What in the world did you post that someone else could possible think is "adventist" type of statement?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What in the world did you post that someone else could possible think is "adventist" type of statement?I wasn't sure where to post this really, so hopefully here is okay, but I am curious what a 7th day adventist is and what they believe? I posted something recently that someone said was an "adventist" type of opinion, and I did not know what that meant at all. I would love to hear an answer from someone who is one personally, but either way I am curious to know, thanks everyone!
Good point.Moses knew that the Ten Commandments was the covenant, and he knew where that covenant came from:
Deuteronomy 9I asked you where the covenant God made came from, and you dismissed it. This was the covenant from Mount Sinai, inscribed onto tables of stone, the Ten Commandments.
9 "When I went up into the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water.
10 "Then the LORD delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.
11 "And it came to pass, at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.
Solomon also identified the same tables of stone as the covenant:
2 Chronicles 6:11The Biblical definition of the covenant from Mount Sinai includes both the tables of stone with the Ten Commandments and the book of the law (Exodus 24:7). The tables of stone were placed inside the ark of the covenant, while the book of the law was placed outside the ark of the covenant to be a witness against the children of Israel (Deuteronomy 31:26) every seven years (Deuteronomy 31:10-11). Everywhere the ark went, the entire covenant went with it - consistent with the name given to the ark of the covenant.
"And there I have put the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD which He made with the children of Israel."
Paul described the covenant from Mount Sinai as the bondwoman in Galatians 4:24, and then instructed us to cast off the bondwoman and her son in Galatians 4:30.
In each and every instance, you have chosen to redefine Biblical terms. You don't accept the covenant as the object that dictated God's terms of the Suzerainty agreement, even though your own theologians have accepted that term:
It has nothing in it of the nature of a bargain or a negotiated agreement. It is a disposition or arrangement which originates unilaterally with the superior party.The people who agreed to comply with the covenant didn't come from Mount Sinai. The only object that came from Mount Sinai was the tables of stone. Moses affixed the proper noun Ten Commandments to that object, and that object was placed into the ark of the covenant, and Solomon specified that the covenant was contained inside the ark. No people inside that ark, and neither is their agreement of compliance requisite to live and possess the land (Deuteronomy 30:15-16).
The only one who has made a claim that Scripture contradicts itself is you, and the only contradiction I can see is your opinion that has imposed your own definition to Biblical terms.
Which carnal definition would you like to apply to your failure to comply with the sabbath codified in Israel's covenant mediated by Moses? No one since 70AD has ever met the terms of compliance, and I have specified the reasons for that from the law itself. You continue to ignore the Bible.
And, I have quoted Ellen White's claim to the very opposite. I happen to agree with you on this point, but your prophet's contradictory claims in deference to our conclusion should force you to scrap SDA Fundamental Belief #18, along with #19 and #20.
I have learned a long time ago to read the citations SDA's provide. Ephesians 2:10 in no way remotely suggests returning to the covenant from Mount Sinai.
Two questions:
Search the entire law, and you will never find the terms of compliance to include "attempt to obey". The law included the rites of atonement for reconciliation whenever someone innocently violated it by ignorance of their transgression (Leviticus 4), but for those who willingly violated it (this includes you, too) they were put to death without mercy (Hebrews 10:28).
- What is the (4) in your post? Is this a footnote you forgot to remove from a cut-n-paste job?
- How did you impose your canal walking in the flesh by obeying the law of God, when the passage cited does not support your imposition, and comes on the heels of this same author's chapter describing our deliverance from that law of God (quoted to identify the Ten Commandments as that law), and demonstrating that the law is holy and also lethal to everyone who is not holy?
You're repeating the error you previously engaged in by claiming that the old covenant is not obsolete and taken away as the epistle to the Hebrews concludes, but has merely changed location. Meanwhile, you dispensed with the only Authority that God calls "My law" using a possessive pronoun, Who gives us a knowledge of the Creator and not the created: Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His (Romans 8:9).
When was the last time you read your own citations?
2 Corinthians 5:17You have no grounds to conclude that the old covenant retains any jurisdiction over those God has redeemed as His own adopted children in the new covenant made with His Blood. In stating that old things have passed away, it is consistent with Hebrews 8:13 and 2 Corinthians 3:13 telling us that the old covenant has passed away - and 2 Corinthians 3 reads like a commentary on Exodus 34 and addresses the covenant engraved on tables of stone, the Ten Commandments.
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
And yet you want to shuffle the old around and call it new, when it is not.
Me mee.. pick me.. I can answer that one... cause the fault was with them..Can you tell us with a clear reasoning from scripture, WHY the Old Covenant failed?
Visionary's response was actually correct in this respect - the recipients violated it and the covenant failed. No one was compliant, and no one was justified by their non-compliance. God chose to place the blame on the covenant itself, rather than the people who failed to abide by it:Can you tell us with a clear reasoning from scripture, WHY the Old Covenant failed?
Hmmm! maybe your scritpure references didin't but these do: Deut 4:13; 9:11. I don't recall Deut 9:11 being quoted so here it is: And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant.Well; just don't accuse me of "dismissing things" my friend. As I said, I don't have a lot of time some days to be on the internet; but in this case I actually did address with scripture; just what you say I did not address.
A couple of posts ago I showed from Jeremiah how the two covenants are viewed by the Bible. There are many verses, such as what you quoted which say something like "the tablets of the covenant," but not a one of them actually calls the ten commandments the covenant; neither old or new. It is quite possible to see the verse/s you quote as simply saying that what is on these tablets, is the object of the covenant, when you view it in proper context; expecially when you consider other scripture such as Jer and avoid isolating the proof texts you are producing. The old covenant was not the ten commandments. It was an agreement about those ten commandments where the people said And this was at Sinai my friend so I don't know how we can say that the old covenant was not a case of the people saying "we will do" when in fact it should be a case of "God will do." As we see in Jeremiah, a new agreement (covenant) was reached; again, about the same ten commandments, that Moses addressed to the people when he came down from Sinai: This is a wonderful promise for Christians today; we don't have to worry about doing God's will in our strength; and that is where the rest in Christ comes in. Rest in Christ means not having to save ourselves (try to) but to totally depend upon Jesus for everything. 2 Cor 5:17 says "all things become new;" meaning all our old ways, all our selfishness and sin, it all goes out the window, in favor of the "rest in Christ" promised to us throughout scripture.
Nope we don't throw away the law in the sense of it never existing. We also recoginze that God's My law is not the ten commandments as you demand. Please read Jer 31:31-33.So really, to boil your posts to me down to their lowest common denominator; you are simply denying what God has promised, how that He would write His law on our hearts. You just throw away this portion of scripture because you want a gospel that says we do not have to obey God's law because it is "old covenant." That doesn't make a lot of sense to me; it is a typical example of eisegesis. We all fall into this at times; I know I likely do too. But I am enjoying the learning curve here in our exchange. I appreciate your efforts here Victor.
Hey he was not trying to make you look wrong. He was just asking what made no sense meant. I thought he was gracious.PS. It seems you have a problem with "cut and paste" as you call it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it; as long as the source is freely acknowledged, or it is your own material. The (4) you asked about is a footnote I made in a larger study I put together, which is 30 some pages, a bit too long to post here. If you have to resort to such minor little details to try and make someone look "wrong" then I would say your "scripture" reasoning should be re-examined by you. You have cut and paste many anti-Adventist "objections" to hurl at me; it is likely you changed the wording a little, but it's not hard to find websites where your points come from. Just relax, and reason from the scriptures with me; never mind what others say about Adventists. Look at it for yourself. We are not all that bad.
No, actually you didn't answer my question regarding what came from Mount Sinai. Your replacement for the definition of Israel's covenant suggested that the people it was given to came from Mount Sinai, and this distinction continues to elude you.Well; just don't accuse me of "dismissing things" my friend. As I said, I don't have a lot of time some days to be on the internet; but in this case I actually did address with scripture; just what you say I did not address.
No, you didn't.A couple of posts ago I showed from Jeremiah how the two covenants are viewed by the Bible.
Utterly false.There are many verses, such as what you quoted which say something like "the tablets of the covenant," but not a one of them actually calls the ten commandments the covenant
In this, you aren't even providing a proof text.It is quite possible to see the verse/s you quote as simply saying that what is on these tablets, is the object of the covenant, when you view it in proper context; expecially when you consider other scripture such as Jer and avoid isolating the proof texts you are producing. The old covenant was not the ten commandments.
The only case of God telling us that He would do the old covenant was in Christ's statement that He would fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 24:44-48). Jeremiah makes no such claim that the law would be fulfilled in any other person, and neither does the author of Hebrews. Indeed, the author of Hebrews details the hilasterion atonement by which Jesus Christ fulfilled the law!It was an agreement about those ten commandments where the people said And this was at Sinai my friend so I don't know how we can say that the old covenant was not a case of the people saying "we will do" when in fact it should be a case of "God will do."
False.As we see in Jeremiah, a new agreement (covenant) was reached; again, about the same ten commandments
That same citation also states "old things have passed away", and that includes the old covenant from Mount Sinai.This is a wonderful promise for Christians today; we don't have to worry about doing God's will in our strength; and that is where the rest in Christ comes in. Rest in Christ means not having to save ourselves (try to) but to totally depend upon Jesus for everything. 2 Cor 5:17 says "all things become new;" meaning all our old ways, all our selfishness and sin, it all goes out the window, in favor of the "rest in Christ" promised to us throughout scripture.
And yet you throw away this portion of Scripture because you don't know what Law that isn't according to the covenant from Mount Sinai could possibly refer to. You simply gave up and repeat the same contradiction your church codified.So really, to boil your posts to me down to their lowest common denominator; you are simply denying what God has promised, how that He would write His law on our hearts.
Is there an echo in here?You just throw away this portion of scripture because you want a gospel that says we do not have to obey God's law because it is "old covenant."
Every single quote I provide from an external source is cited and linked where applicable. Nothing I have written is from any other source; the list addressing the origin of the sabbath is saved in my own notes on my computer, as I wrote it so many times I decided to save it - it is my own work. Nothing I have posted is from any anti-Adventist website; I rely on sources you're more likely to accept, such as the White Estate, and every use thereof is attributed and cited properly so that you can verify their validity.PS. It seems you have a problem with "cut and paste" as you call it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it; as long as the source is freely acknowledged, or it is your own material. The (4) you asked about is a footnote I made in a larger study I put together, which is 30 some pages, a bit too long to post here. If you have to resort to such minor little details to try and make someone look "wrong" then I would say your "scripture" reasoning should be re-examined by you. You have cut and paste many anti-Adventist "objections" to hurl at me; it is likely you changed the wording a little, but it's not hard to find websites where your points come from. Just relax, and reason from the scriptures with me; never mind what others say about Adventists. Look at it for yourself. We are not all that bad.
No; I don't think I have said that so we are in agreement on this part of the concepts we are discussing. It is good to also discuss our in common thoughts and beliefs. I am sure we would be both in agreement, as we discuss how old things are passed away in a person's life and heart; that we do become new creatures in Christ.You have no grounds to conclude that the old covenant retains any jurisdiction over those God has redeemed as His own adopted children in the new covenant made with His Blood.
I appreciate your candor, and I believe that it isn't necessary to share your testimony as you chose to. I have already learned that those who perceive the greatest need for grace are most appreciative of receiving it from God's Hand.No; I don't think I have said that so we are in agreement on this part of the concepts we are discussing. It is good to also discuss our in common thoughts and beliefs. I am sure we would be both in agreement, as we discuss how old things are passed away in a person's life and heart; that we do become new creatures in Christ.
## They love making videos "proving" the Pope is the Antichrist, & they predict all the time that the Pope is going to use his authority to force the US to compel them to worship on Sunday (what they call the "Sunday law"). The evidence for this is Daniel 7.25 - quiet how Daniel imagined this would be done, they do not say. You can always recognise a SDA video, by that alone.I wasn't sure where to post this really, so hopefully here is okay, but I am curious what a 7th day adventist is and what they believe? I posted something recently that someone said was an "adventist" type of opinion, and I did not know what that meant at all. I would love to hear an answer from someone who is one personally, but either way I am curious to know, thanks everyone!
I am sure you have learned that Victor. it was not my intention to "teach you" anything about that. Although I have heard people say many things about me for being an Adventist; I have not often heard someone call such a great testimony about how I needed help and found it in Jesus, "laundry." (see 1 John 1:1-3). It was a testimony, not "laundry." And some of the intention behind it was to illustrate a real life example of what is meant by old things passing away. I am not ashamed of one single aspect of Christ in my life!I appreciate your candor, and I believe that it isn't necessary to share your testimony as you chose to. I have already learned that those who perceive the greatest need for grace are most appreciative of receiving it from God's Hand.
My personal request is that you would delete the rest of your post beyond the point I quoted you. It isn't necessary to air our laundry on a public forum, and I saw nothing that elicits a response from me.
Sorry Victor; I won't be deleting anything because I have done nothing wrong. Perhaps the following will elicit some response from you.My personal request is that you would delete the rest of your post beyond the point I quoted you. It isn't necessary to air our laundry on a public forum, and I saw nothing that elicits a response from me.
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Nor should you be ashamed of your testimony. However, there are sub-forums dedicated to that purpose that you can share your history with others on - here, where we deal with damaged theology, it doesn't elicit a response because it is regarded as sophistry.I am sure you have learned that Victor. it was not my intention to "teach you" anything about that. Although I have heard people say many things about me for being an Adventist; I have not often heard someone call such a great testimony about how I needed help and found it in Jesus, "laundry." (see 1 John 1:1-3). It was a testimony, not "laundry." And some of the intention behind it was to illustrate a real life example of what is meant by old things passing away. I am not ashamed of one single aspect of Christ in my life!
I think you understand my posts, but you aren't responsive to them. You have yet to explain why we have been delivered from the law that is identified by quoting "You shall not covet". If you can respond to that, the answer to your question regarding another of the 613 commandments will naturally fall into place.Now you did say that "the old covenant is passed away" and that that covenant was/is the ten commandments. So let me ask, which of those ten commandments have "failed?" Was it the seventh? How could that commandment possibly "fail" if we were to truly believe and practice it? And the same question could be asked of all the other nine! I know you have said you have already explained this; but I don't understand what you have said. Am hoping you will clarify this point with me.
This begs the question regarding why you chose Adventism as your profession of faith, for Ellen White contradicts your conclusion.Jesus said in John, chapter 3, verse 3: "Except a person be born again; they cannot see the kingdom of God." The reason He said this is because our human heart, by nature, is evil. The very fountain of our hearts must be purified, before the streams that come forth from therein will be pure. Anyone who is trying to reach heaven by their own works, such as the "we will do" (Exodus 19:8) side, by keeping the law, is attempting an impossibility.
Taking one verse to the exclusion of the others in the same context to cancel the others is precisely what you continue to do.The Christian's life is not a modification or an improvement of the old; but a complete transformation of nature. (2 Cor 5:17). This transformation has nothing to do with God's ten commandments being "done away with" at the cross! This kind of change can only be brought about by the effectual working of The Holy Spirit. It is only the ones who allow God to write His law on their hearts who will be able to rightly, and Biblically say that they are God's people:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.The New Covenant is the agreement between God and everyone who is His child, how that they will allow Him entrance and control of their hearts, to write His holy law therein. To say that God won't do this is to deny God's Word, and to refuse His promise. We cannot cancel out one scripture with some other scripture such as you are choosing to do here. This kind of practice makes Christians look like hyppocrites, and makes God's Word "of none effect," (Mark 7:13), when we try to say that we can just take one verse, and cancel out others with it.
There is no "if" concerning the covenant from Mount Sinai being the Ten Commandments and the book of the law anymore. This has been proven by quoting Moses, Solomon, and Paul a number of times, and in each case you have not responded to what they testified. All you had to do was prove that Aaron's rod or the pot of manna was the old covenant instead of the tablets of stone with the Ten Commandments in order to overturn Solomon's testimony found in 2 Chronicles 6:11. But, you didn't respond to this, either.If the ten commandments really were "the old covenant," and if God did do away with His own law, at Calvary, what law did He actually replace the ten commandments with?
"Binding" and "deadly legalism" are synonymous, and you again fail to reconcile your opinion with God's conclusion found in Romans 11:32 addressing those who received the Ten Commandments: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all".Victor; you have been voicing the conviction of many thousands of Christians today who sincerely believe that the Ten Commandments constituted the Old Covenant, which somehow disappeared at the cross and, therefore, has no present application to grace-saved Christians. But, is it a true premise? If so, we certainly need to be clearly informed of the doctrine in order to avoid the pitfall of deadly legalism. On the other hand, if the Ten Commandments are still binding, it would be a most tragic mistake to discount even one of those great moral precepts.
God also repeatedly told the children of Israel to "Be holy, for I am holy" (Leviticus 11:45), and Peter repeated this commandment in 1 Peter 1:13-16. It is used as an admonition to be obedient as children, in much the same tenor that Paul uses another commandment in Ephesians 6. Now don't forget that Ephesians 2:11-16 details the end of the law so that the Gentiles could be reconciled to God along with the children of Israel - and yet you would like us to believe that Ephesians contradicts itself.The Old Covenant Is Not the Ten Commandments
Is this a biblical position? It is just as important to understand what the Old Covenant was not, as to know what it was. Right now, let us look at three absolute proofs that the covenant which disappeared was not the Ten Commandments. Then we will determine by comparing scripture with scripture just what the Old Covenant was.
First of all, we notice that the Old Covenant had some poor promises in it. The New Covenant, we are told, "was established upon better promises." Verse 6. Tell us Victor, has anyone ever been able to point out any poor promises in the Ten Commandments? Never. On the contrary, Paul declares that they were very good. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Ephesians 6:1-3. So here we have Paul admonishing believers to obey one of the ten commandments!
This declaration alone is sufficient to show that the writer of Hebrews was not charging the moral law with any weak promises. The Old Covenant, whatever else it might be, could never be the Ten Commandments.
Kindly show me where Moses and Solomon were in error.The second thing that the Bible says is wrong with the Old Covenant was that it was faulty. The Bible says, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." Hebrews 8:7. Let me ask you a question Victor: Has any man ever been able to find a fault or a flaw in the handwriting of God? Check it out in your own Bible! The psalmist declared, "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Psalm 19:7. Paul wrote, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Romans 7:12.
Does that sound like something weak and imperfect? No law could be perfect and faulty at the same time. It becomes more and more apparent that the Old Covenant could not have been the Ten Commandments, like you keep saying they are.
I addressed this before, very quickly in a post you obviously didn't read. This is a common mistake we see all the time on the forum.And thirdly, though, we read the most dramatic thing about the Old Covenant: We read how it was to be abolished!
"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13. Now we can ask a serious question that should settle every doubt on this matter. Did the great moral law of Ten Commandments vanish away? Anyone who has read the New Testament must answer, Absolutely not. Paul affirms the exact opposite about the law. He asked, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31.
Does the Bible contradict itself? Can something vanish away and be established at the same time? Did the same writer say opposite things about the same law? Just to be certain that Paul was not saying that the Old Covenant was the law, let us insert the words "Old Covenant" instead of the word "law" into Romans 3:31. "Do we than make void the Old Covenant through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the Old Covenant."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?