True-believer Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 Is not Jesus the Living Sabbath that we rest from our works inside of? In Christ we have a better covenant. Hebrews compares the old covenant and the better covenant and what we have through Christ and His fulfillment of the law. The comparison in chapter four is between old and new which is the case throughout Hebrews in showing us what we have in Christ. Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Go back and read Heb. 4:10 again and see that the comparison is made of the rest we enter into in Christ and through he better covenant to the old rest that God took from His works. The work is finished in Him so the verses in Col.2:16, Paul wrote, were given to those that kept on requiring works of the old law, including circumcision and observing the sabbath day. What do you think these verses mean? Our labor, now is to have faith in the work He did for us. Heb. 4:11 ¶ Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. He is our rest and we are also hidden in Him (Col. 3:3,4). He is the Lord of the Sabbath because He is out sabbath rest. Sabbath means rest and the rest we have in Him and His work through the cross is what we are to boast of - not our vain works of obedience to a day which are like filthy rags compared to His work and sacrifice on the cross. Why go back and believe that our works would be superior to the work of God through His Son's final and once for all work at the cross. To believe Him and honor Him with our faith - that He did accomplish this work, is more precious to Him than gold, whereas those that seek to honor Him with the law must perform all of it to not be guilty breaking it all. Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Heb 4:7 - Again he limiteth a certain day,.... Since the seventh day of the creation was a day of rest which God entered into, and not man; and since the land of Canaan was a typical rest, which the unbelieving Israelites did not enter into, because of unbelief; and yet there must be persons, and there must be a time for them to enter into the true rest which God has left a promise of; therefore he has limited, fixed, and appointed a certain day, the Gospel dispensation, for believers to enter into it: Heb 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, Today, after so long a time; as it is said, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. Heb 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. My Bible is KJV and has Joshua in 4:8 as the comparison and 4:7 has the saying of David in Ps. 95 about the not hardening of heart. Heb 4:4-7 - He spake in a certain place. In Gen_2:2. There it is stated that "God rested on the seventh day from all his works." The Sabbath rest was therefore established long before Israel was denied entrance into the rest. Hence it is not the rest. In this place again. In Psa_95:11, which declares that Israel should not enter into God's rest. Though Israel had kept the rest of the Sabbath, they had not entered into God's rest, as this language shows. The rest of the Sabbath is not then the promised rest, nor is Canaan below, from which nearly all Israel was once excluded, because David exhorts the people, though in Canaan, to enter into the rest. Seeing . . . that some must enter. Since God has a rest for his people, and it is not made in vain, there must be some who enter therein. Those to whom it was first offered entered not because of their unbelief. Hence it remaineth to all who, like Joshua and Caleb, have faith. Again he limiteth a certain day. The thought is that there is a day of opportunity. If that day is passed by, the opportunity is gone. The word of the Lord is, To-day if, etc. Heb 4:8-11 - For if Jesus. "Joshua" in the Revision. Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew word Joshua. Joshua led Israel over the Jordan into Canaan, but that did not give them complete rest. If that had been true, David would not have exhorted them to seek to enter into rest. Five hundred years after they entered Canaan this exhortation is given in the 95th Psalm. There remaineth therefore a rest. Since God has a rest for his people, and neither the Sabbath nor Canaan is the rest, these being only types of that rest, a rest remaineth to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest. When God rested on the Sabbath, the type of the true rest, his works ceased. So when our rest comes, weary toil, trials and sufferings will be over. Let us labor therefore. Since this glorious rest, the heavenly rest, remains for faithful believers, we should seek to enter upon it, and especially take heed that we do not come short through unbelieving disobedience as did Israel. Our rest is in Jesus. Let us not fall short through unbelief and lack of faith. Quote Luke 4:19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Ted Oplinger Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 When I hear God's voice from another Mt. Siniai-type event the commandment is changed from "the seventh day" to "a seventh day"...<aka, like Exodus 20> When I see it written into the place of the fourth commandment by God's own finger and placed under His throne seat as part of the symbol of the foundation of God's Government...<aka, like Deuteronomy 4:13> When I see and hear the first day proclaimed as the "Christian" day of rest, in the New Testament, as broadly and clearly as the seventh-day Sabbath is currently declared in OT Scripture...<aka, throughout the first 5 books of the Bible> When I see and hear (through the gift of the spirit of prophecy) of Christ lamenting about the lack of reverencing His NEW day of rest as proclaimed clearly in the NT...<aka, like throughout the Prophets concerning the seventh-day Sabbath> Then I will consider Sunday-keeping arguments. Until then... We know for a fact Christ gave no such "Mt. Siniai-type" event at Mt. Olives, where and when He ascended... We know for a fact He did not re-write with His own finger a new set of commandments to be preached as a Gospel reference, then give them clearly to the the Apostles...like in Deteronomy 4:13 We know for a fact these things did not take place, for they are NOT contained in the NT record, which is already canonized...as opposed to the books of the Law And the use of the prophetic gift, as the record indcates through the Reformation progression from Luther on, there is a declaration and progression away from all the changes enacted by the Papal Governance over the Roman Church. This includes all of the confessions in the scholarly works of every major name from every major denomination up until recent times...as opposed to the record of the spirit of prophecy's testimony in the OT concerning the Sabbath Everything presented so far in recent days as "textual evidence" misses these 4 points by light-years. So there is NO clear foundation which exists that I may rest my faith upon this doctrine of Sunday-keeping instead of Sabbath. My question in return is: Why, with all the evidences so contrary to even the very idea of first-day keeping, do people disregard such a body of evidence as has gone before us, and try with such mental gymnastics prove what the Papal authority already has stated rests solely upon their own authority, with NO Scriptural evidence to back it? Food for Thought.... Quote "As iron sharpens iron, so also does one man sharpen another" - Proverbs 27:17 "The offense of the cross is that the cross is a confession of human frailty and sin and of inability to do any good thing. To take the cross of Christ means to depend solely on Him for everything, and this is the abasement of all human pride. Men love to fancy themselves independent. But let the cross be preached, let it be made known that in man dwells no good thing and that all must be received as a gift, and straightway someone is offended." Ellet J. Waggoner, The Glad Tidings "Courage is being scared to death - and saddling up anyway" - John Wayne "The person who pays an ounce of principle for a pound of popularity gets badly cheated" - Ronald Reagan
Kountzer Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 Well said. Quote I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs. Frederick Douglass
Musicman1228 Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 If you call yourself a Christian according to Paul's gospel and subscribe to the idea proposed by Paul and the writer of Hebrews that God changed the rules from the O.T. to the N.T., from the old covenant to the new covenant, then it is fully appropriate to believe that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday and that the Covenant/Law was done away with in favor of salvation by grace through faith. This philosophy says that not only is keeping the Law impossible but wholly unnecessary, it transfers then to a concept which says obedience to God now no longer includes obedience to His Commandments. This is exactly the same concept that Lucifer got Adam and Eve to agree to in Eden when he convinced them that God would not execute them for willful disobedience to His commandment to not eat of the tree of the Learning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Several of my family members have gone over to Sunday worship because of this teaching, which is distressing. In the face of the idea of the "new covenant" what is the incentive for a Christian to decide to obey God and keep the Sabbath (seventh) day holy? None. As SDA's we castigate our Sunday worshiping brethren for not keeping God's holy Sabbath-day when in the same breath we agree with them that the Covenant/10 Commandments are null and void in the face of salvation by faith through grace. In this we have no excuse. If we continue to agree with the churches that are in the world and confirm that the God of the O.T. is not the same as the God of the N.T., that the "new" covenant replaces the "old" Covenant that was given to Israel at Sinai, then we do not have a leg to stand on when we say that the Sabbath is a key to salvation and keeping Sunday is the mark of the beast in Revelation. As I see it, right now there is little or no difference between being a Seventh-day Adventist and belonging to any other Christian church of the world. We are becoming just like them. This was Satan's plan from the beginning and is working perfectly. Just a reminder; Ancient Israel wanted a king other than God so they could be 'just like' the kingdoms of the world. This IS NOT what God wants for His Kingdom today. Quote
Ted Oplinger Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 If you call yourself a Christian according to Paul's gospel Quote "As iron sharpens iron, so also does one man sharpen another" - Proverbs 27:17 "The offense of the cross is that the cross is a confession of human frailty and sin and of inability to do any good thing. To take the cross of Christ means to depend solely on Him for everything, and this is the abasement of all human pride. Men love to fancy themselves independent. But let the cross be preached, let it be made known that in man dwells no good thing and that all must be received as a gift, and straightway someone is offended." Ellet J. Waggoner, The Glad Tidings "Courage is being scared to death - and saddling up anyway" - John Wayne "The person who pays an ounce of principle for a pound of popularity gets badly cheated" - Ronald Reagan
Moderators Kevin H Posted June 22, 2009 Moderators Posted June 22, 2009 Scholars debate the role of the Sabbath among the uncircumsised, as well as strictness in what can and cannot be done durring different parts of Biblical history. They also argue that Sunday became important to Christians because Saturday was spent as the Sabbath but then the different Christians would get together the next day to discuss things unique for them different from other Jewish people. But what is clear is that despite the possible different ways the Sabbath may have been kept and the possible meeting on the next day, the Biblical Sabbath was always seen as THE Sabbath, that God needed Sabbath keepers, that the church of the circumcised were strict Sabbath keepers, and that they saw it important for Moses and the Sabbath to not be forgotten and that it had a ministry and message for non-Sabbath keepers, or atleast those who did not keep it as strict as others. There is room for debate on this topic, but there is no room for the charge that the Sabbath was done away with or replaced by Sunday. With the rise of Evolution in the mid 1800's God would naturally fight back by raising up a group of Sabbath keepers who were really making an impact. But we need to know what it means to preach the Sabbath more fully and to understand the Sabbath's role better. We understand that the "Mark of the Beast" is enforced religion, government interfearing with our religious freedom. So the idea of Sunday Laws fit the idea of the mark of the beast. Sadly some Adventists with too much time on their hands began reasoning that if Sunday Laws are related to the Mark of the Beast,then the Sabbath must be the seal of God, and we have turned to a higher, infact the highest, court to enforce our Sabbath laws. "Keep the Sabbath or go to hell" attitude. This spirit has hurt the message of the Sabbath and has caused her to have too many critics, which is sad. Quote
Musicman1228 Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 I am sorry that the art of irony is becoming a lost art. The 'IF' was intended to draw attention to the fact that most SDA's believe the same way that the churches of the world do. I was drawing attention to the fact the SDA's are moving toward the belief system of the churches of the world, and not maintaining our own unique identity. I definitely do not believe as do the majority of Christians. The questions that I asked vis a vis where our church is going need to be answered. The SDA church is in fact becoming more worldly, and that does sadden me. Read what I wrote again in this light and I think you will get the real point. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 Ted O., I have read many of your writings here and see that you are very knowledgable in regards to biblical issues. Could you tell me (us) your view on what 'righteousness by faith' means? Also tell me what the word 'faith' means to you. Does not 'faith' allow one to believe and practice a lie without feeling guilty for not searching for and practicing the truth? Do not the muslims have 'faith' in their religion and Allah? Does it not take faith to believe in Buddah? Can one just say "I have faith in Jesus so I am saved"--and really be saved? When Paul said "all of Israel will be saved" and I am Jewish, doesn't that mean that I do not have to worry about being saved? When Paul said "Jesus was the end of the Law" doesn't that mean that I don't have to worry anymore about keeping the Sabbath day holy anymore? Isn't it true that salvation is just a gift (grace) and all I have to do is believe that Jesus is the Son of God, so I do not have to worry about not keeping any of the ten commandments? And one final thing, did you actually say that "Jesus died for our sins"? Didn't you mean to say that Jesus' death took away (paid) the penalty for sin for ONLY the righteous--the ones who have overcome sin? After all, if God kicked Satan out of heaven for sin then why would He allow anyone else in His Kingdom who is sinful and evil? Quote
Ted Oplinger Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 Ted O., I have read many of your writings here and see that you are very knowledgable in regards to biblical issues. Could you tell me (us) your view on what 'righteousness by faith' means? Quote "As iron sharpens iron, so also does one man sharpen another" - Proverbs 27:17 "The offense of the cross is that the cross is a confession of human frailty and sin and of inability to do any good thing. To take the cross of Christ means to depend solely on Him for everything, and this is the abasement of all human pride. Men love to fancy themselves independent. But let the cross be preached, let it be made known that in man dwells no good thing and that all must be received as a gift, and straightway someone is offended." Ellet J. Waggoner, The Glad Tidings "Courage is being scared to death - and saddling up anyway" - John Wayne "The person who pays an ounce of principle for a pound of popularity gets badly cheated" - Ronald Reagan
Dr. Rich Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 It is clear to me that your idea of what faith means is not what the majority of the Christian world believes it to mean. I can handle that. As you probably have experanced, there are 'things' that happen that tend to build upon this type of faith--and I call it trust. Therefore I must thank you for your wonderful and thougtful words. Blessings Quote
Ted Oplinger Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 You're quite welcome, brother. You are correct...faith to me is a completely different thing than the overwhelming majority of Christians take it to mean...even among Adventists. It doesn't make me better - just more responsible. Quote "As iron sharpens iron, so also does one man sharpen another" - Proverbs 27:17 "The offense of the cross is that the cross is a confession of human frailty and sin and of inability to do any good thing. To take the cross of Christ means to depend solely on Him for everything, and this is the abasement of all human pride. Men love to fancy themselves independent. But let the cross be preached, let it be made known that in man dwells no good thing and that all must be received as a gift, and straightway someone is offended." Ellet J. Waggoner, The Glad Tidings "Courage is being scared to death - and saddling up anyway" - John Wayne "The person who pays an ounce of principle for a pound of popularity gets badly cheated" - Ronald Reagan
BobRyan Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Is not Jesus the Living Sabbath that we rest from our works inside of? Quote John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.
BobRyan Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 If you call yourself a Christian according to Paul's gospel and subscribe to the idea proposed by Paul and the writer of Hebrews that God changed the rules from the O.T. to the N.T., from the old covenant to the new covenant, then it is fully appropriate to believe that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday and that the Covenant/Law was done away with in favor of salvation by grace through faith. This philosophy says that not only is keeping the Law impossible but wholly unnecessary, it transfers then to a concept which says obedience to God now no longer includes obedience to His Commandments. This is exactly the same concept that Lucifer got Adam and Eve to agree to in Eden when he convinced them that God would not execute them for willful disobedience to His commandment to not eat of the tree of the Learning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Several of my family members have gone over to Sunday worship because of this teaching, which is distressing. Good point. The flaw of course is in the fallacy of trying to equate "Old Testament" with "Old Covenant". The Bible does mention "Old Covenant" but never does it use the term "Old Testament". Rather what "WE" Call Old Testament - the Bible writers called "Scripture". The WORD of God! That can not be broken. in Christ, Bob Quote John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.
Frithers Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 Hi everyone, I'm a first time user of this forum... I have a question about the history and origins of the catholic church. I have been asked a question by a non-christian relative who was raised an Adventist, and who wants to understand exactly what it is that the CC has changed in the Bible to suit their own needs. As an Adventist Christian, I understand that the CC has removed a commandment and split another in two. What else differs between the catholic Bible and a standard Bible. I also understand that the CC doesn't encourage/practise/believe that we have direct contact with Christ, but that a priest is used as a mediator. I am interested in your thoughts and references. I want my response to my relative to be in line with 1 Cor 13:2 "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." Above all, I want my response to my relative to encourage any thirst they may have for a daily relationship with their creator. Looking forward to hearing from you, Quote
BobRyan Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 Neither our Bible nor the Catholic Bible numbers the commandments. The Catholic Bible "Duay" version - lists the same commandments as we have in ours - but their catechism groups the ten commandments into a numbered order the doest not agree with the Jewish and Protestant numbering. They split the 10th commandment into two - and they merge the first and 2nd commandments into one. The biggest difference between the RCC Bible and the typical KJV, NKJV, NASB etc used by Adventists is that our Bibles do not have the apocrypha. They teach Purgatory, Indulgences, Prayers to the dead, infallability in their Papal statements and Canon Law, immortality of the soul, sunday replacement of the Sabbath commandment, extermination of heretics (Canon Law - Lateran IV), sacraments that have special powers, priests that have special powers to "confect the body of God" in the Eucharist, Mary as the mother "of God", Mary born sinless and remaining sinless until at least the birth of Christ, the assumption of Mary into heaven after her death and resurrection and they reject "Sola Scriptura" as the test of all doctrine ... etc etc. So many many differences between the RCC and the SDA position. in Christ, Bob Quote John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.
Ted Oplinger Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Hi everyone, I'm a first time user of this forum... Quote "As iron sharpens iron, so also does one man sharpen another" - Proverbs 27:17 "The offense of the cross is that the cross is a confession of human frailty and sin and of inability to do any good thing. To take the cross of Christ means to depend solely on Him for everything, and this is the abasement of all human pride. Men love to fancy themselves independent. But let the cross be preached, let it be made known that in man dwells no good thing and that all must be received as a gift, and straightway someone is offended." Ellet J. Waggoner, The Glad Tidings "Courage is being scared to death - and saddling up anyway" - John Wayne "The person who pays an ounce of principle for a pound of popularity gets badly cheated" - Ronald Reagan
BobRyan Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 I would also add - that Sunday is only the "new Sabbath" in an antichrist, change the Law of God, little horn power "kind of way". We need to make sure that word gets out. in Christ, Bob Quote John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.
wayfinder Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Colossians 2:13,14,16,17 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 2 Corinthians 3:1-5,6-9 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God..., who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. Paul has answered the question of the Sabbath problem. The covenant written on stone by the hand of God and then handed to Moses by God, was nailed to the cross. We are now servants of a new covenant not of the letter, but the Spirit gives life. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 wayfinder, if what you say is true, then what are we as Seventh Day Adventists doing telling people that the Mark of the Beast is not keeping the Sabbath, but keeping Sunday instead? Why don't we just stop our church services on the Sabbath and do as all of the rest of the Christians and have Sunday worship instead? And for Paul's sake, what in the world are we as SDAs doing allowing women to be pastors of churches? Didn't Paul give us inspirational counsel about that? Quote
BobRyan Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Paul has answered the question of the Sabbath problem. The covenant written on stone by the hand of God and then handed to Moses by God, was nailed to the cross. We are now servants of a new covenant not of the letter, but the Spirit gives life. Paul makes the case that the SAME law "written on tablets of stone" is under the New Covenant "written on tablets of the human heart" -- hence he can say in 1Cor 7:19 "but what MATTERS is keeping the commandments of God". And he can say in Eph 6:1-3 that the 5th commandment is the FIRST one in the list of ten "with a promise". in Christ, Bob Quote John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.
Dr. Rich Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Yes Bob, Paul sure was an actor. 1Cor. 9 is interesting reading. He would be anything and say anything just to get people to believe in HIS own gospel. I have always wondered why Paul would say one thing and then say the complete opposit later? If that isn't confusing in itself, then 1Cor 15:29 takes the cake! And why we complain about the good Mormon folks who only want to follow the teaching of Paul--I don't know?? (You can add the Catholics here too) Quote
BobRyan Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 If you are going to blame the Mormons on Paul in 1Cor 15 instead of doing accurate exegesis of 1Cor 15 -- then are you going to blame the Catholics on Matthew or on Christ in Matt 16 where they claim Peter is being setup as the first infallible Pope instead of accurately exegeting Matt 16? It seems at some point - an accurate rendering of scripture is the "better solution". in Christ, Bob Quote John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.
jasd Posted July 11, 2009 Posted July 11, 2009 Sunday--is it the new SABBATH??? It appears self-evident, doesn't it? I mean, except for this and/or that .org - the entire Body of Jesus Christ 'worships' upon the day presently set aside and sanctified unto Gd; that is, holy and consecrated unto Him. Ain that reason enough to consider it at least 'a' new SABBATH? bein's the original is lost to history and known only to Gd. Writ asks of one only that his or her conscience is clear upon the matter. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted July 11, 2009 Posted July 11, 2009 Ok Bob, have it your way, but then--what is your way? When I read the words of Paul, do I have to use smoke and mirrors and cut and past to make it as you would like it to read? If Paul wanted to say something else, then why didn't he? And as for Matthew 16:18, Peter was long dead before the Catholic church ever got started! James was the leader of the first official church but it was not called the Universal Church at that time since it was still goverened by the Jews. As for Peter, He and the other disciples were in a totally seperate group called THE WAY. Yes, they did converse and they did attempt to unify but Paul went on his own way, ignoring the disciples and James the brother of Jesus. When the Catholic church use Matthew 16, to say that Peter was their first Pope, they are lying just as they lied about Jesus being killed on 'good friday' when it truthfully was on Wednesday just before sundown. And jasd, it is your choice. I would agree with you that it would be self evident IF I were to believe the words of Paul. But I don't. It should be no surprise that God tells this group they are lukewarm. Why, because as found here in this forum, SDAs seem to be mixed up. They say they keep all ten of the commandments but then they also say they are saved by grace? This I find is very interesing in deed! Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 11, 2009 Moderators Posted July 11, 2009 Yes Bob, Paul sure was an actor. 1Cor. 9 is interesting reading. He would be anything and say anything just to get people to believe in HIS own gospel. I have always wondered why Paul would say one thing and then say the complete opposit later? If that isn't confusing in itself, then 1Cor 15:29 takes the cake! I understand what you are saying, but there is nothing in 1 Cor. 9 which tells us that Paul would "say anything just to get people to believe" the gospel. He doesn't say that he is willing to be dishonest or do something unethical or tell something that is not true. He says that he is willing to ignore the non-essentials, i.e., the things that don't matter. Every teacher has to do the same. We have to decide where to fight our battles; that is, we must determine what our priorities are, and not make an issue of things that are unimportant. Ellen White and James White did the same thing. For instance, in the issue of the Trinity, during the 1850s to the 1880s. God Himself does the same. For instance, in respect to polygamy and slavery, etc. Honesty doesn't require us to tell everything we believe or think all at once, without consideration of circumstances. Please compare what Paul says in 1 Cor. 9: 21, where he makes a clear difference between the law of God and the traditions of the Jews. Paul made the same distinction in chapter 7, verse 19. Paul knew that those traditions mean nothing, and therefore he was willing to lay them aside or obey them, depending on the circumstances. Compare also Paul's advice in 1 Cor. 10: 14-22. cf. Acts. 15: 29. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.