| Author | Message | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1281 Registered: 4-2000  |
Colleen, The idea that "moral law doesn't need to be transferred because it is not dependent upon covenants" is problematic because God's covenants are primarily based upon His holy, moral laws (i.e., note the moral law transfers from the Noahic to the Mosaic and from the Mosaic to the New Covenant). After all, NINE of the Ten Commandments are reaffirmed in the New Testament repeatedly plus many non-Decalogical moral directives from the Torah.
Let me close with a great illustration to reveal the purpose of the law. A glass of water is left standing quietly and undisturbed on the shelf. The dust, germs, and the filth settle in the glass in an imperceptibly thin layer at the bottom. The water looks clear, sparkling, and harmless as it can be, but it is nevertheless poisonous and filthy. Now take a teaspon and stir up the water, and immediately something is apparent which could not be seen before. The water becomes cloudy, dark, and muddy, and a stench rises from the glass. I see in that water something I did not know was there, because the teaspoon stirred it up and made it visible. Did the teaspoon pollute the water? Did it cause it to become poisonous? Was it the the fault of the teaspoon? You know the answer. The teaspoon was clean and sterile, but it stirred up the filth which was hidden in the glass. It was not the fault of the teaspoon at all. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1077 Registered: 8-2004  |
Dennis, You write
Hmm. You have cited clearly that the moral laws the Old Covenant is based on existed prior to the Ten Commandments (from Noah to Moses). It is this moral law, the law God built into the universe from the beginning, that has never changed and never will change. The wages of sin is death whether there is a codified covenant that makes particular stipulations or not. The Ten Commandments (and all the rest of the Mosaic law which proceed from them) are the words of the old covenant not the foundational law upon which it's based. Exodus 34:28 is quite clear: "And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." Now if, as you nicely put "God's covenants are primarily based upon His holy, moral laws", then how can the law the covenant is based on be the covenant? The very sentence structure points to two separate things. Christians are in no way under the Mosaic Law (which cannot be divided without being utterly broken)? If we were, we'd better be keeping the feasts, and kosher, and all the rest along with "do not kill and steal". This does not mean that we should kill or steal (which are morally repugnant besides being crimes). It only means that our reason for not killing or stealing is not based in the Mosaic Law. Our reason for not killing or stealing is because the Holy Spirit takes up residence in us and and changes our hearts. If a Christian does steal or lie it is a sin, not because of the prohibition of the ten commandments, but because it is acting against the Holy Spirit within. Christians have every reason to respect, study, and thank God for the Mosaic Law. We can even delight in it because it points to our Savior, Jesus the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, not because we are still under it's laws or its rewards and punishments (and a law is pointless and useless without its penal code). Just my thoughts, Mary | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1282 Registered: 4-2000 |
River, Spirit-centered antinomianism puts such trust in the Holy Spirit's inward promptings as to deny any need to be taught by the law how to live. Proponents of this form of antinomianism believe that God talks to them directly about how to live. This view further opens up the possibibility of accepting extra-biblical revelatory messages such as ecstatic utterances, channeling, and visioning. Mary, You are right that God's moral laws have always existed. Cain had to flee for his life after killing Abel. He was a marked man. Likewise, the Noahic Covenant prohibits murder, the Mosaic Covenant prohibits murder, and the New Covenant prohibits murder. God's holy, moral law is a thread that is divinely-woven into all the covenants of redemptive history. Truly, God speaks to us with a unified voice from Genesis to Revelation. We are not left to wonder, with any degree of uncertainty, as to what pleases and displeases God. Let us honor and obey His revealed will for our lives. Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on September 26, 2007) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6890 Registered: 12-2003  |
Dennis, you said: 'You are right that God's moral laws have always existed. Cain had to flee for his life after killing Abel. He was a marked man. Likewise, the Noahic Covenant prohibits murder, the Mosaic Covenant prohibits murder, and the New Covenant prohibits murder. God's holy, moral law is a thread that is divinely-woven into all the covenants of redemptive history. Truly, God speaks to us with a unified voice from Genesis to Revelation. We are not left to wonder, with any degree of uncertainty, as to what pleases and displeases God." I completely agree--it is this I was trying to say and which Mary said so well. The fact that the Decalogue included a framwork of God's intrinsic, eternal morality does not mean we find ourselves "under" the Decalogue any more than Adam did. We are under God--and no, He doesn't leave us to wonder what those requirements are. He states them very clearly throughout the Bible. The Holy Spirit in us makes us able to respond to them. But now that Jesus has broken the power of sin and the Holy Spirit is indwelling us, we can respond to God's requirements—and we don't need the Decalogue to know what they are. The Decalogue is not bad--it's just obsolete. The New Testament is more clear, more complete in its denunciation of intrinsic sin than is the Torah. If covenants dictate the nature of God's promises and the nature of His interaction with us at any given time in history, then we have to allow the covenant we are in to explain how God interacts with us. The New Covenant is clear that He no longer interacts with His people on the basis of the law written on stone. He interacts directly—and His intructions for the New Covenant are outlined in the NT. Just one thought about covenants being primarily based on God's moral laws: you mentioned the Noahic and the Mosaic, but the Abrahamic was left out. That was a monumental covenant that introduecd a whole new program God was bringing about. The Abrahamic covenant was founded not on law but on promise—God's promise. It was through the Abrahamic covenant that we learned that righteousness is always on the basis of faith, not law. Romans 4 and 5 and Galatians expound on the significane of the Abrahamic covenant and clearly distinguish between it and the covenant of Sinai. Even so, Israel was never expected to be righteous based on behavior. The Abrahamic covenant set forth the basis of righteousness: belief in God's unilateral promises. But you are right: we are never left to wonder what pleases and displeases God. He has written a moral awareness on conscience; He has given written instructions from Sinai onward; He has revealed righteousness in Jesus; He has placed His Spirit in our hearts to convict us of sin and to impress the words of Scripture on our minds and hearts. But just as Abraham believed God and obeyed Him without a written law, so we, too, relate to God in obedience directly. The law is no longer our definition; the Lord Jesus is, and His Word is our source of knowledge of Him. Colleen | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 600 Registered: 7-2000 |
If the promise made to Abraham, which came in the form of a New Covenant was in any way based on law, then why would Paul say this; 'And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.' Gal. 3:17 If both covenants have 'law' in them, then there would have been no danger of the Abrahamic covenant being disannuled by the Mosaic law/Old Covenant. Instead, the passage clearly shows that the two covenants are of a very different, and antagonistic nature. Paul says bluntly in Gal. 3:12 that 'the Law is not of faith'. We have a far better guide through the Holy Spirit than the law could ever be... | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 223 Registered: 5-2007 |
Colleen, you mentioned M. Scott Peck book called "People of the Lie". Is that about adventism?  Loneviking: I did ask for correction. I am not above it. I wrongly assumed I was under the 10C's as an unbeliever. You are right, Gentiles were never under 613 laws either. My post would have only applied to Jews it seems. Or maybe not even them, because the God that gave the law had died, making them void. I think the big thrust of those Bible verses I quoted is that the Spirit will now guide your conscience. We no longer have to tease out rules and precise commands from the old testament. If we do, do we call it "right doing" as if it adds one iota to this thing called justification by faith thru grace? I consider "right doing" another name for works. OK, the sda-type is gonna ricochete over to James for his faith without works prooftext, etc. How do you know James' mention of "works" is merely our own works? Could it be these "works" are really of the Holy Spirit, with faith being the first of them? I fully believe the sda mindset thinks these works are their own works, as they keep pleading for the Holy Spirit to light upon them, as if they do not have it already. Paul was addressing the Galations: were they Jews? I am not a scholar, so I am asking. If they were not Jews, then why would they be under the law until faith, until Seed? Loneviking, if you were ever a good sda, you would "know" that the Gentiles inherited the Jewish law. How do we know that? Why they asked Paul to come to them on a sabbath! So if you were a very good sda, you would know to assume the law had crossed over to them. Capiche? And if you were a very, very good sda, you would "know" that because the sabbath law was not emphasized at all in the NT, that this is a STRONG indication that it was so prevalent everywhere, that it was ASSUMED! That is right, if you cannot find doctrinal info in the Bible that suits your needs, you can assume it. Arminiaism: No man can make you lose your salvation, but the man's body you live in can make you lose it? Is this a joke? It says "no man". Can some experienced person on this forum point to an example of a truely saved person, who decided to not be saved? I cannot imagine such, in light of scripture. Calvinism: 'if they walk away, they were never saved to begin with'. Who is it that is saved that just walks away? Someone please tell me. Something is not adding up here. As a saved person who believes the true gospel, does my violating moral directives and precise instructions void my salvation, if I am constantly repentant, where the Holy Spirit pricks my conscience? Sorry Dennis, I will not be taking this to private email, below the radar of more learned people here. I don't need some "special truth" that cannot be told publically. Truth has nothing to fear from being inspected. I have to say what I said, and hope it doesn't sound too harsh. Yep Colleen, isn't it Hebrews that says "a new covenant, NOT like the old"? Can we trust that or not? If Gods morality is soooooo tied into the Israelite "ministry of death" why is it ignored and hardly mentioned that the new covenant would also provide for Gods morality? It is almost silly. Do we find Israelites looking into Adams covenant to find out ways to add to their covenant? Does this strike anyone as silly? Since Gods morality is found in all covenants of the old testament, am I free to cloak myself in Adams, Noahs or Abrahams covenant, instead of Israels? Why or why not? Some here would say they are all based on Gods morality, so can I pick and choose? Can anyone reading this question not see the bias of someone touting Jewish laws? (hint)
I would like to restate that in contrast:
Why seek anything from the ministry of death? The ministry of death is not yours. Do not steal. Dennis, if you are getting your moral directives from the Torah, what do you need the Holy Spirit for? The dirty water illustration was pretty much lost on me. I dint get it. Mary makes some very good points. Dennis says:
Will God save me if He is not pleased with me? After all, I obey the gospel and believe! I let the Holy Spirit guide me. Yep, I still displease God because I have not reached egw "perfection". So are these "moral directives" and "precise instructions" found on the printed page some of the works that I need to add to my faith? When did you become good enough to stop making God mad? I posit, using your arguments, that you still are making God mad. Any sin makes Him mad! Are you saying that we only please God by finding on the printed page, and observing, "moral directives" and "precise instructions"? To the Gentile Chinese who never even knew who Jesus of Nazareth was, did he not have a conscience of his own, a law of his own that he had to live up to? Now lets say he ran into an apostle, heard the good news, and believed. How is it that the Holy Spirit could not save this person, 2000 years ago, when this Chinese gentile would not have had access to a King James Bible or Mr. Sproul or the many "moral directives" and "precise instructions" found on the printed page? 10 commnadment killers: If they are so eternal, written in rock, etc, why is God keeping them hidden from us today. (is this an ellenism?) Shouldn't they be on display at the Smithsonian? Will the "eternal", rock-written commandments not be burned up at some point? Why do some religions point you back only to the 10 commandments. Why not point us back to Noahs commandments, or Adams commandments, or Abrahams covenant? What is their authority for the roulette wheel stopping on the covenant to Israel? Why any emphasis on 10 commandments, when the God that gave them died? As in the death of a marriage partner, isn't the other partner to the covenant released from it? How is it that Sproul and adherents can turn the "ministry of death" into something binding today? If one is trafficking in things that do not belong to him, isn't that a form of thievery? Wouldn't it be called spiritual thievery to be trafficking in covenants which do not belong to us? As a saved person who believes the true gospel, does my violating "moral directives" and "precise instructions" void my salvation, if I am constantly repentant, where the Holy Spirit pricks my conscience? | ||
| Stevendi Registered user Username: Stevendi Post Number: 240 Registered: 10-2006 |
"Let us go therefore, and sin boldly" Martin Luther | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 226 Registered: 5-2007 |
link | ||
| Stevendi Registered user Username: Stevendi Post Number: 241 Registered: 10-2006 |
I thought I might get a response on that one. Thank you Larry, I have read a good deal on Luther and this comment. To me, it means: 1) A tongue in cheek comment not to take ourselves too seriously; 2) We should take the gospel seriously; 3) We have no choice but to admit our sin and offer it to God without attachments; 4) Our sin is not the end of the world, it is inevitable; 5) Even my attempts not to sin are sin in itself; 6) Only God can overcome my sin. In complete helplessness, I daily, hourly, continuously lean on Him to show me my sin, make me hate it, take it out of my life. Purged of one sin, He takes me to the next "sin-thing" that He wants to take away. We have no choice but to depend on Him to do this. No effort, no straining, just prayer, confession, repenting, trusting, believing. Anyone who would interpret this quote in a way to say that they can do whatever they want and they will be covered with Jesus' blood, does not understand what Luther, indeed all of us go through to get over ourselves and into Christ. steve | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 227 Registered: 5-2007 |
What? No striving with all our might? No clawing our way to heaven? I thought I smelled heresy quite a few posts back on this thread | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1547 Registered: 9-2006  |
Nahhh, what you smell is the smoke coming out the toppa my head every time I read a buncha those two dollar words that say stuff like Spirit centered-anti-insomnia or some such truck and how we aughta be askeered of them inner promptings of the Holy Spirit lest we be led away from the law and start jabbering and slobbering and start going into them hell-usinations,thats all you smelt, boy you must have some kind of sniffer if you smelt that all the way out here to Origone and down in this heer holler, how big is that snot box of yours anyway? Thats gotta be a sniffer to be envied. River (Message edited by admin on September 27, 2007) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1284 Registered: 4-2000 |
Larry, Biblical truth is not dependent upon those who agree with us. Paul and the writer of Hebrews clearly talk about our striving and running the race as Christ-followers. In fact, Paul uses the Olympic sports as an analogy to encourage us to "run in such a way that you may win" (2 Cor. 9:24) and to box "in such way, as not beating the air" (verse 26). What a great coach! The writer of Hebrews adds: "...let us run with endurance the race that is set before us" (Heb. 12:1). The believer perseveres because God preserves him. I realize you don't like precise lists of behavior. However, it may surprise you to know that the New Testament has more precise lists on behavior than the Mosaic Covenant ever had for the individual believer. In Galatians 5:19-21, Paul lists "immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outburst of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing" as ethical and moral directives for true believers to avoid. Notice that the first one on the list is "immorality." How can we be immoral without knowing what is moral? Many are saying today that moral laws do not even exist and that the word "moral" is never used in the Torah to distinguish it from the ritual, civil, and judicial laws of Moses. God doesn't leave the believer's conduct in uncertainty by our depending on some mystical form of the Spirit. Instead, the Holy Spirit precisely directed Paul to make a very extensive list of "don'ts." Paul further states, "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy the profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurors, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching" (1 Tim. 1:8-10 NASB). Paul concludes, "So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good" (Rom. 7:12 NASB). Larry, this is not referring to SDA "thought inspiration" here, this is nothing less than precise verbal inspiration. It is very, very clear in Scripture that God's moral laws have always existed, whether given orally or Scripturally, throughout redemptive history. Indeed, the most extensive moral directives are found in the New Testament. This list effectively reveals what the Holy Spirit is for, Larry. The primary purpose of the Holy Spirit is to lead us into righteousness (right doing). Indeed, "even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself" (James 2:17 NASB). Speaking of His elect, Jesus declared: "Thus, you will recognize them by their fruits" (Matt.7:20 ESV). Dennis Fischer | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 603 Registered: 7-2000 |
Larry wrote: Arminiaism: No man can make you lose your salvation, but the man's body you live in can make you lose it? Is this a joke? It says "no man". Can some experienced person on this forum point to an example of a truely saved person, who decided to not be saved? I cannot imagine such, in light of scripture. Calvinism: 'if they walk away, they were never saved to begin with'. Who is it that is saved that just walks away? Someone please tell me. Something is not adding up here. ---------------------------------------- Larry, let me give you a couple of starting points in Scripture to look at: Hebrews 6:4-6 'For it is impossible for those who were once elightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance;'. Did you catch the descriptions that can only refer to those who are saved? 'Once enligtened' 'tasted of the heavenly gift' 'made partakers of the Holy Ghost' 'tasted the good word of God' 'tasted the powers of the world to come' If these folks fall away, it is impossible to do what?--'to renew them AGAIN to repentence'. The Calvinist has no answer to these texts except to repeat the mantra, over and over, that these folks must not have really been saved--despite what the text clearly says. Another, similar passage is 1 Tim. 4:1 'Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils'. Larry, what does 'shall depart from the faith' mean? How do you 'depart' or 'fall away' unless you were once a saved believer? Note also that the Holy Spirit was very careful to 'expressly' give this warning--to make the warning very distinct and clear. You can take these two passages of Scripture and do some study from there. River claims that he has found 80 texts that say apostasy is possible--I don't know as I haven't done an actual count. But, Arminianism recognizes that it is possible to willfully turn away from God. Calvinism denies this. Good luck studying! | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2176 Registered: 10-2004  |
Larry, you asked:
In short, yes the Galatians were Gentiles but Paul is not saying in Galatians 3 that the Gentiles were ever under the Law. He is talking about various periods of time. Before faith was revealed (verse 23), meaning before Christ came, the Jews were under the Law which was to lead them to Christ (meaning the specific time in history when Jesus came to earth and lived and died and rose again). Then in verse 25 it is saying that now that Christ has come, the Jews are no longer under the Law. The ESV is probably one of the clearest translations for this passage: "Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian," (Galatians 3:23-25 ESV.) Also, notice in verse 14 of chapter 3, that Paul says, talking about being redeemed from the curse of the Law: "He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit." (Galatians 3:14 NIV.) Notice that those who were redeemed from the curse of the Law were clearly NOT the Gentiles. In fact, he is saying that the Jews had to be redeemed from the Law (everyone who is under the Law is under a curse, verse 10), in order for the Gentiles to receive the blessing given to Abraham--since the Gentiles were never included in the Law! I also said some more things on this in this previous post of mine: http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/11/5107.html#POST67165 Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on September 27, 2007) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2177 Registered: 10-2004 |
Susan wrote:
Actually, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would convict the world/unbelievers of sin and righteousness:
Notice that Jesus didn't say that the Law was to convict the world. But He did say that the Holy Spirit would. Jeremy | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 604 Registered: 7-2000 |
Exactly, Jeremy. In fact, the Galatians were very interesting Gentiles in that they were Celtic! That appears to have been fairly common knowledge at one time. J.B. Lightfoot, in his commentary on Galatians has a good discussion on who the Galatians were. The Galatians were never under the law, and now the Judaizers were trying to put them under the law. This was the real test of Paul's message to see if a race entirely alien to him to could grasp the gospel, become Christians and remain under the liberty of grace. That's why the tone of Galatians is so combative! | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 17 Registered: 9-2006 |
I'm enjoying all the above provocations. Praise God for this forum, it is wild, but truly alive! Bob Brinsmead used to say, "legalism is not legal, it is illegal." I took this to mean that trying to win or maintain favor with God through observation of any covenant but Christ's puts us in serious legal trouble. Larry said it was stealing. I would add adultery to that rap sheet, as Paul implies in Romans 7. Since Adventists wish to have a relationship with Moses' law, maybe we could call their Gentile/Mosaic covenant "Romancing the Stone." | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1286 Registered: 4-2000 |
Who inspired Moses and Paul to write down specific lists of moral laws? Dennis Fischer | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1550 Registered: 9-2006 |
Dennis, are you sure you aren't closet Pentecostal with your list of do's and don'ts? I,ll bet you sneak out behind the garage and do some of them ecstatic utterances, maybe a little visioning and channeling? Comeon, fess up. River | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1287 Registered: 4-2000 |
Jeremy, What is the biblical definition for sin? Dennis Fischer |
