Sabbath-Keeping

Phoneman777 said:

I fully understand the Gospel, which is not the false version which redefines what it means to "love" others. It is a distorted, fragmented version.

• The True Gospel has Jesus as both Savior Who covers our sin AND our Lord to be obeyed.

• The True Gospel does not redefine "love" to include committing sin - it says the opposite: "He that hateth his brother is a murderer, and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him," a clear reference to the 6th Commandment.

• The True Gospel is not a covering for the highest form of blasphemy which is claiming that God's love will cover the sin from which I refuse to turn and repent. That is a false covering of our own devising, and "he that covereth his sin shall not prosper, but whosoever confesseth AND forsaketh his sin shall have mercy."

Click to expand...

No you don't understand the Gospel phoneman because if you did you would not contradict the doctrine of the New Covenant. You would also be able to defend your doctrine based on what scripture says, rather than making claims that go beyond what is written. Similarly you would be able to support your claims according to the principle of two or three witnesses. And you would be able to answer the questions I have for you without being evasive all the time. You would use scripture rather than SDA arguments, which are very easily refuted, in discussions like this. You would not stubbornly cling on to a doctrine that breaks scripture, and you would not disobey scripture.

If you understood the Gospel as you claiim, then you would realize that the Gospel involves throwing the burden of keeping the standard of righteousness God demands on Christ, instead of lying to yourself, and others, that you are keeping it. We ARE to pursue morality, but we fall short of it. But rather than giving us commandment that condemn, we have Christ Jesus to FULFIL our failures.

Nowhere does the Gospel teach us that we are under the 10 commandments. Nowhere does it say that they were separate from the Mosaic Covenant. Nowhere does scripture indicate that moral issues, and having the GOAL of increasing one's morality, is equivalent with being under the 10 commandments. Nowhere does scripture indicate that putting oneself under a list of enumerated commandments has any positive effect on one's morality.

All of these things you ignore, just as all of these things can be verified through scripture. Yet you cower away from facing these facts!

•The True Gospel has Jesus as both Savior Who covers our sin AND our Lord to be obeyed.
•The True Gospel does not redefine "love" to include committing sin - it says the opposite: "He that hateth his brother is a murderer, and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him," a clear reference to the 6th Commandment.
•The True Gospel is not a covering for the highest form of blasphemy which is claiming that God's love will cover the sin from which I refuse to turn and repent. That is a false covering of our own devising, and "he that covereth his sin shall not prosper, but whosoever confesseth AND forsaketh his sin shall have mercy."

Click to expand...

I have already dealt with these kinds of strawmen comments. Why are you repeating them again? Let's not speak PAST each other. Or is that your tactics here?

Jesus said to his disciples, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20).

The scribes and Pharisees were playing it by the book. They didn’t slip up on a single do or don’t. But they were getting it all wrong.

UppsalaDragby said:

No you don't understand the Gospel phoneman because if you did you would not contradict the doctrine of the New Covenant. You would also be able to defend your doctrine based on what scripture says, rather than making claims that go beyond what is written. Similarly you would be able to support your claims according to the principle of two or three witnesses. And you would be able to answer the questions I have for you without being evasive all the time. You would use scripture rather than SDA arguments, which are very easily refuted, in discussions like this. You would not stubbornly cling on to a doctrine that breaks scripture, and you would not disobey scripture.

If you understood the Gospel as you claiim, then you would realize that the Gospel involves throwing the burden of keeping the standard of righteousness God demands on Christ, instead of lying to yourself, and others, that you are keeping it. We ARE to pursue morality, but we fall short of it. But rather than giving us commandment that condemn, we have Christ Jesus to FULFIL our failures.

Nowhere does the Gospel teach us that we are under the 10 commandments. Nowhere does it say that they were separate from the Mosaic Covenant. Nowhere does scripture indicate that moral issues, and having the GOAL of increasing one's morality, is equivalent with being under the 10 commandments. Nowhere does scripture indicate that putting oneself under a list of enumerated commandments has any positive effect on one's morality.

All of these things you ignore, just as all of these things can be verified through scripture. Yet you cower away from facing these facts!


I have already dealt with these kinds of strawmen comments. Why are you repeating them again? Let's not speak PAST each other. Or is that your tactics here?

Click to expand...

Upp, you are the most unreasonable, confused Christian I've ever encountered. You claim the Old Covenant was the law although I've shown you from Scripture that the law was merely a component of the Old Covenant and is also a component of the New Covenant. You claim Christians are not obligated to keep the Ten Commandments but you refuse to declare that we may freely break them. You claim that "anthropos" doesn't refer to all mankind, but refers to a "man" or "the Israelites" although the Sabbath existed from the very beginning as a memorial to Creation Week and was broken by the Israelites before they ever got to Sinai. You claim that the Gospel includes "concession for sin" although the Scriptures repeatedly declare that we are to "go and sin no more" and that those who do not turn from sin will not enter the kingdom. Believe what you want, for a man is only held accountable for that which the Holy Spirit has convicted him. I assure you that my Gospel is the True Gospel. Once eternity proves me right, I can't wait for us to laugh together as we journey from our country homes toward the City for Jesus' weekly Sabbath sermon, and since the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind, you won't have to worry about me rubbing your nose in how wrong you were.

face2face said:

The command written in stone could never engrave the heart. That's why the New Commandment was required so believers could worship everyday in Spirit and Glory in the Lord Jesus Christ. One perishes over time the other is remembered eternally.
F2F

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying that "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me". Can't be written in the heart? Or, "Honor thy Father and Mother"? God promised to "write My laws" in our hearts, did he not? Surely, that includes "thou shalt have no other gods before Me" and "Honor thy father and mother."

Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8..God says He will write His laws on "their hearts and minds, and I shall be their God and they will be my people"....so it is clear...if someone does not want to follow God's law, He is not their God and they are not His people...they are obviously following another spirit other than the spirit of God.

Remember salvation is through the Son of God, His grace and Commandments and NOT the sungod/satan and his doctrines and days of sunday,dec 25th and easter, all of which are non Biblical and of pagan origin.

Phoneman777 said:

Then why is every single one of the Ten Commandments repeated in the NT to Christians if they "perished"? It is because they are eternal. As I've often said, if the Ten Commandments do not apply to Christians, please tell me which we are free to break.

Click to expand...

Greetings Phoneman.
A misinterpratation on your part. If you re read the post you will see I am demonstrating a fact that the literal stone perished along with the engraved commands.

Please read 2 Corinthians 3:3

Clearly, you are a letter from Christ showing the result of our ministry among you. This "letter" is written not with pen and ink, but with the Spirit of the living God. It is carved not on tablets of stone, but on human hearts

Paul here is saying a number of important facts about the message which is from Christ. Firstly this literal letter was inscribed by the Spirit of the living God. He draws a contrast between what is written with ink and what is written by the Spirit. It was to be implanted into hearts made receptive by the Spirit. When ink is written on a page of paper, the page receives the image but makes no response. The letters remain only lifeless squiggles unless there is something to make sense of them and to respond to them. A response comes only from human hearts in which the words are sown, take root, and produce fruit. As letters of Christ, they are to communicate to the world what God has done in Christ.

Secondly Paul goes on to draw a contrast between fleshy hearts and stone tablets (Interesting dont you think?). Why compare the "old" commandment writing to the "new" commandment? Dont you think in this passage the papyrus or parchment would be a more appropriate comparison at this point? Since letters of instruction would were not etched in stone.

But Paul chooses stones because he will draw a comparison between his ministry for Christ and Moses’ ministry for the law. His primary concern is to give the grounds for “the confidence we have through Christ before God” (See 2 Corinthians 3:4), and he wants to contrast the giving of the law that was engraved on stones (Key verses for your consideration: Exod 24:12; 31:18; 32:15–16; 34:1 & Deut 9:10) with the promise of the new covenant that will be inscribed on hearts.

Phoneman, what this forum needs to see from you is the acknowledgement that the ten commandments (in thier old form) engraved in stone could not do for God what He achieved in Christ, His Son, by His Spirit. The Old Testment Commands where of themselves Good and Holy but engraved in dead stones and for the most received by stoney hearts. Explain to us how the OT Commandment on stone could not give life. Explain how the old commandment was associated with darkness. Explain what gave the OT commandments life?

The purpose of God Almighty is better communicated to us not through OT Commands etched in stone but by a life-giving Spirit in Jesus Christ by a New Commandment, which the Old has now perished and the darkness now replaced with light (understanding).

Paul in composing 2 Corinth 3:3 has drawn on more than one Old Testament text in which he interprets Scripture by Scripture.

I hope this is helpful
F2F

Phoneman777 said:

Upp, you are the most unreasonable, confused Christian I've ever encountered. You claim the Old Covenant was the law although I've shown you from Scripture that the law was merely a component of the Old Covenant and is also a component of the New Covenant.

Click to expand...

There is no confusion on my part Phoneman, and neither am I being unreasonable. And no, you haven't shown that the law of the Old Covenant was a "component" of the New. The two covenants have two separate laws dealing with common issues. The Old covenant law was "powerless" to do what God did as a part of the New Covenant - sending he son to be a sin offering (Rom 8:3). The Old Covenant made nothing perfect (Hebrews 7:19), whereas in the New we have a "perfector" of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). The ministry of the 10 commandments brought condmenation and death (2 Cor 3:7-9) whereas there is NO condemnation in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). The Old Covenant law made sin increase (Rom 5:20) and covetous desires to grow (Romans 7:8) whereas the New Covenant gives us the opportunity to deal with these things (Gal 5:16).. and so on and so on. You are obviously the one who is confused here.

You claim Christians are not obligated to keep the Ten Commandments but you refuse to declare that we may freely break them.

Click to expand...

What I "claim" is that we CANNOT keep the 10 comandments. That is exactly why we need a savior. You think you keep the 10 commandments??? What a joke. You haven't kept them in this thread, and neither can you completely convince yourself that you have ever kept them, and I am going to tell you why - using SCRIPTURE.

Romans 7 describes the hopeless situation that we face. Paradoxically, the commandment NOT to covet actually produces covetous desires. So that all the while you deceive yourself that you are keeping the 10 commandments, you run around with covetous desires that you refuse to admit that you have.

And the reason you do so is because you are in love with the idea that you belong to the "true" church, and that your affiliation with them somehow elevates you above the rest of Christianity - which is something that produces PRIDE, another sin that commonly goes undetected among SDAs since their belief that they are keeping the 10 commandments alienates them from the truth of the Gospel.

You claim that "anthropos" doesn't refer to all mankind, but refers to a "man" or "the Israelites" although the Sabbath existed from the very beginning as a memorial to Creation Week and was broken by the Israelites before they ever got to Sinai.

Click to expand...

Exactly, due to the scriptural evidence that we have that PROVES that the sabbath law was NEITHER given to either the patriarchs, NOR the gentiles. I have scriptural verses to PROVE it. What do you have?

I would REALLY love to see your response to this....

Somehow I doubt I will ever see it, because you ALWAYS cower off when I challenge you with scripture!

You claim that the Gospel includes "concession for sin" although the Scriptures repeatedly declare that we are to "go and sin no more" and that those who do not turn from sin will not enter the kingdom.

Click to expand...

Um... So let me get this straight.. are you now saying that scripture does NOT say that the Gospel includes "confession for sin"? I think you need to read more out of the epistles of John than interpreting the word "commandment" as referring to the 10 commandments, just as I think you should refrain from using strawman after strawman after strawman.

Believe what you want, for a man is only held accountable for that which the Holy Spirit has convicted him. I assure you that my Gospel is the True Gospel. Once eternity proves me right, I can't wait for us to laugh together as we journey from our country homes toward the City for Jesus' weekly Sabbath sermon, and since the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind, you won't have to worry about me rubbing your nose in how wrong you were.

Click to expand...

Live in hope Phoneman, but don't be surprised when your own prediction backfires. Those who were zealous for the law back in Jesus' day were equally convinced that this guy from Galilee (John 7:52), who accompanied himself with sinners (Matthew 9:11) could not possibly be their Messiah.

History repeats itself!

heretoeternity said:

Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8..God says He will write His laws on "their hearts and minds, and I shall be their God and they will be my people"....so it is clear...if someone does not want to follow God's law, He is not their God and they are not His people...they are obviously following another spirit other than the spirit of God.

Remember salvation is through the Son of God, His grace and Commandments and NOT the sungod/satan and his doctrines and days of sunday,dec 25th and easter, all of which are non Biblical and of pagan origin.

Click to expand...

Such simplicity, yet so many cannot grasp it, bro. That's why people insist on shifting the discussion to what God requires for us to be saved from what He requires from us after we have obtained salvation: the former being to simply believe that Jesus is both Savior and Lord to all that come to Him by faith and the former is that we evidence His indwelling presence in our lives by living according to His Ten Commandment both in letter and spirit.

UppsalaDragby said:

There is no confusion on my part Phoneman, and neither am I being unreasonable. And no, you haven't shown that the law of the Old Covenant was a "component" of the New. The two covenants have two separate laws dealing with common issues. The Old covenant law was "powerless" to do what God did as a part of the New Covenant - sending he son to be a sin offering (Rom 8:3). The Old Covenant made nothing perfect (Hebrews 7:19), whereas in the New we have a "perfector" of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). The ministry of the 10 commandments brought condmenation and death (2 Cor 3:7-9) whereas there is NO condemnation in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). The Old Covenant law made sin increase (Rom 5:20) and covetous desires to grow (Romans 7:8) whereas the New Covenant gives us the opportunity to deal with these things (Gal 5:16).. and so on and so on. You are obviously the one who is confused here.


What I "claim" is that we CANNOT keep the 10 comandments. That is exactly why we need a savior. You think you keep the 10 commandments??? What a joke. You haven't kept them in this thread, and neither can you completely convince yourself that you have ever kept them, and I am going to tell you why - using SCRIPTURE.

Romans 7 describes the hopeless situation that we face. Paradoxically, the commandment NOT to covet actually produces covetous desires. So that all the while you deceive yourself that you are keeping the 10 commandments, you run around with covetous desires that you refuse to admit that you have.

And the reason you do so is because you are in love with the idea that you belong to the "true" church, and that your affiliation with them somehow elevates you above the rest of Christianity - which is something that produces PRIDE, another sin that commonly goes undetected among SDAs since their belief that they are keeping the 10 commandments alienates them from the truth of the Gospel.


Exactly, due to the scriptural evidence that we have that PROVES that the sabbath law was NEITHER given to either the patriarchs, NOR the gentiles. I have scriptural verses to PROVE it. What do you have?

I would REALLY love to see your response to this....
Somehow I doubt I will ever see it, because you ALWAYS cower off when I challenge you with scripture!


Um... So let me get this straight.. are you now saying that scripture does NOT say that the Gospel includes "confession for sin"? I think you need to read more out of the epistles of John than interpreting the word "commandment" as referring to the 10 commandments, just as I think you should refrain from using strawman after strawman after strawman.


Live in hope Phoneman, but don't be surprised when your own prediction backfires. Those who were zealous for the law back in Jesus' day were equally convinced that this guy from Galilee (John 7:52), who accompanied himself with sinners (Matthew 9:11) could not possibly be their Messiah.

History repeats itself!

Click to expand...

Upp, I'm sure you are convinced that you are correct in your belief regarding the origin of the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments, which is fine with me. I've shared my beliefs and reasons or them, as you have done, so we'll just have to let the Holy Spirit convict as He sees fit. If you disagree, that is fine, but we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the lively debate, bro.

You are right on Phoneman...it is very simple..God's law, the ten commandments is the standard of judgement, and it is written on the hearts and minds of true followers of God...God's law, the Ten commandments is the basis for love..love of God and love of fellow man...but those under the pagan Roman system would sooner follow the pope and his day of sunday, which Daniel prophesied would happen in Daniel 2 and 7...when he prophesied a coming false religious movement would "think to change God's times and laws"...but just as satan deceived Eve in the garden, he is deceiving the vast majority of those who call themselves christian, but are in actuality following satan, just as Eve did. "God will not mind" is their excuse, same as satan told Eve...

They should know Salvation is through the Son of God, His grace and commandments and NOT the sungod/satan and his days of sunday, dec 25th and easter, all of wich are non Biblical and of pagan origin!

Phoneman777 said:

the former being to simply believe that Jesus is both Savior and Lord to all that come to Him by faith and the former is that we evidence His indwelling presence in our lives by living according to His Ten Commandment both in letter and spirit.

Click to expand...

In Spirit only...the letter killeth.

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 2 Cor 3:6

You and Phoneman really need to understand Paul's reasoning here.

[sharedmedia=gallery:images:591]

The very fact you both speak in terms of a "letter" reveals your understanding is darkened.

F2F

For even in the Gospels, it is “the letter” that “kills.” Not only in the Old Testament is “the letter that kills” found; there is also in the New Testament “the letter that kills”—that one who does not spiritually perceive what is said. For, if you follow according to the letter that which is said, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood,” this “letter kills.” Do you want me to bring out of the gospel for you another “letter” that “kills”? He says, “Let the one who does not have a sword sell his tunic and buy a sword.” Behold, this is the letter of the gospel, but “it kills.” But, if you take it spiritually, it does not kill, but there is in it “a spirit that gives life.” For this reason, receive spiritually what is said either in the law or in the Gospels because “the spiritual one judges all things but that one is not judged by anyone.” Homilies on Leviticus

But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away [2 Cor. 3:7].

The old covenant, the Law, was a ministration of death. When it says that it was written and engraved on stones, we know he is talking about the Ten Commandments. It “was glorious.” It is the will of God, and it is good, even though it condemns me. There is nothing wrong with the Law. The problem is with me. It shows me that I am a sinner. “So that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away.” That glory on Moses’ face slowly disappeared.

How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? [2 Cor. 3:8].
If the Old Testament was glorious, how much more the New Testament!
For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory [2 Cor. 3:9].
“The ministration of righteousness” is the righteousness which we have in Christ Jesus.
For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious [2 Cor. 3:10–11].
“That which is done away” is the Law. Notice that it is “done away.” Then how much more glorious is that which remains, that new covenant. He is making a contrast between the giving of the Mosaic Law and the day of grace in which we live.

f2f..you are confused between the sacrificial laws (613) written by Moses, and God's ten commandments, written by God on stone. You should know by now the sacrificial laws were the old covenant which ended at the cross..the blood of goats, sheep, lambs etc could not completely cover the sin debt..it took the blood of Jesus on the cross in the New covenant to do that...the ten commandments (God's law) was never changed and is an integral part of the new covenant...Paul said "do we make void the law through faith? God forbid, we establish the law", as one passage which supports this fact....Time you, Uppsi and a few others prayed for understanding of the Word of God, so you quit the confusion which you seem to have...

And remember Salvation is through the Son of God, His grace and commandments and NOT the sungod/satan and his days of sunday,. dec 25th and easter, all of which are non Biblical and of pagan origin!

heretoeternity said:

f2f..you are confused between the sacrificial laws (613) written by Moses, and God's ten commandments, written by God on stone. You should know by now the sacrificial laws were the old covenant which ended at the cross..the blood of goats, sheep, lambs etc could not completely cover the sin debt..it took the blood of Jesus on the cross in the New covenant to do that...the ten commandments (God's law) was never changed and is an integral part of the new covenant...Paul said "do we make void the law through faith? God forbid, we establish the law", as one passage which supports this fact....Time you, Uppsi and a few others prayed for understanding of the Word of God, so you quit the confusion which you seem to have...

And remember Salvation is through the Son of God, His grace and commandments and NOT the sungod/satan and his days of sunday,. dec 25th and easter, all of which are non Biblical and of pagan origin!

Click to expand...

Lets try again heretoeternity,

In the section of Scripture you are quoting from in verses 21-31, Paul does not limit his comments to the Mosaic Law in particular, but argues for the ineffectiveness of ritual law of any kind to provide the character being sought by Yahweh. Although the A.V. has "the law" generally throughout this section, the original text does not have the definite "the". Hence Paul shows that any endeavor to achieve righteousness by a mere observance to ritual and law will not accomplish salvation.

Even Abraham, who lived before the Mosaic Law, was not justified by works, (i.e., obedience to law and the 10 commandments).

Faith must be the motivating influence.

Its hard to argue against isn't it? It was for the Law keepers in Paul's day but don't do what they did!

Please.

F2F

Now that you understand that our Father Abraham was justified by faith & works however before the Law and Ten Commandments we can place all of the OT covenant in its right perspective.

The question you need to ask is the same as Paul

Has Paul now argued himself into a position from which he must admit that the law has become absolutely useless? Does the law become ineffective by the development of faith?

"Do we make void the law through faith?"

The answer is by no means!

He continues to assert that "the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (Rom 7:12). In fact, faith places the law in its proper perspective (see Mat. 5:17), and establishes its authority, as Paul expounds in the epistle to the Hebrews. Hence the Gentiles who have not the law through faith perform the works of the law (Rom. 2:14), for though faith might bring liberty from sin, it never creates licence to sin. "God forbid" See Rom. 3:4. "Yea, we establish the law" The Jerusalem Bible has: "We are giving the law its true value". There is no contradiction between the gospel of grace and the principles of the Old Testament, and Paul never taught that the acquisition and exercise of faith replaced loyalty to divine commandments. The law itself directed its adherents to justification by faith (Rom. 4:3-8). It was introduced that "sin might become exceeding sinful" (Rom. 7:13), and that "all the world may become guilty" (Rom 3:19), for "by the law is the knowledge of sin" (v. 20).

Paul described the law as "holy, just and good" (ch. 7:12), because it testified to Yahweh's righteousness, unto which man, of his own strength, could not attain. But by creating a legalistic system the Pharisees had overlooked the undeniable fact that the old covenant was in reality a covenant of grace. In Christ, the law of God is fulfilled according to its original intent, but which was frustrated through the weakness of flesh (Rom. 8:3). The gospel established the law by showing the permanent validity of the O.T. and by disclosing the only way by which its true intention can be realised.

So Christ came to "fulfil the law" (Mat. 5:17), and in doing so, removed its curse (Gal. 3:13), leaving its eternal principles to be developed by the spiritual mind. So the law is established by

(1) recognizing Christ as the subject of its rites and ceremonies (Lk. 24:44; Col. 2:14-17; Heb. chs. 8-10);
(2) By Christ fulfilling it in his life and sacrifice (Mat. 5:17);
(3) By believers seeing that the law must lead to Christ and not to self (Rom. 10:4). Jesus lived to honor the precepts of the law; he died to satisfy its claims; he rose again to remove the curse of the law, that its wisdom and righteousness should remain in the lives of believers.

Abraham obeyed the Ten Commandments not by stone but through knowing his God. He, by the Spirit through faith, obeyed Yahweh and because of his faith was attributed to him righteousness.

Take courage!

F2F

heretoeternity,

Can you see how this verse is getting to the Spirit of Paul's argument?
Can you see how your language and understanding must reach this same conclusion?

14 So, when Gentiles, who do not have law, instinctively do what law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law.

How can a gentile who has absolutely no knowledge of the Law and Commandments, only by knowing the Lord Jesus Christ obey that Law and Commandment?
How can a gentile who is so impressed by Jesus Christ intuitively carry out the deeper spiritual principles of the Law of God though never hearing or reading it? That same Law you say has been removed and done away with?

Is your paradigm being stretched?

I hope so because the other Christians here understand the Faith of Abraham and that poor gentile believer who only heard a small word of the kingdom via Isa 53 who was latter baptised by Phillip...he walked away richer in faith - maybe he never read the first five books!

Boy, I would love to hear you say "I understand" - thrill me to bits, it would.

F2F

heretoeternity said:

Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8..God says He will write His laws on "their hearts and minds, and I shall be their God and they will be my people"....so it is clear...if someone does not want to follow God's law, He is not their God and they are not His people...they are obviously following another spirit other than the spirit of God.

Remember salvation is through the Son of God, His grace and Commandments and NOT the sungod/satan and his doctrines and days of sunday,dec 25th and easter, all of which are non Biblical and of pagan origin.

Click to expand...

Amen, salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus as BOTH our Savior from sin AND our Lord to be obeyed. Those who do not want Jesus as their LORD neither want Him as their Savior from sin, but rather their savior while they remain IN sin. This is not an option.

face2face said:

The old covenant, the Law, was a ministration of death.

Click to expand...

It is popularly taught, as you so demonstrate here, that the Old Covenant = the law. This is not Biblical. Such a bold statement as this requires Biblical proof. If "Old Covenant" and "the law" are one in the same, we should be able to swap the one for the other in Romans 3:31 KJV without changing the meaning of the text. Let's try it:

"Do we make void the (OLD COVENANT) through faith? God forbid. We establish the (Old Covenant)."

By asserting the Old Covenant is the law, we also assert that Christians are to establish the Old Covenant, which idea is ridiculous. We cannot ignore this huge disagreement in Scripture that arises when we attempt this swap of the one for the other, therefore, we must conclude that "Old Covenant" =/= "the law" and put to rest this popular idea.

face2face said:

Now that you understand that our Father Abraham was justified by faith & works however before the Law and Ten Commandments we can place all of the OT covenant in its right perspective.

Click to expand...

So, what makes you think that these guys you're dialoguing with understand this? They teach that Abraham was given the Law and obeyed it. You have refused input that has been offered you. You have all the appearance of a deceiver who is really SDA and you're playing a game pretending to teach them something new. How do you propose to prove that you are not SDA?
Zeke25

Phoneman777 said:

It is popularly taught, as you so demonstrate here, that the Old Covenant = the law. This is not Biblical. Such a bold statement as this requires Biblical proof. If "Old Covenant" and "the law" are one in the same, we should be able to swap the one for the other in Romans 3:31 KJV without changing the meaning of the text. Let's try it:

"Do we make void the (OLD COVENANT) through faith? God forbid. We establish the (Old Covenant)."

By asserting the Old Covenant is the law, we also assert that Christians are to establish the Old Covenant, which idea is ridiculous. We cannot ignore this huge disagreement in Scripture that arises when we attempt this swap of the one for the other, therefore, we must conclude that "Old Covenant" =/= "the law" and put to rest this popular idea.

Click to expand...

"The old covenant, the Law, was a ministration of death"

Yes Phoneman without Jesus Christ and his sacrifice, The Law, The Covenant and The Commandments were all under a ministration of death.

This is true.

The Apostle clearly shows that Christ did away with the curse of the Law, though not the principles of the Law itself. The grace that is available in Christ for the forgiveness of sins through our faith accomplishes our justification. Recognizing that axiom and acknowledging that the Law was "just and good" Gentile believers are empowered by the Word to perform "the things contained in the law", and, though not being brought under the covenant established by the Law, nevertheless permit it to become "a law unto themselves". They "did not make void the law through faith" but, on the contrary, they "established it" (Rom 2:14; 3:31). In writing to the Galatians, Paul showed that Christ had redeemed both Jewish and Gentile believers from the curse of the law, "that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ" (Gal. 3:13-14). Paul's relationship to the Law was clearly set before the Corinthian brethren: "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are without law".

He defines three classes of believers:

(1) The natural Jews who are under the law
(2) The proselytes to Judaism, who have put themselves under the law
(3) The Gentiles, who were "lawless".

We are interested in No. 3; the Gentile was never "under" the Law! True believers are not without hope, nor without law, for they accept the first and endeavor to live according to the spirit of the second (Read Rom. 2:13-15; 3:31; 13:10).

F2F