Seventh Day Adventist

[amun]

Are we the people of the Old Covenant, who celebrate the first creation, or the people of the New Covenant, who commemorate the NEW Creation? Sunday commemorates the NEW Creation. The old man died (and “rested”) on the Sabbath; but the new man rose to new life and the new Creation of the following day, Sunday, which signifies eternity. This is why ancient Christians rested and worshipped together (among themselves exclusively) on Sunday, and spent Saturday doing the WORK of evangelizing the Jews in their synagogues.

You are entirely incorrect. And your assertion that Sunday represents some new plan instituted by scripture is totally unfounded. There is not a single chapter in the Bible which so much as HINTS to the transfer of the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. All of your church leaders will tell you this. I quoted quite a number of them. Did you read any of the quotes I mentioned that come right from official catholic literature? I can understand how ignoring them would be favorable for you.

Where does the Bible say that the first day of the week (Sunday) signifies “eternity”? This is called eisegesis. You are reading things into the passage that simply aren’t there.

It is also (on Saturday) a sign of the old creation, not the new. You commemorate the old creation, not the new. You operate (in this once instance, and perhaps a few others) according to the Old Covenant, not the New.

The “new covenant” does not include a transfer of the day as you allege – that is a belief nonexistent in the Bible. The law has never been done away with, because if it had been there would be no sin (transgression of the law), therefore the Sabbath has remained as a day where we celebrate creation. Paul and all of the disciples continued to refer to the day as the SABBATH and not the seventh day of the week – even after the death of Christ. If it no longer held significance, why even refer to it as the Sabbath?

Huh? The Pope never “changed” anything. The earliest Christians always observed Sunday as “the Lord’s Day” (Rev 1:10). This was the day that they gathered to worship together exclusively (e.g. Acts 20:7).

I’m going to have to assume that you never read any of the quotes I submitted clearly documenting that the Catholic Church ADMITS to having CHANGED the day by their own authority. Your position on the law and the Sabbath is a protestant position in order to justify why they keep Sunday instead of the day God instituted. Your views are not a reflection of official Roman Catholic teaching at all.

You cannot have it both ways. If we are saved by grace (that is, a Covenant of Love), then we are not bound to the Law at all.

Yes it can be both ways. Just because we are not saved by observing mere requirements does not mean that we will not be judged on whether or not we obeyed – because obedience will be a sign that we are living a life of faith. Obeying the law doesn’t’ t mean you are living a life of faith, but a life of faith WILL inevitably include OBEYING the law. That isthe only way to determine if you are doing God’s will or not, otherwise you’re just resting on some relative idea of right and wrong that has no foundation – and therefore cannot be known.

It is you who cannot have it both ways. You can’t be lost without sinning (breaking the law and therefore separating yourself from God). The breaking of god’s law is an INDICATION that you have separated yourself from Him.

Who says He did not? He sanctified by His Resurrection and His initiation of eternal life. Did you overlook that episode of the Gospel?

Since I must have read over it, could you quote me the passage that tells us he sanctified Sunday by his resurrection and initiation of eternal life?

 

[amun]

I also find it baffling how you talk of love and obeying God through faith and not works, and yet you seem to be oblivious to the fact that the religion you profess is BASED on a series of legalistic rules and hoops that one must go through in order to attain salvation. First of all, there is infant baptism which is intended to remove original sin (a legalistic and unbliblical position). Scripture makes it clear that everyone is reponsible for their own sin, and therefore having an original sin makes no sense.

Then for the child follows presentation, confirmation and first communion. Do you realize how many millions of people in third world countries have to go through the most costly sacrifices in order to “ensure” that their child is “saved” according to roman catholic canon law?

Next comes the confessional to another sinful man (a priest, instead of to God)–again, completely unbiblical. Then there is mass and prayers for the dead which is OBLIGATORY in catholic dogma. Then there are indulgences, i.e. pay money in order to go to heaven (which has been sanctioned by the pope even in modern times). Next you have penance, painful pilgrimages, processions, lent (with its legalistic eating rules derived from paganism), roseries, “hail marys”…all for the purpose of trying to please God through works in order to attain to righteousness — again, none of which are found in the bible but are strictly the creation of catholic teaching.

Of course, there are countless other rules and regulations by the CC which would be impossible for me to remember off of the top of my head. But it’s interesting to see a lot of this new pseudo-catholicism – which is practically a copy of popular protestant rationalizations.

 

[Church_Militant]

I also find it baffling how you talk of love and obeying God through faith and not works, and yet you seem to be oblivious to the fact that the religion you profess is BASED on a series of legalistic rules and hoops that one must go through in order to attain salvation.

Bunk! You cannot provide a single authoritative Catholic document that teaches any such thing.

Moreover, it is only by virtue of your own adherence to an unscriptural and errant gospel that DEMANDS that you make such a statement in contradiction of Word of God.

Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

First of all, there is infant baptism which is intended to remove original sin (a legalistic and unbliblical position). Scripture makes it clear that everyone is reponsible for their own sin, and therefore having an original sin makes no sense.

Really? Yet the New Testament plainly tells us, " Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." (Romans 5:12) What is that if not original sin?

Then for the child follows presentation, confirmation and first communion. Do you realize how many millions of people in third world countries have to go through the most costly sacrifices in order to “ensure” that their child is “saved” according to roman catholic canon law?

Next comes the confessional to another sinful man (a priest, instead of to God)–again, completely unbiblical.

This is nothing more than SDA anti-Catholic propaganda. Catholic Confession

Then there is mass

The Mass/Eucharist is more scriptural than anything outside of Catholicism. The Eucharist IS Scriptural and all of the following.
Real Presence (Fathers *)
Christ in the Eucharist
Who Can Receive Communion?
Sacrifice of the Mass (Fathers *)
The Institution of the Mass

and prayers for the dead which is OBLIGATORY in catholic dogma.

Wrong…which is obligatory in scriptural dogma. Even the Jews believe in it.
Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory

Then there are indulgences, i.e. pay money in order to go to heaven (which has been sanctioned by the pope even in modern times).

This is an outright misrepresentation.
Tetzel’s misconduct was about 500 years ago. The Council of Trent corrected it and it has not happened since.

Indulgences are actually quite scriptural.
Primer on Indulgences
Myths About Indulgences

Next you have penance,

Again… you deny a very scriptural teaching. “8] Bear fruit that befits repentance,” (Matthew 3:8) what would that be if not penance, which includes good works and the giving of alms?
Matthew 11:21 Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes.

Luke 10:13 Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida. For if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the mighty works that have been wrought in you, they would have done penance long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

Apocalypse 11:3 And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred sixty days, clothed in
sackcloth.
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

painful pilgrimages, processions,

None of which is required of us, though you wish in order to make your allegation seem valid.

lent (with its legalistic eating rules derived from paganism),

This is complete hogwash. Christ Himself entered a 40 day fast. Was that legalistic and based upon paganism? Fasting is all over the Word of God.

As for abstinence, it obviously had it’s place in the New Testament because St. Paul dealt with how it should work. 1st Corinthians 7:[5] Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. This clearly means that this was a common practice or else Paul wouldn’t have bothered to teach on it like this.

roseries, “hail marys”…all for the purpose of trying to please God through works in order to attain to righteousness — again, none of which are found in the bible but are strictly the creation of catholic teaching.

Prayer is all through the Word of God, and even the Jews had prayer beads, and still do.

You ridicule something that you know the Word of God teaches and of course you seek to denigrate Catholics by alleging that we do all that for the wrong reasons. Something that is completely and patently untrue.

Of course, there are countless other rules and regulations by the CC which would be impossible for me to remember off of the top of my head.

I wouldn’t strain myself if I were you since you have been proved to know virtually nothing of accurate information about the Catholic faith.

But it’s interesting to see a lot of this new pseudo-catholicism – which is practically a copy of popular protestant rationalizations.

Oh look…another piece of rhetorical propaganda without the least basis in actual fact.

 

[FCEGM]

Rather than addressing the entirety of your reply to me, I will reply to the core beliefs inherent in your understanding that are responsible for perpetuating your misconceptions on the matter of faith and the law.

We completely agree on the fact that we are not saved by mere acts of the law, but through faith prompted by love and NOT out of a mere legalistic obedience. But once again, you return to a position that only chooses to espouse one portion of salvation and systematically ignore that we are accountable for what we do (you cannot be accountable without God laying out a blueprint for right and wrong).

Again, you apparently do not see the proverbial forest for the proverbial trees, nor the fact that your position is self-contradictory. The reality is this: We are not accountable to any law. Rather, we are accountable to a Person, i.e., to Jesus Christ, Whose righteousness surpasses the Law. What about this don’t you understand?

When we are brought before the judgment seat of God we will give ACCOUNT for the actions and deeds we have done which has been an EXPRESSION of where we are spiritually.

But not according to any LAW. Our deeds will be judged on the basis of our love and commitment to Christ.

You talk about love and God tells us “If ye love me, keep my commandments”—John 14:15.

You don’t get the Jewish pun? These “commandments” are not those of the Torah, nor of any LAW. They are commandments of Love, i.e., “If you love me,” keep them. Again, we are not under the Law and bound only to a Covenant of Love …and love surpasses the Law; for, if one truly loves Jesus, then one does not have to worry about any “commandments,” since one will keep them (indeed, surpass them) automatically.

How can you do God’s will if there is no guideline to show us what is doing his will and what is not?

There is. This guideline is a Person: Jesus Himself. This is what you’re not getting.

It’s impossible! Jesus KEPT the commandments, and his actions reflected OBEDIENCE – not out of legalism, but out of love. Jesus our example.

Context, context, context. Jesus was a Jew under the law. He was bound by the Law (see Gal. 4:4). But, we are not under the law (e.g. 1 Cor. 9:20). Your position implies that we still are! Thus, you contradict yourself. You cannot have it both ways.

You problem is that you fail to distinguish what it means to be under the Law vs. under the Covenant of grace. Yes, of course we have obligations to righteousness and holiness, but these having nothing whatsoever to do with the law; they have to do with our fidelity to the Person of Jesus Christ.

The cornerstone error on which your whole argument rests, is this:
Quote:
Sorry, but you apparently don’t get it. Sin is not a violation of law. Crime is a violation of law. Sin is an offense against God - an offense against a Person.

Unfortunately, this is a belief that is fundamentally contrary to scripture, for we are told:

“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.”—1 John 3:4

You’re kidding me, right? Notice what it specifically says: “Whoever commits sin ALSO transgresses the Law” (which is not the best translation, but I’ll address that below). I am not denying that sin also applies to the Law; of course it does. What I am saying is that sin is not primarily a violation of Law, i.e., sin is not defined as a violation of the Law, but is primarily an offense against a Person - an offense against God Himself. This is what sin is for a Christian, since a Christian is not under the law (e.g. 1 Cor. 9:20).

And notice the verse just previous to the one you quoted. 1 John 3:3 says:

“Everyone who has this hope based on Him makes Himself pure, as He is pure.”

So, the real and primary meaning of sin is that it separates us from the Person of Christ. John then continues in verse 5:

“You know that He (Christ) was revealed to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin. No one who remains in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or known Him.”

Thus, again, sin (while it also of course violates the Law) is actually an offense against the Person of God. This is what it is for a Christian, who is not bound by the Law.

Indeed, later in verse 8, John continues and says:

“Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinner from the beginning.” - that is, long before the Law was established on Sinai. Thus, sin is not defined as a breaking of the Law, but by a personal offense against the Almighty.

Also, as I said, your King James version of the quote is question (v. 4) is a bad translation of the Greek. More accurately, the Greek reads:

“Everyone who commits sin also commits lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness” - that is to say, sin is against the Torah (the Law). But, again, this does not define or encompass what sin really is. Killing one’s child is also against the law; but it’s primarily an offense against that child and everyone who loves that child. Even if child-killing were legalized (e.g. abortion), it would still be a personal offense.

Indeed, if you look at Romans 2:12 and Romans 3:9, sin applies to both those who are under the Law and those who are not. It therefore follows that sin is not defined by the Law or as a violation of the Law. Sin is defined as an offense against God.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Yet, you also write:

And also:
“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”—Romans 3: 20

You are serious? The term “knowledge” here refers to “awareness.” Paul’s point is that a believing Jew is aware of what is sinful and not sinful. This “knowledge” comes through the Law. But, sin also exists apart from this knowledge/awareness, for, in this very same epistle, Paul also says:

“What shall we conclude then? That we (i.e., Jews) are any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles ALIKE are all under sin.” - Romans 3:9

and also:

“All who sin apart from the Law will perish apart from the Law, and all who sin under the Law will be judged by the Law.” Romans 2:12.

Now, what does this show us? First, it shows that even those who are not under the Law are still under sin. Why? - because sin is a personal offense against God Himself, and one can do things which offend God without even knowing about the Law. Secondly, since Christians are not under the Law (per 1 Cor. 9:20), it therefore follows (per what it says here in Romans 2:12) that we will NOT be judged BY THE LAW. Rather, we will be judged based on our Covenant of Love with Jesus Christ, which asks us to surpass the Law in righteousness.

So, much for my supposed violating of Scripture. It is you, amun, who are the one with scriptural difficulties; like most Protestants, you lack a comprehensive understanding, and so stress one truth at the expense of other truths.

(Other translations of Romans 3:20 read thus “Therefore no-one will be declared righteous in Go’s sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.” (NIV) and “God doesn’t accept people simply because they obey the Law. No, indeed! All the Law does is to point out our sin.” (CEV))

For Jews. Paul is speaking about Jews, amun. Romans is about the difference between being a Jew under the Law vs. being a Christian who is not bound by the Law. The fact that you don’t know this, and that you use these quotes as you do, is simply amazing. Even most non-SDA Protestants are up on this.

The last verse makes it clear that while we are not justified by the mere keeping of God’s requirements, we are not freed from the responsibility of obeying God’s law through LOVE (because if we’re knowingly sinning, we aren’t living a life of faith).

No, that’s not what’s being referred to; read the full passage Romans 3:19-24. A Christian is not bound by the Law, but surpasses the Law if he is faithful to the Covenant of Christ, i.e., the love of Christ and the love of others based on the love of Christ. This supercedes the Law. We know what it right and good by looking to Jesus. We do not need to know the prescriptions of the Law or base our sense of righteousness on any kind of legal observation.

You say “sin is an offense against God”. So allow me ask you, how am I to know what is offensive to God and what is acceptable?

By knowing Christ and looking to Him. If one loves Him (that is, God) and loves one’s neighbor as oneself, then one has both fulfilled and surpassed the Law. Jesus Himself says so.

Again, your problem is that you don’t grasp what I’m saying. You are “stuck” on this idea of “Law.” I am not saying that we should be ignorant of the Ten Commandments and other information about what is right or wrong. What I’m saying is that we are not bound to any legalistic “check list” for righteousness. Our righteousness is not based on any kind of observation of mere Law; rather, it is based on a loving Covenant and commitment with a living Person; and though Him, with His Church, which is the Spirit-filled “pillar and foundation of Truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

We remain in Jesus by living in this active Faith, and righteousness is the natural result of it. We are not responsible for the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law, since living in and with Jesus surpasses the Mosaic Law. This is the whole point of the New Testament and the theology of St. Paul! While you give lip service to this principal, you do not consistently hold to it, for you say that you are still bound by certain specific legal prescriptions - that the principal of LAW still applies to you. If you are a Christian, it does not. Rather, you are only bound by the righteousness BEHIND those legal prescriptions - the spirit to which those prescriptions referred. Thus, we are not obligated to observe Saturday as our Sabbath. What more needs to be said?

Without a law, this is impossible.

Sorry, you are in error. The example of Christ is enough. This is greater than the Law. He surpassed the Law in righteousness.

You insist that my position contradicts itself,

Yes, it surely does.

yet it is quite clear that your position not only fails logical scrutiny, but it is also scripturally untenable – .

No. See above.

therefore it is you who is arguing on a faulty premise.

No. Again, see above.

Does our salvation go beyond a mere obedience to the requirements of God’s law? Absolutely!

Right.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Does that mean that we are free to sin? No, because by sinning we are transgressing the very thing that TELLS US if we are LIVING IN ACCORDANCE TO GOD’S WILL.

Which is what? The Law? Wrong!!! Rather, the “very thing that tells us if we are living in accordance to God’s will” is Jesus Christ Himself!! I will prove it to you. Look again at Matt. 5:27-28. Where does the Law ever say that we sin if we look at a woman lustfully? It doesn’t. According to the Law itself, there is no prohibition against doing this. But, Jesus tells us that such behavior falls under “Thou shall not commit adultery.” IOW, Jesus asks us to surpass the Law in righteousness, and He is the example of true righteousness.

Likewise, look again at Matt. 5:21-24: Where does the Law say that it’s sinful to speak abusively to your brother? But, Jesus tells us that such behavior falls under “Thou shall not kill.” Therefore, the Law is not what “tells us if we are living in accord with God’s will.” We Christians are not under the Law. We are under a Covenant of Love with Jesus Christ, and we avoid lusting after people and being abusive to people, not because there is any “Law” against it (because there isn’t any law against it) but because we love Jesus and follow His example and do what He does. This is Christian righteousness - righteousness based on a Person, not on Law.

It’s interesting because you seem to still be inclined [per your phraseology] to keep some accountability with no law – a position which flies in the face of not only common sense, but God’s word.

No. See above.

Even in our society, someone is only guilty if they have broken a law - you simply can’t condemn someone arbitrarily unless you have SHOWN THEM what they have done wrong.

Siiigghhhh! Sorry, but you simply don’t get it. You certainly didn’t get my example about adultery. If there was no law against adultery, and no legal penalty for it in divorce court (for example), would it still be wrong?? If so, why? It would be wrong because it is an offense against a person - one’s spouse. In the same way, anything that offends or separates someone from Jesus is what is wrong for a Christian. There is no need for “Law.” Jesus is our standard of righteousness. Jesus does not murder or abuse people; Jesus does not commit adultery or lust for women in His heart. If you do these things, then, as 1 John 3 says, you do not “remain in Him" …or “seen Him or known Him.” Rather, “Everyone who has this hope based on Him makes Himself pure, AS HE IS PURE.”

This is the Gospel, amun. There is no need for Law when there is Love. If one does not have this Covenant of Love, then one will “perish apart from the Law” (the destiny of a pagan) or “be judged by the Law” (those who remain under the Law). But, a Christian is not liable to the Law at all.

Quote:
Please Read the whole passage. What Jesus is saying here (He is speaking to Jews) is that He is not abolishing the Law. Rather, the Law continues to stand, and continues to exist implicitly within the New Covenant. But, if you continue reading the passage, Jesus then goes on to say how His disciples are called to surpass the mere requirements of the Law. In Matthew 5:21-22,
Surpassing the requirements of the law does not mean that they are no longer a barometer for KNOWING if we are doing right or wrong.

I am not saying that we don’t need a barometer. Yet, the difference between us is that I am (correctly) saying that this “barometer” is Jesus, and you are saying that it is the Law. You are in error and at odds with Scripture. Jesus surpasses the righteousness spelled out in the Law; and thus Christians are likewise called to this type of righteousness.

I read the whole passage. You have pointed out nothing new by suggesting that I read “all” of it,

Then your mind is fixed on the Law and this limits your understanding of Scriptures. Again, the Law NEVER forbids us to lust after women (or men) or talk abusively to our brother, but, Jesus and His example of righteousness does. This is what we are bound by, not the Law. That’s what Matt. 5 is addressing.

as though it has something different to offer than what it reads. You are throwing out its application while insisting that you accept it.

No; since you are fixed on the Law, you cannot understand the point.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Quote:
Sorry, but you still don’t get it. In the Christian Covenant, God did not set any rules down on paper for us; rather, He gave us an older brother - Christ Himself - Who is the Personification of everything that God wants us to be and do. If we imitate Christ (in a Covenant of love and fidelity) we will be everything that God wants us to be. This is the difference between a Covenant based on Law (a written set of legalistic rules - which is what the OT Jews had) and a Covenant based on Love, as we have it in Christ. Imitating and maintaining a Covenant with a living, All-Righteous Person is fat greater and more comprehensive that following any kind of recorded list of rules. This is what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism. The main problem with SDAs is that you do not truly appreciate what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism. You are still (in many cases) under the Law and limited by it. That is very sad.

Unfortunately, it is you who does not understand the difference between the moral Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) and the mosaic law of ordinances (legalistic rites and ceremonies) that was done away with at the cross which were a shadow of things to come.

I’m sorry, but your understanding of Romans is in error. Again, we Christians are not under the Law at all. This means that we are not even bound by the Ten Commandments AS LAW. If we were, then we would also be subject to the prescribed punishments called for in the Law for breaking one of the Ten Commandments (e.g. adultery merits stoning). This is why the Church has never stoned anyone for committing adultery. So, we are not bound by the Decalogue (the 10 Commandments), but by THE RIGHTEOUSNESS BEHIND the Decalogue, as Personified and exemplified by Jesus Christ. This is exactly what Matt. 5 is all about.

Furthermore, Romans is not merely about our freedom from the legalistic rites and ceremonies, but freedom from the ENTIRE Law AS LAW. See Romans 7, where Paul uses covetousness as an example of the Law. That’s part of the Decalogue, amun. So, we are not even bound by the Decalogue as Law, but only by the righteousness behind it. Lastly, and most hilarious of all, you SDAs are the ones who claim that we are bound by a legalistic rite - that is, the observance of a Saturday Sabbath, which is a matter or rite.

For instance, the slaying of the lamb would not need to be done anymore because it was merely pointing toward what Christ was going to do for us.

It’s nice how you feel free to pick and choose. But, he who claims to be bound by any aspect of the Law is thereby responsible for the entire Law (per Gal. 5:3 and James 2:10). You claim to be bound by the Decalogue as Law (and the Saturday Sabbath in particular). You are thereby bound to keep the whole Law, and thus you are a Judaizer. This is the essential problem with SDA theology. What about this don’t you understand?

If you do not understand this difference, then you will constantly be reading contradiction in scripture.

I see no contradiction in Scripture. Rather, the problem lies in your MIS-reading of Scripture. Christians are not bound to any jot of the Law - PERIOD.

Colossians 2:16-18 tells us:

“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”
This has nothing to do with the ten commandments, which continues to be the law of the universe.

SIGH! Again, if the Ten Commandments is the “law of the universe,” then is it therefore okay to lust over an unmarried woman? The Ten Commandments never forbids this. Ah! But, Jesus does. So, are the Ten Commandments the law of the universe?? No, they are not. Rather, the Law of the Universe is the Law of Divine Love. One does not lust over a woman because it offends and causes damage to God, neighbor, and self. THIS is the nature of the Christian Gospel. Paul himself illustrates this fact in Gal. 5:4-6:

“You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by Law; you have fallen from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.”

That is, works of loving faith, not works of the law. The principal of law does not apply to a Christian. This is what you are not grasping, nor apparently do you care to understand it. For you, obedience is a matter of law, rather than faithful obedience to the Person. You will never understand the Gospel as long as you refuse to accept this fact. Romans 3:28 is clear: We are saved by Christ apart from the works of the Law. Not merely the ceremonial rites of the Law, but all of the Law - even the 10 Commandments. IOW, we are not bound by the strict legal command not to commit adultery; rather, we are bound (for the sake of love and true righteousness) to avoid all forms of sexual sin, whether specified in the Law or not. Just avoiding what is spelled out in the law is not enough to save us or please God; rather, we must be “pure as He is pure” (1 John 3:3).

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Quote:
Are we the people of the Old Covenant, who celebrate the first creation, or the people of the New Covenant, who commemorate the NEW Creation? Sunday commemorates the NEW Creation. The old man died (and “rested”) on the Sabbath; but the new man rose to new life and the new Creation of the following day, Sunday, which signifies eternity. This is why ancient Christians rested and worshipped together (among themselves exclusively) on Sunday, and spent Saturday doing the WORK of evangelizing the Jews in their synagogues.

You are entirely incorrect.

And you again demonstrate that you do not understand.

And your assertion that Sunday represents some new plan instituted by scripture is totally unfounded.

There is not a single chapter in the Bible which so much as HINTS to the transfer of the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Again, you are looking for a prescribed LAW. Approaching Scripture your way would likewise have us conclude that there is no “hint” of the Trinity or the Divinity of the Holy Spirit in Scripture either. One must know how to read Scripture, and you do not.

All of your church leaders will tell you this.

My “Church leaders” say no such thing.

I quoted quite a number of them. Did you read any of the quotes I mentioned that come right from official catholic literature?

I’m afraid you see what you want to see in those quotes.

I can understand how ignoring them would be favorable for you.

OTC, they are quite favorable since it gets to the heart of the issue: the authority of the Church, which is Christ’s Body, to choose to worship on the day sanctified by His Resurrection, the Day of the NEW Creation – to live in freedom in His righteousness and not live in shackles to the Law.

Where does the Bible say that the first day of the week (Sunday) signifies “eternity”?

The Bible doesn’t - explicitly. But, then again, the Bible never gives any explicit teaching on the Trinity, or the Hypostatic Union or Christ, or the canon of the Bible itself either. So, your sola Scriptura demand for an explicit statement is a silly one. However, in terms of the implicit content of the Bible, we are clearly taught that, by His death and Resurrection, Christ established a New Creation, and that the old creation has passed away, and He has made all things new and connected them to eternal worship of Heaven. This is what the Paschal Mystery of His death and Resurrection brings into being, and this is why Christians worshipped together exclusively on Sunday - the First Day of the Week, which was called, from Apostolic times (Rev 1:10), “the Lord’s Day.” And “the Lord’s Day” is still the word for Sunday in Greek, and Italian, and Spanish, and Armenian, and Syrian, and every modern language that comes directly from the culture of the early Church.

This is called eisegesis. You are reading things into the passage that simply aren’t there.

I am reading the Bible as Christians have always read it from the 1st Century. How far back can you trace your Adventist reading? Can you even trace it back to the old world? Your faith is very American, and very modern.

Quote:
It is also (on Saturday) a sign of the old creation, not the new. You commemorate the old creation, not the new. You operate (in this once instance, and perhaps a few others) according to the Old Covenant, not the New.

The “new covenant” does not include a transfer of the day as you allege – that is a belief nonexistent in the Bible.

The New Covenant includes the authority of the Church, and it was the Church which naturally and organically chose Sunday (the day on which the Lord rose) as the day when Christians would rest and worship exclusively together. Saturday was a day for work. Saturday was spent in the synagogue with non-Christian Jews, evangelizing them and trying to win them to Christ. Read the Acts of the Apostles and you will see this. Christians worshipped together unto themselves on Sunday (see Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2).

Once again, your comment above is based on a legalistic mentality - as if everything is a matter of law. According to the New Covenant, Christians are not bound by ANY day for ANYTHING like that - see Gal 4:9-11. Indeed, you yourself quoted Col 2:16-18, which frees us from the legal necessity to observe: “…any a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the SABBATH days.” So, AGAIN you contradict yourself. You cannot have it both ways. If we are not bound by Law, then we are not bound by Law …which includes any holy days or the Saturday Sabbath. Rather, we follow the organic custom of the Church; and we observe Sunday or other holy days, NOT because we are bound to them in and of themselves as a matter of Law, but because we are bound to the organic unity of the Church as a matter of LOVE and FELLOWSHIP. This is the distinction which you cannot grasp, or will not grasp.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

The law has never been done away with,

Right. But, it is not applicable to Christians (1 Cor. 9:20). This is what you do not appreciate.

because if it had been there would be no sin (transgression of the law),

A foolish statement. You refuse to face reality. Sin is not defined by the Law. Sin is an offense against the PERSON of God. Sin existed BEFORE there was the Law. In 1 John 3, John says that Satan was a sinner “from the beginning” - that is, BEFORE the Law existed.

therefore the Sabbath has remained as a day where we celebrate creation.

Not according to Col 2:16-18. Again, Christians do not celebrate the old creation, but the New Creation. This is why they celebrate on Sunday - the day on which the Lord rose and established the New Creation.

Paul and all of the disciples continued to refer to the day as the SABBATH and not the seventh day of the week – even after the death of Christ.

So what?! In modern Italian and Greek and other Mediterranean languages, the word for Saturday is STILL “sabato” - that is, “the sabbath.” This refers to the Jewish custom - the status quo of the Law, which is what Paul and the other disciples are referring to as well. For goodness sake, the very concept of a seven-day week comes from the Jewish law. The Romans had an eight-day week, for example. Thus, “sabato” (the Italian word for Saturday) makes reference to the seven-day week - that is, it marks the final day of the seven-day week. But, this has nothing to do with the Christian custom of observing Sunday as “the Lord’s Day.” If we were speaking Italian, or Spanish, or Greek (or some other Mediterranean language), rather than English, this would obvious to you.

If it no longer held significance, why even refer to it as the Sabbath?

Because that was the Jewish and the popular term. What else would you call it? You could not even make reference to the seven-day week (which was a Jewish system for calculating time) without using that term for Saturday. Your ignorance of ancient context represents the majority of your problem. Again, your faith is VERY modern and VERY American.

Quote:
Huh? The Pope never “changed” anything. The earliest Christians always observed Sunday as “the Lord’s Day” (Rev 1:10). This was the day that they gathered to worship together exclusively (e.g. Acts 20:7).

I’m going to have to assume that you never read any of the quotes I submitted clearly documenting that the Catholic Church ADMITS to having CHANGED the day by their own authority.

:yup: Of course we admit to that. But, we did it back in Apostolic times, amun. I hate to break it to you, but the Church of Acts 20:7 is the Catholic Church.

Your position on the law and the Sabbath is a protestant position in order to justify why they keep Sunday instead of the day God instituted. Your views are not a reflection of official Roman Catholic teaching at all.

Balderdash. You obviously don’t realize what the true Catholic position is. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2174, 2175, 2176. You can’t get much more “official” than our Catechism.

Quote:
You cannot have it both ways. If we are saved by grace (that is, a Covenant of Love), then we are not bound to the Law at all.

Yes it can be both ways.

Not according to the New Testament.

Just because we are not saved by observing mere requirements does not mean that we will not be judged on whether or not we obeyed – because obedience will be a sign that we are living a life of faith.

We are not bound by obedience to the Law. We are bound by obedience to Christ, Whose righteousness surpasses the Law. I hope some day you will recognize this fact.

Obeying the law doesn’t’ t mean you are living a life of faith, but a life of faith WILL inevitably include OBEYING the law.

NO! Again, you don’t get it. We do not obey The Law. We go beyond what the Law asks of us, and we obey the loving and righteous example of JESUS CHRIST! You are under the impression that the Law is the key to righteousness. It isn’t! Christ is! This is what you do not get.

That isthe only way to determine if you are doing God’s will or not, otherwise you’re just resting on some relative idea of right and wrong that has no foundation – and therefore cannot be known.

This is childishness. You do not understand the Gospel. The way to determine if you are doing God’s will is to look at Christ and follow HIS example and HIS teaching. Where does the Law forbid lusting after an unmarried woman?? It doesn’t! Yet, Christ DOES! If you make the Law your criterion of righteousness, then you will not be truly righteous. But, if you make Christ your criterion of righteousness, then you will be “pure as He is pure” -1 John 3:3. Again, what about this don’t you understand???

You can’t be lost without sinning (breaking the law and therefore separating yourself from God).

And what “law” did Satan break? 1 John 3 says that he was a sinner “from the beginning.” Again, sin is a PERSONAL offense against God. This is its primacy context and meaning. It is only a violation of law AFTER this.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

The breaking of god’s law is an INDICATION that you have separated yourself from Him.

Sure it is. But, if we have Christ, we don’t need that “indication” any more. This is what you fail to appreciate. Christ automatically shows us what is righteous and not righteous.

Quote:
Who says He did not? He sanctified by His Resurrection and His initiation of eternal life. Did you overlook that episode of the Gospel?

Since I must have read over it, could you quote me the passage that tells us he sanctified Sunday by his resurrection and initiation of eternal life?

Do you wish to say that the day on which He rose is not sanctified by His resurrection??!! Again, you’re not much of a comprehensive reader of Scripture. Christ “rested” on Saturday in death, and then rose again on Sunday to initiate the New and eternal Creation. This is clearly the essential theme and meaning of the Paschal Mystery of His death and Resurrection. If you don’t appreciate this meaning, it’s no wonder you are confused.

Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:2 show us that the Christians met together for worship on Sunday. This shows that the day was a holy day for them. Likewise, this day is referred to in Rev 1:10 as 'the Lord’s Day" - term that we find in many other examples of late 1st and early 2nd Century Christian literature, and it always refers to Sunday. For example, in A.D. 107, St. Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of both Peter and John) writes:

“Those who lived according to the old older of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord’s Day in which our life is blessed by Him …” - To the Magnesians 9:1.

Likewise, in c. A.D. 155, St. Justin Martyr writes:

We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day, Jesus Christ our Lord rose from the dead." - Apologia 67

This was the understanding and custom of the early Church, amun. Where do you get your understanding from, and how far back can you trace it?

 

[FCEGM]

. . .
Oh look…another piece of rhetorical propaganda without the least basis in actual fact.

It didn’t take too long for the anti-Catholic spirit of Ellen G. White to finally appear, did it, CM?

 

[amun]

Again, you apparently do not see the proverbial forest for the proverbial trees, nor the fact that your position is self-contradictory. The reality is this: We are not accountable to any law. Rather, we are accountable to a Person, i.e., to Jesus Christ, Whose righteousness surpasses the Law. What about this don’t you understand?

I find it heavily ironic that the only self-contradictions existing are those found all too abundantly in the position you have taken – I will enumerate in a minute. It’s funny how you say his righteousness surpasses the law, because that’s exactly what I believe and what I’m saying. But by surpasses you are really wanting to say “NEGATES”, “OBVIATES” or “DISCOUNTS” the law (for Christians). So from now on, it’s better if you actually use more definitive terms to represent your position.

But not according to any LAW. Our deeds will be judged on the basis of our love and commitment to Christ.

But scripture tells us otherwise:

“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work*** into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be **evil. **

A few things here. 1st it’s telling us to keep his commandments. 2nd it lets us know that this is the whole duty of man, not only for the Jews, mind you. 3rd. It affirms that our WORKS and ACTIONS will be brought into judgment, whether they be good (according to the law) or evil (against the law) – those who don’t know the law will be judged by their conscience, or not condemned at all.

You cannot have a judgment without a law. And no matter how many times you try repeating otherwise, your position is wholly UNSCRIPTURAL.

You don’t get the Jewish pun? These “commandments” are not those of the Torah, nor of any LAW. They are commandments of Love, i.e., “If you love me,” keep them. Again, we are not under the Law and bound only to a Covenant of Love …and love surpasses the Law; for, if one truly loves Jesus, then one does not have to worry about any “commandments,” since one will keep them (indeed, surpass them) automatically.

What Jewish pun? Could you please elaborate on that?

What he’s basically saying is, if you love me, you’ll do what I tell you (the commandments). Just like a mother would tell her child, “if you love me, you’ll respect the rules of the home”. It’s not complicated, it really isn’t.

We are not saved through works alone, but through faith that acts from love – a love that will result in OBEDIENCE to God’s commandments. It doesn’t say, as you would have us believe: “If ye love me, you’ll do loving things”. lol

It’s funny how you say that we aren’t bound by the law because if one truly loves Jesus they “will keep them automatically”. Keep what? You have repeated a host of times that the law no longer exists, that we are no longer bound by it. If there is no law, then there is no keeping them either. Since when is it okay for you to have a double standard? You constantly allude to a mystical “righteousness” behind a “law”, but you deny over and over that there is even a law that we are accountable to.

There is. This guideline is a Person: Jesus Himself. This is what you’re not getting.

Ah, okay, so since there is no law, and since we need a guideline to know what is right and what is wrong, our guideline of what is right and wrong is the PERSON of Jesus right? Well, since Jesus kept the commandments, and also the Sabbath, then we should too, right?! This is a very important part in our discussion – please keep it in mind for the following:

Context, context, context. Jesus was a Jew under the law. He was bound by the Law (see Gal. 4:4). But, we are not under the law (e.g. 1 Cor. 9:20). Your position implies that we still are! Thus, you contradict yourself. You cannot have it both ways.

Ooooh, and here we arrive at a classic dilemma in your position! So based on this, your statement about Jesus being our guideline no longer means anything! How can Jesus be our example (as a guideline of right and wrong) if he was subject to a law which we are no longer bound by? So now we have no law, and we have no example in a PERSON either, because that person was keeping the OLD law that we are no longer subject to. It is YOU, my friend, who cannot have it both ways. The irony is staggering.

You problem is that you fail to distinguish what it means to be under the Law vs. under the Covenant of grace. Yes, of course we have obligations to righteousness and holiness, but these having nothing whatsoever to do with the law; they have to do with our fidelity to the Person of Jesus Christ.

Obligations to righteousness and holiness? How is that accomplished? How do we know what is wrong and what is right without a law! Oh that’s right, the PERSON of JESUS, right? But since you already told me that Jesus was bound by some old covenant, then his EXAMPLE as a barometer for right and wrong no longer means anything anyway.

So now we have no law, consequently we have no sin, and since we have no sin then we don’t need Jesus (because Jesus came to save us from our sins) and since the gospel is the good news of what Christ has done for us, we don’t need that either – and all we have left are people like you going “blab la bla” with nothing to say.

…continued*

 

[amun]

You’re kidding me, right?

Of course! This whole discussion has just been a joke.

Notice what it specifically says: “Whoever commits sin ALSO transgresses the Law” (which is not the best translation, but I’ll address that below).

Yes, I notice what it says. Did you also notice that it says “for sin IS the TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW”? Is there something else you wanted me to notice?

I am not denying that sin also applies to the Law; of course it does. What I am saying is that sin is not primarily a violation of Law, i.e.,

Oh but of course you are! When I told you that sin is a transgression of law you flat out told me that I was INCORRECT, and proceeded to give me some other definition that you conjured up from muddled catholic dogma – contrary to the clearly outlined description that Scripture gives us.

You just got done telling me this whole time that there is no law that we are bound to – but now you are CHANGING your position. So now having established that you are now CHANGING your original position, I’m quite curious as to how, all of a sudden, you are able to concede that sin has something to do with a law without contradicting your original position? So I ask you, WHAT law? You’ve made it quite clear to me that there really is no such thing as a law that we are bound to. Meaning, that we do not HAVE to keep it if we don’t want and we will still be saved somehow through grace prompted by love (but without necessarily obeying any law). You certainly have some epic confusion going on there.

sin is not defined as a violation of the Law, but is primarily an offense against a Person - an offense against God Himself. This is what sin is for a Christian, since a Christian is not under the law (e.g. 1 Cor. 9:20).

And lo, you backtrack yet AGAIN! But sin IS DEFINED SCRIPTURALLY as a VIOLATION OF LAW. Yes, it IS an offense against a person – an offense to God – but how does that take away the law? It can’t—and you just admitted that sin at least PARTIALLY has something to do with the breaking of a law.
First you say definitively that it is NOT defined as a violation of law – in total opposition to scripture, and then in the subsequent line you say “This is what sin is for a Christian, since a Christian is not under the law”. This inconsistency is seen throughout your arguments.

You may remember me mentioning that unless you understand 1st corinthians properly, you will constantly run into what appears to be a contradiction inherent in scripture itself.

You are alluding to a verse that is specifically referring to the mosaic law of ordinances and ceremonies – which has absolutely nothing to do with the moral Decalogue which is our constitution for right and wrong. Again, when it says “sin is the transgression of the law” it can’t be talking about the same “law” that Paul says we are no longer bound by, because if that were the case then there wouldn’t be sin. In your words, you can’t have it both ways.

How is it that you are able to actually overlook all of these incongruities in your position and yet feel so blissfully confident in what you believe? How you reconcile all of these contradictory positions, only you can know!

Another verse for you: “Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.“ – Romans 4:15.
And what is transgression? It is knowingly breaking God’s law.

…continued

 

[amun]

And notice the verse just previous to the one you quoted. 1 John 3:3 says:

“Everyone who has this hope based on Him makes Himself pure, as He is pure.”

So, the real and primary meaning of sin is that it separates us from the Person of Christ. John then continues in verse 5:

“You know that He (Christ) was revealed to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin. No one who remains in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or known Him.”

Thus, again, sin (while it also of course violates the Law) is actually an offense against the Person of God. This is what it is for a Christian, who is not bound by the Law

Those are some great verses. Of course, no where do they define sin in the sense that its meaning has LESS to do with the breaking of God’s moral law. They only tell us that in Jesus there is no sin, and no one can be a part of Christ’s body if they choose to remain in sin.

Let’s read that verse again with my interjection: “You know that He (Christ) was revealed to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin. No one who remains in Him sins [breaks the law]; no one who sins [breaks the law] has seen Him or known Him.” – Bracket emphasis, mine.

So this means that if we are going to be keeping the law if our “knowing” Him is going to be genuine, because if you truly know him you will do what he asks you to do.

“Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinner from the beginning.” - that is, long before the Law was established on Sinai. Thus, sin is not defined as a breaking of the Law, but by a personal offense against the Almighty.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The law was not initiated at Sinai, it was POSTED at Sinai. The law was passed on by word of mouth from generation to generation before God actually wrote it out specifically in stone. I will prove it to you scripturally in a moment.
You may remember me quoting whereGod kept the Sabbath at creation, and you replied by telling me that my reference was somehow inapplicable because it’s part of an “old covenant”. You may ALSO remember that in the fourth commandment God specifically says “Remember the Sabbath day” and then takes you back to creation, showing you that it was instituted at the very BEGINNING.

Would you like to change your position now and tell me that the obligations of the moral Decalogue (old covenant) FIRSTappears at Sinai only for the children of Israel? You can’t do that unless you take back your comment about God’s resting on the Sabbath as being a significant only within the old covenant – which you say was first established at Sinai.

If we go to Genesis 26: 5 we are told:

“Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”
And if you read chapter 16 of Exodus, you will see that the children of Israel were already keeping the Sabbath BEFORE it was posted at Sinai. In fact, you may even recall when Pharaoh was upset that Moses was having the children of Israel REST one day out of the week from their labors.
You may remember that Adam and Eve broke the command/law of God not to eat of the forbidden fruit. They DISOBEYED that command and by doing so breached their covenant of love with God. Where there is no law, there is no sin.

They couldn’t have sinned if they weren’t breaking some command. In the same way, you cannot have sin without a breaking of some law – and neither can you be judged at the end of time. Going ABOVE and beyond the law is not tantamount to “doing away” with it.

The problem is that your position is cognitively dissonant, because scripture upholds the law throughout, and yet there are verses where Paul talks about how we are no longer bound by a “law”– and this is because you don’t understand that the moral Decalogue (the ten commandments) and the mosaic ceremonial law (aka: law of moses) are different from each other. One is merely a transcript of the law that governs the universe, while the other was a shadow of things to come (pointing forward to the coming of Christ). That law of ordinances was done away with at the cross because it was no longer necessary. My position does not contain the very CLEARCUT contradictions inherent in your stance on the issue.

Also, as I said, your King James version of the quote is question (v. 4) is a bad translation of the Greek. More accurately, the Greek reads:

“Everyone who commits sin also commits lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness” - that is to say, sin is against the Torah (the Law). But, again, this does not define or encompass what sin really is.

Why do you admit that it is saying that sin is against the law, but then try to subsequently deny that sin has anything to do with a law? Please make up your mind.

Killing one’s child is also against the law; but it’s primarily an offense against that child and everyone who loves that child. Even if child-killing were legalized (e.g. abortion), it would still be a personal offense.

Yes, you are right here. How does this negate my position?

Indeed, if you look at Romans 2:12 and Romans 3:9, sin applies to both those who are under the Law and those who are not. It therefore follows that sin is not defined by the Law or as a violation of the Law. Sin is defined as an offense against God.

Wrong again! It goes on to define that when someone has no law, that their conscience becomes their law, and they will be judged accordingly. Someone can be saved without ever knowing about Jesus, or faith or a law… But “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.” – James 4:17. So if you know the law and you disobey it, then it is transgression.

…continued

 

[amun]

You are serious? The term “knowledge” here refers to “awareness.” Paul’s point is that a believing Jew is aware of what is sinful and not sinful. This “knowledge” comes through the Law. But, sin also exists apart from this knowledge/awareness, for, in this very same epistle, Paul also says:
“What shall we conclude then? That we (i.e., Jews) are any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles ALIKE are all under sin.” - Romans 3:9

Exactly. Both Jews and gentiles alike are under sin because they are both bound by the morale Decalogue (providing the gentiles KNOW the law). Jesus tells us “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: “

Now, what does this show us? First, it shows that even those who are not under the Law are still under sin. Why? - because sin is a personal offense against God Himself, and one can do things which offend God without even knowing about the Law.

No, you’re mixing it up here. Let me explain it to you. The verse you’re quoting is defined in detail in the following verses: “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another” Romans 2: 14, 15

So if someone who does not know the law does something not according to the law, it is still a sin in the sense that it’s breaking God’s law, but only a sin in the sense that their CONSCIENCE has BECOME the law. “To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to HIM it is sin” (James 4:17).

This doesn’t take away the law, which defines general moral principles that are still applicable and obligatory for those who KNOW them. But for someone who does not know the law, they will be judged according to their conscience and what they knew or didn’t know – because that has become THEIR law.

Secondly, since Christians are not under the Law (per 1 Cor. 9:20), it therefore follows (per what it says here in Romans 2:12) that we will NOT be judged BY THE LAW. Rather, we will be judged based on our Covenant of Love with Jesus Christ, which asks us to surpass the Law in righteousness.

Keeping in mind that your 1st Corinthians reference is only referring to the mosaic law of ordinances which was done away with at the cross. We are no longer bound to that law – which was a SHADOW of things to come. The ten commandments are not a shadow of anything.

That has nothing to do with the law that DEFINES sin particularly to those who KNOW the commandments, which we already covered.

So, much for my supposed violating of Scripture. It is you, amun, who are the one with scriptural difficulties; like most Protestants, you lack a comprehensive understanding, and so stress one truth at the expense of other truths.

Actually, a comprehensive understanding of scripture remains directly detrimental to the belief you hold on this matter (which, btw, is exactly the same position shared by most mainstream Protestants).

It is you who will take an isolated verse like 1st Corinthians 9:20 and extrapolate it to mean that we are no longer bound by the moral law while IGNORING the rest of scripture which shows us that the law is indeed a very real part of Christianity – a cornerstone in helping us to understand sin, the very thing that Christ died on the cross for. And yet, in the same paragraph, you will admit that sin DOES have something to do with breaking a law – a law [mysterious and illusive in your mind] which you stress over and over was completely abolished at the cross.

…continued.

 

[amun]

For Jews. Paul is speaking about Jews, amun. Romans is about the difference between being a Jew under the Law vs. being a Christian who is not bound by the Law. The fact that you don’t know this, and that you use these quotes as you do, is simply amazing. Even most non-SDA Protestants are up on this.

I believe I’ve mentioned before that your position on this matter is actually PROTESTANT and not Roman Catholic at all. But besides that, where do you get that the above verse is only talking to Jews? Again, this is a classic example of eisegesis.

I have already addressed your misapplication of not only the verse but also your blatant contradiction in that you say we know “right and wrong” from the example of Jesus, which in your estimation means nothing since his example was one under the old covenant – hence you continue to remain immensely confused while professing to understand the matter perfectly.

And since it’s crucial that we are looking at MANY verses rather than only ONE to arrive at our conclusions:

“Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.—Romans 3:29-31

We are clearly told that living by Faith does not replace the law. Without a law there is no sin.

Again, your problem is that you don’t grasp what I’m saying. You are “stuck” on this idea of “Law.” I am not saying that we should be ignorant of the Ten Commandments and other information about what is right or wrong. What I’m saying is that we are not bound to any legalistic “check list” for righteousness. Our righteousness is not based on any kind of observation of mere Law; rather, it is based on a loving Covenant and commitment with a living Person; and though Him, with His Church, which is the Spirit-filled “pillar and foundation of Truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

You say that we shouldn’t be ignorant of the ten commandments. But you’ve made it very clear that they are meaningless – so what gives here? Because if keeping them has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian walk, then why are they important to know, and why are you somehow still connecting it with “right” and “wrong”?

Of course we aren’t bound by a legalistic checklist for righteousness. We are NOT SAVED through obedience to the law. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a law to govern the universe for guiding us in knowing what is right and what is wrong so that we can KNOW if we are living a life truly founded in faith and love….love results in obedience (if there is no law, obedience to WHAT? Your own interpretation of what you think is right and wrong?). You say to look to Jesus, but if we look to Jesus, HE KEPT THE LAW. But then you’ll resort to telling me that it doesn’t matter because he was under the old covenant.

We remain in Jesus by living in this active Faith, and righteousness is the natural result of it.

And don’t forget that obedience is also the natural result of it.

We are not responsible for the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law, since living in and with Jesus surpasses the Mosaic Law.

Not only did Jesus’ coming SURPASS the mosaic law, but it abolished it. We are no longer bound to it at all – for they were a shadow of things to come.

This is the whole point of the New Testament and the theology of St. Paul! While you give lip service to this principal, you do not consistently hold to it, for you say that you are still bound by certain specific legal prescriptions - that the principal of LAW still applies to you. If you are a Christian, it does not. Rather, you are only bound by the righteousness BEHIND those legal prescriptions - the spirit to which those prescriptions referred. Thus, we are not obligated to observe Saturday as our Sabbath. What more needs to be said?

Someone cannot break a commandment and still be living a life of faith. One cannot covet and be doing God’s will. Does the mere ACT of not coveting give us merit? No, for we are not saved by the keeping of the law – the keeping of the law is a result true faith prompted by love.

Sorry, you are in error. The example of Christ is enough. This is greater than the Law. He surpassed the Law in righteousness.

When I mentioned Christ you brushed it off by saying that his example was a reflection of old-covenant behavior, so I’m afraid you’re going to have to come up with a better guide for determining what is right and what is wrong.

…continued.

 

[amun]

Which is what? The Law? Wrong!!! Rather, the “very thing that tells us if we are living in accordance to God’s will” is Jesus Christ Himself!! I will prove it to you. Look again at Matt. 5:27-28. Where does the Law ever say that we sin if we look at a woman lustfully? It doesn’t. According to the Law itself, there is no prohibition against doing this. But, Jesus tells us that such behavior falls under “Thou shall not commit adultery.” IOW, Jesus asks us to surpass the Law in righteousness, and He is the example of true righteousness.

Incorrect again. The law is broad and contains ALL of the principles for determining what is right and what is wrong. The specific sin of looking at a woman lustfully is already contained within the commandment “thou shalt not covet”. There are many specifics that may not be all individually defined in the commandments, but they are very certainly included.
I guess I find it somewhat amusing that you are picking and choosing words of Jesus in order to make some kind of a point, when you just got done telling me earlier that Jesus was operating under the old covenant.

Likewise, look again at Matt. 5:21-24: Where does the Law say that it’s sinful to speak abusively to your brother? But, Jesus tells us that such behavior falls under “Thou shall not kill.” Therefore, the Law is not what “tells us if we are living in accord with God’s will.” We Christians are not under the Law. We are under a Covenant of Love with Jesus Christ, and we avoid lusting after people and being abusive to people, not because there is any “Law” against it (because there isn’t any law against it) but because we love Jesus and follow His example and do what He does. This is Christian righteousness - righteousness based on a Person, not on Law.

You just answered the very thing you’re creating an issue out of. ALL of those specifics fall under the umbrella of the Ten Commandments already (which you say no longer apply). Besides, magnifying those commands according to you are meaningless because they were all done away with at the cross! And his example is not applicable according to you either, because when he kept the Sabbath he was doing it under the old covenant.

Siiigghhhh! Sorry, but you simply don’t get it. You certainly didn’t get my example about adultery. If there was no law against adultery, and no legal penalty for it in divorce court (for example), would it still be wrong?? If so, why? It would be wrong because it is an offense against a person - one’s spouse. In the same way, anything that offends or separates someone from Jesus is what is wrong for a Christian. There is no need for “Law.” Jesus is our standard of righteousness. Jesus does not murder or abuse people; Jesus does not commit adultery or lust for women in His heart. If you do these things, then, as 1 John 3 says, you do not “remain in Him" …or “seen Him or known Him.” Rather, “Everyone who has this hope based on Him makes Himself pure, AS HE IS PURE.”

Repetition, repetition. It’s unfortunate that it never actually changes anything.

Yet, the difference between us is that I am (correctly) saying that this “barometer” is Jesus, and you are saying that it is the Law.

Must I remind you that the only example we have of Jesus includes Him KEEPING the law? But wait, His whole life’s example was reflecting a covenant that was done away with! So what’s the next barometer?
“For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.”—Matthew 12: 8

Then your mind is fixed on the Law and this limits your understanding of Scriptures. Again, the Law NEVER forbids us to lust after women (or men) or talk abusively to our brother, but, Jesus and His example of righteousness does. This is what we are bound by, not the Law. That’s what Matt. 5 is addressing.

Yes it does. Those were merely amplified truths already contained within the commandments. This was even confirmed by what you said.

…continued.

 

[amun]

I’m sorry, but your understanding of Romans is in error. Again, we Christians are not under the Law at all. This means that we are not even bound by the Ten Commandments AS LAW. If we were, then we would also be subject to the prescribed punishments called for in the Law for breaking one of the Ten Commandments (e.g. adultery merits stoning). This is why the Church has never stoned anyone for committing adultery. So, we are not bound by the Decalogue (the 10 Commandments), but by THE RIGHTEOUSNESS BEHIND the Decalogue, as Personified and exemplified by Jesus Christ. This is exactly what Matt. 5 is all about.

Unfortunately, this is why you can’t arrive at a balanced understanding, because in one verse you are reading that sin is breaking of the law and in another verse you are reading where a “law” has been done away with, and if you don’t know that these are referring to two different laws, then it’s quite understandable how you can arrive at such incongruence.

To say that if one is to keep the commandments that they must also be subject to delivering and receiving the specific punishments carried out in the OT for breaking them is absolutely ludicrous. The punishments that were meted out in the old testament were simply a different METHOD that God used back then, but that doesn’t negate the fact that sinning still has consequences. God’s methods in the OT were completely different than they were in the NT, that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the same God, and it doesn’t mean that God was any different. You are imagining that the particular punishments used by the children of Israel cannot be mutually exclusive to the law. There is no scriptural basis for such a claim. It’s like saying that because achan was stoned for stealing, we should stone people in this day and age too! Stealing is still a sin (because the law tells us) though!

“For the wages of sin is death”–Romans 6:23. Do you believe that? We’ve already established that sin is breaking God’s law. And you had to admit this – although you continue to deny it in the same sentences.

People will be accountable at the end for breaking God’s law – the consequences have never changed (even if the methods have). God has never changed and does not change his laws, He merely modifies and changes his methods of how to apply them in a contemporary setting.

You also continue to allude to passages from Matthew in reference to the life of Jesus, even though you believe that all of it is meaningless since he was operating under the old covenant which has no relevance to the new.

Lastly, and most hilarious of all, you SDAs are the ones who claim that we are bound by a legalistic rite - that is, the observance of a Saturday Sabbath, which is a matter or rite.

It isn’t a legalistic rite any more than honoring your father and mother, or refraining from coveting or stealing or committing adultery. God kept the Sabbath since the beginning and told us to Remember it. It is a memorial of his Creation – something that was never a shadow of anything (as referred to in Colossians). I just want to go by what jesus said, and he said “If ye love me, keep my commandments”. I wish to keep the sabbath because I love Jesus, not because I feel that it will give me some righteousness. Our salvation is free. It cannot be purchased by the mere observance of law. So it’s really useless for you to charge me with any legalism.

It’s nice how you feel free to pick and choose. But, he who claims to be bound by any aspect of the Law is thereby responsible for the entire Law (per Gal. 5:3 and James 2:10). You claim to be bound by the Decalogue as Law (and the Saturday Sabbath in particular). You are thereby bound to keep the whole Law, and thus you are a Judaizer. This is the essential problem with SDA theology. What about this don’t you understand?

Giving an example is not tantamount to picking and choosing at all, you are grabbing at straws.

And we are indeed responsible in keeping the WHOLE LAW. You break one, you break them all. In the book of Matthew we find that Christ was our example in keeping the Sabbath – and he was accused by the Jews of breaking the Sabbath because they had attached innumerable burdens that were unnecessary. Judaizing is keeping all of the rites and ceremonies of mosaic law which were shadows of things to come – they have nothing to do with the moral law which is specifically tethered to a proper understanding of sin. The Ten commandments are not a SHADOW of anything. Why do you persistently refuse to realize this?

You tried ignoring this verse once before, but its application is nonetheless relevant:

“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. –Matthew 5:18,19.

This has nothing to do with the Jews as you falsely allege. It’s talking about “men” not “jews”, and also SPECIFICALLY in reference to how it affects our SALVATION.

I see no contradiction in Scripture. Rather, the problem lies in your MIS-reading of Scripture. Christians are not bound to any jot of the Law - PERIOD.

There is no contradiction in scripture, if you properly understand it. Your view, however, cannot help but read it as being contradictory as I have explained numerous times.

…continued

 

[amun]

SIGH! Again, if the Ten Commandments is the “law of the universe,” then is it therefore okay to lust over an unmarried woman? The Ten Commandments never forbids this.

Yes the Commandments do forbid it. That is simply an inclusion of what is already contained in the commandments “thou shalt not covet” and “thou shalt not commit adultery”. The commandments deals with generalities which includes all sin.

Ah! But, Jesus does. So, are the Ten Commandments the law of the universe?? No, they are not. Rather, the Law of the Universe is the Law of Divine Love. One does not lust over a woman because it offends and causes damage to God, neighbor, and self. THIS is the nature of the Christian Gospel. Paul himself illustrates this fact in Gal. 5:4-6:

Oh but wait, don’t you remember that Jesus is not our example because he was under the old covenant? What makes you think you can pick and choose his definitions of right and wrong while ignoring that he KEPT THE LAW?

“You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by Law; you have fallen from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.”

He’s warning against trying to be justified by the Law. Since when have I proposed that you can somehow attain righteousness through the works of the law? Never! This is nothing but a decoy.

That is, works of loving faith, not works of the law. The principal of law does not apply to a Christian. This is what you are not grasping, nor apparently do you care to understand it. For you, obedience is a matter of law, rather than faithful obedience to the Person. You will never understand the Gospel as long as you refuse to accept this fact. Romans 3:28 is clear: We are saved by Christ apart from the works of the Law. Not merely the ceremonial rites of the Law, but all of the Law - even the 10 Commandments. IOW, we are not bound by the strict legal command not to commit adultery; rather, we are bound (for the sake of love and true righteousness) to avoid all forms of sexual sin, whether specified in the Law or not. Just avoiding what is spelled out in the law is not enough to save us or please God; rather, we must be “pure as He is pure” (1 John 3:3).

Again, you’re talking without warrant of scripture. You continue to talk about sin as though it has any relevance outside of a law. The gospel is the Good news of what Christ has done to save us from our sins, but since there is no law, there is no sin, ergo, we don’t need Christ and the gospel is meaningless!
You’ve got this down to a T by now.

Again, you are looking for a prescribed LAW. Approaching Scripture your way would likewise have us conclude that there is no “hint” of the Trinity or the Divinity of the Holy Spirit in Scripture either. One must know how to read Scripture, and you do not.

I asked you for biblical evidence, you’ve given none – only traditions of a church that CLAIMS Peter was its first Pope.
Depends on what you call the Trinity, but that is definitely another subject, and it’s important that we stay on topic.

My “Church leaders” say no such thing.

Why are they allowed to represent the teachings of the CC then? And why are they at such liberty to say such wrong things right in all of your most prominent literature?

I’m afraid you see what you want to see in those quotes.

What did I “see” that wasn’t there? Please do address this.

OTC, they are quite favorable since it gets to the heart of the issue: the authority of the Church, which is Christ’s Body, to choose to worship on the day sanctified by His Resurrection, the Day of the NEW Creation – to live in freedom in His righteousness and not live in shackles to the Law.

1. You have yet to provide any scriptural evidence that some “sanctification” was enacted on that day
2. You have yet to show me biblically that it represents some “new creation”
   All you’ve done so far is tell me what you believe, not why you believe it.

The Bible doesn’t - explicitly. But, then again, the Bible never gives any explicit teaching on the Trinity, or the Hypostatic Union or Christ, or the canon of the Bible itself either. So, your sola Scriptura demand for an explicit statement is a silly one.

Thank you for telling me that a lot of people have beliefs which are not founded in the Bible, so please tell me, if the Bible is not our way of determining truth from error, then how is any discussion in biblical terms of consequence?

So if I were to tell you that the actual day sanctified in the Bible is Tuesday, although I cannot provide an inkling of biblical evidence for this assertion, that would make it true? Well, I suppose if I was the Pope it would.

“The Lord’s Day” mentioned in Revelation 1:10 is nothing less than the Sabbath day.

“If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:” – Isaiah 58:13.
“For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.”—Matthew 12: 8.

Where does the Bible talk about Sunday (the first day of the week) being the Lord’s day?

I am reading the Bible as Christians have always read it from the 1st Century. How far back can you trace your Adventist reading? Can you even trace it back to the old world? Your faith is very American, and very modern.

This is just red herring. How does this mean anything at all? We’re talking about the Bible and what it has to say. Also, my salvation is not tethered to any organization, not even the seventh-day Adventist church.

…continued.