-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
SDA Hypocrisy?
- Thread starter nate
- Start date
- Status
Keeping the Law.
Keeping the Law is impossible. No man can keep the whole law. In fact when the "Law" (Ten Commandments) is referred to does it even refer to all ten of the Commandments or just the ones that apply to the Gentiles. Comparing Scripture with Scripture we come to the conclusion that there are portions of the law that do not apply to Gentiles, such as keeping the Sabbath. It applies only to the Jews (Exodus 31). It was a sign between Jehovah and Israel, and their generations forever.
Thus keeping the law is a general expression, meaning keeping the law as it applies to you.
We use the same expression today. Does Claudia keep the laws of Pennsylvania, where she lives? Is she a law abiding citizen of that state? I could guarantee you that Claudia is not a law-abiding citizen of Pennsylvania. There are many laws which she breaks on a regular basis. What are some of the laws of Pensylvania? Here are some of them:
I hope you don't drive on any country roads.
DHK
Keeping the Law is impossible. No man can keep the whole law. In fact when the "Law" (Ten Commandments) is referred to does it even refer to all ten of the Commandments or just the ones that apply to the Gentiles. Comparing Scripture with Scripture we come to the conclusion that there are portions of the law that do not apply to Gentiles, such as keeping the Sabbath. It applies only to the Jews (Exodus 31). It was a sign between Jehovah and Israel, and their generations forever.
Thus keeping the law is a general expression, meaning keeping the law as it applies to you.
We use the same expression today. Does Claudia keep the laws of Pennsylvania, where she lives? Is she a law abiding citizen of that state? I could guarantee you that Claudia is not a law-abiding citizen of Pennsylvania. There are many laws which she breaks on a regular basis. What are some of the laws of Pensylvania? Here are some of them:
http://www.ahajokes.com/laws038.html
I hope you don't drive on any country roads.
DHK
DHK,
But why does the Bible say these three things then?
1Jn:3:4: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Rom:6:2: God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom:6:15: What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Just with those 3 verses alone, I cant see how anyone could think we can now sin, break the law.
And when I think of these verses together, it makes me think, ... "okay then, if I read all these verses about grace it surely cant mean that we dont have to keep the law"...
Claudia
But why does the Bible say these three things then?
1Jn:3:4: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Rom:6:2: God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom:6:15: What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Just with those 3 verses alone, I cant see how anyone could think we can now sin, break the law.
And when I think of these verses together, it makes me think, ... "okay then, if I read all these verses about grace it surely cant mean that we dont have to keep the law"...
Claudia
When I walk into a Baptist,AOG,Pentecostal church they believe if you lie it's a sin. But they don't take the OT and start bringing out all the cultural laws and try to convince me that eating Pork is wrong. That wearing a shirt mixed with two kinds of material is wrong or that mixing two kinds of plant life are wrong. SDA's make a huge issue out of the law. Which Paul repeatedly says in the NT that all things are lawful for us even though some things are expedient.
well yeah it is a sin to eat pork but in my opinion the reason is because its harmful, noteably harmful, and the 10 commandments say Thou shalt not kill" and that includes yourself.
at least thats my opinion. Kinda like if you really love God you wouldnt go out and drink alcohol or do drugs.
at least thats my opinion. Kinda like if you really love God you wouldnt go out and drink alcohol or do drugs.
OK, but then we show you from the scriptures why we're not really violating scripture by not keeping certain laws, but you keep coming back accusing us of advocating lawlessness. Some may express the truth in terms of "no more Law", but that does not mean lawlessness, but rather a distinction between the Mosaic Law and what is prescribed ion the NT. This is why I have begun emphasizing the original 7 laws ("of Noah"); to show that there is still "Law" and "commandments" outside of the Mosaic ordinance, including the Ten, and this is basically what we revert to (but magnified spiritually, of course) in the NT. (And this would also go to answer the new thread wopik has just started).
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
This is actually a very good point. IF you were really able to show good solid exegesis - without simply glossing over inconvenient details to make your case -- then your point is well taken.
The problem is "in the details". When asked to actually "show your work" in the text "sola scriptura" - a lot of stumbling and "harrumphs!" follow - rather than sound exegesis.
And "that" is the real problem - because those methods could be suited to almost any group.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
As it turns out "adultery IS wrong" even though you would like to argue that it is just "not expedient".
As it turns out worshipping false gods IS wrong "EVEN" though you would prefer to argue "it is just not expedient".
As it turns out EVEN the NON-SDAs on this board will argue that SAME case in favor of God's Ten commandments (though not ALL non-SDAs of course).
So you make a wild assertion that the SDA position on the Ten Commandments is a "Big deal" whereas everyone else that SUPPORTS them -- relegates them to some dark corner table.
Since you give NO example of how this could possibly be true - the Ten Commandment point "remains".
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
My point is that NOT only does PAUL use the LAW of the Ten Commandments to "define sin" (see Gal 3 and Romans 7 for details) so also do the other non-SDAs on this board who honor the Ten Commandments.
How then can this be "spun" into "SDAs are the only ones that think the Ten Commandemnt Law of the Creator actually defines sin".
Christ perfectly "fulfilled the law" to Love God with all His heart as well as perfectly "fulfilling" the Law of God saying that we are to "Love our Neighbor as ourselves".
We must not only "admit" that this is a "good Law" we must ALSO keep it!
This then is the view that BOTH SDA and non-SDA posters are endorsing - as it strongly supports and affirms Christ the Creator's Ten Commandments.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Much appreciated!
Did you check out the "details" in this response?
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3919/2.html#000029
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
1. Lev 19:18 tells us to "Love our Neighbor as ourselves" -
2. Jesus "IS" God - not just a close friend of God whom we "like better".
3. That means Lev 11 AND Lev 19 are examples of JESUS' Word - not just "a neat idea from some guy in the OT but NOT the Words of God".
4. This "spin" that says Jesus is NOT God - or God did NOT author the Scriptures - that you are trying above - could not possibly succeed in any context.
5. When God (yes even God the SON) says that we are not to eat snakes, kittens, puppies, bats and rats in Lev 11 "we can trust Him". This saddens a few people on "this" board apparently.
In Christ,
Bob
That's a good one Claudia. I have a collection of health food books--not that I am into the "health food movement," but that I did a paper against the "cult" of "organic" foods, etc. The point is, that I can find in those books almost any food that is "bad" for you. Coffee, and all products containing caffeine are supposedly bad for you. Caffeine is a well known drug with adverse side-effects to many.
All foods that are not "organically" grown have pesticides that cannot be entirely washed out and therefore have become carcinogenic.
Of course this is a misnomer because there is no such thing as food that is inorganic. All foods are organic whether the label says organic or not.
Red meat is bad for you, especially if it is grilled. Grilled meat somehow becomes carcinogenic.
Be sure to be careful what kind of fats you digest--only polyunsaturated. That means no butter and limits your variety of margarines, and cocking oils.
Too much salt and too much sugar is bad for your body--very poisonous.
So is honey. Don't let the health food nuts fool you. Honey is the same as sugar. It is pure carbohydrate. It is that white sugar mixed with bee slobber, and spoon for spoon has twice the amount of calories than white refined sugar.
Most foods can be declared carcinogenic for one reason or another. Just do a google search, you'll find that pretty much every thing that we eat man has found a way to poisin it someway.
So if you are just selecting pork out of the thousands of foods and hypocritically saying that it is poisionous to your body, that you are committing suicide by eating it, think again.
First, any food can be poisionous. Paul preached before Felix: "temperance," or moderation--something more than half of Americans don't have (or they wouldn't be over-weight).
Second, God has declared all foods (including pork) to be clean and nothing to be refused. If you delcare that food is a sin to eat (as you have) you believe in a doctrine of demons, as 1Tim.4:1-4 so clearly identifies.
DHK
DHK
I dont view it as a doctrine of demons, I view it as common sense.
And I single out pork because thats what God singled out... among other things, as unclean foods. He did that for a reason.
People can go on about how even the air we breathe is harmful but thats going a little overboard. Kind of like my husband who tries to justify smoking cigarettes "since even the air you breathe" is harmful anyway and "since we all are going to die anyway sooner or later" anf "you could get run over by a car tomorrow anyway".
The only thing you are going to end up with ..using that kind of logic, is lung cancer, which my father in law died of this Easter from smoking cigarettes all his life. The Lord expects us to use a little common sense.
I dont think its a good idea to try to use those kinds of things to justify just eating and drinking whatever you want to "since everything is potentially harmful". Thats not what God said when God decided what are foods we shaould stay away from. And I think God knew what He was talking about when He said to keep away from unclean meats.
Claudia
I dont view it as a doctrine of demons, I view it as common sense.
And I single out pork because thats what God singled out... among other things, as unclean foods. He did that for a reason.
People can go on about how even the air we breathe is harmful but thats going a little overboard. Kind of like my husband who tries to justify smoking cigarettes "since even the air you breathe" is harmful anyway and "since we all are going to die anyway sooner or later" anf "you could get run over by a car tomorrow anyway".
The only thing you are going to end up with ..using that kind of logic, is lung cancer, which my father in law died of this Easter from smoking cigarettes all his life. The Lord expects us to use a little common sense.
I dont think its a good idea to try to use those kinds of things to justify just eating and drinking whatever you want to "since everything is potentially harmful". Thats not what God said when God decided what are foods we shaould stay away from. And I think God knew what He was talking about when He said to keep away from unclean meats.
Claudia
Quoting Nate,
"So my question is this how do you SDA decide which OT laws to keep and which to throw away. I ask because you don't eat Pork which is not a 10 Commandment."
I'm no SDA and won't attempt to answer for them; I'll just answer as a Calvinist:
What about the New Testamwnt; what about Jesus: He made many much stricter laws. And the hell so protrayed in the NT as nowhere nearly in the OT.
Doesn't matter which or where or whom - it's the true wages of sin; it's Scriptural; it's just; it's logical; it's correct like 2+2=4. God favours us and saves us by His Grace from it all - or the natural consequences shall follow as night the day. (Annas and Saphira - just for not telling the whole truth, etc.)
"So my question is this how do you SDA decide which OT laws to keep and which to throw away. I ask because you don't eat Pork which is not a 10 Commandment."
I'm no SDA and won't attempt to answer for them; I'll just answer as a Calvinist:
What about the New Testamwnt; what about Jesus: He made many much stricter laws. And the hell so protrayed in the NT as nowhere nearly in the OT.
Doesn't matter which or where or whom - it's the true wages of sin; it's Scriptural; it's just; it's logical; it's correct like 2+2=4. God favours us and saves us by His Grace from it all - or the natural consequences shall follow as night the day. (Annas and Saphira - just for not telling the whole truth, etc.)
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
#1. Convince you that God was the one "speaking" when HE said no eating "kittens, puppies, rats, bats, snakes and slugs"???
Why did you think that "Christ our Creator God was not the one speaking there"?
#2. What is the "exegesis" that you used to see that GOD was not speaking when HE said mankind should not use "kittens, puppies, rats, bats, snakes and slugs" "For Food"
#3. What "CULTURE" was NOAH in Gen 6-8 when we see that SAME distinction for those "kittens, puppies, rats, bats, snakes and slugs" being understood, used and upheld?
#4. WHY in the world would it bother you that SDAs DO fully accept the Law of God when it comes to NOT eating "kittens, puppies, rats, bats, snakes and slugs"???
How in the world do YOU get offended because OTHERS choose to honor Christ the Creator's Word as HE directs us NOT to eat "kittens, puppies, rats, bats, snakes and slugs"???
Why should you be "so married" to rejecting His Word on that point that it would "offend" you that others ADMIT that Christ the Creator SPOKE the Word and they would choose to HONOOR it and thus refrain from killing and then chewing on "kittens, puppies, rats, bats, snakes and slugs"?
How is "THIS" the big cross for you to bear??
In Christ,
Bob
We do show our work in the text, but you just hloss over it and come back with your memorized SDA answers, such as us just being lawless. Sorry, but using the assertion we are challenging to prove itself is not sound exegesis.
What you're seeing there is not the Ten per-se, but the ones shared in common by the Ten and the Seven. These are the universal laws. As I have said, the rest of the Church has assumed they were the Ten as well, and somehow changed or eliminated the fourth, and that was wrong if one is going to use the Ten. I don't see how you could day the're "honoring" them now, when you are the ones claiming they are breaking them by changing or leaving one out.
I never said that. You all are just the most aggressive about it here; that's all.
Those are the universal Two commandments. Not only do the Ten hang on them, but also the Seven, (since several of them are in common), and what the emphasis on the Two shows is that we are no longer in the Letter (of either the Ten or the Seven), but the Seven did outline the universal laws, unlike the Ten which was specifically for Israel only and added the Sabbath as a sign for for that covenant.
- Status