| Author | Message | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1216 Registered: 5-2007 |
The greatest obstacle I have faced these recent years is trying to verify what our standing to the law is. Our current responsibility towards the law, especially the 10 on the tablets of stone. In attempting to move forward in understanding, it is vital that the confusion be cleared. If that is not possible, I shall always be tossed back and forth. I have mostly been hung up and focusing on what the scriptures "do not say" in trying to fill in the missing links. Anoter problem is, I do not want to discard or quaruntine the Old Testament. Yet, if you lock down inside the OT , you lose the whole picture of the plan of salvation. The whole matter comes down to the covenants, what they mean, how we are to relate to them. Even this morning, I wake up, dreading another Saturday/Sabbath tension. Wanting to settle this, to be free or accept an obligation to it. Prayerfully, I read this morning from Romans and Galatians. Rom 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. This one passage has held the chains to law more than any other. So I step back, I look again, How can this whole teaching of Romans be about that one passage? It's not ! The problem with Paul's writing style is that his implications or sub themes are not always evident. So I started looking again for clear keys. 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. J: SDA say, the law defines sin. No, it points out sin. Makes it evident to the lawless mind. Because in another verse he says: 5:13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. J: Ok they have it half right. Not accounted as chargeable where no law is. But it does not mean sin cannot occur outside the written law. This seems important to me because I think it points to the the bigger picture. The law cannot get us to where we need to be Spiritually. 3:28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. J: Ok , if that is so, why are we insisting that the written law is still fully binding? Paul seems to write in circles, but clearly keeps coming back to faith rather than works. I cannot dismiss that fact. 6:14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. J: Yes, spin it however you will. When you read the whole of it. I am suspecting that we are not under the obligation of the written law of the old covenant. 7:6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. J: Then he touches on the clay. 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. J: This scares me. makes me wonder if am not called, not chosen, not eligible. But a little further on I read: 10:2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. J: See a warning. Knowledge is vital. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. J: If by the law , then by works. How then do we establish the law? 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. J: I do not pretend to understand this even close to what is treasured here. At minimum, the question of law and works means wandering lost of finding the only real way. Grace. We are free. I think that means the written law. If a church starts teaching 10 C ammended models, that is invaribly a slippery slope that leads to confusion and works. One of the problems I have run into looking for a church. In Galatians, 5:7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. J: If by works, clay, if by faith, called? The truth? The truth was the gospel of grace until someone brought works back into it. 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. J: Single minded conclusion. Grace. 13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[ 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. J: By the Spirit , in love, we are carried beyond the law. I cannot say that I am free from the confusing law and the Sabbath. Hopefully, I am closer to to finding a way to peace. If am am free from obligation to the written law, then I am free from condemnation. Grace takes us where the law could not. I believe God wants more "for" us than from us. Permission to heal.......... | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2016 Registered: 7-2007 |
Hi Jim; yes, we establish the law because it's holy, perfect and good; but we cannot keep it. God doesn't hold it between us, saying, "you have to keep this in order to become or remain My child." All it does is point out sin. When a person is saved, they "HAVE BEEN saved." Ephesians 2:8. They don't go back and forth; saved, lost, saved, lost - like the Seventh-day Adventist and Roman Catholic churches teach. When a person is saved, they "have eternal life." 1st John 5:13. All their sins "are forgiven." 1st John 2:12. (Notice that John doesn't say "certain sins" or "if you" and he didn't say "only past sins" either, when he wrote that. By the time the believers received his letter, their sins were still forgiven. Notice, that a believer's fruits are "the fruit of the Spirit," Jim. They aren't our fruits. And our salvation isn't dependent on them either, because believers "HAVE BEEN saved," the moment they believe. See also Ephesians 1:13,14. | ||
| Jonvil Registered user Username: Jonvil Post Number: 621 Registered: 4-2007 |
Jim, take a gander at this LINK, I've not read it in depth but appears to cover the basics in plain English John | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 834 Registered: 8-2008 |
Insert the word Torah, which is, in context, the Hebrew word for Law. It includes the first five books of the OT. The uninspired chapter and verse markings try to indicate a break in chapters after Romans 3:31. In reality, the break should come after 3:30. By indicating Abraham was justified by faith and not by the works of the Law, Paul is demonstrating that justification by faith (apart from doing the comands of the Torah) actually fulfills what the Torah--"the Law"--tells us about Abraham. Therefore, man has always been justified by faith, apart from the works of the Law, and the Law was only a paranthetical covenant that began after the Eternal Covenant with Abraham, and ended at the Cross, while the Abrahamic covenant was fully ratified by Jesus' blood and therefore made permanent and fully in operation. Paul is not saying we are still governed by the commands of the Torah, but that the narrative portions of the Torah demands that justification comes only by faith. | ||
| Nowhitehats Registered user Username: Nowhitehats Post Number: 37 Registered: 4-2010 |
I would ask this question: "What is it that we are to hold up about the law (Mosaic, Old Covenant, 10 commandments)" Are we being instructed to hold up the imperative of trying to keep it or obey it? Or, are we holding up what Paul mentions is the true meaning and purpose of the law? "[19] Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. [20] For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:19-20 ESV) To me, this seems critical in clearing up the the potential confusion in seeing Paul as bipolar. We "uphold" that "through the law comes a knowledge of sin". | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 975 Registered: 7-2008  |
A Question to ponder.... If the knowledge of sin came thru the Law....Could we conclude that God(the Lawgiver)is the source of sin? Remember now..its just a question to ponder...not a statement of proven fact. So dont shoot the Animal...ok?...lol lol >>>Animal..a moment of reflection. | ||
| Kelleigh Registered user Username: Kelleigh Post Number: 88 Registered: 7-2011 |
No Animal. Beat drums, beat drums. :-) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12812 Registered: 12-2003  |
Animal, I understand what you are asking. God is sovereign over all things, even over evil. Everything is ultimately for the purpose of His glory. The knowledge of sin that comes through the law is not the same thing as the law causing sin. Sin is in people. We are born dead in sin, by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3). Sin is in us. But without the law, people lacked an awareness of sin. So the law, which outlined the skeleton of moral behavior, was "weakened by sinful flesh"...in other words, the moral "rightness" of the law was not strong enough to hold anyone's toes to the moral line. The sin in the flesh that we are all born with--our naturally dead spirits--causes us to live by the flesh, not by the Spirit. So the law made people aware of sin by being a mirror for people. They could see what God's will was, and suddenly they realized they were doing the opposite of God's will. And, like all of us, the minute they realized something was forbidden, they thought about it all the more...and then did it. So God didn't cause sin; sin was Adam's fault and was already there. God's purpose was to cause sin to increase and to become more visible so people would realize they were hopeless and helpless—depraved—and that they needed Outside Help. God is sovereign over sin and evil, and He limits it and also, as in the case of Pharaoh, "cements" it in places where people are unrepentant in order to demonstrate His own power over it and His sovereign work to rescue mankind. Colleen | ||
| Thegoldenway Registered user Username: Thegoldenway Post Number: 61 Registered: 5-2011 |
So is sin a "state of being"....like being human? At this point I realize that sin is way more than just behavior. I know that sins like stealing, adultery, coveting etc. are symptoms of the sin. So would the 10 commandments be like a medical manual detailing symptoms in order to diagnosis the disease? lynn | ||
| Nowhitehats Registered user Username: Nowhitehats Post Number: 38 Registered: 4-2010 |
JIM02 Earlier this summer I visited a friend who has been out of the SDA Church for a couple years now. We talked a lot about the covenants - old and new. There was one passage from Hebrews that he shared with me that he said nailed down the issue of whether the OC, Mosaic Law, 10 Commandments, Sabbath where obligatory or if indeed they have been replaced by the new. For the sake of clarity, I would like to borrow a portion of Phil Harris’ commentary and review of the "Worship in the Psalms" Sabbath School Lesson as it quotes this passage from Hebrews. I couldn’t get over how clear this passage is in defining which covenant the 10 commandments belonged under. More importantly, pay attention to the words being used by the author in describing the old covenant, words such as old, aging and disappear. Here it is:
I highly recommend reading the full commentary found here: http://www.biblestudiesforadventists.com/2011/quarter3/week7/sabbathschool2.html | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12817 Registered: 12-2003 |
That is a great quote from Phil's commentary, Nowhitehats. I want to piggy-back on your recommendation to read the whole thing. The weekly SS Commentaries at www.biblestudiesforadventists.com are in-depth and really good. I recommend them as great reading. Lynn, read Ephesians 2. Sin, ever since Adam, is our natural condition. We are born dead in sin, "by nature children of wrath" (v. 3). Sin began when Adam and Eve did not trust God's word to them and Eve engaged in a discussion of God's word with the serpent instead of obeying and trusting it. Adam sinned by deliberately eating the forbidden fruit; he was not deceived; he ate with his eyes wide open. God had told him that if they sinned, they would die that day—and they did. Adventism taught us that they "began to die", but that would make God a liar. They died. Their spirits died and became disconnected from the life of God. That's why they suddenly knew shame and hid. They knew they were different; their connection with God and their connection to Life was gone. Their bodies also died eventually, but their spirits died that day. It is that spiritual death that is our legacy from Adam. We are born into the domain of darkness, and when we trust Jesus God transfers us from the domain of darkness into the kingdom of His beloved Son (Col 1:13). This transfer takes us from death to life (John 5:24). Our natural state is "sinner". Spirits dead in sin are our legacy from Adam. We are made alive only in the Lord Jesus. Salvation is not law-keeping, nor is it demonstrated by law-keeping. It is a new birth, the presence of the life of Jesus in us giving us new hearts, new desires, new motives, new position, new power. When we are born again, sin is dead in us because we are alive! Now we have the ability to choose to live by the Spirit instead of by the flesh (as per Romans 8). It's amazing! Colleen | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1219 Registered: 5-2007 |
"I will write My Laws upon their hearts" This is essentially all I know of the new covenant from teh Old Testament. The Apostle Paul makes more commentary on it, but even He does not spell out the covennant. Sometimes, it seems to me that the new covenant is the Gospel. Or the Gospel is the NC. Yet , it is not defined. The terms are so spread out and sketchy, that it is possible to conclude that the law as described in the ten are not actually deleted , but the same laws are now written upon the heart. I have no problem regarding the sacrificial system. That part is obvious. But Revelation says "the commandments of God" Spin , spin, spin. Pick your definition. When I try to embrace , Live by The Spirit. Paul lists the fruits or examples of that approach and I do get that. But I fail to understand how choosing to live by The Spirit makes all the sins go away. It is not a light switch in reality. By faith , I may depend upon the redemption of Christ, but aspiring to live by the Spirit does not make me free from sin. It seems to say, if you choose to subscribe to living by the Spirit, confessing it as your intent, it overrides actual output in behaviour. Thus the whole list of those who would not inherit the kingdom of heaven , get a pass. If your live by the flesh you die. Unless you say that you are living by The Spirit. There is not enough traction in this without discipline and that too is a confusion. I do not smoke. But if I did. A typical addiction and sin. Now I claim to live by The Spirit. Am I saved, even if I never quit, but simply keep saying I would like to, but I can't. Or if I am given to drink, and I am an alcoholic. Can I be saved even though I am out of control, but sure would like to be sober? What is the point of saying by the flesh you die, or thsi list of people are excluded, if you simply claim , by The Spirit and hope for the best? Then there is , well if you still have these issues, then you were never really saved, Really ???? So in our arrogance we compare our sins as not so bad, so we must be doing ok? Or do we see our sins (SDA model) and feel lost unless we cleanse ourselves from ALL known sin. That trap is just as mind boggling. My point in a nutshell. So far, the attempts to define what the terms of salvation are and what God expects from us defy answers. You cannot get the pieces to come together in either approach because it forces you to discount the opposite camps lucid points. They have to merge because the points continue to be made supporting both the law and grace in the New Testamnet. We establish the law means we support the law, we validate it, affirm it, concur. Any other wording is to abandon and undermine the law. Therefor there is no condemnation for those in Christ. Yes , this means something to me. It means that it is understood that I cannot render perfection or payment to the law. But I am not so sure it allows for continued sin regradless of the pretense. The suggestion of all sin past present and future is already forgiven, and that assures once saved always saved. If that is so , why can we be grafted back out? Can anyone quote NT examples where known active sin is tolerated and expressed as covered. If the law points out sin, Identifies it. Then how do we conclude the Sabbath is no longer a sin to violate it? We make an assumption in saying the covenant is expired and thus all the law is gone with it. I read that myself. But I am not sure that is included to mean that the law is erased. If we logically claim that the 9 are reinstated, seems 90% likely that 100% is intact. "The commandments of God" You see , I have struggled for years to "escape" the old covenant Law, the Sabbath and all that goes with it. Yet, I do not find enough clarity to walk away from the 10C even though I have tried a thousand times. There is no peace. People exclaim in joy the wonderful news. Either that is to reenforce their feelings or they really do get it. People like me , we don't get it, or we sense something does not fit and no amount of feelings and repeating positive theorys will change it. If I try to go with the flow, and still there is no conviction. Or doubts remain. What then? If I go back to SDA and peace returns, am I saved or lost? Believing a deception or embracing the truth as God has given to my limited understanding. Jim02 | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12829 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jim, try reading John 3. All of it. Read it every day for a month. It is Jesus' own words about who is saved and what it means to belong to God. The essence of this question isn't physical; it's the spirit. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (v. 5). When we are born again, "sin" is dead in us because our spirits now have the life of God. We are born again, and the Holy Spirit resides in us. But we still live in mortal flesh. It's a miracle; our Creator indwells our sinful bodies and makes our own spirits come alive! Our spirits are alive, but our bodies are still tempted to sin. But now, acts of sin are not expressions of our true nature, which has passed from death to life. Now sins express our still-mortal flesh—but not the essential "us". This is the problem Paul discusses in Romans 6 and 7. Sins we commit as born again people are not acts of death. They are acts of distrust or disobedience, but God does not remove His Spirit from us when we commit sins. We do not pass out of life into death. But we impair our communion with God. But the Spirit in us convicts us when we sin—that's a fact we can count on—and He prompts us to confess and to surrender to the Lord Jesus that part of our mind or heart that had been rebellious or troubled. Once we have been made alive, God disciplines us as we come face to face with our tendencies to sin and our temptations. He shows us how we are not trusting Him, and He works in us to surrender our control and self-protection to Him, allowing Him to take care of us. We give up our rights to defend ourselves and allow Him to hold us. 1 Cor 3:10-17 describes the fact that born-again, saved people can do works in the flesh that are not based on the foundation of the Lord Jesus, and when we meet Jesus, these works will be burned up, although the person himself will be saved as one escaping through the flames. Being saved, Jim, is not about "obedience". The work of God is to believe in the One He sent. When we place our faith in Him, trusting Him to have paid fully for our sin, we receive His Spirit. This Life is eternal, and now our eternal God shows us gradually the areas of our life that we need to bring into submission to Him. He reveals to us step-by-step, day-by-day, the ways we do not trust Him, and He leads us to trust. The harder we try to "get it right", the more He will confront us with our inability to please Him. We are not saved by our behavior or obedience, and we are not lost by our behavior or disobedience. We are saved by believing and trusting Christ and being born of the Spirit. Obedience is a fruit of being saved, not a contributor to it. Read John 3, Jim. The role of the law in pointing out sin has also been fulfilled in Jesus. Every function of the law was fulfilled in Jesus. Now it is the Spirit who convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 15:5-15). Every word of Scripture, including the law, is a revelation of God, but it is not our guide to good behavior when we are born again. Scripture points us to Jesus, and as we internalize Scripture and embrace the Lord Jesus, the Holy Spirit does His work in us. We can give up trying to understand and just trust Him. He has promised to save everyone who calls on His name, and His promises are not conditional. He is faithful. We just have to trust Him. Colleen | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1220 Registered: 5-2007 |
Hello Colleen, Do you mean John Chapter 3 , or 3 John, the 3rd Epistle of John? Folks , please forgive my rant. Though sincere, I realize I am not helping others. Jim | ||
| Kelleigh Registered user Username: Kelleigh Post Number: 106 Registered: 7-2011  |
Hi Jim, I think Colleen means the Gospel of John. Chapter three contains Jesus' interview with Nicodemus where the concept of new birth is discussed. Last night I read an article by Dale Ratzlaff on the undivided law of the Bible. I found it quite helpful http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2010/4/undividedlaw.html I have a question I need some help with too! I am learning that the concept of a separate 'moral' and 'ceremonial' law is not Biblical. There is just one law in the OT. I can see that the so called 'ceremonial laws' we referred to in adventism actually contain a lot of moral laws and I can see that the 4th Commandment of the ten, is a ceremonial/ritual law pointing to Christ. Wondering, however, why the 10 Commandments were set apart and placed in the Ark of the Covenant and the rest of the law (including another copy the 10 commandments) were written on a scroll placed separately beside the Ark. It appears to the lay reader that there are two laws? Can anyone help? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12833 Registered: 12-2003 |
Kelleigh, the Ten Commandments are the entire law in abstract. Moses calls them "the words of the covenant". Exodus 34:28, for example, says this:
Have you read research reports? They begin with an abstract that summarizes the essence of the study--an overview statement of the point and contents. Then the body of the report details the methods and process of the research and outlines the results. The Mosaic covenant was similar. The Ten Commandments were the overview, the abstract that outlines the bare bones of the covenant. The rest of the 613 laws were to explain in detail how Israel was to live that covenant. The 10 Commandments were the actual words of the covenant and represented God's agreement and terms with Israel. The "book of the law" was the expanded application. They explained, for example, not only that one should not steal (Commandment number 9) but told what to do if a person did steal and gave different punishments for different things taken: cattle, accidental death of a neighbors animal, etc. The rest of the laws were not separate laws altogether; they explained how the 10 would look in community life, including how Israel would live as God's people having no gods before Him and honoring Him, honoring His covenant, respecting each other and being truthful and loyal. Colleen | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12834 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jim, I mean the gospel of John, as Kelleigh pointed out. Colleen | ||
| Pnoga Registered user Username: Pnoga Post Number: 468 Registered: 1-2007  |
Animal "A Question to ponder.... If the knowledge of sin came thru the Law....Could we conclude that God(the Lawgiver)is the source of sin? Remember now..its just a question to ponder...not a statement of proven fact. So dont shoot the Animal...ok?...lol lol " I would up that question a level. If God knowing all, past, present and future, created man knowing he would sin, then was sin there before man? How about Satan, again God created Satan knowing that he would sin. So is sin there before Satan, or at least the knowledge of it, just enacted with satan and man? Jesus said if you even think the thought, it is sin. In Isaiah 45:5-7 God states He creates Good and disaster. But according to the Bible sin starts with Adam, so as far as the bible is concerned that is sin being in relationship between God and man. Anyway just churning the waters Paul | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 977 Registered: 7-2008 |
Paul.... Are you trying to get Animal in trouble??...LOL LOL As I began my Journey as a new christian over 30 yrs ago, I always wondered why God created Lucifer if He knew Lucifer would eventually sin. Such a question still puzzles me even today. Oh well..guess I will crawl back to my cave and continue to ponder more mysteries...sigh. Animal | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1221 Registered: 5-2007 |
At the risk of sounding SDA. I think that since God wanted to establish free will. He had to allow for the possibility of sin. On one hand He already knows who will sin, who will be saved etc. But on another tact, God pleas with us to turn from our course of sin and be saved. If we are pre known pre destined to sin or be lost or saved, why bother with the in between phase. Secondly, why does God wait for a determined number of Souls to be brought in before He closes this age and comes back for us? Are we indeed a stage for the universe? Or a historical record of experienece to prove a point? In all this, what is to prevent another fall? What will prevent an errant thought of sin, much less the smallest misdeed? The SDA teach that the law will be maintained in the new world. If the new covenant the law has been done away with. Is the law permanently done away? Will we have a new testing boundry? Another forbidden tree? Sin existed before the law. It can certainly exist without it as well. |
