We are beginning to hear talk and suggetions even from among SDAs that we need to "revisit" the issue of whether the moral law of God is really binding on Christians.

Another thing we are hearing even from among SDA is that God writes only principles of love on our heart and not really laws as such. According to them, God only writes principles and not rules. They react in horror at the thought that anyone would think of obeying God's laws. That is legalism, in their antinomian minds. One well-known minister contradicts both the Bible and Ellen White by saying that God only writes the last six commandments of God's law on our hearts. Ellen White agrees with the Bible that the same laws that God wrote on stone are the laws that God writes on our hearts, if we will let Him. However, He can't write the Sabbath commandment on our hearts if we disobey the Sabbath commandment and are not letting Him sanctify us from week to week. And if He hasn't been able to seal the law in our minds and if we haven't got the Sabbath commandment written in our minds, we will not be among those who keep the commandments of God when the first beast power of Rev. 14 threatens to kill those who disobey his laws. We will then find it easy to betray God and worship the beast.

Apparently the devil has many ways of getting around the truth that under the New Covenant God writes his "laws" on our heart and on our minds. Christ said that the greatest commandments were the first four, not the last six, so why would God not write the greatest commandments on our hearts and minds?

One important Bible teaching that shows the Sabbath is part of the New Covenant is that nothing could be added to or subtracted from the New Covenant after it was ratified. It was ratified by the blood of Christ at his death. Therefore, in order for the Sabbath to be dropped and the Sunday added to the New Covenant, it would have been necessary for it to have been done before Christ's death. I have never seen any evidence ever produced that shows this to have been the case. In fact, I've never seen anyone who believes in Sunday give a Bible response to this statement. No doubt it is because they can't. Their mouth is stopped.

Dear friends and brothers in Christ

First, let me correct a little sentence in my last text. It is just a small typo, in the reproduction of the Question on Doctrines text that I quote.

It's in the 6th paragraph under the title "The SDA Pioneers’ Struggle to Form a New Church".

The word "changes" should be corrected for "charges".

So, as it is: >>But the changes and attacks have persisted.<<

Should read: But the charges and attacks have persisted.

As to these new opinions, first these people ignore that what we teach is in harmony with the classical, historical position of all Protestant Christians, as we can read in their confessional documents, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 and other Christian documents.

So, this new trend of thought is just one more sign of the true love that is getting colder and colder in many hearts, as Jesus prophesied to characterize these last days of human history: "Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold" (Matt. 24:12).

Another point is that some are really stressing the "love to the neighbor" part of the golden rule because after Jesus said that in Matt. 24:36-40 we don't find the first "commandment" as clearly enunciated, just the second one (like in Rom. 13:10; 1 John 2:7-11, etc).

But we also find a clear connection between our attachment to God that leads to loving our neighbors in I John 4:7-21, especially, vs. 20.

Have a blessed week.

Monsieur Brito,

I read with interest your question about the new covenant/new law. That issue is one which I, too, have faced. But here is my question in response:

How may one establish which 'laws' PAUL is referring to in Heb. 8 and 10? Paul, like other Bible writers, at times does quote OT passages out of context. The mere fact that Paul quotes from Jeremiah would not seem, in and of itself, sufficient to prove that he refers to the Ten Commandments. He may be applying a principle, with a different application for believers under the New Covenant.

Dave

Okay, brother

Thanks for your feedback. It's good to have this kind of participation, looking for clarification of important points of the Bible teaching.

I would remind you that Paul recommends normally, as of knowing nothing of any abolition of the Ten Commandments, the 5th., 8th, 9th and 10th precepts of the Decalogue to both the Ephesians and the Romans (see Eph. 6:1-3; 4:25-31; Rom. 13:8-10). He also says that he, with his mind, serves God's law, and in the context he not only recognizes this law as holy, just, good, pleasurable, spiritual, as he mentions specifically the commandment "ye shall not covet" (Rom. 7, vs. 25, cf. vs. 7 e 8, plus 12, 14, 22...), which shows he didn't think of that precept as belonging to an old, surpassed law.

So, those who teach the end of the Ten Commandments have no basis for their allegations, for Paul simply ignored any such abolition. James, on the other hand, clearly refers to the 10 Commandments as the rule to be followed (James 2:8-12). So, here we have another New Testament writer who ignored any such abolition of the 10 Commandments. By the way, traditionally the Protestant-evangelical confessional documents stress the 10 Commandments as still the norm of Christian behavior. Didn't you hear about this new campaign highlighting the importance of these 10 Commandments for Americans today? How about checking the "10 Commandments Commission" and its international campaign about that?

Now, the bottom line is the Sabbath commandment, which would have been abolished IF it really had any ceremonial role, something the anti-Sabbatarian struggle to prove but can't. See that Paul discusses in Hebrews in detail all the meaning of the many ceremonies and rites in the law, in chapters 7 through 10. Now, since the Sabbath was such an important principle for Israel, if it had any such ceremonial, prefigurative role, being abolished in the cross, he no doubt would have discussed in detail such a role for the Sabbath. However, we find no hints of any idea of abolition of the Sabbath in these chapters for its supposed prefigurative role. That would be the right place where such a discussion would occur.

Instead of desqualifying the Sabbath commandment, Paul refers to it in a positive, rather than negative, manner in chaps. 3 and 4 of Hebrews.

To say that the Sabbath just pointed to salvation in Christ and was abolished as the "shadow" met the "reality" makes no sense. The women who served Jesus so closely and who, certainly had experienced the "salvation rest" didn't, because of that, neglect keeping the Sabbath "according to the commandment" (Luke 23:56). Those in Israel who found the spiritual "rest" highlighted in chaps. 3 and 4, and who are listed in the "hall of fame" of the heroes of Israel, in chap. 11, didn't neglect their keeping of the Sabbath because of that.

How about reproducing the "Ten Commandments Day Proclamation" as can be found in the website of the "Ten Commandments Commission", an interfaith grass-roots movement that is growing fast across the USA, and already getting support from religious leaders of other countries? See below in navy what we copied from said website:

We, the members of the Ten Commandments Commission and supporting people of faith, proclaim The Ten Commandments Day on the first Sunday in the month of May, commencing on Sunday, May Sixth of 2007.

Furthermore, we proclaim the Ten Commandments Day to be a day dedicated for the display, awareness, commemoration and celebration of the Decalogue which we know to be the divine foundation of the Judeo-Christian faith.

We, the members of the commission, serve as a cohesive group of spiritual leaders representing millions of followers who affirm the beauty and the uniqueness of our differences. We believe that rooted in the Ten Commandments is a Divine plan that transcends color and diversity in cultural expression, sanctions brotherhood of man and respects expressions in all of God's children.

We, who serve as a council of leaders, are committed to utilizing our united passion to provide purpose and direction for reversing the enormous tide of immorality continuing to be released throughout the United States of America, and on all continents of the world. This unified voice will culminate annually on the Ten Commandments Day and provide for a united, global, spiritual platform based on the Ten Commandments. This platform will respond to the call echoed throughout creation for a true expression love, harmony and reconciliation among all nations, ethnic diversities and genders through education and rededication to the moral standard as given by our Loving Creator.

Therefore, we are calling on all community and spiritual leaders; churches, synagogues, fellowships, ministries, organizations and all who care about moral values, to celebrate the annual Ten Commandments Day by hosting local events in support of the Ten Commandments and what they represent.

Finally, we proclaim the need to heal the wounds of history through strategic and practical objectives, proactive love and obedience to the commands of God.

By signing this document, I hereby give my commitment of support to the ideals brought forth by the Ten Commandments Commission in the establishment of the annual Ten Commandments Day, and to the moral standard we acknowledge and seek to uphold by the grace of Almighty God.

The number of signatures obtained is nearing 331.000. And explaining "Who we are" we read:

The Ten Commandments Commission was formed in the spring of 2005. The main purpose behind the organization is to create of a global think tank with the world’s leaders who have already recognized the power behind the TCC. We are a grass root movement joined by some of the nation's largest ministries.

Very significant, indeed.

For checking this information better, see the link below:

http://www.tencommandmentsday.com/index.php

Yet, Paul speaks of trying to keep the law in his past experience as a zealous Jew. And he speaks of the law to Jews and Judaizers. In other places, he points out that the law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, and now we are no longer under the jurisdiction of the law. In fact, in Rom. 7 he points out that believers have died to the law and are no longer bound by the law, but now are joined to Jesus Christ.



But James was speaking to those who were zealous for the law, and was saying, if you are going to try to keep the law, you must keep the entire law.



Sometimes that is true, but not in terms of salvation. Simply as guidelines for right living.



Rather, Paul referred to the spiritual reality which the Sabbath of the Old Testament illustrated and pointed forward. Now that the reality has come, the shadow, that is the weekly Sabbath day, has no more place.


They were devout Jews. And it took the Jewish believers decades to shake off the practices of the old covenant.



Of course. They were under the Old Covenant, in Old Testament times, and they were faithful in keeping that covenant.

Permit me to clarify: The arguments which I posted above, are some which I have heard at various times. I do not necessarily subscribe to all of them. But, they are commonly used.

Dave

Okay, brother, the fact is that we have discussed along the articles on the Ratzlaff debate most of these things.

Like what you say of the Confessions of Faith, I never said that either they or the SDA's teach the law as a source of salvation.

Thanks to God we have clearly defined in our official confessional document the topics 9, 10 and 18 that make clear our position, which matches that of the Protestant-Evangelical historical confessions of faith regarding the question of law and grace.

So, where the contetion is regarding that? The problem is the misinformation of what are our real teachings and sentiments.