brakelite
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2011
- Messages
- 873
Not what I was syaing. Read post again.
The true church
- Thread starter truth speaker
- Start date
Not what I was syaing. Read post again.
brakelite
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2011
- Messages
- 873
David 777
Hi David. You have asked me a few questions of late which I have not had the time to answer, but will do so today. They were questions regarding the Sabbath, Justification and sanctification, and I think if I remember correctly one on the pre-advent judgment, otherwise referred to as the cleansing of the sanctuary, a doctrine which is essentially the SDA church's only totally unique doctrine. The first one I will deal with is the Sabbath question, and how I relate it to law-keeping. Some of the following may also go some way to answering other questions you may have.
Sabbath Rest?
The common argument used against the observance of Sabbath; that is that ” Jesus is now my Sabbath rest” because this or that one has ceased from his own works is self contradictory. The insinuation is that those who do observe the Sabbath as a day of rest according to the commandment, have not ceased from their own works.
My question is this, though it seems obvious to me: how can anyone observe the day as a Sabbath, without ceasing from his/her own works?
As a corollary to this, can we observe any commandment without ceasing from our own works? Does not death to self and the infilling of the Holy Spirit create in us the image of Christ? Is this not called sanctification? And because we are transformed into the image of Christ, would it also not be in conformity to the law that Christ wrote on the tables of stone, and which He now writes on the tables of our hearts? Christ can’t accomplish this in us without our total surrender ; without ceasing from our own works. Sanctification is simply that. The changing of the life through the grace and power of God to make it conformable to God’s standards of righteousness. And Ezekiel tells us that by being willing to observe the Sabbath, the day, we are acknowledging that it is God Who is doing the sanctifying, and not we ourselves. (Ezek. 20:12) So by keeping the Sabbath, it is actually a sign we have indeed ceased from our own works, and trusting in Christ’s working in us His righteousness.
2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Further to this, no Christian I know of whatever denomination, would suggest that because Jesus fulfilled the law, it is now legitimate for Christians to commit murder, because they are no longer under the law. That would surely be quite preposterous. Yet we constantly witness claims by many that because we are not under the law, we are no longer obliged to honor it!!! This is so incredibly inconsistent. The reason I am not under the law is not because the law has been done away with, but because the blood of Jesus has released me from it’s condemnation. That however does not release me from it’s power to convict me again of sin should I choose to disobey it.
This also applies to the 4th commandment. Just because Jesus fulfilled the law by keeping the Sabbath, (that is He kept the law, obeyed it and thus magnified the law making it honorable) that does not release me from my obligation to keep the Sabbath, magnifying it and making it honorable. (See Isaiah 58:13,14.) If obligation makes anyone feel uncomfortable, sorry, but I would use that same word for every one of the ten commandments. We are obliged to love our 'fellow man' and thus not commit adultery, not covet, not steal, not get angry and kill, and respect and honor our parents. We are also obliged to love God by confessing Him as the One and Only true God, Maker of heaven and earth, and all things therein. Because He is our Creator, He has sole rights to our worship, our fidelity and service. That is why we shun idols. It is also why we would not dare to use His name disrespectfully. It is also why we choose to honor that day which recognises Him as our Creator, and brings to our remembrance why He deserves our worship, and why the whole law and our keeping it is a recognition of His authority in our lives.
The other argument of course is that the day has been changed. The question is: by whom? The Sunday theory is supported by just 8 Biblical references, and 6 of them refer to the same event, the resurrection, one reference is to a secular exercise of laying aside money for collection to help in a famine, and the other to the only meeting in the entire scriptures that actually takes place on the first day, the one we have previously discussed: a meeting that took place at night. Where is the specific instruction regarding the annulment of the observanmce of the Sabbath? Where is the resultant habitual practice of the early church to that instruction? More particularly, why would Jesus institute a day as a memorial to the ressurection when He had already done so in the Lord's supper as seen in Luke 22:17-20? And why would He institute a day as a memorial of His death when He had already established baptism to cover that? (Romans 6:3-5.) Oh, and what of the meeting that took place in Acts 20:15-38? This meeting was in Ephesus, one to whcih Paul had summoned the elders of the church. If just one meeting is sufficient to many minds that a change in the day is justified in annuling a commandment of God and changing the day from the Sabbath to Sunday, what of this meeting? What day was this? It doesn't say, but it is surely of some significance, yet does it form the basis for a change in God's commandment? Oh, did I mention that there are at least 84 (eighty four) references in the Book of Acts to meetings on the Sabbath? By Christians and Gentiles? !!! By Genmtile converts and the unconverted!!! Yet just one obscure meeting at night is used as justification for a change in God's commandment!!!!
Choosing which day we observe, or even whether we choose to observe any day at all or not to, is a question of authority. Under whose authority am I willing to place myself? If it is Sunday which I choose to observe as a religious exercise then I am placing myself under the authority of that power whcih instituted it. The Sabbath was instituted at creation, along with marriage, by the Creator, Jesus Himself. He declared while on earth a confirmation of this by claiming He was Lord of that day. That therefore He was the Authority which established it, made it holy, and sanctified it. He made it for man, (a generic term meaning mankind, not just the Jews, which is eminently logical seeing He made it before there ever was a Jew) to be a blessing. I would warn everyone who would dare call the Sabbath a curse or a burden.
The pagan nations around Israel had their fertility rites, their initiations, their icons, their statues and idols. But Israel had a day. This day set them apart. But rather than share the Sabbath with others, Israel repeatedly ignored, neglected, or polluted it by introducing pagan practices into their religion. By the time of Christ they had moved to the other extreme and burdened the Sabbath with so many added laws and regulations the day had become a curse rather than a blessing. Jesus came to reveal how the Sabbath was intended to be kept and to free it from the encumbrances of legalism. To heal on the Sabbath was scandalous to the rabbis. They accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath, and because Jesus had such huge support and influence, it was partly through fear that the whole nation would begin ‘desecrating’ the Sabbath and of the subsequent judgments of God that the leaders of the nation sought to kill Him, “But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” John 11:49,50, and that finally led to His crucifixion.
Jesus had numerous opportunities to speak of how the Sabbath was going to be changed or done away with. But rather than do this, all His debates and arguments with the rabbis were focused on how the Sabbath was to be kept. He defied the human traditions and yes, Jesus did break the Sabbath, He broke it free from the rigid guidelines that made it a burden, and a rigid formality. However, the clear guideline that the scriptures show us is the cessation for selfish purposes all secular labour. That is one rigid concrete rule embedded within the commandment itself that will always define the true Sabbath keeper. What the Sabbath observer does with his free time is more subjective. The Holy Spirit may lead and guide according to God's will. Today is the Sabbath. I am unable to attend church, my family are away, so I am spending time fellowshiping with you and others speaking of Godly themes and thinking upon the things of the Spirit and practice of the church. To my mind quite an appropriate thing to do on Sabbath.
To my mind also the only arguments against the observance of Sabbath are ones of subjective interpretation, an example of which is the aforementioned “Jesus is my Sabbath rest” argument. There is simply no scripture anywhere in the Bible suggesting that by accepting the rest that Christ offers us through the blood of His cross, and the forgiveness of sins, replaces the Sabbath commandment. By placing such an interpretation on scripture, by reading into scripture such an understanding where no clear instruction exists, we are adding to the word of God and we are placing our own authority above God’s.
PS, Please let no-one claim after reading the above that I am relying on my Sabbath keeping as a means of self-justification. Any and all commandment keeping of whatever nature is a result of being in a relationship with Christ. I will always need the blood of Christ and His intercession in the heavenly sanctuary as the basis for my entrance into glory.
Hi David. You have asked me a few questions of late which I have not had the time to answer, but will do so today. They were questions regarding the Sabbath, Justification and sanctification, and I think if I remember correctly one on the pre-advent judgment, otherwise referred to as the cleansing of the sanctuary, a doctrine which is essentially the SDA church's only totally unique doctrine. The first one I will deal with is the Sabbath question, and how I relate it to law-keeping. Some of the following may also go some way to answering other questions you may have.
Sabbath Rest?
The common argument used against the observance of Sabbath; that is that ” Jesus is now my Sabbath rest” because this or that one has ceased from his own works is self contradictory. The insinuation is that those who do observe the Sabbath as a day of rest according to the commandment, have not ceased from their own works.
My question is this, though it seems obvious to me: how can anyone observe the day as a Sabbath, without ceasing from his/her own works?
As a corollary to this, can we observe any commandment without ceasing from our own works? Does not death to self and the infilling of the Holy Spirit create in us the image of Christ? Is this not called sanctification? And because we are transformed into the image of Christ, would it also not be in conformity to the law that Christ wrote on the tables of stone, and which He now writes on the tables of our hearts? Christ can’t accomplish this in us without our total surrender ; without ceasing from our own works. Sanctification is simply that. The changing of the life through the grace and power of God to make it conformable to God’s standards of righteousness. And Ezekiel tells us that by being willing to observe the Sabbath, the day, we are acknowledging that it is God Who is doing the sanctifying, and not we ourselves. (Ezek. 20:12) So by keeping the Sabbath, it is actually a sign we have indeed ceased from our own works, and trusting in Christ’s working in us His righteousness.
2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Further to this, no Christian I know of whatever denomination, would suggest that because Jesus fulfilled the law, it is now legitimate for Christians to commit murder, because they are no longer under the law. That would surely be quite preposterous. Yet we constantly witness claims by many that because we are not under the law, we are no longer obliged to honor it!!! This is so incredibly inconsistent. The reason I am not under the law is not because the law has been done away with, but because the blood of Jesus has released me from it’s condemnation. That however does not release me from it’s power to convict me again of sin should I choose to disobey it.
This also applies to the 4th commandment. Just because Jesus fulfilled the law by keeping the Sabbath, (that is He kept the law, obeyed it and thus magnified the law making it honorable) that does not release me from my obligation to keep the Sabbath, magnifying it and making it honorable. (See Isaiah 58:13,14.) If obligation makes anyone feel uncomfortable, sorry, but I would use that same word for every one of the ten commandments. We are obliged to love our 'fellow man' and thus not commit adultery, not covet, not steal, not get angry and kill, and respect and honor our parents. We are also obliged to love God by confessing Him as the One and Only true God, Maker of heaven and earth, and all things therein. Because He is our Creator, He has sole rights to our worship, our fidelity and service. That is why we shun idols. It is also why we would not dare to use His name disrespectfully. It is also why we choose to honor that day which recognises Him as our Creator, and brings to our remembrance why He deserves our worship, and why the whole law and our keeping it is a recognition of His authority in our lives.
The other argument of course is that the day has been changed. The question is: by whom? The Sunday theory is supported by just 8 Biblical references, and 6 of them refer to the same event, the resurrection, one reference is to a secular exercise of laying aside money for collection to help in a famine, and the other to the only meeting in the entire scriptures that actually takes place on the first day, the one we have previously discussed: a meeting that took place at night. Where is the specific instruction regarding the annulment of the observanmce of the Sabbath? Where is the resultant habitual practice of the early church to that instruction? More particularly, why would Jesus institute a day as a memorial to the ressurection when He had already done so in the Lord's supper as seen in Luke 22:17-20? And why would He institute a day as a memorial of His death when He had already established baptism to cover that? (Romans 6:3-5.) Oh, and what of the meeting that took place in Acts 20:15-38? This meeting was in Ephesus, one to whcih Paul had summoned the elders of the church. If just one meeting is sufficient to many minds that a change in the day is justified in annuling a commandment of God and changing the day from the Sabbath to Sunday, what of this meeting? What day was this? It doesn't say, but it is surely of some significance, yet does it form the basis for a change in God's commandment? Oh, did I mention that there are at least 84 (eighty four) references in the Book of Acts to meetings on the Sabbath? By Christians and Gentiles? !!! By Genmtile converts and the unconverted!!! Yet just one obscure meeting at night is used as justification for a change in God's commandment!!!!
Choosing which day we observe, or even whether we choose to observe any day at all or not to, is a question of authority. Under whose authority am I willing to place myself? If it is Sunday which I choose to observe as a religious exercise then I am placing myself under the authority of that power whcih instituted it. The Sabbath was instituted at creation, along with marriage, by the Creator, Jesus Himself. He declared while on earth a confirmation of this by claiming He was Lord of that day. That therefore He was the Authority which established it, made it holy, and sanctified it. He made it for man, (a generic term meaning mankind, not just the Jews, which is eminently logical seeing He made it before there ever was a Jew) to be a blessing. I would warn everyone who would dare call the Sabbath a curse or a burden.
The pagan nations around Israel had their fertility rites, their initiations, their icons, their statues and idols. But Israel had a day. This day set them apart. But rather than share the Sabbath with others, Israel repeatedly ignored, neglected, or polluted it by introducing pagan practices into their religion. By the time of Christ they had moved to the other extreme and burdened the Sabbath with so many added laws and regulations the day had become a curse rather than a blessing. Jesus came to reveal how the Sabbath was intended to be kept and to free it from the encumbrances of legalism. To heal on the Sabbath was scandalous to the rabbis. They accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath, and because Jesus had such huge support and influence, it was partly through fear that the whole nation would begin ‘desecrating’ the Sabbath and of the subsequent judgments of God that the leaders of the nation sought to kill Him, “But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” John 11:49,50, and that finally led to His crucifixion.
Jesus had numerous opportunities to speak of how the Sabbath was going to be changed or done away with. But rather than do this, all His debates and arguments with the rabbis were focused on how the Sabbath was to be kept. He defied the human traditions and yes, Jesus did break the Sabbath, He broke it free from the rigid guidelines that made it a burden, and a rigid formality. However, the clear guideline that the scriptures show us is the cessation for selfish purposes all secular labour. That is one rigid concrete rule embedded within the commandment itself that will always define the true Sabbath keeper. What the Sabbath observer does with his free time is more subjective. The Holy Spirit may lead and guide according to God's will. Today is the Sabbath. I am unable to attend church, my family are away, so I am spending time fellowshiping with you and others speaking of Godly themes and thinking upon the things of the Spirit and practice of the church. To my mind quite an appropriate thing to do on Sabbath.
To my mind also the only arguments against the observance of Sabbath are ones of subjective interpretation, an example of which is the aforementioned “Jesus is my Sabbath rest” argument. There is simply no scripture anywhere in the Bible suggesting that by accepting the rest that Christ offers us through the blood of His cross, and the forgiveness of sins, replaces the Sabbath commandment. By placing such an interpretation on scripture, by reading into scripture such an understanding where no clear instruction exists, we are adding to the word of God and we are placing our own authority above God’s.
PS, Please let no-one claim after reading the above that I am relying on my Sabbath keeping as a means of self-justification. Any and all commandment keeping of whatever nature is a result of being in a relationship with Christ. I will always need the blood of Christ and His intercession in the heavenly sanctuary as the basis for my entrance into glory.
brakelite
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2011
- Messages
- 873
The Law and the Gospel
Sanctification and Justification: they are seperate and distinct concepts but equally essential to our salvation. How do they relate to the gospel and is the Law of God set aside by either?
Inherent in the Ten Commandments is the gospel. The first commandment has been edited by most but if we read the entire passage of scripture, we can readily see that God is not commanding us to do the impossible. The Ten Commandments begin:
Exodus 20:2 " I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.You shall have no other gods before Me."
In this small portion of the scripture is found the key to understanding our relationship to God's laws, and how to find the power to obey them. Herein is the gospel.
You may be thinking, "Hey, that first part isn't a part of the law, because it doesn't tell us something we must do or not do! Instead, it tells us of something God has done!!!"
Yes, exactly! And that's the point. The entire Ten Commandments start with something God has done, and not with something we must do.
"I am the Lord thy God who has...." God did not give us His law and then say, " Okay, if you manage to obey, then heaven is yours", knowing that we would fail. (In fact, it was at this point that Israel failed miserably. It was this very scene that the letter to the Hebrews tells us that the old covenant was founded on a faulty promise. Now of course none of God's promises are faulty, thus the faulty promise was solely on Israel's part, and we find it immediately after God's promise or covenant to them. In Exodus 19:5,6 we read:
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Israel then replied with their own promise:
8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
Nowhere in scripture does God at any time ask us to promise Him anything. Everything comes to us as a gift to be received by faith. Including the power to obey all His commandments. This was the faulty promise of the old covenant. Israel attempted in their own strength to obey God. Impossible!!! So a new covenant based on better promises was established. How so? By placing the law (not a different law but the very same law that was inscribed on stone) in our hearts.
Godknows us well, that we are but dust, morally corrupt, and totally incapable in and of ourselves to render any righteousness that meets God's requirements. That is why He starts His law with what He has done for us, and not what we are to do for Him.
God has delivered us from bondage. The deliverance God refers to is a direct reference to the Passover. To the blood of the Lamb. A deliverance only He has accomplished, all by Himself, and without any assistance from us. The Passover was symbolic of Calvary. The shed blood of the lamb pointed forward to the crucifixion. ( John 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:7)
So when God gave His law, He pointed first back to the Passover, which itself points to the future, the cross. And there you have the gospel embedded within the law, and far from being distinct from one another, the law and gospel compliment one another perfectly.
Isaiah 44:22 I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.
Notice that the part we play in redemption comes after God plays His part. "Come to Me, for I have redeemed thee". And notice also that Israel's salvation and redemption and final entrance into Canaan was a process, not a one off act. First, the blood of the lamb brought deliverance from bondage, then came Sinai and the giving of the law, with the power to obey established already on the already accomplished work of God whilst they were yet in bondage.
Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Our obedience doesn't activate God's grace, as many would charge me with. It is God's saving grace that activates our law-keeping. The power for all true obedience is present in our realization of what God has already done for us in Christ by virtue of His 'unearnable' grace.
We are simply called upon to come alive to and walk in the victory and the freedom from bondage that Christ has won for us.
Without Christ as the center of the law, without Christ not only as the law-giver but also the empowering agent behind the law, the Ten Commandments degenerate into a mere idealistic code of ethics, a kind of religious "wish-list". The same goes for all those who look at the law as an impossibly unattainable goal; they leave Christ out of the equation, even claiming that it is theologically acceptable to believe that Christ's death annuls the law.
God loves us out of sin, and God loves us into obedience.
Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Justified by Christ's death, and sanctified by His life. Delivered from bondage by His blood, empowered to remain free by His Spirit.
And rather than impossible commands, with the love of Jesus motivating and empowering us, the precepts of the Ten Commandments become promises.
Exodus 20:2 " I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.You shall have no other gods before Me."
Eph.4:17 ¶ This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,....22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Thus righteousness is both imputed, (justification) and imparted (sanctification.) Both are essential, both are Christ's, and both can be ours if we have but faith.
Rom.5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)Romans 8:1 ¶ There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit...4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
PS Sorry David, a little more than 15 lines.
Sanctification and Justification: they are seperate and distinct concepts but equally essential to our salvation. How do they relate to the gospel and is the Law of God set aside by either?
Inherent in the Ten Commandments is the gospel. The first commandment has been edited by most but if we read the entire passage of scripture, we can readily see that God is not commanding us to do the impossible. The Ten Commandments begin:
Exodus 20:2 " I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.You shall have no other gods before Me."
In this small portion of the scripture is found the key to understanding our relationship to God's laws, and how to find the power to obey them. Herein is the gospel.
You may be thinking, "Hey, that first part isn't a part of the law, because it doesn't tell us something we must do or not do! Instead, it tells us of something God has done!!!"
Yes, exactly! And that's the point. The entire Ten Commandments start with something God has done, and not with something we must do.
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Israel then replied with their own promise:
8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
Nowhere in scripture does God at any time ask us to promise Him anything. Everything comes to us as a gift to be received by faith. Including the power to obey all His commandments. This was the faulty promise of the old covenant. Israel attempted in their own strength to obey God. Impossible!!! So a new covenant based on better promises was established. How so? By placing the law (not a different law but the very same law that was inscribed on stone) in our hearts.
Godknows us well, that we are but dust, morally corrupt, and totally incapable in and of ourselves to render any righteousness that meets God's requirements. That is why He starts His law with what He has done for us, and not what we are to do for Him.
God has delivered us from bondage. The deliverance God refers to is a direct reference to the Passover. To the blood of the Lamb. A deliverance only He has accomplished, all by Himself, and without any assistance from us. The Passover was symbolic of Calvary. The shed blood of the lamb pointed forward to the crucifixion. ( John 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:7)
So when God gave His law, He pointed first back to the Passover, which itself points to the future, the cross. And there you have the gospel embedded within the law, and far from being distinct from one another, the law and gospel compliment one another perfectly.
Isaiah 44:22 I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.
Notice that the part we play in redemption comes after God plays His part. "Come to Me, for I have redeemed thee". And notice also that Israel's salvation and redemption and final entrance into Canaan was a process, not a one off act. First, the blood of the lamb brought deliverance from bondage, then came Sinai and the giving of the law, with the power to obey established already on the already accomplished work of God whilst they were yet in bondage.
Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Our obedience doesn't activate God's grace, as many would charge me with. It is God's saving grace that activates our law-keeping. The power for all true obedience is present in our realization of what God has already done for us in Christ by virtue of His 'unearnable' grace.
We are simply called upon to come alive to and walk in the victory and the freedom from bondage that Christ has won for us.
Without Christ as the center of the law, without Christ not only as the law-giver but also the empowering agent behind the law, the Ten Commandments degenerate into a mere idealistic code of ethics, a kind of religious "wish-list". The same goes for all those who look at the law as an impossibly unattainable goal; they leave Christ out of the equation, even claiming that it is theologically acceptable to believe that Christ's death annuls the law.
God loves us out of sin, and God loves us into obedience.
Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Justified by Christ's death, and sanctified by His life. Delivered from bondage by His blood, empowered to remain free by His Spirit.
And rather than impossible commands, with the love of Jesus motivating and empowering us, the precepts of the Ten Commandments become promises.
Exodus 20:2 " I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.You shall have no other gods before Me."
Eph.4:17 ¶ This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,....22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Thus righteousness is both imputed, (justification) and imparted (sanctification.) Both are essential, both are Christ's, and both can be ours if we have but faith.
Rom.5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)Romans 8:1 ¶ There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit...4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
PS Sorry David, a little more than 15 lines.
Last edited:
Hello brakelite, reading your posts at the moment.
Will reply when I have time.
Picked up this line;
Oh, did I mention that there are at least 84 (eighty four) references in the Book of Acts to meetings on the Sabbath? By Christians and Gentiles? !!! By Genmtile converts and the unconverted!!! Yet just one obscure meeting at night is used as justification for a change in God's commandment!!!!
It was full of red highlights and exclamation marks.
Did a rough search and found nine occurrences of the sabbath!!!!!!!
I am using the NASB what translation are you using???????
Will reply when I have time.
Picked up this line;
Oh, did I mention that there are at least 84 (eighty four) references in the Book of Acts to meetings on the Sabbath? By Christians and Gentiles? !!! By Genmtile converts and the unconverted!!! Yet just one obscure meeting at night is used as justification for a change in God's commandment!!!!
It was full of red highlights and exclamation marks.
Did a rough search and found nine occurrences of the sabbath!!!!!!!
I am using the NASB what translation are you using???????
Last edited:
Your first line was incorrect brakelite post #184.
Sanctification and Justification: they are seperate and distinct concepts
but equally essential to our salvation. How do they relate to the gospel
and is the Law of God set aside by either?
Our salvation is based purely on the blood of Christ.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ and justification.
The Gospel is;
Romans 10:9
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God
raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; (saved means salvation)
Now what is "justification"?
Justification - is a singular divine legal act in which God declares
a sinner to be righteous because of the shed blood of His son Jesus Christ.
In other words it is the power of the Gospel to save.
Justification is arguably the single most important doctrine in the Bible. It is
without question a doctrine that is rejected and opposed by all cults and indeed
all religions outside of Christianity. It is the line of demarcation between
truth and heresy.
Probably more trouble is caused in the Christian life and in churches
by an inadequate or mistaken view of this doctrine than any other.
We are declared (past tense) righteous. We now have perfect righteousness before
God (not personally, but legally).
But by doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us
wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and
redemption (1 Cor.1:30).
God renders the verdict regarding the one who believes in Christ.
John 5:24
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has
eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
Fact, justified before God the Father in Christ, there is no other way.
Romans 5:9
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the
wrath of God through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God
through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by
His life. 11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Romans 5:18
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so
through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Romans 8:29
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image
of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom
He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these
whom He justified, He also glorified.
Justification is not a process, it takes place only once, then it is complete. There is no
such thing as being more and more justified. There are no degrees of acceptance with
God, you are either justified or not justified. Justification removes the sin and clothes the
believer with Christ’s perfect righteousness, thus granting him eternal life in God’s own
family.
It is the divine legal decree of God!!!
The Epistle to the Hebrews enforces "justification", declaring that Jesus' death is superior
to the Old Testament sacrifices in that it takes away sin once for all. (Heb. 10).
A person is SAVED on this foundation and only this foundation!
This is not theology, this is what the New Testament states.
It is a non negotiable, non debatable, declaration of God.
In justification there is not one iota of human merit, good works,
or law keeping involved, except Christ’s perfect righteousness.
When justification is understood, the Gospel rightly takes
it preeminence, it is the number one and the true doctrine.
1 Corinthians 15:3
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
First and primary importance!
Thus brakelite justification in the blood of the perfect
sacrifice Jesus Christ is essential to our salvation.
Sanctification is not part of justification.
Sanctification on the other hand is the holiness granted by God
over time into the life of the believer, through the Holy Spirit.
Simply sanctification is the bestowal of the image of Christ
upon the reconciled image (us) via the work of the Holy Spirit.
A person's response to the leading of the Holy Spirit results in love
for both God and man in time. This is sanctification, all God's
doing from start to finish.
Sanctification and Justification: they are seperate and distinct concepts
but equally essential to our salvation. How do they relate to the gospel
and is the Law of God set aside by either?
Our salvation is based purely on the blood of Christ.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ and justification.
The Gospel is;
Romans 10:9
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God
raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; (saved means salvation)
Now what is "justification"?
Justification - is a singular divine legal act in which God declares
a sinner to be righteous because of the shed blood of His son Jesus Christ.
In other words it is the power of the Gospel to save.
Justification is arguably the single most important doctrine in the Bible. It is
without question a doctrine that is rejected and opposed by all cults and indeed
all religions outside of Christianity. It is the line of demarcation between
truth and heresy.
Probably more trouble is caused in the Christian life and in churches
by an inadequate or mistaken view of this doctrine than any other.
We are declared (past tense) righteous. We now have perfect righteousness before
God (not personally, but legally).
But by doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us
wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and
redemption (1 Cor.1:30).
God renders the verdict regarding the one who believes in Christ.
John 5:24
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has
eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
Fact, justified before God the Father in Christ, there is no other way.
Romans 5:9
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the
wrath of God through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God
through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by
His life. 11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Romans 5:18
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so
through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Romans 8:29
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image
of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom
He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these
whom He justified, He also glorified.
Justification is not a process, it takes place only once, then it is complete. There is no
such thing as being more and more justified. There are no degrees of acceptance with
God, you are either justified or not justified. Justification removes the sin and clothes the
believer with Christ’s perfect righteousness, thus granting him eternal life in God’s own
family.
It is the divine legal decree of God!!!
The Epistle to the Hebrews enforces "justification", declaring that Jesus' death is superior
to the Old Testament sacrifices in that it takes away sin once for all. (Heb. 10).
A person is SAVED on this foundation and only this foundation!
This is not theology, this is what the New Testament states.
It is a non negotiable, non debatable, declaration of God.
In justification there is not one iota of human merit, good works,
or law keeping involved, except Christ’s perfect righteousness.
When justification is understood, the Gospel rightly takes
it preeminence, it is the number one and the true doctrine.
1 Corinthians 15:3
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
First and primary importance!
Thus brakelite justification in the blood of the perfect
sacrifice Jesus Christ is essential to our salvation.
Sanctification is not part of justification.
Sanctification on the other hand is the holiness granted by God
over time into the life of the believer, through the Holy Spirit.
Simply sanctification is the bestowal of the image of Christ
upon the reconciled image (us) via the work of the Holy Spirit.
A person's response to the leading of the Holy Spirit results in love
for both God and man in time. This is sanctification, all God's
doing from start to finish.
Last edited:
brakelite
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2011
- Messages
- 873
I am sure you will find the same information no matter what version you are using. One example you may have missed is found in Acts 18:4 where we are informed that Paul reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath. How long did this go on for? In verse 11 we are told. 18 months. So every Sabbath for 18 months is 72.
Aside from this one specific example we are told that it was Paul's custom to enter the synagogue every Sabbath...how many Sabbaths you think this would amount to over how many years of ministry?
So, we have 1 example in the scriptures of a meeting on the first day, and that being a night meeting being Saturday night, the Jews measuring their days from sunset to sunset. Yet we are led to believe that the Sabbath commandment, the very one that God placed deliberately in the heart of the ten, the one commandment that comes by no other source but from God's own lips and by His authority,, has been done away without as much as a whimper?On account of just one meeting on a Saturday night? If the early church suddenly began ignoring the Sabbath as is supposed, where was the debate? Where was the controversy with the Jewish legalists who were all looking for the slightest excuse to malign the new movement? Why was it not an issue like circumcision? I would strongly suggest to you that the reason it never came up for any debate was that the early church kept the Sabbath faithfully , both Jew and gentile, and it was not an issue.
brakelite
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2011
- Messages
- 873
"
David, did you copy that from an SDA handbook? Because apart from the importance we respectively place on sanctification, we agree on every thing else. I know you would desperately like to find something more than that to pin your charges of heresy and cult upon us but you are going to be disappointed.
So, what of the importance of sanctification. The question is "is it as important as justification? I put it to you that it is, for many reasons, but I think one should suffice.
Justification is brought to us through the death of Christ upon the cross. His shed blood for the remission of sins. On this I do believe we would agree.
How does sanctification bestowed upon the believer. Is it not through the ministry of the Holy Spirit sent to us by Christ from the heavenly sanctuary? I do believe you would agree with this also. And both justification and sanctification are received by faith. Right? So far so good. So tell me, if justification is based upon Christ's death, then sanctification must be based upon His life. Right? So, which is the more important? Jesus death, or His resurrection? What would Christ's death accomplish for you without His resurrection? Of what use to you would it have been if when you were baptised, the Pastor left you under the water?
I said in an earlier post in response to jari, and you happened to comment on it, that if one is connected to the vine, righteousness is an inevitable result, I am not speaking of the imputed righteousness that is immediately credited to us when we accept Christ, I am speaking of that righteousness that comes to us a gift through faith that empowers us to holy living. The image of Christ that is infused into us on a daily basis so long as we remain abiding in the vine. It is the life of the vine, Jesus, that comes naturally to the branches, us. And we grow fruit. Natural, and inevitable. If it weren't important, why would Jesus say that if the branch does not bear fruit, it is cut off and cast into the fire? Is there an inconsistency there? No. Because there is one thing that the branch can have which stops the growth of any fruit. Unbelief. I have read many posts in various forums stating quite categorically that it is impossible for man to obey God's commandments. Or, as we have discussed here, that the commandments of God are not applicable to the Christian. I put this down to just one thing. Unbelief. A lack of faith in the power of God to change a life, a lack of faith in God's word, a lack of faith in God's purpose in overcoming sin and a lack of faith in what Jesus accomplished with His life, death, and resurrection. Let me put it bluntly.
If one does not have the faith to believe that God can keep a person from sinning, then he doesn't have the faith to gain him entrance into the kingdom of God.
Now, is it heresy or cultish to believe that one must cease from sin in order to enter heaven? Or shall we sin that grace may abound? After all, did not Jesus come for that very purpose? To save us from sin? Yes indeed, for Paul says in
Romans 8:3,4 For what the law could not do, in thaqt it was weak through the flesh, God sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh....why?.....that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Now David, think carefully and honestly here. You claim that sanctification is not as important as justification. Yet here Paul is telling us that the result of being sanctified, a righteous life in accordance with God's commandments,His law, is the reason God sent His Son to die! Thus surely David, if you are being honest, you must admit that while both concepts are different, they must be of equal importance, neither being complete without the other, and our salvation not being accomplished without both.
Last edited:
Hello brakelite.
In response to post # 184
You referred to Acts 18, and stated
"Paul reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath. How long did this go on for?
In verse 11 we are told. 18 months. So every Sabbath for 18 months is 72."
Is what you stated correct?
Here is the text, read it brakelite.
Acts 18
1 After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them, 3 and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers. 4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
5 But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. 6 But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” 7 Then he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God, whose house was next to the synagogue. 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized. 9 And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; 10 for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city.” 11 And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
Paul did not stay in the synagogue preaching to the Jews on the
sabbath, he left the Jews. Paul left the Jews and went to the Gentiles.
Jews met on the sabbath, it was their law, their sign, a unique day of rest.
Jews were legally bound to obey the sabbath brakelite.
Gentiles were not subject to the law of Moses!
Gentiles did not meet in the synagogue on the sabbath.
Even to this day Gentiles do not attend the synagogue
on the sabbath.
Paul after (verse 6) met with the Gentiles. What day would
Paul meet with the Gentiles? What ever day suited them, what ever
day they were free from work. It may have been early in the morning,
it may have been at night, the text is silent brakelite.
Your hypothesis is unsound since the Gentiles were not under
the law of Moses.
Me thinks your reply was sda theology speaking thru you.
In response to post # 184
You referred to Acts 18, and stated
"Paul reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath. How long did this go on for?
In verse 11 we are told. 18 months. So every Sabbath for 18 months is 72."
Is what you stated correct?
Here is the text, read it brakelite.
Acts 18
1 After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them, 3 and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers. 4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
5 But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. 6 But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” 7 Then he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God, whose house was next to the synagogue. 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized. 9 And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; 10 for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city.” 11 And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
Paul did not stay in the synagogue preaching to the Jews on the
sabbath, he left the Jews. Paul left the Jews and went to the Gentiles.
Jews met on the sabbath, it was their law, their sign, a unique day of rest.
Jews were legally bound to obey the sabbath brakelite.
Gentiles were not subject to the law of Moses!
Gentiles did not meet in the synagogue on the sabbath.
Even to this day Gentiles do not attend the synagogue
on the sabbath.
Paul after (verse 6) met with the Gentiles. What day would
Paul meet with the Gentiles? What ever day suited them, what ever
day they were free from work. It may have been early in the morning,
it may have been at night, the text is silent brakelite.
Your hypothesis is unsound since the Gentiles were not under
the law of Moses.
Me thinks your reply was sda theology speaking thru you.
Again brakelite I will reply to your scrambled heresy, post # 188
This is what you stated;
"I said in an earlier post in response to jari, and you happened to comment on it, that if
one is connected to the vine, righteousness is an inevitable result, I am not speaking of the
imputed righteousness that is immediately credited to us when we accept Christ,"
So what are you in fact saying brakelite, you seem
to have two forms of the righteousness of Christ?
Here is the Gospel again;
Romans 10
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God
raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; (saved means salvation)
You should have stopped at this point brakelite. This is
the very Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Now what follows is the slow deceptive distortion of the Gospel.
"The image of Christ that is infused into us on a daily basis so long as we remain abiding in
the vine. It is the life of the vine, Jesus, that comes naturally to the branches, us. And we
grow fruit. Natural, and inevitable. If it weren't important, why would Jesus say that if the
branch does not bear fruit, it is cut off and cast into the fire? Is there an inconsistency
there? No. Because there is one thing that the branch can have which stops the growth of
any fruit. Unbelief."
Is not unbelief simply not believing the Gospel brakelite.
The passage you quoted does not say "stops the growth"
it says "does not bear fruit". Not justified! Not righteous!
No fruit will be apparent, not stops bearing fruit.
This is the other Gospel talking.
"I have read many posts in various forums stating quite categorically that it is impossible
for man to obey God's commandments. Or, as we have discussed here, that the
commandments of God are not applicable to the Christian. I put this down to just one
thing. Unbelief."
You can label it unbelief, but unbelief means that a
person is not abiding in Christ. In other words the
person does not believe in Jesus Christ, the Gospel.
The scripture in the New Testament does not state
that unbelief has anything to do with the commandments.
Unbelief is only ever used in the context of the Gospel.
Continuous heresy;
"A lack of faith in the power of God to change a life, a lack of faith in God's word, a lack
of faith in God's purpose in overcoming sin and a lack of faith in what Jesus accomplished
with His life, death, and resurrection. Let me put it bluntly.
If one does not have the faith to believe that God can keep a person from sinning, then he
doesn't have the faith to gain him entrance into the kingdom of God."
Again brakelite, justification is on the basis of the Gospel.
This is of primary importance. You cannot be saved unless
you believe in Jesus Christ.
This line in particular is heresy;
"If one does not have the faith to believe that God can keep a person from sinning, then he
doesn't have the faith to gain him entrance into the kingdom of God."
Notice you are saying that it is the power of faith.
"doesn't have the faith to gain him entrance into the kingdom of God."
Either, you believe in Jesus or you do not, brakelite.
Either you have the great light or you do not.
Faith is a gift not a requirement for salvation.
Belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus
is the requirement for salvation.
It has nothing to do with as you put it;
"If one does not have the faith to believe that God can keep a person from sinning,"
This sda theology does not reside in the Bible.
I suggest you read the New Testament and concentrate
on the declaration of the Gospel.
This is heresy to equate that suitability for the kingdom
of heaven is based on " the faith to believe that God
can keep a person from sinning,"
This is heresy there is no doubt about it brakelite.
You do not understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
You most certainly have no concept of the most
fundamental doctrine "justification".
More heresy follows of course, the absolute distortion
of the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The heresy of works (self justification), works are necessary
to attain salvation. Read it yourself;
"Now, is it heresy or cultish to believe that one must cease
from sin in order to enter heaven? Or shall we sin that grace
may abound?"
This is the heresy "that one must cease from sin in order
to enter heaven".
This is not the Gospel brakelite, entry to the kingdom
of Heaven is based on the sacrifice of Christ. Not on
your ability to stop sinning.
Surely brakelite you are not really believing that your
obedience level has anything to do with justification.
You you do not believe and stand
on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You stand on the
"full" gospel of the sda church. Works, works, works.
"one must cease from sin", works, works.
There is no "full Gospel" only the misunderstanding
of the true Gospel and justification.
Now you know why sda theology is heresy.
Sda theology distorts the Gospel itself, we have salvation
in Christ alone. Justifcation in Christ alone.
This is the Gospel, the truth and the only way, all
else is heresy.
This is what you stated;
"I said in an earlier post in response to jari, and you happened to comment on it, that if
one is connected to the vine, righteousness is an inevitable result, I am not speaking of the
imputed righteousness that is immediately credited to us when we accept Christ,"
So what are you in fact saying brakelite, you seem
to have two forms of the righteousness of Christ?
Here is the Gospel again;
Romans 10
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God
raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; (saved means salvation)
You should have stopped at this point brakelite. This is
the very Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Now what follows is the slow deceptive distortion of the Gospel.
"The image of Christ that is infused into us on a daily basis so long as we remain abiding in
the vine. It is the life of the vine, Jesus, that comes naturally to the branches, us. And we
grow fruit. Natural, and inevitable. If it weren't important, why would Jesus say that if the
branch does not bear fruit, it is cut off and cast into the fire? Is there an inconsistency
there? No. Because there is one thing that the branch can have which stops the growth of
any fruit. Unbelief."
Is not unbelief simply not believing the Gospel brakelite.
The passage you quoted does not say "stops the growth"
it says "does not bear fruit". Not justified! Not righteous!
No fruit will be apparent, not stops bearing fruit.
This is the other Gospel talking.
"I have read many posts in various forums stating quite categorically that it is impossible
for man to obey God's commandments. Or, as we have discussed here, that the
commandments of God are not applicable to the Christian. I put this down to just one
thing. Unbelief."
You can label it unbelief, but unbelief means that a
person is not abiding in Christ. In other words the
person does not believe in Jesus Christ, the Gospel.
The scripture in the New Testament does not state
that unbelief has anything to do with the commandments.
Unbelief is only ever used in the context of the Gospel.
Continuous heresy;
"A lack of faith in the power of God to change a life, a lack of faith in God's word, a lack
of faith in God's purpose in overcoming sin and a lack of faith in what Jesus accomplished
with His life, death, and resurrection. Let me put it bluntly.
If one does not have the faith to believe that God can keep a person from sinning, then he
doesn't have the faith to gain him entrance into the kingdom of God."
Again brakelite, justification is on the basis of the Gospel.
This is of primary importance. You cannot be saved unless
you believe in Jesus Christ.
This line in particular is heresy;
"If one does not have the faith to believe that God can keep a person from sinning, then he
doesn't have the faith to gain him entrance into the kingdom of God."
Notice you are saying that it is the power of faith.
"doesn't have the faith to gain him entrance into the kingdom of God."
Either, you believe in Jesus or you do not, brakelite.
Either you have the great light or you do not.
Faith is a gift not a requirement for salvation.
Belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus
is the requirement for salvation.
It has nothing to do with as you put it;
"If one does not have the faith to believe that God can keep a person from sinning,"
This sda theology does not reside in the Bible.
I suggest you read the New Testament and concentrate
on the declaration of the Gospel.
This is heresy to equate that suitability for the kingdom
of heaven is based on " the faith to believe that God
can keep a person from sinning,"
This is heresy there is no doubt about it brakelite.
You do not understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
You most certainly have no concept of the most
fundamental doctrine "justification".
More heresy follows of course, the absolute distortion
of the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The heresy of works (self justification), works are necessary
to attain salvation. Read it yourself;
"Now, is it heresy or cultish to believe that one must cease
from sin in order to enter heaven? Or shall we sin that grace
may abound?"
This is the heresy "that one must cease from sin in order
to enter heaven".
This is not the Gospel brakelite, entry to the kingdom
of Heaven is based on the sacrifice of Christ. Not on
your ability to stop sinning.
Surely brakelite you are not really believing that your
obedience level has anything to do with justification.
You you do not believe and stand
on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You stand on the
"full" gospel of the sda church. Works, works, works.
"one must cease from sin", works, works.
There is no "full Gospel" only the misunderstanding
of the true Gospel and justification.
Now you know why sda theology is heresy.
Sda theology distorts the Gospel itself, we have salvation
in Christ alone. Justifcation in Christ alone.
This is the Gospel, the truth and the only way, all
else is heresy.
brakelite
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2011
- Messages
- 873
David. Let me get this straight. From reading your responses I have come to the following conclusions.I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.
On this last point it would appear to me that the gospel you believe in doesn't have the power to change lives to be harmony with Christ's righteousness (that is, His laws) therefore the best we can hope for is a life of continuing bondage to habits, addictions, and vice: the only difference now is that we are "saved".
PS Before I was able to write this I was rerouted to the forum rules where it was strongly suggested there also that I do not understand the gospel. The warning was given that if I refused to change my point of view to the obviously commonly held one I have just elucidated above as understood from your own pen, then my time at this forum will be cut short. I was reminded that this is not a debating forum, but one of love and simple discussion. Strange, not once have I accused anyone here of not being a Christian, in fact quite the opposite, here you are setting yourself as judge and jury and calling someone a heretic. All on account of his desire to see God's laws elevated above the level of the trash can where most here have consigned them to. You claim I am attempting to get to heaven through works. Quote me. I have repeatedly spoken of the power ofgospel to bring people up to a level where they are partakers of the divine nature. This must be,at least in my estimation, in harmony with God's commandments. How can it be otherwise? If this is a false gospel, then this must be last post. So be it.
- One doesn't need to bother about the sin in his life to accept Jesus.
- So long as he believes his sin is forgiven, he may carry on life as normal.
- Jesus didn't come to save us from our sins, but rather He came to save us in our sin.
- Repentance (that is forsaking sin) has no bearing therefore in our salvation. Repentance as a concept in the traditional sense of allowing Christ to turn one's life completely around that one hates sin to the point of giving it a miss altogether, is an extreme stand the more modern Christian avoids.
- He accomplishes this by claiming that the laws of God are no longer applicable to him since Jesus 'fulfilled' them.
- The New Covenant has nothing to do with living a life of holiness and righteousness.
- Anyone claiming otherwise is therefore
- a heretic.
- attempting to gain heaven through his own works.
- Doesn't understand the power of the gospel.
On this last point it would appear to me that the gospel you believe in doesn't have the power to change lives to be harmony with Christ's righteousness (that is, His laws) therefore the best we can hope for is a life of continuing bondage to habits, addictions, and vice: the only difference now is that we are "saved".
PS Before I was able to write this I was rerouted to the forum rules where it was strongly suggested there also that I do not understand the gospel. The warning was given that if I refused to change my point of view to the obviously commonly held one I have just elucidated above as understood from your own pen, then my time at this forum will be cut short. I was reminded that this is not a debating forum, but one of love and simple discussion. Strange, not once have I accused anyone here of not being a Christian, in fact quite the opposite, here you are setting yourself as judge and jury and calling someone a heretic. All on account of his desire to see God's laws elevated above the level of the trash can where most here have consigned them to. You claim I am attempting to get to heaven through works. Quote me. I have repeatedly spoken of the power ofgospel to bring people up to a level where they are partakers of the divine nature. This must be,at least in my estimation, in harmony with God's commandments. How can it be otherwise? If this is a false gospel, then this must be last post. So be it.
Hello brakelite.
I was upset to recieve your last post.
The commonly held view on this site is simply
the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you read the New
Testament without the aid of any other texts
you will arrive at the same place as we are.
You have been conditioned by the sda organization
into a theology that is not Biblical brakelite.
If you have a problem with me contact the moderators.
I was only trying to straighten out what the Gospel really
is. I did not mean to upset you brakelite.
A heretic is someone who deviates from the simple Gospel.
The simple Gospel is orthodoxy.
If you do not mind may I ask you some questions?
1) Do you read the Bible frequently?
2) Before you joined the sda did you have a Christian
background?
3) How much of the sda literature do you read and how
frequently?
4) Please look up "justification" and research it yourself
then get back to me and explain how you understand it.
Finally, brakelite you are not to blame, it is the sda
organization that has mislead you. I will pray for you
brakelite. We are all the same boat brakelite, all fully
reliant on Christ and His completed work on cross.
Last edited:
brakelite
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2011
- Messages
- 873
David, I have clearly stated previously that we are justified solely by the blood of Christ. Below are two examples where you will find such a statement.
http://www.talkjesus.com/bible-study-hall/39957-righteousness.html
http://www.talkjesus.com/bible-study-hall/39458-covenants-testaments-old-new.html
Your misunderstanding and confused understanding of adventist teaching is leading you to some presumptuous remarks and a patronising attitude. As to your oft stated opposition to the laws God and its relevance to the Christian life, in this you reveal an old error that the reformers and more modern scholars battled against long before me.
Calvin—Eternal Rule of Life.—We must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law; for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform.—Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists (1845), Vol. 1, p. 277.
Wesley—Remains in Force.—But the moral law contained in the ten commandments, and enforced by the prophets, he did not take away. It was not the design of his coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken, which "stands fast as the faithful witness in heaven." The moral stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law. . . . Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind, and in all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God, and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each other.—Sermons on Several Occasions, vol. 1, pp. 221, 222.
Wesley—Remains in Force.—But the moral law contained in the ten commandments, and enforced by the prophets, he did not take away. It was not the design of his coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken, which "stands fast as the faithful witness in heaven." The moral stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law. . . . Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind, and in all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God, and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each other.—Sermons on Several Occasions, vol. 1, pp. 221, 222.
126
Morgan—Obedience by Faith.—It is only when grace enables men to keep the law, that they are free from it; just as a moral man who lives according to the laws of the country is free from arrest. God has not set aside law, but he has found a way by which man can fulfill law, and so be free from it—The Ten Commandments (1901), p. 23.Spurgeon—The Law of God Perpetual.—Very great mistakes have been made about the law. Not long ago there were those about us who affirmed that the law is utterly abrogated and abolished, and they openly taught that believers were not bound to make the moral law the rule of their lives. What would have been sin in other men they counted to be no sin in themselves. From such Antinomianism as that may God deliver us. . . .
The Law of God Must Be Perpetual. There is no abrogation of it, nor amendment of it. It is not to be toned down or adjusted to our fallen condition; but every one of the Lord's righteous judgments, abideth for ever. . . .
Does any man say to me, "You see, then, instead of the ten commandments we have received the two commandments, and these are much easier." I answer that this reading of the law is not in the least easier. Such a remark implies a want of thought and experience. Those two precepts comprehend the ten at their fullest extent, and cannot be regarded as the erasure of a jot or tittle of them. . . .
Christ has not, therefore, abrogated or at all moderated the law to meet our helplessness; he has left it in all its sublime perfection, as it always must be left, and he has pointed out how deep are its foundations, how elevated are its heights, how measureless are its length and breadth. . . .
To show that he never meant to abrogate the law, our Lord Jesus has embodied all its commands in his own life. In his own person there was a nature which was perfectly conformed to the law of God; and as was his nature such was his life. He could say, "Which of you convinceth me of sin?" and again "I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.". . .
By his death he has vindicated the honour of God's moral government, and made it just for him to be merciful. When the lawgiver himself submits to the law, when the sovereign himself bears the extreme penalty of that law, then is the justice of God
127
set upon such a glorious high throne that all admiring worlds must wonder at it. If therefore it is clearly proven that Jesus was obedient to the law, even to the extent of death, he certainly did not come to abolish or abrogate it; and if he did not remove it, who can do so? If he declares that he came to establish it, who shall overthrow it?. . .The law is absolutely complete, and you can neither add to it nor take from it. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." If, then, no part of it can be taken down, it must stand, and stand for ever.—The Perpetuity of the Law of God, published in Spurgeon's Expository Encyclopedia, by Baker.
As to our church's official view on justification, here it is:
Fundamental belief #8
That the law of ten commandments points out sin, the penalty of which is death. The law cannot save the transgressor from his sin, nor impart power to keep him from sinning. In infinite love and mercy, God provides a way whereby this may be done. He furnishes a substitute, even Christ the Righteous One, to die in man's stead, making "him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. 5:21). That one is justified, not by obedience to the law, but by the grace that is in Christ Jesus. By accepting Christ, man is reconciled to God, justified by His blood for the sins of the past, and saved from the power of sin by His indwelling life. Thus the gospel becomes "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Rom. 1:16). This experience is wrought by the divine agency of the Holy Spirit, who convinces of sin and leads to the Sin Bearer, inducting the believer into the new covenant relationship, where the law of God is written on his heart, and through the enabling power of the indwelling Christ, his life is brought into conformity to the divine precepts. The honor and merit of this wonderful transformation belong wholly to Christ (1 John 2:1, 2; 3:4; Rom. 3:20; 5:8-10; 7:7; Eph. 2:8-10; 3:17; Gal. 2:20; Heb. 8:8-12).
If you wish to convince me that the above fundamental belief is unbiblcal and heretical, I am open to discussion. As to the relevance of the Laws of God to the Christian, I stand in a long line of most eminent Christians who thought as I do. Would you charge Spurgeon with heresy David 777?
Last edited:
Hello brakelite.
Remember I mentioned referencing, I found the
site that you extracted your last post "sdanet at issue".
Notice that they did not reference the quote from
Spurgeon, this is not an unintentional mistake.
Nor did you reference your extract from the sda
site.
Spurgeon was not a legalist brakelite as I will
demonstrate below. I find it very interesting
that the sda organization would do this.
I would seriously consider the integrity of this
organisation if I was you brakelite. For an official site
this is simply not acceptable. It is plagarism, an offence.
Spurgeon states exactly what we state re: the law.
A Sermon
(No. 1325)
Delivered on Lord's-Day Morning, November 19th, 1876, by
C. H. SPURGEON,
First, then, CHRIST IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAW. The law is that which, as
sinners, we have above all things cause to dread; for the sting of death is sin, and the
strength of sin is the law....Now, what has our Lord to do with the law? He has everything
to do with it, for he is its end for the noblest object, namely, for righteousness. He is the
"end of the law." What does this mean? I think it signifies three things: first, that Christ is
the purpose and object of the law; secondly, that he is the fulfillment of it; and thirdly,
that he is the termination of it.
Your sda site is very interesting brakelite.
Source: "sdanet".
...Haloviak here presents an historical analysis of different views of the work and role of
Ellen White that existed both during and in the years immediately following her death.
Noting that "a score or more" of those who "were regarded as the most dynamic preachers
and leaders within the church" near the turn of the century, had, within the next decade,
not only left the church but were "working actively against" it, he says, "The question to
resolve is why did this happen?" He goes on to suggest that "an important reason relates
to their mistaken concepts of the role of the gift of prophecy within the church and the
disunity that erupted within the church over those concepts of the role of Ellen White".
He sees these "varying understandings of the role for the writings of Ellen White" as
fitting into "two broad categories" which he labels "exegetical" and "non-exegetical"
functions. Demonstrating how "mistaken concepts" in these areas played a vital role in the
changed attitudes of some described above, he concludes that understanding how this
dynamic works and developing correct concepts of the use and relevance of her writings is
vital for us today.
These dynamic preachers not only left the sda church
they actively opposed it brakelite. This is not common
in churches, the active opposition is revealing. I am also
aware that people do leave the sda all the time, some
write books opposing the sda organization. The fact
that this is mentioned on their website is most troubling
to say the least.
The sda will always be in crisis brakelite, it has written
material that is not acceptable. You do not need to
look far to find people willing to denounce the
organization. I have also noticed this behavior with
the JW organization.
Remember I mentioned referencing, I found the
site that you extracted your last post "sdanet at issue".
Notice that they did not reference the quote from
Spurgeon, this is not an unintentional mistake.
Nor did you reference your extract from the sda
site.
Spurgeon was not a legalist brakelite as I will
demonstrate below. I find it very interesting
that the sda organization would do this.
I would seriously consider the integrity of this
organisation if I was you brakelite. For an official site
this is simply not acceptable. It is plagarism, an offence.
Spurgeon states exactly what we state re: the law.
A Sermon
(No. 1325)
Delivered on Lord's-Day Morning, November 19th, 1876, by
C. H. SPURGEON,
First, then, CHRIST IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAW. The law is that which, as
sinners, we have above all things cause to dread; for the sting of death is sin, and the
strength of sin is the law....Now, what has our Lord to do with the law? He has everything
to do with it, for he is its end for the noblest object, namely, for righteousness. He is the
"end of the law." What does this mean? I think it signifies three things: first, that Christ is
the purpose and object of the law; secondly, that he is the fulfillment of it; and thirdly,
that he is the termination of it.
Your sda site is very interesting brakelite.
Source: "sdanet".
...Haloviak here presents an historical analysis of different views of the work and role of
Ellen White that existed both during and in the years immediately following her death.
Noting that "a score or more" of those who "were regarded as the most dynamic preachers
and leaders within the church" near the turn of the century, had, within the next decade,
not only left the church but were "working actively against" it, he says, "The question to
resolve is why did this happen?" He goes on to suggest that "an important reason relates
to their mistaken concepts of the role of the gift of prophecy within the church and the
disunity that erupted within the church over those concepts of the role of Ellen White".
He sees these "varying understandings of the role for the writings of Ellen White" as
fitting into "two broad categories" which he labels "exegetical" and "non-exegetical"
functions. Demonstrating how "mistaken concepts" in these areas played a vital role in the
changed attitudes of some described above, he concludes that understanding how this
dynamic works and developing correct concepts of the use and relevance of her writings is
vital for us today.
These dynamic preachers not only left the sda church
they actively opposed it brakelite. This is not common
in churches, the active opposition is revealing. I am also
aware that people do leave the sda all the time, some
write books opposing the sda organization. The fact
that this is mentioned on their website is most troubling
to say the least.
The sda will always be in crisis brakelite, it has written
material that is not acceptable. You do not need to
look far to find people willing to denounce the
organization. I have also noticed this behavior with
the JW organization.
brakelite
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2011
- Messages
- 873
The quotes from Spurgeon are among a group of several quotes from Biblical scholars of different faiths all agreeing that the Ten Commandments are quote: belief in the perpetuity of God's moral law of ten commandments, and in its being in force in all dispensations, as attested by these typical excerpts:
the quote itself is indeed referenced, as my copy of it was also referenced. The Perpetuity of the Law of God, published in Spurgeon's Expository Encyclopedia, by Baker.
Nonsense. Stop setting up straw man arguments. Certainly if they were intimating they had written those words, that it was their own work, then it was plagarism. They were not doing that. They were quoting someones work, and referenced it. Best you look up a dictionary to gain a better understanding of plagarism before you start throwing around your accusations.
I read the full transcript of the above sermon David; I found it inspiring, encouraging, and full of truth. There was nothing in it that says anything against what I believe and have written within these forums. What surprises me is your quote from it as support for your contention that the Ten Commandments are now null and void, that they have been abrogated and done away with. I strongly suggest you also read the full sermon and the context and meaning of the "termination" Spurgeon speaks of. Allow me to quote from the sermon:
Moreover, not only has the penalty been paid, but Christ has put great and special honour upon the law in so doing. I venture to say that if the whole human race had kept the law of God and not one of them had violated it, the law would not stand in so splendid a position of honour as it does today when the man Christ Jesus, who is also the Son of God, has paid obeisance to it. God himself, incarnate, has in his life, and yet more in his death, revealed the supremacy of law; he has shown that not even love nor sovereignty can set aside justice. Who shall say a word against the law to which the Lawgiver himself submits? Who shall now say that it is too severe when he who made it submits himself to its penalties. Because he was found in fashion as a man, and was our representative, the Lord demanded from his own Son perfect obedience to the law, and the Son voluntarily bowed himself to it without a single word, taking no exception to his task. "Yea, thy law is my delight," saith he, and he proved it to be so by paying homage to it even to the full. Oh wondrous law under which even Emmanuel serves! Oh matchless law whose yoke even the Son of God does not disdain to bear, but being resolved to save his chosen was made under the law, lived under it and died under it, "obedient to death, even the death of the cross."
....What! has it all come to this, then, that I am to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for righteousness, and to be made just through faith? Yes, that is it: that is the whole of it. What! trust Christ alone and then live as I like! You cannot live in sin after you have trusted Jesus, for the act of faith brings with it a change of nature and a renewal of your soul. The Spirit of God who leads you to believe will also change your heart. You spoke of "living as you like," you will like to live very differently from what you do now. The things you loved before your conversion you will hate when you believe, and the things you hated you will love. Now, you are trying to be good, and you make great failures, because your heart is alienated from God; but when once you have received salvation through the blood of Christ, your heart will love God, and then you will keep his commandments, and they will be no longer grievous to you. A change of heart is what you want, and you will never get it except through the covenant of grace. There is not a word about conversion in the old covenant, we must look to the new covenant for that, and here it is—"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and an new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." This is one of the greatest covenant promises, and the Holy Ghost preforms it in the chosen. Oh that the Lord would sweetly persuade you to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that promise and all the other covenant engagements shall be fulfilled to your soul. The Lord bless you! Spirit of God, send thy blessing on these poor words of mine for Jesus' sake. Amen.
David, your continueing misrepresentation of Adventist doctrine and teaching regarding salvation is becoming fanatical. Read again the Fental Belief #8 which I quoted in my last post. I ask you again David what is there in that belief that differs from what Spurgeon preached in the above mentioned sermon? What is there in that belief#8 that differs from scripture?
David, every organisation on the planet has those who are willing to denounce them. That is not evidence that that particular organisation is wrong...or right. Christianty as a concept has its detractors. One particular dynamic preacher that left the church and opposed it fell back into the world so far he became pantheistic in his beliefs. This kind of thing is to be expected David...:"and the dragon was wrath with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ". (Revelation 12:17)....we are quite honest about it and don't hide the truth. Koresh was an ex adventist who went haywire. doesn't mean there is anything wrong with what he left, but certainly there was something wrong with him.
I suggest you also read the full text of that which you quoted above from Bert Haloviak. We are honest with ourselves about our own shortcomings. There are among us Adventists many who do not fully understand Whites ministry. There always has been. Haloviak presents some good perspective on not just who she was and her relationship with the church, but also her relationship with the Bible. If it is your desire to set yourself up as an oppressor and opposer to the SDA church, I strongly advocate you get an accurate idea of what we believe and who we are before you go to print with your half-baked assumptions and half truths.
David. As Spurgeon so eloquently displayed, there is a fine balance between the law and the gospel. One does not supercede the other, nor is one cancelled out by the other. Adventists do not rely on the law (at least not officially...there are always going to be individual exceptions) for their salvation. As in all ages and with all peoples, the gospel is salavtion by grace through faith. I cannot reiterate this strongly enough. We are justified by grace through faith. Nothing else. My keeping of the commandments adds nothing to what Christ has accomplished for me on the cross. My observance of the Sabbath adds not one iota to my entry permit to paradise, the blood of my Saviour.
King David, your namesake, I think will one day be resurrected along with all believers when Christ returns. I do not think there would be anyone on these forums who would doubt that King David was saved. But he, like everyone else throughout all time, was saved by grace. Along with Abraham, Noah, Jacob, Isaac, Paul, Peter and John. All heaven will be filled with people saved by grace through faith. Not one person will be there because they kept God's commandments. Yet David777, King David, though he was saved by grace and knew it, was able to write Psalm 119. He loved the law. He exalted over it, relished it, delighted in it, and joyfully obeyed it. Why? Why would he do such a thing when he was saved by grace? Love! Love for God and love for His commandments. He , like Jesus, "delighted to do His will. " And that my friend is precisely how Adventists relate to the law. Not as a means of salvation, but as an expression of the love they have for their Saviour.
Hello brakelite.
Rather dismayed at your reply.
You said;
"I suggest you also read the full text of that which you quoted above from Bert Haloviak."
In addition you also said;
"One particular dynamic preacher that left the church"
I did read it brakelite and it does say;
"Noting that "a score or more" of those who "were regarded as the most dynamic preachers
and leaders within the church" near the turn of the century"
So it does not say "one" sda preacher left the church.
It says that 20 or more dynamic preachers and leaders
left the church.
Your telling me to do what you failed to do yourself.
Rather dismayed at your reply.
You said;
"I suggest you also read the full text of that which you quoted above from Bert Haloviak."
In addition you also said;
"One particular dynamic preacher that left the church"
I did read it brakelite and it does say;
"Noting that "a score or more" of those who "were regarded as the most dynamic preachers
and leaders within the church" near the turn of the century"
So it does not say "one" sda preacher left the church.
It says that 20 or more dynamic preachers and leaders
left the church.
Your telling me to do what you failed to do yourself.
Last edited:
brakelite
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2011
- Messages
- 873
What? That's it? Is that all you can come back with???? The sum total of your response to the above post is a twisted perspective on my reference to one preacher that I picked out as one example from the twenty?
You asked me for a personal perspective on justification by faith. I gave it. I also gave my church's official view on the same subject. I don't see any Biblical or personal objection from you yet David. Could it be that your greatest fear is being realised...that the SDA church is in fact more orthodox than you? Yet you still persist in .....what David? What is it you are attempting to do exactly?????
Last edited:
brakelite
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2011
- Messages
- 873
The first question on this thread asked:
Just a question of thought,so many different religions,churches,and denominations what are your opinions on the true church
and where do you find yourself
Read More: The true church
Follow us: @talkjesus on Twitter | talkjesus on Facebook
I reponded with a Biblical description of God's end-time church. I quoted this text: Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Read More: The true church
Follow us: @talkjesus on Twitter | talkjesus on Facebook
Since then, there has been repeated attacks on those of us who believe keeping the commandments is a good and right thing to do. Nowehere have we suggested that doing so is a means or way to be justified. I find this opposition very interesting to say the least, particularly as it comes on a Christian forum. The text itself that I quoted is a specific message from Jesus Himself, describing His people in the last days. He also mentions in that same text that Satan hates these people and makes war against them. Those of you who claim to be Christ's yet are opposed to commandment keeping...who's side are you on?
Just a question of thought,so many different religions,churches,and denominations what are your opinions on the true church
and where do you find yourself
Read More: The true church
Follow us: @talkjesus on Twitter | talkjesus on Facebook
I reponded with a Biblical description of God's end-time church. I quoted this text: Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Read More: The true church
Follow us: @talkjesus on Twitter | talkjesus on Facebook
Since then, there has been repeated attacks on those of us who believe keeping the commandments is a good and right thing to do. Nowehere have we suggested that doing so is a means or way to be justified. I find this opposition very interesting to say the least, particularly as it comes on a Christian forum. The text itself that I quoted is a specific message from Jesus Himself, describing His people in the last days. He also mentions in that same text that Satan hates these people and makes war against them. Those of you who claim to be Christ's yet are opposed to commandment keeping...who's side are you on?
