You are not logged in.
X
Last edited by bob_2 (05-20-12 7:17 pm)
Offline
I. Miller, I like this explanation of judging others:
http://www.gotquestions.org/do-not-judge.html
Hope that helps.
Offline
I. Miller you say you belong to a church pastored by Geoff Volker. He is one of the proponents of NCT. Did you check out the beliefs before joining.
Offline
Hub asked: Tom, You talk about the "OC hierarchy." Exactly what is your concept of the OC?
Tom said: This discussion is not about “my concepts.” It is about the facts of history. The OC is not something that we in the 21st century get to revise or even define. The history of Judaism speaks for itself and so too does the NT record of the church.
The writings of the Jews, primarily the OT contains a record of how the OC was defined and administered. There is no debate about how to understand this ancient religious paradigm. We are dealing with history, in the context of the Gospel Story.
With that said; the OC was based on law, even as it was a male dominated, Priest dominated paradigm, with two distinct classes, (Priest and non priest), and a Temple full of rituals.
The OC was a very unequal configuration that would be dramatically changed in the NC, where equality and mercy are featured.
OC Abolished by the Gospel:
Instead of a priestly hierarchy supported by tithe, all in the NC were priests, even the women. Which is why there was no tithe. There was no separate priesthood, even as they were all part of the Gospel Temple called the church. So they shared. They did not tithe, or do anything like it.
Moreover, while there was a head church in Jerusalem, where the apostles managed the Gospel, this church did not own or control any of the local churches. These local churches were self-governing, without owing any financial allegiance, tax, or tithe to the Jerusalem church or to the apostles.
In fact, Paul taught that the local churches were to share equally with each other as they had a need. They did not have to ask any approval from Jerusalem for such a transaction, much less pay any funds to the leaders at any time. This idea that there was tithing in the early church is utterly false. There was no more tithing then there was a Sunday Sabbath.
Today the SDA organizational structure is based on the OC paradigm of tithing. The church is controlled by a handful of elites, ruling from a closed, OC system, where they are above everyone else, and treated as if they were above others. This is wrong and forbidden by the Gospel.
Furthermore, when you see how the leaders managed the church in Acts, you see them getting the approval of the people before they move forward. It was democratic, not autocratic.
It was also equal; there were not two classes of people, much less where one large group supports a small elite group with tithe, giving them ultimate control over doctrine, as well as ownership of every local church and institution. Such an OC hierarchical system is sinful and disgusting to heaven.
The SDA’s have it all wrong. The local church does not exist for the pleasure and control of an elite class in Silver Spring who pretend they are worthy of tithe.
The local church is not to be a source of funds and resources for the priestly class, which are today called pastors. This is outrageous and very wrong.
The Advent Movement must be re-organized from an OC model to a NC version where there is no tithe, because all are priests, both the men and the women, and everyone is equal.
The local church must own and manage its own resources. Making sure to take care of its own members. This is their first priority. Not to pay tithe and create a corrupt ruling class to control and abuse them.
The SDA system is false and very wrong. Look around and see what results have been obtained with this OC system. The Gospel cannot survive in such an environment.
The Advent Movement needs another organizational model. One that is democratic and congregational in nature. One where all are equal in Christ, and one where the local church owns, controls, and uses its resources for its own members.
Hub asked: Why was the Adventist church organized in the first place?
Tom said: Adventism was organized to defend, protect, and promote the new reforms about the 2nd Coming. Even though the Millerites had been wrong about the date, they were not wrong about the basic doctrine of the visible, literal, and pre-millennial 2nd Coming.
The Advent Movement is an eschatological paradigm. The SDA’s are an extension of this mission. They were supposed to promote further reforms that were meant to prepare the church for the soon return of Christ. This is why they promoted Sabbath Reform. It was part of their eschatology.
Furthermore, it is clear that the SDA’s were not organized to invent false doctrine, such as tithe in the church, or the IJ, but to recover truth about the Gospel. No. This is not what they were ever supposed to do, but this is what they have done.
Hub said: Granted, the "hierarchy" is human and faulty. What would you suggest in its place? I guess the LDS get along with no paid clergy. Is this what you recommend?
Tom said: The top leaders in the apostolic church proved to be very faulty and human. (See Galatians). They even caused a big fight in the church, which caused all manner of problems.
But guess what? The leaders had no control or ownership over the local churches. Nor did they ever try such a power play.
While they had teaching authority, they had no way to enforce or control anyone. Nor did they ever try to set up a system where they could rule over the members, owning the local churches and forcing the members to pay them tithe, - or any money.
Of course this type of OC system was soon developed, which became the RCC. They set up a hierarchical system, complete with a separate priestly class and a high priest called the Pope. They even have a Temple, even as they own and control every local church in the world, and rule them through an OC style hierarchy. Just like the OC Jews and now the SDA’s.
In conclusion, it is time for the Advent Movement to repent for their many false, OC doctrines, including TITHE.
It is time for them to embrace the Gospel with both hands and move into the light of the NC.
Mark 4:23 “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Tom Norris for Gospel Reform in the Adventist Community
Offline
Tom,
You talk extensively about the OC and the OC Hierarchy, then refer to the Old Testament and the ceremonial law.
That looks to me as if you are shooting with a sawed off shotgun.
If you don't have a personal concept of the Old Covenant, you have no right to lecture to anybody about the two covenants.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hub said: Tom, You talk extensively about the OC and the OC Hierarchy, then refer to the Old Testament and the ceremonial law.
Tom said: The Ceremonial law is part of the OC, and so too the Moral law of the 10 C’s. This is not a personal opinion, but a fact of Jewish history. A fact of theology.
While the SDA’s made up their own view of the Two Covenants, claiming that the Moral law was not a part of the OC, this position is wrong.
This was what the 1888 debate was all about.
Waggoner attacked Smith’s position about the Two Covenants. He correctly claimed that the Moral law was part of the OC. Smith went ballistic. He would never accept this view.
Waggoner was, and still is, - correct. Smith was wrong, and so too the SDA’s today. Ellen White sided with Waggoner, but the church covered up the real details of this debate between the OC and the NC, hiding it for fear of another debilitating schism.
The OC prevailed, and the Battle Creek church self-destructed. Smith would never repent and neither has the denomination, which officially supports Smith to this very day. Dr Ford has the same view as did Luther, Waggoner and Ellen White. But the TSDA’s have the view of Uriah Smith and the RCC, even as the White Estate told everyone a false story.
Too bad the White Estate covered up the great 1888 debate ABOUT THE TWO COVENANTS. Then the SDA’s would not be making fools of themselves trying to defend the errors of Uriah Smith, pretending that the Moral law is featured in the NC, when it is not. And pretending it is not part of the OC, when it is. The SDA’s have the law and the Gospel wrong. Period. They misunderstand the Two Covenants.
Hub said: That looks to me as if you are shooting with a sawed off shotgun. If you don't have a personal concept of the Old Covenant, you have no right to lecture to anybody about the two covenants.
Tom said: Hub, this is very simple. The OC is Judaism. Period. This is not a personal opinion, but a fact of history and theology.
Furthermore, Luther, Waggoner, and others, are correct, - the OC featured and contained the 10 Commandments. There is no use for the SDA’s to pretend otherwise.
The sooner you repent of your strange views the better.
Let all SDA’s repent of this absurd idea that the OC does not contain the Moral law. Of course it does. The OC is based on the law, while the NC is based on faith in Christ. They are very different concepts, which is why there must be very different Sabbath is each paradigm.
The OC Sabbath is strictly based on the 4th Commandment, where it is very sinful and dangerous to do any work. But the NC Sabbath is based on the Christ’s Word, which allows for all that follow Jesus to be exempt from the Sabbath law. That is, they can work on that day and not be guilty.
The SDA’s have embraced the OC Sabbath of Moses, not the NC Sabbath of Christ, as advocated by Adventist Reform. One day many will understand the significance of the 7th day, Gospel Sabbath.
I hope this helps
Tom
Offline
Tom,
Thanks for your response.
If you made a study of the Old Covenant, you would find that the “covenant of works” does not offer pardon for sins. The Ceremonial law was explicitly given to provide and illustrate pardon for sins. Thus it cannot be part of the Old Covenant, and of necessity must be part of the New Covenant.
One must also recognize that the Ceremonial law was made up of several different parts. Sacrifices and temple services, rituals for holiness and cleansing, circumcision, and other parts. When Jesus died on Calvary, animal sacrifice and oblation came to an end – to be continued by the heavenly priesthood and mediation of Jesus Christ. Circumcision, given to maintain a pure blood line for the prophesied Redeemer, was not needed after Jesus came.
The Moral Law is in a different category. Attacks on the moral law are for one reason only – to destroy the Sabbath. It is impossible to destroy the moral law or the Sabbath (Matthew 5:17,18). It is the law of God, holy, just, and good. With un-numbered angels and men, a law was necessary to keep order. It is the prescription for love, holiness, and makes freedom possible.
Generally speaking, SDAs are not clear on the covenant, and actually many hold a dispensational view!
The 1888 debate centered on the law in Galatians. Was it the moral law, or the ceremonial law? Recent view on this is that it is both, and that one must study the context to determine which law is being referenced in any particular verse.
Is the Old Covenant Judaism? This is over-simplistic. Among God’s people there is always the unbelieving majority, who will always fall into Old Covenant thinking and actions, Then there are the believing remnant who look to Christ in the ceremonial law and who keep the moral law by faith and through grace.
The “Rabbinic Judaism” of today is Old Covenant. Observant Jews look to keeping the law, and living an ethical life for their salvation. Most have no concept of a substitutionary sacrifice by the Messiah.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, the law can not be the Divine law of God. Why, because of creation of man being mentioned. The law was given to a special people who broke the law and the covenant. What was the law of God in heaven that showed God's love? The Sabbath was uniquely given because the Jews were overworked and He mandated rest/inactivity on that day. Under the New Covenant Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath as stated in Col 2:16=17. The texts are clear, but traditionalists hang on to an incomplete view of the Covenants.
Offline
Hub said: If you made a study of the Old Covenant, you would find that the “covenant of works” does not offer pardon for sins. The Ceremonial law was explicitly given to provide and illustrate pardon for sins. Thus it cannot be part of the Old Covenant, and of necessity must be part of the New Covenant.
Tom said: Wrong. I have made such a study. And so too many others, like Luther. Don’t pretend that you have found some wonderful new insight into the OC or the NC. That is nonsense.
Just read Luther if you to understand how the OC works. His Galatian Commentary leaves nothing to the imagination, even as he refutes what you teach.
While the ceremonial laws represented the Gospel, they were still part of the OC. Thus the Levites and the Temple services, etc, were in fact OC in nature, even though they deal with the forgiveness of sin.
This is the downfall of the SDA’s. They refuse to be honest with Bible, always trying to manipulate it and make it say what they want. This is not how they started out, but during the 1888 debates, this is what the leaders did, and they have never stopped.
You attempts to defend the errors of Uriah Smith are worthless. Why do you play such games? To claim that the ceremonial laws of Israel are not part of the OC, - is absurd. What kind of medication have you been taking. This is outrageous.
Hub said: One must also recognize that the Ceremonial law was made up of several different parts. Sacrifices and temple services, rituals for holiness and cleansing, circumcision, and other parts.
Tom said: So what? This changes nothing.
Hub said: The Moral Law is in a different category.
Tm said: The Moral law is still part of the OC. Read the book of Galatians and understand that the law being discussed, - includes the Moral law.
Gal. 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Gal. 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
Gal. 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
Gal. 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Gal. 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
The SDA’s read this passage like this: “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the ceremonial Law. Only the Moral Law.”
But this is wrong. Paul is saying, that we are no longer under either. Not the Moral law, or the OC ceremonial laws of the Jews.
Those who think LIG is NOT about the Moral law, are RC’s and SDA’s. All Protestants, like Luther, correctly teach that this passage includes the Moral law. This is EXACTLY what Waggoner said, and Ellen White agreed.
But not Uriah Smith and Canright, and the Battle Creek legalists. While Ellen White used to think like Smith, she changed her view during the 1888 debates, which is why she was exiled to Australia, and why the BC Empire collapsed.
Once in Takoma Park, the leaders covered up the 1888 debate and proceeded to teach that Smith and Ellen White settled their differences and that she essentially embraced his views. But this is not true. It was a great lie. Thus the TSDA’s think they are following Ellen White in their views, when they are not.
Ellen White and Smith became theological enemies for life. Ellen White even pushed for Smith to be fired from the Review for promoting the false view of the law in Galatians in the Review. This took place about 15 years after 1888.
Thus the great Uriah Smith was FIRED from the Review for legalism. The very same legalism that became the foundation for the 20th century TSDA’s. The very same legalism that was endorsed by the leaders at Glacier View.
Hub, you and all the TSDA’s have the wrong view of this passage, as well as the Gospel. You are taking the side of the Judaizers, and the RCC, and Uriah Smith. Pitiful.
Ellen White condemns all the TSDA’s, and so too does Luther, Waggoner and Tom Norris. All should condemn the SDA’s for their legalism, and for covering up the 1888 debate in the White Estate.
During the 1888 debates, Ellen White went on to change her view about the law in Galatians, siding with Luther and Waggoner and concluding that it was the moral law as well as the ceremonial law that is under discussion in this famous letter of Paul.
Listen to her chide Uriah Smith about his stubbornness on this point.
These testimonies of the Spirit of God, the fruits of the Spirit of God, have no weight unless they are stamped with your ideas of the law in Galatians.
I am afraid of you and I am afraid of your interpretation of any Scripture, which has revealed itself in such an unchristlike spirit as you have manifested and has cost me so much unnecessary labor.
If you are such very cautious men and so very critical, lest you shall receive something not in accordance with the Scriptures, I want your minds to look on these things in the true light."
Let your caution be exercised in the line of fear lest you are committing the sin against the Holy Ghost.
Have your critical minds taken this view of the subject?
I say, if your views on the law in Galatians, and the fruits, are of the character I have seen in Minneapolis and ever since, up to this time, my prayer is that I may be as far from your understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures as it is possible for me to be.
I am afraid of any application of Scripture that needs such a spirit and bears such fruit as you have manifested. One thing is certain, I shall never come into harmony with such a spirit as long as God gives me my reason.
You have not commended your doctrine, in some things, to my mind and to other minds. You could not have given a better refutation of your own theories than you have done.
Ellen White (circa 1890)
(Manuscript Releases Volume Nine, page 330, paragraph 2 Chapter Title: The Law in Galatians.)
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … s-1888.htm
Hub said: Attacks on the moral law are for one reason only – to destroy the Sabbath. It is impossible to destroy the moral law or the Sabbath (Matthew 5:17,18).
Tom said: Ha! Now we are the heart of the matter; THE OC SABBATH! This is why SDA’s had such a big fight in 1888. Smith was protecting the Sabbath. He was fearful that Waggoner’s view would destroy the Sabbath. Which it would have done, except in doing so, the SDA’s would have gone on to understand the NC Sabbath, which is the completion of Sabbath Reform.
While the truth about the Gospel does destroy the OC Sabbath, it does no such thing to the NC Sabbath of Christ. There is still a 7th day Sabbath for the church, but it is very different from what the SDA’s teach.
But the SDA’s had the wrong Sabbath anyway. They embraced the OC “schoolmaster” Sabbath of Moses, not the NC 7th day Sabbath of Christ. This is what must be corrected.
Let all SDA’s repent of the OC Sabbath, even as they embrace the 7th day, Gospel Sabbath of Christ.
Hub said: It is the law of God, holy, just, and good. With un-numbered angels and men, a law was necessary to keep order. It is the prescription for love, holiness, and makes freedom possible.
Tom said: While the law is a good and necessary thing, it is not the basis of following Christ for salvation. In fact, in the NC era, the law is for bad people, not for those who follow Christ.
Gal. 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
1Tim. 1:8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
1Tim. 1:9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
So while the Moral law has not abolished in the NC, it has been subordinated to the Gospel. For those not under the law of Christ, they remain under the condemnation of the moral law. They stand condemned.
Hub said: Generally speaking, SDAs are not clear on the covenant, and actually many hold a dispensational view!
Tom said: Hub, as an SDA, you are not clear or correct about the Gospel or the Two Covenants, or tithe, or the Sabbath or the Judgment, etc. NO SDA understands doctrine correctly. They don’t even understand their own church history correctly, much less the history of the Bible.
Hub said: The 1888 debate centered on the law in Galatians. Was it the moral law, or the ceremonial law?
Tom said: Correct. Smith said it was ONLY the ceremonial law, but Waggoner, who was following Luther’s view in his Commentary to Galatians, said it was the Moral (as well as the ceremonial).
Gal. 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
Gal. 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
If you substitute the word Judaism for law, you can better understand the meaning of the passage.
Hub said: Recent view on this is that it is both, and that one must study the context to determine which law is being referenced in any particular verse.
Tom said: Wrong. There is no “recent view” about any of this.
Luther correctly said that this passage is about all law, both Moral and Ceremonial. Of course his RC enemies said it was ONLY the ceremonial law, and not a reference to the Moral law. The SDA’s sided with Rome. Waggoner sided with Luther. And Ellen White agreed. But not Smith. He went to his grave a lost man, just like all those TSDA’s that follow his warped theology.
Hub said: Is the Old Covenant Judaism? This is over-simplistic.
Tom said: Wrong. The OC = ancient Judaism. Very simple and 100% correct.
Hub said: Among God’s people there is always the unbelieving majority, who will always fall into Old Covenant thinking and actions, Then there are the believing remnant who look to Christ in the ceremonial law and who keep the moral law by faith and through grace.
Tom said: Wrong. Judaism includes both the Moral and Ceremonial laws. There was no division between the two.
No one can say that the NC was part of the OC. This is utter nonsense. The NC was hidden until the 1st century.
Col. 1:25 Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God,
Col. 1:26 that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints,
Col. 1:27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
The Gospel was hidden in the OC. It was not a clear part of the OC as you claim.
Rom. 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which has been kept secret for long ages past,
Rom. 16:26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;
Hub said: The “Rabbinic Judaism” of today is Old Covenant. Observant Jews look to keeping the law, and living an ethical life for their salvation. Most have no concept of a substitutionary sacrifice by the Messiah.
Tom said: The apostolic church fell back into the OC, and yet they still claimed to embrace Christ as the Messiah. (See Galatians). So you don’t understand what you are saying.
Peter and James embraced the OC as well as the NC Gospel. Thus they combined the OC and the NC, elevating law to the same level as the Gospel.
Those who combine JBF with our Sanctification, are called Judaizers, aka the Circumcision Party. This is what the RCC has done, and so too the SDA’s. Such “Galatianism” is very wrong.
Today, the modern SDA’s brag about the fact that they have a “full Gospel.” But this only proves they do not understand the Gospel and that they are not Protestant.
Listen to this error from Wilson Jr. He is making the exact same mistakes as his father, and as Uriah Smith.
At Argentine Adventist University, Wilson Stresses Full Message
On dedication Sabbath, emphasizes unity of justification, sanctification (Posted May 23, 2012)
“The foundations of all revival and reformation stem from the righteousness of Jesus Christ,” the General Conference president told capacity crowds of 2,500 at each of the two morning services.
“We should be the strongest proponents of Christ and Christ alone; to realize that the two great provisions of salvation--justification and sanctification--cannot be separated. They represent the fullness of Christ and his righteousness.”
http://www.adventistreview.org/article/ … ll-message
Anyone that blends JBF with S, has fallen from grace. They have a false Gospel, just like Peter and James in the book of Galatians. Just like the RCC, and the SDA’s.
It is time for the Adventist Community to understand the difference between the law and the Gospel.
It is also time for them to understand the difference between the OC Sabbath and the NC doctrine that Christ teaches in all four Gospels.
When the church understands the Gospel correctly, they will also understand and embrace the NC Sabbath of Christ.
Said my guide, ‘There is much light yet to shine forth from the law of God and the gospel of righteousness. The message, understood in its true character, and proclaimed in the Spirit, will lighten the earth with its glory. (Manuscript Releases, Vol. 2, 58)
I hope this helps,
Tom Norris for the Gospel Sabbath
Offline
Bob, The Ten Commandment law was first given at Creation. God made man in His own image. To be made in the image of God is to include the Law of God written deep into his personality. But that is not all. The Everlasting Covenant given to Abraham in Genesis 17 was to include all Abraham's descendants too.
The New Testament church was not a divided church. The wall of partition was broken down, and Jews and Gentiles stood on equal ground before God. Galatians 3:29 says, "If ye be Christ's ye are Abraham's seed." So whatever is given to the Jews (Abraham's seed) is for the church too. God does not have two ways to save men!
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Tom,
Martin Luther was specially used by God, but he did not receive or accept all truth. I think he knew about the Sabbath, but never accepted it. He promoted the predestination of Augustine, which throws a shadow on his understanding of grace.
As to the Ceremonial laws, they are not the essential part of any covenant, except as an illustration or a shadow of the reality to come.
I hope I don't pretend to know everything about the covenant. I have given you my definition of the Old Covenant. I am waiting for your personal understanding of the old covenant. If you or anyone else can chow me from the Bible a clear understanding of the Old Covenant, I will listen. I prefer to use the Bible for information of the covenant, rather than to look to commentaries, Luther, Calvin, or anyone else. If you look at my website, I have used some commentaries, and Ellen White for the clear explanations they give, but the Bible is always the ultimate proof.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hub said: Tom, Martin Luther was specially used by God, but he did not receive or accept all truth.
Tom said: No one ever said that Luther was perfect or infallible. But he was one of the greatest of all Roman Catholic’s, and in fact, gets credit for starting the Protestant Reformation.
Hub said: I think he knew about the Sabbath, but never accepted it.
Tom said: Everyone knew about the 7th day. However, they also knew that the NC was not to embrace the OC Sabbath of Moses. So they were correct not to embrace this error, but wrong because they failed to find the correct, 7th day Gospel Sabbath.
The SDA’s have also failed to get it right. While the Sunday Lord’s day was a good attempt at truth, it was still an error, yet to be corrected.
Hub said: He promoted the predestination of Augustine, which throws a shadow on his understanding of grace.
Tom said: Ha! For an SDA to claim that Luther has a problem understanding the Gospel—well that is just too funny. Talk about a cultic attack on the Protestant faith, wow!
Hub said: As to the Ceremonial laws, they are not the essential part of any covenant, except as an illustration or a shadow of the reality to come.
Tom said: Wrong. Ceremonial laws are part of both Covenants. Which is why no one could be saved in the OC without them, nor can anyone in the NC. Proving you wrong.
Hub said: I hope I don't pretend to know everything about the covenant.
Tom said: You are very wrong about what you think you know. You do not even come close to understanding the basic info necessary to discuss this topic.
Hub said: I have given you my definition of the Old Covenant. I am waiting for your personal understanding of the old covenant.
Tom said: I have done this. The OC is JUDAISM! Period. Stop playing games with history. And this is not a “personal” opinion, but one from history and the Bible.
Hub said: If you or anyone else can show me from the Bible a clear understanding of the Old Covenant, I will listen.
Tom said: The OC = Judaism. Every Bible scholar in the world knows this fact. The fact that you and the SDA’s want to manipulate things so you can defend your gross legalism is beside the point. Just look at how your Bible is divided. First there is the OC, also called the Old Testament. Then there is the NC, also called the Christian Faith.
Hub said: I prefer to use the Bible for information of the covenant, rather than to look to commentaries, Luther, Calvin, or anyone else. If you look at my website, I have used some commentaries, and Ellen White for the clear explanations they give, but the Bible is always the ultimate proof.
Tom said: No matter what you are using, you have managed to confuse yourself. You are just playing games with the Bible like so many do. You don’t understand the Gospel, much less the OC. Sorry. NOr do you want to. All you really want to do is defend OC Judaism, err, I mean, Traditional OC Adventism. Pity. No Eternal Life for you my friend unless you repent and embrace Gospel truth.
Study the Gospel, not the law.
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform
Last edited by tom_norris (05-28-12 11:34 am)
Offline
Tom,
The Gospel is a New Testament term referring to the Everlasting Covenant (or the New Covenant). It is Jesus dying on Calvary as our substitute, paying the penalty for the broken LAW of God. You CANNOT separate law and gospel!
You also need to define your personal view on what "Judaism" is. If you mean "Rabbinic Judaism" I agree that the term can also mean "old covenant."
We need to realize that God gave the Gospel to Abraham, and that knowledgeable, faithful, believing Jews knew the Gospel and are saved under the same Gospel that we are.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hub said: Tom, the Gospel is a New Testament term referring to the Everlasting Covenant (or the New Covenant).
Tom said: The Gospel is the basis for the NT. It is the NC. You need to stop making up your terms and views.
Moreover, the Gospel is not the law, nor should it be confused as if it were a paradigm of faith. The RC’s and the SDA’s have the wrong definition of the Gospel. Rome will never repent, but I expected better of the SDA’s. I was mistaken.
Gal. 3:12 the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.”
Hub said: It is Jesus dying on Calvary as our substitute, paying the penalty for the broken LAW of God. You CANNOT separate law and gospel!
Tom said: Wrong. Unless the Law is separated from the Gospel, you are not a Protestant. This is the basis for the Protestant Faith. This is why it is part of their creeds, and why Luther repeats this point over and over.
Your own words condemn you. What you think is truth, is great error for all to see.
However, you are free to side with Rome. They too agree that the Moral Law and the Gospel should be blended and mixed together; even as they also think the church should be run by a separate class of priests through a hierarchy.
During the 1888 debates, those that opposed Waggoner’s view, which was the same as Luther’s position, were called out as having Papal theology. AT Jones did this in public and on the record. He was correct. The SDA’s are not Protestant. Not then and not now.
While the Advent Movement and the SDA’s started out Protestant, after 1888, the leaders were no longer interested in such Gospel truth. Except for Ellen White, --she double-downed on the Protestant Faith, and supported Waggoner’s promotion of Luther’s views about the Two Covenants within the church, but she lost.
Not only did she lose the debate, suffering exile and hardship, the White Estate would later double-cross her and hide the real story, deceiving the Adventist Community about what had taken place in Battle Creek about the 1888 Gospel debate.
Today, the SDA’s are not Protestant. They are not even honest. No one should pay tithe to them, much less believe what they teach about the law and the Gospel or Ellen White or tithe, or even eschatology. They are so corrupt and disoriented that they can’t tell the truth about anything. They don’t even know what truth is, nor do they care. They are much like the 1st century Jews who refused to believe the Gospel.
Hub said: You also need to define your personal view on what "Judaism" is. If you mean "Rabbinic Judaism" I agree that the term can also mean "old covenant."
Tom said: Ha! You need to repent of your confused personal views. The OC IS Judaism! Period. The OC story is contained in the OT. The NC is in the NT. This is a well-known fact of history and theology. Just go to any Bible and see how it is divided into the OC/OT and the NC/NT. This division has not changed, nor will it ever change as you claim.
Leave it to the SDA’s try and refute the Gospel facts. They also pretend wine in the Bible is grape juice, another myth that also goes along with their myth about the early church tithing.
Stop playing games with the Word. Stop making up your own “personal views.” You are neither a theologian nor a historian; just a cultic amateur, defending the errors or your youth and the delusions of your adulthood. Keep going forward on this dishonest path of TA, and you will regret at the judgment day.
Hub said: We need to realize that God gave the Gospel to Abraham, and that knowledgeable, faithful, believing Jews knew the Gospel and are saved under the same Gospel that we are.
Tom said: While Abraham was informed about the future NC, his mission was to launch the OC, - starting the Nation of Israel. I repeat; Abraham founded OC Judaism, he was not an apostle, nor should anyone confuse the OC with the NC. This is absurd.
So stop confusing the Gospel Story by manipulating it to defend SDA error and legalism. The OC is Judaism, and so too is the Moral law part of the OC, where sinners were stoned to death for working, that is, - picking up sticks on the Sabbath to light a fire, which was also prohibited.
The NC is not like the OC. To prove this point, just look at how Jesus taught the NC Sabbath. It was very different from how the OC Jews practiced. And very different from what the OC minded SDA’s teach.
Thus there is a NC Sabbath for the church, but the SDA’s have not discovered this fact as yet. They are too busy defending the law and acting like the 1st century Jews.
Hub, your assumptions are so wrong, that unless you change them, you will never comprehend the Gospel. This goes for all the TSDA’s. They are doomed unless they repent and stop embracing so much false doctrine.
I hope this helps, but I doubt it. Your are too far gone. Sad.
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform
Offline
Tom Norris - Commented by Hubb Sturges:
The Gospel is the basis for the NT. It is the NC. You need to stop making up your terms and views.
Tom, you have a very narrow view of the Gospel and the New Covenant.
The Gospel is Jesus dying on Calvary to pay the penalty for the sins of man; giving man pardon for sins and eternal life.
Specifically, the New Covenant is God doing for man what man cannot do for himself. This includes pardon for sins, grace to change his life, the law written on the heart of each saved new person, and victory over sin.
Moreover, the Gospel is not the law, nor should it be confused as if it were a paradigm of faith.
The Gospel is God’s answer for man’s transgression of the law. Through the Gospel, men are saved, the sinful nature is taken away, and the eternal law of God is again written in the hearts of man. He is again given the image of God.
Gal. 3:12 the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.”
Tom, you are ignorant of the context of this verse. The Jews of that time were “Moses’ disciples.” Their concept of law was to meticulously keep the Ten, the ceremonial law, and all the ordinances attached to them. Their keeping of the law was an external, superficial excercise. There was no love and no faith. It was a travesty on the message of Moses in Deutreronomy where Moses based the law of God on love for Him.
Hub said: It is Jesus dying on Calvary as our substitute, paying the penalty for the broken LAW of God. You CANNOT separate law and gospel!
Tom said: Wrong. Unless the Law is separated from the Gospel, you are not a Protestant. This is the basis for the Protestant Faith. This is why it is part of their creeds, and why Luther repeats this point over and over.
The Protestants have come a long way from the errors and abuses of the medieval church. Unfortunately, in 1844 and 1888 they refused to accept the three angel’s messages (Jesus coming again), and they downgraded the place of the Bible in their theology (the “downgrade controversy with C. H. Spurgeon). Since then they have backtracked more on each issue.
Believing Adventists hold a very high view of the Bible, a clear view of Bible Prophecy, and a true view of the Second Coming of Christ.
While the Advent Movement and the SDA’s started out Protestant, after 1888, the leaders were no longer interested in such Gospel truth.
The popular churches protested the errors and abuses of the medieval church. They made a great step forward. However, the reformers and the church leaders since then did not go far enough. And each church which they founded refused to accept new truth, and in fact have backtracked from their original beliefs, and refused to accept new truth.
Are SDA’s Protestant? The popular churches have backed away from the sola fide sola scriptura stand of the past. The SDA’s stand alone on that platform, and on the platform of prophecy.
Hub said: You also need to define your personal view on what "Judaism" is. If you mean "Rabbinic Judaism" I agree that the term can also mean "old covenant."
Tom, you need to define what you think Judaism is. Judaism is not just “Old Testament.” If you try to separate Old Testament from the New Testament, you are not even Christian. Jesus, Paul, and all the New Testament writers regularly used the Old Testament as the basis for their message.
Hub said: We need to realize that God gave the Gospel to Abraham, and that knowledgeable, faithful, believing Jews knew the Gospel and are saved under the same Gospel that we are.
Tom said: While Abraham was informed about the future NC, his mission was to launch the OC, - starting the Nation of Israel.
Abraham was given the New Covenant. It became the covenant of God from Adam and Eve through history to the New Testament church. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” At Calvary, Jesus confirmed the Abrahamic (New) Covenant. Animal sacrifices and temple services were an illustration of the New Covenant, Jesus sacrifice on Calvary. Paul said himself bases his message on “Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).
Abraham did have one major lapse into the Old Covenant when he took Hagar for a wife (Galatians 4:22-31). God had to clearly command Abraham to exile Hagar and Ishmael, and accept Isaac for the covenant son (Genesis 21:12).
I hope that this helps!
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb and Tom, come on you guys. Abraham was given a Promise from God that His Son Jesus would die for our sins. If there was no Promise only the O/C Law, we have no hope of Salvation.
Gal 3:10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant[the repetitions of the Promise to Abraham about the Messiah] previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
The Abrahamic Promise is just that, a promise. The Sinai experience gave the Old Covenant. Christ's death gave us the New Covenant. It is that simple. Every one before Christ's death, if they believed, had faith as Abraham did, even back to Adam, their faith was counted as righteousness. Abraham - Promise; Sinai/Moses - Old Covenant; Jesus Death - New Covenant.
Last edited by bob_2 (05-29-12 12:06 am)
Offline