ones on works, but that's not my style of Biblical exegesis. My style is to take in the Bible in its totality, and form doctrine from here a little there a little, precept upon precept, line upon line.

Just like it may appear that Paul contradicts itself, in a similar manner, consider the possibility that this may be exactly why SDA's and even Ellen White "contradict" themselves.

True Adventism strives to reflect what the Scriptures teach in its totality, despite the fact that a number of missinformed Adventists fail miserably in performing this balance.

I don't doubt there are false SDA's out there that live by works. That's their problem. But that's not how I judge the foundations of a belief structure. I don't judge the theological structure based on how the people act. I judge it on its own merits, then if it lines up with the Bible, I determine myself to live up to it the right way, despite those who advocate it may be poor representations of it. A decline in numbers in the SDA Church means absolutely nothing to me. In the time of the flood, it narrowed down to only 8 people left.

I've even engaged in debates with them. No need to show me. There are ex-Arminians, ex-Catholics, ex-Baptists, ex-Dispensationalists, ex-Calvinists--and all are throwing anathemas at one another calling eachother cults. I've been out in the real world amongst Christian evangelicals. There are pastors leaving every imaginable church to join the next one--swapping even! And writing books about why their former religion was garbage and built on heresy.

I've seen it all listed.

You need to quit worrying so much about SDA folks, and just focus on the scriptures they have presented. Forget people, focus on what is right--despite the fact that the people advocating it may be terrible representations of it.

If you think that I agree with how many SDA folks go about expressing their religion, then you're wrong. Have you read the sermons of A.T. Jones and Waggoner--powerful SDA pioneers? Their entire focus was on Christ and Him Crucified. Yet they understood the importance of keeping the commandments. But they didn't go around emphasizing this. Those who were converted as a result of understanding the love of God and the great sacrifice of Jesus were automatically convicted to keep God's commandments without having to be urged.

Even Ellen White herself warned the SDA Church of focussing too much on "the law", "the law", "the law". Yes, while it was true that the Adventist Church had the correct understanding of the law, they were presenting it in a wrong light--as if that was the focus.

Ellen White highly emphasized the importance of looking to Christ Jesus and Him Crucified. She talked about how we are to emphasize Christ--as He is a living and walking manifestation of the righteousness of the law. It is a transcript of His character. Why? The law is perfect, converting the soul (Psalms 19:7), and Jesus is perfect.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, because John 15:10 seems to support what we've been trying to help you see, so what are you trying to say?

Again, too much focus on individuals and people rather than if the core, historic doctrines line up with Scripture.

Then are you willing to deal with the scriptures that Revelation 14:6-12 has provided?

There are a lot of them that seem to get ignored I noticed.

Thank you for your detailed post.

I'd be most interested in your detailed discussion on John 15:10. Please provide such. No I'm not going to some other site to debate the verse I query about.

Oh I have cracked the SDA code.

listed · Mar 24, 2012

Lysimachus said:
A step back? Actually, I'm trying to be among the first to express the heart of what true Adventism believes. Sadly, and unfortunately, most SDA's defend their doctrine on a superficial leve, not understanding just how intricate and massive this theological structure is--it is built on a firm platform of 2000 years of solid hewn bricks.

If you would like to evaluate a full study on the subject of the Seal of God vs. the Mark of the Beast, I wrote an article dealing with it here:

Is The Seal of God the Law or the Holy Spirit?

I made a typo. I meant "do not understand".

That is wishful thinking. People who are saved by grace through faith alone will keep all 10 commandments to prove it. "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13)

Notice that Paul is not saying that the "law justifies". No, the law does not justify. Only Jesus can justify you. Only faith can save you. Yet Paul is dogmatic about the fact that only "doers" of the law will be justified. Doing does not justify, but only doers will be justified. Get the difference?

And this is something you don't want to see listed.

I'm sorry, but I must take these scriptures seriously. You can cling to all the verses that talk about grace and faith, and leave out the ones on works, but that's not my style of Biblical exegesis. My style is to take in the Bible in its totality, and form doctrine from here a little there a little, precept upon precept, line upon line.

Just like it may appear that Paul contradicts itself, in a similar manner, consider the possibility that this may be exactly why SDA's and even Ellen White "contradict" themselves.

True Adventism strives to reflect what the Scriptures teach in its totality, despite the fact that a number of missinformed Adventists fail miserably in performing this balance.

I don't doubt there are false SDA's out there that live by works. That's their problem. But that's not how I judge the foundations of a belief structure. I don't judge the theological structure based on how the people act. I judge it on its own merits, then if it lines up with the Bible, I determine myself to live up to it the right way, despite those who advocate it may be poor representations of it. A decline in numbers in the SDA Church means absolutely nothing to me. In the time of the flood, it narrowed down to only 8 people left.

I've even engaged in debates with them. No need to show me. There are ex-Arminians, ex-Catholics, ex-Baptists, ex-Dispensationalists, ex-Calvinists--and all are throwing anathemas at one another calling eachother cults. I've been out in the real world amongst Christian evangelicals. There are pastors leaving every imaginable church to join the next one--swapping even! And writing books about why their former religion was garbage and built on heresy.

I've seen it all listed.

You need to quit worrying so much about SDA folks, and just focus on the scriptures they have presented. Forget people, focus on what is right--despite the fact that the people advocating it may be terrible representations of it.

If you think that I agree with how many SDA folks go about expressing their religion, then you're wrong. Have you read the sermons of A.T. Jones and Waggoner--powerful SDA pioneers? Their entire focus was on Christ and Him Crucified. Yet they understood the importance of keeping the commandments. But they didn't go around emphasizing this. Those who were converted as a result of understanding the love of God and the great sacrifice of Jesus were automatically convicted to keep God's commandments without having to be urged.

Even Ellen White herself warned the SDA Church of focussing too much on "the law", "the law", "the law". Yes, while it was true that the Adventist Church had the correct understanding of the law, they were presenting it in a wrong light--as if that was the focus.

Ellen White highly emphasized the importance of looking to Christ Jesus and Him Crucified. She talked about how we are to emphasize Christ--as He is a living and walking manifestation of the righteousness of the law. It is a transcript of His character. Why? The law is perfect, converting the soul (Psalms 19:7), and Jesus is perfect.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, because John 15:10 seems to support what we've been trying to help you see, so what are you trying to say?

Again, too much focus on individuals and people rather than if the core, historic doctrines line up with Scripture.

Then are you willing to deal with the scriptures that Revelation 14:6-12 has provided?

There are a lot of them that seem to get ignored I noticed.

Why yes I am. The problem is the SDA code. Your anchor verse in the reference isn't about the ten commandments. The SDA code is that anyhwere the word commandments appears it only refers to the the ten commandments. This simply isns't so as John 15:10 plainly shows. It is the same John who wrote the Gospel bearing his name.

listed · Mar 24, 2012

Lysimachus said:
A step back? Actually, I'm trying to be among the first to express the heart of what true Adventism believes. Sadly, and unfortunately, most SDA's defend their doctrine on a superficial leve, not understanding just how intricate and massive this theological structure is--it is built on a firm platform of 2000 years of solid hewn bricks.

If you would like to evaluate a full study on the subject of the Seal of God vs. the Mark of the Beast, I wrote an article dealing with it here:

Is The Seal of God the Law or the Holy Spirit?

I made a typo. I meant "do not understand".

That is wishful thinking. People who are saved by grace through faith alone will keep all 10 commandments to prove it. "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13)

Notice that Paul is not saying that the "law justifies". No, the law does not justify. Only Jesus can justify you. Only faith can save you. Yet Paul is dogmatic about the fact that only "doers" of the law will be justified. Doing does not justify, but only doers will be justified. Get the difference?

And this is something you don't want to see listed.

I'm sorry, but I must take these scriptures seriously. You can cling to all the verses that talk about grace and faith, and leave out the ones on works, but that's not my style of Biblical exegesis. My style is to take in the Bible in its totality, and form doctrine from here a little there a little, precept upon precept, line upon line.

Just like it may appear that Paul contradicts itself, in a similar manner, consider the possibility that this may be exactly why SDA's and even Ellen White "contradict" themselves.

True Adventism strives to reflect what the Scriptures teach in its totality, despite the fact that a number of missinformed Adventists fail miserably in performing this balance.

I don't doubt there are false SDA's out there that live by works. That's their problem. But that's not how I judge the foundations of a belief structure. I don't judge the theological structure based on how the people act. I judge it on its own merits, then if it lines up with the Bible, I determine myself to live up to it the right way, despite those who advocate it may be poor representations of it. A decline in numbers in the SDA Church means absolutely nothing to me. In the time of the flood, it narrowed down to only 8 people left.

I've even engaged in debates with them. No need to show me. There are ex-Arminians, ex-Catholics, ex-Baptists, ex-Dispensationalists, ex-Calvinists--and all are throwing anathemas at one another calling eachother cults. I've been out in the real world amongst Christian evangelicals. There are pastors leaving every imaginable church to join the next one--swapping even! And writing books about why their former religion was garbage and built on heresy.

I've seen it all listed.

You need to quit worrying so much about SDA folks, and just focus on the scriptures they have presented. Forget people, focus on what is right--despite the fact that the people advocating it may be terrible representations of it.

If you think that I agree with how many SDA folks go about expressing their religion, then you're wrong. Have you read the sermons of A.T. Jones and Waggoner--powerful SDA pioneers? Their entire focus was on Christ and Him Crucified. Yet they understood the importance of keeping the commandments. But they didn't go around emphasizing this. Those who were converted as a result of understanding the love of God and the great sacrifice of Jesus were automatically convicted to keep God's commandments without having to be urged.

Even Ellen White herself warned the SDA Church of focussing too much on "the law", "the law", "the law". Yes, while it was true that the Adventist Church had the correct understanding of the law, they were presenting it in a wrong light--as if that was the focus.

Ellen White highly emphasized the importance of looking to Christ Jesus and Him Crucified. She talked about how we are to emphasize Christ--as He is a living and walking manifestation of the righteousness of the law. It is a transcript of His character. Why? The law is perfect, converting the soul (Psalms 19:7), and Jesus is perfect.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, because John 15:10 seems to support what we've been trying to help you see, so what are you trying to say?

Again, too much focus on individuals and people rather than if the core, historic doctrines line up with Scripture.

Then are you willing to deal with the scriptures that Revelation 14:6-12 has provided?

There are a lot of them that seem to get ignored I noticed.

The sabbath isn't the seal of God and has nothing to do with the sealing of the Christian.

13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Eph 1

30And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Eph 4

There is no such similar statement in the Scripture anywhere about the sabbath. Such is a concoction of EGW. It does matter if you say the Holy Spirit is the Agent that does the sealing or not. In this respect the sabbath would have the exact same function. Eph 1 says very clearly and directly sealed with. It doesn't say sealed by.

listed · Mar 24, 2012

Lysimachus said:
A step back? Actually, I'm trying to be among the first to express the heart of what true Adventism believes. Sadly, and unfortunately, most SDA's defend their doctrine on a superficial leve, not understanding just how intricate and massive this theological structure is--it is built on a firm platform of 2000 years of solid hewn bricks.

If you would like to evaluate a full study on the subject of the Seal of God vs. the Mark of the Beast, I wrote an article dealing with it here:

Is The Seal of God the Law or the Holy Spirit?

I made a typo. I meant "do not understand".

That is wishful thinking. People who are saved by grace through faith alone will keep all 10 commandments to prove it. "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13)

Notice that Paul is not saying that the "law justifies". No, the law does not justify. Only Jesus can justify you. Only faith can save you. Yet Paul is dogmatic about the fact that only "doers" of the law will be justified. Doing does not justify, but only doers will be justified. Get the difference?

And this is something you don't want to see listed.

I'm sorry, but I must take these scriptures seriously. You can cling to all the verses that talk about grace and faith, and leave out the ones on works, but that's not my style of Biblical exegesis. My style is to take in the Bible in its totality, and form doctrine from here a little there a little, precept upon precept, line upon line.

Just like it may appear that Paul contradicts itself, in a similar manner, consider the possibility that this may be exactly why SDA's and even Ellen White "contradict" themselves.

True Adventism strives to reflect what the Scriptures teach in its totality, despite the fact that a number of missinformed Adventists fail miserably in performing this balance.

I don't doubt there are false SDA's out there that live by works. That's their problem. But that's not how I judge the foundations of a belief structure. I don't judge the theological structure based on how the people act. I judge it on its own merits, then if it lines up with the Bible, I determine myself to live up to it the right way, despite those who advocate it may be poor representations of it. A decline in numbers in the SDA Church means absolutely nothing to me. In the time of the flood, it narrowed down to only 8 people left.

I've even engaged in debates with them. No need to show me. There are ex-Arminians, ex-Catholics, ex-Baptists, ex-Dispensationalists, ex-Calvinists--and all are throwing anathemas at one another calling eachother cults. I've been out in the real world amongst Christian evangelicals. There are pastors leaving every imaginable church to join the next one--swapping even! And writing books about why their former religion was garbage and built on heresy.

I've seen it all listed.

You need to quit worrying so much about SDA folks, and just focus on the scriptures they have presented. Forget people, focus on what is right--despite the fact that the people advocating it may be terrible representations of it.

If you think that I agree with how many SDA folks go about expressing their religion, then you're wrong. Have you read the sermons of A.T. Jones and Waggoner--powerful SDA pioneers? Their entire focus was on Christ and Him Crucified. Yet they understood the importance of keeping the commandments. But they didn't go around emphasizing this. Those who were converted as a result of understanding the love of God and the great sacrifice of Jesus were automatically convicted to keep God's commandments without having to be urged.

Even Ellen White herself warned the SDA Church of focussing too much on "the law", "the law", "the law". Yes, while it was true that the Adventist Church had the correct understanding of the law, they were presenting it in a wrong light--as if that was the focus.

Ellen White highly emphasized the importance of looking to Christ Jesus and Him Crucified. She talked about how we are to emphasize Christ--as He is a living and walking manifestation of the righteousness of the law. It is a transcript of His character. Why? The law is perfect, converting the soul (Psalms 19:7), and Jesus is perfect.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, because John 15:10 seems to support what we've been trying to help you see, so what are you trying to say?

Again, too much focus on individuals and people rather than if the core, historic doctrines line up with Scripture.

Then are you willing to deal with the scriptures that Revelation 14:6-12 has provided?

There are a lot of them that seem to get ignored I noticed.

Now about the works of the law.

There is no requirement for the Christian to keep the law. The manifestion of such is close to the same in appearance and that is all. Your chief code misapplied proof text is 15If ye love me, keep my commandments. You totally ignore James chapter 2 in this. The works James is talking about have nothing to do with the law. The law of which the ten commandments are central and the heart of the law don't apply to Christians of the NC per Jer 31:31:34 since I'd have a side issue if I referenced Hebrew 8. Both of which the SDA won't accept as truth as stated in any language especially Hebrew/Chaldee, Greek and English.

Romans 4 says that the righteousness attributed to Abraham has absolutely nothing to do with the law.

1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

I hold a very real interest in verses 2 -5. Verse 9 shows it isn't by works of the law. Circumcision is required by and of those claiming the law as required to get or maintain salvation Ex 12:48. Unfortunately one can't get salvation through the law. It is maintained by the SDA that one must keep the sabbath in order to possess salvation. Read the forum. This is also my personal experience outside of any forum - that is a real life experience vzrified here at CF. I've chatted with SDA floks from around the globe not just one or two. It is a universal fact of practice and actively taught like it or not. Deny all you wish. De Nyle has plenty water.

What is the first question asked of a former SDA attendee? Bet it is about keeping the sabbath which is works of the law.

listed · Mar 24, 2012

Lysimachus said:
A step back? Actually, I'm trying to be among the first to express the heart of what true Adventism believes. Sadly, and unfortunately, most SDA's defend their doctrine on a superficial leve, not understanding just how intricate and massive this theological structure is--it is built on a firm platform of 2000 years of solid hewn bricks.

If you would like to evaluate a full study on the subject of the Seal of God vs. the Mark of the Beast, I wrote an article dealing with it here:

Is The Seal of God the Law or the Holy Spirit?

I made a typo. I meant "do not understand".

That is wishful thinking. People who are saved by grace through faith alone will keep all 10 commandments to prove it. "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13)

Notice that Paul is not saying that the "law justifies". No, the law does not justify. Only Jesus can justify you. Only faith can save you. Yet Paul is dogmatic about the fact that only "doers" of the law will be justified. Doing does not justify, but only doers will be justified. Get the difference?

And this is something you don't want to see listed.

I'm sorry, but I must take these scriptures seriously. You can cling to all the verses that talk about grace and faith, and leave out the ones on works, but that's not my style of Biblical exegesis. My style is to take in the Bible in its totality, and form doctrine from here a little there a little, precept upon precept, line upon line.

Just like it may appear that Paul contradicts itself, in a similar manner, consider the possibility that this may be exactly why SDA's and even Ellen White "contradict" themselves.

True Adventism strives to reflect what the Scriptures teach in its totality, despite the fact that a number of missinformed Adventists fail miserably in performing this balance.

I don't doubt there are false SDA's out there that live by works. That's their problem. But that's not how I judge the foundations of a belief structure. I don't judge the theological structure based on how the people act. I judge it on its own merits, then if it lines up with the Bible, I determine myself to live up to it the right way, despite those who advocate it may be poor representations of it. A decline in numbers in the SDA Church means absolutely nothing to me. In the time of the flood, it narrowed down to only 8 people left.

I've even engaged in debates with them. No need to show me. There are ex-Arminians, ex-Catholics, ex-Baptists, ex-Dispensationalists, ex-Calvinists--and all are throwing anathemas at one another calling eachother cults. I've been out in the real world amongst Christian evangelicals. There are pastors leaving every imaginable church to join the next one--swapping even! And writing books about why their former religion was garbage and built on heresy.

I've seen it all listed.

You need to quit worrying so much about SDA folks, and just focus on the scriptures they have presented. Forget people, focus on what is right--despite the fact that the people advocating it may be terrible representations of it.

If you think that I agree with how many SDA folks go about expressing their religion, then you're wrong. Have you read the sermons of A.T. Jones and Waggoner--powerful SDA pioneers? Their entire focus was on Christ and Him Crucified. Yet they understood the importance of keeping the commandments. But they didn't go around emphasizing this. Those who were converted as a result of understanding the love of God and the great sacrifice of Jesus were automatically convicted to keep God's commandments without having to be urged.

Even Ellen White herself warned the SDA Church of focussing too much on "the law", "the law", "the law". Yes, while it was true that the Adventist Church had the correct understanding of the law, they were presenting it in a wrong light--as if that was the focus.

Ellen White highly emphasized the importance of looking to Christ Jesus and Him Crucified. She talked about how we are to emphasize Christ--as He is a living and walking manifestation of the righteousness of the law. It is a transcript of His character. Why? The law is perfect, converting the soul (Psalms 19:7), and Jesus is perfect.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, because John 15:10 seems to support what we've been trying to help you see, so what are you trying to say?

Again, too much focus on individuals and people rather than if the core, historic doctrines line up with Scripture.

Then are you willing to deal with the scriptures that Revelation 14:6-12 has provided?

There are a lot of them that seem to get ignored I noticed.

I'm not allowed to discuss you per the rules. I certianly regret this.

Neither am I interested in debating Jones or Wagner. If you wish to talk about what they said present it. Then I'll deal with it. I have not time to go explore some rabbit trail time consuming research. Personally I think that dividing my time is what you're trying to do here. Neat tatic for the unseasoned debator.

listed · Mar 24, 2012

Lysimachus said:
A step back? Actually, I'm trying to be among the first to express the heart of what true Adventism believes. Sadly, and unfortunately, most SDA's defend their doctrine on a superficial leve, not understanding just how intricate and massive this theological structure is--it is built on a firm platform of 2000 years of solid hewn bricks.

If you would like to evaluate a full study on the subject of the Seal of God vs. the Mark of the Beast, I wrote an article dealing with it here:

Is The Seal of God the Law or the Holy Spirit?

I made a typo. I meant "do not understand".

That is wishful thinking. People who are saved by grace through faith alone will keep all 10 commandments to prove it. "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13)

Notice that Paul is not saying that the "law justifies". No, the law does not justify. Only Jesus can justify you. Only faith can save you. Yet Paul is dogmatic about the fact that only "doers" of the law will be justified. Doing does not justify, but only doers will be justified. Get the difference?

And this is something you don't want to see listed.

I'm sorry, but I must take these scriptures seriously. You can cling to all the verses that talk about grace and faith, and leave out the ones on works, but that's not my style of Biblical exegesis. My style is to take in the Bible in its totality, and form doctrine from here a little there a little, precept upon precept, line upon line.

Just like it may appear that Paul contradicts itself, in a similar manner, consider the possibility that this may be exactly why SDA's and even Ellen White "contradict" themselves.

True Adventism strives to reflect what the Scriptures teach in its totality, despite the fact that a number of missinformed Adventists fail miserably in performing this balance.

I don't doubt there are false SDA's out there that live by works. That's their problem. But that's not how I judge the foundations of a belief structure. I don't judge the theological structure based on how the people act. I judge it on its own merits, then if it lines up with the Bible, I determine myself to live up to it the right way, despite those who advocate it may be poor representations of it. A decline in numbers in the SDA Church means absolutely nothing to me. In the time of the flood, it narrowed down to only 8 people left.

I've even engaged in debates with them. No need to show me. There are ex-Arminians, ex-Catholics, ex-Baptists, ex-Dispensationalists, ex-Calvinists--and all are throwing anathemas at one another calling eachother cults. I've been out in the real world amongst Christian evangelicals. There are pastors leaving every imaginable church to join the next one--swapping even! And writing books about why their former religion was garbage and built on heresy.

I've seen it all listed.

You need to quit worrying so much about SDA folks, and just focus on the scriptures they have presented. Forget people, focus on what is right--despite the fact that the people advocating it may be terrible representations of it.

If you think that I agree with how many SDA folks go about expressing their religion, then you're wrong. Have you read the sermons of A.T. Jones and Waggoner--powerful SDA pioneers? Their entire focus was on Christ and Him Crucified. Yet they understood the importance of keeping the commandments. But they didn't go around emphasizing this. Those who were converted as a result of understanding the love of God and the great sacrifice of Jesus were automatically convicted to keep God's commandments without having to be urged.

Even Ellen White herself warned the SDA Church of focussing too much on "the law", "the law", "the law". Yes, while it was true that the Adventist Church had the correct understanding of the law, they were presenting it in a wrong light--as if that was the focus.

Ellen White highly emphasized the importance of looking to Christ Jesus and Him Crucified. She talked about how we are to emphasize Christ--as He is a living and walking manifestation of the righteousness of the law. It is a transcript of His character. Why? The law is perfect, converting the soul (Psalms 19:7), and Jesus is perfect.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, because John 15:10 seems to support what we've been trying to help you see, so what are you trying to say?

Again, too much focus on individuals and people rather than if the core, historic doctrines line up with Scripture.

Then are you willing to deal with the scriptures that Revelation 14:6-12 has provided?

There are a lot of them that seem to get ignored I noticed.

I don't worry one little itty bit about SDA folks. It is rare that they can be reached with the truth. As I think I've said I'm not really here for them. I think I'm defending the truth. SDA folks are a side issue IMHO.

St. Patrick kept the 7th Day Sabbath!

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations

Well-Known Member

are you?

are you?

are you?

are you?

are you?

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

are you?

Regular Member

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations

are you?

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations

are you?

are you?

are you?

are you?

are you?

are you?

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency