| Author | Message | ||
| Schasc Registered user Username: Schasc Post Number: 48 Registered: 10-2004 |
Has anybody read the article on christianity.com entitled It Ain't Heavy: Delighting in God's Law? It sounds very much what I hear in my Adventist church. I couldnt get the link to paste but if you go to the site you will see it listed on the main page.........By the way any ideas to get links to appear in a post? I copied the address, but it did not appear as a link...... | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 545 Registered: 4-2000  |
Schasc, Yes, I agree that the Breakpoint (Prison Fellowship) article by T. M. Moore (a Presbyterian from Tennessee) is blatant legalism. A few moments ago, I sent them an email of protest for allowing space for such anti-Gospel heresy. Sadly and obviously, Mr. Moore hasn't studied the book of Galatians in depth nor read the entire chapter of 2 Corinthians 3 recently. Missing in that article were key texts like Romans 10:4 and Galatians 5:18. Indeed, the Judaizers are still in our midst. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 41 Registered: 11-2005 |
http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=17661 | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1148 Registered: 3-2005 |
Dennis, I just read that article by Moore, and I think I might have to respectfully disagree about it being anti-gospel? There is a huge difference between the way this Presbyterian pastor is presenting the Law vs. the way Adventism teaches it. While I disagree with R.C. Sproul and this Presbyterian pastor on their belief that the ten commandments are still binding as a standard, I don't think these folks are saying that keeping the law KEEPS us saved like the Galatian heresy in Adventism and Catholicism which does in effect teach that unless you keep the Sabbath you aren't saved. Yes, these people are wrong about the old covenant, and with indefensible teaching on Sabbath transference to Sunday, but I wouldn't compare it to Adventism. But, having said that, I am puzzled about why so many otherwise good teachers and preachers such as R.C. Sproul, and the great Charles Spurgeon never have seen the great truths of the New Covenant, but coming out of Adventism, I think God has given us a great opportunity to share New Covenant theology. There is a great web site teaching Reformed, but New Covenant theology at www.soundofgrace.com One other comment about the above linked article. What I got out of it is that the Christian DOES delight in the great principles of the law of God. I think we can have great respect for God's law which is contained in the entire Bible without being legalists. Paul says that the Law is holy, just, and good, and that he delights in the Law. Stan | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 405 Registered: 7-2004  |
Stan, I'm afraid I'll side with Dennis on this one. This could have been spoken from any SDA pulpit or taken directly from the Review. It perpetuates the error that when John speaks of His commandments that it refers to the 10 commandments. Take a moment and contrast this article with Luther's Commentary on Galations (particular his comments on 3:15-29 & 5:1-12). The contrast in ideas and tone is remarkably striking. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1150 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ric_b, Actually I don't disagree with you and I stated my disagreement with a lot of the article. Would you not say though that there is a difference in viewing the decalogue as a standard to try to live up to after we are born again and SECURE in our salvation as the presbyterians teach, rather than what SDAs clearly teach that you keep the law to hold on to your salvation? Dennis, my only disagreement with you, is your assertion that Moore's article is "blatant legalism". Advocating obeying God's Law does not strike me as being legalistic when done in the power of the Holy Spirit. Legalism by the Galatians definition is trying to obtain salvation by keeping the law. Also legalism is adding ANYTHING to the scriptures as prohibitions that the scriptures do not prohibit. I guess I would have a hard time writing off Spurgeon, Sproul, Horton, and many other great teachers of the doctrines of grace as legalists because they advocated keeping the commandments as a response to being saved, and comparing them to SDAs in their teaching of the law. However, I admit that the article is poorly written and the terminology is bad and Moore is wrong on John's use of commandments. I go to a PCA church in our area, so I might be biased, but I do know the hearts of a lot of these people I disagree with on the old covenant. But I attend because their teachings on God's sovereignty and belief that salvation is entirely by grace, and none of free-will, are right on and so far removed from SDA practice, and these people are not legalists. They are fun to be around. But Ric, having read Luther's Galatians several times, I do agree with you. I prefer Luther to Calvin, and might have to look for a Lutheran church like you have done, as Luther also taught salvation totally by grace and not free will. I have just started reading "Bondage of the Will" again by him. Stan | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 351 Registered: 7-2004  |
Here's a classic example in the article of SDA-style prooftexting and reading more into the text than is there:
I looked these verses up, and Ephesians says God prepared the works beforehand, but there is absolutely no mention those works have anything to do with the 10 Commandments. Of course when you tie that verse with Romans 7:12 that says the Law is holy, just and good, then I guess you could possibly come to that conclusion. That's the problem with prooftexting. Besides, since when are the works God requires of us "encoded in His Law?" That makes it entirely an external list with no need of the indwelling Spirit. And, it's an incomplete list at best. The real proof of our saved status and deposit of the Holy Spirit is as stated in John that we will be known as His disciples by the love we have for one another. When I was processing out of the SDA church, it became very clear to me that it's possible to perfectly keep every one of the 10 Commandments and still have not one speck of love for anyone. The 10 Commandments are NOT the perfect reflection of God or His perfect standard; they were merely a shadowy reflection of a small part of God's character. According to Galatians 5, the believer is not governed by the Law, but by the indwelling Spirit, which is evidenced by how we treat one another "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The way of the Spirit is so much more complete and involves far more of us than the 10 Commandments ever could. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 546 Registered: 4-2000 |
Stan, Moore's concluding appeal says it all: "Are you conscious of trying to walk in the Law throughout the day?" This is only one example why I referred to his views as "blatant legalism." Someone living an authentic, Spirit-led life would never ask that question. The law of Christ supercedes the law of Moses by providing a higher standard of righteousness. Importantly, I do not contemplate the Law all day long because Jesus is the Living Torah. I no longer have to keep lists to assure my salvation. "But the fruit of Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law" (Galatians 5:22,23 NASB). Paul concludes, "But if you live by the Spirit, you are not under the Law" (Galatians 5:18 NASB). As regenerated Christ-followers, we no longer gaze upon the fading glory of the Law. "For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it" (2 Cor. 3:10 NASB). Furthermore, Paul says, "But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?" (2 Cor. 3:7,8 NASB). Indeed, this is the question that Pastor Moore failed to ask in his concluding remarks. By the way, I had my theologian in residence (Sylvia) read Moore's article for her assessment. Her first reaction was, "This guy is a Seventh-day Adventist." Well, at least, he sounds alot like one. :>) Dennis Fischer | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1154 Registered: 3-2005 |
Dennis, you and I do not disagree on very much that I can remember. I especially wouldn't want to argue with Sylvia! (smiley) Yes, the article was very bad. I just remember how bad Adventism was, and there is a disconnect here. I think as former SDAs God has opened our spiritual eyes to maybe share this relatively new trend in theology called "New Covenant" theology with other Christians. Unfortunately, some traditions such as the "Westminster Confession" have trumped the plain teaching of God's Word. In the final analysis I think most of us agree on New Covenant Theology. I do think we need to be charitable to other Christians, who at this point have not been able to see things from the perspective we have been given. Dennis, if I could show you similar statements from Spurgeon, and from John Bunyan, another great hero of the faith, that were like this Presbyterian pastor's statement on the law, would you call them blatant legalists? There is really no basic disagreement I have with you or Sylvia, or with Ric and Raven on this issue, it may only be on how to classify these type of teachers. Stan | ||
| Javagirl Registered user Username: Javagirl Post Number: 131 Registered: 6-2005 |
Dennis, I liked your response. The word TRYING in the quote from Moore stands out to me. NO! I am no longer consciously TRYING to walk in the law, Old or New Covenant, Or TRYING to have the gifts of the spirit, or TRYING to have the fruit of the Spirit. I am focusing on allowing God to use me as He will, without my useless, self-centered attempts at performance. If I am TRYING anything, it is trying to REMEMBER Who holds the future, and Who holds my hand and directs my path. I am focusing on the blood of the New Covenant, shed for me. I am focusing on the Promise and seal of the Holy Spirit. The actual changes in attitude and behavior that I am experiencing have nothing at all to do with effort on my behalf. Therefore, I am able to praise God and worship God, for His work in me. Ezekiel 36:25- 25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. God's Spirit is the one that "causes" me to walk in His statutes. There is no mention of work on my behalf toward this end...And God is faithful! Praise God! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3167 Registered: 12-2003  |
I just finished reading the article. (I would have finished sooner, but we had to attend an Adventist funeral today, and we just returend a little while ago. But that's another story!) I agree with Raven; the article asbove is truly misusing Biblical texts to make his point--they are out of context, and he's reading into them his own viewpoint. For example, his using John to promote commandment-keeping is ignoring the fact that the word John uses for "commandments" is "entole", or teachings. It is not the word for Torah or law. Further, John goes on to define Jesus' commandments: to love one another as He loved us, love your neighbor as yourself, etc. Just yesterday I found an article printed out from htttp://www.ptitx.org/News/whatis-NTC.htm I don't remember who gave this to me, but I've had it around for a while. Just yesterday I found it and read it. This article describes the differences between New Covenant Theology and Covenant Theology and also dispensational theology. Covenant Theology is the general understanding Presbyterians and the traditional "reformed" theologians have held for perhaps centuries. Covenant theology holds that the law is separated into parts: moral, civil, and ceremonial. It's the same division of law that Adventists hold to. (It's easy to see how the early Adventists came up with this idea!) This division, however, was not "substantially taught" until the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas and in the 16th century by John Calvin. The idea is not Biblical; it is a traditional teaching of the early Catholic church. Covenant theology holds that there is only one over-arching covenant of grace. It holds that the Decalogue is eternal and both preceeds and suceeds the Mosaic covenant. New Covenant Theology teaches that "the love of God and the love of neighbor are the two greatest commandments (Matth. 22:36-40)." NCT teaches that the Decalogue hang upon these two great commandments. Covenant theology teaches that the two great commandments hang upon the Decalogue--in other words, Covenant Theology teaches that the Decalogue is the eternal framework upon which Jesus' two great commandments hang. NCT teaches that Jesus Himself generates and defines the law, and the Decalogue was God's derivation of His eternal great commandments. The New Covenant Law is called the "law of Christ". It is different from the Mosaic Law, and the Gentiles did not have the Mosaic law (1 Cor. 9:20-21). The law of Christ is not the same thing as the Decalogue, although they are related (because they are both given by God Himself). The law of Christ is better than the law of Moses (Matt. 5:21-48; Heb. 7:19). "It is a higher revelation of the righteousness of God (Matt. 5:20); it is based =upon a higher standard of love (Matt. 5:44); and Chirst's inauguration of the New Covenant brings in things that are qualitatively "newer," expressed in developing the theological significance of such basic concepts as New wineskins, new teaching, new commandment, new creation, new man, new name, new song, new Jerusalem andn all thingn new (Rev. 21:5)." In short, Reformed theology teaches really important truths about God's sovereignty and justice and mercy and grace. On the other hand, "Reformed Theology" is actually not a Biblical term, either, and it names a human system of understanding God. It is not a strike against Calvin that he understood the Decalogue as an eternal reality; he was, after all, a product of his extremely Catholic-saturated age, and it seems that God never reveals ALL errors or ALL necessary reforms to a single person at one time. The understanding of the New Covenant is clearly taught in the Bible; it was, unfortunately, obscured for centuries. God sent the early Reformers to bring us back to the pure gospel of grace and faith in the promises of God realized in the completed work of Christ. The understanding of Jesus actually fulfilling the whole law, however, has emerged more clearly as people have learned to trust the finished word of Jesus. Luther, though, was much clearer about the role of works and law than, apparently, some of the other reformers were. The works the NT teaches is not law-keeping. When we are saved, we do not refer to the law for our appropriate behavior. We learn to live by the Spirit as described in Romans 7 and 8. The law was for the purpose of revealing and increasing sin. Jesus is for the purpose of forgiving us and bringing us to completely new life. When we are in Jesus, we have the Living Law living in us. We DO NOT live by nor teach the law. We teach Jesus, and we live by the Spirit who relentelssly teaches us and reveals our sins and wounds. We are not antinomian when we are in Christ; we are held to a much more meticulate, higher standard in Christ than if we referred back to the law. I have so much respect for the reformed theologians; they have rightfully drawn us back to the sovereignty and authority of God. Their emphasis on Covenant Theology rather than New Covenant Theology, however, is not really supportable Biblically. If Covenant Theology is Biblical, then we MUST live by the law; we MUST keep Sabbath. If the law is still our frame of reference, then the Holy Spirit should be convicting Christ-followers of Sabbath-keeping. But He is not doing that. He is convicting us of Jesus and His fully completed work of fulfilling the entire law! This widespread understanding of Covenant Theology as opposed to New Covenant Theology is an example of why we cannot refer even to the great fathers of the church as our bottom line of Biblical interpretation. We really must be reading the Bible and praying for God to reveal truth and His will to us through the Holy Spirit. These differences, though, do not make those who believe differently "heretics". We can trust God to reveal Himself and to shape us into His likeness in His time. He is faithful. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1155 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen, thanks for reminding us of that New Covenant Theology article and link. That is the very best summary of what New Covenant theology is. I hope everyone on this board clicks on to that link and prints it out. www.ptitx.org/News/whatis-NTC.htm Stan | ||
| Ane Registered user Username: Ane Post Number: 1 Registered: 6-2005 |
I have tediously been trying to sort out all the various versions of theology, OC, NC, Reformed, Disppensationalism etc. I'm puzzled by how many of the Old Covenant Theologians insist the decalogue is still binding and wasn't ever changed; and yet they don't keep the 7th day Sabbath (excluding SDAs). Don't their actions speak louder than words by keeping Sunday instead. I understand some believe Sabbath was transfered to Sunday, but then by their actions aren't they really stating the decalogue has been changed. | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 254 Registered: 6-2001  |
Hi Ane, welcome to Former Adventist Fellowship! As someone who has never been an Adventist, I can answer this question. (My husband is a former Adventist and I have to live near several Adventist relatives) Anyways, I can tell you I nor anyone I have known ever "kept Sunday" in any way and especially not the way Adventists keep Sabbath. We go to church Sunday morning, yes, but afterwards we may go out to eat (always a good time to continue the socializing that you started in the church lobby especially since you don't want to think about preparing lunch) or we may go shopping, or clean the house, or watch football, or go to work, or whatever. The arguments for this have been outlined thoroughly here and other places, and I don't want to try to reinvent the wheel, except to say the Old Covenant wasn't "changed" per say, it was "fulfilled" in Christ. The best analogy I have heard to explain this is imagining a Christian from China who has moved to the United States. Suddenly the old laws that he was forced to obey are no longer binding. This does not mean that he is under no law, just a new law. There are many points of overlap, just as the laws against murder, but there are points where the systems conflict, such as the laws about religion or how many children you can have. For Christians, the new law is the New Testament. Freely, Hannah | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1242 Registered: 7-2003  |
Hi, Ane, I see it's your first post. Welcome. Many who think the 10 commandments are still binding have a number of "explanations" regarding the 4th. -it's the only one not reiterated in the new testament, so it doesn't apply. -the principle matters...work - life balance, not the legalistic days -as you mentioned, some think honoring the resurrection on the first day replaces Saturday observances -and I would submit some go to church on Sunday because that's when their parents took them, and they've never seriously given it another thought No person I've ever known in my "Sunday" churches would understand the accusation the "law has changed" in the way SDAs teach it. Many don't even understand the law was fulfilled and a shadow of Christ, though they claim to value it. Welcome to our chat. Hope to hear more of your story. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1162 Registered: 3-2005 |
Welcome Ane to FAF! I see this is your first post. If my memory serves me correctly, I think you know my friend Greg. It looks like you have done a lot of investigation into the different theological streams. Have you checked out the above link? This is the best summary of the most consistent way at viewing scripture thru New Covenant eyes. I agree that the Old Covenant theologians are inconsistent with their view of the Decalogue. However, I like what Colleen said above in her post. Just because many of these great theologians may be wrong on this issue doesn't make them heretics or legalists. There are so many great Presbyterian, Baptist, and Puritan teachers who I believe have been wrong on Sabbath-Sunday transference, but they are so right on God's sovereignty and salvation by grace only. And, if they are right about salvation only by grace, then the fact that they believe the decalogue is still a standard with a Sunday twist, though it may be wrong, still doesn't bother me, as I can have fellowship with these folks, because, in actual practice, they are not legalists like SDAs! The real Galatian heresy that makes it another gospel is the fact that after you have been saved by faith, then you have to hold on to your salvation by keeping the law. The SDA version is one of the worst. Yes, they may say you are saved by grace, but to stay saved, you must keep the sabbath, avoid the unclean foods, don't drink or smoke, don't dance or play cards, and then you can pass the investigative judgment if you have kept the law good enough. How can this be confused with good old Presbyterianism in the line of Donald Barnhouse, James Boice, R.C. Sproul, or the likes of Spurgeon and Bunyan, all who taught old covenant theology. However John Calvin has been misinterpreted, as he was no Sunday Sabbatarian, and Luther came very close to being New Covenant theology, and in a practical way certainly was, as he was ahead of his time in the true prophetic sense. Stan | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 187 Registered: 10-2005 |
Stan, I was very aware when I was an Adventist that the word "Saved" was never used. The church made it clear to me that I would be saved after the return of Christ. I was also quite aware that Jesus seemed to take on less meaning to the Adventists than other evangelicals. I didn't know how significant these two things were. But I did sense something about it was different than the other churches. From what I've heard, it sounds much like a bait and switch sales tactic. You are told grace alone, but later it switches to works. The assurance of salvation in the Adventist church means keeping all ten commandments with special emphasis on the fourth commandment. It is a completely different gospel than other churches. It is not a Protestant church as many are trying to represent themselves today. If you go to www.whiteestate.org - put in the word protestant in the database and see what Mrs. White says about Protestant churches. Also, when I put in the word saved, it was clearly something told by her to be obtained after the return of Christ. Romans 10:9 does not say that. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2173 Registered: 3-2004  |
I have been studying the covenants starting with Genesis in the OT. Everything I read about the covenant with Israel at Sinai, comes with benefits, penalties, obligations. The 10 commandments were a part of that covenant given from My Sinai. So far, I have not seen it separated from the rest of the covenant. In studying the covenants, I am beginning to see the difference between the old and new covenants. The old one, as I see it, was that the children of Israel had to do certain things to remain in God's favor and it was more than just keeping the Sabbath, and the new one is that Jesus fulfilled the old one and we do not have to do anything except accept Jesus. When we do that the Holy Spirit is sent to us to teach us how to live and how to understand the Bible. This is very simplistic, but that is what I am learning. Diana | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2174 Registered: 3-2004 |
Oh, I forgot to say, WELCOME ANE. We are glad you are here. Diana | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3177 Registered: 12-2003 |
Ane, Welcome! We look forward to getting to know you better. Colleen | ||
| Ane Registered user Username: Ane Post Number: 2 Registered: 6-2005 |
Thanks for all the welcomes! River, Greg A. from Wisc. haven't met him yet, but love chatting with him, he has taught me a lot! I'm not sure if I phrased my statement correctly. It was more an observation....I'm a NC girl. I get how the law was fulfilled by Christ, including Sabbath. (I'm actually excluding SDAs from this comment.) I think it is interesting that OC theologians (outside of Adventism) accuse NC theologians of only carrying over 9 of the 10; and yet they themselves don't keep the 4th one, they say we NC believers elmininated. At least SDAs who say all are binding, keep all. I also find it interesting that NC believers claim only 9 of the 10 are still binding. I feel all 10 carried over. Our new Sabbath rest in Christ, everyday, seems to me an even higher standarded than the 4th Commandment of one day a week. It seems to me like all 10 carried over but were raised to a higher standard by Christ's expansion on them. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3179 Registered: 12-2003 |
Ane, I agree. We experience the essence of the fourth commandment today in our 24/7 rest in Christ. He is the Sabbath! Colleen |
