Adventist and Former Adventist Dialogue [Archive]

freeindeed2

13th February 2007, 01:43 PM

I'm not even sure these statements are 'denominationally specific' but they came from the SDA threads, so here it goes.

Unfortunately the majority of the professed christians were buried alive.

The entire christiandom is stuck at the cross. The cross is not the end, but the beginning of the plan of salvation. They know not they are perishing.

OntheDL, you've accused all Christians of being 'stuck at the cross'. I would like to know exactly what you mean my that, especially in light of the following Scriptures which I originally posted on an SDA thread:
"For Christ didn't send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News--and not with clever speeches and high-sounding ideas, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power.I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. But we who are being saved recognize this message as the very power of God." 1 Cor. 1:17, 18"For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." 1 Corinthians 2:2"But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Gal 6:14"But what if we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then find out that we are still sinners? Has Christ led us into sin? Of course not! Rather, I make myself guilty if I rebuild the old system I already tore down. For when I tried to keep the law, I realized I could never earn God's approval. So I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ. I myself no longer live, but Christ lives in me. So I live my life in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not one of those who treats the grace of God as meaningless. For if we could be saved by keeping the law, then there was no need for Christ to die." Gal 2:17-21"Those who belong to Christ Jesus have nailed the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there." Gal 5:24And there are many more. What are you saying by "stuck at the cross?!" This is the core of the Gospel message, that the Lamb of God became sin for sinful man, laid down his life, and shed his blood in order to make perfect and complete atonement for us so that through Jesus, we might be saved! Jesus life, death, and resurrection are salvation to sinners!

If I'm going to be stuck somewhere, let it be at the foot of the empty cross, where Jesus paid in full the price for ALL my sin! I'm with Paul, "God forbid that I should boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

freeindeed (proudly boasting about the cross of Christ!)

Just wanting to know how you would address the importance Paul placed on the cross as the core of the Gospel offering salvation for sinners?

Thanks!

Adventtruth

13th February 2007, 02:10 PM

I'm not even sure these statements are 'denominationally specific' but they came from the SDA threads, so here it goes.

OntheDL, you've accused all Christians of being 'stuck at the cross'. I would like to know exactly what you mean my that, especially in light of the following Scriptures which I originally posted on an SDA thread:"For Christ didn't send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News--and not with clever speeches and high-sounding ideas, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power.I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. But we who are being saved recognize this message as the very power of God." 1 Cor. 1:17, 18"For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." 1 Corinthians 2:2"But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Gal 6:14"But what if we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then find out that we are still sinners? Has Christ led us into sin? Of course not! Rather, I make myself guilty if I rebuild the old system I already tore down. For when I tried to keep the law, I realized I could never earn God's approval. So I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ. I myself no longer live, but Christ lives in me. So I live my life in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not one of those who treats the grace of God as meaningless. For if we could be saved by keeping the law, then there was no need for Christ to die." Gal 2:17-21"Those who belong to Christ Jesus have nailed the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there." Gal 5:24And there are many more. What are you saying by "stuck at the cross?!" This is the core of the Gospel message, that the Lamb of God became sin for sinful man, laid down his life, and shed his blood in order to make perfect and complete atonement for us so that through Jesus, we might be saved! Jesus life, death, and resurrection are salvation to sinners!

If I'm going to be stuck somewhere, let it be at the foot of the empty cross, where Jesus paid in full the price for ALL my sin! I'm with Paul, "God forbid that I should boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

freeindeed (proudly boasting about the cross of Christ!)

Just wanting to know how you would address the importance Paul placed on the cross as the core of the Gospel offering salvation for sinners?

Thanks!

Hey ontheDL waiting for you! Please reply!

AT:)

freeindeed2

13th February 2007, 02:17 PM

From a discussion in another thread where reddogs is asserting that all Christians are obligated to keep the old covenant, specifically the sign of the covenant, the Sabbath.

This short quote below comes from a much larger essay by reddogs that he posted. In it he attempts to divide the law into two parts in order to extract the 10 commandments from being a part of the old covenant, in an ultimate effort to establish that the Sabbath is binding on all.

I disagree and present Scripture that shows the 10C's to be the heart of the old covenant God made with Israel, and further show that breaking one of the 10C's was breaking the actual covenant itself.

Again, it is impossible for the Ten Commandments to have been part of the Old Covenant that was done away with; as such it was NOT the law that Christ nailed to the cross.

So how would you redefine these passages to fit your premise?Deut 4:13 "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.Deut 9:9 "When I went up to the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD had made with you, then I remained on the mountain forty days and nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water. Deut 9:11 "It came about at the end of forty days and nights that the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.1 Kings 8:21 "There I have set a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD, which He made with our fathers when He brought them from the land of Egypt."1 Kings 8:9 "There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, where the LORD made a covenant with the sons of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt."Hebrews 9:4 ...having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant;There's more, but I think this at least establishes that the 10 Commandments/Tablets of Stone were the VERY HEART of the Old Covenant.

Breaking one of the 10 was equated with breaking the covenant! That would be difficult if they were not part of the covenant as you have claimed.Deut 29:25, 26 "Then men will say, 'Because they forsook the covenant of the LORD, the God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them out of the land of Egypt. 'They went and served other gods and worshiped them, gods whom they have not known and whom He had not allotted to them. Deut 31:16 The LORD said to Moses, "Behold, you are about to lie down with your fathers; and this people will arise and play the harlot with the strange gods of the land, into the midst of which they are going, and will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them.Judges 2:19, 20 But it came about when the judge died, that they would turn back and act more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them and bow down to them; they did not abandon their practices or their stubborn ways. So the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and He said, "Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers and has not listened to My voice,Joshua 23:16 "When you transgress the covenant of the LORD your God, which He commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them, then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and you will perish quickly from off the good land which He has given you."2 Kings 17:15, 16 They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their fathers and the warnings he had given them. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless. They imitated the nations around them although the LORD had ordered them, "Do not do as they do," and they did the things the LORD had forbidden them to do. They forsook all the commands of the LORD their God and made for themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal.Joshua 7:10, 11 The LORD said to Joshua, "Stand up! What are you doing down on your face? Israel has sinned; they have violated my covenant, which I commanded them to keep. They have taken some of the devoted things; they have stolen, they have lied, they have put them with their own possessions.The Bible CLEARLY shows that the 10 Commandments were THE COVENANT, the very heart of it, that God made with Israel, and it further shows that breaking one of the 10 Commandments was equivalent of breaking the Covenant (as demonstrated by Israel breaking numbers 1, 2, 8, & 10)!

Before moving forward from here it would be good if you could show how you redefine all of these verses to establish your premise that the 10 Commandments were not a part of the covenant God made with Israel.

freeindeed2

13th February 2007, 02:26 PM

Jimlarmore

13th February 2007, 02:40 PM

One semantic clarification here. A covenant is an agreement between two or more parties. The law could never be the covenant between God and His people. The covenant was their pledge to obey the laws. The laws were the frame work and base for the covenant but not the covenant itself. I think this is significant. It wasn't the ten commandments fault or something wrong with them it was the people who didn't obey them as they agreed to do before their creator.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Jimlarmore

13th February 2007, 02:52 PM

I would like a response to a few questions:

Do sabbatarian groups (SDA's) actually keep the Jewish Sabbath HOLY?

Do they keep it exactly as it was given to Israel?

If not, how do they justify the differences in how they keep it today?

This is the main theme and attack from all formers or ex-adventists and that is to attack the 7th day Sabbath observance and the ten commandments in general.

However, I think your questions above are skewed and irrelevant. This is like saying ok, since a certain percentage of folks shack up and comit adultery that part of the ten commandments has got to be out of force. Whether anyone has ever kept the 7th day holy is between them and their creator and whether they do or not should never determine the validity of the 7th day's holy sanctity set aside at creation. The question to me in this issue is to determine if the ten commandments are still in effect.

To answer that we only need to go to the new testament and read that it was Christ's custom to worship on the 7th day Sabbath i.e. Luke 4:16. Additionally, it's very clear from the scripture that Christ supported and quoted nearly all of the other ten commandments. Since we are admonished in scripture to live as Christ lived and do as He did, it becomes apparent the ten commandment law is still binding and in effect.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Jon0388g

13th February 2007, 03:21 PM

Jon0388g

13th February 2007, 03:43 PM

Hi Freeindeed - I read this in one of your posts:

"Christ's death on the cross is the core of the Gospel."

I feel I must respectfully disagree. It is not Christ's death on the cross that is the core - rather, His resurrection.

"and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith is also in vain....and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17

Scripture also supports the fact that the events at and after the Cross are the beginning of our journey to the Father, through Christ's sacrifice:

"Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in the newness of life...knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin....But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life....[for] the one who endures to the end, he will be saved." Romans 6:4,6,22, Mark 13:13

Jon

Jimlarmore

13th February 2007, 03:56 PM

Thanks Jon,
I took the time to look up Rom 3:31 in my Green's interlinear and the word for law is "nomos" #3551 in the exhaustive concordance. One of the definitions of nomos was the law then parenthesis they listed the word Moses, regulation, then it said used to parsel out food or grazing especially to animals. I'd say this could definetely include the ten commandment laws.

One of the major problems I have encountered in my study of the law in the Pauline epistles is Paul never diffferentiated between the two laws i.e. the ceremonial laws and the ten commandment laws. You have to study the context to see which law he is specifying each time. For instance in Col 2:14 the context tells us it is not the ten commandment laws because Paul specifically speaks of "the hand writings of ordinances that was against us" and then in verse 16 he mentions "holidays, new moons and sabbath days". Here we see Paul is clearly mentioning the Levitical laws and customs associated with the ceremonial law of Moses not the ten commandments.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Jimlarmore

13th February 2007, 04:06 PM

No one addressed my OP in the thread that was closed on the SDA forum. The question is , What is sin? Freeindeed has gotten upset because I had accused formers of practicing sin while claiming to be under grace. I would like to continue that here at this time.

The Bible makes it clear that sin is lawlessness or the transgression of the law 1 John 3:4. I think it's clear from the Bible that the law spoken of here is the ten commandment law. So when someone violates one of God's law is it sin or not? Once you are saved can you comit sin willfully or is that right taken away now? If you can sin or not worry about sin after being saved then what is sin for the saved living under grace?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

freeindeed2

13th February 2007, 04:25 PM

Hi Freeindeed - I read this in one of your posts:

"Christ's death on the cross is the core of the Gospel."

I feel I must respectfully disagree. It is not Christ's death on the cross that is the core - rather, His resurrection.
Hi Jon. You are free to disagree. That's the neat thing about being free! Of course, I disagree with you (respectfully also). You're not addressing the Scriptures either, and I'm not really sure why...? But I'll respond to what you've posted (because I would like you to respond what I posted!!!).

The core of the Gospel is the "Good News" that Jesus has already paid our debt in FULL. That penalty was paid at the cross when he bore all sin on his shoulders and died our death for us. That is the core of the Good News. To say otherwise, IMO, is to deny the purpose of the plan of salvation!

The fact that he came out of the grave shows that he has victory and power over death. But his resurrection is not the basis for declaring sinners "not guilty". It is, however, the guarantee that those who have been justified by Christ's blood (CROSS) will be raised to eternal life (WON AT THE CROSS) even if their earthly bodies die.

"and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith is also in vain....and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17

I have no problem with these verses. Don't skip v.3-5 though."3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve."
This is all the Gospel. I just stated that Jesus death on the cross for sinners is it's core (which you disagree with). People in Corinth were denying that there would be a resurrection and the false teachings had made their way into the church. Paul hit these teachings head on. But this doesn't deny what he's said elsewhere (the Scriptures you didn't address in the post).

Scripture also supports the fact that the events at and after the Cross are the beginning of our journey to the Father, through Christ's sacrifice:

"Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in the newness of life...knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin....But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life....[for] the one who endures to the end, he will be saved." Romans 6:4,6,22, Mark 13:13

Just don't get the cart before the horse. There is no resurrection without penalty for sin being paid at the cross. You've skipped a lot of good verses between in an effort to try and extract your point out of the text.

And I think you may have missed this part of my post. If you had read it you might not have even made your post!

This is the core of the Gospel message, that the Lamb of God became sin for sinful man, laid down his life, and shed his blood in order to make perfect and complete atonement for us so that through Jesus, we might be saved! Jesus life, death, and resurrection are salvation to sinners!

If I'm going to be stuck somewhere, let it be at the foot of the empty cross, where Jesus paid in full the price for ALL my sin! I'm with Paul, "God forbid that I should boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

freeindeed2

13th February 2007, 04:43 PM

This is the main theme and attack from all formers or ex-adventists and that is to attack the 7th day Sabbath observance and the ten commandments in general.

However, I think your questions above are skewed and irrelevant. This is like saying ok, since a certain percentage of folks shack up and comit adultery that part of the ten commandments has got to be out of force. Whether anyone has ever kept the 7th day holy is between them and their creator and whether they do or not should never determine the validity of the 7th day's holy sanctity set aside at creation. The question to me in this issue is to determine if the ten commandments are still in effect.

To answer that we only need to go to the new testament and read that it was Christ's custom to worship on the 7th day Sabbath i.e. Luke 4:16. Additionally, it's very clear from the scripture that Christ supported and quoted nearly all of the other ten commandments. Since we are admonished in scripture to live as Christ lived and do as He did, it becomes apparent the ten commandment law is still binding and in effect.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
Jim, these are hardly 'skewed and irrelevant' questions! You believe that Christians are required or obligated to keep the Sabbath HOLY! If you personally do not believe this then you can't really answer the questions.

However, the SDA church does teach that Christians are requried to keep the Sabbath. Questions about how it should be kept should be expected and clearly answered from Scripture. The SDA church says that the Sabbath is:

the seal of God
the dividing wall (between the lost and the saved)
the final test of loyalty to GodOf course they say much more about the Sabbath too. But, if this is what you believe then the questions are absolutely fair questions. I'll even simplify them.
Do SDA's keep the Sabbath HOLY? (How?)

Do SDA's keep it exactly as it was commanded?

If not, how do they justify the differences in how they keep it today?
If the Sabbath is what SDA's claim it is then these deserve to be answered precisely. The penalty for breaking the Sabbath was/is death, so I would think specific instructions are in order that clearly define something as important as SDA's claim this is.

Jimlarmore

13th February 2007, 06:00 PM

Jim, these are hardly 'skewed and irrelevant' questions! You believe that Christians are required or obligated to keep the Sabbath HOLY! If you personally do not believe this then you can't really answer the questions.

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with whether the 7th day Sabbath should be kept holy or not. You're trying to make an issue out of how SDA's keep the Sabbath to denigrate it's significance or to make a point that no one has ever kept it. I'll tell you that fact true or not does not matter one iotta on the sanctity of the Sabbath. God made the Sabbath at the end of creation week and He's the one who made it holy. Nothing man can do or say will change that. The Bible tells us how to keep and observe the holy hours in Ex 20:8-11 and Isa . 58:13 to name a few.

However, the SDA church does teach that Christians are requried to keep the Sabbath. Questions about how it should be kept should be expected and clearly answered from Scripture. The SDA church says that the Sabbath is:

the seal of God
the dividing wall (between the lost and the saved)
the final test of loyalty to God.This is not totally accurate and the insinuations are disingenuous to say the least. The components of a seal are found within the 4th commandment but to say Sabbath itself is the seal of God is stretching the truth.
As I said above the Bible lays out the way we are to keep the Sabbath. Whether SDA's or anyone else is doing that or not is irrelevant to the truth of the scriptures and doesn't change the requirements of God.

In Ezek 20:12 the Bible makes it clear that Sabbath observance is a sign between God and His people.

If the Sabbath is what SDA's claim it is then these deserve to be answered precisely. The penalty for breaking the Sabbath was/is death, so I would think specific instructions are in order that clearly define something as important as SDA's claim this is.

The instructions are found within the pages of the Bible. The reason there is so much contention on the way it should be kept is the selfish desires of those who direct their own paths instead of allowing Christ to direct them.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Jon0388g

13th February 2007, 06:00 PM

You're not addressing the Scriptures either, and I'm not really sure why...? But I'll respond to what you've posted (because I would like you to respond what I posted!!!).

I did refer to Scripture.

The core of the Gospel is the "Good News" that Jesus has already paid our debt in FULL. That penalty was paid at the cross when he bore all sin on his shoulders and died our death for us. That is the core of the Good News. To say otherwise, IMO, is to deny the purpose of the plan of salvation!

(BTW, what does IMO mean?!)

The plan of salvation was to bridge the gap between us and the Father. Through Jesus, we can 'draw near' to the throne, for the Jesus said 'I am the Way...,' agreed?

I am not denying the purpose of the plan of salvation.

My point is that, I disagree that Jesus' death is the very core of the Gospel. Of course, this is pretty close to it, obviously, but not the 'core' itself. What if Jesus was not who He said He was? Then, there is no forgiveness of sins, there is no resurrection of the dead, and we all perish. This is what Paul was stressing in Corinthians 15.

There would be no 'Good News' if Christ had not risen. The 'Good News' is that He was raised, and was successful in providing the propitiation for our sins. This is the core of the Gospel.

The fact that he came out of the grave shows that he has victory and power over death. But his resurrection is not the basis for declaring sinners "not guilty". It is, however, the guarantee that those who have been justified by Christ's blood (CROSS) will be raised to eternal life (WON AT THE CROSS) even if their earthly bodies die.

Yes, I agree - but if He had not risen in the first place, then are you saying that sinners could still be declared 'not guilty' even if He was not raised?

I am willing to be corrected on this point: Was Jesus' resurrection only the result of His sinless life? If Jesus had committed but one sin, no matter how 'small,' he would not have been resurrected. The sacrifice required a spotless lamb. Am I correct?

If so, then if Jesus had not been resurrected, that would have meant His sacrifice was not sufficient, and sinners would never be declared 'not guilty.' My point is that the resurrection itself confirms the Good News of the Gospel.

I have no problem with these verses. Don't skip v.3-5 though."3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve."This is all the Gospel. I just stated that Jesus death on the cross for sinners is it's core (which you disagree with). People in Corinth were denying that there would be a resurrection and the false teachings had made their way into the church. Paul hit these teachings head on. But this doesn't deny what he's said elsewhere (the Scriptures you didn't address in the post).

Which Scriptures are these?

Vs 3-4 are confirming that Christ died for our sins. But Paul goes on to say that if there is no resurrection, then this belief is in vain, and 'we are still in our sins.' What don't you agree with?

Just don't get the cart before the horse. There is no resurrection without penalty for sin being paid at the cross. You've skipped a lot of good verses between in an effort to try and extract your point out of the text.

And I think you may have missed this part of my post. If you had read it you might not have even made your post!

If you could point out the good verses I skipped, then we can discuss them further!

Jon

Jimlarmore

13th February 2007, 06:43 PM

Jimlarmore

13th February 2007, 06:55 PM

I have to go until tomorrow morning. See you guys then.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

freeindeed2

13th February 2007, 06:56 PM

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with whether the 7th day Sabbath should be kept holy or not.
No sir. I'm addressing these questions to a denomination that believes those who aren't keeping the Sabbath by the end of time will be lost (unless receiving the Mark of the Beast does NOT mean they are lost).

You're trying to make an issue out of how SDA's keep the Sabbath...

And sure I take issue with how SDA's 'keep' the Sabbath. The church teaches that all must keep it but can't define how it should be kept, and they don't keep it how it was given! Who wouldn't take issue with that?
...to denigrate it's significance or to make a point that no one has ever kept it.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! I am NOT denegrating the significance of the Sabbath! I fully acknowledge the role the Sabbath played as the sign of the old covenant. And I acknowledge that the Sabbath, along with the entire law, was never abolished or destroyed. It stood firmly in place UNTIL its fulfillment, which Jesus clearly told the people he had come to do.

Just because nobody has ever kept it doesn't mean it wasn't significant. I never denegrated what the Sabbath stood for.

I'll tell you that fact true or not does not matter one iotta on the sanctity of the Sabbath. God made the Sabbath at the end of creation week and He's the one who made it holy. Nothing man can do or say will change that.
Please show me from Scripture that God MADE the Sabbath at creation. On the 7th day he RESTED from all that he had made (because it was completed!). He didn't MAKE anything on the 7th day.

Also, can you show from Scripture that God continued to rest every 7th day thereafter without making ANY assumptions?

The Bible tells us how to keep and observe the holy hours in Ex 20:8-11 and Isa . 58:13 to name a few.
Now we might be getting somewhere. Are you going to show how the Sabbath was/is to be kept so that nobody is confused and breaks it?

This is not totally accurate and the insinuations are disingenuous to say the least. The components of a seal are found within the 4th commandment but to say Sabbath itself is the seal of God is stretching the truth.
Jim, do I need to go find the sources on this one. You and I both know that Adventism teaches that the Sabbath IS the seal of God. We both know that EGW clearly said the Sabbath would be the 'dividing wall' and the 'final test of loyalty'. I don't have the sources in front of me, but did you NOT know the SDA church taught this? I've heard many SDA evangelists (including Finley and Batchelor, Nelson, etc.) say these things while being on the platform with them (I was never on with Batchelor). Don't tell me I'm being disingenuous and inaccurate!

I understand perfectly how they attempt to come up with the seal from the 4th commandment. I used to preach it!

In Ezek 20:12 the Bible makes it clear that Sabbath observance is a sign between God and His people.
It also clearly tells you which people that is:

v.10, "So I brought my people out of Egypt and led them into the wilderness. There I gave them my laws so they could live by keeping them." (BTW, you and I were not part of that group!)

In verse 13 it also says that they violated the sign. They broke the covenant by NOT KEEPING THE SABBATH EXACTLY AS IT WAS GIVEN! I think this completely validates anyone's demand to be shown clearly from SDA's EXACTLY how they are to keep the sign of the old covenant which SDAism claims they are still under.

The instructions are found within the pages of the Bible.
Then you should have no problem explaining EXACTLY how it is to be kept.

The reason there is so much contention on the way it should be kept is the selfish desires of those who direct their own paths instead of allowing Christ to direct them.
Nice veiled accusation for those who do not live by the letter but by the Spirit. You have a difficult time realizing that the Holy Spirit has not convicted most Christians of the Sabbath, so you would rather accuse them of 'selfishly directing their own paths instead of following Christ' than accept the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Now you should be able to see where the contention comes from. It comes when groups like SDA's tell all other Christians that they are obligated to keep the Sabbath if they love God, and then won't answer direct questions when asked EXACTLY how it should be kept. They go on to tell them they will receive the Mark of the Beast and be lost. Then they see the inconsistencies between SDA beliefs and practice.

freeindeed2

13th February 2007, 07:20 PM

Freeindeed,
Neither you or adventtruth has addressed my questions concerning sin. Why not? Isn't this the main issue over this debate about me accusing you and other formers of practicing sin? Let's get to the meat of the whole matter. You want to debate, let's debate!!! This whole thing about the validity of the Sabbath is a side track manuever away from what you consider grace to be.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
Patience my friend. I'll get to your questions once mine are addressed. I remember your points well from another Forum that you mysteriously vanished from:eek:. People answered your accusations there and you disappeared. Why did you leave?

The Sabbath issue is no sidetrack manuever. It is the very heart of Adventism. It's the first thing people hear when they hear your name. You (and not just you personally) have either been unable or unwilling to answer simple questions to its regard.

I suppose we should be discussing Ellen White first since she is SDAism second source of authority for truth and literally IS one of the 28 fundamentals. She is the springboard for much of the false teachings with her 2000+ visions & 100,000 pages of writings. Once you resolve the issues with EGW then you are free to move forward. The problem here is we view these Biblical issues from two totally different perspectives. You have to see it the way EGW did or she and her teachings and writings fall (or you're thrown out, which would probably be the case). The rest of the Christians in the world don't have to filter everything through the SDA prophetess first and they don't have multiple sources of authority for truth.

I know you'll see that as a sidetrack also, but again, these elements are the heart of SDAism. The SDA onion is extremely complicated with totally different meanings using the exact same words.

We will get to your questions Jim. Please answer those already asked. You haven't done that yet.

freeindeed2

13th February 2007, 07:26 PM

I did refer to Scripture.

(BTW, what does IMO mean?!)

I meant you didn't address the Scripture in the original post. You've put Scripture in your posts, but you did not address what was already presented.

IMO = In My Opinion:)

Gotta run. Back later.

DarylFawcett

13th February 2007, 10:45 PM

Things would be less complicated here in this topic, if you all stuck to one thing at a time, instead of jumping all over the place.

freeindeed2

13th February 2007, 11:51 PM

Things would be less complicated here in this topic, if you all stuck to one thing at a time, instead of jumping all over the place.
You're right! We can't start individual threads for different topics! This will get harry and confusing. Even if we handle one topic at a time, it will only grow and grow in length.

Adventtruth

14th February 2007, 12:08 AM

Amen Jim.

Unfortunately, the devil wants us at either extreme; no law altogether, or reliance on law fully.

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law...Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." Romans 3:31

Jon

And how do you establish the law Jon?

AT:)

Adventtruth

14th February 2007, 12:41 AM

This is the main theme and attack from all formers or ex-adventists and that is to attack the 7th day Sabbath observance and the ten commandments in general.

I guess all law dealers feel that way.

However, I think your questions above are skewed and irrelevant. This is like saying ok, since a certain percentage of folks shack up and comit adultery that part of the ten commandments has got to be out of force.

Well how do you deal with Romans 4:15 (KJV) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Whether anyone has ever kept the 7th day holy is between them and their creator and whether they do or not should never determine the validity of the 7th day's holy sanctity set aside at creation. The question to me in this issue is to determine if the ten commandments are still in effect.

Once again, kindly explain Rom 4:15.

To answer that we only need to go to the new testament and read that it was Christ's custom to worship on the 7th day Sabbath i.e. Luke 4:16. Additionally, it's very clear from the scripture that Christ supported and quoted nearly all of the other ten commandments. Since we are admonished in scripture to live as Christ lived and do as He did, it becomes apparent the ten commandment law is still binding and in effect.

So what does this mean to you Jim. 1 Timothy 1:9-10 (KJV) 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

AT:)

Adventtruth

14th February 2007, 01:04 AM

One of the major problems I have encountered in my study of the law in the Pauline epistles is Paul never diffferentiated between the two laws i.e. the ceremonial laws and the ten commandment laws. You have to study the context to see which law he is specifying each time. For instance in Col 2:14 the context tells us it is not the ten commandment laws because Paul specifically speaks of "the hand writings of ordinances that was against us" and then in verse 16 he mentions "holidays, new moons and sabbath days". Here we see Paul is clearly mentioning the Levitical laws and customs associated with the ceremonial law of Moses not the ten commandments.

This is wrong Jim. The context shows that he is speaking of the ten words and all law. There was a time I thought the hand writings spoken here was not the ten words but the context wont support anything other than the ten words. In verse 16 Paul refers to things contained in Mosaic law and calls them shadows. The Sabbath is ceremonial. Heres a definition of Ceremonial

a system of ceremonies, rites, or formalities prescribed for or observed on any particular occasion; a rite. (DIctionary.com)

AT:)

Sophia7

14th February 2007, 01:18 AM

You're right! We can't start individual threads for different topics! This will get harry and confusing. Even if we handle one topic at a time, it will only grow and grow in length.

Well, you could start other threads for different topics.

tall73

14th February 2007, 01:19 AM

You're right! We can't start individual threads for different topics! This will get harry and confusing. Even if we handle one topic at a time, it will only grow and grow in length.

Actually you can if you like in this forum. I just started this to get the ball rolling.

Adventtruth

14th February 2007, 01:30 AM

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with whether the 7th day Sabbath should be kept holy or not. You're trying to make an issue out of how SDA's keep the Sabbath to denigrate it's significance or to make a point that no one has ever kept it.

And have you kept it perfectly Jim .

I'll tell you that fact true or not does not matter one iotta on the sanctity of the Sabbath. God made the Sabbath at the end of creation week and He's the one who made it holy. Nothing man can do or say will change that. The Bible tells us how to keep and observe the holy hours in Ex 20:8-11 and Isa . 58:13 to name a few.

I see He also gave them to the nation of Israel under a different covanant. So why are you acting like you are of a different covanant? You know you can't do the law perfectly don't you?

This is not totally accurate and the insinuations are disingenuous to say the least. The components of a seal are found within the 4th commandment but to say Sabbath itself is the seal of God is stretching the truth.

Well if you feel that way about it, why don't you question the EGW estates and the GC? THey also say the Sabbath is the seal of God and Sunday is the Mark of the Beast.

As I said above the Bible lays out the way we are to keep the Sabbath. Whether SDA's or anyone else is doing that or not is irrelevant to the truth of the scriptures and doesn't change the requirements of God.

In Ezek 20:12 the Bible makes it clear that Sabbath observance is a sign between God and His people.

Lets see.

Ezekiel 20:10-13 (KJV) 10 Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. 11 And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them. 12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them. 13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.

Looks to me that He gave it to Israel under the Mosaic law which was under the Old Covanant. You need to study Covanant theology, maybe you would get a better understanding.

AT:)

freeindeed2

14th February 2007, 02:18 AM

Actually you can if you like in this forum. I just started this to get the ball rolling.
I believe I should still have 'newbie' by my name. I'll admit a bit of ignorance on my part. The way things are done here are different from what I've been used to. A LOT more rules (which I'm NOT complaining about!).:thumbsup:

God bless!

tall73

14th February 2007, 03:05 AM

I believe I should still have 'newbie' by my name. I'll admit a bit of ignorance on my part. The way things are done here are different from what I've been used to. A LOT more rules (which I'm NOT complaining about!).:thumbsup:

God bless!

No problem :)
Here is a Sabbath thread I started :

http://www.christianforums.com/t4808217-seventh-day-adventist-view-of-the-sabbath.html#post31830442

We can leave this one for general thoughts or discussion of sin.

OntheDL

14th February 2007, 04:53 PM

Hi Freeindeed - I read this in one of your posts:

"Christ's death on the cross is the core of the Gospel."

I feel I must respectfully disagree. It is not Christ's death on the cross that is the core - rather, His resurrection.

"and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith is also in vain....and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17

Scripture also supports the fact that the events at and after the Cross are the beginning of our journey to the Father, through Christ's sacrifice:

"Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in the newness of life...knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin....But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life....[for] the one who endures to the end, he will be saved." Romans 6:4,6,22, Mark 13:13

Jon

Hi Jon,

That's correct. The resurrection constituted the entire outer court and the holy place in the light of the sanctuary. So it covers the justification and sanctification.

Freeindeed and the popular christianity only embrace the cross because they want no part of the sanctification, make holy, keeping the whole law of God. That's why they are stuck at the cross. Because the majority of the christiandom does not honour the sabbath commandment, therefore they must deny the sanctification process (keeping all 10 commandments by the power of the holy spirit).

The cross is wonderful. Without Christ's atoning sacrifice, there'd have been no possibility of salvation. By bringing a lamb every day to the foot of the cross is no real christian experience. That's why the bible says it's better to obey than to sacrifice.

Adventtruth

14th February 2007, 05:40 PM

I see you are afraid of answering FreeIndeed ontheDL.

Freeindeed and the popular christianity only embrace the cross because they want no part of the sanctification, make holy, keeping the whole law of God. That's why they are stuck at the cross. Because the majority of the christiandom does not honour the sabbath commandment, therefore they must deny the sanctification process (keeping all 10 commandments by the power of the holy spirit).

Ha...thats not true. Justified believers have their fruit unto holiness. (Rom 6:22) Their fruit is proof they are connected to the vine as a branch. Don't you know that justification is the foundation of sanctification? Infact Jesus has perfected us forever, those who are being sanctified. You keep external but have no clue the goal of the law. Is it possible to observe the law and not reach the goal of the law ontheDL? Now is it possible to reach the goal of the law and not keep the law? what do you think?

And what is the goal of Sabbath keeping ontheDL? What underscores it? Because the Israel nation observed the day but never entered Gods rest.

Do you have answers for these, are or you going to avoid them, or hide behind Jon?

At:)

Jon0388g

14th February 2007, 07:42 PM

Hi Jon,

That's correct. The resurrection constituted the entire outer court and the holy place in the light of the sanctuary. So it covers the justification and sanctification.

Freeindeed and the popular christianity only embrace the cross because they want no part of the sanctification, make holy, keeping the whole law of God. That's why they are stuck at the cross. Because the majority of the christiandom does not honour the sabbath commandment, therefore they must deny the sanctification process (keeping all 10 commandments by the power of the holy spirit).

The cross is wonderful. Without Christ's atoning sacrifice, there'd have been no possibility of salvation. By bringing a lamb every day to the foot of the cross is no real christian experience. That's why the bible says it's better to obey than to sacrifice.

Thanks DL.

This is all closely related to an interesting fact I discovered a couple of months ago. Christiandom is 'stuck' at the Cross of Calvary. Have you noticed, that Catholic crosses are (mostly) different to Protestant ones, in that they depict Christ suffering on the Cross?

We have empty crosses for a reason.....

Another point to note: I think Paul sums it up best when he declares we must 'die daily.' If we are OSAS (as this New Theology basically is - I don't care who denies it), then there surely is no need to die daily to sin. Those who deny the need for a conscious choice and effort on our part in accordance to the Law of God, seem to have a false sense of security.

Jon

freeindeed2

14th February 2007, 07:58 PM

Thanks DL.

This is all closely related to an interesting fact I discovered a couple of months ago. Christiandom is 'stuck' at the Cross of Calvary. Have you noticed, that Catholic crosses are (mostly) different to Protestant ones, in that they depict Christ suffering on the Cross?

We have empty crosses for a reason.....

Another point to note: I think Paul sums it up best when he declares we must 'die daily.' If we are OSAS (as this New Theology basically is - I don't care who denies it), then there surely is no need to die daily to sin. Those who deny the need for a conscious choice and effort on our part in accordance to the Law of God, seem to have a false sense of security.

Jon
Jon, you must have missed this in the original post I made on this topic!
This is the core of the Gospel message, that the Lamb of God became sin for sinful man, laid down his life, and shed his blood in order to make perfect and complete atonement for us so that through Jesus, we might be saved! Jesus life, death, and resurrection are salvation to sinners!

If I'm going to be stuck somewhere, let it be at the foot of the empty cross, where Jesus paid in full the price for ALL my sin! I'm with Paul, "God forbid that I should boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Clearly I have acknowledged all aspects of the Good News about Jesus and the salvations he has provided for us by doing for us what we could not do for ourselves.

Jon0388g

14th February 2007, 08:10 PM

Jon, you must have missed this in the original post I made on this topic!
This is the core of the Gospel message, that the Lamb of God became sin for sinful man, laid down his life, and shed his blood in order to make perfect and complete atonement for us so that through Jesus, we might be saved! Jesus life, death, and resurrection are salvation to sinners!

If I'm going to be stuck somewhere, let it be at the foot of the empty cross, where Jesus paid in full the price for ALL my sin! I'm with Paul, "God forbid that I should boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Clearly I have acknowledged all aspects of the Good News about Jesus and the salvations he has provided for us by doing for us what we could not do for ourselves.

I didn't miss what you said. It seemed to me that the emphasis of your post was on the Crucifixtion itself, and not the Resurrection:

freeindeed (proudly boasting about the cross of Christ!)

Just wanting to know how you would address the importance Paul placed on the cross as the core of the Gospel offering salvation for sinners?

Thanks!

This was mainly what I was disagreeing with. If you embrace the full concept of Calvary, particularly the Resurrection, then I apologise for the misunderstanding.

Can you imagine if the Gospel ended with Christ being buried. There is no Good News in that.

The very core of the Gospel is Christ's victorious Resurrection from the dead, the "firstborn from the dead," that I rejoice over.

Jon

freeindeed2

14th February 2007, 09:07 PM

I didn't miss what you said. It seemed to me that the emphasis of your post was on the Crucifixtion itself, and not the Resurrection:

This was mainly what I was disagreeing with. If you embrace the full concept of Calvary, particularly the Resurrection, then I apologise for the misunderstanding.

Can you imagine if the Gospel ended with Christ being buried. There is no Good News in that.

The very core of the Gospel is Christ's victorious Resurrection from the dead, the "firstborn from the dead," that I rejoice over.

Jon
Of course I embrace the full Gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes the resurrection. Where we differ (maybe only a bit) is that the remission of sin came from Christ's blood being shed. Sin demanded death, and Jesus took on death on our behalf. The empty cross and the empty tomb means that the sacrifice was complete and man (the Spiritually dead) has a guarantee of being raised also.

I posted many verses that focus on the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross on behalf of sinners. I see Paul say, "God forbid that I should boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

I don't see Paul saying, "God forbid that I should boast about anything except the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Not that it wasn't important, but atonement took place when the penalty for our sin was paid at the cross.

UNDERSTAND!!! I'm not denying or belittling the resurrection, as it is part of the Gospel too! Don't miss this part and only quote a snip from above!!!

Jon0388g

14th February 2007, 09:17 PM

Of course I embrace the full Gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes the resurrection. Where we differ (maybe only a bit) is that the remission of sin came from Christ's blood being shed. Sin demanded death, and Jesus took on death on our behalf. The empty cross and the empty tomb means that the sacrifice was complete and man (the Spiritually dead) has a guarantee of being raised also.

I posted many verses that focus on the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross on behalf of sinners. I see Paul say, "God forbid that I should boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

I don't see Paul saying, "God forbid that I should boast about anything except the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Not that it wasn't important, but atonement took place when the penalty for our sin was paid at the cross.

UNDERSTAND!!! I'm not denying or belittling the resurrection, as it is part of the Gospel too! Don't miss this part and only quote a snip from above!!!

Good.

You are correct in saying that the remission of sin came from the blood of Christ being shed.

But the important factor is that, the Resurrection is the root of the remission of this sin - because if Christ had not risen, then it wouldn't have mattered that His blood had been offered in the first place. The sacrifice would not have been sufficient, as a blameless substitute is required.

I think we can move on now.

Jon

freeindeed2

14th February 2007, 09:48 PM

Good.

You are correct in saying that the remission of sin came from the blood of Christ being shed.

But the important factor is that, the Resurrection is the root of the remission of this sin - because if Christ had not risen, then it wouldn't have mattered that His blood had been offered in the first place. The sacrifice would not have been sufficient, as a blameless substitute is required.

I think we can move on now.

Jon
There was no chance of him not being the blameless substitute. It was God's perfect plan of salvation for sinful man, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves. They're both part of the Gospel, but don't put the cart before the horse.

tall73

15th February 2007, 12:54 AM

freeindeed2

15th February 2007, 01:09 AM

tall73

15th February 2007, 02:49 AM

I can live with that for now. I like the fact that you said "IN US" instead of "THROUGH US" (as if WE were the ones 'obeying' with the 'help' of the Holy Spirit). It is completely accomplished by GOD (Holy Spirit) on behalf of sinners and not the other way around.

Let's see if everyone will weigh in on this starting point so we see where we are at.

Jon0388g

15th February 2007, 09:29 AM

On the sin issue, and we will be covering this to some degree in the Sabbath thread as well, can we all agree that the obedience that is called for in the new covenant is worked out by the Spirit in us?

That would be a starting point. Then we can go on to definitions, what constitutes the law on the heart etc.

"So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." Philippians 2:12-13

I can agree with what you have said, as Scripture confirms this. However, I would not go as far to say (as Freeindeed) that there is no conscious effort on our part as well.

Phillipians says we must 'work out' our salvation, knowing also that God is at 'work' in us. Also,

"..let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained." Phillipians 3:16

"I can do all things through Him who strengthens me." Phillipians 4:13

Do you agree that salvation is 100% a gift from Christ, but that we also have a part to play in choosing to accept this gift fully?

Jon

Jimlarmore

15th February 2007, 09:55 AM

Sorry guys, I had to be gone yesterday to have blood drawn at the VA clinic in Tulsa. I will catch up on reading here and be back shortly.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

freeindeed2

15th February 2007, 10:20 AM

"So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." Philippians 2:12-13

I can agree with what you have said, as Scripture confirms this. However, I would not go as far to say (as Freeindeed) that there is no conscious effort on our part as well.
Jon, Jon, Jon..! You put words into my mouth that I never said. Your conscious efforts have NOTHING to do with whether you're saved or not.

Phillipians says we must 'work out' our salvation, knowing also that God is at 'work' in us. Also,

"..let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained." Phillipians 3:16

"I can do all things through Him who strengthens me." Phillipians 4:13

This is the very passage I preached my last sermon on as an SDA pastor to a 2000+ member audience. I find it interesting you bolded the "I". Out of context it sounds like what you're trying to make it sound like. But in the context of what Paul was saying he says this:
10 How I praise the Lord that you are concerned about me again. I know you have always been concerned for me, but you didn’t have the chance to help me. 11 Not that I was ever in need, for I have learned how to be content with whatever I have. 12 I know how to live on almost nothing or with everything. I have learned the secret of living in every situation, whether it is with a full stomach or empty, with plenty or little. 13 For I can do everything through Christ,[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil%204&version=51#fen-NLT-29415c)] who gives me strength. 14 Even so, you have done well to share with me in my present difficulty.

15 As you know, you Philippians were the only ones who gave me financial help when I first brought you the Good News and then traveled on from Macedonia. No other church did this. 16 Even when I was in Thessalonica you sent help more than once. 17 I don’t say this because I want a gift from you. Rather, I want you to receive a reward for your kindness.

18 At the moment I have all I need—and more! I am generously supplied with the gifts you sent me with Epaphroditus. They are a sweet-smelling sacrifice that is acceptable and pleasing to God. 19 And this same God who takes care of me will supply all your needs from his glorious riches, which have been given to us in Christ Jesus.
20 Now all glory to God our Father forever and ever! Amen.
As you will see when you read the whole context, this in NO WAY is talking about or even implying that WE (I) overcome sin with God's help. The whole passage is speaking of the fact that Paul has learned to endure any situation regardless of the circumstances. He has learned how to be content, even when he has no food.

Do you agree that salvation is 100% a gift from Christ,
Yes, 100%, meaning ALL of it!

...but that we also have a part to play in choosing to accept this gift fully?
I knew there would be a "but".

No, I don't believe we chose Christ. I believe he chose us and came after us and initiated all parts of salvation (100%). Our human nature was set against him and we would never choose him if he hadn't chosen us. Jesus saves! Salvation is not a cooperative effort on the part of both parties. We add NOTHING to the free gift of salvation Christ offers through his sacrifice on our behalf.

Jimlarmore

15th February 2007, 10:45 AM

Jon, Jon, Jon..! You put words into my mouth that I never said. Your conscious efforts have NOTHING to do with whether you're saved or not.

I'm going to hit this one before I go back to some of your posts yesterday. What you are saying here is that we don't even have to have a mental ascent to the plan of salvation to make it work in our life. Nothing could be further from the truth. If this was the case then absolutely no one would be lost yet we know better than that from scriptures. The entire Bible is about God pleading for mankind to turn around and follow Him, both of these acts i.e. turning around and following are works that start in the mind and conclude with actions to change behaviours etc. This truth tells us one thing and that God honors man's free will to decide to follow Him or not.

No, I don't believe we chose Christ. I believe he chose us and came after us and initiated all parts of salvation (100%). Our human nature was set against him and we would never choose him if he hadn't chosen us. Jesus saves! Salvation is not a cooperative effort on the part of both parties. We add NOTHING to the free gift of salvation Christ offers through his sacrifice on our behalf.

So this means literally everyone in the entire world is saved then. How do you reconcile texts like Rev 20:9 then?

freeindeed2

15th February 2007, 11:36 AM

I'm going to hit this one before I go back to some of your posts yesterday.
Please don't hit too hard. Can't we just discuss?:)

What you are saying here is that we don't even have to have a mental ascent to the plan of salvation to make it work in our life.
I didn't really say much about our mentality. I'm just saying that we don't save ourselves or add to Christ's free gift of salvation with our thoughts or actions. The Holy Spirit will alter how we think, but salvation is already ours when this takes place, as evidenced by the Holy Spirit living in us and making changes according to his (God's) will.

Nothing could be further from the truth. If this was the case then absolutely no one would be lost yet we know better than that from scriptures. The entire Bible is about God pleading for mankind to turn around and follow Him,
The entire Bible is about the salvic acts of God on behalf of sinful man. It was a perfect plan executed perfectly by Almight God because he is love.

...both of these acts i.e. turning around and following are works that start in the mind and conclude with actions to change behaviours etc. This truth tells us one thing and that God honors man's free will to decide to follow Him or not.
Scripture please.

Do you really trust in your 'free-will' to always make the right decisions? Consider the track-record of humans and what they (we) have done with 'free-will'...

So this means literally everyone in the entire world is saved then. How do you reconcile texts like Rev 20:9 then?
I didn't say that. I'm saying that there is no part of salvation (being saved, causing one to be saved) that is the result of our actions/behaviors/thoughts. If it was, then we could save ourselves.

Jim, did you manufacture your own faith? Did you cause yourself to believe in Jesus? Did you initiate accepting salvation? Is salvation a result of your actions? Do you not believe that the work of salvation is 100% God's work? 100%?

Jimlarmore

15th February 2007, 11:41 AM

No sir. I'm addressing these questions to a denomination that believes those who aren't keeping the Sabbath by the end of time will be lost (unless receiving the Mark of the Beast does NOT mean they are lost).

How does that change the truth of keeping the Sabbath or not? You're stuck in this act of looking somewhere else besides God's word to frame your belief system on the Sabbath. You are trying to build an arguement based on what other men have done and not what God tells us to do in His word. What difference does it make what the SDA church does or teaches for you personally? Your criticism will not affect the truth in the Bible concerning this. You seem to be more interested in denigrating a denomination than finding the truth.

And sure I take issue with how SDA's 'keep' the Sabbath. The church teaches that all must keep it but can't define how it should be kept, and they don't keep it how it was given! Who wouldn't take issue with that?

When I became an adventist I was told a lot of things concerning how to keep the Sabbath. Some told me the way the old school adventists kept it. Some of the more progressives kept it differently. So how did all of that effect me and my relationship with Christ? Not one iotta. The Sabbath is for communion with my creator and enjoying His creation or family time.
When I read in Isaiah to turn my foot away from doing my own pleasure on the Sabbath and call the Sabbath a delight then I know that the Sabbath is not for watching T.V. or going to basketball games. It's holy hours set aside for communion with God and to refresh my body both physically and spiritually.

It stood firmly in place UNTIL its fulfillment, which Jesus clearly told the people he had come to do.

This mindset is a bulwark for you guys because it sets up your whole idea that the law is gone or done away with. Why would Christ do away a law He established and wrote on tables of stone? The only fulfilled law was the laws pertaining to His sacrifice on the cross.

The problem you have in your belief system is in the Pauline epistles we see Paul himself keeping the Sabbath . However, he clearly pointed out the requirements of the ceremonial laws like circumcision was fulfilled and done away with.

Please show me from Scripture that God MADE the Sabbath at creation. On the 7th day he RESTED from all that he had made (because it was completed!). He didn't MAKE anything on the 7th day.

You want to play semantic games so be it. In Gen 2:3 we find that God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath day both of which are acts of divine work to establish the end of creation week. Also, the fact we have 7 days instead of six tells us that this 24 hour period of time was made by God at the end of creation when God rested. If it wasn't significantly made at that time and set asidewe would only have a six day week not a seven day one.

Also, can you show from Scripture that God continued to rest every 7th day thereafter without making ANY assumptions?

God rested on the first Sabbath for an example to man and set this time aside for holy use. I can show from scripture how man kept it thru out the Bible including the Christ Himself. I can show how God will continue the Sabbath in the new earth after the sin problem is done away with.

Jim, do I need to go find the sources on this one. You and I both know that Adventism teaches that the Sabbath IS the seal of God. We both know that EGW clearly said the Sabbath would be the 'dividing wall' and the 'final test of loyalty'. I don't have the sources in front of me, but did you NOT know the SDA church taught this? I've heard many SDA evangelists (including Finley and Batchelor, Nelson, etc.) say these things while being on the platform with them (I was never on with Batchelor). Don't tell me I'm being disingenuous and inaccurate!

I will continue to say you are being inaccurate because you are in the fullest sense of the word. I have been to many prophecy seminars and listened to many evangelistic sermons and not one time did anyone say the Sabbath was the seal of God. This is heresy in my opinion and a false accusation on what is being taught. It's true that the Sabbath contains the elements of a seal but the seal of God is done directly by Him before Christ comes back. I'm not saying they haven't said that Sabbath observance will be an element that allows the seal of God to come on us but the Sabbath as a day set aside is not and never has been the seal of God all by itself.

Then you should have no problem explaining EXACTLY how it is to be kept.

No I'm not going to presume to tell anyone how they should maintain their relationship with their creator. The Bible has enough information to give us all a good base to go from. The Holy Spirit will do the rest.

Nice veiled accusation for those who do not live by the letter but by the Spirit. You have a difficult time realizing that the Holy Spirit has not convicted most Christians of the Sabbath, so you would rather accuse them of 'selfishly directing their own paths instead of following Christ' than accept the leading of the Holy Spirit.

No , I understand the majority of good Christians who have not been convicted of the Sabbath yet may be in the future and do God's will on this. In the end of time all will be tested as to what is right or wrong.

Now you should be able to see where the contention comes from. It comes when groups like SDA's tell all other Christians that they are obligated to keep the Sabbath if they love God, and then won't answer direct questions when asked EXACTLY how it should be kept. They go on to tell them they will receive the Mark of the Beast and be lost. Then they see the inconsistencies between SDA beliefs and practice.

I've never known of any leader in our church who intentionally refused to answer any question regarding what the Bible says on how to observe the Sabbath. Your accusation here shows what some of your agenda on all of this is.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Jimlarmore

15th February 2007, 12:50 PM

Please don't hit too hard. Can't we just discuss?:)

Yeah, we can discuss, sorry if I came off as being brash here.

I didn't really say much about our mentality. I'm just saying that we don't save ourselves or add to Christ's free gift of salvation with our thoughts or actions. The Holy Spirit will alter how we think, but salvation is already ours when this takes place, as evidenced by the Holy Spirit living in us and making changes according to his (God's) will.

I agree it was Christ who persued us and it was Christ that did all of the hard things to provide my salvation. I also know the Bible tells me that it is the Holy Spirit who calls everyone to repentence however, I also know that it is my descision to accept this call or not. All of the texts that place life or death before the people i.e. Moses and Elijah, were beckoning to their cognitive descisions to choose life and God not death.

The entire Bible is about the salvic acts of God on behalf of sinful man. It was a perfect plan executed perfectly by Almight God because he is love.

Amen, but we also see literally millions choosing to not follow God before the flood and that many or more later and even in Christ's time when He performed miracles in front of them.

Scripture please.

Deut 30:19, Josh 24:15, Isa 56:4, Isa 65:12, Rev 3:20.

Do you really trust in your 'free-will' to always make the right decisions? Consider the track-record of humans and what they (we) have done with 'free-will'...

I don't think that is the proper question here. The question should be do I surrender my free will to my creator and the Holy Spirit to make the changes necessary for my life. However, I still have a free will to make the final descision.

I didn't say that. I'm saying that there is no part of salvation (being saved, causing one to be saved) that is the result of our actions/behaviors/thoughts. If it was, then we could save ourselves.

Our descisions and submission to the will of God does save us. It's a two way street. God can only do so much, the rest takes a mental ascent from us and a daily effort to take up our cross and follow Him who provided all for our salvation. Other wise we become automatons in the grasp of a powerful God who will save us whether we want to be saved or not.

Jim, did you manufacture your own faith? Did you cause yourself to believe in Jesus? Did you initiate accepting salvation? Is salvation a result of your actions? Do you not believe that the work of salvation is 100% God's work? 100%?

That old song goes like this I have decided to follow Jesus , no turning back , no turning back . Descisions and turning are all an act we make. I am not saying we are doing it all on our own because like I said the Bible makes it clear that God calls all to repentence but we make the final descision to comply with God's Will.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Adventtruth

15th February 2007, 12:57 PM

This truth tells us one thing and that God honors man's free will to decide to follow Him or not.

But thats just it Jim...men don't have free will, we have wills that are made free!

John 1:4-5 (KJV) 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

John 1:9 (KJV) That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 (KJV) 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

These passages plainly teach that life is in Jesus. It is He who shines on us that we can decide. Man is lost until Jesus decides to shine upon Him. Man has no clue of the gopel of God until He is allowed to decide by God. The nature of fallen men hate what is righteous in God. We have no clue when, but Jesus shines upon all in His timing not ours. We are not born with free will, we have wills made free!

AT:)

freeindeed2

15th February 2007, 01:04 PM

I will continue to say you are being inaccurate because you are in the fullest sense of the word. I have been to many prophecy seminars and listened to many evangelistic sermons and not one time did anyone say the Sabbath was the seal of God. This is heresy in my opinion and a false accusation on what is being taught. It's true that the Sabbath contains the elements of a seal but the seal of God is done directly by Him before Christ comes back. I'm not saying they haven't said that Sabbath observance will be an element that allows the seal of God to come on us but the Sabbath as a day set aside is not and never has been the seal of God all by itself.
"The enemies of God's law, from the ministers down to the least among them, have a new conception of truth and duty. Too late they see that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the seal of the living God." Great Controversy, p.640

"The sign, or seal, of God is revealed in the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, the Lord's memorial of creation...

The mark of the beast is the opposite of this--the observance of the first day of the week." Testimonies vol. 8, p. 117

From Amazing Facts study guide:
The book of Revelation tells us that there will again be a battle over how to worship and everyone will be identified by either the seal of God or the mark of the beast.

The study goes on to establish that the Sabbath is the Seal of God and Sunday is the Mark of the Beast.

I used to use this study guide when people wanted to know the 'truth'. Here's a link so you can look it up for yourself. Listen to Doug B. preach on this sometime. He makes it really clear what SDA's believe to be the seal and the mark. I'm not sure what prophecy seminars you've been to or listened to, but this is openly taught by the SDA church. I taught the same thing through the seminar guides when I did SDA prophecy seminars. Anyway, here's the link.

http://www.sabbathtruth.com/mark_of_the_beast_2.asp

Adventtruth

15th February 2007, 01:18 PM

This mindset is a bulwark for you guys because it sets up your whole idea that the law is gone or done away with. Why would Christ do away a law He established and wrote on tables of stone? The only fulfilled law was the laws pertaining to His sacrifice on the cross.

So Jim...what does this verse mean in its context?

Romans 4:15 (KJV) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

And why do you follow the ten words any ways?

The problem you have in your belief system is in the Pauline epistles we see Paul himself keeping the Sabbath . However, he clearly pointed out the requirements of the ceremonial laws like circumcision was fulfilled and done away with.

So is the keeping a Sabbath day ceremonial acording to Dictionary.com

a system of ceremonies, rites, or formalities prescribed for or observed on any particular occasion; a rite. Dictionary.com

You want to play semantic games so be it. In Gen 2:3 we find that God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath day both of which are acts of divine work to establish the end of creation week.

So whats your point?

Also, the fact we have 7 days instead of six tells us that this 24 hour period of time was made by God at the end of creation when God rested. If it wasn't significantly made at that time and set asidewe would only have a six day week not a seven day one.

So whats your point Jim?

God rested on the first Sabbath for an example to man and set this time aside for holy use. I can show from scripture how man kept it thru out the Bible including the Christ Himself. I can show how God will continue the Sabbath in the new earth after the sin problem is done away with.

Ok, so kindly show it.

I will continue to say you are being inaccurate because you are in the fullest sense of the word. I have been to many prophecy seminars and listened to many evangelistic sermons and not one time did anyone say the Sabbath was the seal of God.This is heresy in my opinion and a false accusation on what is being taught.It's true that the Sabbath contains the elements of a seal but the seal of God is done directly by Him before Christ comes back. I'm not saying they haven't said that Sabbath observance will be an element that allows the seal of God to come on us but the Sabbath as a day set aside is not and never has been the seal of God all by itself.

Jim don't know how long you have been Adventist, but I've been in this church for 20 years. This has been a teaching of the church.

AT:)

Jon0388g

15th February 2007, 02:26 PM

Jon, Jon, Jon..! You put words into my mouth that I never said. Your conscious efforts have NOTHING to do with whether you're saved or not.

You said:
It is completely accomplished by GOD (Holy Spirit) on behalf of sinners and not the other way around.

and you've said: "Your conscious efforts have NOTHING to do with whether you're saved or not."

That is what I said you said! lol

This is the very passage I preached my last sermon on as an SDA pastor to a 2000+ member audience.

Woah!

I find it interesting you bolded the "I". Out of context it sounds like what you're trying to make it sound like. But in the context of what Paul was saying he says this:10 How I praise the Lord that you are concerned about me again. I know you have always been concerned for me, but you didn’t have the chance to help me. 11 Not that I was ever in need, for I have learned how to be content with whatever I have. 12 I know how to live on almost nothing or with everything. I have learned the secret of living in every situation, whether it is with a full stomach or empty, with plenty or little. 13 For I can do everything through Christ,[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil%204&version=51#fen-NLT-29415c)] who gives me strength. 14 Even so, you have done well to share with me in my present difficulty.

15 As you know, you Philippians were the only ones who gave me financial help when I first brought you the Good News and then traveled on from Macedonia. No other church did this. 16 Even when I was in Thessalonica you sent help more than once. 17 I don’t say this because I want a gift from you. Rather, I want you to receive a reward for your kindness.

18 At the moment I have all I need—and more! I am generously supplied with the gifts you sent me with Epaphroditus. They are a sweet-smelling sacrifice that is acceptable and pleasing to God. 19 And this same God who takes care of me will supply all your needs from his glorious riches, which have been given to us in Christ Jesus.

20 Now all glory to God our Father forever and ever! Amen.
As you will see when you read the whole context, this in NO WAY is talking about or even implying that WE (I) overcome sin with God's help.

Freeindeed, the 'context' argument only works when the Scripture being taken out of context cannot be applied to any other situation, full stop. Are you saying, that we cannot do all things through Him?

I emphatically disagree if you are. Jesus said with the faith of a mustard seed we can command the mountains to tumble. He also said:

"...With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God." Mark 10:27

Even more blatantly, Jesus revealed

"And Jesus said to him, "If you can? All things are possible to him who believes." Mark 9:23

Elijah prayed that it would not rain. You know what happened.

If we pray with the faith of Elijah for God to help us overcome sin, will we?

I knew there would be a "but".

No, I don't believe we chose Christ. I believe he chose us and came after us and initiated all parts of salvation (100%). Our human nature was set against him and we would never choose him if he hadn't chosen us. Jesus saves! Salvation is not a cooperative effort on the part of both parties. We add NOTHING to the free gift of salvation Christ offers through his sacrifice on our behalf.

Freeindeed, what you assert is largely correct, but the error is very subtle. Please do not take offence. Salvation is a free gift, otherwise "grace is no longer grace" as Paul says.

But, a gift is something we still have to choose. If we have no choice in the matter, then it is not salvation - it is conscription.

What do you think of this Scripture?

"Say to them, 'As I live!' declares the Lord God, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel? ... But when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and practices justice and righteousness, he will live by them." Ezekiel 33:11, 19

God Himself pleads for the wicked to turn away from their unrighteousness.

Jon

Jimlarmore

15th February 2007, 03:20 PM

"The enemies of God's law, from the ministers down to the least among them, have a new conception of truth and duty. Too late they see that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the seal of the living God." Great Controversy, p.640

The use of the english language can get us in trouble at times. What this appears to say is not what she meant to say. When she says the Sabbath is the seal of God she means the observance of the day according to God's commandment will lead to the seal of God. Anyone with a modicum of reasoning ability knows that this is not taken to be literal as it's read. No one that I know of thinks or teaches the day itself is the seal of God and this does not really say that either, read the context. A day Sabbath or otherwise is a 24 hour period of time and even though it's holy time that day in and of itself cannot seal anyone. Only God can seal someone. Do I need to show from scripture how and what seals us? If you read the context of this statement it's clear the observance of Sabbath in compliance with the commandment of God or Sunday in compliance with the commandment of man will lead either to the seal of God or the mark of the beast.

"The sign, or seal, of God is revealed in the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, the Lord's memorial of creation...

This is more like what I was saying before. The components of a seal are inside the 4th commandment but the day is not the seal. It's in observance and compliance with God or man that matters, not the day itself.

The mark of the beast is the opposite of this--the observance of the first day of the week." Testimonies vol. 8, p. 117

Again, the day itself is not the mark of the beast. Receiving the mark of the beast is a willful act on one's part to either observe by command of man to keep the 1st day of the week for religious purposes or just to survive ( i.e. be able to buy things ).

From Amazing Facts study guide:
The book of Revelation tells us that there will again be a battle over how to worship and everyone will be identified by either the seal of God or the mark of the beast.

The study goes on to establish that the Sabbath is the Seal of God and Sunday is the Mark of the Beast.

No it doesn't, you are making this all so skewed and confusing. The day is important but the day itself is not the seal or the mark.

I used to use this study guide when people wanted to know the 'truth'. Here's a link so you can look it up for yourself. Listen to Doug B. preach on this sometime. He makes it really clear what SDA's believe to be the seal and the mark. I'm not sure what prophecy seminars you've been to or listened to, but this is openly taught by the SDA church. I taught the same thing through the seminar guides when I did SDA prophecy seminars. Anyway, here's the link.

http://www.sabbathtruth.com/mark_of_the_beast_2.asp

This just goes to show that an ex-ordained minister who preached a long time in a denomination didn't know what he was talking about for years and years and still doesn't for that matter.

Please explain to me how a day can and of itself do anything. You are trying to confuse those here who may be trying to find the truth.

freeindeed2

15th February 2007, 03:48 PM

You said:

and you've said:

That is what I said you said! lol
OK. Here's what I responded to:
I can agree with what you have said, as Scripture confirms this. However, I would not go as far to say (as Freeindeed) that there is no conscious effort on our part as well.
I'm not saying that Christians make NO conscious effort to DO anything. I AM saying that any conscious effort on the part of a Christian is not what CAUSES them to be saved. If left up to our own will and desire, we would never make ANY conscious effort toward God.

Hopefully that makes what I said clearer.:)

Woah!

Freeindeed, the 'context' argument only works when the Scripture being taken out of context cannot be applied to any other situation, full stop.

LOL. The context of a passage is what it is. You're the one trying to apply what Paul said in this passage to things he was not even speaking to. Read it for what it says, not for what you want it to say. The context of the passage as I quoted it is clear.

Are you saying, that we cannot do all things through Him? I emphatically disagree if you are.
I absolutely AM saying that!

Can you save yourself?
Can you offer your blood for the sins of all humanity?
Can you become God?
Can you create something from nothing?

And the questions can go on and on. I agree with the exact reading of the text though, that Christ will enable us to endure in all situations we face here on earth, whether we have much or little, whether we are full or hungry, regardless of our circumstances, just like he did for Paul.

Jesus said with the faith of a mustard seed we can command the mountains to tumble. He also said:

"...With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God." Mark 10:27
A bit of Context:
25 "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

26 They were even more astonished and said to Him, "Then who can be saved?"
27 Looking at them, Jesus said, "With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God."
Do you see the difference from what you were trying to make the text say. It's not talking about OUR abilities, but God's ability to save those who cannot save themselves!

Even more blatantly, Jesus revealed

"And Jesus said to him, "If you can? All things are possible to him who believes." Mark 9:23

Who actually cast the demon out? Was it the power and will of humans or God?

It simply isn't saying what you want it to.

Elijah prayed that it would not rain. You know what happened.

If we pray with the faith of Elijah for God to help us overcome sin, will we?

That's not what the Bible teaches. Jesus overcame sin for us because we had no power over it. He ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED IT FOR US. He asks us to trust in him for what he has already done.

Freeindeed, what you assert is largely correct, but the error is very subtle. Please do not take offence. Salvation is a free gift, otherwise "grace is no longer grace" as Paul says.

But, a gift is something we still have to choose. If we have no choice in the matter, then it is not salvation - it is conscription.

Have you ever seen someone in a hopeless situation get rescued? Like someone drowning? I lifeguarded for many years and had to rescue kids many times. Never once did I go ask them if they wanted to be rescued before initiating action to save them. I did not go rescue them because they mentally consented to it, or because they worked in cooperation with me for their own rescue. In fact, quite the opposite. Often, even though they didn't want to drown, they did things that would have only helped them to drown faster. They had NO power to save themselves. Someone had to go and save them or they would be dead.

Saving humans is God's business, not theirs. The only contribution we have made is to get into a mess (sin) we need to be saved from (and we're born needing to be saved, BTW!). We have NO power to save ourselves, and those Scriptures do NOT say otherwise. All praise is to Jesus our Savior!

What do you think of this Scripture?

"Say to them, 'As I live!' declares the Lord God, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel? ... But when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and practices justice and righteousness, he will live by them." Ezekiel 33:11, 19

God Himself pleads for the wicked to turn away from their unrighteousness.

God is speaking to the wicked here, not those who have been justified. Israel was under the old covenant here too, and Jesus had not come and fulfilled everything, offering them a different way of being justified than by following the law. Jesus had not made atonement with his blood for sin yet, and God had not forgiven and forgotten all of their sin like he does in the new covenant.

Here's a simple question...did YOU turn from your sin? If so, was it by your own power and will, or was it because of God's power and will?

OntheDL

15th February 2007, 04:05 PM

OK. Here's what I responded to:
...?

here is the question, I don't think I saw your answer...

If Jesus did it all for the sinners to be saved, there is nothing for them to do, then why the majority of people will not go to heaven?

OntheDL

15th February 2007, 04:16 PM

God is speaking to the wicked here, not those who have been justified. Israel was under the old covenant here too, and Jesus had not come and fulfilled everything, offering them a different way of being justified than by following the law. Jesus had not made atonement with his blood for sin yet, and God had not forgiven and forgotten all of their sin like he does in the new covenant.

I didn't follow the whole thing. But obviously the above statement is not biblical.

The OT saints are saved by the same way the NT believers are: by grace through faith.

Genesis 15:6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

The new covenant is the covenant of Grace. Wasn't Abraham saved by grace?

The New Covenant is the eternal covenant God instituted after Adam and Eve sinned. It has been in effect throughout the ages. You need to understand that Jesus dying on the cross ratified the new covenant.

The Old Covenant was never meant to save but was a provisional covenant that pointed to their needs for a savior.

OntheDL

15th February 2007, 04:18 PM

And when God instructed Adam and Eve to sacrifice animals to cover their sins, wasn't that Grace???

OntheDL

15th February 2007, 04:22 PM

God is speaking to the wicked here, not those who have been justified.

Justification is a continual, daily process: dying daily.

We are never justified once for all until after the final judgment and are granted eternal life.

freeindeed2

15th February 2007, 04:22 PM

This is more like what I was saying before. The components of a seal are inside the 4th commandment but the day is not the seal. It's in observance and compliance with God or man that matters, not the day itself.
OK. So you would say that Sabbath observance is the Seal of God, and Sunday observance is the Mark of the Beast. Am I right here? (Let's not get stalemated by semantics. I am fine with the word 'observance' being there if it helps us move forward in the discussion.)

Even so, you cannot show CLEARLY from Scripture that Sabbath observance is the Seal of God? And you cannot show CLEARLY from Scripture that Sunday observance is the Mark of the Beast? This is important here, because according to SDA beliefs it is the dividing wall or test of loyalty to God, and we will live or die by this issue. So it should be beyond the shadow of any doubt.

This just goes to show that an ex-ordained minister who preached a long time in a denomination didn't know what he was talking about for years and years and still doesn't for that matter.
You don't have ANY idea what you are speaking about. It's possible you have heard me speak and even had hearty amen's for things I said that you agreed with.

You didn't go through that study, did you? Are we allowed to post it here? I didn't write the study, I just used it and let people draw the logical conclusions that it highlights. Go read it and you'll see that it leads the person studying to conclude that the Sabbath (it's observance, if you will) is the seal of God, and that Sunday (it's observance) is the Mark of the Beast.

For example:
It asks:
Which of the Ten Commandments contains all the elements of a seal?

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.

NOTE: The fourth commandment is the only one that contains all three elements of a seal: (1) "The Lord"--His name, (2) "made"--His office as Creator, (3) "heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is"--His territory.

Note under the next question:

NOTE: God clearly states that He gave the Sabbath as a sign of His power to create and sanctify. It is His seal, or mark of authority. The words "seal," "sign," "mark," and "token" are used interchangeably throughout the Bible (compare Genesis 17:11 with Romans 4:11 and Revelation 7:3 with Ezekiel 9:4).
It establishes that the Sabbath was the SIGN. Then it says 'IT IS HIS SEAL'. Taking it even further it says that 'sign' and 'seal' can be used interchangeably throughout the Bible.

A reader will quite easily conlcude that the Sabbath is the Seal of God. I know, because I've watched them do it over and over again. Adding that it's the observance of the Sabbath that seals the believer doesn't really change anything here. SDAism still teaches that it's man's own action or behavior (observing) that 'causes' himself to be sealed (even if they claim it's in cooperation with the Holy Spirit).

That is where I disagree.

Please explain to me how a day can and of itself do anything. You are trying to confuse those here who may be trying to find the truth.
Good question! Yet SDAism claims that salvation itself comes down to how each person observes a 24 hour period of time. Now you can see why I asked EXACTLY how it is to be observed, since it's not being observed like it was commanded.

And...JESUS is the truth that seekers are trying to find. He has authority over ALL things and in him alone is salvation, not the Sabbath. Jesus said this:

“You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!" Jn 5:39

Eternal life is all about Jesus.

OntheDL

15th February 2007, 04:29 PM

Jimlarmore

15th February 2007, 05:11 PM

OK. So you would say that Sabbath observance is the Seal of God, and Sunday observance is the Mark of the Beast. Am I right here? (Let's not get stalemated by semantics. I am fine with the word 'observance' being there if it helps us move forward in the discussion.)

You still don't get it do you? Don't you see that the observance is only part of what can cause us to be sealed? Again, if you take observance only to it's logical conclusion then you are dealing with a legalisitc philosophy and the claim that we can save ourselves by doing that. No thanks I'm not going to bite on that bait. I will say again God alone seals us or judges us to have received the mark of the beast.

Even so, you cannot show CLEARLY from Scripture that Sabbath observance is the Seal of God? And you cannot show CLEARLY from Scripture that Sunday observance is the Mark of the Beast? This is important here, because according to SDA beliefs it is the dividing wall or test of loyalty to God, and we will live or die by this issue. So it should be beyond the shadow of any doubt.

Sabbath observance and Sunday observance is only part of the problems we will face. There's much more to consider. The Bible makes it clear that Sabbath observance will be a sign between Him and His people. The hebrew word for sign is also translated as seal or flag. I'll be glad to show how it can be logically concluded that worship will be a point of contention just before the 2nd coming and that it can be logically concluded that sunday observance will be involved in that worship.

You don't have ANY idea what you are speaking about. It's possible you have heard me speak and even had hearty amen's for things I said that you agreed with.

I don't care if you were the president of the general conference. Based on what you are saying and trying to teach you didn't know what you were talking about back then or now for that matter.

For example:

It asks:Which of the Ten Commandments contains all the elements of a seal?

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.

NOTE: The fourth commandment is the only one that contains all three elements of a seal: (1) "The Lord"--His name, (2) "made"--His office as Creator, (3) "heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is"--His territory.

Note under the next question:

NOTE: God clearly states that He gave the Sabbath as a sign of His power to create and sanctify. It is His seal, or mark of authority. The words "seal," "sign," "mark," and "token" are used interchangeably throughout the Bible (compare Genesis 17:11 with Romans 4:11 and Revelation 7:3 with Ezekiel 9:4).
It establishes that the Sabbath was the SIGN. Then it says 'IT IS HIS SEAL'. Taking it even further it says that 'sign' and 'seal' can be used interchangeably throughout the Bible.

That is unquestionably true but that still does not mean the Sabbath is the seal itself and this does not say it is. However, this is still all just fishing and an attempt at invalidating the SDA church, not the real truth of the matter. The Seventh-day-Adventist church teaches more on the mark of the beast than any other church that I know of and they base the majority of what they teach on verses from the Bible. Do they have it mostly right? Yeah, I think so. Are they 100% perfect on it? Probably not. However my dear friend you don't fix leaks in your roof by jabbing sticks thru it. All you've done so far is throw rocks at a denomination and try to confuse issues and obfuscate Biblical truths. Why not show me from the Bible where the SDA's are wrong on this. IOW, from the Bible show me what really is the mark of the beast.

A reader will quite easily conlcude that the Sabbath is the Seal of God. I know, because I've watched them do it over and over again. Adding that it's the observance of the Sabbath that seals the believer doesn't really change anything here. SDAism still teaches that it's man's own action or behavior (observing) that 'causes' himself to be sealed (even if they claim it's in cooperation with the Holy Spirit).

Actions guided by the holy spirit is vital to salvation. Remember faith without works is dead.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

p.s. When are we going to get to the question of what sin is for you guys.

freeindeed2

15th February 2007, 05:14 PM

I didn't follow the whole thing. But obviously the above statement is not biblical.
The 'above statement' was my words answering a direct question about the Ezekiel 33 passage. I'll break it down for you so you don't miss what I was saying.

Originially quoted by freeindeed2:
God is speaking to the wicked here, not those who have been justified.
11"Say to them, 'As I live!' declares the Lord GOD, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked,

So this was Biblical. He was talking to the wicked.
Israel was under the old covenant here too,
IMO, this is obvious since Jesus hadn't even come yet.

So this is Biblical. Ezekiel was still under the old covenant while writing this.
and Jesus had not come and fulfilled everything,
already established...
offering them a different way of being justified than by following the law.
"But now God has shown us a different way of being right in his sight--not by obeying the law but by the way promised in the Scriptures long ago. We are made right in God's sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we have done." Rom 3:21-22

"For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us. God was being entirely fair and just when he did not punish those who sinned in former times. And he is entirely fair and just in this present time when he declares sinners to be right in hi sight because they believe in Jesus.

Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on our good deeds. It is based on our faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law." v.25-28

This statement came straight out of the Bible.
Jesus had not made atonement with his blood for sin yet,
already established that Jesus had not come yet when Ezekiel wrote.
and God had not forgiven and forgotten all of their sin like he does in the new covenant.
In the old covenant the sin was covered based on the promises of the coming Messiah, but it was not eradicated.

But in the new covenant sin is forgiven and completely wiped from the 'memory' of God. As in, He remembers our sin NO MORE.

31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

So this is Biblical too. In the new covenant their sins are remembered no more. This promise wasn't part of the old covenant, but the new, which Jesus ushered in. His blood atoned for all sin.

The OT saints are saved by the same way the NT believers are: by grace through faith.
Now they are, yes. Jesus (faith) has come and his blood has atoned for all sin.

Genesis 15:6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

The new covenant is the covenant of Grace. Wasn't Abraham saved by grace?

He IS saved by grace. But he was counted as righteous because of his FAITH in GOD and HIS promises (Jesus being the ultimate promise).

The New Covenant is the eternal covenant God instituted after Adam and Eve sinned. It has been in effect throughout the ages. You need to understand that Jesus dying on the cross ratified the new covenant.
Scripture please!

The old covenant, or 10 commandments, came 430 AFTER Abraham and lasted UNTIL the SEED (Jesus Christ) came. (Gal. 3) Please show that the new covenant between God and Jesus was instituted from the fall.

The Old Covenant was never meant to save but was a provisional covenant that pointed to their needs for a savior.
Right, but at the time the passage was written the Savior had not yet come. So the new covenant was still in the form of a promise. The promise was FULFILLED in Jesus when he came and made atonement for our sins, offering his own blood (the blood of the new covenant).

freeindeed2

15th February 2007, 05:29 PM

Justification is a continual, daily process: dying daily.

We are never justified once for all until after the final judgment and are granted eternal life.
Scripture please!

Notice how these passages refer to justification--all having already taken place at some point in time in the past (when we believed/faith).

1 Cor 6:11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?

Titus3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

BTW, we are granted eternal life the moment we believe in Jesus for our salvation! Jn 5:24