Here’s another controversial question which will open a “can of worms” among many readers. It took me months of research and studies on this topic. Finally after much prayer and discussions with friends I decided to write a paper which turned out to be about 8 pages long. In the article I approach some common questions associated with this topic, such as:
When was the Law of the Old Covenant given?
Who was the Law given to?
Is the Law eternal or does it have a beginning and ending point?
What is the purpose of the Law?
Can we split the Law into “moral” and “ceremonial” laws?
How does the Law affect the life of Christians?
Personally for me the most important question of these is whether or not we can split the law in “moral” and “ceremonial”. I believe this is a question we all need to find an answer to, because it can change how we view the Law, how we express our love and gratitude towards our Creator and even how we live our lives.
The article is published on BorninChrist.org and this is the first of the few I plan to write. I pray for all readers, that we may have good communication and understanding through words, but most importantly I pray that we have an open mind and we’re not afraid to take our bibles and search deep, even if some of the things we learn are contrary to what we’ve been told for years. May the Holy Spirit guide us all.
George
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Well, George, you have certainly put a lot of effort in this article of yours. And I must say that some of the points you make are right. For instance, the fact is that the Jews were referring to both moral and ceremonial law as the Law (heb. Torah). They purposely did that.
However, the whole conclusion of yours in regards to the Ten Commandments (together with some premises) is wrong. If the Law was given for the first time in history to the Israelites and if no one had a clue about any of the commandments in the Decalogue before Sinai, then my question is on what ground did God condemn Cain for the murder? On what ground did God condemn and kill almost everybody with the Flood? If there was no Law, then God was completely unjust by killing people of doing something which they didn't know they were not supposed to do! (The same I can say about Sodom and Gomorrah.) And on what ground did Joseph refuse to commit adultery with words, "How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" (Gen 39:9) How did he know that there was a commandment prohibiting adultery if there was no law at that time?
But your conclusion is even better. With the title "And here comes the question: Can we go and steal then or do other horrible things?" you then respond with, "I’ve been asked this before and I don’t want to offend anyone, but this is a silly question. We’re called to a greater purpose in life; our ultimate goal should be to bring souls to Christ. We ought to show the unbelieving world the love of God through our lives. We are supposed to reflect the image of Jesus in the way we speak, act and dress, and generally in every aspect of our being. How can we do terrible things and crucify Christ over and over again, if we are truly saved? Do we need the Law to remind us that we should love others the way Jesus loves us?"
Yes, George, we still do need the Law. Because what may seem good to me, doesn't necessarily mean it is good per se. In Romans 3:20 Paul gives us the true meaning of the Law - it gives us the knowledge of sin. Not having the Decalogue would mean that everybody is just left to their own understanding on right or wrong. Suppose one day you truly fall in love with another woman. And suppose that other woman gives you much more understanding, pleasure and love than your present wife. And also suppose that your Christian heart is telling you that you have to go for it because you don't love your wife anymore and because God is love then this love you have for another woman and even more so the lack of love for your present wife mean that God is the author of that!!??? Silly question, George? Not to me.
Too bad you did not quote a single verse from the New Testament that clearly emphasizes lasting and perpetual importance of the Ten Commandments for the Christians. For instance, why did Jesus say, "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void"? (Luke 16:17) Why did He also say in Matthew 24:20, "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath" while pointing out to the times just prior to His Second coming if the fourth commandment was not to be relevant anymore? Why did Paul say, "For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God"? (1 Cor 7:19) In the same way, why did James say, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, Do not commit adultery, also said, Do not murder. If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty"? (James 2:10-12) (If you can see, we are to be judged by that law. So how can one be judged by something which is no longer valid?) Also, why did John say, "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome"? (1 John 5:2-3)... I mean, I can go on and on.
You are right in one thing (and the Bible is very clear about it) - one cannot be saved by the Law. Period! However, you utterly miss the point elsewhere. If Jesus meant to completely abolish the Law, then why did He say to the adulteress, "Go and sin no more!"? If police forgave you speeding, would that mean that traffic laws are no longer applicable for you since you are not under law but under mercy? And why did then Paul say in Romans 3:31, "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."?
Silly question, George? Well, it's up to you.
God bless you!
Just one quick thing: since I was writing my previous comment in a hurry and did not have time to polish it, it seems to me now that maybe one can understand the tone of my voice to be argumentative. I have to clearly say that that was under no circumstances my intention. And therefore if you or anybody else has come to that kind of understanding, I have to say that I really apologize.
Best regards!
Ed, I appreciate the time you took to write your response. Discussions are welcome on this blog, this is the idea, but I’d like to say something respectfully and I hope you don’t take it the wrong way: Please keep in mind that you are a pastor in your church, but here you are reader just like everyone else, and while you can express your thought freely, please allow others to do the same without trying to “correct” them. Speak your mind, back it up with scripture, people will read the comments and make their own conclusion. Everyone who wants to express their opinion should do so in a polite manner, without assuming any authority or using statements such as “you utterly miss the point”. Let us be reminded that every person is trying to make a point and to them this is the most important and true point. Let us approach each other with respect and show love rather than criticism. Corinthians 13:2 says “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”
Since we are on the topic of LOVE, let’s see what fulfils all the requirements of God’s Law according to the bible: “…If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill all the requirements of God’s law. For the commandments say, “You must not commit adultery. You must not murder. You must not steal. You must not covet.” These—and other such commandments—are summed up in this one commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to others, so love fulfills all the requirements of God’s law.” Rom 13:8-10
There’s plenty of scriptural evidence showing there is no such a thing as “moral” and “ceremonial” law, this is a denominational teaching, not a biblical one. The Law is one and the Jews didn’t do this “purposely” to confuse us Christians. Today we wouldn’t have the Old Testament if it weren’t for the Jews. We base out studies on the entire bible, which was written mostly by and passed on to us by the Jewish people. If we believe the bible is the inspired word of God, we can not say people who wrote it, did few things purposely to create confusion or misrepresent the truth.
How did people know the difference between good and evil before the Law was given through Moses? They had an instant knowledge of it right after they disobeyed God and ate “from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” Gen 2:17. And if this is not clear enough, here’s the proof – in Gen 2:25 Adam and Eve were naked “and they felt no shame”, but immediately after they sinned by eating the forbidden fruit they gained knowledge of good and evil and they felt shame of their nakedness Gen 3:7 “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.”
I do think it’s silly for a born again Christian to ask if they can go ahead and do wicked things now that they’re not under the Law. If we died with Christ at baptism and now live a new life in Him, how can we even think of doing something wicked? If we follow the lead of the Holy Spirit, how can we possibly mistreat people? If we’re disciples of Christ how can we publicly shame His name? The law is in our hearts, it’s a promise that God made in Jeremiah 31:31 which is repeated few times in the New Testament.
I am familiar with the scriptures you point to. But when you write only an eight page paper, naturally you want to concentrate on the verses that make your point clear. If I were to write a book, then I would explore all the controversial verses and explain or attempt to explain them. There are mysteries in the bible that no human being can explain, regardless of their brain capacity or education. For the sake of space here in the comments section, I will write a new article on the blog, dealing with the verses you mentioned, one at a time. It’s a good idea, because others (including myself) have questions regarding these verses, but I will look for answers in the bible, not in the teachings of a particular denomination or writings of a modern day “prophet”.
In Christ,
George
Thanks, George, for this clarification. Well, I said in that second post of mine that I didn't want to sound argumentative. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to re-read that post again, so I'm aware that probably some mistakes and misunderstandings were possible, for which I already apologized.
Anyway, when I said that the OT authors purposely put just one word (Torah) for "the Law", I didn't mean that they did that to deceive someone. God forbid! They did it because they just used one word for that. Like in the NT where there is only one word which is translated with "wine", and that is the Greek word "oinos", which means both, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage. But I'm not sure that the reasoning of yours in which you are pointing out that there is no mention of either ceremonial or moral law in the OT and henceforth we are to disregard that kind of distinction ourselves and just reject the Ten Commandments as well, is like when Jehovah's Witnesses are saying that because there is no such a word as Trinity in the Bible (and they are right - there is not!), Holy Trinity does not exist! Because I strongly believe that you can prove with the Bible that the Holy Trinity does exist.
In regards to the point of yours on the Law in our hearts, you make some valid points. Yet, they are just not enough. Because you still didn't answer me on that hypothetical situation I had mentioned in my previous post. Furthermore, I had seen very good people, dedicated Christians who, with the Spirit in their hearts, thought that if they were hungry and broke, it would be ok and acceptable to God to steal in order to feed themselves and their families! Are they right in thinking so? If they are, how can you prove that? If they aren't, how can you prove that? Just by saying that your heart is telling you otherwise? I'm really not sure about that. And especially since the Bible is very clear that the Ten Commandments are to be used by God to judge everybody! (James 2:12) So, as I said before, what is good for you, doesn't necessarily mean to be good for me or someone else. Because I strongly believe that the last thing we can rely on is not what our heart is telling us, but the Law of God.
And let me also quote one of your sentences here, "I am familiar with the scriptures you point to. But when you write only an eight page paper, naturally you want to concentrate on the verses that make your point clear." I honestly don't believe this is a fair scientific or even biblical approach. Let me illustrate you this with my sermon on alcohol. I had preached for probably 40 minutes that day. And you cannot call that plenty of time. However, in order to be fair, I had taken a rather extensive overview on major verses regarding that particular topic (including those that so many Adventist pastors would never use and I believe you are aware of that!). And people were approaching me after the service saying that that was the most honest sermon on that subject they had ever heard in the SDA Church. I would have never preached or written something if I knew I didn't take into consideration all major verses from both sides of the aisle. One can agree or disagree with my conclusions, but no one can say that I deliberately omitted some major verses for the sake of time. In all fairness to the subject my opinion is that you had to take the same approach, particularly because none of those verses I mentioned and you didn't can be seen as controversial (as you called them). And especially since most of your conclusions on this subject are rather dogmatic (I quote only one of them), "Christians are FREE of the Old Testament Laws and that includes the Decalogue." With all due respect but how can anyone say something like that while deliberately omitting, for any reason, the whole cross-section of Bible verses that just teach something else?
Blessings,
Edvard
Hallo George.
I think it wouldn’t surprise you if I said I was shocked when I read your article. I agree with you that we grow in faith day by day as we study the word of God. However I thought that your conclusion that the Ten Commandments were done away with at the cross is not Biblical. You overlooked some passages; or rather shall I say that you singled out passages without putting them against many others in the Bible.
To begin, you assume that the Decalogue had its beginning at the Mount Sinai. I want to argue that this is not true. The Law of God, presented to Israel on Mount Sinai in the Decalogue is eternal. God would not have destroyed the antediluvians, Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins. On which account would they have perished? There must have been a Law—though not yet given to an organized nation in a text—against which they were measured and found wanting.
One way to prove that is on Sinai. When God told Moses: “let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them” (Ex, 25:8), He told him that it will be built “according to all that I am going to show you, as the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture, just so you shall construct it” (Ex. 25:9). The pattern of the Israelite sanctuary was the heavenly one, the one that has been and always is as long as shall last the plan of salvation. It is this tabernacle, “which the Lord pitched” (Heb. 8:2, 5), that Paul talks about. It was the same sanctuary that was shown to the Apostle John and he saw the Ark of the Covenant (Rev 11:19).
So when God showed Moses the pattern in heaven, the first thing He showed him was the Ark of the Covenant, with the instructions: “you shall put into the ark the testimony which I shall give you” (Ex. 25:16). The Law therefore—the Ten Commandments—handed by God to Moses was a copy of what is in the heavenly sanctuary. It didn’t begin with Israel. The promulgation of the Decalogue and the handing it to Moses on Mount Sinai was like handing to a newly elect president a copy of the constitution which already exists. This is why we do, on number of occasions, see practices of the Law as well as God’s judgments even prior to the promulgation.
Take for instance the case where God provides one portion of manna the 5 days, but a double portion on the sixth day—to provide for the Sabbath’s portion—and nothing on Sabbath for it is the day of rest, an institution that began on the creation week, when God rested from His work, blessed it and sanctified it. (Gen 2:2, 3). This makes it an eternal principle that shall be, whether people are aware of it or not. The fact that the law of God is not specifically handed to people in a written text prior to the promulgation of the Ten Commandments does not account for its inexistence.
In your essay, you did answer the question ‘to whom were the Ten Commandments given’, but you did not answer—or let’s say answer satisfactorily—the question ‘why was the Law given to Israel’. You know it is superfluous for the apostles to even drag the Jews into this Christian debate if the latter weren’t the nation through which the Messiah would come. If Christianity was quite a different thing, rather than a continuation and a “perfection” of what God started with Abraham—“And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Gen 12:3b)—or rather Eve—“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel” (Gen 3:15)—Why didn’t the apostles start something different like Islam and get away with Jewish stuff? God did not pick Israel for the sake of Israel itself. He chose Israel because of the plan of salvation, for a universal mission. The Messiah had to come from Israel. Why Israel? I can’t answer that question. That is why Paul dares even feature Israel into his rhetoric about salvation. The plan of salvation, God ordained, had to come through the Jews (john 3:22). When God gives them His eternal Law, He does not make it theirs; He gives it because he chose them. It was a part of the process to teach them about the plan of salvation.
Notice that after the promulgation of the Decalogue (Ex 20), what followed was the instruction to build a sanctuary and the instruction about the sacrificial system, symbolisms through which God thought Israel about a Savior who is to come. He gave the Law to show them what human kind has transgressed and still transgresses and then showed them the solution He has provided in the sacrificial system. For there can be no grace unless there is trespass.
Concluding that the law was done away with at the cross is to affirm that sin is done away with or is now overlooked which is contrary to what scriptures teach, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23.As I said above, there is no grace without sin, for “sin is the transgression of the Law” (1 John3:4). The fact that we live under grace is the proof that the law of God exist eternally and is unchangeable. Until God brings us into perfection where we will be able to live without weaknesses that bring about our transgressions, we need to live under the grace that we get through the blood of Jesus. When we get to heaven, perfected into His image, we will be able to live in perfect harmony with the eternal, unchangeable Law of God. Until then, only grace can give us the mere boldness to call ourselves children of God. For even now, 2000 years after the birth of Jesus, the era that Christians call ‘the dispensation of Grace’, unless one accepts the gift of His sacrifice and believes in His blood, condemned by the eternal Law of God will be his lot. Believing in Jesus means accepting His death to be our substitute in God’s judgment, otherwise we face it ourselves. And what is judgment if not His vindication and justice against the transgressors?
The other major statement in your essay is that there should be no distinction between Ceremonial Laws and the Ten Commandments. The verses you quoted are:
There was nothing in the ark except the two stone tablets that Moses had placed in it at Horeb (Mount Sinai), where the LORD made a covenant with the Israelites after they came out of Egypt. (1 Kings 8:9)
“I have provided a place there for the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD that he made with our fathers when he brought them out of Egypt." (1 Kings 8:21
The people of Israel must keep the Sabbath day by observing it from generation to generation. This is a covenant obligation for all time. It is a permanent sign of my covenant with the people of Israel. (Exodus 31:16-17)When the LORD finished speaking with Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two stone tablets inscribed with the terms of the covenant, written by the finger of God. (Exodus 31:18)
Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down all these instructions, for they represent the terms of the covenant I am making with you and with Israel.” Moses remained there on the mountain with the LORD forty days and forty nights. In all that time he ate no bread and drank no water. And the LORD wrote the terms of the covenant—the Ten Commandments—on the stone tablets. (Exodus 34:27-28)
And your argument is that the “Ten Commandments are repeatedly mixed in with the rest of Laws of the Covenant”.
From the verses you quoted alone, I’d rather conclude that the Ten Commandments are indeed the Terms of the Covenant with Israel. However, it is clear even elsewhere in the Bible that the word covenant came to be used interchangeably for both the Ten Commandments and the entire torah. Ex 24:7 refers to the ‘book of the Covenant’; 2 Kings 23:2 also speaks about the book of the Covenant in Josiah’s time, which must have by then included the entire torah. That the Ten Commandments are included in the covenant shouldn’t be confusing though, since all the laws, the Ten Commandments included, were to guide Israel. God however showed the difference between ceremonial laws and the Ten Commandments by writing the latter with His own finger and commanding Moses to keep them in the Ark of the Covenant just like they are in the heavenly sanctuary from the ages past. There is nothing wrong in giving His constitution to a nation through which the plan of salvation will be realized in order to teach them about the very constitution the transgression of which brought trouble. The fact that God gives His constitution to Israel does not mean it is meant for them alone. The law existed before them and will be even if God chose another nation for the purpose.
And what should we say about the following verses?
James 2: 11, 12
11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery,"[a] also said, "Do not murder."[b] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. 12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom,
Dan 25:7 25'He will (A)speak out against the (B)Most High and (C)wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make (D)alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a (E)time, times, and half a time
Rom 2:12, 13 “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
Rev. 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments,[a] that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
I conclude:
Those who have accepted the merit of the Blood to be the substitute for their death aren’t condemned by the law, for the grace stands there to assure their justification. And they walk in newness of life for the law of God is written in their heart—in the heart is better than on stone for then it is better practiced. What will you say about those who refuse? Grace does not stand in judgment for them; they stay condemned by the eternal law of God.
Jim Nziwa
I am honoured. We now have not one but two Adventist pastors proving me wrong :-)
In order to keep the blog easily readable, I will give brief answers under the “comments” section and publish a separate article addressing the issues and questions brought up by the readers. So, if you don’t see an answer to a certain question, please don’t assume that I’m avoiding it. I have to admit, some things brought up are more difficult to explain than others and it will take some studying for me in order to answer. There are even some things that I might not be able to answer and there’s no shame to admitting this. We are all humans and I don’t care who you are and how much you think you know, there are mysteries in the bible that no human being can explain, and if someone tells you otherwise this should raise a suspicion.
Ed, regarding the comment that you made that I reason like a Jehovah’s Witness, I respectfully disagree. This comment makes me wonder if you even read my article carefully… I am not looking for a mention of “ceremonial” and “moral” law in order to disprove the theory, we already know that the bible doesn’t use these words, Adventists use them in order to back up their doctrines. I point to about 8 bible verses which show there’s no distinction between the Decalogue and the rest of commandments given on Mount Sinai, they are all part of the same Covenant – ONE package. Here’s one of them: “Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down all these instructions, for they represent the terms of the covenant I am making with you and with Israel.” Moses remained there on the mountain with the LORD forty days and forty nights. In all that time he ate no bread and drank no water. And the LORD wrote the terms of the covenant—the Ten Commandments—on the stone tablets.” (Exodus 34:27-28). There are many more verses I didn’t even mention in my article. I believe 8 verses are enough to prove my point.
Yes, the law is in your heart and your conscience will tell you if what you’re doing or thinking is right or wrong: “Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.” (Romans 2:14-15). Besides, Jesus says: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-40). You can not justify stealing (as per your example) or hurting anyone if you love your neighbour as yourself. Jesus said it Himself, that these two commandments cover ALL the law.
In my article I have about 30 bible quotes, and you’re right, I used only two of them which appear to “show the other side” and I believe I gave satisfactory explanation for these, which showed these verses do not contradict my statements. The rest of bible verses you point out also deserve an explanation and will approach these in a separate article like I said above, because more space is required to give it proper attention.
If I can’t respond quickly enough to your questions, it’s for a reason. I’m not a pastor and I don’t have the luxury to call this work. I actually have to perform my job first, find time for my wife and children and then write articles on the bible. So please forgive me if I’m slow…
I said this wasn’t going to be long… :-)
Jim, I’ll respond to you next, hopefully later today. Thank you for expressing your thoughts.
George
Hi Jim,
Thank you for your comments. I will briefly answer some of the questions/remarks you posted above. The verses you and Ed pointed out, which seem to prove your point at first glance, will have to be addressed in a different article one at a time, because they are important and I need more space to explain, if I can. Besides, I’m sure others may have similar concerns or questions about these verses and I should publish my answers in a more visible place than the comments section.
The fact that God exercised judgement before the Law was given does not prove that the Law is eternal. Bible tells us that human beings knew the difference between “good and evil” from the moment they ate the forbidden fruit, I mentioned that in my response from Dec 20. You’re making an assumption that the Law existed before Moses, but the bible provides a clear text which proves the Law begins at Sinai: “Moses summoned all Israel and said: Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.” (Deuteronomy 5:1-3). Again in Galatians 3 we read that the Law was introduced 430 years after Abraham.
Yes, God gave Moses instructions to build the Tabernacle and the Ark and He said to place in the Ark the stone tablets “which I will give to you.” To me this doesn’t prove that the Covenant existed in Heaven already. Which bible verse says that the Ark and its contents are the exact copy of the one in Heaven? And even if we can prove that, the bible says that the Covenant was made between God and Israel on Sinai – this is what we have to go by… We can’t assume things when there’s clear bible text telling us otherwise.
God rested on the seventh day after creation, but He certainly didn’t instruct anyone to keep it in Genesis or in the first 2500 years of human history for that matter. You are correct, the first mention of the Sabbath is in Exodus, right before Israelites reached Sinai, one month after they left Egypt to be exact and in the following month they were at Sinai. If you read Exodus 16:22 carefully you’ll see that the leaders are confused and don’t know why there is twice as much manna on the ground on the sixth day… If they knew of the Sabbath law, they wouldn’t be asking Moses any questions, because it would be very clear to them why this is happening.
You mentioned, because Jesus came from the Jews, yet He is a Saviour for everyone who’s willing to accept Him, therefore the Law is also for everyone even though was given to Israel – I don’t believe this is a solid theological conclusion. The sacrificial system pointed to Christ, absolutely. Why was it demonstrated through Israel, I don’t know, why were the Jews God’s chosen people… Who can answer that? I can’t. The Law brought Israelites down to their knees and showed them the need of a Saviour. Yet, they missed Him. For those of us who read the bible today, the law fulfils the same purpose – it shows us the impossibility of salvation by our own works, brings us to a realization that we are sinners in need of a Saviour. Nothing more, nothing less. It certainly doesn’t mean that the Law of the Old Covenant is binding upon us Christians.
There are some verses you mentioned, which I will address in a separate article.
I know your conviction is pure, so is mine. I will not judge or criticize anyone in what they believe. God can only judge. Paul also gives us a great advice in Romans 14 and I live my life by this.
George
Hello there,
I would like to post a link with some answers about the Sabbath from at SDA viewpoint and their reasoning on the subject of the Law. http://www.sabbathtruth.com/sabbath_questions.asp
I don't mind at all sharing SDA websites, in fact I encourage people to read both sides with an open mind and then test what they've learned to the bible. I am also very familiar with Sabbathtruth.com, I used to study it and even teach it to others. But as I stopped studying SDA doctrines and I begun studying my BIBLE, I discovered many problems with what Adventists teach regarding the Sabbath. For instance they say Sabbath originated in Heaven - no biblical proof of that, Sabbath was instituted in the Garden of Eden - God rested, yes, but He did not instruct anyone to keep the seventh-day. First time Sabbath was mentioned was 2300 years after creation and one month before Israelites reached Sinai. Read the scripture carefully Ex 16:22 and you'll see that the leaders of the people were confused about it, they didn't understand why there was twice the amount of manna on the ground on Friday. If they were familiar with the Sabbath commandment, would they ask such a silly question...? Finally SDA's teach the law of the OC is separated in two parts "moral" and "ceremonial", so after the cross we are not longer under the "ceremonial" law, but still binded by the "moral" law which is the 10 Commandments. This is very convenient for Adventists, but not true, not according to the bible. There is no scriptural evidence of such a separation of the law.
Blessings to all,
George
Post a Comment