I also submit that SDAs cannot give in to the real truth concerning the 10 is because of the Israelite Sabbath command. A command that tryas they may they fail at keeping every Saturday. No created being has ever Kept the Sabbath of the Jews. We have all failed an d to think, it isn’t even a command since Jesus and the Cross.
Apparently you forget that Jesus said about the two love commandments that upon these ‘hang all the law and the prophets’. Do you really need commandment number 11 that says ‘Thou shalt love’ before you say that love is at the heart of the law?
Remember that Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 commanded these same two laws while the law was still in place.
Nate, I suppose you’re kidding in regard to my abilities. Nothing compares with writing in the first language.
I subscribe to the three uses of the law and I agree with everything you said. Especially my views were shaped by the book you mentioned, Marrow of Modern Divinity which was controversial in the original setting precisely because it attempted to navigate the narrow way between the legalism and antinomianism. It falls into the “no man’s land” where it became the target for both sides involved into the battle.
Perhaps one of the greatest lessons, albeit simple, which I learned from the book is that the opposite of legalism is not antinomianism, but the grace of God. That brought me to a reconsideration of my position in regard with how I deal with questions about the law. Practically it rearranged my priorities: legalism (or antinomianism) is fought primarily not with arguments dealing with the law, dealing with proper and improper uses of the law, distortions, etc; legalism is fought with it’s opposite: grace. Adventist’s solution to perceived antinomianism was to go to the other side into legalism but because the two are not as opposite as they may appear, they share in common enough in order to be antithetical to God’s grace. In this setting the great need is to get back to the basics: the gospel. In my personal fight with the flesh, the world and Satan, I must repeatedly and deliberately get back to the basic gospel message in order to have success against the temptations of legalism and antinomianism toward which my sinful flesh is inclined.
These things being said, I wish everyone a Happy Easter and pray that they will find (again) God’s grace as amazing as I found it in the story of our Lord’s Passion and Resurrection..
That was a great point. I should have been more intentional about going to the infinite grace of God in Christ in my post. You also made a great point, or hinted at it, that both legalists and antinomians view the law as a way which God intended for sinful humans to attain righteousness. The legalist, then, sets out to do just that, and the antinomian rejects the law entirely. Both fail to see that the law was only meant to point us (continually) to Christ, and His infinite and omnipotent grace.
I also submit that SDAs cannot give in to the real truth concerning the 10 is because of the Israelite Sabbath command. A command that tryas they may they fail at keeping every Saturday. No created being has ever Kept the Sabbath of the Jews. We have all failed an d to think, it isn’t even a command since Jesus and the Cross.
Apparently you forget that Jesus said about the two love commandments that upon these ‘hang all the law and the prophets’. Do you really need commandment number 11 that says ‘Thou shalt love’ before you say that love is at the heart of the law?
Remember that Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 commanded these same two laws while the law was still in place.
Guibox, you are still thinking in terms of law=10. Law =316. There is nothing about love in the 10. Jesus when referring to law would mean 316 laws of the covenant. What you are doing is trying to place the law of love as an abbreviation of the 10. You have no authority to do this. Your prophet had no authority do do it either. The law of love has to do with every moral aspect of our lives not just the 10. Jesus pointed this out in Matt 5. There is nothing even touching about being meek in the 10, but we are blessed if we are.
Guibox, you are still thinking in terms of law=10. Law =316. There is nothing about love in the 10.
Yes, I suppose honoring God and your mother and father have nothing to do with love. But stoning adulterers and people who gather sticks on the Sabbath...well, now THAT is love personified!
You have no authority to do this. Your prophet had no authority do do it either.
Lol..MY prophet? How about you just say ‘EGW’? Besides EGW is for EVERYBODY, onthebeam, not just us blessed chosen few!
ontheBeam - 07 April 2010 06:18 AM
The law of love has to do with every moral aspect of our lives not just [/b the 10..
Notice my highlight. The argument was whether the 10 was a reflection of love. You are the one arguing that it isn’t at all. You and I now agree with your last statement.
That was a great point. I should have been more intentional about going to the infinite grace of God in Christ in my post.
Since the grace of God in Christ was not the subject at issue, my introduction of God’s grace was indirectly related. You stuck with the subject.
Soli Deo Gloria - 05 April 2010 09:41 PM
You also made a great point, or hinted at it, that both legalists and antinomians view the law as a way which God intended for sinful humans to attain righteousness. The legalist, then, sets out to do just that, and the antinomian rejects the law entirely. Both fail to see that the law was only meant to point us (continually) to Christ, and His infinite and omnipotent grace.
Exactly, both categories have in common a confusion of law with legalism and differ in their acceptance or rejection of it. The legalist accepts the legalism thinking he’s just accepting the law, while the antinomain rejects the law thinking that he’s rejecting legalism. I’m afraid that the last procedure prolongs and puts an unnecessary burden in life-long battle with legalism because it’s harder to battle legalism coupled with the law, than legalism apart from law. I think that to the degree we learn (and I feel that I have much to learn on this issue) to distinguish law from legalism, we will be progress in out battle with both these temptaions.
Besides EGW is for EVERYBODY, onthebeam, not just us blessed chosen few!
Oh, really. I thought the SDAs told the opposite to Walter Martin…
Well, if God sent EGW to be for “EVERYBODY,” then why have most Christians never even heard of her or have a clue who she is? Have most Christians never heard of the Apostle Paul, whom God inspired to write for everybody? Sounds like something went wrong with God’s plan…
Guibox, you are still thinking in terms of law=10. Law =316. There is nothing about love in the 10.
Yes, I suppose honoring God and your mother and father have nothing to do with love. But stoning adulterers and people who gather sticks on the Sabbath...well, now THAT is love personified!
You have no authority to do this. Your prophet had no authority do do it either.
Lol..MY prophet? How about you just say ‘EGW’? Besides EGW is for EVERYBODY, onthebeam, not just us blessed chosen few!
The law of love has to do with every moral aspect of our lives not just [/b the 10..
Notice my highlight. The argument was whether the 10 was a reflection of love. You are the one arguing that it isn’t at all. You and I now agree with your last statement.
Seems my command of the English language has a little to be desired. “Just” should not be in the statement. Sorry to get your hopes up my friend. We may agree on a lot of issues, but not this one.
The fact is you didn’t give a plausible debate to my post. You are skirting the issue. You are in a little box along with the 10. Jesus referred to the complete law. We can’t have a real debate until you expand to the 316 laws that represent Jesus thoughts. The law of love didn’t come from the 10. It came from the book of laws.
Luke 10:27
And he answered, “ YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”
John 13:34
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
Which is the greater commandment, loving our neighbor as ourselves or loving one another as Jesus loves us?
Exactly, both categories have in common a confusion of law with legalism and differ in their acceptance or rejection of it. The legalist accepts the legalism thinking he’s just accepting the law, while the antinomain rejects the law thinking that he’s rejecting legalism. I’m afraid that the last procedure prolongs and puts an unnecessary burden in life-long battle with legalism because it’s harder to battle legalism coupled with the law, than legalism apart from law. I think that to the degree we learn (and I feel that I have much to learn on this issue) to distinguish law from legalism, we will be progress in out battle with both these temptaions.
I have much to learn in how to categorize correctly as well Gabriel, and your insights are exactly right. I am so prone to view my Christian walk as, “Does God accept me now that I’ve done my daily duties of praying and reading Scripture and trying to be nice to people?” This is legalistic to the core, and I am hard-wired for it. Then, as you said, the next temptation is to say, “Well, since I don’t feel any better after doing those things, I may as well just live how I want (read: how my sinful flesh wants).” Obviously this is antinomianism. What we need is to know the seriousness of our sin (exposed by the law!) and the Gospel, a Gospel powerful enough to free us from all of our efforts and non-efforts, all of our legalism and antinomianism.
I’ve noticed that both legalists and antinomians read the law literalistically (i.e. these commands can only tell me exactly what the words put on the page literally mean) and atomistically (i.e. these commands are not at all connected to other commands and other commands do not interact at all exegetically with these commands). In other words, both groups fail to see that the 10 are a summary publication of God’s moral will, not the sum and substance of His moral will. Is this a fair assessment? Obviously these are not cut and dried categories that both fall into at every single point.
Antinomians seem to think that the law of love is somehow immune from being used legalistically (I guess there is a fair amount of irony involved in being antinomian, since it starts with the same error as legalism, yet thinks it is avoiding legalism.). Enter Christian liberalism stage right! It can be used that way, and it is used that way. The legalist says, “Follow all these steps and earn God’s favor.” The liberal says, “Forget all that letter of the law stuff! Just be loving to people. Just love everybody.” Both are legalistic, and both are trying to do the impossible.
The fact is you didn’t give a plausible debate to my post. You are skirting the issue. You are in a little box along with the 10. Jesus referred to the complete law. We can’t have a real debate until you expand to the 316 laws that represent Jesus thoughts. The law of love didn’t come from the 10. It came from the book of laws.
Hi. I am new here. I would like to ask if you could please explain, with the Scripture reference, what the “law of love” actually is? And, by “the ten; I am presuming that you mean the ten commandments?
By the wording of some of the above posts; I was not able to figure out exactly which text you were calling “the law of love.”
Hi. I am new here. I would like to ask if you could please explain, with the Scripture reference, what the “law of love” actually is? And, by “the ten; I am presuming that you mean the ten commandments?
Mark 12:30
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
Mark 12:31
The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
James 2 calls the law of love the royal law.
Yes, The 10 Commandments
Some make the mistake of saying Jesus was condensing the 10 commandments into two commandments. Jesus recited the law of love from:
Leviticus 19:18” ‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. and Deuteronomy 6:5
Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commands come from the Book of the Law not the 10 Commandments. There is no command to love in the 10. One can follow the commands out of respect and not out of love.
When Jesus fulfilled the 316 laws given to the Israelites He did not leave us lawless. The law of love covers every aspect of moral behavior toward God and man. Paul spent much time explaining the law and how it relates to Christians. He tells us that now for Christians the law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. It convicts the unrepentant of sin and the need of Jesus. It was in force until Jesus.
Gal 3:19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.
By the wording of some of the above posts; I was not able to figure out exactly which text you were calling “the law of love.”
I hope this clears up what I was trying to express.
Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commands come from the Book of the Law not the 10 Commandments. There is no command to love in the 10. One can follow the commands out of respect and not out of love.
When Jesus fulfilled the 316 laws given to the Israelites He did not leave us lawless. The law of love covers every aspect of moral behavior toward God and man.
I hope this clears up what I was trying to express.
I apologize my friend; but your answer has created more questions than answers; however, I think I can understand the basics of what you are saying. I think you are concerned that possibly Adventists, and some others, are coming across in the wrong way about the law.
Being an Adventist; I would agree with you - some certainly do have it mixed up. But I have grown to believe over the years much differently about “the law,” which you apparently think has been “fulfilled” by our Lord Jesus. This leads me to my next question. What do you mean when you say “Jesus FULFILLED the law?” Can you describe in detail your use of the word “fulfill” here? When you tell me this answer; I will attempt to summarize what we have discussed so far, and give you a bit of my take on it. (if it’s OK with you guys?). I will look forward to your challenges to my beliefs, I have always believed that truth has nothing to fear from close scrutiny.
I guess I could say for now; I appreciate your zeal here on this forum to lift up Jesus; and it is my hope to contribute a bit to this end. Thanks for your reply.
I have much to learn in how to categorize correctly as well Gabriel, and your insights are exactly right. I am so prone to view my Christian walk as, “Does God accept me now that I’ve done my daily duties of praying and reading Scripture and trying to be nice to people?” This is legalistic to the core, and I am hard-wired for it. Nate
I have much to learn in how to categorize correctly as well Gabriel, and your insights are exactly right. I am so prone to view my Christian walk as, “Does God accept me now that I’ve done my daily duties of praying and reading Scripture and trying to be nice to people?” This is legalistic to the core, and I am hard-wired for it. Nate
Eccl 9:10, Luke 17:10
Welcome to 4TG Judah. I hope you find open discussion here with common decency and courtesy.
Can you explain how you read the two texts you cited above? As I see it, they are a bit irrelevant to what I was trying to convey in my post that you quoted. We are all hardwired sinners, corrupt in every part of our being. I was expressing where one of my own struggles lies, as the subject of this thread had turned to the pitfalls of both legalism and antinomianism.
