Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 1 Cor. 15:1-5 (ESV)
In few words the apostle Paul delivers the essential of the gospel message: Christ crucified, his death for our sins and his resurrection for our justification. He tells us that this message received by us in the past, in which we stand in the present is sufficient to save us until the end with the condition to believe in it until the end. Here arminians and calvinists disagree regarding the “if” clause on one part, Arminains believe that a true believer can receive and stand today in the blessings of the gospel, but tomorrow can reject it, and Calvinists believe that rejecting the gospel in the final end is a proof that the person had not really believed the gospel from the first place.
But in spite of these disagreements, both parties agree that rejecting the gospel is fatal. More than this, receiving the gospel, standing by it and holding to it to the end is sufficient for salvation. Christ’s death and resurrection completely saves us from God’s condemnation and there is no need for another work to be done for us, and consequently there is no need for an update of the gospel, some “new and improved message” to be proclaimed and believed, in order to complete the salvation which the apostolic gospel proclaimed.
Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.] Col. 2:6,7 (ESV)
The present state of the believer does not require from him to change his position in order to be safe in Christ’s arms, secure in his salvation. The sufficiency of Christ’s death and resurrection is affirmed both by Calvinists and Arminians, even though there are degrees of consistency with it in the respective camps.
The situation changes dramatically when it comes to Ellen White and Adventists. Basically the SDA church with Ellen as the most prominent representative had seen herself as the messenger of the Lord endowed with the Three Angels Message, a gospel message directed to people who already knew the gospel message but are deadly wrong about Sabbath keeping and who are in the position of being perfect candidates for the mark of the beast if they will not quickly change their day of worship from Sunday to Saturday.
In short, the message is: “You had believed in the gospel of Christ, but if you hold to the present position and will not add Sabbath keeping to your faith in the gospel, you’ll be lost.” There are other sabbatarians in the world, and also were in the early Christian church–the Jewish community–but not one of those groups made the Sabbath as Ellen White made it, a wall of separation between true and false Christians, between saved or unsaved persons, between being in Christ and being out of Christ.
I saw that the holy Sabbath is, and will be, the separating wall between the true Israel of God and unbelievers; and that the Sabbath is the great question to unite the hearts of God’s dear, waiting saints. Ellen White {CET 93.1}
In this way Ellen White and Adventists are more than sabbatarians who are within the boundaries of Christian tolerance for diversity of belief and liberty of conscience. Her Sabbath-keeping goes also against the Arminian position by denying that holding to the gospel is sufficient for salvation, and that Christ’s death and resurrection is sufficient for salvation. No, there must be something more to do, people must repent of their Sabbath-breaking, otherwise they will be lost. In this way Sabbath-keeping is nothing else than a requirement for salvation which is added to the gospel of Christ as defined in 1 Corinthians 15.
In my dealings with Adventist friends, they tried to persuade me that I’m not really understanding the True message of Adventism, but I’m reacting to popular Adventism and against a legalist gospel and spirit which does not reflect truly the Adventist teachings, even in regard to the Investigative Judgment. For example, the most common defense is that the judgment does not affect salvation at all, but only proves or demonstrates that the believer’s claim of having faith is justified, by proving his faith in Christ’s sacrifice by the works which he performed. In other words, they try to prove that the Investigative Judgment is in harmony with the message of the epistle of James, that it does nothing else than to show that the faith of the saints saved is a genuine faith,
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. James 2:18 (ESV)
At this point, any reasonable person who sticks to the true gospel will find himself or herself in harmony with the statements above, and will recognize that the Adventist has a point in defending the Investigative Judgment, and if the Adventist rejects the perfectionism inherent in the Ellen White’s depiction of the Investigative Judgment, it suddenly appears that the Investigative Judgment is no longer an anti-gospel doctrine. It seems that the works are properly looked as EVIDENCE of faith, and not part of faith, and that obedience is indeed the fruit.
But the situation changes dramatically when we look at the evidence required, and looking at the Fundamental Statement of Faith number 25, we find that
The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom.
Who are those who “are abiding in Christ”? Sabbath-keepers, because the phrase “keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” is a buzzword in Adventism, synonymous with the identity of the SDA church. Keeping the commandments means “All 10"–including the Sabbath–in contrast with the rest of the world who is “apostate” and keeps only 9 of 10. It is interesting that at the present time, the majority of Christians are not sabbatarians, and they are not able to prove their true faith in Christ by showing the evidence required in the Investigative Judgment. If they will not become Sabbatarians, they will lack the evidence required, will not pass the test and will be lost.
As I already stated, this is adding to the gospel and goes against the Arminian belief in the sufficiency of the gospel, and also against the sabbatarians who do not make the sabbath the wall of separation between believers and unbelievers.
With the disclaimer that this situation will be true only in the future, neither the present standing of the believer before God is left intact.
One of the favorite texts used by Adventists to prove their point about the importance of the Sabbath is James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all James 2:10 (NASB)
That’s true if Adventists will acknowledge that they are as guilty as non-Adventists for breaking God’s law, but the text is used from the perspective of the higher moral ground “You’re breaking the fourth commandment, you’re condemned by the law and I’m not”. Even if this formulation is not spelled out explicitly, the intent is to prove that the Adventist is not condemned by God’s law but the non-sabbatarian is. Even if the non-sabbatarian is a believer in Christ, his justification and “no condemnation” condition is negated by the Adventist through this interpretation. What profit is to be a believer in Christ’s sacrifice if the law is condemning you for breaking the fourth commandment? What’s the believer’s true position before God, is he justified and law no longer condemns him or is he still under the condemnation of the law?
A consistent answer is that the believer, as far as he’s not keeping the Sabbath, is under the condemnation of the law. The other side of the coin is that a Sabbath-keeper is no longer under the condemnation of the law. And in this way the difference between saved and unsaved people is decided by the law keeping and not by faith in Christ. Both the Adventist and the non-Adventist believes in Christ’s sacrifice, but one is condemned by the law and one is not, and the decisive element is keeping of the Sabbath. The other side of the coin of condemnation is justification. If the non-Adventist is condemned by the law, the Adventist is justified by the law. One of them will pass the Investigative Judgment because he keeps the Sabbath, or at least tries to keep the Sabbath, while the other will be lost because he disregards the Sabbath.
But if the law is to be the judge, both are condemned and lost. Only Christ’s blood saves, and the Adventist position about the Sabbath in connection with the Investigative Judgment brings people under the Old Covenant and its curse, under the law, under its condemnation, under the bondage of sin, back to the covenant in which the performance of the people and perfect keeping of the law was decisive for the fulfillment of the promises of that covenant. It brings people to Sinai instead of mount Zion. There is no salvation, present or future through this system; justification is negated in the present and especially in the future.
For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. Hebrews 12:18-24 (ESV)
If the SDA church will keep itself within the boundaries of Arminianism by affirming the sufficiency of the gospel and will not add sabbatarianism as a requirement for salvation, it would remain within the boundaries of Christianity. But as long as Ellen White is seen as providing an essential contribution to the Christian message, I doubt that the false gospel she preached will be corrected.
This post has been up for almost a month and no replies? is this board dead, or are there just no sda believers that are able to take this on?
Gabriel, would you consider ellens tweaking of the gospel at either extreme end qualifying invoking Galations 1 against herself? The sda prophetess claims in Early Writings that Adam and Eve sinned, and subsequently God had to come up with a plan. The Bible tells a different story. But it is an altered gospel nonetheless. What say you?
Welcome to 4TG--Maybe you can help enliven things a bit, but I think Gabriel made his point quite clearly with this quote:
“If the SDA church will keep itself within the boundaries of Arminianism by affirming the sufficiency of the gospel and will not add sabbatarianism as a requirement for salvation, it would remain within the boundaries of Christianity. But as long as Ellen White is seen as providing an essential contribution to the Christian message, I doubt that the false gospel she preached will be corrected”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think most of us on here believe that Ellen taught an altered gospel. I believe Gabriel presente his case quite well.
In witnessing to our SDA friends and family we must always share the unaltered gospel in a clear concise manner, and be willing to challenge the claims of Adventism, but we must do this in a winsome manner, being careful that our manner and tone not offend those we are trying to reach. This does not mean that we compromise, but we must be as objective as possible, and charitable as well.
I think that regarding Ellen White, as in the case of any individual Adventist, I’ll follow what Chris Lee wrote in the last issue of the Proclamation!, namely that I will not engage in judging the salvation of individuals, bur I’ll criticize the system, the theological, the religious system as a system, if it is in harmony with the Bible or not.
Second, because the Adventist Church has played and still plays an important part in my life, I come to the point of hating two things in relationship with the sabbatarian position: I hate to be condemned by adventists for not keeping the sabbath, and I hate to see adventists condemned for their sabbath keeping. In itself, the day we worship God should never constitute a point of judgment. We have complete freedom to worship God any day we like, to dedicate any day we want to God, and this freedom belongs both to adventists and formers alike.
What motivated me to write this post that stand alone for a long time was the fact that adventists, capitalizing on my desire not to condemn them for their sabbath-keeping, had reserved for themselves the privilege of condemning me for my non-sabbatarian position, putting the sabbath in the place of deciding my salvation. When this happens, the abuse of what it is not innately something wrong (worshiping God on a particular day) under the protection of “don’t judge me for what I’m judging you”, this abuse requires a refutation.
I’m not liking to do this refutation since this leaves the door open for some former adventists who want to capitalize on it, and judge Adventism for worshiping God on sabbath. As I don’t like adventists tell me “You should worship on sabbath, otherwise you’re lost”, in the same way I don’t like when Adventists are told by former adventists “You should cease keeping the sabbath, otherwise you’re lost.” The same basic legalistic presupposition lies at both ides: that salvation is linked with the day of worship.
I see the day being abused of both sides, and if adventists do not get the idea that they are free to worship on sabbath as we are free to worship on Sunday, they will learn nothing of Christian liberty by an attitude of condemning them for worshiping on Saturday. This is why I directed my objection to the abuse of the Sabbath, which I think is the official position of the church. The SDA church places their sabbath keeping where it should not be, a different attitude than those Sunday sabbatarians who will not judge the salvation of others based on the day of worship. For SDA church the Sabbath is the central point of personal righteousness, something that offers them a superior status over other Christians, and this is the official position. The context in which their sabbatarianism is placed is what makes their sabbatarianism to be anti-gospel, not the sabbatarianism itself. It is still a mistake to think that Sabbath keeping is still required by God, Saturday or Sunday sabbath keeping, but this is not in itself antithetical to the gospel.
What I think is the greatest need for adventists is to see that their sabbatarianism cannot be compared with Sunday sabbatarianism. They cannot use the example of those churches who believe Sunday to be the Christian Sabbath as proof that their sabbatarianism is not antithetical to the gospel. It is true that churches which keep Sunday as sabbath do not annul the power of the gospel by their sabbatarianism. Their sabbatarianism is in a different context than the SDA sabbatarianism. It does not offer them a privileged status before God, their sabbatarianism is not a mark of spiritual pride, and future salvation is not linked with sabbatarianism. But In the context of SDA fundamental doctrine, the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, their sabbatarianism is a denial of the sufficiency of Jesus’ work. That was my point.
I think that it is self-refuting and counterproductive to charge adventists with a denial of the gospel just because they worship on Saturday, since they are charging former adventists with apostasy, denial of Chirst, because they worship on Sunday. I expect former adventists to address rather this abuse than perpetuating the abuse.
Maybe you have read stuff on other boards, maybe not. But I have posted on other sites where ellen white HAD to be satanically inspired, and I can back it up. I am not “against” the adventist people biologically, but I am very much against the beliefs they hold dear, which left unchecked, unchallenged will get them destroyed.
No amount of tweaking their Armenism is going to help, they have another thing going called ellenism and it is not going away anytime soon! For the sda church to teach the pure gospel, and simultaneously reject ellen, then they no longer need to meet on saturdays, they might as well call themselves baptists. There is no reason for the to anymore call themselves seventh day adventists (which their false prophetess states is a standing rebuke to the Christian world)! No reason at all. Unless they are going to redefine EVERYTHING they have ever written, said, and stood for in the last century and a half. What’s the likelyhood of their founding element giving up on that so easily?
I’m glad you mentioned “altered gospel”:
For instance, ellen wrote that satan masterminded the plan of salvation. That is nothing more than satan glorification. This should be telling sda’s by the millions what is at the root of their movement. I believe many sda’s HAVE heard the pure gospel, but reject it as too easy, too simple or whatever. They prefer instead to hold onto complicated schemes for getting into heaven, like sabbath “keeping” (no stonings tho) and the lack of cheeze, meat or caffeine in their tummys. OK, fine. How about shocking them with some of their own satanically based writings?
You mentioned “winsome manner, being careful that our manner and tone not offend those we are trying to reach. This does not mean that we compromise, but we must be as objective as possible, and charitable as well.”. All well and good for you Stan. Some of us (me) are not as polished or perfect as that. So you will forgive my rants, however truth based they are. God can use a donkey or a rock to speak, He can surely use my cracked and angry vessel, even if it is giving my research to you to use in your polished manner! (take the splinter out of your eye before trying to remove the plank in my eye! LOL)
As regards worship on saturdays, I firlmly believe that it takes a real act of faith on an exiting sda to worship on an alternate day. God gives us that faith, plus we are told that people fell down and worshipped Jesus on Resurrection Sunday in Matthew 28:1,9 ! Those “formers” who still choose to worship on saturday make me wonder. Some say they do it to please God, etc. How pleased is God by them “keeping” (and it is a “keeping” in their own heads, as they do not keep the majority of the crystalline law, one law) a portion of the ministry of death? I don’t see it.. That is probably just another variant of heresy.
I still have 100% of family in the grip of this heresy. It is not fun to think about. I pray for them. We do not judge their salvation as Gabriel mentions, however we do not assume they are saved while they spout their heresy. We DO judge their ideas and theology. How else can we know if they are believers or not? The bible says any other gospel is NO gospel at all. Someone who believes no gospel at all is no believer at all.
I posted once last summer and did not find my way back, but I remember guibox asking for proof of my claims that satan had a claim on the sda church. I even did a search recently trying to find the post. Couldn’t find it. Doesnt matter, really. I can post it here or a new thread. But I do have the goods.
Oh yes, the adventist prophetess was more than a sabbatizer.
I believe that everybody in this forumn is sculding ellen g white for something that every one in here is not paying attention to. John 14:15 says if you love me follow my commandmnets and paul says faith without works is tetiment to no faith at all so someone please tell me how is she wrong by simply highlighting the commandment that is forgotten if we look at the ten commandments all are so called folllowed expxept for the one which says keep the sabbath day holy.. so if ur going to say that alll u need to do is just believe and christ and also follow the comanments then u might as well say steal every day,cheat on ur wife everyday , take the name of the lord in vain, everyday heck have other gods before the true God but dnt worry u will be saved simply cuz u believe...this thinking is wrong because once u truely believe ur life will be changed and everything will be made new.
Thank you for your comments. Your purpose in citing John 14:15 reveals an overlooked grammatical fact by many sincere Bible students. In the entirety of the Johnanine writings, the apostle John makes a precise distinction between the Koine Greek ”entole” and ”nomos” texts or passages. For example, John 14:15 is an ”entole” passage that doesn’t specifically refer to the Decalogue nor the Torah. This passage is speaking in a broader sense; notably, the teachings of Jesus and not specifically the laws of Moses which John consistently refers to as ”nomos” (meaning law). Our sovereign God wisely chose Koine Greek for the New Testament due to its precision in word selectability. Interestingly, all of the Johnanine prooftexts that SDA apologists repeatedly rely upon are actually entole passages which refer to the entire moral teachings, directives, or commandments of Jesus Christ.
I believe that everybody in this forumn is sculding ellen g white for something that every one in here is not paying attention to. John 14:15 says if you love me follow my commandmnets and paul says faith without works is tetiment to no faith at all so someone please tell me how is she wrong by simply highlighting the commandment that is forgotten if we look at the ten commandments all are so called folllowed expxept for the one which says keep the sabbath day holy.. so if ur going to say that alll u need to do is just believe and christ and also follow the comanments then u might as well say steal every day,cheat on ur wife everyday , take the name of the lord in vain, everyday heck have other gods before the true God but dnt worry u will be saved simply cuz u believe...this thinking is wrong because once u truely believe ur life will be changed and everything will be made new.
Thats a good point Jaguy1,
Folks tend to forget that the Sabbath is part of ten commandments and the real question is: can one be saved by keeping any of the commandments?
Secondly, Paul never broke the commandments or taught anyone else to break them, including the Sabbath. That is clear from the Bible.
Folks tend to forget that the Sabbath is part of ten commandments and the real question is: can one be saved by keeping any of the commandments?
Secondly, Paul never broke the commandments or taught anyone else to break them, including the Sabbath. That is clear from the Bible.
Brother Bill,
I must respectfully disagree with your statement about the Apostle Paul’s lack of sin. In his first letter to Timothy, he clearly confesses his sin to his friend and apprentice Timothy:
1 Timothy 1:15 ( NIV) 15Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 16But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life. 17Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Folks tend to forget that the Sabbath is part of ten commandments and the real question is: can one be saved by keeping any of the commandments?
The apostle Paul answered this question in his letter to the Galatian church:
“...yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” (Galatians 2:16 ESV). See also Galatians 2:19-21, Titus 3:4-7 and Romans 3:21-24.
Bill - 03 June 2008 05:51 AM
Secondly, Paul never broke the commandments or taught anyone else to break them, including the Sabbath. That is clear from the Bible.
The Jews were commanded to circumcise their sons (Leviticus 12:3), yet Paul told them they were no longer required to do this (Galatians 5:2). He proceeded to tell them that if they used the command to circumcise as an “entrance sign” into the community of faith, Christ would be of no value to them: “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” (Galatians 5:4 ESV)
We can argue back and forth about whether the fourth commandment is binding on Christians, but underlying the entire argument is the Adventist assertion that the Sabbath is an “entrance sign” for Christians and a mark of God’s “remnant church”. It is this very use of the law that Paul harshly opposed in his letter to the Galatians. If Adventists intend to make the Sabbath a dividing line between themselves and “apostate” Christians, they are in the very same category as the Galatians who used circumcision as a test of fellowship.
The law was never intended as a tool to measure the validity of another person’s faith, but as a mirror to show the sinner his depravity and his absolute need for a Savior. “...the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” (Galatians 3:24-25 KJV)
Secondly, Paul never broke the commandments...That is clear from the Bible.
“Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” (Romans 7:13-15 ESV)
“So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.” (Romans 7:21-23 ESV)
Folks tend to forget that the Sabbath is part of ten commandments and the real question is: can one be saved by keeping any of the commandments?
Secondly, Paul never broke the commandments or taught anyone else to break them, including the Sabbath. That is clear from the Bible.
Brother Bill,
I must respectfully disagree with your statement about the Apostle Paul’s lack of sin. In his first letter to Timothy, he clearly confesses his sin to his friend and apprentice Timothy:
1 Timothy 1:15 ( NIV) 15Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 16But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life. 17Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Brother Dan,
Good to hear from you again, and thank you for your post. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. It is clear from the Bible that Paul observed the ten commandments. I am not saying that Paul was saved by observing them or that he was without sin. Its clear that Paul believed at one time that an observance of the commandments was salvation but that changed when he realized that an outward observance did not bring salvation. At that point, Paul says, the commandments became death to him. But, did Paul then teach to disregard the commandments? By no means! (Romans 7)
So, we both agree that Paul was a sinner which is the inability to keep all the requirements of the law. However, if you want me to believe that Paul no longer kept (observed) the law, you will need to respond to some points from a prior post in April:
Bill:
“I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets” (Acts 24:14)
“I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers” (Acts 28:17).
Again in Acts 21:24, James and all the Jewish elders said of Paul, “that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law”.
In the interest of space, here is a partial post to the responses I received on these points:
Brian:
In regards to Acts:
1 Corinthians 9:20 HCSB To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win Jews; to those under the law, like one under the law--though I myself am not under the law--to win those under the law.
But did Paul break the law? I have been reading Romans over and over lately and I clearly get the message, from concentrating carefully on what Paul is saying, that Paul is referring to the condemnation of the law that he was made free of through faith in Jesus. I could not see where he taught that the law was no longer valid. For example, Romans 7:12, “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good”? Any thoughts on why he would say this if the commandments were no longer valid?
Thanks for your response Brian!
Greg: Bill, do you observe Passover? Jesus and Paul observed it, and by your reasoning, so should you.
Maybe. So your indirectly saying that Paul and Jesus observed the Sabbath?
I never received any further responses. I go back to my original statement, it is clear to me that Paul observed the commandments and that the commandments included the Sabbath (Saturday). I’m not saying that Paul did this to “earn” salvation, but as a result or fruit of salvation.
Romans 2:12-16, “For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.”
This text, by the way, is a good text to show that there are some who are accepted in God’s sight that may never have had the law or the gospel preached to them, but were doers of the law and observed the gospel in their hearts. I notice that you said you hadn’t forgotten this subject in one of my posts, but that you had not had time to respond yet…
Does “doing” the law bring justification? Of course not, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” (Romans 3:28). But do we then void the law through faith? “On the contrary, we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31)
Thanks again Dan. I always appreciate your kind attitude and your gentile responses!
The Jews were commanded to circumcise their sons (Leviticus 12:3), yet Paul told them they were no longer required to do this (Galatians 5:2). He proceeded to tell them that if they used the command to circumcise as an “entrance sign” into the community of faith, Christ would be of no value to them: “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” (Galatians 5:4 ESV)
Galatians 5:16-18, “I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.”
What does it mean to walk in the Spirit? Ezekiel 36:27-28, “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God.”
Paul is saying that the observance of any commandment cannot justify. That we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ. He is not saying that the law is no longer valid.
I would propose that we keep Paul’s writings in context. A friend pointed out that context isn’t the just the verse before and the verse after, but the whole Bible.
Romans 2:26, “Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?”
If Paul took measures to teach that an outward circumcision was no longer required and furthermore, distinguished gentile from those of the “circumcision”, then where did Paul take such measures to teach that the ten commandments were no longer valid or changed?
Greg - 03 June 2008 08:46 AM
We can argue back and forth about whether the fourth commandment is binding on Christians, but underlying the entire argument is the Adventist assertion that the Sabbath is an “entrance sign” for Christians and a mark of God’s “remnant church”. It is this very use of the law that Paul harshly opposed in his letter to the Galatians. If Adventists intend to make the Sabbath a dividing line between themselves and “apostate” Christians, they are in the very same category as the Galatians who used circumcision as a test of fellowship.
We don’t use the Sabbath as a test of fellowship, we fellowship on the Sabbath. If you want to fellowship with SDA’s, you’ll have to do it on the day that we are gathered together. As for the signs of the remnant church, how do you explain the following texts?
Revelation 12:17, “And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
Revelation 14:12, “Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” John then goes on to describe the second coming.
Revelation 22:14, “Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.” This is my prayer for all my Christian brothers… that they may have the right to the tree of life and may enter through the gates into that city…
Doesn’t the apostle John, the writer of Revelation say in 2 John 1:4, “I rejoiced greatly that I have found some of your children walking in truth, as we received commandment from the Father.” and 1 John 5:3 “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.” Notice that the commandments referred to by John were received from the “Father”.
Greg - 03 June 2008 08:46 AM
The law was never intended as a tool to measure the validity of another person’s faith, but as a mirror to show the sinner his depravity and his absolute need for a Savior. “...the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” (Galatians 3:24-25 KJV)
I agree with your first sentence. Where I would disagree with you Greg, is that Paul ever taught the ten commandments were no longer valid. Hebrews 10:26-27, “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.” What is sin? The transgression of the law. (Romans 4:15)
What is clear to me is that Paul taught we are no longer under the condemnation of the law, because of faith in the sacrifice and grace of Jesus. He doesn’t teach the law is no longer valid.
What is clear to me is that Paul taught we are no longer under the condemnation of the law, because of faith in the sacrifice and grace of Jesus. He doesn’t teach the law is no longer valid.
I did not say that Paul taught the law was no longer valid, I merely observed that he treated some of God’s commands as if they were no longer in force after the cross. I’ve already mentioned two examples—Passover and circumcision—and there are others.
Bill, will you acknowledge that Paul treated circumcision and the observance of feasts (like Passover) as if they were not required for the Christian?
What is clear to me is that Paul taught we are no longer under the condemnation of the law, because of faith in the sacrifice and grace of Jesus. He doesn’t teach the law is no longer valid.
I did not say that Paul taught the law was no longer valid, I merely observed that he treated some of God’s commands as if they were no longer in force after the cross. I’ve already mentioned two examples—Passover and circumcision—and there are others.
Bill, will you acknowledge that Paul treated circumcision and the observance of feasts (like Passover) as if they were not required for the Christian?
Greg
Greg, if you have a Biblical case against the Sabbath, lets hear it…
What is clear to me is that Paul taught we are no longer under the condemnation of the law, because of faith in the sacrifice and grace of Jesus. He doesn’t teach the law is no longer valid.
I did not say that Paul taught the law was no longer valid, I merely observed that he treated some of God’s commands as if they were no longer in force after the cross. I’ve already mentioned two examples—Passover and circumcision—and there are others.
Bill, will you acknowledge that Paul treated circumcision and the observance of feasts (like Passover) as if they were not required for the Christian?
Greg
Greg, if you have a Biblical case against the Sabbath, lets hear it…
Bill, you had not yet answered Greg’s question. Why should he bother to answer your request if you didn’t bother to answer his question?
