Phoneman777 said:
ATP, Uppsaldragby no doubt believes he is teaching truth, but he is wrong. The verse "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law but under grace" is continually used by him to mean that grace-saved individuals are free from obligation to keep the Ten Commandments,
The fact is I have never once used that verse (you know, the one I am supposedly "continuously" using) to prove that we are no longer under the 10 commandments, so right there you are, again, incorrect. If you want to make claims about what I verses I use to support my arguments, then please be my guest and
use quotes!
which would be a reasonable conclusion if not for the following verse: "What then, shall we continue in sin (break the law) because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid.
If I had said that we should sin becuase we are no longer under the law then you would have a point. That has
never been, nor will it be, my position.
Know ye not to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom you obey, whether sin unto death or obedience unto righteousness." (Romans 6:14-16 KJV)
And again, if you think that I am advocating disobedience towards God, which you seem to be
itching to do since you need it in order to support your doctrine, then use quotes!
If Upp would lay aside his unconscious love of sin and critically examine this passage, he would see that "not under the law" does not mean "don't have to obey the law" because Paul says in very next verse that "God forbid" that we continue in sin, which is disobedience to the law!
So why is Phoneman so fond of using ad-hominem attacks in order to make it look like he is somehow making a stand for righteousness whereas anyone who opposes him is a sin-lover? Can anyone see through this?
It is clearly a result of what kinds of fruit SDA theology bears. They need to misrepresent everyone else as being "lovers of sin", in order to elevate themselves... which of course only results in human pride.
Now anyone who looks at the verse in question they will see that what Paul was saying is not that "God forbid" anyone to sin by breaking the 10 commandments (which is what SDAs want it to say), but that "God forbid" us to draw the conclusion that since we are not under the law (which is what the verse actually says) that we are therefore free to sin! Something I have repeatedly pointed out time and time again. Sin, for us, is to break the commandments God gives to us? Are his commandments consistent with the 10 commandments? Yes! Are they equivalent to the 10 commandments? No, they are not, just as I have pointed out.
And although Phoneman refers to quotes from the epistle of John, what he constantly fails to do is mention that John never once spoke of the 10 commandments or even hinted that they were made for us. God gives us commandments, through the Holy Spirit, and what John does is stress the fact that we should obey those commandments. And of couse we should! Only a fool would claim otherwise! If God commands you to approach someone and share the Gospel with you then do so.
If God commands you to lay your hands on someone and pray for them then do so. If God commands you to "look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" then do so. If God commands you to refrain from filling your heart with judgmental thoughts and showing favoritism towards the affluent then do so. And if God commands you to observe the Mosaic sabbath, then AGAIN, do so. But if you are going to maintain that the 10 commandments were made for Christians then you had better prove it with scripture - something that no sabbatarian has ever been able to do!
His failure to accept the Biblical distinction between the different laws of the Bible prevents him from arriving at the only correct conclusion we can draw which is that the passage means that Christians are "not under the condemnation of the law", an idea that Paul plainly restates when he says, "There is therefore now no condemnation for them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit," (Romans 8:1 KJV) because those who walk after the Spirit are those not only refuse the sexual advances of his neighbor's wife (letter of the law), but will immediately turn his head away from her direction when she walks down the street indecently dressed (spirit of the law).
I only accept "
Biblical" distinctions that the "
Bible" makes, not SDAs.
But continue to misrepresent my stance as much as you want Phoneman. I will resist you each time and call you to task every inch of the way. And I will also continue to point out that you have a bad habit of ignoring questions, and of making claims that you do not properly support.
Remember, we are under the obligation, in the sight of God, to be HONEST here. Please respect that obligation!
