| Author | Message | ||
| jtree |
I am starting this conversation. These are things being "pointed" out from that NG to me here. The NG I'm referring to is called.. news://news.earthlink.net/alt.religion.christian.adventist This is where I'm under heavy attack by the opposition to New Testiment Christianity. I wrote>I do know how Adventist deal with Scripture, they twist it to thier liking. This is the reply I got... "You mean like sunday worshipers who take one text where the apostles broke bread on the first day of the week and paul preached until midnight and turn that one line of scripture into the sole source for their theology for sunday worship? You told me in another thread that you had studied with the adventist longer than I had after I told you I searched and studied for a long while before becoming an Adventist. You stated that you studied with Adventist pastors for two years while you wife went to a Korean Adventist church "(If you call what they do worship)" that quote was from your post. Well you were wrong about me. I studied with the Adventist for over 20 years along with other denoiminations. I attended a Catholic University for 2 years taking their mandatory philosophy and theology classes, I studied with the Mormons several times a week for about 3 years, the Church of Christ, United Church of Christ, Methodist, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and numerous others including some who called themselves "new testament christians". But kept returning to the Adventists. Of all of the denominations I stuided, I found the Adventist are the only group who do not base their theology on one or two lines of scripture. The are the only ones who take bible references in context not only to other bible scripture but to the times they were written as well. They were the only ones who proved their day of worship based upon bibe text and not some twisted logic. If anyone twists scripture to meet their needs it is those who attempt to justify their sunday worship for which there is NO biblical support. There is no commandment stated or implied to change the day of worship to sunday. Not to mention other doctrines. If anyone here has not completely studied the Adventist beliefs and their interpretation of the scriptures it is you. It also appears to me based on your posts you went into the study with the Adventist with preconceived notions and maybe even an agenda of your own instead of an honest desire for knowledge. You apparently did not listen or study with an open heart or mind. It appears you gained enough knowledge to twist and turn what adventist believe into something they do not believe. Your understanding of why Adventist worship on the Sabbath is one of those that you twist and turn to meet your needs placing just enough Adventist belief in your statement to make it appear to be true. No matter how many Adventist tell you that we do not believe that our salvation is based soley upon worshiping on the Sabbath, that we do it out of love for our Savior and the only thing that saves any of is us our belief in Christ as our Lord and Savior you insist on spreading falsehoods about our belifes. Well, Satan did the same thing in the garden with Eve. He sprinkled just enough truth to make the lie seem reasonable and true when it was still a lie. Am I saying you are Satan? No my friend I am not, I am saying you are misguided in your attacks on the Adventists and their beliefs. Your statements have some truth in them but just enough to make them reasonable and decieve those who may be less grounded in the Faith. It will be unfortunate if some believe your half truths and are mislead, not only for them but for you as well. I am sure I'll get a few flames from you on this and I fully expect them but I don't know how else to tell you that you are wrong about us and our beliefs." | ||
| jtree |
Here is another one not necessarily taused at me..but at the group. "Q: Didn't Jesus come to do away with the ten commandments and establish a new commandment of love? What about Matthew 22:37-40, "Love God with all your heart and all your neighbors as yourself?" Isn't love to God and our neighbors all Jesus requires? After all, these are the new commandments. A: It may surprise you to discover that Jesus was summarizing the Law as given in the Old Testament. Deut. 6:5 declares, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart." Lev. 19:18 adds, "Love your neighbor as yourself." The God of the Old Testament was a God of everlasting love (Jer. 31:3). In Matt. 22:40, Jesus declared, "On these two commands (love God and fellow man) hang all the laws and the prophets." The first four commandments reveal how human beings tangibly demonstrate their love to their God. The last six commandments show how they demonstrate their love to their fellow man. Jesus "did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it" (Matt. 5:17). He revealed how to lovingly keep the Law. He came to magnify the meaning of the Law (Isa. 42:21). Jesus reveals how love is the fulfilling of the Law (Rom. 13:10). He adds "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Q: Does Paul teach that Christians saved by faith do not have to keep the Law? A: Paul teaches that Christians are saved not by faith, but by grace through faith. Faith is the hand that takes the salvation freely offered by Jesus. Faith does not lead to disobedience, but to obedience. Paul states in no uncertain terms "Do we then make void the Law through faith, God forbid" (Rom. 3:31). Romans 6:1, 14, 15 adds, "Shall we sin (break the law) so grace may abound? God forbid!" Q: Is it true that in the Old Testament people were saved by keeping the Law while in the New Testament, salvation is by grace? A: In both the Old and New Testaments, salvation is by grace through faith. God does not have two methods of salvation. Titus 2:11 affirms, "For the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men." In the Old Testament men and women were saved by Christ that was to come. Each lamb sacrificed pointed forward to the coming of the Messiah (Gen. 3:21, Gen. 22:9-13). In the New Testament, men and women are saved by Christ who has come. In one instance faith looked forward to the cross; in the other instance faith looked backward to the cross. Jesus is the only means of salvation (Acts 4:12). Q: Since we are under the New Covenant, is it really necessary to keep God's Law? A: The New Covenant is actually older than the Old Covenant. It was given by God Himself in the Garden of Eden when He promised that the Messiah would come to break the deadly hold of Satan upon the human race. The New Covenant contains the promise of redemption from sin through Jesus Christ. He saves us! He writes the principles of the Law in our hearts. Love becomes the motivation for obedience. There is a new power in the life (Heb. 8:10, Ezek. 36:26, Ps. 40:8). Under the Old Covenant, Israel promised to obey God's commandments in their own strength. They declared, "all that God says we will do" (Ex. 19:8; 24:3, 7). All attempts at external conformity to God's Law lead to frustrated defeat, The Law which we cannot keep in our own strength condemns us (Rom. 3:23, 6:23). Under the New Covenant, we belong to a new master--Jesus Christ. We have a new heart and a new standing before God (John 1:12, 2 Cor. 5:17, Rom. 8:1)." | ||
| jtree |
This one is directed right toward me. "Dear Jesuit DaMao ((THIS IS ME IN THE NG)), How does all these Hitleristic statements about what the Gospel plainly teaches coincide with your Jesuit tactic of telling everyone that they are free to have their opinions and that no one should lord their views over on anyone else? Was this forum created for debate as usually claimed? or was it made for us to find a new substitute to Jesus Christ in your domain? You have laid out a host of accusations against the Adventist Church and you always present those accusations in an air that they cannot be challenged or controverted. When we post our rebuttals you post in to make sure that we attach to all our messages your supposed bulls and decretals that these are our interpretations only. I therefore don't see what problem you have with me calling you a despot or a Jesuit, but I see the need for you discontinuing all association with your papal order. I will continue to be called a legalist and I will not mind. Now please, brace yourself to be constantly identified as a worker for the Papacy, for that identification matches your works and tactics and that identification will leave once your works and tactics leave." He is so funny | ||
| jtree |
If one needs assistance to get to the NewsGroups. Dejanews is one, it is a web based newsgroup. http://www.dejanews.com | ||
| jtree |
Bruce H. I "borrowed" a couple of your post's they are very much what I believe so no harm, (I hope). " simsworks@my-deja.com wrote: In article , jtree_98@yahoo.com wrote: > 2 Timothy 4:3-5 > > "For the time will come when men will not put up with SOUND DOCTRINE. > Instead, to SUIT THEIR OWN DESIRES, they will gather around them a great > number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will > TURN AWAY FROM TRUTH and turn aside to myths." > We become saved at one event. When you accept the Gospel, when you decide that there is no way you yourself can be saved. John 12:24 24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.. Notice that if it (or you) dies it produces much grain. What we die to is the Law (Rom 7:4), Then Jesus Christ gives us Life through the Holy Spirit, this is called being Born again. When this event happens you become His Sheep, you are given a new heart or have your heart circumcised, you become a child of God. Eph 1:13-14 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. 2 Cor 1:22 22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee. Notice that the Holy Spirit is your GUARANTEE, notice that it is when you believe. Not all people are his, not all sheep are his. only those who have the indwelling Holy Spirit. Rom 8:9 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. So if the Holy Spirit does not dwell in you, you are not a son of God, a saint, you are of the flesh or the world. Notice that Jesus does not pray for the world but only for those who are his. John 17:9-11 9 "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 "And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 ¸ "Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Notice That if you are his, then he has prayed to the Father to keep you, do you think the Father can do that, do you believe? John 10:28-30 28 "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. 30 "I and My Father are one." So do you think sombody can snatch you out of God1s hand do you believe? By the way when you become one of his sheep, who is responsible for keeping the herd together, is the sheep to find the shepherd, or the shepherd to find the sheep? Do you believe? Heb 10:14 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. So are you perfect forever THOSE WHO ARE BEING SANCTIFIED, do you believe? John 14:16-17 16 "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- 17 "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. So the Holy Spirit will dwell in you forever. Do you believe? John 3:5-7 5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be born again.' So first we are born of the Flesh with the breaking of our mother water, this is to be born of water, but we must also be born of the Spirit, this is when we are sealed by the Holy Spirit,this is when we ENTER INTO HIS REST. Do you believe? 1 John 2:27 27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. So the Holy Spirit not only gives us life he also teaches us. Why would we need Ellen White when I have the Holy Spirit. Do you believe? 1 John 5:11-13 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. Do you have the son. Do you believe? EPH 2:18-19 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. 19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, We have access through the Holy Spirit and are thus sons of God. Do you believe. Adventist will tell you, but you need to do works. John 6:28-29 28 ¸ Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." So do you believe? Adventist will tell you, you have to overcome. Rev 3:5 5 "He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. 1 John 5:5 5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? Can you overcome, will you believe? Yes I know that I am saved and I believe that nobody can take me away from him. PRAISE GOD!!!!!!! " and here is the reply I just recieved by it. In next message | ||
| jtree |
"> We become saved at one event. When you accept the Gospel, when you decide > that there is no way you > yourself can be saved. Can you show the verse that explains salvation this way? It'd be nice if it were like that; but, I've found none that say that. > John 12:24 24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, > unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and > dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it > produces much grain.. > > Notice that if it (or you) dies it produces much grain. What we die to is > the Law (Rom 7:4), Then Jesus > Christ gives us Life through the Holy Spirit, this is called being Born > again. When this event happens you become His Sheep, you are given a new > heart or have your heart circumcised, you become a child of God. Me thinks you have this skewed somewhat. It is to our old nature that we die to, not to the law, for the law is the perfect law of God. It is neither done away with; nor is to be disrespected. Thus, as we die to our old nature, we are raised in newness of life, being a new creature, capable of obedience to the Holy Spirit, having him live within us, if we be his. > Eph 1:13-14 13 In Him you also trusted, after > you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your > salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were > sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, > 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until > the redemption of the purchased possession, to the > praise of His glory. Notice, "you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise" But, who is so sealed? Is it not those who labour for the meat that endures to eternal life? (John 6:27) So, those who do not so labour are not of those who are sealed. And if not sealed, then they have no claim on the guarantee. > 2 Cor 1:22 22 who also has sealed us and given us > the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee. > Notice that the Holy Spirit is your GUARANTEE, > notice that it is when you believe. > Not all people are his, not all sheep are his. > only those who have the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is true, so why do people who say as you do, that they need not follow the leading of the Spirit that dwells within you? (Rom. 8:1-14) > Rom 8:9 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the > Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. > Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, > he is not His. It is interesting that you lift a verse right out of the very set of verses that denounce your doctrine for what it is. Notice in the very verse you attempt to use for your own purpose, it says "you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if the Spirit dwells in you." In the following verses it says " 12. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." How then does Having the Spirit within you exempt you from the leading of that Spirit? And if not exempted, then how can you claim you need not be led by that Holy Spirit within you? And if you acknowledge his leading as necessary for life, then how can you claim you need not obey the Christ? > So if the Holy Spirit does not dwell in you, you are not a son of God, a > saint, you are of the flesh or the world. Notice that Jesus does not pray > for the world but only for those who are his. And you think that just because you believed on the name of Jesus that you are sealed; and therefore his? How then can you claim that you can still do the fleshly things of this world; and still be his? And if not his, then how can you be saved? > John 17:9-11 9 "I pray for them. I do not pray > for the world but for those whom You have given > Me, for they are Yours. > 10 "And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, > and I am glorified in them. > 11 ¸ "Now I am no longer in the world, but these > are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, > keep through Your name those whom You have given > Me, that they may be one as We are. > > Notice That if you are his, then he has prayed to the Father to keep you, > do you think the Father > can do that, do you believe? Your question overreaches your understanding of the verse. For, as I mentioned above, you presume yourself to be in that august group. Yet, as I mentioned above, John 6:27 says it is those who labour for the meat that endures unto eternal life that will be sealed with the Holy Spirit. Now, the verse above is very like John 6:37-41; but it is, in turn, prefaced by John 6:27, which shows who they are that are given by the Father to the Son. > John 10:28-30 28 "And I give them eternal life, > and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone > snatch them out of My hand. > 29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is > greater than all; and no one is able to snatch > them out of My Father's hand. > 30 "I and My Father are one." > > So do you think sombody can snatch you out of God1s hand do you believe? Your question is insulting. You may not mean it such; and I don't say that to pick a fight. But, consider the verse just preceding. John 10:27 27. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: Now, again, you presume yourself to be of his sheep; but then you deny that you must follow him as John 10:27 says. For you demonstrate it here: > By the way when you become one of his sheep, who is responsible for keeping > the herd together, is > the sheep to find the shepherd, or the shepherd to find the sheep? Do you > believe? Again, if I weren't aware of your lack of insight, your question would be insulting. As it is, it is merely an embarrassment to you. Verse 27 shows that we have a responsibility to follow the sheperd. It also shows you haven't herded any sheep, either. For, they follow. The herder is not running around like a chicken with his head cut off. He stays put until ready to move; and simply travels from one pastor to the other; and they follow him. If one gets lost, it is his responsibility to find it. But, he doesn't go around "herding" them constantly. Most sheperds will bell a ewe; and she will "lead" them, by the sound of the bell; and she instead will follow the sheperd for she knows his ways. In the same way, we more read sheep should lead others to him, knowing his ways. > Heb 10:14 14 For by one offering He has perfected > forever those who are being sanctified. > > So are you perfect forever THOSE WHO ARE BEING SANCTIFIED, do you believe? Hebrews 10:14 14. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. The correct verbage is sanctified; not being sanctified. This is proven by verse 29 of the same chapter. 29. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? Was, not is being. By the way, this verse proves your doctrine wrong, since only a Christian could have been sanctified by the blood. Only a Christian could do despite to the Spirit of grace, for only Christians have received grace. > John 14:16-17 16 "And I will pray the Father, and > He will give you another Helper, that He may abide > with you forever-- > 17 "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot > receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows > Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and > will be in you. > > So the Holy Spirit will dwell in you forever. Do you believe? I believe this. Do you believe it? Can you, with straight face, continue to misinterpret these verses as you do; and yet read this? Do you believe in the Christ; or do you believe in your own interpretations? Rom. 8:4-14 4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 12. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. > John 3:5-7 5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I > say to you, unless one is born of water and the > Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. > 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and > that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. > 7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be > born again.' > > So first we are born of the Flesh with the breaking of our mother water, > this is to be born of water, but we must also be born of the Spirit, this > is when we are sealed by the Holy Spirit,this is when we ENTER INTO HIS > REST. Do you believe? This is a joke. Where has it said that being born of water is the embryonic fluid surrounding a child before birth? It says water. It means water. That means baptism. Such is said in Acts. 2:38-9. Peter also said it in 1 Peter 3:21 when he said your baptism saves you. It is also shown when Paul said in Romans 6:1-8 1. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2. God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7. For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: This clearly shows that John 3 means being born of Water and of Spirit is the act of faith; and the act of confession as mentioned in Rom. 10:9-11. 9. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Notice verse 11, is used by people like you to say that it is by faith alone. But, the preceding verses show it is by both confession and by faith that we are saved. Thus, it is the combination of good works and that of faith that saves; and not by faith alone. Thus, this agrees with John 3 wherein he says we need be born of water and of Spirit. Show me anywhere in the bible that it says water in John 3 means embryonic fluid. > 1 John 2:27 27 But the anointing which you have > received from Him abides in you, and you do not > need that anyone teach you; but as the same > anointing teaches you concerning all things, and > is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has > taught you, you will abide in Him. > So the Holy Spirit not only gives us life he also teaches us. Why would we > need Ellen White when I have the Holy Spirit. > Do you believe? Further, you quote 1 John 2:27; but you ignore the very verses following? 1 John 2:28-29 28. And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. 29. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. So that you see that to those that have the Holy Spirit within them, he said "abide in him that...we may have confidence, and not be ashamed..." Thus, it is incumbent upon us to do, strive, abide. These are good works necessary for our salvation, even for those with the Holy Spirit within them. This is the result of the leading of the Holy Spirit. Who said anything about Ellen White? What has she to do with the bible? You profess you need the leading of the Holy Spirit. So then, why do you deny that you have to follow it to live? > 1 John 5:11-13 11 And this is the testimony: that > God has given us eternal life, and this life is in > His Son. > 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not > have the Son of God does not have life. > 13 These things I have written to you who believe > in the name of the Son of God, that you may know > that you have eternal life, and that you may > continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. > > Do you have the son. Do you believe? Yeah, but it's doubtful that you do. For look at what he wrote that confirms that you have eternal life. These are not verses that confirm OSAS; but, rather prove it a lie. To know you have eternal life, you need have these attributes. That is the anthesis of OSAS. 1 John 2:3-5 3. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 1 John 2:17 17. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. 1 John 3:10 10. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. KJV 1 John 3:11 11. For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. KJV 1 John 3:14-15 14. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. 15. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. KJV 1 John 3:17 17. But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? 1 John 5:3 3. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. > EPH 2:18-19 18 For through Him we both have > access by one Spirit to the Father. > 19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers > and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the > saints and members of the household of God, > > We have access through the Holy Spirit and are thus sons of God. Do you > believe. It is interesting that you ignore the prior few verses. Ephesians 2:14-19 14. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: For he took the attributes of the man of the Law; and the man of faith. He combined them into one, that we might be reconciled. He is the first of many brethren. We are to follow him. Therefore, we are to also combine works and faith to follow him. Not sit on our butts; and claim some righteousness that we refuse to live. > Adventist will tell you, but you need to do works. I am not one, so I could care less what they say, in this discussion. But, I tell you this, if anyone depends on works, they will die eternally. > John 6:28-29 28 ¸ Then they said to Him, "What > shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" > 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the > work of God, that you believe in Him whom He > sent." > So do you believe? As I showed above the 27th verse says: John 6:27 27. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. So, you continually lift scripture out of context to paint this pretty picture, that won't hold it's color, being a fraud. > Adventist will tell you, you have to overcome. > Rev 3:5 5 "He who overcomes shall be clothed in > white garments, and I will not blot out his name > from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name > before My Father and before His angels. > 1 John 5:5 5 Who is he who overcomes the world, > but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? Now, you attempt to pit one scripture; but they are all authored by one; and he is the very Spirit you claim to have. How is it, then, that you misinterpret them? > Can you overcome, will you believe? > Yes I know that I am saved and I believe that nobody can take me away from > him. PRAISE > GOD!!!!!!! > > In His Name, > > Jtree You think you're saved, because you believe a lie someone told you; and you tell others. You have faith in what you interpret, even wrongly; and not in the Christ, who wants to live in you; and through you, to save you. Peace to you." | ||
| Bruce H |
--You think you're saved, because you believe a lie someone told you--- I dont think I am saved, I know I am saved, not because somebody told me, but because the word of God told me. --You think you're saved, because you believe a lie someone told you--- I have faith in what I interpret because I have the Holy spirit who teaches me. 1 John 2:27 27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. John 16:13 13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. ---Christ, who wants to live in you; and through you, to save you.---- Jesus Christ already lives in me. I know because the Bible told me so. I can not answere all the questions now I have to run, but I will later on. I remember when I used to be like this guy, and I have hope I do not forget this. | ||
| jtree |
Thank you Bruce, for your ever so great postings. Lynn, if you wish to join in on this. I will be bringing much to this area for I find rest here also. :-) | ||
| Lynn W |
Thanks for the invite. I will get on as soon as I can. | ||
| Bruce H |
Jtree Part One Answers ot Jtree friend, sorry for being so late I am on vacation. -------------------------------------------------- "> We become saved at one event. When you accept the Gospel, when you decide > that there is no way you > yourself can be saved. Can you show the verse that explains salvation this way? It'd be nice if it were like that; but, I've found none that say that. -------------------------------------------------- Here it is > that there is no way you > yourself can be saved. Rom 3:10-11 10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. 12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one." When you come to really understand this and you know that Jesus and him alone is the only way to salvation and you turn to him and the Gospel. The Gospel 1 Cor 15:1-4 1 ¸ Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, So thus we are saved do to his death for our sins, and when believe he gives us this gift as a guarantee. Eph 1:13-14 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. It says it is a guarantee, dont you believe???? -------------------------------------------------- > John 12:24 24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, > unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and > dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it > produces much grain.. > > Notice that if it (or you) dies it produces much grain. What we die to is > the Law (Rom 7:4), Then Jesus > Christ gives us Life through the Holy Spirit, this is called being Born > again. When this event happens you become His Sheep, you are given a new > heart or have your heart circumcised, you become a child of God. Me thinks you have this skewed somewhat. It is to our old nature that we die to, not to the law, for the law is the perfect law of God. It is neither done away with; nor is to be disrespected. -------------------------------------------------- Rom 7:4 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another--to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. Notice That we are married to another (Jesus christ) what were we married to before you read it? Do you believe?? -------------------------------------------------- Thus, as we die to our old nature, we are raised in newness of life, being a new creature, capable of obedience to the Holy Spirit, having him live within us, if we be his. -------------------------------------------------- where in the Bilble does it say we died to our old nature? I did a word search and could not find it anywhere. Maybe you got this from Ellen White. I agree with the rest of what you said, but I prefer sealed as the Bible say. -------------------------------------------------- > Eph 1:13-14 13 In Him you also trusted, after > you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your > salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were > sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, > 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until > the redemption of the purchased possession, to the > praise of His glory. Notice, "you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise" But, who is so sealed? Is it not those who labour for the meat that endures to eternal life? (John 6:27) So, those who do not so labour are not of those who are sealed. And if not sealed, then they have no claim on the guarantee. -------------------------------------------------- No read the text VERY CARFULLY. It says having believed, so it is those who believe. The question is do you believe???? ----those who labour for the meat that endures to eternal life---- The greek word for meat in that text is (brosis -1035) and means eating, food, or meat. Let us look at that text closley John 6:27 John 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. So do you have the food or meat, do you have the Holy Spirit? Do you believe??? -------------------------------------------------- > 2 Cor 1:22 22 who also has sealed us and given us > the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee. > Notice that the Holy Spirit is your GUARANTEE, > notice that it is when you believe. > Not all people are his, not all sheep are his. > only those who have the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is true, so why do people who say as you do, that they need not follow the leading of the Spirit that dwells within you? (Rom. 8:1-14) -------------------------------------------------- Show me ONE place where I said we are not to fillow the leading of the Spirit. By the way I like that text Rom 8:1-14 it is one of my favorite passages also. -------------------------------------------------- > Rom 8:9 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the > Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. > Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, > he is not His. It is interesting that you lift a verse right out of the very set of verses that denounce your doctrine for what it is. Notice in the very verse you attempt to use for your own purpose, it says "you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if the Spirit dwells in you." In the following verses it says " 12. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." How then does Having the Spirit within you exempt you from the leading of that Spirit? And if not exempted, then how can you claim you need not be led by that Holy Spirit within you? And if you acknowledge his leading as necessary for life, then how can you claim you need not obey the Christ? -------------------------------------------------- I have to again say show me even one spot where I said we are not to be guided or lead by the Holy Spirit??????? This is the second acuasation against me. Be careful, does not your Old Covenant that you follow say thou shalt not bear false witness. Again if you can show me even one example. I am not saying this to be harsh it is affecting what other think about you. -------------------------------------------------- > So if the Holy Spirit does not dwell in you, you are not a son of God, a > saint, you are of the flesh or the world. Notice that Jesus does not pray > for the world but only for those who are his. And you think that just because you believed on the name of Jesus that you are sealed; and therefore his? How then can you claim that you can still do the fleshly things of this world; and still be his? And if not his, then how can you be saved? -------------------------------------------------- ----And you think that just because you believed on the name of Jesus that you are sealed; and therefore his?------ I believe that what Jesus did on the cross will save me, I believe that Jesus and him alone can do it. Yes I believe that I am sealed with the Holy Spirit and am a son of God. ----- How then can you claim that you can still do the fleshly things of this world; and still be his? -------- Again where in any of my quotes did you find this. Same as above, brother I hope that we are. -------------------------------------------------- > John 17:9-11 9 "I pray for them. I do not pray > for the world but for those whom You have given > Me, for they are Yours. > 10 "And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, > and I am glorified in them. > 11 ¸ "Now I am no longer in the world, but these > are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, > keep through Your name those whom You have given > Me, that they may be one as We are. > > Notice That if you are his, then he has prayed to the Father to keep you, > do you think the Father > can do that, do you believe? Your question overreaches your understanding of the verse. For, as I mentioned above, you presume yourself to be in that august group. Yet, as I mentioned above, John 6:27 says it is those who labour for the meat that endures unto eternal life that will be sealed with the Holy Spirit. Now, the verse above is very like John 6:37-41; but it is, in turn, prefaced by John 6:27, which shows who they are that are given by the Father to the Son. -------------------------------------------------- ----Your question overreaches your understanding of the verse. For, as I mentioned above, you presume yourself to be in that august group.---- No I claim the promises in the BIBLE and believe, therefore I AM one of the group, are you saying you are not????? Gal 4:4-5 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. I believe this so I am a son of God, a saint, one of his sheep. Are you saying that you are not? The question is do you believe? I hope that you do. B | ||
| Bruce H |
Part 2 Jtree -------------------------------------------------- > John 10:28-30 28 "And I give them eternal life, > and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone > snatch them out of My hand. > 29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is > greater than all; and no one is able to snatch > them out of My Father's hand. > 30 "I and My Father are one." > > So do you think sombody can snatch you out of God's hand do you believe? Your question is insulting. You may not mean it such; and I don't say that to pick a fight. But, consider the verse just preceding. John 10:27 27. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: Now, again, you presume yourself to be of his sheep; but then you deny that you must follow him as John 10:27 says. For you demonstrate it here: -------------------------------------------------- Here is that same accustion agin, show me even one place where I said we are not to follow him. Know if I am to follow Jesus as my example and do what he commands and do the work that he did then let us look at Jesus and His works. John 14:10 10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the WORKS. So the work that Jesus does is by the Spirit of God that dwells in him. John 5:30 30 "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me. So Jesus of himself can do nothing, but the Holy Spirit of God that dwells in him can do the will of God. So what is the work of God. (John 6:28-29) I then ask you are you not one of his sheep, do you believe????? -------------------------------------------------- > By the way when you become one of his sheep, who is responsible for keeping > the herd together, is > the sheep to find the shepherd, or the shepherd to find the sheep? Do you > believe? Again, if I weren't aware of your lack of insight, your question would be insulting. As it is, it is merely an embarrassment to you. Verse 27 shows that we have a responsibility to follow the sheperd. It also shows you haven't herded any sheep, either. For, they follow. The herder is not running around like a chicken with his head cut off. He stays put until ready to move; and simply travels from one pastor to the other; and they follow him. If one gets lost, it is his responsibility to find it. But, he doesn't go around "herding" them constantly. Most sheperds will bell a ewe; and she will "lead" them, by the sound of the bell; and she instead will follow the sheperd for she knows his ways. In the same way, we more read sheep should lead others to him, knowing his ways. -------------------------------------------------- Matt 18:11-13 11 "For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. 12 "What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying? 13 "And if he should find it, assuredly, I say to you, he rejoices more over that sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray. Often when a sheep goes astray and the sheppard goes after it, it may or may not go stray again, but it will follow that shepard again. If I am his sheep He will come after me. Buy the way I try not to stray from him because of what he has GIVEN ME LIFE. -------------------------------------------------- > Heb 10:14 14 For by one offering He has perfected > forever those who are being sanctified. > > So are you perfect forever THOSE WHO ARE BEING SANCTIFIED, do you believe? Hebrews 10:14 14. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. The correct verbage is sanctified; not being sanctified. This is proven by verse 29 of the same chapter. 29. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? Was, not is being. By the way, this verse proves your doctrine wrong, since only a Christian could have been sanctified by the blood. Only a Christian could do despite to the Spirit of grace, for only Christians have received grace. -------------------------------------------------- -------The correct verbage is sanctified; not being sanctified.---- Being Santified, or are sanctified, I will take either one that does not change what I am saying. ------- Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? -------- Believe me I do not trodden under foot the Son of God, I do believe his covenant and accept the Blood of his covenant is adequate. I believe it has sanctified me and I accept the Spirit of Grace. Acts 26:18 18 `to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.' By the way this text is refering to me having my eyes opened my eyes from darkness, I do not mean to imply this is you OK. So we are sanctified by faith in Jesus, I know I am are you, do you believe??? Rom 15:16 16 that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. So we are santified by the Holy Spirit and not ourselves. Do you believe??? 1 Cor 1:2 2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: So we are santified in Christ Jesus, not ouselves. Do you believe???? 1 Cor 6:11 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. Notice it say were sanctified this is past tence. When I was born again and recieved the Holy Spirit I was they sanctified by Jesus. So being sanctified or are sanctified I will take what God gives me. Do you believe that? Heb 10:10 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. I have been, past tence, santified. I believe do you???? ------------------------------------------------ > John 14:16-17 16 "And I will pray the Father, and > He will give you another Helper, that He may abide > with you forever-- > 17 "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot > receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows > Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and > will be in you. > > So the Holy Spirit will dwell in you forever. Do you believe? I believe this. Do you believe it? Can you, with straight face, continue to misinterpret these verses as you do; and yet read this? Do you believe in the Christ; or do you believe in your own interpretations? Rom. 8:4-14 4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (This is Jesus rightiouness I do believe this.) 5. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. ( I agree) 6. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. (I agree) 7. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (I AGREE) 8. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. ( I KNOW THIS ONE FOR SURE) 9. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (YES) 10. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. (YES) 11. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (YES) 12. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. (YES) 13. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. (YES) 14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (AMEN) I liked this last part it was real good. BH | ||
| Bruce H |
Jtree I will finsh part 3 later. | ||
| jtree |
Another Rant from the NG. __________________________ Jtree, I will now comment on some things here, that were not covered in my subject 'The Law of God not same as Law of Moses'. First I want to say that I notice you continue to say in your messages that seventh-day adventists are deceived by a false prophet. Do you not notice that whenever we write our messages, we back up with scripture from the Bible, not from Ellen White. Anything Ellen White has to say to us we must check it is in the Bible, if not, we are not to take heed to her words. You continually blame what we have to say on Ellen White, even though we give scripture from the Bible. With all due respect, you seem to be more hung up on Ellen White than we Sabbatarians are. In your last couple of messages: You said that the two laws: "love God with all your heart" and " love your neighbour as self" are not found in the ten commandments. They are. If we love God with all our heart, we will do the first four commandments. If we love our neighbour, we will do the last six commandments. Love is fulfilling the law. Romans 13:10 says "love worketh no ill to his neighbour, therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law" You used Galatians 4:21 as a scripture seventh-day adventists would call the ceremonial law of Moses. This scripture has nothing to do with ceremonial laws. Read on through verse 31. This scripture talks of how Ishmael and Isaac represent the two covenants. Ishmael symbolized the old and Isaac symbolized the new. God promised Sarah a son but Abraham and Sarah couldn't believe she could have one at 90 years old, (lack of faith in God). So Sarah suggests Abraham take Hagar. Ishmael was the result of human effort not faith in God. Just as the old covenant failed because human effort failed to keep the promises made. Isaac, born of Sarah's barren womb, proved to be a miracle of God's power alone. Just as the new covenant is of God's power alone, not of any human effort but made up of His promises alone. You gave Joshua 6:15 as an example of priests being allowed to profane the Sabbath. Let's back up to verse 14. "And the second day they compassed the city once, and returned into the camp; so they did six days". They rested the 'literal seventh day'. The seventh day talked of in verse 15 was the seventh day of actual marching. You refer to Isaiah 1:13,14 and say that God grew weary of their keeping the Sabbath. Firstly, the sabbaths referred to in this scripture are the yearly sabbaths which are also referred to in Colossians 2:14-17, not the weekly Sabbath of the Ten Commandments. The reason God grew weary of their keeping these "new moons and sabbaths" is because they were sacrificing and offering in vain. "Bring no more vain oblations" (verse 13). God knew it was all false. Their hearts were not in the right place. Would you like people to keep doing things for you for show when you know they don't mean it from their heart. Read all of Isaiah 1. They were being rebellious and yet bringing offerings! The Sabbath is not the sign of the old covenant. The old covenant was the false promises given by the people to keep God's law - it failed - they didn't keep their promises. The new covenant is the promise of God alone, that He will put the law in our hearts and minds. The new covenant is based on coversion. Obedience is made possible by the writing of God's law on the heart. The promises in the old covenant and new covenant are based on the same 10 commandment law, which includes the Sabbath. You say that Sabbatarians do not keep the sign of circumcision, because it was a sign only to Abraham and the Jews. Not true. Circumcision is part of our beliefs, but it is of the heart, not of the flesh. Physical circumcision is related to dependence on the flesh. God gave Abraham the sign of circumcision to remind him of how he failed by trusting the flesh. Circumcision is the cutting off of the fleshly nature through coversion which is only made possible by the power of God and through no effort of our own. You say that Sabbatarians do not keep the sign of the passover blood because it was a sign only for the Jews in Egypt. Not true. The reason we don't continue in the sacrificing of animals is not because it was a sign only for the Jews but because it was a shadow of things to come. Christ was the fulfilment of all shadows and types. Why would we continue to sacrifice animals when the ultimate sacrifice has been made. If we still sacrifice animals we are denying that Christ was not the ultimate sacrifice; that His shed blood was not enough and so we still need to shed the blood of animals. Before Christ died, sacrificing animals was the only way to be forgiven for sins, they didn't have Jesus' blood yet to cover their sins so they used the blood of animals as a sign, until Jesus came. After Christ died, it is His blood that covers our sins so the sign of the blood of animals is no longer needed. | ||
| jtree |
another rant from the NG. It can be shown with positive proof in the Bible that the ten commandments were of a permanent, perpetual nature while the ceremonial law of statutes and ordinances came to an end when Jesus died. God made known this distinction to His servant Moses, and Moses explained it to the people at Mt. Horeb "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he COMMANDED YOU to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord COMMANDED ME at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it" (Deut 4:13,14). Please notice how Moses clearly separated the ten commandments, which 'he commanded you', from the statutes which 'he commanded me' to give the people. Those statutes and judgments, which Moses passed on to the people, were designated as a separate and distinct 'law'. "Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I HAVE COMMANDED them and according to all the law that my servant MOSES COMMANDED them" (2 Kings 21:8). Here we are assured that the statutes which Moses gave the people were called a 'law'. Two different laws are being described here. God speaks of the law I COMMANDED and also the law MOSES COMMANDED. Daniel was inspired to make the the same careful distinction when he prayed for the desolated sanctuary of his scattered nation. "Yea, all Israel have transgressed THY LAW, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the LAW OF MOSES the servant of God, because we have sinned against him" (Daniel 9:11). Once more we see THY LAW and THE LAW OF MOSES and this time the two are recognized as different in content. There are no curses recorded in the ten commandments that God wrote, but the law which Moses wrote contained an adundance of such curses and judgments. The major point of difference between the law of God and the law of Moses, though, lies in the way they were recorded and preserved. We have already cited Moses' statement that "God wrote them (the ten commandments) upon two tables of stone" (Deut 4:13). Compare that with Exodus 31:18 "two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God". No one can confuse this writing with the way the mosaic law was produced. "And Moses wrote this law...And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, 'take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee" (Deut 31:9, 24-26). This book of statutes and judgments which Moses wrote in a BOOK was placed in a pocket on the SIDE of the ark. In contrast, the law written by God on TABLES OF STONE was placed INSIDE the ark of the covenant. "And thou shalt put INTO the ark the testimony which I shall give thee" (Exodus 25:16). At this point we can note several distinctions in the two laws. They had different authors, were written of different materials, were placed in different locations and had totally different content. THE CEREMONIAL LAW IS AGAINST US....Let's take a closer look at the ceremonial ordinances that Moses wrote in the book. They were to repose in the "side of the ark...for a WITNESS AGAINST THEE" It is interesting to note that the curses and judgments of this law spelled out penalties for transgression which were totally missing from the ten commandments. For this reason, the ceremonial law was considered to be a law which was AGAINST them. Even in the New Testament we read the same descriptive language in reference to that law. "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was AGAINST US, which was CONTRARY TO US, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Colossians 2:14).There was nothing in the ten commandment law that could be defined as CONTRARY to Paul and the church to whom he was writing. It was not AGAINST those early christians to refrain from adultery, theft, lying etc. On the other hand, that moral law was a protection to them and favored every interest in their lives. We have only to read Paul's exalted description of the ten commandment law to recognize that those eternal principles were never blotted out or nailed to the cross. After quoting the tenth commandment of the decalogue in Romans 7:7, Paul wrote these words "Wherefore the law IS holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (verse 12). Then he continued in verse 14, :For we know that the law IS spiritual...." If the ten commandment law had been blotted out at the cross, would Paul have spoken in such glowing language of its perfection and spirituality? He did not speak of a past law. He said the law IS holy...the law IS spiritual. In other words, it was very much alive and operating when Paul wrote to the Roman church. In contrast he described the handwriting of ordinances in the past tense: "WAS against us...WAS contrary to us" It is certain he was not speaking of the same law. One was present and one was past. Paul spoke of the fifth commandment as being in effect when he wrote to the Ephesians. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which IS the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth" (Eph 6:1-3). Again, we find the apostle affirming that this commandment IS, not WAS. Had it been a part of the ordinances described by the same writer in Colossians, he would have said , "it WAS the first commandment with promise". In the New Testament Church, there was a lot of contention over the subject of circumcision, which was a major requirement of the ceremonial law. In Acts 15:5 we read, "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharises which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses". This could not be referring in any sense to the ten commandments. They do not even mention circumcision. Yet Paul declared, "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God" (1 Corin 7:19). If the law dealing with circumcision was now NOTHING (abolished), then what commandments was he exalting as being still binding? The moral law remained, while the law of circumcision (ceremonial law) was abolished. The truth is that there are numerous references in the Bible which prove that the law of types and shadows, because of its temporary application, was never considered on an equality with the eternal moral law. Its system of sacrifices, human priesthood and feast days were instituted AFTER sin entered the world and always pointed forward to the deliverance from sin which would be wrought through the true Lamb and Priest who was to come - Jesus. The mosaic law is never equated with the eternal moral code which operated from the very beginning of human history. Although they were not written down until Mount Sinai, the ten commandments were understood and honored by the earliest patriarchs. Even Cain knew that it was a sin to kill, because God told him that "sin lieth at the door" (Gen 4:7) after he murdered his brother. It is impossible for sin to exist where there is no law. The Bible teaches, "for where no law is, there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). Again we are told, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). This principle is amplified further by Paul's statement that "had I not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, "Thou shalt not covet" (Romans 7:7). These verses nail down the truth that no sin can be imputed where the ten-commandment law is not in effect. God's statement to Cain about sin lying at the door was in reference to his killing Abel, a violation of one of those commandments. This is absolute proof that the moral law was in effect at that early date. Later, Joseph revealed that he was aware of the binding claims of that same law. He said to Potiphar's wife "how then can I do this great wickedness, and SIN against God?" (Gen 39:9). He knew adultery was sin. Abraham was commended by God in these words: "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws" (Gen 26:5). It is very obvious that the law which Abraham faithfully obeyed was not the law of Moses, because that law was not given until 430 years later. And we have just established that the ten commandments existed before Abraham, condemning even Cain for murder. It is absolutely certain that another law was added 430 years later, and it was in addition to the one Abraham kept so diligently. "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thiry years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect" (Galatians 3:17). The contents of the verse indicates that Paul is talking about the ceremonial law rather than the moral law of the ten commandments. In verse 10, he refers to the curses "which are written in the book of the law". We know this had to be the mosaic law because, as we have already noted, there are no curses recorded in the law written on stone. We can further confirm that this later law was indeed the law of Moses: "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made..." (Galatians 3:19). Here we have two significant facts set forth concerning the law which was added. We are told WHY it was given and also HOW LONG it would remain in effect. It was "added because of transgressions". This is most revealing because we have just established that "where no law is, there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). One can't be guilty of transgressing a law which does not exist. In this case, one law obviously did exist; and it had been "transgressed", making it necessary to add another law 430 years after God's covenant with Abraham. And since it is recorded that "Abraham obeyed...my laws" we have to believe that that earlier law, which Abraham observed, was the ten commandments. Moses had not yet been born, and it could not have been his law. So what must we conclude from this evidence? The ten commandments had been transgressed, making it necessary to add the ceremonial law. Upon relection, this makes a lot of sense. If a law is made forbidding murder, and it is broken, then another law would have to be enacted to prescribe the penalty or punishment for breaking that first law. We have already established that the ten commandments contained no curses (penalties) or judgments (punishments), but the mosaic law was characterized by those very things. How long did this 'added' law remain in effect? "Till the seed should come" There is no controversy over the identity of that seed. It is Christ. We have evidence that the law which was blotted out and nailed to the cross was indeed the law of Moses. It is designated as the "handwriting of ordinances". Nowhere are the ten commandments identified as ordinances. Colossians 2:14-16: After describing the "blotting out" and "nailing" of the ordinances, Paul wrote, "Let no man THEREFORE judge you in meat, or in drink" The word 'therefore' means, 'based on what has just been said, we must come to this conclusion'. In other words, he was saying, 'based upon the fact that the ordinances have been blotted out, THEREFORE let no one judge you in meat or drink'. Now we begin to see clearly which law was under discussion. Is there anything in the ten commandments about meat and drink? No. Is there anything in the ceremonial law about meat and drink? Yes. Much of its content had to do with prescribing certain meat and drink offerings for sacrifices. Let's read the rest of the scripture in Colossians: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a SHADOW OF THINGS TO COME but the body is of Christ" (Colossians 2:16,17). These sabbath days are clearly defined as SHADOWS OF THINGS TO COME which clears up that it is not referring to the weekly Sabbath of the ten commandment law. The weekly Sabbath was instituted by God before sin entered the world. THERE COULD NEVER BE TYPES OR SHADOWS BEFORE SIN EXISTED. All the shadows were introduced BECAUSE of sin and pointed forward to the deliverance from sin through Christ. For example, all the lambs slain represented Jesus, the true LAMB, who would die for the sins of the world. If sin had not entered the world, there would have been no need of a Saviour, and therefore, no lambs or shadows pointing to a Saviour. Now it is fully established which law was blotted out and nailed to the cross. At the moment of Christ's death, the veil of the temple was ripped from top to bottom by an unseen hand (Matthew 27:51). The most holy place of the sanctuary was exposed where the sprinkled blood recorded all the sins of the people. But no more blood needed to be sprinkled; no more lambs needed to be slain; the true Lamb had come to which all those sacrifices pointed. From then on, it would be denying that He was the fulfillment of all the shadows and types. Therefore, it would be "against us" or "contrary to us" to continue observing that mosaic law. On the day before Jesus died, would it have been a sin for a man to refuse to bring a lamb in order to have his sins forgiven? of course, because that was the only way to be forgiven. Would it have ben a sin to refuse to bring that lamb, the day after Jesus died? no, because the true Lamb had died, the veil had been rent, and the ordinances blotted out. A law had been abolished by being nailed to the cross-the ceremonial law of Moses. Ephesians 2:15 says "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances" On the day before Jesus died, was it a sin to steal? yes. On the day after He died, was it a sin to steal? yes. It was just a wrong as the day before He died. Obviously, all the blotting out of ordinances, types and shadows did not affect the great moral code of the ten commandments - they all applied afterward as much as before Christ died. This is by the same persone that replied to me from the message above this one. | ||
| jtree |
Another Rant from the SDA News Group. This is the fella who calls those who appose "his" church, Jesuits, ect. ____________________ His email is at tmac1238@my-deja.com Dear Friends, You can view the following powerful article in big beautiful letters at the following webpage: http://www2.50megs.com/tmac1238/sealedinfo/Authority.html It contains vital issues related to your personal liberties that is being cheated away from you right under your noses. Every honest Catholic especially must understand what is being said here!! AUTHORITY vs FREEDOM! WARNING: This is the Sealed Information region of the Truth of Adventism Defended Egroups Forum! The following content has been determined to be sealed and finished! No subscriber of the Truth of Adventism Defended Forum is allowed to question the findings of the documentation below in discussion unless a unique argument is applied for and posted against it! Any subscriber who does this will be assumed to be an offender. Should the SDA Church allow its members to question its doctrines? NO WAY!! But what about liberty and freedom? How will the church live up to its potential if it does not allow this!! Dear Friends, I had already made mention that the enemies of liberty, who are despots, hide their true colors by constantly telling us that every man has a right to his own opinions and should neither be denigrated nor ridiculed on account of his honest views. This was done to encourage debate and confusion. Yet these words are well familiar to you, and you know that the greatest defenders of liberty also use words that are similar to these. I had made a very brief mention that there was a difference between the way the despots use these words as compared to the defenders of liberty. I will now attempt to explain the difference. As I have said before, I am a member of an internet email discussion forum that is dedicated to hosting issues pertaining to Adventism. Since the beginning when this forum first started, certain strange people began to make their presence known. In just a short time I knew who they were, but then a problem arose with that knowledge. I became upset with them and reproved them for what they were doing. They were militant infiltrationist Catholics who were posing as Adventists and members of other Christian groups. After a while, it soon became rather hard for me to convince the rest of those on that forum that I am not merely upset with these people "just because they disagree with me." These strange people were doing all in their power to make the participants and spectators on that forum believe that I am upset with them just because they do not share my views. In response to their efforts, one particular person on that forum who was Jewish, made a post where she was trying to compare Hitler with me. She made an honest mistake and did not understand the issues at the time. More than once I had to point out certain other people on that forum whom I did not have an issue with. There were others on that forum who disagreed with me on certain important issues. One person became my good friend, but she was a Shepherd's rod. I had no problem with her as far as discussion is concerned, even though we disagreed. There were also others that supported the Celebration worship style. I had no problem with them either even though I strongly disagreed. But there was a difference between these honest people who disagreed with me, and those whom I saw were members of the Militia of the Vatican. The problem was that I had told those on the forum that I have no special love for diverse views. Contrasted with the others who stated that they loved diverse views, I did not look very good on that forum. It therefore appeared that I was stating that I didn't regard any other views but my own. How was I able to explain my position? I told them that I do not tolerate diverse beliefs about Adventism from Adventists or, in other words, from within; I also told them that, in or out of Adventism, I don't believe that DIVERSITY is the secret of our strength. I respect opinions and the right to state them outside of the church, but I do not respect diverse opinions about the church foundations by those who are inside. I soon found myself in need for giving an explanation. How did I answer the Jewish lady who compared me with Hitler? I tried to show her first that the Adventist Church, just like any other, is a sovereign body. It has a charter, a mission and a foundation which was established for a purpose. Once in there you are going to believe and honor that charter and mission. If everything is as it is supposed to be, you will find yourselves being bombarded with views like my own once in there. You are not supposed to be allowed to go to the left of it or to the right. Is that liberty? Is that freedom?? Some years ago, the leader of a certain Independent ministry (Countdown Ministries) began attacking the inspiration of Ellen White. This man (Charles Wheeler) was soon reproved by another official of that organization for doing so. Charles then published a letter entitled, if I can remember correctly, "You Either Have it or You Don't." What was he talking about? He was talking about LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE. He was stating that a person within the Adventist Church can believe what he wants about anything relating to the church. He is not only to be treated with respect, but he is to have the right to freely share his views anywhere and at any time, he is to enjoy full membership, and he is to be acknowledged as a bonafide Adventist. The deepest issues therefore surfaced. Is it against the principles of liberty for the Adventist Church to demand loyalty to her teachings? He stated, if I could remember correctly, that if this were not done, basic human liberties would be challenged; to have it otherwise would be a threat to our free system. Is that true? If this is true, what would the Adventist Church benefit by pushing for her members to believe many different things or anything they felt like believing? As we are speaking, the Adventist Church is on a campaign to sue ministries which move out from her communion and keep the name "Seventh-day Adventist" with them. These were people who freely spoke their minds while they were in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They protested against the changes that were taking place, and the Adventist Church therefore disfellowshipped them in violation of the rules that were stated. The rules that were stated was that any man has the right to his own and honest views EVEN WITHIN THE ADVENTIST CHURCH. If you have been reading the Adventist Review, you would discover that this principle has been pushed for many years. Those demanding the organization to change have been saying that an Adventist can entertain a great spectrum of beliefs. He is free to voice them anywhere, and he is to be respected and regarded as a bonafide Adventist. From these principles, can the organization really have a concern about going after what is supposed to be the natural result of such Jesuit principles? Can she really sue independent ministries for carrying the name "Seventh-day Adventist" because she is concerned for the integrity of the name? Not ethically! The Adventist Church is God's church. She presents messages from the Scriptures. The Scriptures talk about a Commander named Jesus Christ who gave His servants writings to live by. Were these writings created to be debated upon? Were they subject to diverse interpretation or debate? Were you supposed to take those messages and create Letters to the Editor in the Adventist Review magazine encouraging a pro and con debate structure within it over the guidance found in the bible? If they were designed to be debated upon, how come the Scriptures liken God's people to be like an Army? Which army do you know of where the soldiers are encouraged to debate about their marching orders? When in war, would an army be specially blessed if their soldiers were encouraged to debate the orders of their commanders? Which army do you know of will win a single war under such principles? Question: You join the army and you are presently in boot camp. While there, you notice that there are officials all around you who like to yell at you. These officials will wake you up in the mornings and put you through intense physical training. At any given moment these officials may request that you do pushups for them. If you don't do things exactly right you may experience at any time any one of those officials sticking the brim of his hat in your face while yelling at you. They may say it! They may spray it! You have to bear it! If you don't do as those officials say, you will be punished! Is the army therefore opposed to the American principles of freedom? THE ANSWER IS NO! The answer is no because you, of your own free will enlisted. You went to a recruiter, made an oath and enlisted. You already had adequate knowledge of what to expect while in the army. After you agreed, you signed a contract so to speak, and you are therefore bound to the agreement. From then on, you should not experience anything that you had no foreknowledge of. You should consider that it may well be your responsibility to find out all the particulars before enlisting. I therefore ask again. Is it true that if the Adventist Church demands compliance and loyalty to her doctrines and principles, she as an organization is opposed to freedom? No it is not true! Many would say and have been taught to believe that members should have the right to disagree, question and to also influence change upon the church. Is that true? What is the name of people who are dissatisfied with the church? They are called "dissidents." What is the first thing therefore that dissidents would try to do with the church? It is obvious that the first thing dissidents would try to do with the church IS TO CHANGE IT! They don't like the way it is, so they will therefore determine to change it. But what about Christ, you say? Didn't Christ disagree with the established order of the Jewish Church and then change it? Wasn't Christ a dissident? No. The Jews strayed away from the original design. Christ came and pointed this out, but He did not call for any convention or Sanhedrin Conference Session in order to change the church politically or administratively. He was not into politics. Christ merely showed His example. He did not meet with the leaders in order to change the Jewish Church. The example of those wanting change today are mostly typical. They want to change the whole system, for their object is to silence the special distinctive doctrines and messages of Adventism, which, consequently, point out the Papacy. These therefore cannot follow the example of Christ to brush the dust off of their feet and to start their own church where their principles can be seen and shown for the church at large to decide whether they want it or not. No one really has to tell them that this will not work and that the Church at large will not favor them if viewed this way. These people are really intelligent. When the Celebration Movement first attacked the church, leaders were telling us that we must "wait and see" and test it out. This plea to "wait and see," did not mean that they will start their own churches and show us what they are trying to tell us. The plea was for ministers to force-change the churches because the intent was to silence our special messages God commanded us to give. Jesus, after having His example rejected, started His own church. This is something the Celebrationists can never do, for that was never their mission. They never cared whether we liked their movement or not. They were determined that it overcome us. They are part of the papal agenda. The Gospel is NEVER forceful. That was one of the major arguments during the Protestant Reformation. The Protestants declared that Christ came as the Saviour knocking on the door of every heart and pleading for admittance. The Catholics mentality was for the Saviour to approach the doors of our hearts with a battering ram in order to control all totalitarian style. That is exactly how the Celebration conspiracy attacked our church to this day. The problem was that the denominational establishment was and is determined to change the church into some unrecognizable shape during those turbulent years of the present and former decades, while the independent ministries protested and fought against the changes. The independent ministries were therefore labeled, "dissidents" even though they liked the established order of the church and were intent on defending it. Most people do not realize that these independent ministries are different from the history of others which broke with the church. Historically, those that broke with the church were dissidents. They didn't like the way the church was, so they tried to change it. The church then had to address them. In the scenario of the present and past decade and to this day, the roles have been reversed, and few people know this. Ellen White forewarned about this in a special message. It is found in the book Omega, by Lewis R. Walton. We are in the Omega of apostasies right now. It is because many didn't understand this why the Adventist Church had been so heavily assaulted these past decades from the inside by the Jesuits. I have yet to show what happened during those times. It will probably surprise you. I, by the way, though knowing that the position of the independent ministries are basically correct over what the denominational structure has been doing, do not really subscribe to them. I do not tell people to leave the denominational structure to go join any. I have no quarrel with those who go there to worship. Many who go there have been ousted by Conference-sent ministers when they refused to have their churches changed. I was one of them. I have no quarrel with these. We therefore come back to that internet forum. See those strange people on the forum, while attacking Adventism, were pushing ecumenism. They were telling us that all the churches should unite, and they naturally withheld the next crucial words which would have killed the whole proposition: UNDER ROME!. They even today are trying to form a One World Church to complement the One World Global New World Order. These are essentially the same changes that had been pushed within the denominational structure through the introduction of "worship styles." They keep masking these intentions by creating movements and telling us that these things are "new." No one now seems to understand that Ecumenism was in existence far before my mother was born! We know the implications of that move as had the entire Protestant Reformation. Just some decades ago, anyone who suggested that would be instantly pointed out as a Papist. But things are different now. Here now is the problem: You disagree with my views and the views of the Adventist Church, and the time comes when you want to be free of them. What would you do? It is simple: You would leave the church. When you leave the church, you would go and find another sovereign body--another church. Hopefully that other church will have your views. Unlike the Dark Ages, after you leave, something different will happen: you would not be hunted down like rats, your life would not be in danger, you would not lose the rights to your property, you would not be persecuted and your posterity would not be cursed. If those same church officials who sent you walking bumped into you, they will say hi and show no animosity. Is that not liberty? But then a problem would develop under the other scenario. As I said, the strange people on the forum were pushing Ecumenism and were building a One World Global Church. If therefore you disagreed with their views, where would you go to be free of them? Would you move to the Baptist Church? People pushing Ecumenism are all over that body. Would you go to the Worldwide Church of God? The Worldwide Church of God was destroyed a while ago. Now they don't even preach about the importance of the Sabbath anymore. They have accepted the principles of this move for Ecumenism. What the Adventist Church is struggling with now is the same drive which destroyed the Worldwide Church of God, yet she is still being convinced that there is no Jesuit infiltration by the strange people infiltrated all among her. If you even bring up the subject, certain people MUST move in to do what they can to crush that view right then and there, willingly forgetting that we were told by them that we have the right to our honest views and we can state them anywhere. It soon becomes obvious that you cannot escape the views of the strange people on that forum no matter where you go. You can't even escape the push for Ecumenism in the Adventist Church. The time will soon come when, if you want to be free of these views for a Global One World Church, you would not even be unmolested if you chose to worship in a dumpster! If these capture the Adventist Church, they will capture more organizations. What are they doing here therefore? They have the entire world at their feet agreeing with their views. We now see them on the Adventist forums going irate over freedom to have equal billing in our church when their views are already all over the earth through deception and infiltration. What are they doing over here therefore? If you give them so much as a foothold, you will lose your church, your establishment, AND FAR MORE IN ETERNITY! When you are then forced to worship in solitary places, you will be silly to think that they will leave you alone! They will approach you to seek either your submission or your death! If you wait till that long to understand them, YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO GET! After explaining it that way, the Jewish lady was then able to see what was going on, and she then understood that I was not the despot, but that the other strange people on the forum telling all that they have a right to question every sovereign entity even from within, were. These are the same strange people who pushed diversity. Can the Adventist Church therefore be defended in the policies she basically now maintains? If she continues to tell us that we can "question everything," why did she get upset when ministers began to question their authority? Let's see if we can understand the issues when examining the following scenario: One day, you go to a popular gathering of the Boy Scouts. While in there, a strange person walks into the building you are in and demands to be enrolled. This is a strange kind of boy. He has long hair, he is soft, and he likes to play with dolls. In other words, THAT PERSON IS A GIRL. When she requests to join the Boy Scouts, the administrators tell her plainly that she cannot be admitted because she is a girl. She then gets upset, goes home and tells her parents what happened, and the Boy Scouts organization finds a discrimination lawsuit on their hands. They are charged with being discriminatory, bigoted and intolerant--opposed to liberty and freedom. Nothing the Administrators of that organization can do can convince the girl that she should not be admitted into their organization. They even gave her the directions to the Girl Scouts, but she remains adamant to join the Boy Scouts. Is the Boy Scouts establishment therefore contrary to the established American system of liberty? In this system of liberty there are different sovereign entities that were designed to have a purpose. To have its components within such entities questioning its mission is the same as having a kidney rejection in a human being. Under the present system we all have the right to go to those churches or institutions that agree with our beliefs or goals. Believe it or not, this preserves VARIETY--the very thing that those changing our system have told us all that they like and encourage. If you don't like or believe in one church, you go to another. The strange thing is that those who are pushing diversity and variety, are forcing their views into all churches AND MAKING THEM LOSE THEIR VARIETY. The services and doctrines of all the churches are merging and becoming as one. In order for this to be accomplished, strange people are telling them to forget and ignore their special doctrines, ignore most of Scripture and only concentrate upon Christ. Those who disagree with the motion are then opposed, called before church board meetings, marked, slandered, persecuted and expelled. Once expelled, they begin to wonder how focusing and concentrating upon Christ only was able to cause them to be banished from the churches that they loved. Where did those folk all only focused on Christ get such savy political skill at board meetings to always defeat them and have them cast out? Is it therefore true that if you find yourselves within an institution that places restrictions upon you, that institution is against liberty and freedom? So many of those reading this are married. Now that you are married, can you go out and play the field? Can you pick up men or women now at singles clubs? Is the institution of marriage contrary to liberty and freedom? Did you or did you not understand what you were going into? We therefore conclude that before you entered the Adventist Church, you linked up with a bible worker and were shown all the particulars. You then signed on the dotted line when you made your baptismal vows. Those vows did not say that you entered to question or debate. Now that you are an Adventist, you are not to entertain what you feel like nor think that God sent you on a parachute to this earth to question and debate. I tell you another thing. If you ever visited a Baptist Church as an Adventist, you are not to present the principles of Adventism while you are there on their property or environs. If you want to show a Baptist person the principles of Adventism, you had better do it at your home, his home or anywhere else. You are not to do it on property owned by the Baptist Church or any other sovereign entity. This does preserve variety, not that variety is necessary desired by us, but it also deters the movements of the Antichrist. It preserves the Protestant mission where we understand that there will be variety, but, if we do what we're supposed to, the truth will bring all ultimately and willingly under unity without any external force (such as crisis) to sway that decision. The defenders of freedom therefore say that every man has a right to his opinions in a similar way the despots do. When he is outside of sovereign organizations, he respects that right. When and if he sees people on American soil pushing Socialism or Communism however, he confronts and exposes such people. When he sees people within sovereign institutions--even churches--claiming the right to question the foundations of those institutions, he understands that his system of liberty is being attacked by "friends" from the inside. We have a right to our opinions, but for the purposes of ultimately finding truth. The variety of sovereign institutions must be preserved from everything except willing consent to the truth without any external coercive force or condition. If you see Seventh-day Adventists attending the Baptist Church to spread and preach Adventism, you should be just as alarmed as if you see Baptists in Adventist environs doing the same. Therefore, Question: Should the Adventist Church allow her members to disagree with the inspiration of Ellen White? Answer: No! The Adventist Church does show examples during the early days of the church where members did disagree, and were accepted. At that time the evidence was not fully seen. Now, with the unfolding of events, there is really no excuse. Everyone who questions the prophetic role of Ellen White always then move on to question other things, and then exalt and push their own opinions upon everyone. PLEASE SAVE JUST ONE MAJOR SPOT ON EARTH FOR TRUE RELIGION!! GET UP! STAND UP! BE COUNTED!! END | ||
| jtree |
I recently invited this person to this forum to discuss his views..and this is his response. --------------------------- jtree, how can you see anything good when, in just one example, you tell us that when we post we must attach to it a note that we are just posting our interpretations and yet you exempt yourself from that rule? (of course I never said this..but what can I say, he makes his own excuses). Of course I know that you can't see anything good in it! Most of your posts are even directed against Ellen White. How can you see anything good in Christ? I was already on a forum similar to the one you are waiting for me to get on to. On that forum they freely deleted my articles while they allowed those who were against Adventism and who were demanding that we give up our beliefs to remain. They soon kicked me off because they claimed that I did not respect the rights of others to disagree. No, I will not enter your Vatican discussion forum which even claims that Ellen White is the 666 Beast of Revelation! Can you prove this from the false premise that you go by the scriptures? Come out of the papal conspiracy and stop betraying the human race! | ||
| jtree |
I wrote :> Worshipping God on any day of the week is not a false doctrine. (in response to someone else)... And he replied with this nonsense... Why is Jtree tring to fool us? Did Adventists tell the world that it is wrong to worship on any day of the week? The Sabbath command involves assembling together on a particular day with the premise that no work is to be done. It therefore forced an acknowledged weekly cycle where employers are compelled to allow for the unifiedly acknowledged rest. Adventists show that the scriptures dictate that there is a day on which all are to rest. Matthew 5:17-19 tells us this plainly from Christ Himself, but since papists acknowledge their church above the scriptures, it has not affect on them. To answer this, they quickly run to Paul in order to wrest his writings from their true meaning. Also, check out this webpage which answers the question as to whether Paul told us that we can choose any day for worship contrary to anything and everything Christ ever said: http://www2.50megs.com/tmac1238/sealedinfo/FullyPersuaded.html ***(I REQUEST everyone who reads this, pray for Tom or TMAC). | ||
| Ted |
In order to read these words in big beautiful letters, please click on the following link: http://www2.50megs.com/tmac1238/sealedinfo/Matthew5.html Here is what in that website proving beyond challenge (since there really never was one) that both the law and the Sabbath stand to this day and to the Second Coming of Christ. Any confusion you may have on these matters are answered clearly and unconquerably on that website: LETTER TO SOMEONE ATTACKING THE LAW OF TEN COMMANDMENTS: Dear Sir: After the new Christian Church was established, there appeared immediately to be a conflict between the new Gentile converts and the Jews. Among the controversies were the consecration of food to idols and circumcision. Since so much controversy was generated because of these subjects, till it was indeed recorded in the Bible, can you please tell me why the Jewish objection to the new Christians keeping Sunday (formerly a pagan day) after the resurrection of Jesus cannot be found there? I have not witnessed an answer for this yet. Also, what is the meaning of these words in Matt. 5:17-19: 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, the same 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. It was obvious that Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy. .. . ." because people were thinking that that was part of His mission: to destroy the law. And how so? In my estimation a law can be destroyed when an authoritative person informs others that it is no longer to be observed. What did Jesus do to make them think that? What did Jesus do to make the Jews think that He was come to destroy the law? Most every time Jesus did something the Jews were apt to charge Him as a sinner for had something to do with the Sabbath: For healing on the Sabbath especially. The scripture therefore tells us that "till heaven and earth pass" (have they passed sir?) "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Here however is an interesting question: how do you destroy a law? Is this question too hard? Jesus said that He is not come to destroy, but to fulfill. How do you therefore destroy a law? Our commonsense tells us that to destroy a law, you have to declare that it doesn't have to be kept. How likely is it therefore that the scripture can be reworded to come out like the following: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law. I am not come to destroy, but to tell all that they don't have to keep the law." This may make sense to many, but I contend that this does not make sense to God's people. Ephesians even says: Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; -- Eph. 6:2 We can see that the very words are quoted from the Ten Commandments! Did we not think that the Law was finished? Why would any of the Apostles quote from the Ten Commandments, when they are supposed to be acting like so many today in preaching to all that it is dangerous to keep the law? Do people today not tell us that to fulfill a law means to destroy it? If you fulfilled the law of insuring your vehicle, can you then uninsure it since that law is now no longer in effect? What therefore does the word "fulfill" mean? The scripture says that not a jot or tittle--not a dotting of an "I" or a stroking of a "T" shall be moved till all be fulfilled. Does the word "fulfilled" mean to destroy or to take out of the way? If that is true, why does Jesus then say, Whosoever THEREFORE . . . " (here meaning with reference to what was just said before) "shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, the same 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." It appears to me that the word "fulfilled" may have some meanings, but the idea that it means that the law is no longer to be obeyed is quite obviously ludicrous merely by the words that follow. Jesus stated that the law is enforced till all be fulfilled. In order to be crafty, folk are coming in telling us that EVERYTHING had been fulfilled at the cross. They point to Christ's declaration, "It is Finished!" on the cross as proof. Isn't it strange that earlier Christ talked about a prophecy of Daniel in Matthew 24 that had not yet been fulfilled and was not even till His death? Christ was prophecying about the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem-something which took place 40 years after the cross! Many are also trying to tell us that the all things being fulfilled that Christ talks about is referring to the very law itself. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all (all the law) be fulfilled. They are saying that the law was fulfilled at the death of Christ, and therefore His statement "till heaven and earth pass" means not a thing. According to them, Christ made that statement, "Till heaven and earth pass" only to make sure that what Christ is then stating remains true for only about a year or two till His death! Were those cataclysmic words placed there just to guarantee that what Christ says remains true for only a year or so? They are now therefore saying that Christ didn't come to destroy the law, but only came that it might be declared that we no longer have to keep it. There are ways to see beyond this however, and we can start with the parallel scripture to this one in order to show whether the expression, "till all be fulfilled" is referring to the law itself or is referring to everything involved in human history, including the fulfillment of all prophecy. Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. From this we have the expression of heaven and earth passing again and we therefore have an eternal principle that shows the clear intention of the Lord upon this matter. Let's therefore now again take the specific language of the bible so that we can understand what is happening here. The scripture tells us that till heaven and earth pass, the law will be in effect. Did heaven and earth pass at the cross? Did heaven and earth pass yet? The scriptures tell us plainly how heaven and earth will pass. It says: 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? - 2 Pet. 3:10-12 Did these things happen yet? This is showing how heaven and earth will pass away. Did this happen at the cross? Is Satan still alive today? Are there prophecies which state that he shall be destroyed? Are there prophecies relating to the Antichrist that have not been fulfilled yet? What then did Christ mean when he stated that the law will be in effect till all be fulfilled? Even yet so, people are telling me however that those who break any of the least of the commandments of God and teach men so would be in heaven, but that they would just be called the least. Well if that was true, according to the very wording it is saying thusly: Whosoever shall contradict what I just said, will be called "the least" in heaven. He will disobey and contradict me, but he will still be in heaven anyway. ISN'T THAT WONDERFUL!! Is there anyone who has an answer for this? What I am asking for is very simple: What is the likelihood that an issue such as circumcision (which can be termed making a mountain out of something very small--if I can be so facetious) can generate all the controversy, contention and bitterness as it did in the days of the Apostolic Church, and yet a much more cataclysmic issue such as a change in the day of worship, or a change where there is no longer any day of worship since the sacrifice of Christ, can generate all the silence as it obviously has and as we can see for ourselves? We can see that today, this issue generates much literature, bitterness, animosity, etc. What is the likelihood that the issue of a day of worship which, unlike circumcision, affects men, women, boys and girls, can generate all the silence that it has? Tis true, you may always remark that Adventists have been stating that scriptural silence is not proof for anything. You must however remember that you who have opposed them have always stated that silence is much proof. Therefore, in the issues presented to you here now, you have all the proof you would ever need! When the Scribes and Pharisees brought Jesus before Annas the High Priest, why is it that they had a hard time finding an accusation against Him when any simpleton should have known that the Jewish leaders could put anyone to death on a truthful charge of sabbath-breaking? It is to my understanding that the Jewish leaders had power to put people to death on the charge of sabbath-breaking just so long as they received the sanction of the Roman government. That was precisely the reason why they brought Jesus to Pontius Pilate. Again, another thought to consider: In Acts chapter 25:8-10, Paul makes an interesting statement to Festus. At that time it was stated that: ". . .the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove." -- Acts 25:7 Here again is a marvellous demonstration of what appears to be the stupidity of the Jewish people. Why don't they save time and accuse him of being a Sabbath-breaker. Were they really stupid here? Or was it true that Christ did not offend by His disregard of the Sabbath. To do so would be sin, and Christ did no sin. Under Jewish law and allowed by Roman law, any Jew can be put to death under that charge! Lo and behold! Apparently it is likely that charge was leveled against Paul. Yet notice the very crucial statement Paul makes in the very next verse: (Acts 25:8 KJV) While he [Paul] answered for himself, NEITHER AGAINST THE LAW OF THE JEWS, NEITHER AGAINST THE TEMPLE, NOR YET AGAINST CAESAR, HAVE I OFFENDED ANY THING AT ALL. Yet this is not the most striking part of the quotation, for, in today's movements fulfilling that great falling away which will give rise to the new "Christ-centered" world leader we know as Antichrist, most are telling us that they are actually keeping the law because it is written in their hearts through Christ. So, according to what they are telling us, they are like Paul. They are actually keeping the law. It's just that no one can see it outwardly. Under that premise it is to be understood that they can kill, murder, rape, etc. The law is still written in their hearts, and though no one can see it outwardly, it is a private fact inwardly between each individual and the Lord. In this scheme of things, the inevitable result is always the same: we actually find such people keeping every inch of the letter of the law EXCEPT the Sabbath command. Such beating around the bush is necessary instead of Paul plainly and outrightly coming out and telling us that all of the Ten Commandments are still in force except the Sabbath command. Yet with this whole private in-the-heart tactic most used against the truth, comes these very shattering words from Paul himself; for, after he declared that he made no offense against the law of the Jews, the record continues: "But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me? Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: TO THE JEWS HAVE I DONE NO WRONG, AS THOU VERY WELL KNOWEST." -- Acts 25:9, 10 The problem here is that Paul stated to the heathen dignitary that he was keeping the law, "AS THOU VERY WELL KNOWEST" meaning that the dignitary could see for himself with his own eyes that Paul was observing the law of the Jews. The conclusion therefore is the following: The righteousness which Christ gives is genuine: finding its way to the outward actions, and indeed the entire being. This is confirmed by the Apostle John, who states a message of warning to his people to prevent them from being deceived in the way the people of today are being deceived by stating: "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." -- 1 John 3:7 It will therefore clearly not be a private matter between the believer and Jesus, but all will see the good works and glorify the Father which is in heaven. - Matt. 5:16. Please answer this for me. Ted | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
The material imported in here under this Discussion appears to me to be so much gobbledygook, meaning bombast, jargon, nonsense and unintelligibility. Do jtree, Ted and other FAF participants think that Matthew 7:6 NIV could apply here? "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Just asking, Jude | ||
| Colleentinker |
I think it's important to state that no one at FAF is advocating breaking God's laws or commands. God's law is eternal; the Ten Commandments given 430 years after Abraham UNTIL the Seed would come (Gal. 3:17-19) is not the definition of God's law. God's law is bigger than the 10. God's law is within God himself. God's law encompasses ever so much more than the 10 require. The 10 were nailed to the cross, a mere shadow of Jesus, God himself. We at FAF advocate keeping every one of the principles listed in the 10 plus a lot more. We even advocate the Sabbath. We are encouraging people to understand that the seventh-day Sabbath was a shadow of Jesus, the rest that Christ has given us in him. We are not antinomian. We believe God holds us to a higher standard than the mere Ten ever did. The Law could not make us perfect or righteous. Only Jesus could do that. And only Jesus could put himselfóthe Law óin our hearts, and give us the eternal Sabbath rest he created us to celebrate! | ||
| Bruce H |
Ted could you ask just one question at a time, WOW!!!!! Matt 5:17-19 17 ¸ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 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. 19 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. Ted here is one question for you. Verse 19 says "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:" Qusetion #1 I do not mind being called Least in the Kingdom of Heaven do you? Or are you Great in the Kingdom of Heaven because YOU DO THEM AND TEACH THEM? Or is it Jesus alone who does them????? Question #2 What Law is this text refering to? Bruce Heinrich Ted tell us a little bit about yourself. BH | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
As to the charge that FAF is advocating antinomianism -- lawlessness, being in favor of doing away with lawkeeping, nihilism, pandemonium, anarchy, etc. -- I would say that we FAF folk are in pretty good company, that of St. Paul. For, the same charge was leveled against him(Romans 3:5-8 NIV): ^^^^^^^^^^ But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing wrath on us? (I am using a human argumment.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say -- AS WE ARE BEING SLANDEROUSLY REPORTED AS SAYING AND AS SOME CLAIM THAT WE SAY -- "Let us do evil that good may result?" Their condemnation is deserved." ^^^^^^^^^^^ And so, my dear friends, if we can trust what Scripture is saying here -- and I, for one, do -- then those who accuse us of advocating anarchy are only engaging in slander. And, since slander is lawbreaking, WHO THEN ARE THE REAL LAWBREAKERS? The answer is obvious: the real lawbreakers are the slanderers, those who falsely accuse those who are advocating Jesus Christ (his words and actions) as the true law. Finally, Who does Scripture say is the accuser of Christ followers? It is none other than "that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray." Revelation 12:9 NIV. ^^^^^^^^^^^ "For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down." Revelation 12:10 NIV. ^^^^^^^^^^^ And that, my good friends, is something that happened at the cross, for the verb of the verse is in the past tense and John's Revelation of Jesus Christ was written in the First Century AD. And so, therefore, take courage, you who advocate Jesus Christ as the law written on the tablets of your hearts: Know that those who are accusing you are slandering not only you, but also your Father who is in Heaven and his Son Jesus Christ who is sitting, and has been sitting, at his right hand ever since his victory on the cross. (He CERTAINLY has not been spending 19 centuries waiting in any sanctuary vestibule!) For those who thus slander you are also slandering God. Praising him, Jude | ||
| Bruce H |
Jude Great point. Jude I think Ted just wants to tell us what he believes. He most likely will not listen or answer question's or see what you right. He will most likely just write his thoughts out for us to read. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Which is fine with me, Bruce. I wish him as much of God's blessings as he can absorb. Jesus was right when he said that the gospel is for those who have ears to hear it and Christian witnessing is for those who have eyes to see it. And if they see agape love interacting among people, then they will know we are Christians. I'm just happy to know that Jesus is the law written by action of the Holy Spirit upon our hearts. Grace and peace to you, brother, Jude | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Bruce, Another point about answering people like Ted: I understand that there are hundreds of people who regularly visit this website, read the postings, and then leave. And it is these people who are judging us. We should answer the Teds and the Dr. Tazzes, so that these people will see that we do have answers and that we are not just ignoring the arguments of people who disagree, but are answering with the truth in a spirit of love and understanding. Who knows? Maybe even some of those assigned by the GC to monitor us will be converted? God works in mysterious ways. Jude | ||
| Bruce H |
Jude I agree. | ||
| jtree |
News from the Adventist News Group: Someone wrote: (EW) >little use for your effectively condemning the billions of Christians who > simply worship on another day, a day arbitrarily selected as the Sabbath. Someone else wrote: (Old Sage) There are many dear christians that worship on other days than the Sabbath that will be in heaven, because they have not every been shown the Sabbath truth. But once you learn God's will and reject it you will be held accountable. Hosea 4:6 ¸ My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. EW Wrote > The Saturday Sabbath was selected by the early Jews with merit, but that > particular day of the week was never mandated in holy scriptures. Only the > seven-day cycle of work/rest had been mandated. Old Sage continues.. Exodus 20:1 ¸ And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage... 8 REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But THE SEVENTH DAY is THE SABBATH of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested THE SEVENTH DAY: wherefore the LORD blessed THE SABBATH DAY, and hallowed it. Using the word "the" denotes a paticular day, not just anyday. The Jews didn't pick which day is the Sabbath, God spoke it with His own voice, wrote it with His own finger. The Jews being obedient did what God said. God didn't bless but one day and that was the Sabbath day, it was His holy day, He made it for us. Jesus said He was the Lord of the Sabbath. Ezekiel 22:26 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. Ezekiel 22:31 Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord GOD. Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: It wasn't made for the Jews, it was made for man. EW wrote: > Do you think > that those Christians who worship on Sunday are somehow "evil?" Do you > think they are actually wishing to do wrong? Do you really feel they > worship with satanic intentions? Old Sage wrote: I don't think that Adam and Eve had evil intentions when they ate the fruit, but they were still wrong. EW wrote: > I do not, and never will, disagree with your Saturday Sabbath. But because > the majority of Christianity worships otherwise, and since the world's > "work-week" runs from Monday through Saturday, and since God wishes us to > worship him and rest "one day" per week and work six, then you should have > no problem with these others who simply wish to live as they see fit. Old Sage wrote: If the majority of Christians practice human sacrifices does that mean that it is ok? the "world's work-week?" doesn't God want us not to follow the way of the world? It comes down to, do I want to follow the Lord or myself? ----- the replys... I replied in sort of Jude's style here: Instead of listening to Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, hear Paul (Romans 14:5,6 ): ************ One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day [Sunday, for instance] as special, does so to the Lord. ************ What did you say Brother Paul?Galatians 5:18 ************* But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law (the ten commandment covenant given at Sinai) . ************* I'm hearing you Brother Paul, preach on Brother, preach on. Romans 7:6 ************ But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the written code but in the new life of the Spirit ************ Brother Paul, what else are can you tell me? Romans 10:44 *********** For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified *********** Any comments? Remember, you must use the Bible and the Bible only! Russell replies.. Jtree context, context, context.... gotta keep saying that to yourself before you post. my response to Russell.. Russell, everything is in context, context, context...you gotta read that to yourself before you say "out of context". Again Rusell, Instead of listening to Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, hear Paul Because in light of context...Paul says, cast out the bond woman (the old covenant given at Mt. Sinai, the 10 commandment covenant, and those who promote the old covenant (as the MAJORITY here does). Gal 4:21-31. 4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not understand the law? (V.22) For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. (V.23) But one, the son by the slave woman, was born by natural descent, while the other, the son by the free woman, was born through the promise. (V.24) These things may be allegorized, for these women represent two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. (V.25) Now Hagar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. (V.26) But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. (V.27) For it is written: ģRejoice, O barren woman who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who have no birth pains; because the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than those of the woman who has a husband.ī 1. Cast out the bondwoman = cast out the old covenant 2. Cast out "her son" = Cast ou those who promote the old covenant 3. "For the son of the bondwomen whall not be an heir with the son of the free woman = The terms of covenant are mutually exclusive 4. "we are not children of a bondwoman" = we are not under the old covenant (though the majority want to be) 5. We are children "of the free woman" = We are under the new covenant (except for those who insist on being under old covenant) Here in CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXTUAL teaching, Paul states in three specific ways that Christians are not under the authority of the old covenant. 1. The law was given 430 years after Abraham and was in effect until the coming of Christ 2. With the coming of Christ we are no longer under the Law. 3. Christian are to "cast out" and those who promote its being kept. Russell, I know many here, perhaps yourself, want to continue in the sin of "Spiritual adultry"..Paul addresses this issue. Romans 7:1-6 CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXTUAL 7:1 Or do you not know, brothers and sisters1 (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law is lord over a person as long as he lives? (V.:2) For a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the marriage.(V:3) So then, if she is joined to another man while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she is joined to another man, she is not an adulteress. (V.4) So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you could be joined to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, to bear fruit to God. (V.5) For when we were in the flesh, the sinful desires, aroused by the law, were active in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. (V.6) But now we have been released from the law, because we have died to what controlled us, so that we may serve in the new life of the Spirit and not under the old written code. Russell, notice the in contextual teaching of Paul, newness of the Spirit or new life of teh Spirit, a clear reference to the New Covenant, in contrast to the oldness of the letter or old written code (a synonymous word for the Ten Commandment covenant), a clear reference to the Sinaitic covenant, that we as New Testiment Christians are no longer under or to serve. Russell snaps back> But again, you misquote. SDA's DO NOT advocate keeping the law to become righteous. Also, the only "law" you are fighting against is the 4th commandment. Why aren't you fighting against honoring your father and mother? How about coveting? How about drunkenness? (that wasn't covered by the commandments yet Paul talks readily about it). You are arguing with the air again. Dr. Bachiochii? Where are his words? No where that I can see. What we really have, DaMao, is a difference in interpretations. You claim context, but when you look at those verses you just cited, you are TWISTING the meaning. What was Paul speaking about? Legalism as a form of righteousness. What do I and other SDA's constantly speak to you and others about regarding those verses? 1) Legalism doesn't save, only the blood of Jesus does that. 2) Do we disobey because we are saved? No!! 3) The Holy Spirit writes God's laws upon our hearts. 4) Because God (who? GOD!!) wrote those laws upon our hearts and has changed what was legalistic into love (stone to flesh) we obey God rather than man. 5) Because God teaches us, saves us, and preserves us, we also teach others about His salvation and about the joys of obeying God because you are saved. So, what is our flap about? YOU MISREPRESENT what we teach. You use verses of the Bible out of context (see the postings by "John Doe" in this thread regarding the context for those verses you posted). What really amazes me, DaMao, is when you see "law" as it is written in the verses you used below, you say it is evil and abhorant. Yet you see a different "law" when you see it "written upon the hearts". Both words are the same. Both words would apply to the same law. Yet you knash and tear at the Scriptures to change their meaning. If you look closely at the meaning between Hagar and Sarah, the underlying story is about trying to meet God through your own efforts (Hagar) or relying on faith (Sarah). SDA's are the first to say, it is always easier to have an appearance of faith (legalism). We have no corner on that market. But, legalism, by and of itself, does not do away with the law. "For we know that the law is spiritual, whereas I am carnal sold unto sin..." Russell PS -- keep working on that context, idea. You might get it someday. | ||
| jtree |
News from the Adventist News Group: Someone wrote: (EW) >little use for your effectively condemning the billions of Christians who > simply worship on another day, a day arbitrarily selected as the Sabbath. Someone else wrote: (Old Sage) There are many dear christians that worship on other days than the Sabbath that will be in heaven, because they have not every been shown the Sabbath truth. But once you learn God's will and reject it you will be held accountable. Hosea 4:6 ¸ My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. EW Wrote > The Saturday Sabbath was selected by the early Jews with merit, but that > particular day of the week was never mandated in holy scriptures. Only the > seven-day cycle of work/rest had been mandated. Old Sage continues.. Exodus 20:1 ¸ And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage... 8 REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But THE SEVENTH DAY is THE SABBATH of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested THE SEVENTH DAY: wherefore the LORD blessed THE SABBATH DAY, and hallowed it. Using the word "the" denotes a paticular day, not just anyday. The Jews didn't pick which day is the Sabbath, God spoke it with His own voice, wrote it with His own finger. The Jews being obedient did what God said. God didn't bless but one day and that was the Sabbath day, it was His holy day, He made it for us. Jesus said He was the Lord of the Sabbath. Ezekiel 22:26 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. Ezekiel 22:31 Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord GOD. Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: It wasn't made for the Jews, it was made for man. EW wrote: > Do you think > that those Christians who worship on Sunday are somehow "evil?" Do you > think they are actually wishing to do wrong? Do you really feel they > worship with satanic intentions? Old Sage wrote: I don't think that Adam and Eve had evil intentions when they ate the fruit, but they were still wrong. EW wrote: > I do not, and never will, disagree with your Saturday Sabbath. But because > the majority of Christianity worships otherwise, and since the world's > "work-week" runs from Monday through Saturday, and since God wishes us to > worship him and rest "one day" per week and work six, then you should have > no problem with these others who simply wish to live as they see fit. Old Sage wrote: If the majority of Christians practice human sacrifices does that mean that it is ok? the "world's work-week?" doesn't God want us not to follow the way of the world? It comes down to, do I want to follow the Lord or myself? ----- the replys... I replied in sort of Jude's style here: Instead of listening to Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, hear Paul (Romans 14:5,6 ): ************ One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day [Sunday, for instance] as special, does so to the Lord. ************ What did you say Brother Paul?Galatians 5:18 ************* But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law (the ten commandment covenant given at Sinai) . ************* I'm hearing you Brother Paul, preach on Brother, preach on. Romans 7:6 ************ But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the written code but in the new life of the Spirit ************ Brother Paul, what else are can you tell me? Romans 10:44 *********** For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified *********** Any comments? Remember, you must use the Bible and the Bible only! Russell replies.. Jtree context, context, context.... gotta keep saying that to yourself before you post. my response to Russell.. Russell, everything is in context, context, context...you gotta read that to yourself before you say "out of context". Again Rusell, Instead of listening to Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, hear Paul Because in light of context...Paul says, cast out the bond woman (the old covenant given at Mt. Sinai, the 10 commandment covenant, and those who promote the old covenant (as the MAJORITY here does). Gal 4:21-31. 4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not understand the law? (V.22) For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. (V.23) But one, the son by the slave woman, was born by natural descent, while the other, the son by the free woman, was born through the promise. (V.24) These things may be allegorized, for these women represent two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. (V.25) Now Hagar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. (V.26) But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. (V.27) For it is written: ģRejoice, O barren woman who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who have no birth pains; because the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than those of the woman who has a husband.ī 1. Cast out the bondwoman = cast out the old covenant 2. Cast out "her son" = Cast ou those who promote the old covenant 3. "For the son of the bondwomen whall not be an heir with the son of the free woman = The terms of covenant are mutually exclusive 4. "we are not children of a bondwoman" = we are not under the old covenant (though the majority want to be) 5. We are children "of the free woman" = We are under the new covenant (except for those who insist on being under old covenant) Here in CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXTUAL teaching, Paul states in three specific ways that Christians are not under the authority of the old covenant. 1. The law was given 430 years after Abraham and was in effect until the coming of Christ 2. With the coming of Christ we are no longer under the Law. 3. Christian are to "cast out" and those who promote its being kept. Russell, I know many here, perhaps yourself, want to continue in the sin of "Spiritual adultry"..Paul addresses this issue. Romans 7:1-6 CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXTUAL 7:1 Or do you not know, brothers and sisters1 (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law is lord over a person as long as he lives? (V.:2) For a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the marriage.(V:3) So then, if she is joined to another man while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she is joined to another man, she is not an adulteress. (V.4) So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you could be joined to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, to bear fruit to God. (V.5) For when we were in the flesh, the sinful desires, aroused by the law, were active in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. (V.6) But now we have been released from the law, because we have died to what controlled us, so that we may serve in the new life of the Spirit and not under the old written code. Russell, notice the in contextual teaching of Paul, newness of the Spirit or new life of teh Spirit, a clear reference to the New Covenant, in contrast to the oldness of the letter or old written code (a synonymous word for the Ten Commandment covenant), a clear reference to the Sinaitic covenant, that we as New Testiment Christians are no longer under or to serve. Russell snaps back> But again, you misquote. SDA's DO NOT advocate keeping the law to become righteous. Also, the only "law" you are fighting against is the 4th commandment. Why aren't you fighting against honoring your father and mother? How about coveting? How about drunkenness? (that wasn't covered by the commandments yet Paul talks readily about it). You are arguing with the air again. Dr. Bachiochii? Where are his words? No where that I can see. What we really have, DaMao, is a difference in interpretations. You claim context, but when you look at those verses you just cited, you are TWISTING the meaning. What was Paul speaking about? Legalism as a form of righteousness. What do I and other SDA's constantly speak to you and others about regarding those verses? 1) Legalism doesn't save, only the blood of Jesus does that. 2) Do we disobey because we are saved? No!! 3) The Holy Spirit writes God's laws upon our hearts. 4) Because God (who? GOD!!) wrote those laws upon our hearts and has changed what was legalistic into love (stone to flesh) we obey God rather than man. 5) Because God teaches us, saves us, and preserves us, we also teach others about His salvation and about the joys of obeying God because you are saved. So, what is our flap about? YOU MISREPRESENT what we teach. You use verses of the Bible out of context (see the postings by "John Doe" in this thread regarding the context for those verses you posted). What really amazes me, DaMao, is when you see "law" as it is written in the verses you used below, you say it is evil and abhorant. Yet you see a different "law" when you see it "written upon the hearts". Both words are the same. Both words would apply to the same law. Yet you knash and tear at the Scriptures to change their meaning. If you look closely at the meaning between Hagar and Sarah, the underlying story is about trying to meet God through your own efforts (Hagar) or relying on faith (Sarah). SDA's are the first to say, it is always easier to have an appearance of faith (legalism). We have no corner on that market. But, legalism, by and of itself, does not do away with the law. "For we know that the law is spiritual, whereas I am carnal sold unto sin..." Russell PS -- keep working on that context, idea. You might get it someday. |
