Who is speaking? It cannot be but one of either God or the pope -- or the devil, come to think of it. Cause it's nowhere in the Bible .... and the audacity!
Colossians 2:14-16 - The Law That Was Against Us
- Thread starter BarneyFife
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Who is speaking? It cannot be but one of either God or the pope -- or the devil, come to think of it. Cause it's nowhere in the Bible .... and the audacity!
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
What I perceive is taking place here is on your side, suspicion we are demanding obedience to be saved, and on our side, suspicion you think to obey to the minimum so long as you are saved. Perhaps we both have reasons to see each other through that lens... There was certainly a time when seventh day adventists focused on the law so much, others saw our church as very legalistic. But that was a long time ago... Albeit I'm sure there are exceptions still. However, the corollary to that is the utter rejection of the law, antinomianism, in others. Maybe there's a middle ground where you see Sabbath observance as a simple act of obedience to a God Who ought to be obeyed in all things, particularly in regards to commandments, but not in any way, shape, or form, as a means in order to be saved.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Most magnanimous.
Historically it has always been Sunday keepers who judged Sabbath keepers as "legalists" etc etc, even heretics to be burnt.
Yet no-one is judging here... Yet. Disagreeing on doctrine isn't judging. Judging is often the excuse used to avoid conviction. "Don't judge me,I can do what I like". The thing is, what you and other opponents to Sabbath keeping need to absolutely get down and be utterly certain of, is to fully justify the exclusion of one specific Commandment, and the giver of that Commandment, having no authority to convince you to obey it. You really do need to be sure, because ignorance is never an excuse for disobedience. You need to set aside your intellectual reasonings. Scripture, and scripture alone.
Like you all say. <Your beefs and beliefs outlined> in this thread PROVES you have NEVER thought for yourself. Same lists and lists, same rhetoric, and, SAME OLD ATTITUDE of omniscience and infallibility and SUPERIORITY. I was a Seventh Day Adventist for a quarter of my life.
I have believed in Jesus Christ Saviour Lord and God through the Grace of God all my life DESPITE my times and deeds of most horrific defiance of that Mercy and Love of God. His faithfulness saved me, from all my sin, as from the hypocrisy of SDAdventism.
With your permission placed on my FB page <<Judging is often the excuse used to avoid conviction. Backlit>>
2nd Timothy Group
Well-Known Member
2nd Timothy Group
Well-Known Member
It's the rule of the day: Opposition = HATE
I don't oppose you, rather, I oppose your harsh attitude. I'm 100% certain that you don't go to church and talk to ANYONE, face to face, as you "talk" to many here. If we attended the same church, I'm certain that I'd leave because of how you treat others (if you were allowed to continue without consequence).
1 John 3:14 NIV - "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death."
May the Lord grant you the most incredible of Blessings.
2nd Timothy Group
Well-Known Member
Curious: The attitude that you share, here . . . are all people in the SDA churches like you?
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
When I told Barney I was raised in Reformation Theology I did not mean that I agree with all of it, hook, line and sinker. Melanchthon disagree with his brother, Martin Luther, on issues. There were some areas Luther would not compromise on, and I think we all need to have areas we don't compromise on.
But I don't agree with Luther's almost fatalistic Predestinarianism. I am a Predestinarian, but I also believe in Free Choice--some feel that is a contradiction, but I don't.
I might see some of the *requirements* of Protestant Christianity different from Luther, as well. He seemed to have a Catholic style view of the Eucharist, seeing it as an essential sacrament. I'm not opposed to calling the Eucharist a "sacrament," but as you can see, I see the value more in what it represents, symbolically, than the ritual itself.
Lutherans tend to feel that we are not good, and are able to live redeemed lives only by the grace of God. This almost becomes an excuse for not being good, or for not even trying. If grace is a gift of God, God doesn't expect us to be good. He only expects that He is good. We simply conform to it when He reaches out to us, and He forgives the rest.
Calvinism takes it a step further by calling mankind virtual "reprobates," incapable of doing anything good apart from salvation. Even our good works are despicable and wretched--totally depraved.
I don't agree with the idea that man is inherently bad. In reality, God created mankind to be good. Sin certainly separated Man and God into two different "homes." One home is where we live apart from God, doing things by our own will. The other home we're invited into, even as sinners, to walk with God and do what pleases Him.
But Man is capable of cooperating with God to do good at any time. The problem is, people want to do good when they want to do good, to cooperate with God when it suits them. That certainly makes God happy.
But this doesn't change a person into the image of God that God made Man to be. To have a good nature we must live all the time in relationship with God, doing His will. To just do good when we see fit does not qualify us to be in good standing with God, and it is likely that we do many wrong things in this condition. God's concern is that we live in the same home with Him so that whatever we do, we do it in consultation with Him. That way we acquire a New Nature.
I am actually far more of a "holiness" person than latitudinarian, or antinomian. It's just that I dislike doing things by rote, assuming certain traditions as "proper." For example, I see nothing wrong with praying with your eyes open, committing a ballet dance to the Lord (my daughter did this in church), playing Christian Rap or having not one but several pastors.
I'd like to see elders do more ministry of God's word in the church instead of letting the pastor do everything. I don't believe in the 10% tithe as a legal requirement. I believe in giving according to the need and according to the ability. A Church Board doesn't always establish a "need," but may choose for their congregation what *they think* is a "need." Etc. etc.
But I do believe we should pray about everything we do, from what we do at church to what we do in our job. And I think we should show discretion about what political party we're affiliated with and what entertainment we watch on TV. We need to have standards.
We shouldn't have excessive fellowship with unbelievers--we're witnesses to them. We should insist on Christian rules in the house, even if one of the spouses is an unbeliever. If they want to leave let them leave.
I've got my own views. But yes, there can be compromises we make for the sake of peace and fellowship. But we each have to have firm standards.
That's why the Early Church took a couple of centuries deciding what the cardinal doctrines of the Church are, or what constitutes doctrinal orthodoxy. If we get a few basic rules down, and then begin to live in a true spirit of love, then we're good, I think--no matter what our denomination.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Really? I know that some extreme legalists were threatened as seditionists because they upset the order in a Christian State. That's why the Catholics had Inquisitions. Protestants were not always tolerant either in certain matters of doctrine and practice, for the same reason. The public order has to be maintained.
In our modern States we've somehow come to believe that tolerance works, and we have no need to restrain views that incite the society. But we've been learning how "tolerance" really works, serving those who get to define what "tolerance" means for them! Dogmatists are persecuted and tried as "haters" simply because they believe God has a certain idea about the sacredness of life and marriage.
When anybody begins to lay down the rules for Christian Salvation, they become a form of oppression when those rules do not truly conform to the Scriptures. Even if Scriptures are used to justify such rules, if they are not explicitly taught in the Scriptures they become a hammer used on Christians who are merely trying to live according to the Bible, and not accept everything others tell them is "biblical."
I agree that Scripture is the authority. When I spoke of "judging," I was talking about Paul's admonishment to those who were, in fact, judging over the need to observe certain religious days. Paul discounted this as legalism, and yet allowed people to exercise freedom in how they worshiped, on what day they worshiped, etc.
The One Commandment you seem to be concerned about, the Sabbath Day, is an OT religious day. I'm certain that God does not make that a rule in the NT time period. And I'm certain the Scriptures do not teach that we need to observe it. I know the Bible really well.
2nd Timothy Group
Well-Known Member
The SDA church thinks it audacious to meet and dedicate time to the Lord?
If you've had an actual Romans 12:2 Holy Transformation, I'd be interested in listening to how you've changed by a Power other than yourself.
Looking forward to it.
What is wrong with Christianity’s understanding of Colossians 2?
Nothing; it understands it but too well to leave it intact. So it manipulates it and teaches,
That Colossians 2:12-20 teaches God’s Old Testament Law instead of the World, is the danger for, and the antagonist of, and the poison to, the true Faith and Righteousness and simplicity and obedience of the Christian man and Church.
Modern Christianity made sure Paul’s Letter has been doctored enough so that with such disinformation to thrive on, it can further its Antichrist doctrines, traditions and idolatrous practices like Sunday observance instead of the Sabbath Day Christ is the Lord of.
Nothing; it understands it but too well to leave it intact. So it manipulates it and teaches,
That Colossians 2:12-20 teaches God’s Old Testament Law instead of the World, is the danger for, and the antagonist of, and the poison to, the true Faith and Righteousness and simplicity and obedience of the Christian man and Church.
Modern Christianity made sure Paul’s Letter has been doctored enough so that with such disinformation to thrive on, it can further its Antichrist doctrines, traditions and idolatrous practices like Sunday observance instead of the Sabbath Day Christ is the Lord of.
If what you say were correct, that ANY <church thinks to meet and dedicate time to the Lord> itself, it is <audacious> by all means!
Regarding the Sabbath.
I refer to genuine Christians here, those born of God, to be clear.
The Christian is in Christ. The Christian’s rest is Christ. Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath. Paul testified and confessed “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal.2:20).
Tong
R1574
I refer to genuine Christians here, those born of God, to be clear.
The Christian is in Christ. The Christian’s rest is Christ. Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath. Paul testified and confessed “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal.2:20).
Tong
R1574
Amen but it also says as you put it
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
so one must enter in, those who do not will never have rest from their own works.
Proof will probably be in the next post..
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Let's be clear, the Jews never believed that the Law would save them. Paul never believed that obeying the law would save him. The Jews always believed that the Messiah would save them. They believed that if the entire nation would keep the entire law for one day, then the Messiah would come. Then he would save them from their enemies.
So then, the burning question in the minds of the Jews, at that time, was whether or not one stood condemned before the law or not. Was Paul, the individual, blameless before the law or not? He claims to have been blameless before the law. One day, according to him, he found that he wasn't. He describes this as "I was once alive but I died." Not only did he find that he was condemned before the law, he found that it was impossible for him to avoid coveting. If HE could never live a day without sin, then surely the rest of his nation wouldn't be able to do that either. His entire nation stood condemned and there was NO hope that God would send a messiah to save them. (In their minds, they didn't need to be saved from sin; they needed to be saved from their enemies.)
After explaining the hopelessness of the situation, Paul starts chapter 8 with the announcement that those in Christ Jesus are free of condemnation. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death." Paul discovered that it wasn't the law that brings life; it is the Spirit that brings life. And once an individual is seeking life by the Spirit, he no longer needs to seek life by a Law that is only able to condemn one to die. Obeying the law could never absolve anyone of condemnation. He proved that in chapter 7.
I don't disagree with you. But I wasn't answering that question. Paul says that the law itself was weak. And I was coming to terms with THAT idea. I understand that WE are weak, of course. But Paul was arguing that the Law itself had a weakness.
Similar threads
