Rallying Call of the Apostle Paul

[Randy Kluth]

And, there it is...so predictable.

If only you guys were as anxious to publicly declare which commandments we're at liberty to break as you are anxious to resort to Straw Man argument.

Of course, the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with "Christian Origination" aka "salvation by grace through faith alone"...but rather "Christian Obligation" aka the saint's duty to keep the Ten Commandments.

"Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of M-A-N" not "J-E-W".

I should probably explain to you why I declare that keeping the 10 Commandments is *not* a means of Justification. It is because as a subset of the Law of Moses, the entire Law, including the 10 Commandments, were carried out as a *limited* form of justification, enabling Israel to remain in fellowship with God as long as they carried out the prescriptions for sin and guilt.

But as a limited means of atoning for sin, the Law could *not* bringing about Eternal Justification, which is what I'm talking about. So when I say that we try to keep the 10 Commandments as a part of the Law, it would indeed be a failed attempt at Justification unto Eternal Life. It is no longer valid even as a temporary form of justification, or limited justification. That system has been scrapped because it has been fulfilled at the Cross.

Anything that is added to trust in Christ alone is an attempt at earning Eternal Life by a system that no longer even attempts to obtain temporary justification. It's okay with me if you want to honor days unto the Lord. It just isn't required obedience nor the basis of obtaining Eternal Life. The only value is you want to dedicate a day, regularly, to the Lord.

 

[Phoneman777]

It isn't a straw man argument.

When a post about a converted, born again, washed in the blood Christian's obligation to keep the Ten Commandments is met with a reply about how "we don't keep the law to be justified" - friend, that is TEXTBOOK strawman argument.

 

[Phoneman777]

Ohhhhhh, how does this relate to what I've said?

As SDAs in a world where the truth is covered over by layer after layer of deception, our energy is far better spent helping to uncover it instead of questioning the sincerity of those doing the digging.

 

[quietthinker]

As SDAs in a world where the truth is covered over by layer after layer of deception, our energy is far better spent helping to uncover it instead of questioning the sincerity of those doing the digging.

Dear Phoneman.....I am not SDA ie, I do not wear that tag. I do not jump through denominational hoops which all denominations have.
I reserve the right to question any position others claim.....even my own, instead of settling for pre-chewed ideas and conclusions.

I know this attitude is an uncomfortable one for those who feel they need to defend their particular denominational club at every turn for different reasons. One reason for it being uncomfortable might be that they are could be out of step with their peers and the price for that might be that they are marginalised.
Accepting doctrines or ideas without really understanding them well, is common in all the 'clubs'

As far as doctrines go, personally I am persuaded that the 7th day Sabbath has always stood as valid and there are other interpretations the SDA denomination holds to that I can go along with but the primary one that I find most SDA's in the system have not really sorted through is the preeminence of Jesus well; how it works or why it works.

I have learned that an understanding of this preeminence is as foundational as it is critical for 'falling in love' if I can use that common expression, with our Saviour. This is the point where everything else pivots on......and frankly, I know very few who have 'fallen in love' so to speak with Jesus. Many are in love with their doctrines and equate that with being in love with Jesus.

It has dawned on me that one can be right in their doctrines yet still hear those feared words from Jesus, 'I never knew you'

 

[Randy Kluth]

When a post about a converted, born again, washed in the blood Christian's obligation to keep the Ten Commandments is met with a reply about how "we don't keep the law to be justified" - friend, that is TEXTBOOK strawman argument.

So a legitimate response to your false claim that we must keep the 10 Commandments is for you a "Straw Argument?" No, it is not! Once again, if I ask you which of Ten Commandments in the Koran you must keep as a Christian, and you answer, "No, I don't have to keep any of them. I'm not a Muslim." Then, for you that is a Straw Man argument?

What you're doing is using a Straw Man defense.

 

[quietthinker]

So a legitimate response to your false claim that we must keep the 10 Commandments is for you a "Straw Argument?" No, it is not! Once again, if I ask you which of Ten Commandments in the Koran you must keep as a Christian, and you answer, "No, I don't have to keep any of them. I'm not a Muslim." Then, for you that is a Straw Man argument?

When you're doing is using a Straw Man defense.

Arguments from both sides of the fence will continue because both do not have Jesus as the KEY to interpretation. Understanding this and how to use this key gives a perspective which negates the never ending tedious positions put forward by well meaning religious folk. It is the lack of understanding this that maintains religious 'unkindnesses' ......and in that sense Jesus says of himself that he has come to bring division.....even in families.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Arguments from both sides of the fence will continue because both do not have Jesus as the KEY to interpretation. Understanding this and how to use this key gives a perspective which negates the never ending tedious positions put forward by well meaning religious folk. It is the lack of understanding this that maintains religious 'unkindnesses' ......and in that sense Jesus says of himself that he has come to bring division.....even in families.

So you're saying that only you have Jesus as the Key to all understanding?

Maybe you're just not listening to the arguments? Jesus is assumed by all parties to be the "Key" to unlock every understanding. That goes without saying.

So let's look at the argument again, unless all you want to do is prove you have the Key? The 10 Commandments contain eternal principles for human behavior. I think we can reasonably say that 9 of those Commandments are universal and could be applied at any time and among any people--even within several different religions.

However, the 10 Commandments do contain one commandment that is time-limited, and that is the Sabbath Law. It shows that the 10 Commandments were given when the Law was given as a whole and was intended to be part of the Law.

As such, Christianity does not follow the 10 Commandments as a subset of the Law. We follow principles that are included in the 10 Commandments, containing perhaps 9 of those commandments. But inasmuch as they are a subset of the Law, we only follow them insofar as they point to the righteousness of Jesus who *was not under the Law!*

So you see, this isn't just about having Jesus as the Key, which all true Christians have. No, it's about studying Christian doctrine, which Paul labored to provide for us. We need to study it and get it right if we wish to be pleasing to God. Study is Key in this, and not just knowing that Jesus is the Key to all understanding (which, of course, I would agree with you on).

 

[quietthinker]

So you're saying that only you have Jesus as the Key to all understanding?

Maybe you're just not listening to the arguments? Jesus is assumed by all parties to be the "Key" to unlock every understanding. That goes without saying.

So let's look at the argument again, unless all you want to do is prove you have the Key? The 10 Commandments contain eternal principles for human behavior. I think we can reasonably say that 9 of those Commandments are universal and could be applied at any time and among any people--even within several different religions.

However, the 10 Commandments do contain one commandment that is time-limited, and that is the Sabbath Law. It shows that the 10 Commandments were given when the Law was given as a whole and was intended to be part of the Law.

As such, Christianity does not follow the 10 Commandments as a subset of the Law. We follow principles that are included in the 10 Commandments, containing perhaps 9 of those commandments. But inasmuch as they are a subset of the Law, we only follow them insofar as they point to the righteousness of Jesus who *was not under the Law!*

So you see, this isn't just about having Jesus as the Key, which all true Christians have. No, it's about studying Christian doctrine, which Paul labored to provide for us. We need to study it and get it right if we wish to be pleasing to God. Study is Key in this, and not just knowing that Jesus is the Key to all understanding (which, of course, I would agree with you on).

For those who are curious I'm happy to share the Good News of liberation (justice). For those who want an argument, they can have it with others; I am not interested in arguing. For those who insist on being right I will willing leave them to their own perceived rightness. I have learned through the years that all the many words made to try and prove ones point to those whose ears insist on hearing a different drummer does not add to peace. My interest lies in knowing my Saviour more and more; it has captured my imagination.

 

[BarneyFife]

For those who are curious I'm happy to share the Good News of liberation (justice). For those who want an argument, they can have it with others; I am not interested in arguing. For those who insist on being right I will willing leave them to their own perceived rightness. I have learned through the years that all the many words made to try and prove ones point to those whose ears insist on hearing a different drummer does not add to peace. My interest lies in knowing my Saviour more and more; it has captured my imagination.

I often find myself drafting up long rebuttals of some of these heaping bowls of postmodern word salad and then, ultimately, I just can't bear to post them because it is the obvious literal act of the symbolic casting of pearls before swine which, of course, cannot be invoked without great offense to many, but it had to have meant something when Christ said it.

And it is fair enough to say that the perpetuity of the 4th commandment can be belabored in a given round of discussion but you know for yourself something of the frustration caused by some of the absolutely vacuous arguments that can be urged.


.

 

[Phoneman777]

Dear Phoneman.....I am not SDA ie, I do not wear that tag. I do not jump through denominational hoops which all denominations have.
I reserve the right to question any position others claim.....even my own, instead of settling for pre-chewed ideas and conclusions.

I know this attitude is an uncomfortable one for those who feel they need to defend their particular denominational club at every turn for different reasons. One reason for it being uncomfortable might be that they are could be out of step with their peers and the price for that might be that they are marginalised.
Accepting doctrines or ideas without really understanding them well, is common in all the 'clubs'

As far as doctrines go, personally I am persuaded that the 7th day Sabbath has always stood as valid and there are other interpretations the SDA denomination holds to that I can go along with but the primary one that I find most SDA's in the system have not really sorted through is the preeminence of Jesus well; how it works or why it works.

I have learned that an understanding of this preeminence is as foundational as it is critical for 'falling in love' if I can use that common expression, with our Saviour. This is the point where everything else pivots on......and frankly, I know very few who have 'fallen in love' so to speak with Jesus. Many are in love with their doctrines and equate that with being in love with Jesus.

It has dawned on me that one can be right in their doctrines yet still hear those feared words from Jesus, 'I never knew you'

I've found this to be the best Biblical analysis on the "Nature of Christ" which you'll find covers the "preeminence" question. I hope you prayerfully consider the eye-opening truths found in it:

 

[Phoneman777]

So a legitimate response to your false claim that we must keep the 10 Commandments is for you a "Straw Argument?" No, it is not! Once again, if I ask you which of Ten Commandments in the Koran you must keep as a Christian, and you answer, "No, I don't have to keep any of them. I'm not a Muslim." Then, for you that is a Straw Man argument?

What you're doing is using a Straw Man defense.

The Strawman Argument tactic seeks to gain victory over a debate opponent by falsely extending the opponent's position to include things he did not say followed by unanswerable argument against what the opponent did not say ("strawman argument") so that his original position might be dragged down in defeat along with what was falsely extended.

When I said the Christian must keep the Ten Commandments because they're "commandments" not "suggestions" and that obedience to them is the resulting outward evidence of inward conversion...the moment you started arguing "we don't have to keep the Ten Commandments to obtain Justification" is the very moment you began practicing the deception of "Strawman Argument". I said nothing about keeping the Ten Commandments to obtain Justification.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Strawman Argument tactic seeks to gain victory over a debate opponent by falsely extending the opponent's position to include things he did not say followed by unanswerable argument against what the opponent did not say ("strawman argument") so that his original position might be dragged down in defeat along with what was falsely extended.

I know what a Straw Man argument is, and it was none of those things--you just can't answer the point. I did not extend your point at all--I made my own point, that the 10 Commandments are a subset of the Law, and therefore not applicable.

You were not making that point. You were claiming that Commandments are commandments, whether they are in the OT Bible or in the NT Bible. My argument counters that by claiming that the same principles under the OT are not precisely the same under the NT.

You claimed I didn't have courage to address which of the Commandments applied or didn't apply in the NT. But I answered that directly by claiming that 9 of the Commandments are principles that would likely apply under the NT system, but that 1 of them, namely Sabbath Law, would *not* apply under the NT system. None of this has a single thing to do with a Straw Man argument.

When I said the Christian must keep the Ten Commandments because they're "commandments" not "suggestions" and that obedience to them is the resulting outward evidence of inward conversion...the moment you started arguing "we don't have to keep the Ten Commandments to obtain Justification" is the very moment you began practicing the deception of "Strawman Argument". I said nothing about keeping the Ten Commandments to obtain Justification.

No, someone might call that a Bait and Switch, but not a Straw Man argument. You're arguing with a false assumption, that commandments remain in perpetual effect, from OT to NT. But I'm arguing that they do not, since the Sabbath Law indicates that they were meant to be under the provisions of the OT legal system.

So I'm switching the argument from the definition of a "commandment" to the idea that a commandment can be pigeon-holed into a single covenant, namely the Law. But it's really a direct response to your false definition of a "commandment," insisting that it can indeed be tied to the Law and not applicable to the NT system.