| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2070 Registered: 12-2003  |
You're right, Tom. Many Christians don't really understand the New Covenant. I believe that clinging to the law is a heresy which has crept into the church in order to weaken it. And, I believe, this heresy has weakened the church. I really believe that part of the polarizing that I sense is happening everywhere involves God calling people from legalistic systems into the miracle of His grace as a means of calling Christians back to the Bible and clarifying the complete miracle of true Christianity. And yes, Jeremy is right; the fact that so much of Christianity is foggy about the New Covenant is the reason Adventists are so successful at making converts from Christian churches. If the law really is still binding, the Adventists have the best argument. Colleen | ||
| Weimarred Registered user Username: Weimarred Post Number: 68 Registered: 1-2005 |
Jeremy, you're right, it seems to be a huge selling point. And once you buy that Saturday is the correct Sabbath, then you become susceptible to all sorts of other hogwash. Namely, if everbody's been getting it wrong for so long, then there must be some conspiracy afoot, bigger than JFK :-) I know I'm stating the obvious, preaching to the choir so to speak. To me it's interesting to see how Christianity has evolved, that is to say, how's it's evolved as an organized religion. Colleen, there have been many heresies, but the law seems to me to have been the original one. It's been the great dichotemy, the big poser for all Christians, since day one. | ||
| Weimarred Registered user Username: Weimarred Post Number: 69 Registered: 1-2005 |
Esther, I just read a little more closely your original post, and you said "Itís just that I know until the veil lifts, a person really canít see these truthsÖat least thatís how it was for me." Speaking of the OT, and of veils, I know I read it somewhere on another past thread, but wasn't the veil being ripped at Christ's death pretty darn significant? Even as a kid it seemed to me to be pretty conlusive evidence that Christ was the fulfillment of the OT, and all that it stood for. I got out of it that the OT sacrifices pointed to a single Messiah, who would be THE sacrifce. I also got out of it that the separation between the Holy and the Holy of Holies was erased henceforth forevermore. My understanding of this is that the Holy was where the sacrificial smoke went up, and the Holy of Holies was where the sins stayed until they were cleansed, or blotted out forever. (I imagine I'm giving some of you gray hairs with my simplistic theological concepts, Chris in particular :-) But anyways, my uderstanding, even as a kid, was that Christ not only was THE sacrifice, but that now both forgiveness and atonement (or pardon) were instantaneous, if not in this world, then at least in the hereafter, and in the heavenly realm. Thankfully, I wasn't exposed very much to the nutty concept that atonement, or whatever you call it, started taking place in 1844 (my understanding of the IJ etc is foggy). I also don't know much about the Jewish faith, but at least in the context of what Christians belevie, it seems that the Jews are still awaiting a Messiah, or, as I beleive I read somewhere, some beleive in multiple Meassiahs. Either way, if you don't beleive that all was fulfilled at the cross, then it seems to me that you're in the same boat, that is, waiting for something that hasn't happened. That would seem to diminish the very concpet of Christianity. | ||
| Weimarred Registered user Username: Weimarred Post Number: 70 Registered: 1-2005 |
Ok, last point. If we are to follow the law as outlined in the OT, we'd be living very strangely. A lot of people would be stoned to death, women would have to leave town every 28 days, etc, etc. What's bizarre is the mental gymnasics some Christians use to keep some while throwing out the others. This is where I see NC bringing a lot of clarity. | ||
| Foreverscout Registered user Username: Foreverscout Post Number: 52 Registered: 3-2005 |
My Lutheran Confirmation Class was so memorable; I don't remember how the ten commandments were taught, isn't that awful? I can only tell you how I saw them then. The ten near impossibles or impossibles. As a teen I figured that God wanted me to see these as a good way to live my life. I still see them this way. I don't live with them hanging over my head like the great sword of Damocles. But I can see how living within the laws would make me feel better about myself, God designed us that way. I live my life to please God and it makes me feel better about myself; but I really don't worry about the ten commandments. Does that make sense to anyone? I wonder if because they are already written in my heart somewhere that I don't even have to know what they are to follow them, cause I could not even recite them for you, you know what I mean? I can tell you which ones I have struggled with, those are the ones I know to recite. Thou shall not covet; so easy for a financially poor person to do, I am getting better at this one though. Honor your father and mother; it's difficult when you love but do not respect your mother, my mom is a nutcase. In any case I know that you are probably right about most Christians still feeling they need to live under the law, not really understanding that Christ was the total fulfillment of it. I have to talk with Erin about her confirmation class since it was only a short time ago for her. Set Free! Foreverscout | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 231 Registered: 5-2004 |
Hi Guys! Thanks so much for all of your comments! It seems with each of these emails I receive I have to pull back and spend some concentrated time reviewing the Gospel before the "shakes" leave my soul. It's not so much that I question my faith, but all the twists and turns leave me in a fog of wondering which side is up...know what I mean? I have breathed a prayer of thanks for each one of you! And everyone had so many good points. I will definately incorporate your shared wisdom into my reply. I started working on it yesterday and am approaching it from the aspect of the whole law. Since I am being accused as saying that God has different laws for both Jew and Gentile (which btw I'm not claiming as both groups are saved by faith only), I will also point out that without the NT there is no way for a gentile to be saved without become a Jew by circumcision and adherance to the Whole law. But I guess I have a whole lot of ground to cover. Thank you Raven, Chris, Hobrobinson, Jeremy, Heretic, Susan, Colleen, Sabra, Hannah, Weimmared, & Foreverscout  I am so blessed to "know" each of you! And you're right...IT IS SO WONDERFUL TO BE FREE! Praise Christ Jesus & Praise God! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2071 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, Tom--you are right; keeping the law for righteousness is the original heresy. Natural man automatically desires to work for his goodness. It requires a spiritual awakening to see that grace is a gift to us. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 707 Registered: 10-2004  |
Foreverscout, But if you say that the 10 Commandments are what God wants us to live by, then when an SDA comes up to you and asks you why you don't keep the Sabbath, then you really have no argument. That's exactly how they get so many converts. That's why I think that it's important to recognize the 10 Commandments for what they are--the Old Covenant (Deut. 4:13) that is obsolete and no longer binding (Hebrews 8) which we are to cast out (Gal. 4:30), and that we are now under a New Covenant and are to live by a new law, the Law of Messiah (1 Cor. 9:20-21). Jeremy | ||
| Pw Registered user Username: Pw Post Number: 452 Registered: 6-2004 |
That's where the SDA's try and trip you up, by quoting what Jesus said "If you love me, keep my commandments" and try and twist it around to say that he was referring to the ten commandments, therefore you need to honor the sabbath day. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 486 Registered: 7-2004 |
It is so sad that the Bible translators used one blanket word, "commandments" to cover so many different things. The original biblical language was exceedingly clear about what kinds of directives were being referred to. English is such a cumbersome language sometimes. If, when the word logos had been used the translators would have used the word "Torah" rather than "commandments," and that the reference had to do with the Sinaitic law, that would have been clear. Then, when the word nomos came up, the words "law of love" could have covered the bill. As it is we are left with dealing with thick-headed people who believe that we have sold out to the devil so we can eat/work/dress a particular way. Nothing could be further from the truth. After learning about the true law of love, and that the entire burden for salvation has already been carried by Jesus, I am sold out to my Saviour, Jesus Christ. I know this is true for all of the rest of you, and we wish only to share the utter joy that comes with finally meeting the open-armed Jesus that the new birth introduces a person to. What I've just said, tho, is an entire waste of time when reasoning with someone who is living under law. They are deaf and blind to the kind of joy that comes with true religious liberty. You have all listed so many good arguments to give, if the people will only listen. It is too bad that they are enthralled by "another gospel." | ||
| Pw Registered user Username: Pw Post Number: 453 Registered: 6-2004 |
So true. However it is annoying when they try to put a guilt trip on you by saying you are deliberately being disobedient towards Jesus when you ignore the sabbath day commandment. | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1834 Registered: 11-2002 |
Pw, Yeah, that is my moms only line, what you said that Jesus said, "If you love me you must keep my commandments". So, I then tell her the commandments of Jesus. She then spins it that to Jeasus the commandments were the 10 commandments because He was a Jew, thus he had the truth of the Sabbath. It just goes round and round. Once I told my mom that nowhere in the NT is the Sabbath commandment even mentioned. She told me it did not have to be mentioned. It is a given, it is such a known fact that it didn't have to be mentioned. It's really nerve reacking, to say the least! | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 808 Registered: 7-2003  |
Just a cautionary note, the linguistics involved are a bit more complicated then simply differentiating between "entole" and "nomos". "Entole" could refer to commands within the Mosaic Law or "entole" could refer to the commands of Christ. Likewise, "nomos" could refer to the Mosaic Law or "nomos" could refer to God's perfect law which is above and beyond the temporary Mosaic covenenant. Both words have a range of meanings. What determines the meaning of either word at any given point is the immediate context. When the immediate context is unclear it is sometimes helpful to see how the same author uses each word in other contexts. For instance, in the Johanian writings it appears that John normally uses "entole" to refer to the commands given by Christ and "nomos" to refer to the Mosaic Law or commands within the Mosaic Law. But remember, this is not a hard fast rule throughout the NT. To state it as such would open you up to being proven wrong by anyone with a concordance and a Greek dictionary. Here are the relavent definitions for your perusal. Note the range in meanings of both words as well as the ways they are used in different parts of the NT. entole [See Stg: G3551] entole; gen. entoles, fem. noun from entÈllomai <G1781>, to charge, command. Commandment, whether of God or man. (I) Charge, commission, direction (John 10:18; 12:49, 50; Acts 17:15; Col. 4:10; Heb. 7:5; Sept.: 2 Kings 18:36; 2 Chr. 8:15). With the meaning of a public charge or edict from magistrates (John 11:57; Sept.: 2 Chr. 35:16). (II) In the sense of precept, commandment, law as spoken of: (A) The traditions of the rabbis (Titus 1:14). (B) The precepts and teachings of Jesus (John 13:34; 15:12; 1 Cor. 14:37; 1 John 2:8). (C) The precepts and commandments of God in general (1 Cor. 7:19; 1 John 3:22, 23; Sept.: Deut. 4:2, 40). (D) The precepts of the Mosaic Law, in whole or in part (Matt. 5:19; 19:17; 22:36, 38, 40; Mark 10:5, 19; Rom. 7:8ñ13). (E) Generally and collectively, etole; or entole Theo™, the commandment of God, used either for the Mosaic Law (Matt. 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8, 9; Luke 23:56; Sept.: 2 Kings 21:8; 2 Chr. 12:1) or for the precepts given to Christians, Christian doctrines and duties (1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Pet. 2:21; 3:2). Syn.: prost·ss; <G4367>, to charge. Entole; is the most common of the words meaning commandment, stressing the authority of the one commanding, while Èntalma <G1778>, a religious commandment, stresses the thing commanded. Other syn.: di·tagma, <G1297>, edict, decree; diatage; <G1296>, ordinance, disposition; epitage; <G2003>, commanding authority, order, command; paraggelÌa <G3852>, charge. óComplete Word Study Dictionary, The nomos [See Stg: G3551] nÛmos; gen. nÛmou, masc noun from nÈm; (n.f., see aponÈm; <G632>), to divide among, parcel out, allot. Etymologically something parceled out, allotted, what one has in use and possession; hence, usage, custom (Sept.: 2 Sam. 7:19). In the NT, law. (I) Generally, without reference to a particular people or state (Rom. 4:15; 5:13; 7:8; 1 Tim. 1:9). (II) Specifically of particular laws, statutes, ordinances, spoken in the NT mostly of the Mosaic statutes: (A) Of laws relating to civil rights and duties (John 7:51; 8:5 [cf. Lev. 20:10]; John 19:7 [cf. Lev. 24:16 and Deut. 13:5]; Acts 23:3; 24:6); the law of marriage (Rom. 7:2, 3; 1 Cor. 7:39); the Levitical priesthood (Heb. 7:16); according to the ordinance or command respecting the promulgation of the Law (Heb. 9:19 [cf. Ex. 20:18, 19; 24:2ff.]; Sept.: Num. 19:14). (B) Of laws relating to external religious rites, e.g., purification (Luke 2:22; Heb. 9:22); circumcision (John 7:23; Acts 15:5 [cf. 21:20, 24]); sacrifices (Heb. 10:8; see Sept.: Lev. 6:9, 14). (C) Of laws relating to the hearts and conduct of men (Rom. 7:7; Heb. 8:10; 10:16 quoted from Jer. 31:33ñ34; James 2:8). (D) By implication, for a written law, a law expressly given, i.e., in writing (Rom. 2:14). (III) The Law, i.e., a code or body of laws. In the NT used only of the Mosaic code. (A) Specifically in Matt. 5:18; 22:36; Luke 16:17; John 1:17; 7:19; Acts 7:53; Rom. 2:13ff.; 5:13; 1 Cor. 15:56; Gal. 3:10ff.; 1 Tim. 1:8; James 2:9, 11. Works of the Law (Rom. 2:15; Gal. 2:16; 3:10) meaning those of the Law, in the Law, or under the Law, i.e., the Mosaic law (Rom. 2:12; 3:19; 4:16; 1 Cor. 9:20; Sept.: Deut. 1:5; 4:44). (B) Metaphorically for the Mosaic dispensation (Rom. 10:4; Heb. 7:12; 10:1). (C) As a metonymy for the Book of the Law, i.e., particularly the books of Moses, the Pentateuch (Matt. 12:5; Luke 2:23 [cf. Ex. 13:2]; Luke 10:26; 1 Cor. 9:8, 9 [cf. Deut. 25:4]; 1 Cor. 14:34 [cf. Gen. 3:16]). As forming part of the OT, the Law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17; Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 28:23; Rom. 3:21); the Law, the prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44); also simply the Law for the OT (John 10:34; 12:34; 15:25 from Ps. 35:19; 1 Cor. 14:21 from Isa. 28:11, 12). (IV) Metaphorically, the perfect law, meaning the more perfect law for the Christian dispensation, in contrast with that of Moses (James 1:25); without tÈleios <G5046>, perfect (James 2:12; 4:11); of the laws and precepts established by the gospel, e.g., the law of Christ (Rom. 13:8, 10; Gal. 5:23; 6:2). (V) Metaphorically, the law, i.e., rule, norm and/or standard of judging or acting (Rom. 3:27; 7:23, 25; 8:2, 7; 9:31). In the sense of a rule of life, discipline (Phil. 3:5). Deriv.: ·nomos <G459>, without law; Ènnomos <G1772>, lawful; nomÌz; <G3543>, to acknowledge as custom; nomikÛs <G3544>, one learned in the law; nomodid·skalos <G3547>, teacher of the law; nomothÈts <G3550>, a lawgiver. Syn.: arche; <G746>, principle, rule; exousÌa <G1849>, authority; kr·tos <G2904>, dominion, power, government; kanon <G2583>, rule; dÛgma <G1378>, decree, a law. Ant.: anomÌa <G458>, lawlessness; paranomÌa <G3892>, transgression; adikÌa <G93>, injustice; par·basis <G3847>, transgression. óComplete Word Study Dictionary, The | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 903 Registered: 7-2003  |
Susan, B has said the exact same thing when I mentioned the sabbath command was not mentioned in the NT. He said it was a given and no one questioned it...I said, so they questioned adultery, murder and stealing but not sabbathkeeping??? Then he pointed out Jesus went to the synagogue on the sabbath and THAT proved we were to keep the sabbath...I pointed out that the scripture says he went as a part of custom/tradition, not commandment keeping, and he just side-steps it. As someone said up in the string, people that don't want to hear anything that contradicts their belief system will not recognize anything that contradicts their belief system. I eventually likened it to arguing with a brick wall....pointless. The best laid out Biblical presentations will not be heard by a closed mind. And when they think you are being deceived by Satan, I guess it's natural to close your mind to the possibility you're not. For myself, I have found such arguments pointless, but each has to make that evaluation in their own situation. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 708 Registered: 10-2004 |
Another note regarding the original languages: One huge mistranslation in most (all?) English translations is the term "the Ten Commandments." That is not what the original Hebrew says at all. The Hebrew word translated "commmandments" (dabar, in all three occurences of the phrase "Ten Commanments") only means, simply, "words." It does not mean commandments at all. Thus, it should be translated "the Ten Words." If it had been thus translated correctly in our English versions, we would not have to try so hard to convince people that when Jesus says "My commandments" He cannot possibly be referring to the Ten Words. Jeremy | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 146 Registered: 6-2001 |
I found out pretty quickly adventists have a pat answer/argument for the common questions/arguments about their religion. Arguing those points are well, pointless. So I try to come up with ones they haven't heard of before. (not that I try to argue ever at all) One of my favorites is "so, how did Christian slaves keep the Sabbath in New Testament times? The Bible does mention them." Or "How are people in outer space supposed to keep the Sabbath?" Randomly, Hannah | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1835 Registered: 11-2002 |
Melissa, so often what you say about B. is just what I could say about my mom. We on here have such shared experiences. And, it is truly amazing how the many of os on here from various places around the country as well as around the world get the same canned responses from our SDA loved ones. Have any of you been closely involved with any JW's? Each JW gives the same answer to whatever topic is brought up. If they don't have the answer for the topic at hand they somehow bring the discussion back to something they do have a response to. It is very similiar to the SDA's. Just like the JW's like to fixate on their belief that Jesus was cruisified on a stake and not a cross thus totally ignoring the sacrafice of what Jesus did by being murdered as He was, the SDA's like to fixate on the weekly Sabbath thereby ignoring Jesus completely in the plan of redemption. BTW, in my community is a lady who has a bumper sticker on her car that says, "Jesus kept the 7th-day Sabbath. Do you?". This lady is a historical SDA. She will not even go into the local SDA church, hasn't in years because of the Jesuit infilterators that attend there. She spreads Jan Marcussian literature all over toqwn, on the bus benches, in the laundrymats, etc. It's way spun. SDpeeking of the Jesuit infilterators-several years ago the Bible study group from the local Catholic church decided to learn what the other Christian churches in the area taught and believed. Each person took a different church to attend for several months. Some went to the various Baptist churches, one to the Methodist, and so on. One man picked the local SDA. He fully identified himself as Catholic and told the copngreation what his Bible study group was doing and that the motive was no more and no less than wanting understanding of the other Christian churches and their teachings. You could almose see the panic on the SDA's go into full panic mode when they realiZed a Catholic was in their church and not to be converted to SDA but rather to learn about them. The historic SDA lady I mentioned earlier had by this time stopped associating with the local SDA's but she still has friends who go there and let her in on whats going on at the church,She actually told me that proved the beast was not coming right into the true church. The drama got to be too much for me and living in a small town she is hard to avoid. However, since that time I have pretty much been pulling it off. We on here have such ahared experiwences it's almost uncany. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 809 Registered: 7-2003 |
Jeremy, excellent point regarding "eser dabar" (ten words) as used in Ex. 34:28, Deut. 4:13, and Deut. 10:4! How many Christians of any sort know that the so-called "Ten Commandments" are never ever called this in any extant Hebrew manuscript? It's a mistranslation! If the 1611 KJV (and all the English translations that have followed in its veneralbe tradition) had properly translated "eser dabar" to reflect the technical legal language that is conveyed in the Hebrew, it would be clear that "eser debar" is a covenantal legal term related to the covenant made at Sinai. Chris | ||
| Stardoc57 Registered user Username: Stardoc57 Post Number: 8 Registered: 4-2004 |
I have begun a similar dialogue with my parents (who I will see soon due to family illness). It is very difficult for them to understand how I have been drawn away from the "Truth". They imply that I must have studied with someone or been looking for an excuse to rationalize my Sunday-church going for the past several years. When I discuss scripture with them, its clear that they are not looking at the scripture to understand what it says, but rather looking for how to twist the meaning so that it will fit their belief system. I don't think that I can argue light into them. I don't even think that it's my job to do so (only openness to the Holy Spirit can convict them). My first goal is to show them that I still use the Bible and want them to respect my love for Christ. With time, perhaps, they will will want to understand. (It kind of reminds me of homeschooling my son. When the "lights are on" he can learn alot. When the mind is closed, we can spend hours on a single concept. When that happens, I take a break and come back to him after he calms down and opens his mind) I have compiled 40+ NT verses that address the law. I sent them to my parents and invited them to review them. Perhaps if they see the volume of texts that indicate the end of the law, they might be willing to change from "the text can't mean that" to "how could this be". That would be a good first step. | ||
| Bob Registered user Username: Bob Post Number: 292 Registered: 7-2000  |
I have a book by Dan Stone, a retired Baptist preacher. The title is ìThe Rest of the Gospel ñ When The Partial Gospel Has Worn You Out.î You can order it from One Press, P.O. Box 832442, Richardson, TX 75083, or call 1-800-915-8771. On pp 144-145, Stone discusses the dismal results of Galatianism - trying to live oneís Christian life under a combination of law and grace. Describing the outcome of buying into such false teaching, he says: ì . . . everything in that program is designed for futility, frustration, and failure. But they donít tell you that up front, do they? When you sign up, no one makes this announcement: ìWEíVE GOT A WONDERFUL PROGRAM HERE, THE END RESULT OF WHICH WILL BE FUTILITY, FRUSTRATION AND FAILURE! WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE COURSE, WE WILL GIVE YOU A DIPLOMA SAYING, ëCONGRATULATIONS, YOU HAVE FAILED!î Bob |
