What people believe does not change the truth...

[Soon144k]

Leodicean said, "The impression I am getting from you, Soon, is that you think there will come a time when we will have to be perfectly sinless in our own strength, if we are to enter the kingdom of heaven."

I never stated that we gain righteousness by our own strength. I believe I pointed out that it is by the guidance of the Holy Spirit that we gain the power to become righteous. Yet you cannot negate something that Jesus Himself said by quoting either something else that He said OR especially by quoting someone other than Jesus Christ as proof of what He said or didn't say. The issue as far as I am concerned is whether Jesus said what He meant or whether He did not mean it. When something doesn't fit our understanding we often attempt to 'negotiate' a settlement with God that DOES fit our understanding. By doing this we often confuse the issue beyond all hope of resolution. How far are we supposed to go in trying to fit God in the 'box' of our own construction? It is evident that this is what Paul does in applying his own faulty understanding of what He believes Jesus told him to how salvation is accomplished in the life of a human being.

So NO, I do not believe there will EVER come a time when we accomplish righteousness IN OUR OWN STRENGTH. But to say that it is impossible to accomplish righteousness UNDER ANY CONDITION is negating what Jesus Christ told His own eyewitness disciples, as I indicated in my previous post. It is clear to me (and some others) that the path to righteousness as shown by Jesus Christ is not the same as the path shown by Paul. I guess it comes down to whom you believe has the final authority in determining how righteousness is achieved, Jesus or Paul.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Soon . . . Just to confirm, you are discussing human righteousness -- correct? What is the value of human righteousness?

BFA

 

[Soon144k]

BFA,
I am simply pointing out something that has gotten lost somewhere between the Gospel of the Kingdom as taught by Jesus to His disciples and now. Jesus even point to this situation in Revelation:

“‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. (2) Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. (3) Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you." Rev.3:1-3.

As far as I can tell there is no difference between human righteousness and Divine righteousness. Jesus gave us all the instruction that we need to know how to become righteous, 'even as the Father in Heaven is perfect'. Jesus told John that there are those in this Kingdom that 'have not soiled there garments'. What does this mean if not that they have attained righteousness. And note, that it is AFTER this that they walk with Him in white for they have been found worthy.

Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. Rev.3:4.

So I don't honestly see any distinction or separate quality to righteousness, you either are or are not. Paul would have us believe that this righteousness is a free gift that is imparted without any work on our part in achieving it. But this is clearly NOT what Jesus taught either His own disciples of showed to John in Revelation.

". . . for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God." Rev.3:2.

"The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments," Rev.3:5.

"The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God." Rev.3:12.

"The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne." Rev.3:21.

What works? Conquering what? The works that we are judged on is whether or not we conquer sin in our own lives, and that conquering is what makes us righteous. This is accomplished through the process of Sanctification. Now mind you, our conquering of sin would have no impact on our lives if it were not for the fact that Jesus paid the penalty for our disobedience to the Father. But it appears that this payment does not make us righteous, it confirms us in our righteousness.

I guess it is just a matter as to whether you believe Jesus or Paul.

I'm OK with being done with this topic.

 

[Alawishis]

Excellent distinction in your first paragraph, and I see your point. Yet you counter that slightly in the 2nd paragraph by making the statement that your sins are covered by His robe of righteousness. Would having your sins covered not mean that you still contain sin (it is still in you) but you just believe that God can't see it? Is that not a logical fallacy?

I totally agree that this should not be considered a 'ticket to sin', or as I like to put it a 'get out of jail free card'. But that is just what most Christians consider it to be. Their attitude is 'once saved, always saved' based on the idea that they were already predestined for either eternal life or eternal death from the foundation of the world.

What I see in your comments are a reference to the process of sanctification of which Jesus speaks in John 17. However, if our sins are covered by Jesus (as you state) then what is the necessity of going through the hard and difficult task of removing sin from our lives (asking forgiveness-justification) by replacing that sin/lies with righteousness/truth, especially since most Christians don't believe that is either possible or necessary? I will enjoy your further comments.

Maybe I wasn't clear. When I spoke of Christ covering my sins I was speaking of sin's in the past, sins that I have asked for forgiveness. Jesus will cover my future sins but I believe he would like me to recognize the need. Sorry if it came off as a contradiction. I do believe in the process of sanctification.

 

[Soon144k]

Maybe I wasn't clear. When I spoke of Christ covering my sins I was speaking of sin's in the past, sins that I have asked for forgiveness. Jesus will cover my future sins but I believe he would like me to recognize the need. Sorry if it came off as a contradiction. I do believe in the process of sanctification.

The issue that I look at when I look at the problem of 'sin' is not just how it is removed from me, but how it is removed from the world. On the Day of Atonement in Ancient Israel a major glaring fact stands out that is rarely addressed from the pulpit and that is what happens to the sin that is removed from the camp and taken into the wilderness via the 'Goat of Removal'. And then secondarily to that is what happens to the sins of the Nations that are in the world to which the Scape Goat goes when it is taken out into the wilderness.

It is evident that Jesus died as the Passover Lamb. The job of the Passover Lamb is to purchase a Kingdom for God (Rev.5:9-10). We also know that on the Day of Atonement there were three distinct sacrifices each with a defined purpose. The Bull was for the High Priest; the Ram was for the Levites/Priest tribe; and the Goat of the Lord was for the camp of Israel. None of these sacrifices did anything for the nations surrounding Israel with respect to removing sin. When Israel was cleansed and All of the Forgiven sins of the Camp that were removed from the horn of the Alter of Incense were placed on the head of the Goat of Removal, and then taken out into the wilderness by a strong man and there was RELEASED. It was not killed. So those sins still exist, they just no longer exist inside the Kingdom of Heaven.

What happens to them, who destroys them and when? Does the OT, Jesus or Prophecy give any indication as to how those sins are ultimately dealt with? It seems to me that the disposition of those sins needs to be understood, as well as how the sins of the nations are dealt with. I wonder if that is why Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to be save one must be inside the Kingdom of Heaven. Lets give this some thought.

 

[Joe67]

The issue that I look at when I look at the problem of 'sin' is not just how it is removed from me, but how it is removed from the world. On the Day of Atonement in Ancient Israel a major glaring fact stands out that is rarely addressed from the pulpit and that is what happens to the sin that is removed from the camp and taken into the wilderness via the 'Goat of Removal'. And then secondarily to that is what happens to the sins of the Nations that are in the world to which the Scape Goat goes when it is taken out into the wilderness.

It is evident that Jesus died as the Passover Lamb. The job of the Passover Lamb is to purchase a Kingdom for God (Rev.5:9-10). We also know that on the Day of Atonement there were three distinct sacrifices each with a defined purpose. The Bull was for the High Priest; the Ram was for the Levites/Priest tribe; and the Goat of the Lord was for the camp of Israel. None of these sacrifices did anything for the nations surrounding Israel with respect to removing sin. When Israel was cleansed and All of the Forgiven sins of the Camp that were removed from the horn of the Alter of Incense were placed on the head of the Goat of Removal, and then taken out into the wilderness by a strong man and there was RELEASED. It was not killed. So those sins still exist, they just no longer exist inside the Kingdom of Heaven.

What happens to them, who destroys them and when? Does the OT, Jesus or Prophecy give any indication as to how those sins are ultimately dealt with? It seems to me that the disposition of those sins needs to be understood, as well as how the sins of the nations are dealt with. I wonder if that is why Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to be save one must be inside the Kingdom of Heaven. Lets give this some thought.

Soon,

The Lord Jesus, through his messenger, led John, Peter and Paul to testify to the answer of the questions you are asking.

The Lord has provided the means and the tools for us all to hear his Voice through the written record he has reserved for us.

The daily is for forgiveness and victory over the wicked one. The yearly is for the endless ministry through weakness. Suffer it to be so. Offenses must need come, but woe be to him by whom it comes.

Those who are not forgiven cannot gain the victory. Those who have been forgiven but do not gain the victory will fall away, though they have tasted of the powers of the life to come when they were forgiven.

Many gain the victory and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb, and a few of these are chosen of God to stand on the sea of glass mingled with fire and to know him who is from the beginning. These few are chosen of God to bind the dragon in the pit with the chain and the key.

Joe

 

[Byfaithalone1]

As far as I can tell there is no difference between human righteousness and Divine righteousness.

Per Isaiah 64, human righteousness is as filthy rags. Since you don't see a difference between human righteousness and divine righteousness, should we conclude that divine righteousness is as filthy rags?
Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. Rev.3:4.

So I don't honestly see any distinction or separate quality to righteousness, you either are or are not.

Are humans righteous? How do you define "righteous?"

Paul would have us believe that this righteousness is a free gift that is imparted without any work on our part in achieving it. But this is clearly NOT what Jesus taught either His own disciples of showed to John in Revelation.

Check out:

Matthew 6:33
Luke 1:67-80
John 3:16-21
John 5:24-40
John 6:40-68
John 10:25-30
John 17:3
​

The works that we are judged on is whether or not we conquer sin in our own lives, and that conquering is what makes us righteous.

It seems you believe that humans conquer sin. Have I correctly understood you? What do we do with Matthew 19:17?

I guess it is just a matter as to whether you believe Jesus or Paul.

No. The gospels provide plenty of evidence on their own without having to make false distinctions between Matthew, Mark, John or Paul.

I'm OK with being done with this topic.

Good. Can we be done with the Paul topic as well?

BFA

 

[Soon144k]

And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” Matt.19:17.

There are two parts to this text, yet both are interconnected. Jesus first asked a rhetorical question because it was obvious to Him what the definition of 'good' was. We have assumed and been taught that in the following sentence Jesus was speaking of Himself, but this is a mistake given the context. Next Jesus defines who is 'good'. For Jesus the 'one' who is good is the one that keeps the Commandments of God, and this is exactly what He says.

As to the question as to whether human beings can conquer sin on their own, this is absurd. I have stated many times that the only way for a human being to conquer sin is by the power of the Holy Spirit which guides a person into abiding in the words and teachings of Jesus, and brings them to All truth. This is what Jesus said and I, for one, believe Him. Where I part ways with Paul's Christianity is that I do not believe that Jesus overcomes sin FOR you, whereby you do nothing but claim HIS victory as yours. This is not what Jesus taught.

I am fine with being done with the topic of Paul in general. I will still point out where appropriate where I see Paul as disagreeing with what Jesus taught, but I won't belabor the point. How does that sound?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I'm sorry I have not been back here in a while, now I see you have gone way off on another discussion.

That's not a problem, Al. Take your time. In my mind, there's never an expiration date to good discussion.

On many levels we do agree.

I'm sure that's true.

It maybe more semantics than anything.

That could be. This happens sometimes when discussing in an online forum.

I think we covered this but to clarify; sin has existed from Adam through to today. So if you are asking did sin exist before the law was codified at Sinai the answer is yes.

Good. Then we agree that sin can exist even outside of the existence of codified law. This was true not only before the law was added but it is also true since the Seed has come. Galatians 3-4 confirms that the codified system of law was intended for a specific group of people for a finite period of time. It had a specific purpose that doesn't always transcend time and geneology.

Does this mean that because the law was not written on stone tables yet that it's precepts did not exist, no.

No. The mind of God has always existed. That which meets the mind of God has always existed. However, the difference between a codified system of law and the ministry of the Spirit is in the way that principles are applied. There are certain signs and symbols that were meaningful for a specific group of people for a finite period of time that do not have universal application to all people for all of time. The principles existed before the law was added, but these symbols did not. They all had a starting point. This includes concepts such as the seventh day sabbath, animal sacrifices, passover, the day of atonement, etc. All of these symbols had a starting point and are not eternal in their application. However, I would assert that all of these practices were intended to remind people of important principles and these principles remain. The passover reminded Israelites of the substitutionary role of the Messiah. That principle remains. Animal sacrifices reminded Israelites of the atoning power of blood. That principle remains. The seventh-day sabbath reminded a group of slaves of their need to rest. That principle remains.

Cain did commit murder and it was a sin. So in that way the moral law existed even if not written down sin has not changed it is and always has been the definition of sin. That which was a sin in ancient times is a sin today.

Only if the Spirit of God convicts you that it is sin. In a set of circumstances that is very different than the Cain example, you may need to kill. This is why the ministry of the Spirit brings life and the ministry of the letters engraved on stones brings death.

Are you saying it was OK for Cain to kill his brother then if there was no law forbidding it?

No. Not at all. Because the mind of God exists even in the absence of a codified system of law. The Holy Spirit can convict men of sin and righteousness and judgment even in the absence of a codified system of law.

The law brings death in that is the penalty for transgression. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" Rom 6:23. This is inescapable, save for the ministry of life, bought by the blood Jesus Christ.

Why does 2 Corinthians 3 describe the transition from the old covenant to the new by contrasting the letters engraved on stones (the ministry that brings death) with the ministry of the Spirit (which brings life)? Are we convicted by both, or is it preferable to be convicted by the ministry of the Spirit?

The penalty of the law has been fulfilled.

I don't know how you view this, but I do know how the SDA denomination views this. According to the SDA denomination, Jesus Christ fulfilled more than merely the penalty of the law. He also fulfilled the requirements found in specific God-given laws, including circumcision, animal sacrifices, the passover, the day of atonement, wearing tzitzit, etc. The SDA denomination agrees that Jesus Christ filled these obligations full. The SDA denomination does not believe that Jesus Christ only fulfilled the penalty of breaking these laws, but he also filled full the requirements included in these laws.

Based on the position of SDAism, my question to you is this:

Q: Did Jesus Christ fulfill all laws or only some of them? If Jesus Christ fulfilled only some of the laws, why did He indicate that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all is accomplished?
​

Jesus paid the price for us. The items outlined in the moral law are still sins.

Is it a sin if I fail to honor the feast of unleavened bread the way God commanded the Israelites to honor it? If not, why not?

I agree. These were a shadow, they pointed forward to the sacrifice of Chirst.

"But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away"1 Cor 13.10

Why do you make a distinction between laws? If you have a moment, can you take a look at Exodus 34? Then, can you help me understand why some of the God-given laws listed in Exodus 34 remain while others do not? I understand that you are trying to make a distinction, but I don't see the Biblical basis for the distinction you're trying to make. 1 Corinthians 13:10 certain does not confirm it.

YES, the law is still valid.
And NO, the man is no longer under an obligation.

What you've written above accurately describes FULFILLMENT. It is a different concept than SUBSTITUTION. With fulfillment, man is no longer under an obligation. The obligations of the law -- though they still remain -- have already been fully met.

This concept confuses me. How can you have a valid law that no one is obligated to keep. Once the obligation is removed the law is void.

Your use of the word "void" seems foreign to me. In order to fully understand this question, we would need to discuss to whom the codified system of law was given. It was given to Israelites. Its intent, purpose and timeline was finite. Galatians 3 tells us that it was added 430 years after Abraham and only until the Seed had come. The codified system of law is not void. It served its purpose. And, for some, it continues to convict (see Romans 7). This is much like the man who continues to pay property taxes even though they've already been paid.

Is it now OK to worship idols?

If the Spirit convicts you to, yes.

Are only some laws valid?

The codified system of law has been fulfilled. The Seed has come. We need not pick and choose and try to make extra-biblical distinctions relating to "ceremonial" and "moral" laws.

Not exactly. The animal sacrifices were offered on Sabbaths yes but that is not the entirety of the Sabbath. It's like saying if we abolished the Easter Sunday celebration we would eliminate Sunday worship.

God gave commands to the children of Israel about the manner in which they were to observe the seventh-day sabbath. Included in those commands was a command to offer a special sacrifice unlike the sacrifices they offered on other days. If a man fails to offer these special sacrifices, is he truly observing the seventh-day sabbath as God commanded him to observe it? Or has he created a new type of sabbath keeping that is more man-made than God-ordained?

So is it really only the fourth commandment you have an issue with. Are all the others OK with you, but the Sabbath is the issue?

I don't have an issue with any laws. They all had a specific purpose for a specific time and that purpose has been met. I don't take issue with God for providing laws to His people. However, I don't pretend to be the recipient of commands that weren't directed to me.

This includes all of the old covenant law and not solely the fourth commandment. For example, if you were a messianic Jew, you might be asking me whether I have an issue with the passover. And the reality is that I have no more issue with the passover than I do with the seventh-day sabbath.

I am glad that the seventh-day sabbath is a blessing for you. I would never ask you to abandon that blessing. I will ask, however, that you not imply that the seventh-day sabbath must be an important part of my life.

No not really what I meant. I mean we have to continually return to Chirst, and not just accept once from him and go off on our merry way.

What role does faith play in this? Is His grace truly sufficient, or must I doubt it?

Many roles. One most important is to be our comforter, to teach us. When we open scriptures we should not proceed without asking for the help of the Holy Spirit.

Can the Spirit convict with the Bible? Without the law?

If it wasn't written down they had to know it in other means.

Yes. Through the Spirit.

BFA

Hi Al!

I know your time here is limited. Just curious if you've had a chance to look at this post.

I hope all is well . . .
BFA

 

[Alawishis]

Sorry you asked a lot of questions, it took me a while to get enough free time to sit down and answer them.

That's not a problem, Al. Take your time. In my mind, there's never an expiration date to good discussion.

Thanks. I much appreciate having a civil debate with someone on my favourite subjects.

Good. Then we agree that sin can exist even outside of the existence of codified law. This was true not only before the law was added but it is also true since the Seed has come. Galatians 3-4 confirms that the codified system of law was intended for a specific group of people for a finite period of time. It had a specific purpose that doesn't always transcend time and geneology.

Does this mean that because the law was not written on stone tables yet that it's precepts did not exist, no.

No. The mind of God has always existed. That which meets the mind of God has always existed. However, the difference between a codified system of law and the ministry of the Spirit is in the way that principles are applied. There are certain signs and symbols that were meaningful for a specific group of people for a finite period of time that do not have universal application to all people for all of time. The principles existed before the law was added, but these symbols did not. They all had a starting point. This includes concepts such as the seventh day sabbath, animal sacrifices, passover, the day of atonement, etc. All of these symbols had a starting point and are not eternal in their application. However, I would assert that all of these practices were intended to remind people of important principles and these principles remain. The passover reminded Israelites of the substitutionary role of the Messiah. That principle remains. Animal sacrifices reminded Israelites of the atoning power of blood. That principle remains. The seventh-day sabbath reminded a group of slaves of their need to rest. That principle remains.

Looks like we agree here at least in part. The ten commandments, however were part of the moral law. The law defines sin, sin has existed since the fall of Lucifer. The nature of sin has never changed. What was a sin from the beginning of time is still a sin today. The decalogue is a definitions of sin for mankind so there would no longer be questions about what is right and wrong. The law as written is meant to define sin for us so that there is no questions as to it's nature. For example: people saying how it's OK to lie under certain circumstances, in so doing, seek to muddy the definitions of sin. Man has become increasingly wicked and had become very good at justifying the wrongs we visited upon God. We no longer have a clear picture of what is right and what is wrong. The ten commandments are the same as how a dictionary writes the definitions of words. Sin existed before, yes. Words existed before the first dictionary was written; so too definitions for the words also predated the first dictionary. So saying that sin predated the written stone tablets in no way invalidates the law.

Cain did commit murder and it was a sin. So in that way the moral law existed even if not written down sin has not changed it is and always has been the definition of sin. That which was a sin in ancient times is a sin today.

Only if the Spirit of God convicts you that it is sin. In a set of circumstances that is very different than the Cain example, you may need to kill. This is why the ministry of the Spirit brings life and the ministry of the letters engraved on stones brings death.

Are you saying it was OK for Cain to kill his brother then if there was no law forbidding it?

No. Not at all. Because the mind of God exists even in the absence of a codified system of law. The Holy Spirit can convict men of sin and righteousness and judgment even in the absence of a codified system of law.

The law brings death in that is the penalty for transgression. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" Rom 6:23. This is inescapable, save for the ministry of life, bought by the blood Jesus Christ.

Why does 2 Corinthians 3 describe the transition from the old covenant to the new by contrasting the letters engraved on stones (the ministry that brings death) with the ministry of the Spirit (which brings life)? Are we convicted by both, or is it preferable to be convicted by the ministry of the Spirit?

There is an important distinction between "the Spirit" and "the spirit". Note the capitalization. When capitalized the reference is to the Holy Spirit when lower case it refers to our inner being, in this case. The same as there is a distinction between "King" and "king", "Lord" and "lord", also "God" and god". This chapter speaks about making Gods word part of us, part of our flesh. We need to live it in our hearts, and not follow with empty meaningless gestures and traditions. The key is in the first two verses as to what Paul is talking about. To paraphrase: do we need more words, do we need more letters or epistles? We are to be God's epistles with God's word written in our hearts. The ministry of death is the penalty of sin, which of course is ... death. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" Romans 6:23 That verse to the Romans, also written by Paul, makes it pretty clear. Also consider, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."-1 John 3:4 Ezekiel 18:20 seems to make this clear, actually all of chapter 18 talks to this point.

The idea that we all individually hear our own voice of conscience is, to put it bluntly, post-modern morality. The world is a pretty mixed up place morals-wise. There are over 2000 different denominations in the world; does the Holy Spirit tell everyone different things for what is right? It would be a relief for me if I no longer had to teach my kids right from wrong if I knew the Holy Spirit would do it for me. I'm sure he'd be better at it than me. Is there really times when it's OK to lie? Has God ever lied- did Jesus ever lie?

If the law of God represents his character how can it change or be superseded? Why is the the importance of the commandments spoken throughout the bible even unto it's final pages? See: James 2, Romans 7:7, Romans 3:20, Romans 2:12, Hosea 4:6, Daniel 9:4, Ezekiel 33:14, Ezekiel 18:20, Psalms 119:10, Revelation 12:17, Revelation 14:12 to name just a small sampling. What law and what commandments are being spoken of in these passages?

The penalty of the law has been fulfilled.

I don't know how you view this, but I do know how the SDA denomination views this. According to the SDA denomination, Jesus Christ fulfilled more than merely the penalty of the law. He also fulfilled the requirements found in specific God-given laws, including circumcision, animal sacrifices, the passover, the day of atonement, wearing tzitzit, etc. The SDA denomination agrees that Jesus Christ filled these obligations full. The SDA denomination does not believe that Jesus Christ only fulfilled the penalty of breaking these laws, but he also filled full the requirements included in these laws.

Based on the position of SDAism, my question to you is this:

Q: Did Jesus Christ fulfill all laws or only some of them? If Jesus Christ fulfilled only some of the laws, why did He indicate that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all is accomplished?

Jesus paid the price for us. The items outlined in the moral law are still sins.

Is it a sin if I fail to honor the feast of unleavened bread the way God commanded the Israelites to honor it? If not, why not?

Not one of the ten commandments. The feast of unleaven bread was written in Moses' law.

I agree. These were a shadow, they pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ.

"But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away"1 Cor 13.10

Why do you make a distinction between laws? If you have a moment, can you take a look at Exodus 34? Then, can you help me understand why some of the God-given laws listed in Exodus 34 remain while others do not? I understand that you are trying to make a distinction, but I don't see the Biblical basis for the distinction you're trying to make. 1 Corinthians 13:10 certain does not confirm it.

In Exodus 34 God is reviewing all that has been covered before, or at least the important points. God expects them to keep all these things there is no need to separate them. Israel was keeping the ten commandments before they came to Sinai and before they made the covenant with God, or at least they did they best they could. It's really easy to make the separation of what is permanent and what is temporal. Tablets of stone=permanent, written on parchment temporary. Written by Moses=temporary, written by the hand of God=permanent. God is not arbitrary in any way, he wrote on stone with his own hand for a very specific reason.

YES, the law is still valid.
And NO, the man is no longer under an obligation.

What you've written above accurately describes FULFILLMENT. It is a different concept than SUBSTITUTION. With fulfillment, man is no longer under an obligation. The obligations of the law -- though they still remain -- have already been fully met.}

This concept confuses me. How can you have a valid law that no one is obligated to keep. Once the obligation is removed the law is void.

Your use of the word "void" seems foreign to me. In order to fully understand this question, we would need to discuss to whom the codified system of law was given. It was given to Israelites. Its intent, purpose and timeline was finite. Galatians 3 tells us that it was added 430 years after Abraham and only until the Seed had come. The codified system of law is not void. It served its purpose. And, for some, it continues to convict (see Romans 7). This is much like the man who continues to pay property taxes even though they've already been paid.

Is it now OK to worship idols?

If the Spirit convicts you to, yes.

Are only some laws valid?

The codified system of law has been fulfilled. The Seed has come. We need not pick and choose and try to make extra-biblical distinctions relating to "ceremonial" and "moral" laws.

Not exactly. The animal sacrifices were offered on Sabbaths yes but that is not the entirety of the Sabbath. It's like saying if we abolished the Easter Sunday celebration we would eliminate Sunday worship.

God gave commands to the children of Israel about the manner in which they were to observe the seventh-day sabbath. Included in those commands was a command to offer a special sacrifice unlike the sacrifices they offered on other days. If a man fails to offer these special sacrifices, is he truly observing the seventh-day sabbath as God commanded him to observe it? Or has he created a new type of sabbath keeping that is more man-made than God-ordained?

Now maybe you can help me out with a concept I can't get my head around. How can you have a valid law that there is no obligation to keep? There is no precedent for this anywhere. If a there is no obligation to keep it the law is no longer valid, it is void, it is done away with. You suggest the the law has become just a guideline that's not the same thing as a law. Is it fair and just for God to have a penalty of death for a set of guild lines that we are not obligated to keep anyway? Fulfilling a law means to keep it. If there is a law to keep my yard clean. I clean up my yard to fulfill the law. Jesus fulfilled the law on two fronts, he kept it, he lived without sin. Second he paid the price he fulfilled the penalty. When you keep a law or if you pay the penalty the law is still enact and valid.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matt. 5:17-19

How is a destroyed law different than one you no longer have to keep? You cannot skip over the first part of the verse that says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law". Because essentially you are saying this says, "I am not come to destroy the law, but to destroy it"?

 

[Alawishis]

Here is the rest. Sorry would not fit in one post.

I don't have an issue with any laws. They all had a specific purpose for a specific time and that purpose has been met. I don't take issue with God for providing laws to His people. However, I don't pretend to be the recipient of commands that weren't directed to me.

This includes all of the old covenant law and not solely the fourth commandment. For example, if you were a messianic Jew, you might be asking me whether I have an issue with the passover. And the reality is that I have no more issue with the passover than I do with the seventh-day sabbath.

I am glad that the seventh-day sabbath is a blessing for you. I would never ask you to abandon that blessing. I will ask, however, that you not imply that the seventh-day sabbath must be an important part of my life.

What role does faith play in this? Is His grace truly sufficient, or must I doubt it?

Can the Spirit convict with the Bible? Without the law?

What was the specific purpose of the ten commandments in your view? How has this purpose become no longer valid?

I cannot tell anyone what they need to do with their life. For God our freedom of choice is one thing that is very precious, and therefore it is for me too. I think you should follow what you feel is correct. I know one thing for certain that God will judge us by the light we are given. If you live the best life you can with the light you have God will not reject you. If however one refuses new light and refuse to change for their own reasons, to cling to their own traditions rather than listen to Gods way, that God will reject. I'm not saying you are, for the record, I cannot know your heart. You seem sincere so I have every faith that you live fully to what you know to be true and good.

To your later reference. The ten commandments are part of the bible so there is no separation there. If the Holy Spirit had such a good line of communication to us the bible would not be needed at all. The problem is we do not hear Gods voice very well any more. This is why God's word is priceless to us, it's our main lifeline to the creator. Understanding it is the most important thing any person can undertake. God told us to hunger for truth, I need to keep digging until we find it.

In case you think I'm not listening, you've brought up many good points that sent me back to the scriptures to research deeper. I thank you for that.

God be with you.

 

[Soon144k]

Here is the rest. Sorry would not fit in one post.



What was the specific purpose of the ten commandments in your view? How has this purpose become no longer valid?

I cannot tell anyone what they need to do with their life. For God our freedom of choice is one thing that is very precious, and therefore it is for me too. I think you should follow what you feel is correct. I know one thing for certain that God will judge us by the light we are given. If you live the best life you can with the light you have God will not reject you. If however one refuses new light and refuse to change for their own reasons, to cling to their own traditions rather than listen to Gods way, that God will reject. I'm not saying you are, for the record, I cannot know your heart. You seem sincere so I have every faith that you live fully to what you know to be true and good.

To your later reference. The ten commandments are part of the bible so there is no separation there. If the Holy Spirit had such a good line of communication to us the bible would not be needed at all. The problem is we do not hear Gods voice very well any more. This is why God's word is priceless to us, it's our main lifeline to the creator. Understanding it is the most important thing any person can undertake. God told us to hunger for truth, I need to keep digging until we find it.

In case you think I'm not listening, you've brought up many good points that sent me back to the scriptures to research deeper. I thank you for that.

God be with you.

Your second paragraph is beautiful and expresses genuine love and concern for a fellow Christian. I agree with you statement that, "If you live the best life you can with the light you have God will not reject you." I also agree with your following statement, with one addition.

We have been told that we will be judged not only on the light we have, but on the light we should have had, had we been open to the leading of the Holy Spirit. What this means to me is that we should not reject ANY opportunity to learn Truth, even if it comes from a most unlikely source. We should not be too sure of ourselves and say "What I have is all the truth I need for my salvation".

During the Great Tribulation when the lines between truth and lies become blurred (even more than today) there will be many that will cling with tenacity to their long cherished beliefs and will reject the message of truth as given by the Kingdom of Heaven, because it does not fit the mold into which they have put 'their personal' God. During this time EVERYONE will be required to make a conscious choice as to who they believe is the true God of Creation. And since Satan is not called the 'Great Deceiver' because he isn't good at it he will come forward with a deception so magnificent that the whole world will follow him. This deception will be built directly on a deception that has already captured the 'church' since it's founding in the 1st century. The ONLY people that will not fall for this deception will be those that are INSIDE the Kingdom of Heaven, because the Kingdom of Heaven is in the world but not OF the world.

One part of the great deception of Satan today is that he has convinced Christians that when you are 'born again' then you are already in the Kingdom of Heaven, and you are saved no matter what you do. This is a lie. Yet when you point this lie out to a dedicated Christian he/she will point to you and call you a liar. The tragedy is that most of the Christian world will be lost to Satan because he has so thoroughly convinced them of this that they will not listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit prompting them to learn more. Living the 'best life you can' during the time of the great tribulation but living it without the truth is a certain death sentence for those that reject the opportunity to learn the truth.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Looks like we agree here at least in part. The ten commandments, however were part of the moral law.

This phrase -- moral law -- is a man-made phrase based on a man-made distinction. Therefore, it adds nothing of value to our discussion.

What was a sin from the beginning of time is still a sin today.

Explain how this statement applies to a man who did/does not offer animal sacrifices. Or to a man who did/does not observe the feast of unleavened bread?

The decalogue is a definitions of sin for mankind so there would no longer be questions about what is right and wrong.

We have the Spirit who convicts us of sin and righteousness and judgment.

Words existed before the first dictionary was written; so too definitions for the words also predated the first dictionary.

How interesting that the definitions of words can have very different meanings to different people, in different settings and in different time periods. If this is true, we are truly blessed to have the Spirit to convict us.

So saying that sin predated the written stone tablets in no way invalidates the law.

Who is trying to invalidate the law? That is hardly my intent.

There is an important distinction between "the Spirit" and "the spirit". Note the capitalization. When capitalized the reference is to the Holy Spirit when lower case it refers to our inner being, in this case.

Perhaps you can show me how many letters in the original greek were capitalized?

This chapter speaks about making Gods word part of us, part of our flesh.

Why would we want to make the ministry of death a part of us?

There are over 2000 different denominations in the world;

Yes I know. Is it fair to assume that you believe only one of these denominations have found "present truth?"

If the law of God represents his character

Who said that the law of God represents His character? Why would we believe this is true?

how can it change or be superseded?

How have laws relating to the feast of unleavened bread change in terms of their modern application?

Not one of the ten commandments. The feast of unleaven bread was written in Moses' law.

So a part of the God-given law -- which you believe represents His character -- has in fact changed? How can this be?

In Exodus 34 God is reviewing all that has been covered before, or at least the important points. God expects them to keep all these things there is no need to separate them.

If God saw no need to separate them, why do you?

Israel was keeping the ten commandments before they came to Sinai and before they made the covenant with God, or at least they did they best they could.

Did Abraham observe the passover or did the passover have a starting point that occurred after Abraham?

Now maybe you can help me out with a concept I can't get my head around. How can you have a valid law that there is no obligation to keep? There is no precedent for this anywhere.

We've covered this already. The requirements have been fully met. SDAism accepts this concept. Evidence can be found in the fact that SDAism similtaneously believes that (1) the law is perfect and (2) man need not observe the feast of unleavened bread. The problem is not that I disagree with SDAism on this principle, but rather that SDAism is less willing than I am to consistently apply it.

What was the specific purpose of the ten commandments in your view?

I've answered this question in my previous posts. For example, I wrote:

There are certain signs and symbols that were meaningful for a specific group of people for a finite period of time that do not have universal application to all people for all of time. The principles existed before the law was added, but these symbols did not. They all had a starting point. This includes concepts such as the seventh day sabbath, animal sacrifices, passover, the day of atonement, etc. All of these symbols had a starting point and are not eternal in their application. However, I would assert that all of these practices were intended to remind people of important principles and these principles remain. The passover reminded Israelites of the substitutionary role of the Messiah. That principle remains. Animal sacrifices reminded Israelites of the atoning power of blood. That principle remains. The seventh-day sabbath reminded a group of slaves of their need to rest. That principle remains.
​

For God our freedom of choice is one thing that is very precious, and therefore it is for me too.

For God, our freedom of choice is subject to HIS freedom of choice.

I think you should follow what you feel is correct. I know one thing for certain that God will judge us by the light we are given.

So the judgment is based on our ability to get the right answers on a theology exam? That seems incredible to me, especially in light of the Scriptures that indicated that there are none who understand.

If you live the best life you can with the light you have God will not reject you.

This concept is the basis of legalism. I do not accept legalism as valid.

The ten commandments are part of the bible so there is no separation there. If the Holy Spirit had such a good line of communication to us the bible would not be needed at all.

Why do you conclude that the Spirit cannot do what Jesus Christ promised He would do?

BFA

 

[Alawishis]

And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” Matt.19:17.

There are two parts to this text, yet both are interconnected. Jesus first asked a rhetorical question because it was obvious to Him what the definition of 'good' was. We have assumed and been taught that in the following sentence Jesus was speaking of Himself, but this is a mistake given the context. Next Jesus defines who is 'good'. For Jesus the 'one' who is good is the one that keeps the Commandments of God, and this is exactly what He says.

As to the question as to whether human beings can conquer sin on their own, this is absurd. I have stated many times that the only way for a human being to conquer sin is by the power of the Holy Spirit which guides a person into abiding in the words and teachings of Jesus, and brings them to All truth. This is what Jesus said and I, for one, believe Him. Where I part ways with Paul's Christianity is that I do not believe that Jesus overcomes sin FOR you, whereby you do nothing but claim HIS victory as yours. This is not what Jesus taught.

I am fine with being done with the topic of Paul in general. I will still point out where appropriate where I see Paul as disagreeing with what Jesus taught, but I won't belabor the point. How does that sound?

I know you wrote this a while back but I was moved to post a thought on this.

This is the way I look at it, and maybe this will provide some clarity to Paul's words and maybe not.

We have been condemned to die. We were trapped by the condemnation of the law...no way out. Jesus made possible for us a way to escape. We still have to make the effort, we still have to take the step, and do the work that is asked of us. But, where there was once no hope only death now there is salvation. Jesus conquered sin in his own life and for us made possible a way to salvation.

In my mind I think of it like this. If you are trapped in a car, doors somehow locked on the outside. Then the car is dropped in the middle of the ocean; you are doomed to die by drowning. Trapped you can only wait for the car to fill with water and then the inevitable. Now suppose someone swims down and opens the car door for you. Now the way is open. But the coice is yours you can stay in the car as continues to plumet into the deep, or you can swim out of the car and make for the surface. If you do nothing you are still doomed because your still in the car and it's still in the water. If you exit the car and make for the surface you have a chance. So in this way Jesus conquers sin for us because without him that door is locked and we are doomed.

Now obviously you can take the analogy too far. My point is that Christ opened the door for us, we still need to step through. "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Revelation 3:20 Jesus does not kick in the door and grab us by the scruff; he knocks and waits. Our effort is still required we must open the door and invite him in. Paul himself speaks about his own personal struggle with sin. "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do." Romans 7:19 The whole chapter 7 of Romans is about the struggle to over come the sin that is his nature.

 

[Alawishis]

This phrase -- moral law -- is a man-made phrase based on a man-made distinction. Therefore, it adds nothing of value to our discussion.

True the term Moral Law is a man not a term used in the bible but it is an accurate distinction none the less. It's important to look at the purpose of each of the laws and it's easy to see. The bible tells us the purpose of the stone commandments was to define sin.
Once again I point out the verse:
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."-1 John 3:4

That is why I call it the moral law. But, really I'm using the term more descriptively. I know it's perhaps an over-simplification because the law is more than just a moral law.

Explain how this statement applies to a man who did/does not offer animal sacrifices. Or to a man who did/does not observe the feast of unleavened bread?

I'm not sure if you are refuting my statement that sin has never changed. If you are can you please be clearer on that point, how you feel sin has changed? Animal sacrifices and the feast of unleavened bread is part of the atonement of sins, it's totally different than sin itself. If the distinction is not clear think of it like this; the ten commandments diagnose the problem (points out our sins) the atonement is the prescription. We break the law, that is sin, and we must die that is the penalty of sin. This cannot change the penalty MUST be paid. The system of atonement in the old testament, animal sacrifices and such, was the atonement that pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ. It should be easy to see the story of Christ's death in the ceremonies they performed if you look.

We have the Spirit who convicts us of sin and righteousness and judgment.

This is true. However, nowhere in the bible does it say the Holy Spirit replaces God's written word. Convicting us of sin is different than the Holy Spirit "teaching" us right from wrong. The law does not convict us of sin it never did, it only defines it. The conviction has always needed to come from the Holy Spirit, as the conviction of things spiritual.

How interesting that the definitions of words can have very different meanings to different people, in different settings and in different time periods. If this is true, we are truly blessed to have the Spirit to convict us.

Interesting that you have this view that sin is based on a sliding scale. That some things are a sin at some times and not at other times and that some sins on some people are not sins to other people. Can you give some examples of this of which you speak? Is like when you say you tell a lie to protect someone, like a little white lie as it's called. Are there any examples provided by the life of Jesus? Has God ever lied for example to protect someone? Has God ever sinned or transgressed his own law because of a changing situation? How could we trust such a God?

Perhaps you can show me how many letters in the original greek were capitalized?

Fair enough. However, you're missing my point at the same time making it for me. πνεῦμα is the Greek word for spirit. When it is accompanied with the qualifier with ἅγιον it is plainly read as Holy Spirit. When ἅγιον is not accompanying then the word is interpreted by context. The scriptural scholars that translated the scriptures make the interpretation based on their expert knowledge of Greek and the context of the original manuscripts and as to what is being referenced. Now maybe you know something that they do not. If you have new information that sheds light on this translation I bid you please share it.

This chapter speaks about making Gods word part of us, part of our flesh.

Why would we want to make the ministry of death a part of us?

I assume you are going back to 2 Corinthians 3 again here. As far as I can tell it's a few verses here that the entire doctrine of the Holy Spirit replacing God's written word "ink and stone".

Each believer should be as a letter from Christ to the world. The author of the letter is Christ, of course, the material it is written on is our hearts, that which is written there is the law of God- a transcript of His character. God wrote the ten commandments with his own finger on tablets of stone. He also inspired men to write the bible. If they will it, men can find Christ in the law in the Scriptures and in the hearts of those who follow him. A pen cannot write on the heart of man only the Holy Spirit can. There was nothing wrong with the law written on the tablets of stone, but as long as it remained only there, it was not transferred to the heart, it remained for all practical purposes a dead letter. Truth is alive only when applied to applied to life. It is easier for God to write on tablets of stone for they have no will to resist. Once it is written on our hearts it is no longer dead. Paper and stone are transitory not so when it it written on our hearts. The same is true of Christianity overall. Formal creeds, theoretical theology, and the forms of worship have no power to save men from sin. In that way the "letter killeth" all those that rely on it for salvation.

It makes it much easier to understand what Paul is talking about here to know some of his background. Paul a.k.a Saul of Tarsus was "taught according to the perfect manner of the law" Acts 22:3 and lived "after the most straitest sect" of the Pharisees (Acts 26:5) He, in fact, developed a fanatical hatred for Christians, and was involved in the stoning of Stephen. Paul was steeped in the culture of the Pharisees that is well known for following "the letter" of the law but not "the spirit".
Ministry of Death = Pharisees system of legalism "ministry of the letter", or the penalty either way works. Not just the Jewish legalistic system but any Christian system also of formality over living with God's word in our hearts.
Here is the distinction made by Paul.
"I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord So then __ with the mind I myself serve __ the law of God but with the flesh the law of sin" Romans 7:25

Yes I know. Is it fair to assume that you believe only one of these denominations have found "present truth?"

As do you. Everybody in the world today believes they are following the truth. Be it Christian, Buddhist Muslim, Catholic or Atheist all believe they are following the truth. Does the Holy Spirit convict different morality to each person? There are people in the world today that will murder their own children if they dishonour their religion, and they believe deep in their hearts that they are doing the right thing. There are people who strap bombs on their bodies and blow up civilians and in their hearts they are convinced they are doing what is right and good. Why does the Spirit convict these good people of this unusual morality?

If the law of God represents his character

Who said that the law of God represents His character? Why would we believe this is true?

Well I could type many pages on this, but I doubt you'd want to read through it all. Let me simplify it to this. God's law boils down to two basic precepts. The first four are, 'love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all you mind, with all your strength' The last 6 are 'love your fellowman as yourself'. paraphrased from Mark 12:30-31. That in a nutshell is the character of God. God is love after all.
If you want more here is a quick taste:
God is Holy (1 Peter 1:16), the law is Holy (Romans 7:12); God is love (1 John 4:8), Love is keeping the law (Romans 13: 10); God is perfect (Matthew 5:48), the law is perfect(Psalm 19:7);the law id light (Proverbs 6:23), God is light (1 John 1:5). I'll give it a rest there but I could provide pages of these. I suffices to say wherever you see a description of the law of God the same description matches that of God.

How have laws relating to the feast of unleavened bread change in terms of their modern application?

I must admit, I'm not familiar with how the Jews presently keep the feast of unleavened bread today. I do know that of old it was connected to passover, beginning directly following it. It was a festival sabbath like many other ceremonial sabbaths. These sabbaths pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ. Do you have trouble seeing the distinction between what happened on the ceremonial sabbaths and the law of God? The law of God (10 commandments) does not point forward to Christ. The old system of sacrifices instituted since the sins of Adam, were a shadow of of things to come, that being Christs eventual sacrifice.

So a part of the God-given law -- which you believe represents His character -- has in fact changed? How can this be?

Actually this is part of the law of Moses. True God told him what to write but the distinction is evident if you read the scriptures. It was by his hand that the Mosaic laws of ceremony and the sacrificial system was written. I never said the law of Moses was God's character, I said the ten commandments were.

If God saw no need to separate them, why do you?

Oh but God did separate them. Tell me this if they were meant to be together why didn't he have Moses write them all out. Why not write them on the same scrolls as the Mosaic laws? Why did God separate them why did God write the commandments with his own hand, why write it in stone? I have yet to hear an answer to this.

Did Abraham observe the passover or did the passover have a starting point that occurred after Abraham?

You should probably go back and read what the passover represents and your answer will be there. As stated earlier the passover is and never was part of the ten commandments.

We've covered this already. The requirements have been fully met. SDAism accepts this concept. Evidence can be found in the fact that SDAism similtaneously believes that (1) the law is perfect and (2) man need not observe the feast of unleavened bread. The problem is not that I disagree with SDAism on this principle, but rather that SDAism is less willing than I am to consistently apply it.

The requirements of a law are met by keeping it. Which of the 10 commandments is the feast of unleavened bread? Jesus clarified this and so did Paul. I can post the scriptures again if you like. I don't recall an explanation of them.

So the judgment is based on our ability to get the right answers on a theology exam? That seems incredible to me, especially in light of the Scriptures that indicated that there are none who understand.

Hmm? Not sure how you get that from what I said. "I think you should follow what you feel is correct. I know one thing for certain that God will judge us by the light we are given." Maybe what I said wasn't clear for that I apologize. What I mean is God judges us by what limited truth we poses, not by the volume of truth we posses, but how we live with what we have.

If you live the best life you can with the light you have God will not reject you.

This concept is the basis of legalism. I do not accept legalism as valid.

I'm sorry I do not follow what you're saying here. Can you elaborate? Maybe it based on a misunderstanding of what I said earlier, if so I hope my clarification helped.

Why do you conclude that the Spirit cannot do what Jesus Christ promised He would do?

BFA

I do not. Where did he say the Spirit would replace the written word of God? Please understand, I view this as a very dangerous doctrine. With each of us with our own individual morality great crimes can be justified with no means to validate for others. George Bush says God told him to invade Iraq, what is my measuring rod to evaluate that? What is my ward against deception in the word? After all if the Holy Spirit will contravene God's word based on situation or a certain period of time, what good is the bible to me? The Holy Spirit is constantly amending and to each a different good and evil.

God bless.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

True the term Moral Law is a man not a term used in the bible but it is an accurate distinction none the less. It's important to look at the purpose of each of the laws and it's easy to see.

I see no Biblical basis for such a distinction. Laws are comingled throughout the old testament. Exodus 34 and Leviticus 23 provide two examples among many. God did not expressly divide the law into categories. This idea has a human -- not a divine -- origin.

The bible tells us the purpose of the stone commandments was to define sin.

The Bible tells us that all wrongdoing is sin.
The Bible tells us that -- the man who knows to do right and does it not -- to him it is in.
The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit convicts men with respect to sin and righteousness and judgment.

I'm not sure if you are refuting my statement that sin has never changed.

God has not required the same thing of all people throughout all of time. After Adam and Eve, God likely did not mandate which fruit could be eaten. Before the children of Israel, God likely did not require passover observance (at least we have no indication that he did). The law was added for a finite period of time.

Animal sacrifices and the feast of unleavened bread is part of the atonement of sins, it's totally different than sin itself.

Not true. It was the blood of Jesus Christ that atoned for sin, not the blood of animals. Animal sacrifices and the feasts were practices that were commanded by God. If a man failed to observe these God-given practices, He was disobedient to God and committed sin. If you have any doubts about this, check out the story of Cain and Abel and the story of Nadab and Abihu.

The system of atonement in the old testament, animal sacrifices and such, was the atonement that pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ. It should be easy to see the story of Christ's death in the ceremonies they performed if you look.

Then you must certainly see how the seventh day sabbath fits within this description. True, God-ordained sabbath observance includes special sacrifices. Sabbath observance that does not include these special sacrifices is not the type of sabbath observance that God commanded.

I assume you are going back to 2 Corinthians 3 again here. As far as I can tell it's a few verses here that the entire doctrine of the Holy Spirit replacing God's written word "ink and stone".

Why not deal with these verses directly?

God wrote the ten commandments with his own finger on tablets of stone.

I agree. Clearly, 2 Corinthians 3 refers to the ten commandments when it refers to the letters engraved on stones.

Each believer should be as a letter from Christ to the world. The author of the letter is Christ, of course, the material it is written on is our hearts, that which is written there is the law of God- a transcript of His character.

The concept of "the law as a transcript of His character" is another man-made concept that has no real bearing on our conversation. This is your belief; it isn't Biblical fact.

"I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord So then __ with the mind I myself serve __ the law of God but with the flesh the law of sin" Romans 7:25

Consider the first seven verses of this chapter.

As do you. Everybody in the world today believes they are following the truth.

No, I definitely do not believe that I understand all truth or that I am following it. Instead, I agree with Paul who wrote that there are none who understand. I am concerned when I encounter others who believe they have found -- and are living up to -- all "present truth."

Does the Holy Spirit convict different morality to each person?

The Holy Spirit knows the person in a way that letters engraved on stones do not. The concepts are consistent; the application is based on the person whom the Spirit wishes to convict.

There are people in the world today that will murder their own children if they dishonour their religion, and they believe deep in their hearts that they are doing the right thing. There are people who strap bombs on their bodies and blow up civilians and in their hearts they are convinced they are doing what is right and good.

These are sensational red herrings that have no bearing on my understanding.

Do you have trouble seeing the distinction between what happened on the ceremonial sabbaths and the law of God.

Since practices that you call "ceremonial" took place during the seventh-day sabbath -- including the use of special sacrifices -- I do not seek to make distinctions between laws because the Bible doesn't.

The law of God (10 commandments) does not point forward to Christ. The old system of sacrifices instituted since the sins of Adam, were a shadow of of things to come, that being Christs eventual sacrifice.

A number of SDAs who post here have been able to acknowledge that the seventh day sabbath was a shadow of the rest found in Jesus Christ. Can you?

Tell me this if they were meant to be together why didn't he have Moses write them all out.

He did.

Why not write them on the same scrolls as the Mosaic laws?

He did.

I do not. Where did he say the Spirit would replace the written word of God? Please understand, I view this as a very dangerous doctrine.

Help me understand this. You view it as dangerous to note -- as I have -- that the Spirit is God and written words are not? Really?

Consider the following:

39"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
40and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
​

With each of us with our own individual morality great crimes can be justified with no means to validate for others.

Yes, people try to justify a multitude of sins. Their justification confirms that people sin; it does not confirm that the Spirit convicts people to sin.

Is it possible that your argument reveals a lack of faith in the ability of the Spirit to do exactly what Jesus said He would do?

BFA

 

[Alawishis]

I see no Biblical basis for such a distinction. Laws are comingled throughout the old testament. Exodus 34 and Leviticus 23 provide two examples among many. God did not expressly divide the law into categories. This idea has a human -- not a divine -- origin.



The Bible tells us that all wrongdoing is sin.
The Bible tells us that -- the man who knows to do right and does it not -- to him it is in.
The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit convicts men with respect to sin and righteousness and judgment.



God has not required the same thing of all people throughout all of time. After Adam and Eve, God likely did not mandate which fruit could be eaten. Before the children of Israel, God likely did not require passover observance (at least we have no indication that he did). The law was added for a finite period of time.



Not true. It was the blood of Jesus Christ that atoned for sin, not the blood of animals. Animal sacrifices and the feasts were practices that were commanded by God. If a man failed to observe these God-given practices, He was disobedient to God and committed sin. If you have any doubts about this, check out the story of Cain and Abel and the story of Nadab and Abihu.



Then you must certainly see how the seventh day sabbath fits within this description. True, God-ordained sabbath observance includes special sacrifices. Sabbath observance that does not include these special sacrifices is not the type of sabbath observance that God commanded.



Why not deal with these verses directly?



I agree. Clearly, 2 Corinthians 3 refers to the ten commandments when it refers to the letters engraved on stones.



The concept of "the law as a transcript of His character" is another man-made concept that has no real bearing on our conversation. This is your belief; it isn't Biblical fact.



Consider the first seven verses of this chapter.



No, I definitely do not believe that I understand all truth or that I am following it. Instead, I agree with Paul who wrote that there are none who understand. I am concerned when I encounter others who believe they have found -- and are living up to -- all "present truth."



The Holy Spirit knows the person in a way that letters engraved on stones do not. The concepts are consistent; the application is based on the person whom the Spirit wishes to convict.



These are sensational red herrings that have no bearing on my understanding.



Since practices that you call "ceremonial" took place during the seventh-day sabbath -- including the use of special sacrifices -- I do not seek to make distinctions between laws because the Bible doesn't.



A number of SDAs who post here have been able to acknowledge that the seventh day sabbath was a shadow of the rest found in Jesus Christ. Can you?



He did.



He did.



Help me understand this. You view it as dangerous to note -- as I have -- that the Spirit is God and written words are not? Really?

Consider the following:

39"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
40and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
​

Yes, people try to justify a multitude of sins. Their justification confirms that people sin; it does not confirm that the Spirit convicts people to sin.

Is it possible that your argument reveals a lack of faith in the ability of the Spirit to do exactly what Jesus said He would do?

BFA

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled .
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:18-19

 

[Byfaithalone1]

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled .
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:18-19

What a powerful passage. Thanks for citing it.

Why would we teach that certain jots or tittles have passed from the law but that other jots and tittles have not? According to this passage, no jots or tittles can pass from the law until all is accomplished. Either all has been accomplished and all jots and tittles have passed or nothing has been accomplished and all jots and tittles remain. I didn't see anything in this passage that allows us to conclude that parts of the law have been fulfilled (such as the parts you call "ceremonial") and that other parts of the law have not (such as the parts you call "moral").

Any thoughts?

BFA

 

[Alawishis]

What a powerful passage. Thanks for citing it.

Why would we teach that certain jots or tittles have passed from the law but that other jots and tittles have not? According to this passage, no jots or tittles can pass from the law until all is accomplished. Either all has been accomplished and all jots and tittles have passed or nothing has been accomplished and all jots and tittles remain. I didn't see anything in this passage that allows us to conclude that parts of the law have been fulfilled (such as the parts you call "ceremonial") and that other parts of the law have not (such as the parts you call "moral").

Any thoughts?

BFA

Or the law he is talking about is the ten commandments and not the sacrificial laws. The distinction and separation is there if you don't absolutely refuse to accept it.

In context of the chapter "The law" he is talking about is the ten commandments. He says so plainly "one of these least commandments" , then to make the point even more clear he later on mentions some of the 10 commandments. Clearly Jesus says the ten commandments will not and cannot change, he has come to keep them...and he did...all of them. His life is an example to us on how we should live. His disciples also the commandments after he departed.

So do you not accept what Jesus says to 'keep even the least of the commandments', or is it your belief that all things have been fulfilled. Has Jesus returned in secret, or is there nothing more to accomplish in the world?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Or the law he is talking about is the ten commandments and not the sacrificial laws.

Why would we conclude that only some of God's commands represent "the law?" The Bible doesn't teach this.

In context of the chapter "The law" he is talking about is the ten commandments. He says so plainly "one of these least commandments" , then to make the point even more clear he later on mentions some of the 10 commandments. Clearly Jesus says the ten commandments will not and cannot change, he has come to keep them...and he did...all of them. His life is an example to us on how we should live. His disciples also the commandments after he departed.

Why would we conclude that only some of God's commands represent "the commandments? The Bible doesn't teach this.

So do you not accept what Jesus says to 'keep even the least of the commandments', or is it your belief that all things have been fulfilled. Has Jesus returned in secret, or is there nothing more to accomplish in the world?

If there are things that have not been fulfilled, then it would seem that we should be offering animal sacrifices and observing the feast of unleavened bread (among other things). Do you? Do I? If not, why don't we?

The distinction and separation is there if you don't absolutely refuse to accept it.

There was a time when I would have agreed with you on this point. Now I see that it was me -- I had missed the forest for the trees. I had been raised to believe there was a distinction when in fact the Bible doesn't support it. Therefore, my entire worldview was built on a human theory. I took this human theory and made it the basis of my understanding of every verse in the Bible. I now understand why many SDAs are just like I was -- many are retiscent to try reading the Bible without this human worldview. When I stopped making extra-biblical distinctions, my veil began to lift. I am now really cogniscent of distinctions. They often reveal much.

BFA