| Author | Message | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 474 Registered: 7-2005 |
Bob, Contrary to what many people assume, the sovereignty of God can be sweet even in the times of affliction. I just discovered that John Calvin, a strong believer in God's sovereignty had three children who died at a short time after their birth, and also their mother died on a short time after the third child was born. Amazing is that his ministry was not affected by these tragedies. He submitted to God's will quietly, and had not rebelled and had not been angry on God. Jackob | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5799 Registered: 12-2003  |
Good point, Jackob. God's sovereignty is a comfort, actually. River, God is using you and leading you in your witnessing. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 733 Registered: 9-2006  |
To tell you the truth Colleen, I have never had anyone accept once fall on their knees in repentance while I delivered them the message of hope in Jesus. Once in 35 years! I have had them come to Christ within a matter of days and weeks and I don,t think I have ever repeated the same thing to any I have witnessed to, there just don't seem to be a method accept to tell how Jesus cares and saves. The one time a fellow fell on his knees crying out to God and repenting was when I brought the message out of the old Testament. It was God who had hold of the man, I really don't think it depended on the portion of Bible I chose, It was all Gods doing yet I sometimes have to look back on that incident and take courage from what God did in the past. I tell you another truth, souls coming to God under my witness, ministry or whatever you want to name it, are getting few and far between, I keep hoping some of my Adventist friends will come to a full knowledge of confidence and peace in Jesus and I have to remember the ones that did in order not to become completely discouraged. So what I said in my post was only one part of the much bigger picture, recently I did use the commandments to try and persuade a person, the person didn't know didly about the Bible, didn't understand anything about much, thought that since the grandmother had been Baptist that made her Oky doky, had no concept of a need for salvation, but what the person had just done was attempt to commit suicide, life was a wreck, but there again, a person desperately needs the guidance of the Holy Spirit in these things so I told the person of the seriousness of God and the need of the savior using the Big Ten and then Christ death on the cross. I got a whole eight minutes to do this in. You walk away desperately hoping you have said the right thing, you set there silently praying for God to give you the right words, you know you may never, ever, have another chance. I understand your concern about Adventist using that in order to justify their cause for Sabbath. I would not purposely write anything to cause damage to this forum but we still need to be aware of the powerful arsenal God has given us in his word. I am not the sharpest needle in the yarn, I think slowly and ploddingly, I know that and so I have to keep reminding myself of certain portions of scripture that may come in handy if the need should arise. But seems like the person the Lord puts in my way I just end up blurting out something out of some scripture and maybe some experience that I have had but the Lord always seems to come through anyhow in spite of me. I am up past my bedtime! River | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5800 Registered: 12-2003 |
River, I understand, and I agree that God gives us the words for each person when they're needed. I couldn't agree more that there is NO formula for how we witness. I believe that some people do respond when they hear the law spoken to them (and it's important to remember that whenever the words "the law" are used in the NT, it's referring to the WHOLE law, not just the Decalogue). The law is powerful because, as 1 Timothy 1 reminds us, the unrighteous are still under the curse of the law. The law is NOT for the righteous--but the entire Torah, including the blessings and curses and the shadows of holy days, ceremonies, etc. is a vivid teaching aid showing sin, its results, and the hope of a Savior. Sometimes, depending upon people's backgrounds and biblical knowledge, a reference to the law (any part of it!) is helpful in convicting them of their desperation. Other times, it's not necessary—because Jesus Himself has fulfilled ALL the law, all 613 commands within the entire Torah. Acts 17 records Paul's sermon on Mars Hill. He begins with the unknown God and tells them he'll reveal the identity of that God. He identifies their ignorance, and then he gives a history of God and humanity from creation to the resurrection. And THEN he says the time has come for all men to repent. He didn't teach the Mosaic law, but he identified the Creator and Redeemer, the resurrected One. At this point the crowd polarized. Some sneered at the mention of the resurrection. Some said, "Let's hear more later." Others beleived and joined him. Now that we live intimately with the Holy Spirit, that Spirit Himself both impresses us with the words to use and convicts those to whom we speak. He alone knows what each person needs to hear. My objection is to creating a formula for the use of the law. Clearly, the law is NOT for the righteous in any form. We live by the law of the Spirit. And as Christ's witnesses, we have the Holy Spirit in us impressing us, one person at a time, what to say. I have observed that no two people are alike. The texts that speak to one do not necessarily speak to another. The most surprising passages are useful at any given time. Again, I'm not suggesting the law is "done away with". It's not--it's still there, showing the reality for those who are unrighteous, confirming the identity of Jesus, the only Person who fulfilled it. But just as Brazilian law has no more power over a Brazilian who has immmigrated to the USA and become a legal resident, so the entire Torah is obsolete (the word used in Hebrews) for the believer. And because we now have the fulfillment of the Law, Jesus Himself and the indwelling Holy Spirit, we no longer have to rely on the law for evangelism. Some people need to be reminded of those blessings and cursing. Some need to be taught on the basis of their own sin and deception, like the Athenians. Some are convicted simply by the presence of God in us as we strive, united in spirit with one mind and one purpose, for the cause of the gospel (Philippians 1:27-28). Our striving, united in the Spirit, with one mind, not alarmed by our opponents—this unity and fearlessness IS a "sign of destruction" for those who are being lost, and sign of salvation for us.."and that, too, from God". Because Jesus has fulfilled the law, there are so MANY ways the Holy Spirit can convict peole of sin through our willingness to be submitted to Him. I agree with your post above, River. God is in control--and we cannot thwart His purposes! Colleen | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 148 Registered: 1-2006  |
River This is a very interesting thread! I wonder about the many churches that are bringing people to Christ, and at the same time introducing them to belief systems which are deeply flawed--we can think of some, I'm sure. Some of these churches are deeply legalistic and have doctrines totally foreign to the scriptures. Some use the law to induce guilt, some use the fear of hell fire to induce baptisms, or the enticement of riches (name it and claim it--the gospel of prosperity), free trinkets, or maybe reduced time in purgatory, to encourage people to accept their teachings along with accepting Christ. I think many new converts can't tell the difference--they just accept it all. I often think of the wheat and the tares and the caution we must use in relating to these people. In 1 Cor 9 Paul describes the methods he uses in reaching out to others. I was a legalist when I was young. I've often wondered if I would have sought out Adventism as a young legalist and would have joined the Adventist church or maybe the Catholic church (for a while) just based on my perspectives. Thank God that He doesn't leave us in despair. Only Jesus can lift the veil, and I know many people who are just like I was when I was young. I'm not boasting or saying that I have it all clear now, but I am happy any time someone comes to Christ, and thankful for the Spirit who (through it all) guides us into truth--John 16:13. Bob | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 734 Registered: 9-2006 |
Yes and he does convict using vessels submitted to him and I have marveled at the words taking hold in a heart, the light come on in their eyes and I marvel that he allows us to take part in on his great plan and to be a part of it, us in our weakness, him in his strength, such an honor he bestows on us, and it,s amazing because he really doesn't need us when he can use a jackass or a rock. It is when we get to thinking that its our great theological knowledge (our smarts) so to speak, (not knocking preparation in the word)Is doing the work that he can no longer use us. I remember one person who just would not come to God,what stubbornness! He died without God as far as I know and it has grieved me all these years. But what joy it brings when he allows us to see the results if HIS work through us to people and the results are good. I remember when God first saved me I told the first person I could get ahold of about Jesus, there,s no telling what I blurted out to that man, I certainly didn't know anything about theology, and after this many years he proclaims Christ as his savior. No,you are correct, we no longer have to rely on the law for Evangelism, we have to rely on God for evangelism. River | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5801 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes! Your last sentence, River, perfectly sums up the issue. He is faithful! Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1043 Registered: 4-2000  |
Interestingly, the "law of Christ" includes all the timeless, moral directives in Scripture (including those in the Decalogue). After all, NINE of the Ten Commandments are reiterated several times in the New Testament as Dale Ratzlaff aptly points out in his writings. These nine, reiterated commandments from the Decalogue are a part of the "God breathed" law of Christ or the law of the Spirit. "Christ redeemed us from the CURSE of the Law" (Gal. 3:13 NASB), not from our duty to obey its moral directives. Importantly, Christians are NOT a lawless, immoral community. We actually have more moral directives or commandments than the believers in the Old Covenant had. I wholeheartedly agree with the following statement:
It is actually very easy to explain that the Fourth Commandment is ceremonial with its shewbread and double sacrifices pointing to Jesus. Actually, I have never met an Adventist who denied that the shewbread and double sacrifices, associated with the Sabbath, pointed to Jesus. On the other hand, telling our Adventist friends and others that the moral aspects of Ten Commandments are no longer valid creates a needless barrier and misunderstanding. In short, it rightly turns people off. With such reasoning, many rightly think that we have truly gone over the hill, fallen in love with the Devil, as an OVERREACTION to the legalistic abuse we suffered in Adventism. Like our sabbatarian friends, we are thereby allowing the Jewish Sabbath to condition our view of righteousness. We must not allow our deficient experience with a ceremonial shadow to overrule or prejudice orthodox Christological, hamartiological, and soteriological views. Jesus was the first person to get into heaven by His good works. We also get into heaven by good works--the good works of Jesus. His grace still amazes me, Dennis Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5805 Registered: 12-2003 |
I agree with you, Dennis—there is never an excuse to say or even hint that the moral principles of the Ten Commandments are done away with. Romans 1 through 5 really explain that God's moral principles preceded the law. God and His own morality (which He puts in our hearts when He indwells us when we are born from above) are eternal—and humanity has never been without God's moral principles in the world, either before or after the law. The thing I have found is that many people won't hesitate to admit they are sinners; it's their total depravity they don't want to admit. Being a "sinner" is a matter of doing sins; many people refuse to look at the reality that they are born spiritually dead and unable to respond to God, let alone become righteous, without a Savior. I realize that the people to whom I talk about these things tend to have Adventist backgrounds as opposed to unchurched, derelict, or agnostic backgrounds, but I have found that I've needed to go to Ephesians 2 and Romans 3 and 5 when discussing being a sinner with people like this. The issues of law are really moot points with them because they readily admit they don't keep the law perfectly. But depraved? No way! No, it's never OK to suggest that moral principles are obsolete. The old covenant with its law is obsolete and fading away, but moral principles--never. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 736 Registered: 9-2006 |
Bobs wrote :River This is a very interesting thread! I wonder about the many churches that are bringing people to Christ, and at the same time introducing them to belief systems which are deeply flawed--we can think of some, I'm sure. Some of these churches are deeply legalistic and have doctrines totally foreign to the scriptures. Bob I am not sure they are coming to Christ. Maybe a form of Godliness? I just don’t have a clew. Colleen, Your quote: 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. Well, if you agree with Dennis, and I certainly agree with ever word he said, then why would you even hint that a person is limited to preaching to the lost from the New Testament? Chris wrote: Does this conform to the approach taken in the book of Acts to spreading the Gospel? I think not. Did I say something in my original post that brought confusion? All I was saying in my original post was that the Ten C,s can be a valuable tool in preaching to the lost, not Christians. I understood what Chris said although I thought it quite shocking. Here is what the Bible says about it. Timothy II 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, Timothy II 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Not just some of it, all of it. Does this agree with your statement? Now my quote: So we are free to use the law lawfully and yet we ourselves are bound only by the law of love in Christ Jesus. Here is what the Bible says: Timothy I 1:8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, Timothy I 1:9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, Timothy I 1:10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, I just do not get why anyone would skirt the 10 C,s because of the forth commandment. Have my brains leaked out? As Dennis so aptly put it: It is actually very easy to explain that the Fourth Commandment is ceremonial with its shewbread and double sacrifices pointing to Jesus. Now your quote:” I agree with you, Dennis—there is never an excuse to say or even hint that the moral principles of the Ten Commandments are done away with. Romans 1 through 5 really explain that God's moral principles preceded the law. God and His own morality (which He puts in our hearts when He indwells us when we are born from above) are eternal—and humanity has never been without God's moral principles in the world, either before or after the law.” Then what does not conform to the gospel message in using the 10 C,s in pointing to the fact that we have all sinned and pointing to the savior? I just don’t get it. Am I misunderstanding? If his moral principles abide then what is the aversion to using the 10 c’s as an evangelistic tool? Or any of the Old Testament for that matter. If I run upon an atheist I am going straight to Isaiah, by the way God doesn’t believe in atheist, therefore they don’t exist. Now really I am not trying to be mule headed here, I just do not understand what set Chris off to make such statements that sounded to me so not like Chris. It sounds to me almost like there is an animosity toward the Ten Commandments that exist here and that’s probably what’s bothering me. Not the words but the underlying current that seems to run through the words. If some of the people have an aversion to the Ten Commandments, then that is not good. Having an aversion to any of Gods word is not good. I guess I had to revisit this because something is bothering me and I can’t quite put my finger on it. Now I am going to spend the next few days thinking about this. Frankly this thing has made me want to take a hard look at stuff. It could be me that has something that God wants to deal with. If so I want to try and work it out. If so I need to find it and face it squarely. River | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 99 Registered: 8-2005 |
This quote seemed to fit this subject: ------------------------------------------------ How can all Old Testament Commands be cancelled, when some of them are quoted in the New Testament? The objection is often raised to New Covenant Theology, “How can all Old Testament commands be cancelled, when some of them are quoted in the New Testament?” The assumption is that quotation = continuation. But, there’s another possibility… Old Testament commands quoted in the New Testament have been transferred, reinstated, and canonized into the New Covenant canon. (To simplify it, let’s just say they’ve been “transferred.”) Perhaps an analogy from contract law will help to illustrate this. Suppose your home has a mortgage containing the clause “borrower may not paint the house with polka dots or stripes.” Then, suppose you refinance the mortgage for a lower interest rate with the same lender. And, the lender transfers the above clause to your new mortgage like this, “As the old mortgage stated, borrower may not paint the house with polka dots or stripes.” Then, you close on the new mortgage. Now, suppose you’re feeling rebellious, and you decide to paint the house with pink polka dots. Which mortgage did you violate, the old mortgage or the new mortgage? Obviously, you violated the new mortgage, since the old mortgage was cancelled. And, it’s the same way with the old and new covenants. If a new covenant saint commits adultery, he has violated Romans 13:9, not Exodus 20:14. To sum it up, the new covenant is not a postscript (P.S.), addendum, or codicil to the old covenant. The new covenant is a separate contract. ------------------------------------------------ | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 149 Registered: 1-2006 |
In Adventism the Sabbath is regarded (by some) as the seal of God, the sign (flag) of the old covenant, that says who you are. I think my biggest objection to the old Sabbath--it is an unmistakable sign to others that we are still under the ministration of death, the letter vs the spirit, the shadow more important than Christ, etc. I am uncomfortable with the traditional SDA message that only those who keep sabbath with Christ on earth will keep sabath with Him in heaven, and that at the end, only sabbathkeepers will be saved. This is adding to the gospel. If it's wrong to add to the gospel now, it's wrong to add to the gospel near the end. Christians are sometimes accused of having only nine commandments. Not so. The entire law came to an end with the death of Christ. One of Jesus' favorite sayings was "you have heard it said, but I say unto you . . ." In the NC we are under the law of Christ. Christians are commanded to forgive, to love, to not forsake the assembling of yourselves together, to remember me when you take this cup, to stand fast in the freedom of Christ--these are commands! It just happens that nine of the OC commands are reiterated in the NC, but it makes perfect sense that the fourth command--the one which points to which covenant we're under, is not included. Symbols are important. Sorry if I came across a little strong on this one. Bob | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5807 Registered: 12-2003 |
Brain3, Thank you for your explanation. It was excellent. River, I hope that Brian's illustration explains what I've said so badly. I don't believe any of us have a hatred for the 10 Commandments. They are, as Romans 6 says, holy, just, and good. But, as Brian explained, they have been made obsolete by a New Covenant. They are not WRONG; they are fulfilled and REPLACED. I like your sentence, Brian: "If a new covenant saint commits adultery, he has violated Romans 13:9, not Exodus 20:14. " All the curses associated with the old covenant are still in place for those who are not in Christ. And indeed, there is no reason to avoid using the Old Testament when evangelizing. Further, it is possible to bring a person completely to Christ using only the Old Testament. Isaiah 53 is a powerful chapter to show who Jesus is. But the New Testament gives updated, more current information than the old covenant. Its disclosure of Jesus is personal and real, not merely foreshadowings as were the Old Testament's disclosure of Jesus. Further, the New Testament's disclosure of sin is deeper, more profound, and more inclusive than is the Old Testament's disclosure of sin. The reason I believe that the 10 Commandments are frequently NOT the most useful evangelistic tool, even for people who are completely biblically ignorant, is that they are limited. In fact, Deuteronomy 4:13 identifies the 10 Commandments precisely: "He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets." In other words, the Ten Commandments actually WERE the Old Covenant. All the Torah is the law for Israel, and all 613 laws included in the Torah comprise the old covenant standards and requirements. But the Ten Commandments themselves WERE the old covenant. It was the official covenant document. The Ten Commandments did not precede Sinai. Deuteronomy 5:2-3 says clearly that "the Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathrers that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today." Yet, long before God made the Old Covenant and gave Israel the Ten Commandments which themselves WERE the Old Covenant, God's moral principles existed in the world, and mankind was condmened for disobedience to these principles (see Romans 5). Fast forward to Hebrews. In Hebrews 8:7 the author says, "For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another," and then he quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 where God promises to write His laws (notice the passage does NOT say God will write the 10 Commadments or even His covenant) on their hearts. He will write "His laws" on their hearts...the same laws that preceded Sinai and existed as God's righteous standard for humanity from the beginning of time. Then in Hebrews 8:13 the author says, "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." Now, remember that Deuteronomy 4 and Deuteronomy 5 (quoted above) have identified the Old Covenant as The Ten Commandments. The Decalogue WAS the Old Covenant document with Israel. God's old covenant with Israel consisted of a written document with 10 Words, or as we say today, 10 Commandments. These were the covenant stipulations. The New Covenant consists of God writing his laws in the minds and hearts of his people (Hebrews 8:10; Jer. 3:31-34). Well, what about flat-out unbelievers who are dead in sin? Do we teach them the 10 Commandments? As Deuteronomy 5:4 says, God made the Old Covenant with Israel at Sinai. As Acts 15 explains, that Old Covenant and all its laws were not transferred to Gentile Christians. Further, they were no longer required for Jewish Christians, either, although they were part of their culture. The new covenant recorded in the New Testament has every single moral principle given in the Old Covenant (identified as the 10 Commandments) PLUS a whole lot more besides. In addition, the new covenant not only identifies sinful behaviors as did the Old Covenant, it also identifies the foundational depravity of mankind (Romans 1, 2, 5, Ephesians 2:1-3; Colossians 1:13, etc.) So, is it WRONG to use the 10 Commandments? No, it's not WRONG. But the 10 Commandments have been replaced by more current revelation in the New Testament. Of course the Old Testament may be useful for evangelism. I can't think of a better evangelistic tool for Jews, for example! Nowhere does the Bible identify the 10 Commandments with God's eternal moral principles. On the contrary, Romans 2 and Romans 5 are clear that God's eternal moral principles are not tied to the Decalogue at all. The Decalogue was a covenant agreement listing certain moral behaviors that God expected from His people—and God knew that His people would, if they took that covenant seriously, be driven to hopeless despair and realize they needed Him to intervene. The Decalogue was a ministration of death. But it was holy, just, and good, because it defined the rough outlines of what a godly person would look like, and it established a standard for Israel, the brand-new people of God which He had created to bring in the Messiah. The New Testament is the revelation of life. The moral standards are stated more clearly and require not only physical obedience but new hearts and minds in order to conform to comands such as, Do not lust; do not hate; do not worry; do not be anxious; do not argue; do not gossip... The reason the fourth commandment is not literally reiterated in the New Testament is that its expanded, true meaning IS given: Jesus Himself (Colossian 2:16-17; Hebrews 4; Romans 3:21; 14; Galatians 3; Matthew 11:28, Matthew 12, etc.) I hope this helps explain what we mean, River. No there is no hatred for the 10 Commandments. But there IS a NEW covenant which is more current and more full of both the bad news and the good news than the old covenant was. There is no argument against God's eternal moral principles. The issue is in the assumption that the Decalogue IS the statement of God's eternal moral principles. The Bible never identifies the 10 Commandments as "God's moral law", or "God's eternal law". It does identify them as the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai, and it does state that they were given 430 years after Abraham "until the Seed" (Gal 3:17-18). The new covenant does not replace the Abrahamic covenant of promise, but it DOES replace the Sinai covenant including the very words of the covenant, the 10 Commandments (see Galatians 3 and 4). For a really helpful discussion of how "the law" came to be seen as divided into moral, civil, and ceremonial components, see the article "The Unity of the Law: What Was Nailed to the Cross?" by R.K. McGregor Wright, a never-been-SDA Reformed theologian. The article is on page 6 of the July/August, 2005 Proclamation at this link: http://lifeassuranceministries.org/Proclamation2005_JulAug.pdf Colleen | ||
| Bmorgan Registered user Username: Bmorgan Post Number: 138 Registered: 7-2000 |
Chris said; "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 agree with your statement, Chris. Years after I rejected the adventists teachings, I was quite confused and had much difficulty wrapping my mind around the difference between the Old and New Covenant and the relevance to the Sabbath. When we say the 10 Commandment, the law of God, is the standard of faith we ought to focus on and is the thing to bring us to Christ, then what do we do with the fourth? It is puzzling when we turn around and say the fourth no longer exist, it was ceremonial. I cannot tell you the countless times within Bible Study groups people are stumpted about what to do with the fourth commandment-how do we fit it into New Covenant. Maybe people who have not been strung up by the 10 Commandments-Law of God- tread through the muddy water easier than people like me whose eyes are now turned to Christ and have had the veil ripped from their eyes. People who lived under an unnecessary yoke and burden focused on law but not having life. It is not a question of getting rid off, having an aversion for, or making the 10 Commandments obsolete. "All scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correcting..." It is simply keeping things simple and the "waters clear" if you get my drift. I personally find it easier to explain the gospel to a person through a New Covenant grid(whatever that means) Thank you Chris, Brian, Bobj,Dennis, Colleen and you too, River. Erma | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 737 Registered: 9-2006 |
Colleen, Thank you for clearing that up so well, from the first TWO responses to this thread I took it to mean that we were to NEVER preach to the lost from the 10 c’s or the old testament but to preach from Matthew on only. Further more I felt that I was being rebuked for even suggesting that one would preach from the 10 c’s in any form. First of all please forgive me for misunderstanding, I told you I was not the sharpest needle in the yarn. As to why I believe the 10 c’s can be invaluable at times is because they do contain God’s morals in short form such as lying and stealing. The reason I think this, and it has nothing to do with the covenants but it bores in rapidly, used properly of course, into our helplessness to save ourselves. Put it this way, it is a very rapid way to get to where I want to go with few words, which is to the cross of Christ, and it stops self righteousness dead in it’s tracks, so you see I am not even thinking covenants in it’s use. There is no set formula for witnessing that I am aware of, I have seen booklets and so forth that give suggestions and there is a group now that say we should use the 10’c’s and we have failed in getting people saved because we haven’t, my take on it is that I have to be me. It is God that does the saving and he is perfectly capable in guiding one in what to say and what scripture to use. I think basically what caused me to misunderstand is that the 4th commandment has never been a barrier to me. So when I wrote the thread you all automatically think covenants and I am thinking Jesus, the covenants were never in my thinking as I wrote it. I was setting here thinking “What in the world are they saying?” To me the difference in the covenants does not hold the importance that it does to you, although an understanding of them is VERY important don’t get me wrong. I said before that I never heard more than two sermons on the covenants in my whole life before coming to this forum and I meant that literally. I reckon most of the people I associate with in our local churches take it for granted one already knows this stuff. Again, please forgive me for not understanding what was said. I am without excuse. I don’t suppose I really have much business writing on this forum but you folks have filled a place in my heart and you can believe that and you have helped me tremendously to understand my Adventist friends. I hope I have not upset you, but I needed to understand where you were coming from. I think that it amounts to a simple difference in our thinking. I hope that I have explained the way I think. Teaching a person the Ten Commandments never entered my mind, they are a simple tool to show rapidly that we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and then reveal the saving grace of Jesus. I would like to put it this was way, it is just the launching ramp, not a place to dwell, as soon as one gets ignition he is out of there and headed toward the target, ignition is the sudden realization that he needs a savior. You may not agree with it but it works for some people, there again, the leading of the Holy Spirit is fore most, once I even preached out of Job, some prefer to call it “witnessing for Christ” I prefer to call it what it is, preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, we are all ministers of the gospel or at least supposed to be, I wish I was a better one. I am contrite because I failed to remember your suffering and I misunderstood because of that failure and I stand without excuse. This goes to anyone whom I might have offended. River P.S. And thank you Erma. God bless. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1301 Registered: 7-2003  |
River, Just to be clear, I'm not offended in the least. I am quite familiar with this approach. I just don't agree with it, and to some degree, don't understand the logic of it. I sincerely want to know what you do with the 4th commandment when you are teaching unbelievers about the Decalogue. It's a real question of mine. I'm not asking to be argumentative, but to understand. I don't think it seems sufficient to just say it's not an issue. It was a HUGE issue for Israel, in fact, it was an issue of life and death. Breaking the Sabbath command, even just to gather a little firewood, brought capital punishment via stoning. Chris | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1044 Registered: 4-2000 |
Is it really that terrible and unthinkable to honor your parents, not to steal, not to use God's name in vain, etc.? Why would we want to assault God's moral directives wherever in Scripture they are found? I cannot find fault with God's moral directives. Who authorized me or anyone else to denounce any of God's moral laws? The reiterated moral laws in the New Testament do not just "happen" to be there--they are God-breathed. Obviously, God wanted to have his timeless moral laws in the New Testament as well. Dennis Fischer (Message edited by dennis on May 09, 2007) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5810 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dennis, I don't think the issue is denouncing God's timeless moral laws. When I say that the Ten Commandments, or the Old Covenant, are fulfilled, I don't mean that it's now OK to cheat, steal, lie, and commit adultery. I have never seen God's eternal morality to be an issue or in danger of being abandoned if we give up the specific use of the 10 Commandments. God is BIGGER than the commandments. He is eternal; and His Law is eternal. (Note: God's Law is never equated with the Ten Commandments in the Bible! God's law is within HIMSELF, and that is what He writes on our hearts by placing Himself in us.) I don't think the 10 Commandments are "forbidden territory", either. There is most definitely a continuing purpose for them. The entire story of Israel (which fills the ENTIRE OT from Genesis 12 onward) revolves around the 10 Commandments. Any time we talk about salvation history, about Israel, about covenants and law—the Decalogue plays a significant role. The fact that we HAVE the record of the old covenant, the Decalogue--indeed, the whole OT—explains and gives depth to Jesus' incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. God is not random! The tradition that labels the Ten Commandments as God's moral law or God's eternal law--is simply tradition. The Bible never identifies them that way. This problem with definitions leads to a great deal of confusion. We get calls and letters from people (often non-Adventists) confused about the law and Sabbath. We hear from many who became Adventists years ago because of the common arguments that the Ten Commandments are the statement of God's moral law—and of course, the Sabbath must, therefore, be considered. Because of the types of indoctrination and trauma we deal with in the communication we receive, I have pretty strong personal feelings about the potential risks of using the Ten Commandments as evangelistic tools. River, I totally understand what you're doing and why. And please don't feel bad...I'm not offended, either! I completely understand your confusion when you read our (admittedly) passionate responses. I do admit that Chris's question above,though, reflects mine. I understand that most people won't react to these issues as we do...but I also know that many are confused by them. Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1302 Registered: 7-2003 |
Dennis, This will no doubt seem harsh in writing, but I do not mean it that way. Since we know each other personally, please imagine me sitting across from you, looking you in the eye and speaking to you as a brother. I am speaking frankly, but not in a mean way or an argumentative way. What you imply in your post is hurtful. You are rather badly misconstruing what I am saying. Since you know me personally, we have met on several occasions, and have even studied the Bible together; you also know that I uphold the validity of God's eternal transcendent law and strongly believe that Christians are held to the highest standards of morality and holiness. What is being dicussed here is NOT whether or not we are held to God's moral law. We most certaintly are! What we are discussing is who is the greatest most complete revelation of God and His eternal transcendent law, Moses or Jesus? As a Christian brother, I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from any implication that those who embrace a New Covenant view of the Mosaic Law are somehow rejecting the eternal transcendent law of God. That is just not true and it is wrong to misrepresent a fellow believers position, even in an implicit way. Please accept this sincere request as one Christian imploring another for greater love, unity, and clear communication of view points. Your brother in Christ, Chris | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 738 Registered: 9-2006 |
Hi Chris, I thought maybe you had gone away, I thought I did just explain it. O.K. let me give it another whack. First of all you are not teaching the unbelievers the Decalogue, I am simply asking him a few simple questions, The Guy says to me, I am O.K., God will take me into heaven because he is good, I don,t sin much and I think I am a decent person, I say good, have you ever lied? He says, well sure, every body does, what I am trying to do is make him realize that we have all come up short, there fore we need Christ. Say it out of the New Testament, say it out of the old Testament, it doesn’t matter, it is in the old or new, his heart will convict him if you stand on you head and say it upside down, “God has said” no matter what testament you have in mind when you say it. Lying, stealing, adultery, loving God with all your heart, things like that are in both. Forget Sabbath. I am not after pointing out his sin and say lookit you! What I want to do is tell him about JESUS, I want him to admit he comes up short, I will say to him “So have I”. Chris, I don’t do anything with the Sabbath or Sunday or any other day of the week. If the man ask me about the days to attend church, I won’t get involved, I have to keep control, I won,t answer theological questions, once I let him/her take control of the situation I have lost. I have only one goal, once he admits that yes he is a liar and a thief I will tell him about salvation. You keep saying “But what do you do with the Sabbath?” I am not going to discuss Sabbath, the state of the world or the state of Kentucky with him. I may not even use the words Ten Commandments, or I may, why? It is so very simple, every one has heard of the Ten Commandments, I will say “The Bible says” but he may say “Oh yes, that is in the Ten Commandments” I won’t say “Oh yes, but you can,t go by that one, you have to go by Matthew, blah blah. You may very well disagree with it Chris and we can agree to disagree and go on and still love each other as the Lord has Commanded us, it doesn’t matter to me whether you agree or disagree, I know you are Chris, not River. But the way I see it I am using the law lawfully, stealing falls under both roofs. I hope that explains it a little better my friend. But there just are no hard and fast rules that I know off, it just depends on the person I am dealing with. I am about ministering where I can, it may be to the saved, it may be to the lost, where ever, whenever, it may be just lending an ear and a word of encouragement to another Christian, at the end of the day it,s about doing what I can where I can because I am grateful and I love him because he first loved me. I fail many times but I will keep going anyhow. River |
