Under grace not Law?

[k4c]

When understanding the old covenant we have to understand there are two sides to it. One side is the standard for right living and the other side is the punishment for not living up to the standard. Both of which are called laws.

The first is the Law God wrote with His own finger on stone. These are the standards for godly love and right living for all mankind.

The second side of the old covenant is the law of Moses or Moses' law, which had to do with the punishment for not living up to the standard set by God.

God's Law was placed in the ark while Moses law was placed outside the ark.

Deuteronomy 31:25-26 that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying: "Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there as a witness against you.

Notice these two laws in Daniel. One is God's Law, the Ten Commandments, and the other is Moses' law, the punishment or the curse for breaking the commandments.

Daniel 9:11 "Yes, all Israel has transgressed Your law, and has departed so as not to obey Your voice; therefore the curse and the oath written in the Law of Moses the servant of God have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against Him.

When people read Romans 6:14 they equate the law in this verse with the Ten Commandments, but this is not so.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Grace is the fact the God is not giving us the punishment we deserve for breaking His Law. This tells us that since it's grace that delivers us from the law it must be the law of Moses because it's his law that brought the punishment for breaking God's Law.

This is how we should interpret what is being said in Romans 6:14.

Don't let sin have control over you because you are free from it's curse. He then goes on to say that just because the curse, found in Moses' law, has been held back through grace that does not mean we should now break God's Law, the Ten Commandments.

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin (break the Ten Commandments) because we are not under law (punishment for breaking them found in Moses' law) but under grace (punishment held back by God)? Certainly not (we should obey the Ten Commandments)!

 

[StormyOne]

can you give it a rest already? I mean we get it, you love talking about "the law." How many more threads are you going to start about the same thing?

 

[k4c]

can you give it a rest already? I mean we get it, you love talking about "the law." How many more threads are you going to start about the same thing?

If you would submit to the word of God instead of discrediting it you wouldn't be saying things like this. Instead you would be rejoycing in the Law.

 

[VictorC]

If you would submit to the word of God instead of discrediting it you wouldn't be saying things like this. Instead you would be rejoycing in the Law.

Romans 10 speaks of the misplaced submission that you allude to.

1 ¶ Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.
2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Remember that Jesus stated that "unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven", and your personal form of righteousness under the law is thereby demonstrated as hopelessly incapable of pleasing a Holy God Who has chosen to redeem us from the first covenant.

 

[k4c]

Romans 10 speaks of the misplaced submission that you allude to.

1 ¶ Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.
2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Remember that Jesus stated that "unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven", and your personal form of righteousness under the law is thereby demonstrated as hopelessly incapable of pleasing a Holy God Who has chosen to redeem us from the first covenant.

Amen, we don't keep the to be righteous before God, we obey God because we love Him.

 

[bugkiller]

Amen, we don't keep the to be righteous before God, we obey God because we love Him.

Really now. Then why do you require keeping of the sabbath to be saved? You do it because you love God and I have to do it to prove I love God. Why is it a requiorement for me and not you? Your point is that I don't love God because I don't keep the sabbath. Remember how you use John 14:15?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

When understanding the old covenant we have to understand there are two sides to it. One side is the standard for right living and the other side is the punishment for not living up to the standard. Both of which are called laws.

The first is the Law God wrote with His own finger on stone. These are the standards for godly love and right living for all mankind.

The second side of the old covenant is the law of Moses or Moses' law, which had to do with the punishment for not living up to the standard set by God.

God's Law was placed in the ark while Moses law was placed outside the ark.

Deuteronomy 31:25-26 that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying: "Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there as a witness against you.

Notice these two laws in Daniel. One is God's Law, the Ten Commandments, and the other is Moses' law, the punishment or the curse for breaking the commandments.

Daniel 9:11 "Yes, all Israel has transgressed Your law, and has departed so as not to obey Your voice; therefore the curse and the oath written in the Law of Moses the servant of God have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against Him.

When people read Romans 6:14 they equate the law in this verse with the Ten Commandments, but this is not so.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Grace is the fact the God is not giving us the punishment we deserve for breaking His Law. This tells us that since it's grace that delivers us from the law it must be the law of Moses because it's his law that brought the punishment for breaking God's Law.

This is how we should interpret what is being said in Romans 6:14.

Don't let sin have control over you because you are free from it's curse. He then goes on to say that just because the curse, found in Moses' law, has been held back through grace that does not mean we should now break God's Law, the Ten Commandments.

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin (break the Ten Commandments) because we are not under law (punishment for breaking them found in Moses' law) but under grace (punishment held back by God)? Certainly not (we should obey the Ten Commandments)!

Don't know what I should say first.

You would not know about the ten commandments if it wasn't written in the law of Moses.

I object to you calling all the law not recorded on the tablets as coming from Moses and not God. If you read the Bible you will find the Lord said or something very similar predeeding the other laws. Moses was under direct order of God to teach those other laws, except maybe one and that is about divorce, which God permitted. To permit means to approve, even if reluctantly.

It is interesting that you quote Rom 6:14 and 15 both of which have the phrase not under the law. The word under means subject to. If you are not subject to something it does not have dominion or jurisdiction. Your discussion proves that the law is not enforcable. Police will not give citations if the he knows the judge is going to dismiss the charge. He could do it to harrass (to be vindictive) you. He get paid to be in court. You don't and probably have to take off work and lose income.

I think you have mercy and grace mixed up.

How do you get this punishment for breaking them found in Moses' law from because we are not under the law? You are only discussing one half of the law in presenting such and purposefully refusing to consider the rest of the law. I know that is what you are taught. There simply is no implication of punishment in the verse. Again grace has nothing to do with punishment. Mercy does and that is why a guilty party ask the judge for mercy not grace.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Romans 10 speaks of the misplaced submission that you allude to.

1 ¶ Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.
2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Remember that Jesus stated that "unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven", and your personal form of righteousness under the law is thereby demonstrated as hopelessly incapable of pleasing a Holy God Who has chosen to redeem us from the first covenant.

Victor I think you should cross post this to the identical thread on the tradtional board.

bugkiller

 

[VictorC]

Amen, we don't keep the to be righteous before God, we obey God because we love Him.

I suspect your intention is to lead us back to Moses, instead of towards submission to God's righteousness.

 

[VictorC]

Victor I think you should cross post this to the identical thread on the tradtional board.

bugkiller

The reason I leave the traditional Adventist forum alone is because the rules defined by their statement of faith doesn't permit critique of the material added there. Congregational forums are designed to be "safe havens" that deny apologetic discussions - but the Progressive/Moderate Adventist forum doesn't have that rule written into their SoF, permitting apologetics to take place here. This is a sensitive area differentiating it from the General Theology area you're used to. If you write so much as "yeah, but..." on the Traditional forum, you're already broken their rules. That's one of the reasons there's virtually no activity there. But (break the rules), that's the nature of the "safe haven".

 

[k4c]

I suspect your intention is to lead us back to Moses, instead of towards submission to God's righteousness.

Do you read any of my posts?

Not one time have I ever tried to lead people to produce their own righteousness for as we both know, that's impossible.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Do you read any of my posts?

Not one time have I ever tried to lead people to produce their own righteousness for as we both know, that's impossible.

If your desire is to lead us to the One who is righteous, why not cut out the middle man?

BFA

 

[VictorC]

Do you read any of my posts?

Some of them.

Not one time have I ever tried to lead people to produce their own righteousness for as we both know, that's impossible.

False.
Your whole obsession is with the sabbath ordained in the old covenant, and you strive to lead Christians away from God's eternal "My rest" each time you do.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Amen, we don't keep the to be righteous before God, we obey God because we love Him.

Question: Are these 3 words true?

BFA

 

[bugkiller]

The reason I leave the traditional Adventist forum alone is because the rules defined by their statement of faith doesn't permit critique of the material added there. Congregational forums are designed to be "safe havens" that deny apologetic discussions - but the Progressive/Moderate Adventist forum doesn't have that rule written into their SoF, permitting apologetics to take place here. This is a sensitive area differentiating it from the General Theology area you're used to. If you write so much as "yeah, but..." on the Traditional forum, you're already broken their rules. That's one of the reasons there's virtually no activity there. But (break the rules), that's the nature of the "safe haven".

I voiced the same concerns when asking them a question and whith my asking was granted permission. Of course it may be with drawn per rules should somebody decide different.

bugkiller

 

[k4c]

Your whole obsession is with the sabbath ordained in the old covenant, and you strive to lead Christians away from God's eternal "My rest" each time you do.

This is an interpretation of Scripture that came long after Jesus and His Apostles along with the secret rapture and the seven years of tribulation.

 

[k4c]

If your desire is to lead us to the One who is righteous, why not cut out the middle man?

BFA

I guess I thought you guys already had Jesus, maybe I'm wrong. My bad.

 

[VictorC]

This is an interpretation of Scripture that came long after Jesus and His Apostles along with the secret rapture and the seven years of tribulation.

Please provide documentation showing the words recorded in the epistle to the Hebrews was written or altered after 1830, when Margaret MacDonald had her visions about 15 years before Ellen White did. Then explain why we should listen to extra-Biblical writings from female prophets who contradict Scripture.Then explain how 5000 copies of the Textus Receptus were changed without anyone knowing it to support your thesis.

Let me be clear: because the Bible doesn't support your nonsense, you fabricated a theory that is laughable at best, and remains a departure from Scripture. You don't have a license to fabricate fables and call it interpretation.

 

[k4c]

Please provide documentation showing the words recorded in the epistle to the Hebrews was written or altered after 1830, when Margaret MacDonald had her visions about 15 years before Ellen White did. Then explain why we should listen to extra-Biblical writings from female prophets who contradict Scripture.Then explain how 5000 copies of the Textus Receptus were changed without anyone knowing it to support your thesis.

Let me be clear: because the Bible doesn't support your nonsense, you fabricated a theory that is laughable at best, and remains a departure from Scripture. You don't have a license to fabricate fables and call it interpretation.

Not once do you hear Jesus doing away with the Sabbath in all His teachings. What you do hear is Him teaching us how to keep it holy. As a matter of fact, His followers kept the Sabbath (according to the commandment) after Jesus' death. You would think they would have heard Jesus do away with the Sabbath during His time here.

In one location Paul taught every Sabbath to both Jews and Gentiles for a year and a half, that's a lot of Sabbaths. At one point almost the whole city came out on the Sabbath to hear Paul preach the word of God and this was years after Jesus' resurrection. The interesting thing is that the Gentiles begged Paul to teach them the next Sabbath and since almost the whole city came out tells us that the Gentiles went out witnessing throughout the city that whole week.

Did you know that Paul went from synagogue to synagogue beating and imprisoning Christians? Hmmmm

I find it funny how you guys bring up EGW all the time and not once have I ever. Truth is truth no matter who speaks it...sorry.

 

[VictorC]

Not once do you hear Jesus doing away with the Sabbath in all His teachings. What you do hear is Him teaching us how to keep it holy. As a matter of fact, His followers kept the Sabbath (according to the commandment) after Jesus' death. You would think they would have heard Jesus do away with the Sabbath during His time here.

In one location Paul taught every Sabbath to both Jews and Gentiles for a year and a half, that's a lot of Sabbaths. At one point almost the whole city came out on the Sabbath to hear Paul preach the word of God and this was years after Jesus' resurrection. The interesting thing is that the Gentiles begged Paul to teach them the next Sabbath and since almost the whole city came out tells us that the Gentiles went out witnessing throughout the city that whole week.

Did you know that Paul went from synagogue to synagogue beating and imprisoning Christians? Hmmmm

Did you know that Jerusalem was set into a riot over Paul's presence, and the witness account spoke concerning what he preached everywhere he went "This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place" in Acts 21:28?
Did you know that Paul taught every sabbath, and never once tried to keep the sabbath holy? Did you know that Luke qualified his comment concerning Mary resting on the sabbath "according to the commandment" when he wrote his Gospel account for Theophilus, a Gentile Christian who needed this comment because he wasn't familiar with the sabbath? Did you know that the sabbath was a component of the first covenant ordained at Sinai, which was taken away by the Hand of God to establish the new covenant, as Hebrews 10:9 states "He takes away the first that He may establish the second"? Did you know that the sabbath was called a shadow that led to God's rest that remained a promise to attain that the sabbath didn't provide in Hebrews 4?

I find it funny how you guys bring up EGW all the time and not once have I ever. Truth is truth no matter who speaks it...sorry.

Old-covenant Christianity isn't the truth, and you didn't even try to support the nonsense you posted about an interpretation related to the pre-trib rapture, because you already know it isn't true.