| Author | Message | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 722 Registered: 9-2006  |
Using the Law lawfully The Adventist says we must follow the Ten Commandments, the royal moral law of God. The Christian says no, we are free from the yoke of the law in Christ. The Adventist argues that that is just an “easy” religion and we do err and under that surmise we would be free to sin. The difference in following the law of love in Christ is that a person will not steal, murder, covet, do harm to his neighbor or any of these things because love does none of these things. The Adventist argument does not understand the law of love in Christ and neither does the Christian who harbors unforgiveness in his heart or that continues to steal or covet. Ephesians 4:28 Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need. Ephesians 4:32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you. However the Christian who understands the law of love is free to use the law of the Ten Commandments in order to show the need of Christ to a lost and dieing world. I think many times the Christian fails to use the law lawfully as an evangelistic tool for the unconverted who has been judged already by those Ten Commandments and Gods justice will prevail. The unconverted says “Oh, I live a good life, I don’t cheat my neighbor and I faithfully pay my bills and so forth. The Christian using the law lawfully says to the sinner man. Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen? Ever taken Gods name in vein? Have you ever looked at another person with lust in your heart? If the person will be honest he will admit to some of these things and his heart will convict him. Then the Christian can then point to the cross of Christ and the way of hope. John 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, John 3:15 "that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. The Adventist can only point to the law which has already condemned the person. Telling someone about Christ is not so that that person will be more comfortable and happy in this life, although it can bring true happiness and joy to the persons life but that is not the issue, that is not what is at stake. Promising someone peace and joy and happiness if they will just come to Christ may not be the case, the very day that you have told him this he might attend his doctors appointment and find he has terminal cancer. The message of the cross is not so that we will have an easier transition through this life but to warn of the sure judgment to come and salvation through Christ. If we preach any other message to the lost we are indeed fulfilling the Adventist surmise that ours is an “easy” religion. The one thing that I can always depend on from my Adventist friends is that they will wish me a “Happy Sabbath” but what will probably follow them that day will be more uncertainty, more investigation into his action of that day. The investigative judgment is the very law investigating a heart who is attempting by the law to attain Christ and it will convict him. Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, Ephesians 2:9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. He points to the Ten Commandments which can only bring sure judgment and he is forbidden to speak of a sure hope in Christ. So in effect he has used the law unlawfully because he has failed to lift up Christ to a lost and dieing world, the hope of the world. If we as Christians fail to warn the sinner of judgments to come, but promise them only comfort and ease we have used the law of Christ unlawfully. Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. Once a person has become converted it may very well bring division into his own family and for a surety will bring division with certain friends and neighbors for they will bid “Come let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” and the Christian will answer “I cannot for my house has become a house of blessing” “Go your way if you must but I cannot and will not accompany you on your road to judgment.” Thus it may bring division and unease to the sinner’s heart. The Adventist stands behind the veil of the law, the Christian stands behind the veil of the blood of Christ. It is a veil to the unbelieving law breaker. It is a veil to the unbelieving law keeper. The blood of Christ is our Passover and our Sabbath of rest and our sure hope but it is hidden from the unbeliever and those who would attain Christ by keeping the letter of the law. Romans 3:10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; Colossians 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Colossians 2:14 does not mean that God has obliterated his own law, Jesus did not come to die to correct a mistake or fail to bring justice or repair the law nor obliterate the law handed to Moses. The fact that the law was written in stone ought to tell you something. What the verse means is (Col. 2:14). The "blotting out the handwriting" is the removal by the grace of the gospel of the condemnation of the law which we had broken. Satan would have us preach easy things, smooth things, things that are easy on the ears. The truth is that the Ten Commandments used lawfully is not easy on the ears for the words bring with them conviction of sin and need of the salvation from a sure and swift judgment. To my knowledge I have never heard an Adventist quote Colossians 2:14 in their proof texting. A person may make a step toward the cross and then try to go around or may even turn away but I don’t believe there is a person alive that can come too the cross and face it squarely and in honesty of heart and not come to the full realization that he CANNOT SAVE HIMSELF. So we are free to use the law lawfully and yet we ourselves are bound only by the law of love in Christ Jesus. River P.S. This post is not meant to teach and instruct any of our readers on here, if I confess to practicing on you a little bit is that o.k.? You do know that every one of you have helped me to grow in the knowledge of our Lord and I am so deeply indebted. It is my prayer for this “happy Sabbath” my friends wished for me this morning to grow in the word and be able to present our savior to those without hope and the peace of God in this world, to bring surety of heart to those who live in uncertainty and labor under a false Gospel. But as the old saying goes "If the shoe fits" | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3623 Registered: 3-2004  |
River, every time you practice on us, I learn something new, like using the law(10C lawfully). It just never occurred to me. Since I have given up adventism, I continually learn. Thanks for furthering my education. God is so awesome in how He has us learn. He will use those who are willing to be used. Diana | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1300 Registered: 7-2003  |
So River, If you use the Old Covenant document, the Decalogue, as an evangelistic tool to bring people into the New Covenant, how do you then turn around and explain to them that they are not really under that Covenant, but a New and different Covenant? If you use the Decalogue as an evangelistic tool, what do you do when you get to the fourth commandment and have to try and explain that even though you're teaching them the Decalogue, in reality, as a person living in the New Covenant era, they are not bound by the fourth commandment of the Old Covenant....oh yeah, and come to think of it they're not directly bound by any of the other Old Covenant commands either. It's just that some of the of the Old Covenant commands are contained in the New Covenant, but some aren't so so you really need to look to the Law of Christ. Wow, that's confusing! I'm confused just trying to type all of that. Why not just start by teaching people who live in the New Covenant era what the New Covenant and the Law the of Christ have to say about righteousness and the need for repentance? Is the Law of Christ insufficient or is it just that we want to use the pedantic approach? If the former, what does that say about Christ. If the latter, what does that say about us? Why would we want to muddy the waters and hopelessly confuse those who have never been under the Old Covenant and never will be? Does this conform to the approach taken in the book of Acts to spreading the Gospel? I think not. I do understand that this "use" of the Decalogue is common among those who subscribe to reformed covenant theology. That just highlights one of the major logical weakness in traditional reformed covenant theology....one which no one has ever been able to explain to my satisfaction. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5792 Registered: 12-2003  |
Chris, I completely agree with you. River, I appreciate your explanation above, and I understand your perspective, but I believe that if we are not under the law, then using the New Covenant and the New Testament need to be the place we turn to for instruction in righteousness. As Chris explained above, if you use the Decalogue for proving to people that they are sinners, you bump smack into the fourth commandment, and if you reserve the right to "use" the Decalogue for moral instruction, then you really are left with no good excuse not to teach the fourth commandment along with it. Either the law was nailed to the cross in the body of Jesus, or it wasn't. It can't be partly nailed--and Adventists are right in their argument that if the 10 C's are still for us in any form, the fourth is also. It was not changed, and Adventists are right about that fact. Jesus filled the law full of meaning (fulfilled it), not only living it out in his own life but expanding it so we can see the deeper meaning of it when He preached the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. We now live under the authority of Jesus, and the law has been enlarged, expanded, and fulfilled in Him. He holds us more accountable than the law does, and the law is weak and useless in the light of Jesus' perfection. People fear that if we say the law was nailed to the cross in Jesus' body, we will spin off into lawlessness. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Philippians tells us that God works in us both to WILL and to WORK His good pleasure. The law is obsolete--Jesus is more powerful both to set a standard for us AND to convict of sin. I know YOU are clear about this in your own life, but when evangelizing, we really can't use the law if we're not under the law. It's the wrong standard. The standard of the Law of Christ is a higher standard! Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 723 Registered: 9-2006 |
Well for sure I am not going to spend my days arguing with you folks. My purpose and use of the Commandments at times is to quickly show sin in its basic form and the need of the savior. Colleen will you please ask Richard to delete this thread, I might as well have yanked on a junkyard dogs ear as to write that to a bunch of gun shy formers, anyway it wasn't for your instruction and I should not have written it. I see that now. River | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 470 Registered: 11-2004 |
River - good topic. I know the idea of using the 10 commandments as a witnessing tool is popular among some groups. Colleen- you made a good point about the Sabbath. If we use the 10 commandments to show people they are sinners then what do we do with the 4th? I've seen the show where they demonstrate how to witness to people on the street using the 10 commandments to point out their sins. However, I've never seen results from that. Maybe at some point in the future someone will remember that encounter and it will lead them to understand their need of a Savior, but I've never seen anyone on that show accept Christ. This topic brings to mind 2 Corinthians 5 "16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation." 2 Corinthians 5 says that Christ reconciled the world to Himself. The only thing separating the sinner from salvation is accepting Jesus as Savior. Someone is not lost because they sin, but because they don't have Jesus. I was talking with an wiccan recently and he was surprised to hear how easy it was to be saved. He thought that there was a bunch of stuff he had to do (i.e. clean up his life first). He admitted that he was a homosexual, was a practicing witch, and believed in evolution. He doesn't believe in Jesus - thinks that is a fairy tale, but I found this conversation revealing. The church does seem to do a good job telling sinners how bad they are, but in so doing the sinners miss the message of the good news of Jesus. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5795 Registered: 12-2003 |
River, actually your post was really good, and there's no reason to delete the thread or to apologize for posting it. You really are right that the law DOES show sin in its basic form--and for many people, that is actually a great method to summarize sin. The reason I (and I assume Chris as well, but I'll let him speak for himself) responded as I did is that this issue actually is a very real point of confusion for many of those who are reading this forum. You did nothing wrong to post what you did...but I know from past experience that this issue creates quite a bit of dissonance. You're right—we're gun shy! But we receive a great deal of correspondence using this argument of the lawful use of the law to castigate us for abandoning the Sabbath. One of the recent (I'd say in the past couple or so years) new "weapons" Adventists are using is to align themselves with the classic covenant theology argument you used, River, to prove they're right. In fact, this past January they've produced a new book mentioned a few weeks ago on another thread called "In Granite of Ingrained". It's an extremely cleverly, carefully written book quoting well-known covenant theologians to make the case for the lawful use of the law and to show that in order to be consistent, the fourth commandment must be included in the argument as well. As I said, using covenant theologians to promote their case is actually fairly new. In the past, they didn't publicly claim affinity with any "outside" theolgians. Now, however, they are finding the lawful use of the law helpful for their case. Because of Adventists' growing awareness of this perspective, I felt it necessary to present the new covenant view of the matter. River, it's perfectly OK for you to use the law in that way in circumstances where it is helpful, and I am not trying to suggest you're wrong. I just know that we also need to be able to show people that they are sinners without appealing to the 10 Commandments, because for many people, that appeal would lead to confusion. And praise God, the Bible is FULL of ways to show people that they are sinners and in need of a Savior! Please don't feel like we want you to "shut up" or not to share your thoughts. As always, you think well and deeply, and I have great respect for you. From my perspective (receiving "tons" of mail from every imaginable brand of Adventist), I see them as a moving target, and right now, they're embracing the lawful use of the law for their own advantage. Continuing to value and learn from your perspective, River, Colleen (Message edited by admin on May 05, 2007) | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 266 Registered: 11-2005 |
Tomorrow is the 2nd annual "Ten Commandments Day" http://www.tencommandmentsday.com/10CDay.php I was told by my parents that 3ABN has been featuring some special programs during this weekend to commemorate it. No big surprise... | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 472 Registered: 7-2005 |
I'm reformed in my theology (T.U.L.I.P.), even if I don't subscribe to Covenant Theology (CT), I've just started to study the CT, by comparing it with both New Covenant Theology (NCT) and Adventist Covenant Theology (ACT, that's my personal abridgment for this post). Studying these theologies in parallel I can say that both NCT and CT have weak points and they have also strong points. But ACT is definitely wrong. NCT argues for no use of the Old Covenant law, which differs from CT and ACT which use Law. However CT uses the Law lawfully, but ACT uses unlawfully. ACT clearly uses the law unlawfully because by their use of the law people establish their righteousness, a righteousness of the law. The CT denies that somebody can be right in the eyes of God by keeping the law. This is one major difference between CT and ACT which must be kept in mind. Adventists appeal to CT theologians is very weak, because in the ACT which is closely related to the Investigative Judgment, only those adventists who will come to the point of perfection will be saved. The CT is very strong against this adventist view, negating every possibility of perfection in this life, and the possibility for someone to be righteous in themselves to the point of perfection as to be attested and confirmed by the Law. This position is excluded. However, the ACT in the new modern version rejects perfectionism, and this makes the ACT looks almost identical with the CT. But the ACT differs in regard to the role they give to sabbath keeping. Even if CT promotes sunday sabbath keeping, it has a different role than sabbath keeping has in ACT. Adventists look at them as more holy than the rest of the christian churches because they keep ALL the 10 commandments, and, obviously, their righteousness derives from the law, it's a law righteousness. Because they keep one more commandment than the rest of the christian churches, they will be saved, and anybody who will refuse to keep the sabbath will be lost and receive the mark of the beast. This has no equivalent in CT, and it's a huge difference. It clearly separates the lawful use of the law from a clearly unlawful use. This is why NCT and CT stands both of them to the side of the gospel, but the ACT cannot be reconciled with the gospel. Both NCT and CT have weakness and strong points. Nevertheless they have more in common than they have with the ACT, and any disagreement between those who are believing in NCT and CT must be seen in the light that both groups are christian, even if there are points in their theology which cannot be always harmonized. Jackob | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 724 Registered: 9-2006 |
Lets see if I can sort out just exactly what I meant by using the law at times to witness for Christ. For one thing I don’t throw down a blanket and say this is the way to do it, what I was talking about was when you run upon the person who thinks “I’m O.K.”, the person says well, I live a pretty good life, I pay my bills and don’t wrong my neighbor” “I work hard” “I think I deserve heaven Blah Blah. This person feels no need of a savior, what I don’t want to do is argue with him so I will use the Commandments to show him no one is perfect before God, I don’t even need to mention the forth commandment, with three or four questions it will bring self righteousness to a screeching halt and I do mean screeching. Why does it work? Well, because the Holy Spirit convicts and the word is sharper than any two edged sword, what, even the Old Testament too? To date I have never had anyone bring up the question of the forth Commandment, if he did I would take him back to the question that he sidestepped to get there, but I doubt if he will bring it up. Why? Because the Holy Spirit is with me. Look at Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. What power? Holy Ghost power. I see from your perspective and I am not suggesting that any of you use a certain “method” in your witnessing for Christ, I realize that for most of you in the past have been beat over the noggin with the Commandments used unlawfully. Look at this text if you will, Galatians 3:24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. The question might be “has that changed?” Can it be the tutor for the sinner man in 2007 who has maybe been to church twice in his life who doesn’t know theology from zoology? Wouldn’t know a covenant if you smacked him in the head with it! My answer is yes it can still be a tutor in 2007. There are folk out there who don’t know NCT, CT, ACT from SMACK and if I come to them with what is theological mumbo jumbo to them the first thing I can expect is to lose their attention in one second flat. What I can do with this is to uncomplicated their world, taggem and baggem while you are getting your paper work out on the covenants. I don’t use a 12 gauge shot gun to bag a mouse. I don’t want to blow him to smithereens I just want him to stop eatin my grits. I know what u2bsda is talking about some groups use this as a “method” and what he is talking about is some groups who think that this is “the method” and I try to go by the leading of the Holy Spirit and not some kind of “method” although if anyone has a “method” to show people their need for Jesus I ain’t going to knock it either, hey go for it. If those folk out there on the street are winning souls, well. I am a little gun shy of “method” and one needs to not forget love and end up just clanging a gong. If we end up with an assembly line type of deal we best stay alert and prayed up, the key word being lead by the Holy Spirit. I see that I should have put a smiley face on my last post, I am not miffed, if I get miffed I only stay miffed abut 30 seconds. I reread my post this morning and I do not see where I need to change my mind so here it is again: So we are free to use the law lawfully and yet we ourselves are bound only by the law of love in Christ Jesus. Paul said something about this somewhere in there, I will try to find it this afternoon when I get back from church. I don’t feel like going to church this morning so I intend on going anyhow. So here yare a smiley face for this one and the last one.  River | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 725 Registered: 9-2006 |
Two pigs were in the barnyard discussing corn prices, the general shape of the world and theology. one chewed while the other scratched his side with his hind leg and pondered deeply, finally one of the pigs said with a sigh. "Well Elmer, personally I would prefer that everyone were Jewish. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 473 Registered: 7-2005 |
River, my words were not meant to be evangelistic message, but a short and condensed comparative presentation for the benefit of those already informed christians who are interested in knowing more than a singular way to understand the covenants. Jackob | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 726 Registered: 9-2006 |
Yeah Jacob, I know, I was referring to someones earlier post, had nothing to do with what you said, personally I myself lean toward T.U.L.I.P but we won't hold it against them. Ha. Gotta go to worship team practice. River | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1039 Registered: 4-2000  |
CT vs. NCT It may be surprising to many that Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology are both extreme views. Thankfully, the Christian world-at-large does not embrace either one of them. CT regards the New Covenant as simply a warmed-over Old Covenant whereas NCT disallows virtually all commonalities between the covenants. Thus, we find that one theological system (CT) adheres to an extreme minimum of distinctives between the covenants and the other theological system (NCT) makes extremely sharp distinctions between them. It seems evident that the greater biblical truth is to be found in the center of these two theological schools of thought. Yes, indeed, there are positive elements of truth in both of these views. For example, I greatly appreciate the high view of God and the high view of Scripture in CT. To my knowledge, no theological system surpasses this important element. At the same time, I also greatly appreciate the elements of progressive and superceding revelation revealed in NCT. In short, both are right and both are wrong in varying degrees. We really owe it to ourselves to be knowledgeable about both views. We can learn alot from both of them without dogmatically embracing either view. Having said all this, I confess being a five-point Calvinist. The acronym, TULIP, is not exclusive to either view. I treasure its sovereign view of God among other things. The great Baptist preacher, Charles Spurgeon, rightly called "Calvinism" only a nickname for the Gospel. Therefore, it is no wonder that "Calvinism" is a bad word in Adventist theology. For example, it would be utterly unthinkable for a five-point Calvinist to embrace the investigative judgment alibi or parascriptural authority. The emphasis upon God receiving all the glory is a deathblow to the RRC-SDA partnership salvation heresy. Dennis Fischer | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 727 Registered: 9-2006 |
I guess it depends on what side of the barnyard I am rootin in at the time, The-o-logy is interestin but I understand the Bible the way I understand the Bible, I am willing to learn and do learn every day seems like. Mostly I want it to work out in the reality of where I live. Off out in the theoretical yonder don't really grab me much. Whichever way it falls I know which side of my bread the butter is on and I know I can,t save myself so looking to the author and finish of my faith I do give him the Glory, Its about him. River | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 145 Registered: 1-2006  |
Paul's first missionary journey, the conclusion of his first sermon, Acts 3:38,38 . . . "through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses." Praise God, we're completely free and completely saved by Christ's finished atonement on Calvary and how can we neglect such great salvation and pretend that it has something to do with our ability to keep the law? What must God think of our arrogance, thinking that we could add to what His Son has already done? Jacob and Dennis, I appreciate your emphasis on reformation theology. I spend more time just praising God than ever before, a direct result, I think, of acknowledging God's supremacy in all things. Bob | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5796 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dennis, you make a good point about the extremes. I believe that we can't make a precise formula that encompasses the whole of reality. The supremacy of God has changed everything for me--after I finish editing this Proclamation, I'll post some "stuff" that has really impacted me as I've worked on it. Gotta get back to work... Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 790 Registered: 10-2002  |
As an answer to the title of this thread, can I suggest the pictures I posted on another thread as a way to "use the law lawfully"? http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/11/5466.html?1178247097 | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 732 Registered: 9-2006 |
Chris wrote: Does this conform to the approach taken in the book of Acts to spreading the Gospel? I think not. This statement that I have not conformed to the Bible on spreading the gospel has wounded me deeply... for one thing you do not know what the results have been in my efforts for Christ. I just thought I ought to let you know this.... I can answer the title to this tread another way too "Love for the lost" If I preached the letter of the law as you seem to think. Then you would be justified. But since I have preached Christ out of the law you are not justified. Christ pointed to himself out of the old testament. There are many instances that a person can preach Christ out of the old Testament. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 792 Registered: 10-2002 |
Very true, River. I thought your first example (first post) was not off, by the way. What Chris said can become true if people get carried away or stake their morality in the Decalogue. But most people don't need the Decalogue to know they've done wrong, so if we ever find ourselves "drilling in" morality using it, then there's a problem. You didn't drill it in, and I assume you wouldn't, so I didn't find a need to do a "lawful" correction! (Irony, people, laugh at it!) I tossed in my pictures for an additional dose of irony. I gave an introduction to them on another forum: http://www.forthegospel.org/forum/general_discussion/re_interpreting_the_ten |
