| Author | Message | ||
| Dljc Registered user Username: Dljc Post Number: 87 Registered: 7-2010 |
"Dljc, the gift of being able to see through two sets of eyes is gift and a privilege that few evangelicals will ever experience in their lifetime. What a humbling experience." Amen River! | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1362 Registered: 7-2007 |
The Sabbath was a shadow of Jesus. Jesus is our Sabbath now!!! (Colossians 2:16,17) It's not the seal. The Holy Spirit is the Seal. (Ephesians 1:13,14) God rested on the seventh day, but it had no borders. Of all the days, this is the only one that didn't say "and the evening and the morning were..." God is still in that REST and He invites us to enter His REST. (Hebrews 3 & 4) Israel didn't enter it (Hebrews 4:6) though they very religiously kept the seventh-day Sabbath. When people get saved, they've entered God's REST. They can say they HAVE BEEN saved. (Ephesians 2:8,9; 2nd Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5) They no longer have to say: "I hope to be saved!" The Sabbath was the SIGN of the Old Covenant, just between God and literal Israel. (Exodus 31:13) The Old Covenant with all it's rules was given to Israel to separate a people out to bring the Messiah through. The food laws, for example, were to represent separation from the nations. (Leviticus 20:24-26) If someone is "keeping" Sunday, they are an Adventist-waiting-to-happen. They are confused about the what the Bible says and they can easily be decieved. Jesus is our Sabbath now!  | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1286 Registered: 3-2009 |
Wasn't that rest broken when man sinned? Did not God have to go back to work now to re-create/redeem man? Wasn't that rest restore when Jesus fix the problem at the cross? Hec | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 2097 Registered: 4-2000  |
Good points, Hec. As Adam entered into God's rest after creation (later broken by sin), we enter into His rest after redemption. Jesus is the Sabbath. The Christian worships the Lord on the first day of the week, the day Jesus rose from the dead, because that resurrection day was the day mankind again could rest in the joy of the Lord. Dennis Fischer | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 6574 Registered: 9-2006  |
Quote: It is with deep sadness whenever I learn of yet another new former Adventist who sits at home every Sunday because he can't find an antinomian church to belong to or worship in. Well you can stop being sad, because there's no such people on this forum. I am being extra careful today and not saying what I am thinking. Be happy about that! River | ||
| Nowisee Registered user Username: Nowisee Post Number: 501 Registered: 5-2009 |
River, thank you for your word-picture (post 6572)--it is so beautiful and really got to me. | ||
| Sabbatismos Registered user Username: Sabbatismos Post Number: 32 Registered: 7-2010 |
River, this is AMAZING!!! Thank you for sharing this Holy Spirit inspired analogy!!!! (See below). River wrote: "The former has advanced to the Revelations side of the cross and seen the blood stains. His knees go weak, and he falls down in worship of the one that left that blood stained cross. The former calls back to his friends and loved ones, and says, "I see the blood! I see the blood! Oh, thank you Jesus! Thank you!" Come and see! The Adventist calls back, “No, come back, the Sabbath is here.” The former calls back to his loved ones, “Oh please, it is just a few steps, then you will see the blood!” ~ Jennifer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11604 Registered: 12-2003  |
That's a wonderful picture, River. Colleen | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 162 Registered: 9-2006 |
Dennis, thanks for linking that MacArthur sermon. Here he clearly states what gathering and worshiping on Sunday is: "Now, the other thing that is important to say: there aren’t any rules for Sunday, anywhere in the New Testament. There aren’t any warnings about violation, just Hebrews 12, that says, “Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together”--do it, when the Church meets--be there. There aren’t any rules, there aren’t any regulations. It doesn’t say anything about work; it doesn’t say anything about play; it doesn’t say anything about what you can do--what you can’t do--nothing! Because New Covenant is freedom from bondage; New Covenant is freedom from Law--this is not Sabbath. And those 'Sabbatarians' who want to take the Old Testament Sabbath and drag it over and imposed it, somehow, on the Lord’s Day, are dragging the 'weak and beggarly elements' of a dead covenant into a living covenant." And also: "Everything about the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant, including our day." Nicely said. The spirit of his beautiful statement could be applied to any of the 613 commandments from Sinai. The moral law has never been limited to and expressed as a set of behavior codes. It cannot be, it is spiritual. That is why I agree with what others have said on this forum, there are no antinomians here. That is a careless use of labels. We are not lawless, we live under the royal law, Christ's law, which has always been love of God and neighbor. We were lawless when we were "dragging the weak and beggarly elements of a dead covenant into a living covenant." Martin C | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11607 Registered: 12-2003 |
Martin, that is SO well said:
Thank you. You totally described my former existence...and that sentence explains the underlying problem with all who say they "know Jesus" yet insist on days and observances and spiritual "oughts". As Romans 14:7-9 explains, not one of us lives or dies for himself [when we are in the Lord], but we are the Lord's. In other words, we aren't even here for each other; we are here for the Lord, and when we live for Him, He glorifies Himself in our interactions with each other because we are submitting them to Him instead of trying to please the other. Amazing. Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 2099 Registered: 4-2000 |
Martinc, Thank you for your comments. Dr. MacArthur rightly refers to the Lord's day as the "New Covenant Day." The "law of Christ" is the law of love which fulfills the entire law. It is not some new list of morality or ethics because the ethics of the OT law are the same as those of the NT gospel. Moral laws do not become obsolete nor abrogated (as God's righteous standards) with successive covenants. Rather, they are unchanging throughout redemptive history (valid every nanosecond--24/7--and not merely once a year, season, month, or week). We gravely err when we attempt to somehow disregard OT moral laws. After all, nine of the Ten Commandments are restated several times in the NT. The fourth commandment is not reiterated in the NT because it is clearly a ceremonial or ritual law (see Lev. 23:1-3) given to the "sons of Israel." Thus, with nine of the ten directives of the Decalogue being restated several times in the NT, we have absolutely no authority to disregard them. Moreover, there are other moral laws in the Torah besides those found in the Decalogue. If we treat others with the same care that we have for ourselves, we will not violate any of God's laws regarding interpersonal relationships. In Romans 10:4, Paul states that belief in Christ as Lord and Savior ends the sinner's futile quest for righteousness through his imperfect attempts to save himself by efforts to obey the law. Even without the law, death was universal. All people from Adam to Moses were subject to death, not because of their sinful acts against the Mosaic Law (which they did not yet have), but because of their own inherited sinful nature. Humans are not sinners because they sin, but rather they sin because they are sinners. Believers, through faith in Jesus Christ, have come of age as God's children. Thus, they are not under the tutelage of the law (Romans 6:14), although they are still obligated to obey God's holy and unchanging righteous standards which are now given authority in the New Covenant (Romans 8:4;1 Cor. 9:21;Gal. 6:2). Faith in Christ alone releases people from bondage to law, whether the Mosaic Law, or the law written on the hearts of Gentiles (Romans 2:14-16). All Scripture (both OT and NT), also referred to as the oracles of God, "is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16 ESV). Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on August 25, 2010) | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 164 Registered: 9-2006 |
Hello Dennis, thanks for your thoughtful comments. You always try to be very precise in what you say, and I respect that, even though I object to your application of "antinomian" to some of the forum members. At any rate, I am worn out tonight, and will try to make a worthy response tomorrow. I don't want another debate, that has already been done here by others much better than I. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 6594 Registered: 9-2006 |
Some of what Dennis is saying, seems to me to be double sided. He seems to be saying that we should bring in the Ten Commandments, set them in the church, and go by them. Then he says we are not under the tutelage of the law. Then if we don't want to do what he says, we are lawless people, looking for a lawless church to worship in. All I see in what he writes about this is confusion. Now look at this statement: Humans are not sinners because they sin. Now does that make sense? Of course they are sinners because they sin, if they did not sin, they would not be charged as sinners. God is not unjust is he? I sort of get what he is saying, he thinks that we are advocating doing away with Gods morality, at least I guess he is. What he says is so confusing, its hard to wrap my mind around it even to debate it. To me it is just flip flopping all over the board. I think why its so confusing is that he is still trying to go by the letter, instead of walking in the spirit, he is still depending on his mind, instead of depending on the Holy Spirit. This goes back to the statement I made before, that many formers bring the same old tired methods out of Adventism, and try to apply those same methods to the new covenant. Adventist want to try to make sense of the letter, which is dead to them. It is dead to us, unless we are willing to walk in the Spirit. If we walk in the Spirit, we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. The thing is, the Ten Commandments were given as a guide, before the Holy Spirit was given. Now that the Holy Spirit has been given, and placed in our hearts, he is our guide, 24/7, if, and I say if, we walk in the Spirit. Further, he stated that he would NEVER leave us or forsake us. he said, I will send the comforter. The Holy Spirit is not a third God, or a lessor God, he is God. So its not that we are advocating lawlessness, nor looking for a lawless church to worship in, its that we depend on the Holy Spirit to guide us in our lives 24/7. Mental Gymnastics will not help you walk in Gods Holy Spirit, only submission to walk in the Holy Spirit will help you. So as we walk in the Spirit, we have newness of life. Adventist depend upon their mental gymnastics to put fourth their arguments as to why they must 'Obey the Sabbath'. They try to proof text the letter, that is dead to them, the whole time they do this, newness of life escapes them. Now Dennis here, he comes out of a hundred years of Adventism, (his words, a hundred years combined, I guess he is proud of it, I don't know why) and he accepts the fact that salvation is by faith alone in Jesus alone, but he can't get rid of the mental gymnastics, he is afraid to submit to a spirit he cannot see. He draws back in fear, and goes right back to depending on the same old mental gymnastics, so he settles for a doctrine that tongues ceased. He can be comfortable with this, because it enables him to walk in the letter, and not the Spirit. He sees someone like me as a spiritualist, and dangerous, a babbler who really ought not to exist at all. There are formers who speak in tongues, who are so afraid of being called a babbler, and will be shunned, that they will not come on this forum and admit they do speak in tongues. Me, I am not ashamed of the Holy Spirit, for it is by his means that I must walk in the Holy Spirit. I don't always walk in the spirit, and when I don't I begin to fulfill the lust of the flesh every single time. But I believe it is the desire for the members of this forum that, I know at least, to walk in Gods Holy Spirit, and newness of life, leaving the mental gymnastics behind, and depend on the Holy Spirit day by day 24/7. Walking in the spirit does not involve mental gymnastics, it is literally living on a higher plane than this world has to offer. I'm not angry with Dennis, I just feel sorry for him, and I hate the false teaching cult that does this to people in the first place. River | ||
| Yenc Registered user Username: Yenc Post Number: 341 Registered: 6-2008 |
River, Can you explain the Biblical rationale for "speaking in tongues" that no one in the listening audience can accurately understand, much less translate? Or the rationale for "speaking in tongues" where everyone in the audience is fluent in one language that the speaker is also able to speak fluently in the ordinary way? Or if any situation has been witnessed (by more than one reliable witness) where two different "translators" who could not have heard the other's translation both came up with the same message for the listeners, perhaps in writing where they couldn't know how the other had translated the "tongues"? And can you refer me to a Bible passage (preferably at least two passages, because doctrine is always supported by more than one isolated passage) that refers to a "heavenly language" spoken by people but not understood by other people? Mind you, I am not attacking you or any others who believe in or practice "speaking in tongues." But having learned to be cautious about doctrinal claims from any quarter, and having tried unsuccessfully by myself to find the above answers, I would greatly appreciate the Bible references supporting these particular things. Thanks! Yen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3359 Registered: 10-2004  |
The passage where the operation of tongues is explained in detail by the apostle Paul is 1 Corinthians 14. Jeremy | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 2100 Registered: 4-2000 |
Martinc, Antinomianism, which means being "anti-law," is a name for several views that have denied that God's moral laws in Scripture should directly control the Christian's life. For example, Spirit-centered antinomianism puts such trust in the Holy Spirit's inward prompting as to deny any need to be taught by the law how to live. Freedom from the law as a way of salvation is assumed to bring with it freedom from the law as a guide to conduct. In the first 150 years of the Reformation era this kind of antinomianism often threatened, and Paul's insistence that a truly spiritual person acknowledges the authority of God's Word through Christ's apostles suggests that the Spirit-obsessed Corinthian church was in the grip of the same mind-set. Still others believe in Christ-centered antinomianism which argues that God sees no sin in believers, because they are in Christ, who kept the law for them, therefore what they actually do makes no difference, provided they keep believing. Dispensational antinomianism holds that keeping the moral law is at no stage necessary for Christians, since we live under a dispensation of grace, not of law. On the other hand, situational antinomianism says that a motive and intention of love is all that God now requires of Christians, and the commands of the Decalogue and other ethical parts of Scripture, for all that they are ascribed to God directly, are mere rules of thumb for loving, rules that love may at any time disregard. There is also dualistic antinomianism that appears in Gnostic heresies against whom Jude and Peter wrote (Jude 4-19;2 Peter 2). This view sees salvation as for the soul only, and bodily behavior is irrelevant both to God's interest and to the soul's health, so one may behave riotously and it will not matter. Dialectical antinomianism denies God's direct command and affirms that the Bible's imperative statements trigger the Word of the Spirit, which when it comes may or may not correspond exactly to what is written. Oftentimes one may not embrace dogmatically merely one form of antinomianism, but rather a combination of several views. Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on August 26, 2010) | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 6597 Registered: 9-2006 |
And according to you, we are all lawless in some way or another, and only you and your wife ain't. That about wrap it up Fischer? Lord bless me and my wife, our son and his wife, us four and no more? Zat it Fischer? | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1288 Registered: 3-2009 |
Dennis and River, do me a favor. Don't start! Thanks. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 6598 Registered: 9-2006 |
Aw it ain't going anywhere Hec, its done, I think I about have the whole picture here. | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 165 Registered: 9-2006 |
Dennis and anybody reading, As a sinner saved by grace who still battles his flesh, the question of the law is deadly serious for me. In this lawless world, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask us to follow a few simple rules as guides for morality. I was raised under their shadow, and they appeal to my sense of law and order. Indulge me for a moment while I complain. In the past four years, the law has become terrifying to me. Increasingly it tells me that I am not in control, and that my most innocent wants are full of lust and coveting and murder. I used to think that I had rights to ensure my life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now I know that my wants and dreams are fatal. The law that promised me a better life is now the death of me. I want to obey the 10 rules and be a better person, but there is another principle at work in me that defeats me. My worst desires are aroused by those rules. Whenever I have tried to improve by following the law, I became more rebellious. I don’t understand myself, it must not be the real me. It’s like having a rotting corpse tied to my back as punishment, and there’s no escape. I see myself in Romans 7. The law is not to blame for our sinning, but it becomes involved in “killing” us because our flesh seizes the law for evil. Sin is the operating principle in our flesh that hates God’s authority. It uses the holy law to deceive us into thinking we’re clean and reverent and obedient, but we’re actually oozing with pestilence. Our indwelling sin is like that corpse, clinging to us and infecting everything we touch. Sin and law work together to create more flagrant disobedience, making sin appear what it is, exceedingly sinful. That’s what the good law is for, to expose our total depravity. This was a born-again man speaking from experience. Because the flesh uses the law to increase and expose sin, the law is not the means to make us more holy. Paul says we have died to the law, we are not under the law or bound to it. We belong to Another. How many different ways does Paul have to say that the law is not over us anymore, for us to let Him pry it from our cold, dead fingers? Are so-called Moral Laws exempt from this, are we still alive to them, under them, bound to them? Not according to Romans 7, for only a moral law can arouse our rebellioin. His examples of the law are from the 10 commandments—adultery and coveting. Scripture makes no such artificial dividing of the law into moral, civil, ceremonial, what have you. This is manmade. Jesus said not the smallest part of the law can be removed. Likewise, no part of the law can be a means to sanctification, for it does not produce life or righteousness. If you want to be under any part of the law, you are under all of it, and under its shadow. As long as we think that holiness is following rules, we miss the radical implications of the Great Commandment. Here’s John Piper writing about what sin is: “How sin gets defined inevitably is related to how God is defined. If God is defined merely as one who commands, then sin is not doing what he says. But if we conceive of God as the One who is to be the object of our delight and trust, then sin is not delighting in God. Sin is preferring the glory of created things to the glory of our creator.” Martin C |
