Adventist Today

Preston

It seems you believe that obedience is is an old covenant thing and that in the new covenant, obedience is no loger neccesary or binding as it were. Read Roman 6:14-15. John tell "new covenant" christians that he writes these things that they sin not. Oh yeah John Wites in 1st john that he who says is in the father but keepeth not his commandments is a liar! He was probably an old covenant legalist!

I am beginning to think that I do not subcribe to Preston's version of the new covenant, it makes void the law! You create your own strawman stereotype of adventists legalists who want to be under the law. You are conflating obedience with being under the law (ironic on so many levels). Apparently what we believe is babylon, and is fallen have the new covenant teaching and experience! So why are we calling them out?! Ellen white says we are repositories of God's law yet Preston believes that is a problem so I have to options to Go with Preston's interpretation or with E G white's interpreation .  Hmmmmmmm, decisions decisions decisions.................................. Oh yeah right E G white is inspired and Preston is not unless he claims to be then we could test him for the prophetic gift I would love to use our texts on testing prophets practically!

@ timo I am testing this mike and its making a wierd noise!

Seriously though I preston Your posts is filled with half truths and conviniently ommited texts and thus I ncannot in good conscience endorse this. this is my two cents!

SDA legalism is a way of establishing and enforcing peculiarity and elevation of SDA-ism
above all else. So "we" can be right, and everyone else wrong. The Christian message is
far more inclusive than that. And, it seems to me that the message of freedom from legalistic
bondage attributed to Jesus was even broader and more inclusive. It is an inspiring message.
Why do those who claim to believe that message find it so difficult to accept? Why does it
all seem to be about being right and everyone else being wrong? Self preservation?

Would adventism lose its distinctiveness if its members insisted on simply being Christians?

 

Preston,

Thank's for bringing our focus back to the simple need for the Sabbath to stand independent from its place in the Law.  I find your proposition compelling.

The legalism of living under the "old covenant",we are told, will destroy us. And as Preston related above, it appears to outsiders that we are peculiar, wierd, cultish. The sinner must not rely on keeping the letter & tittle of the Ten Commandants of the Jews. They can't and it will remove them from the Lord's grace.
The new covenant in Jesus Christ, to love thy God with all thy heart, and all thy mind,and all thy might, and thy neighbor as thyself. This is the greatest commandmant and all the law is dependent on it. The sinner must make the transition to receiving the Holy Spirit, by faith, and following his wisdom, that will lead you into all  knowledge, truth, and God given wisdom, and salvation in Jesus Christ.  

It is Adventism's peculiar and unique interpretation of the NT that has allowed them to elevate sabbath as the essential fact necessary for salvation.  By whatever means, they have managed to teach this unChristian system because the majority do not read or understand Paul, the greatest NT expositor on Christianity and how it changed from Judaism, rather than largely a continuation of that system.

While Paul's transparent teaching that the Law (this always means the entire Torah) was our guide until Christ came, it is no longer needed, because Christ has replaced the Law.  What is confusing about such clarity?  He then further illustrates the relationship of the Law to Abraham's progeny:

"Listen to what the Law says (identifying the Law as the Torah, which contains the story in Genesis):  "You want to be subject to the Law?  Then listen to what the Law says" and then proceeds to compare the two covenants with Abraham's two children by a free woman and a slave woman.

"This can be an regarded as an allegory:  the women stand for the two covenants.  The first who comes from Mount Sinai, and whose children are slaves, is Hagar, and she corresponds to the present Jerusalem that is a slave like her children. The Jerusalem above, however, is free and is our mother....So, my brothers, we are the children, not of the slave-girl, but of the free-born wife.  When Christ freed us, he meant us to remain free.  Stand firm, therefore and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery....If you allow yourelves to be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you at all....Everyone who accepts circumcision is obliged to keep the whole Law....the whole of the Law is summarised in a single command: Love your neighbor as yourself."

The constant reference to circumcision was well understood, as it was the entrance requirement of all Jews and any foreigner who wished to become part of Judaism, without exceptions.  So submitting to circumcision was an acknowledgement of one's committment to become subservient to the Law.

When I was in grade school some 50 years ago, we had what we called the safety patrol which the 6th graders performed to protect th first and second graders. Wait for the light to turn green. Use the cross walk. This is much to simplistic, but God's law is much like this to protecr us. My understanding of scripture is that no one keeps the law perfectly, so are guilty of breaking the whole law, sabbath included. No matter how hard we try, we repeatedly fail.  But we are saved by our acceptance of a free pass. Go past go and collect $200.  This is not cheap grace. It is what grace is. It cost an infinate amount.  I do my best to keep the law, but many times I'm not sure what "right" is. But the God I have come to know knows that, and loves me just the same! 

When the NT, particularly speaks of the Law as being written in our heart, it does not mean the letters written in stone but the natural law which all humans have been given.

Why did Cain know that he sinned?  There was no Ten Commandments?  Why did all those who sinned prior to Sinai know they had sinned?  This is the natural law that Paul refers to in Romans:  when Gentiles. "Pagans who never heard of the Law but are led by reason to do what the Law commands, may not actually possess the Law  but the point of the substance of the Law is engraved on their hearts."

All humans are given reasoning power, otherwise how could they be expected the abiltity to choose right from wrong?  Paul is contrasting the Law given to the Jews with the natural and moral law given by God to all humans; and this is how they will be judged.

Natural moral laws are specific prohibitions listed in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th commandments.  They are also "ethical laws" because they describe our relationships and behavior with other humans.  The first four are not natural laws as they cannot be ascertained without being taught them:  an individual knows it is wrong to kill by natural law; he cannot know a god should be obeyed or how and when he should be worshiped by natural law.

This natural law applies to everyone at all times.  The Ten Commandments; the British Law, the U.S. Law applies only to those who are citizens of that nation.  The Decalogue was given only to the Israelites, and therfore does not apply to  Christians.  The natural law, some of which is embodied in the Decalogue are natural and moral laws applicable to all.  But those specifically given for those under their government, only apply to them. 

When the NT, particularly speaks of the Law as being written in our heart, it does not mean the letters written in stone but the natural law which all humans have been given.

Why did Cain know that he sinned?  There was no Ten Commandments?  Why did all those who sinned prior to Sinai know they had sinned?  This is the natural law that Paul refers to in Romans:  when Gentiles. "Pagans who never heard of the Law but are led by reason to do what the Law commands, may not actually possess the Law  but the point of the substance of the Law is engraved on their hearts."

All humans are given reasoning power, otherwise how could they be expected the abiltity to choose right from wrong?  Paul is contrasting the Law given to the Jews with the natural and moral law given by God to all humans; and this is how they will be judged.

Natural moral laws are specific prohibitions listed in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th commandments.  They are also "ethical laws" because they describe our relationships and behavior with other humans.  The first four are not natural laws as they cannot be ascertained without being taught them:  an individual knows it is wrong to kill by natural law; he cannot know a god should be obeyed or how and when he should be worshiped by natural law.

This natural law applies to everyone at all times.  The Ten Commandments; the British Law, the U.S. Law applies only to those who are citizens of that nation.  The Decalogue was given only to the Israelites, and therfore does not apply to  Christians.  The natural law, some of which is embodied in the Decalogue are natural and moral laws applicable to all.  But those specifically given for those under their government, only apply to them. 

'Ironically, what has been used to protect the Adventist position re: the specific importance of the 7th day Sabbath is what prevents many Christians from embracing the observance of the 7th day Sabbath: the law.'

Preston, this is a very interesting and well-thought argument.  I agree, that if we make Sabbath-keeping just a matter of the Decalogue, of something we are told not to do, then it certainly makes it easier for many Christians to claim the Sabbath has no place in the New Covenant experience.  

The problem with the 4th commandment in the Decalogue is that it only tells us not what to do on the seventh-day; thus, it is only a negative command like the rest.  However, the 4th commandment in the Decalogue says nothing about what to do on that day in a positive sense.  Jesus' conduct on the Sabbath, of healing people or giving counsel to pull animals out of holes, shows us the true positive fulfillment of Sabbath as God originally attended.

One could sit and stare at a wall doing nothing on the seventh-day and comply with the negative commands of the 4th Commandment of the Decalogue.  We all know Adventists who embrace that kind of Sabbath-keeping.  However, truly embracing the meaning of the Sabbath, in its positive sense to love God and our fellow neighbour with all our hearts, goes much further.  

Therefore, FB#19 and even FB#20 indeed gives a very limited view of what the Sabbath really means, and was intended to mean as God originally created it.

"FB 19 (The Law of God) has been, in my opinion, very purposefully positioned in front of FB 20 (The Sabbath) to give the biblical the Sabbath the weight and protection of the law." 
 
Indeed, probably true.
 
One wonders if FB#19 is really needed at all in light of FB#10 'Experience of Salvation', which says:
 
‘…Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God's sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renewsour hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life.’
 
Or in light of new FB#11:
 
‘Now the Holy Spirit dwells within us and empowers us. Continually committed to Jesus as our Saviour and Lord, we are set free from the burden of our past deeds. No longer do we live in the darkness, fear of evil powers, ignorance, and meaninglessness of our former way of life. In this new freedom in Jesus, we are called to grow into the likeness of His character…’
 
I agree that it seems somewhat bizarre that a FB on the Law of God would be found way down at #19 and not around #10 or #11, where discussions about justification and sanctification occur.  I can only agree with your conclusion that this is to somehow link the Law of God with the Sabbath in FB#20.

'My purpose, here, is to refocus the discussion begun in Part 1 of this article, to the possible adverse effects on our (Adventists) ability to influence other Christian believers about the spiritual importance of the 7th day Sabbath and, also, to discuss the inability (of some) Adventists to embrace the full meaning of the New Covenant, in the context of SDA Fundamental Belief 19.' 
 
Preston, I have been much challenged by these articles and want to thank you again.  This is a long-debated issue in Christianity, and like the 1888 Conference, it is good to be challenged as to our preconceived formulas and patterns of thinking.  I do think that often we, and I mean Tapiwa included, agree more than we think, but we are locked into certain patterns of language and thinking that are perhaps unhelpful.
 
After conversing on this subject for a while, I would say that the major problems with the expression of belief as to the Law of God as set out in the FBs, and FB#19 in particular, are that they are ambiguous or unclear in the following ways:
 

• They fail to adequately set out what is meant by the term 'Law of God', especially insofar as separating Moral aspects of the Law from civil and ceremonial aspects of the Torah, which were only shadows for the Jews pointing to Jesus.
• They fail to adequately set out what is meant by the term 'Law of God' insofar as differentiating the Moral Law in its negative-external manifestation in the Decalogue compared with its positive-internal manifestation found in the 2 Great Commands of Love.
• They fail to adequately differentiate the role of the Moral Law in its pre-conversion role of death, in pointing out sin but certainly not saving, as opposed to its post-conversion role, where the Holy Spirit works through us to put the Law in our hearts.
• FB#19 in particular is perhaps not needed, especially in light of statements in FB#10 and #11, which in many ways are superior and more balanced to FB#19. 

Stephen,

You and I have concluded that the entire problem is the lack of defining the word "Law" and how it is used in the many statements made both in the Bible and FBs.

There is a natural law that was given us by God when we were created humans rather than animals who have instincts to guide them, and do not make moral choices, which only humans can make.

There have been many governments in world history that have instituted laws for their citizens, but they only apply to that locality and time.  This is the role of the Law given to the Israelites.  The Bible plainly states that it was not given to anyone else, but only to Israel; not was it given to their forefathers.  It was a new Law given just for them.  It was never given previous to Sinai.

 

Adventists in particular, have given an arbitrary separation of the law in the Bible into moral and ceremonial; something foreign to the Jews as there was never anything but a Law, period.

All civilized, law abiding citizens have no need of a written moral law as it was God given and known:  no murders, no stealing, etc.  Cain knew he sinned with a written law; without a written law to guide men, they were still declared wicked and perished in the flood.

When the Jews became Christians they did not abandon their Law but in their zeal they wanted to force their Law on the Gentiles, to which the apostles ruled that it was unnecessary to be accepted a Christ-followers; but the Jews could continue as before.

There is no unwritten moral law in the Bible; there are only written laws:  some on stone and some found in the Torah covering every aspect of human life, and which were never given, nor intended for Christians.

It is the first commandments that are most distinctively representative of ethnic Judaism and the ethnicity was obliterated as a special mark of God's Chosen, when there was no separation of race, sex, or slaves. 

There is absolutely no way that a human could discern that one day, a specific day, should be set aside to honor God unless he were instructed of its relevance to his belief in God.  No natural or moral laws have set aside a time for rest or worship.  It cannot then, be called a moral law, as morals are both universal and timeless and apply to all humans everywhere.

In Acts 15:20, when confronted with the issue of circumcission, the Council of Elders and Apostles determined that Gentile believers did not need circumcission but:

“Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.”

Now the Council was dealing with Gentiles who converted, and thus presumably confessed their sin and took hold of Christ's offer of grace through the Law's ministry of death. However, my question is - why did the Council give a list of actual commands for these post-conversion Gentiles and not simply ask the Gentiles simply love God and love their fellow neighbours.

What about James message about works and faith.  Was James contradicting Paul and teaching another Gospel?

These are not a rhetorical question.  Is it perhaps possible that this issue of the role and place of the Law in Christianity is so complicated that the Apostles and Councils themselves had troubles articulating it?  I still do wonder if we agree more than we think but talk past each other.

Br Preston Foster's attempt to protect and give the Sabbath more publicity by denying the Fourth Commandment its rightful place to shine brightly in the midst of the Ten, in order to win others to it, won't work effectively for a few reasons and beliefs especially with the Sunday Christians (among others).

1] Many of them believe and are taught that the law (including the Sabbath) was nailed to the cross.
2] Sunday has superseded the Sabbath as a result of the Resurrection.
3] They are under the Holy Spirit and 'free' to do as they are apparently led.
4] Obedience to God is not a requirement as there is no law - only grace.
5] They are covered by the blood and obedience is not required by God.
6] They speak in 'tongues' which is the sign of receiving the Holy Spirit.
7] Sanctification is a taboo subject which is labelled as legalistic.
8] Dead people go to heaven regardless, as long as they once believed.
9] Once saved always saved.
10] Many work on the Sabbath and aren't willing to risk losing their financial gain.
11] Women (and men recently) wear earrings and other jewellery which they can't give up.
12] They eat pork and other foods which God says are not good for man's consumption.
13] They have extremely loud music and euphoric episodes of worship which most Sabbath churches can't compete with even though they may try hard. 
14] Rolling on the floor, screaming hysterically and uttering nonsensical sounds are believed to be Holy Spirit outpouring.
15] Healing show casing, clapping and dancing, trancelike behaviour and heavy drumming with amplified rock guitar sounds bring life to their meetings where the Holy Spirit is manifest.
16] Prosperity gospel is rife with wealth and status being a measurement of closeness to God.
17] The Sabbath is for cults, even though they know that Jesus kept the Sabbath.
18] The dead are alive in heaven.
19] The human being has a spirit which can leave the body and do stuff in the spiritual realm.
20] Regular exorcism mostly on the same peoples every week and the pastoral prayer where one has to fall down.

With all these many things that Sunday (Protestant) Churches may subscribe to - and not forgetting Catholics and Hindu's etc., with their many staunch beliefs as well - it is and has always been the Holy Spirit's leading which brings souls to the Sabbath truth.  The sinner that comes to Christ and acknowledges His Law and His Grace also will acknowledge that the Sabbath is significant, relevant , binding and meaningful to them.  There's no need to guard the Sabbath so zealously that in doing so we abrogate its rightful place in the heart of the Ten Commandments.  Millions of Adventists around the world have come to Christ irrespective of the various challenges noted above in my list and accepted the Law of God as a positive aspect of obedience resulting from their love for Christ.

"especially FB#19 that wrongly suggests the negative-external Decalogue is the only manifestation of the Moral Law without any reference whatsoever to the positive-internal 2 Great Commandments of Love"
---------------
I see it differently Mr. Ferguson.  The negatives you and Preston Foster see in FB#19 regarding the Decalogue are very positive to me in their wording and application and are in essence the same sentiments expressed in the 'Love God - Love Man' summary which Jesus espoused in the NT.  Love towards God and fellow man is what the Ten are all about - there's no doubt about that.  It's embodies the golden rule and all.

No Smoking signs for example can have very positive connotations associated with it but it depends on the perception and position held by the beholder.

Correction: paragraph 5, should read, "Converted believers, the OBJECT of the FBs, should be  . . ."

Br Preston, Sir:
You know very well that I didn't mean - nor did I say what you have stated: "So I take it that you believe that the Holy Spirit has completed His work with Adventists -- that we have it all right?"

By the way the old rugged cross is much older than 22oct1844 and the old time religion of the cross certainly has not lost its power to save us in Christ from the 'guttermost to the uppermost'.  Praise God!

I accept our true condition as a lukewarm church even as Christ has admonished us in Rev 3:16 (just like the other churches out there I suppose).  We too are in need of much I would readily admit as Christ counsels us.
 
You seem to exclude Adventists as being New Covenant Christians (except for yourself of course – but I stand corrected on this) and seem to imply that we (Adventists) don't live under the power of the Holy Spirit nor under the New Covenant which you base on the Joseph Prince model (from what I can see) citing Paul’s admonition to the church regarding ‘under law or under grace’ issues.  They were and are very relevant church issues which obviously need to be addressed without going to the other extreme of making void the law (which I’m glad you say you’re not doing) but establishing it as Paul says too. 
 
A practical example: Tongues.  Many charismatics have made tongues somewhat of a doctrine, so much so that it has become a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit.  Even though they claim to live under the New Covenant they have somehow made it works orientated.  The immutable Holy Law of God is in itself quite beneficial in terms of convicting us of our sinful nature and exposing our desperate need for a Saviour by living a perfect life (which the law demands) and giving his life for us.  His righteousness becomes ours and His obedience becomes ours.  Question is: Obedience to what?  The Law.  Whilst Grace allows us to escape the penalty of the law - Jesus wasn't spared.  His life was required in order to make atonement for us.  This shows the immutability of the Law.  Christ suffered the consequences of disobedience to his law on our behalf so that we might be saved from the curse of death which it brings.
 
I’m just concerned when Adventists start saying that we should follow the doctrines of other groups who themselves don’t toe the line.  Just because the Law isn’t against those who believe in Christ (for obvious reasons) - it doesn't just disappear or become voided.  It simply cannot act against those who are saved [Gal 5:22-23].  [Rom 6:15] refers to sin in the context being under grace and not under the law.  This shows that the law is still does its work in pointing out sin, as always, even when we are under the New Covenant - only now it can't condemn, curse us or be against us - because its requirements are fulfilled in Christ.
 
The law couldn’t save us in the OT and neither does it in the NT.  The law couldn’t save us in the Old Covenant and neither can it save in the New.  The law couldn’t save us while we were yet sinners and neither can it save us when we are saved [Rom 3:28].  Only Christ saves [Rom 5:8; 1John 4:9; Matt 1:21; Acts 4:12; Acts 10:43; Rom 8:11; Col 3:3; Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8-10; 2Cor 5:17; Eph 1:4; Titus 2:14; John 3:16-17].  This too is embodied in the sentiments of FB#19.  I like this doctrinal position because it shows balance and doesn’t disrespect God’s Law whilst upholding God's marvellous Grace. [1John 1:7]

Well Said!!!

Br Preston – Sir, you say: “The issue not that the 10 Commandments are "bad" or "negative."  They are, simply, the Old Covenant.”
 
If the Ten Commandments = the Old Covenant, then why was Moses inspired to write all that other stuff down which contained ordinances, including a complex sacrificial system and organisational structure given by God right down to the smallest detail?  The Ten Commandments alone is therefore not the Old Covenant as such – but a part of that which was.  The ceremonial laws, together with governance and health laws were included with the Ten Commandments in the Old Covenant.  The New Covenant is the fulfilment of the Old Covenant in Christ.  The law contained in ordinances longer exists.  The law contained in ordinances was nailed to the cross.  The Promise however still exists (in Christ) as well as the Decalogue (in Christ).
 
The Moral Law – was kept faithfully by Christ in perfect obedience. 
The Ceremonial Law – was fulfilled in Christ who abrogated this law contained in ordinances
The Promise – was the same Messianic Promise given to Adam, Abraham, Israel and us.
The Old Covenant – now obsolete.  Its types and symbols were fulfilled in Christ.
The New Covenant – the belief in Jesus the Christ our Lord and Saviour.

oct1844,

You implied that because other Christians had not yet adopted the 7th day Sabbath, the Holy Spirit's work with them had been ineffective.  From that, I assumed you to mean that because we, as Adventists, had seen the light of the Sabbath, the Holy Spirit's work with us was, at least, superior, if not complete.  If I misunderstood, I apologize. 

I do not subscribe to the Joseph Prince, TD Jakes, Ellen White, Joel Osteen, Desmond Ford, or any other "model" beside that of the Scripture.  I wrote the article because, in my view, FB 19 and Scripture do not align.  FB 19 binds us to Old Covenant law while claiming New Covenant features.  I do not see how this is possible.  The New Covenant is, according to the Bible, both new and superior.  The Old calls for us (as believers) to be led by the law; the New  calls for us to be led by the Spirit.  The Old calls for obedience to the law; the New calls for obedience to the faith (Romans 1:5).

I have asked practical questions of Tapiwa and you that remain (on this and the "Part 1" strand) conspicuously unanswered, such as:

- Will now we be obedient to the instruction to be, under the New Covenant, led by the Spirit, rather than by the law (Romans 8:3,14, Galatians 5:17-18, Galatians 3:24-26)?
- If the Old Covenant law is still in effect, why is not the penalty for breaking the Sabbath not enforced (Exodus 31:14-15)?
- Does not 2 Corinthians 2 3:3-11 and Hebrews 8:13 speak directly and explicitly to the obsolesence of the Old Covenant?

Dear Br Preston:
-How can one spiritually and logically live simultaneously under both the Old and New Covenants?  They can’t.  I haven’t suggested this nor does FB#19.  The old Covenant has been fulfilled in Christ.  It is abrogated and obsolete.  [Col 2:14] The laws found in ordinances are nailed to the cross - not the Decalogue as they are immutable and therefore ultimately binding on all mankind.

-Does not 2 Corinthians 2 3:3-11 and Hebrews 8:13 speak directly and explicitly to the obsolesence of the Old Covenant?
Yes.  [Heb 8:13] does.  (Please clarify the 2 Corinthians verse you are referring to.)

- Did not Christ Himself live under the Old Covenant as He came to fulfill the law perfectly?  
Yes.  [Gal 4:4-5][Rom 8:3-4]
 
Would not his pre-crucifixtion statements about the law apply to what had not yet been fulfilled by His death and resurrection (Matthew 5:17-18)?
Jesus amplified, summarised and exemplified the law in fulfilling its requirements.  The Decalogue wasn’t made void as Paul confirms. [Rom 13:8, 9, 10][Rom 3:31]

- Does not John 14:6 apply directly to what Christ's obedience to the law and His work on the Cross (and His resurrection) accomplished for us?  
Yes.
 
Does not this speak to His work of reconciliation -- satisfying the Father's law for us, which allows us to boldly approach The Father (Hebrews 4:14-16; Ephesians 3:11-12)?
Yes

- If there is no Old and New Covenant law, why does not the Old Covenant (still binding?) penalty breaking the Sabbath still apply (Exodus 31:13-17)?
The Decalogue is binding on all mankind in all ages and not waived by the Covenants in the OT or NT.

- If the Old Covenant law still applies to those in Christ, why are we, in the New Covenant, called not to Mt. Sinai (where the law was given, resulting in death), but, instead, to Mt. Zion, where grace and life flow (Hebrews 12:18-24)?
The Old Covenant ceremonial laws don’t apply in the New Covenant as they are ‘nailed to the cross’.  The Decalogue is a standard of God’s character as exemplified in Christ.  It is eternal and immutable as He is.

I have just re-read pretty much all of Gal and Romans all over again, with 3 Bible commentaries.  I have read Dulings introduction to the New Testament, with a particular focus on the historical-critical background to Gal and Romans.  

I have also re-skimmed the excellent book, 'Five views on Law and Gospel', which prevents conflicting views of Greg Bahnsen, Walter Kaiser Jr, Douglas Moo, Wayne Strickland and Willem VanGermeren.  This book is great because it isn't propaganda for any particular view but present 5 different views, and 25 counter views to those 5 views.

And you know what after reading a couple hundred pages - I am pretty confused!  And this discussion isn't really making it any clearer, which shouldn't suprise me, given Christians have been debating this for centuries.  I also really agree with Peter when he said Paul was confusing (2 Pet 3:6).

My thoughts so far include:

• I am pretty comfortable with the idea that the Law's primary focus was to point out sin (Rom 7:7), so we couldn't continue to ignore or rationalise to ourselves when we commit sin (denying the natural law of our conscience per Rom 2:14.
• I am very comfortable with the notion that the Law doesn't save - it certainly can't.
• I am happy to admit something described as 'law' (nomos) came to an end with the New Covenant (Col 2:14; Heb 8:13).
• I am happy to admit that ceremonial aspects of the law certainly came to an end with Christ  (Heb 8:5).  
• I am not entirely sure whether the Moral Law, and in particular the Decalogue, ceased (Matt 5:17-19).
• I am not entirely sure whether the law written in our hearts under the New Covenant is a new law or merely a transformation and internalisation of the same law found in the OT, as Jer 31:33-34 and Ez 36:27 suggest not a new law but "the" Law put in our hearts.
• I am pretty confident that before Christ people were still saved by grace and not works, as Abraham was saved by faith (Gal 3:6-8).
• I know the Law was only as a tutor that ended in Christ (Gal 3:25) but it still isn't clear to me whether that was the ceremonial-civil regulations that existed to foster certain worship practices or included moral and ethical commands.
• I am probably happy to conclude that the texts about the law ending included the Decalogue, insofar as its negative-external commands have no direct relevance for someone who has a changed nature and thus is naturally being righteous through the Law living in their hearts pursuant to the 2 Great Commandments, which are the summary of the Law.
• I am still not clear whether Paul is primarily concerned with legalism or the Torah.  For the OT itself has the equivalents of the 2 Great Commandments and many of the practices and views Paul condemns are the same things the OT itself condemns - if one reads the law properly - which the Judaizing Christians and Pharisees were not doing.
• I admit there are a number of texts that suggest a discontinuity of the Law for the Christian era, including: Gal 3:10-12; Gal 3:23-24 Rom 10:4; Phil 3:7-9; 2 Cor 3:13, 8-18; Heb 7:12; Heb 8:13.  
• By contrast, I admit there are a number of texts that suggest a continuity of the Moral Law (being the broad aphoric Decalogue and causatic moral-ethics texts of the Torah): Matt 5:17-19; Matt 22:37-40; Rom 7:12, 14, 28; 1 Tim 1:8 (but cf. 1 Tim 1:9, 10); Eph 6:1-3; Rom 3:31; 1 Cor 7:19; Rom 6:1; 1 Cor 9:9; James 2:8-10 (but the other 'side' sometimes claims this text also); Jam 4:11-12; 1 Pet 1:13-16; 1 John 2:3-4; 1 John 5:3; 2 Tim 3:16; Jer 31:33; and Ez 36:27.
• Even assuming the Decalogue is only limited to pointing out sin per Rom 7:7, and it isn't clear to me whether Paul expects living as naturally good people under the New Covenant, where the law lives in our hearts and we no longer need to be taught (Jer 31:34), is something that is to occur magically and completely at conversion (and wouldn't that be perfectionism), or rather is Paul's eventual hope for us?  
• Given it appears professed Christians aren't yet perfect so that they no longer need to be taught because the Law lives in our hearts, does the Decalogue continue to play a part in the post-conversion experience in pointing out sin?  I note after all the discussions about the ending of the Law in Gal 3-5, in Gal 6:1 talks about poiting out sin to fellow post-conversion believers.
• To mirror 22oct1844's point, if a post-conversion baptised Christian does not keep the Sabbath, is it legitimate to point out their sin by reference to the 4th commandment of the Decalogue?  Otherwise, how will they be convinced?  Isn't pointing out sin the role of the Decalogue per Rom 7:7, even for the self-professed Christian?
• If in the post-coversion experience we are to live under the New Covenant and not under the Decalogue, why does Paul directly re-quote one of the 10 Commandments in Eph 6:1-3?  And why does he quote a moral causatic command of the Torah in 1 Cor 9:9?  I thought this behaviour extremely odd if Paul was suggesting the Decalogue has no role whatsoever for the post-coversion Christian.

Am I the only one willing to admit how confusing this whole subject is?

And I wonder if Christians have just thought up a 1001 ways to say the same thing but say them in such a way to disagree with each other?  In particular, the concluding remarks of the two 'New Covenant' authors in  'Five views on Law and Gospel' is extremely interesting.  Remember, these are the two scholars who most argue that the Law is a unity and was done away with at the Cross. 

Wayne G. Strickland for the Dispensationalist view at p.279 says the following:

'The relevatory function of the law was in mind when Paul discussed the merits of the law.  He was accurate in his assessment of the law as far from being evil (Rom 7:7-14).  He was equally discerning when he suggested the law is holy (v12).  Paul did not say that the law was holdy, but that the law is holy, righteous, good (v12), and spiritual (v14).  In this regard, the law has abiding application to the life of a believer even in the church age.

The nature of the law has no changed, so its revelatory purpose transcends the Mosaic economy and remains valid in the church dispensation.  In fact, the law as its functions in a revelatory manner acts to preserve the unity between the two eras.  Since God's character is immutable, it stands to reason that insofar as the law reveals God's character, it remains valid.  In revealing the "sin-grace" construct, the law providing abiding testimony to human sinfulness and God's gracious provision of justification.  The method of justification in the Mosaic er is identical to the current method: grace.  This is the sole method ever used by God.  Likewise the "sin-grace" construct in the Mosaic era revealed the basis of justification was and still is blood atonement.' (emphasis added)

Remember, this is from a leading scholar who says the entire Law, including the Decalogue, has been made obsolete! I wonder if to say the Law loses its regulatory function under the Mosaic economy but retains its revelatory function in a sin-grace construct is just another way to say that the Mosaic ceremonial-civil aspects of the Law are irrelevant but the Moral aspects (found in the Decalogue and causatic commands of the Torah) remain valid?  Are we simply skinning the cat so many different ways?

And from another leading scholar who argues the Law is obsolete, Modified Lutheran Douglas Moo at page 376 of 'Five views on Law and Gospel':

'First, as I have stressed, to say that the Mosaic law in itself is no longer binding [note he discusses that word 'binding'!!!] on the Christian is to say that individual commandments within the law may not be.  In fact, as we have seen, New Testament authors explicitly "reapply" several Mosiac commandments to the Christian (cf. Gal 5:14; Eph 6:2; Jam 2:8-12.  The content of all but one of the Ten Commandments [he argues the Sabbath was totally done away with] is taken up into "the law of Christ", for which we are responsible.

I am not, then, suggesting that the essential "moral" content of the Mosaic laaw is no applicable to believers.  On the "bottom line" question of what Christians are actually to do, I could well find myself in complete agreement with, say, a colleague who takes a traditional Reformed approach to the Mosaic law.  The difference would lie not in what Christians are to do but in how it is to be discovered.'  (emphasis added)

To say that what we are talking about is not what Christians actually do but how they discover it really the essence of this debate?  Aren't the Decalogue and 2 Great Commandments simply two sides of the same coin?  Isn't the problem that the Jews and Judaizing Christians (and many modern Christians) sought to try really, really hard in keeping the Decalogue, which led to legalism and a false sense that law-keeping saved?  

Doesn't the Law as found in the OT itself warn against this? Are we again re-skinning the same cat and arguing about it?  I really don't know.

In Heb 7:12 there is clear evidence that shows that the ceremonial law could be and was changed in certain circumstances like when Melchisedec became Priest.  This then confirms the rightful and beneficial place Jesus has as our High Priest in the New Covenant [Heb 7:28].
 
The ceremonial laws which also governed the Priesthood weren’t immutable.  They were transitory and subject to Christ. 
 
The Decalogue however is immutable and Christ became subject to its requirements in order to save us from its curse.  Only the Lawgiver Himself could redeem man because the Decalogue is a perfect and unchangeable code of his Righteous character and authority even in the New Covenant [Heb 8:9-10][Jer 31:33][Zech 8:8].

The fundamental problem is that in both of these posts you have misunderstood the issue and now hours have been spent debating irrelevant issues.

Having been saved by grace, I find the laws of logic and reason no longer binding, so no actual debate is possible. And since the law of gravity is no longer binding, and I will be floating off.

The more I look at the issue the more I am convinced we are skinning the same cat different ways.  Despite the acrimony and very rebuttals, I am increasingly convinced different parties are getting to the same end but by using different language and objectives.  In particular:
 

• Jesus’ 2 Great Commandments are still commands, albeit they are positive commands rather of the Decalogue’s negative prohibitions.  The New Covenant still requires obedience and submission to God – but as slaves to righteousness instead of slaves to sin:  Rom 6:15-18.

 

• Neither the 2 Great Commandments nor the Decalogue promote lawlessness: Rom 7:7,12. As sin as transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4), and the result of grace is not to go on sinning (Rom 6:1-2,15), the end result or hope for a new human nature is much the same – a life of conformity to God’s character, being the fruits of the Spirit and holiness: Gal 5:13-26; Rom 6:22.

 

• Even if one assumes the NT has to positively reaffirm an OT command for it to reapply, as many dispensationalists suggest, all of the 10 Commandments are reaffirmed in one way or another by NT passages: 1st commandment (Matt 4:10; Acts 17:16; Rom1:25; 1 Cor 8:4-6; Philip 3:19; Colos 2:18; Rev 19:10; 22:9); 2nd (Acts 15:29; Rom1:22-23; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 10:14; Eph 5:5; 1 John 5:21; Rev 21:8; 22:15); 3rd (Mat 5:33-37; 22:16-22; Jam 5:12);  4th (  ); 5th (Mat 15:4-9; Rom 1:30; Eph 6:1-3; Col 3:20); 6th (Mat 15:19; Mar 7:21-23; Rom1:29; 13:9; 1 Tim 1:9-10; Jam2:11; 1 John 3:15); 7th (Mar7:21-23;10:11-12; Acts 15:20; Rom 2:22; 7:2-3; 13:9; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 7:5; Heb 13:4); 8th (Mat 15:19; Mar 7:21-23; Luk 3:13-14; Rom 13:9; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph4:28; James 5:4); 9th (Mat 15:19; Luk 3:14; Rom 1:29-30; 13:9; Eph 4:31;1 Tim 1:9-10; 2 Tim 3:3; Jam 4:11); and 10th (Mar 7:21-23; Luke 12:15; Acts 20:33; Rom1:29; 13:9; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph 5:3; Philip 3:19; Col 3:5; Heb13:5).

 

• Dispensationalists also often claim that the Torah no longer has regulatory functions but still has revelatory functions.  However, that appears to be just another way of saying the moral aspects of the Law are distinguishable and applicable to the Christian, compared with the Jewish ceremonial-civil aspects.

 

• This debate also ultimately ends up in the same place because almost everyone seems to agree that Christians should be guided by ‘natural law’ or the ‘Eden principle’. Jesus best described this in His discussion on divorce, observing that believers should now live according to how it was ‘in the beginning’: Matt 19:4,8. Paul likewise (in 1 Cor 6:16, mirroring Jesus in Mar 10:8) condemned sexual immorality by quoting ‘The two will become one flesh’ – a reference to the pre-Fall state of human relationships in marriage: Gen 2:24. 

 

• Concerning the natural law in Eden, regardless of whether one considers it a new law or merely another way of restating the same law, all the commandments of the Decalogue, including the Sabbath, can be located in the pre-Fall beginning.  Similar to the New Covenant manifestation of the Law, the pre-Fall descriptions, being mankind’s relationship with God and each other, are often expressed in a same-but-antithetical (opposite) manner.  Consider: the 1st commandment (humanity is made ruler over the animals: Gen 1:26; Gen 2:15); 2nd (humanity is God’s graven image on earth: Gen 1:26); 3rd (God names the day and night, and sea and land, whilst Adam names all the animals: Gen 1:5,10; Gen 2:20);  4th (God made the Sabbath Holy and set it apart: Gen 2:1-2); and 5th-10th (Adam literally loved Eve as himself because she was from his own actual body, being from his rib: Gen 2:22,23).

 

• Those who claim the Decalogue no longer has any use or relevance for the Christian usually ends up in largely the same place when trying to articulate Christian ethics, for the entire Law is fulfilled in keeping this one command to ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’: Gal 5:14.  Rarely is there any Christian who truly embraces antinomianism. For the fruits of the Spirit and acts of the flesh (Gal 5:19-23) are two aphoric (general) and antithetical (opposing) lists, used by Paul in much the same manner as the Decalogue and 2 Great Commandments are used.  This is a common and ancient rhetorical device, most famously used by Jesus in His sermon on the mount.  Thus, to avoid orgies (Gal 5:20) and to embrace faithfulness (Gal 5:22) are two sides of the same coin, which is just another way of saying one avoids the negative commandment ‘thou shalt not commit adultery’ (Ex 20:14) whilst simultaneously obeying the positive command to love one’s wife as his own body (Eph 5:28). Therefore, one should be careful of seeing antithetical-dialectical rhetoric as promoting mutually exclusive opposites; whereas, the opposite of that opposite may be true – these seemingly opposing broad aphoric ethical lists actually create a complete synthesis of the whole picture, by viewing the issue from both sides.      

 

• Finally, the identity of the Law, and whether the Law written in our hearts under the New Covenant is a continuation or discontinuation of the Decalogue under the Old Covenant is largely irrelevant.  It is irrelevant because trying really, really hard to keep the 2 Great Commandments through human will-power alone will be just as futile as trying to keep the Decalogue through human will-power.  We should never forgot that under the New Covenant, God promises He will put the Law in our hearts – we don’t put it there ourselves: Jer 31:33.  If the Holy Spirit has done this in our lives, then we wouldn’t need to debate what this Law is, because the New Covenant promises we won’t need to be taught: Jer 31:34.  The fact that we continue to debate the identity and function of the Law is only proof that despite the opportunity to take hold of the New Covenant experience, we have not fully done so yet.  Asking a young romantic couple to intellectually articulate the nature of love is rather foolish – it’s something people find difficult to describe but you know it when you experience it. 

And Preston, I think we (and pretty much everyone here) agrees that the Decalogue is useful in the pre-conversion experience in pointing out sin (Rom 7:7), but that keeping the Law cannot save us.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to suggest that the Decalogue has no use or function in the post-conversion Christian experience.  Is that right?  

If so, can you please explain why Paul explictly quotes one of the Ten Commandments in Eph 6:2.  And note that Paul is not addressing pre-convert pagans but post-conversion believers, who are not under the law:

'Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise—“so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”'

Why would Paul do this if the Decalogue has no relevance to the post-conversion believer?

Similarly, why does Paul cite, again for the post-conversion Christian and not the pre-conversion pagan, an expounding of the moral law as found in the Torah in 1 Cor 9:9:

'For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”'

I would be very interested to know how you would explain these texts?

"But now we are ride of the Law, freed by death from our imprisonment, free to serve in the new spiritual way and not the old way of a written law."

"The whole of the Law is summarized in a single command:  Love your neighbor as yourself."

Please explain why the written law is still to be observed by Christians today. Love covers all the ethical and moral commands of the Decalogue.  What does the Bible mean when the Law is mentioned?  It is purely a non-biblical separation when some refer to a "moral" and "ceremonial" law.  The Bible never uses such terms and when Paul refers to the Law it is the entire Torah which is how the Jews have always referenced it.

Those supporting the continuing validity of the Law, which law are you referring to?

"Why would Paul do this if the Decalogue has no relevance to the post-conversion believer?"

Because it represents "love your neighbor as yourself" and is a natural, moral law that preceeds a written code, just as Cain had no law against murder, it still was breaking a natural, moral law.

Morals and ethics are only possible between other people.  That is why love contains all the moral and ethical principles Christian must follow.

"Concerning the natural law in Eden, regardless of whether one considers it a new law or merely another way of restating the same law, all the commandments of the Decalogue, including the Sabbath, can be located in the pre-Fall beginning."

This is a bold, unsubstantiated statement.  There is absolutely no command, written or spoken by God in Eden that covered the Decalogue, especially a command for Adam and Eve to observe a sabbath.  It is such assumptions that have deluded prospective converts for more than a hundred years, yet without a single Bible text supporting them.  Repetition does not change a false representation into fact.  It is also bearing false witness which was part of the Decalogue, as well as a moral law as bearing false witness needed no written law and is natural and embodied in both the Golden Rule and Love your neighbor as yourself.
 

Key words: "under," "led," "obsolete" or "done away," and, most importantly, "faith."

I've been stuggling to understand this misunderstanding (particularly with 22october, Tapiwa, and, to a lesser extent, with Stephen Ferguson).  Beside the limits of my ability to communicate, I believe that the disconnect pivots around the words listed above.  There may also be assumptions that are associated with vestigal thinking -- the need to protect the status quo and reactions that flow from that.  First, the key words:

- "Under:" We (converted Christians) are not under the law.  This does NOT mean that we are in conflict with the letter or spirit of the law.  It does mean that we are not subject to the laws penalties, nor bound by it.  To illustrate, I will use an example used on this space in another column.

If I owe the power company money and do not have the money to pay the bill, they will, eventually cut off my electricity.  22october1844 hears of my hardship, goes down to the power company and overpays my bill.  Later, I go down to the power company to negotiate a payment plan.  The power company tells me, "22october1844 came and paid the bill for you.  Your debt is settled."  I tell them, "I don't know 22october1844 and do not want to be indebted to him.  Take his payment off of my bill."  The power company does what I asked.  Then, they say, Mr. Foster, you owe us money.  Please pay the bill.  "I say, I am broke and cannot pay the bill."

My lights are going off.

If I had accepted 22october1844's payment, I would not be in debt (or under the law).  Because I refused his payment for me, I am in debt (under the law) and subject to the penalties for non-payment.  Had I accepted the payment, the debt would not exist and would have no power over me.

- "Led"  We (converted Christians) are to be led not by the law, but by the Holy Spirit.  This does not imply that the Holy Spirit will lead us contrary to the law.  It speaks to the superior way, the greater glory, and the increased power available to us by following the Spirit's lead.  The law is limited.  It does not speak of love. In terms of pointing out sin, the law is perfect and unbending.  We are not perfect.  So, for us, the law by itself, is the ministry of death.  The law has no power to REMOVE sin from our lives.  God does.  This is why, after acknowledging our sinfulness (being led by the law), we are to be led by the Spirit -- who has the power to purify us.

- "Obsolete" or "done away"  In the context of law and grace, I believe these terms to mean that, because of Christ's payment for our sins, the Old Covenant law is NOT binding on us.  In the "power company example, the debt (law) would have been binding had we not refused the payment.  Assuming we accept the payment, the debt is "obsolete" and "done away," (Romans 7:4-7)  The debt (the law) is not void: if we refuse the payment, its demands are alive and powerful.

"Faith"  Beyond saying that our understanding and acceptance of what grace ultimately means is a matter of faith, faith also becomes the locus of our obedience (Romans 1:5).  We are saved by grace THROUGH faith.  Grace is available, but can only be accessed through faith.  Since we are not saved by any works of the law, faith is the object of our obedience.  Faith is the work that God requires (John 6:28-29).

It is a new way.

To Stephen, my position is not that the 10 Commandments have no relavance to the converted believer, but that they are not "binding" on us, as sin has no dominion over us (Romans 6:14, Romans 8:1).  The law is a guide (thus, Paul's reference to the 5th Commandment -- and its promises). But unless we live perfectly by that guide, we need a Savior.  He unbound us by His blood.  Should we continue in sin because of that?  Of course not (Romans 6:1).  But we should live in the confidence that Christ has overcome sin for us (Romans 8:2-3).

Preston: "To Stephen, my position is not that the 10 Commandments have no relavance to the converted believer, but that they are not "binding" on us, as sin has no dominion over us (Romans 6:14, Romans 8:1).  The law is a guide (thus, Paul's reference to the 5th Commandment -- and its promises). But unless we live perfectly by that guide, we need a Savior.  He unbound us by His blood.  Should we continue in sin because of that?  Of course not (Romans 6:1).  But we should live in the confidence that Christ has overcome sin for us (Romans 8:2-3)."

Interesting development then - this is not what I thought you were saying based on previous comment.

So you are happy to admit the 10 Commandments are useful in pointing out sin in the pre-conversion experience.

You are also happy to admit the 10 Commandments have relevance to the converted believer as a guide, given Paul quotes the 5th Commandment to post-conversion Christians.

You also suggest that whilst useful as a guide, the 10 Commandments can't save because we can't perfectly keep it, so we need a svaiour.

So why are we all arguing then?  I totally agree with these three propositions, and I would think so would Tapiwa and 22oct1844.  We seem to be yelling each other and calling each other heretics over semantics.  I know you and others think the semantics are important, but it seems when you boil it down we are fundamentally believe the same thing re the place and role of the 10 Commandments.

The 5th commandment is covered in "Love your neighbor as yourself as well as natural law.  There is no need to have a list of commands when there is the entire summation in that one comand of love.

Many assumptions have been made about what was "said" or "understood" at Eden, but where the Bible is silent man should also be silent. Where do assumptions begin and end?  Are those private, unwritten assumptions inspired revelation?

There is not a single command that sabbath should be observed prior to Sinai; and to assume that it was despite total lack of evidence is adding to the Bible which is a curse written by John in Revelation.  Who, here, claims unwritten commands are inspired?

How do you interpret this statement of Paul, writing to the Gentiles:

"But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit AND NOT IN OLDNESS OF THE LETTER."

In other places he writes "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject to a yoke of slavery."

"Christ is the administraor of this new covenant which is Not a covenant of written letters but of the Spirit; the WRITTEN letters bring death but the Spirit gives life. Now if the administering of death in the written letters ENGRAVED ON STONES.."

Please explain what Paul is referring to in written letters on stone if it is NOT the Ten Commandments which is now obsolete|?

"it is ok for Seventh-day Adventists to quote the 4th Commandment as a guide to fellow Christian believers today?"

SDAs are free to quote and interpret whatever they choose.  However to claims that the Gentiles, never sabbath observers, were commanded at their conversion to Christianity to begin observing the written Law given to the Jews, lacks any scriptural reference and is contrary to all that Paul, who instructed Gentiles, had advised them to BEGIN observing.  They were prohibited by the Jews from observing sabbath as circumcision was required by any pagans who wished to join their community.  Rabbis also believed that there was a curse of death on any "foreigner" observed sabbath as it was given for the Jews alone.

This conforms with the history of the early Christian church both in the Bible and secular history. The lack of evidence for Adventist interpretation is contrary to the historical record both from scripture and church fathers' writings.
 

Stephen

While I would love this argument to be a semantical bout I feel we Preston and Myself believe in two different gospels. He believes in the inevitability of sin in the life of the new covenant christian and I believe it need not be so. He believes justification is declaritive only and I believe it is both experiential and declaritive. I believe something written in the heart is binding and He obviously does not.

I believe our wording of FB19 is okay as it is. In a sense whatever is not binding is made void. I believe Preston keeps conflating commandment keeping with the old covenant but God's people in the last days are commandment keepers dare I say law keepers. Sin is still transgression of the law whether commited by a new covenant christian or not. Christ came not just to save from the penalties of sin but from the power of sin also. A point I have never heard Preston say

If the law is no longer binding than its transgression should no longer be called sin. And in the bible noone was saved under old covenant but always under grace.

Tapiwa: "He believes justification is declaritive only and I believe it is both experiential and declaritive."

What does this mean?  Are you suggesting when we accept God we are counted righteous under the 'legal fiction' bought by Christ (i.e. Christ appears the perfect keeper of the Law for us), that Preston is suggesting we personally in our own life experience no change in our ethical conduct?  I don't think Preston is saying that at all, but I guess he can defend himself.  When someone is justified, the Spirit begins to work in them to put the Law in their hearts (Jer 31:33,34).  The result is the fruits of the Spirit, which are the positive-internal opposite to the negative-external Decalogue - but are two sides of the same coin, not two separate coins.

Tapiwa: "If the law is no longer binding than its transgression should no longer be called sin."

I agree with what you are trying to say and have made a similar point. I also think I understand what Preston is trying to say, and I don't think he is suggesting no longer being under the law means licence to keep on sinning, if that is what you are suggesting.  

The point is that knowledge of sin, being a principle function of the Law (Rom 7:7), is not needed if someone's nature is changed so they no longer naturally sin, which is why the New Covenant prophesy is about people who no longer need to be taught (Jer 31:34).  

The Australian Government brought in new anti-smoking, and this 'Law of Australia' is important in trying to bring smokers to repentence, but those laws are from one point of view irrelevant to me - because I don't smoke!  I am naturally in the pre-Fall state concerning smoking.  But that is not to suggest the anti-smoking laws are wrong, or evil, have no use or provide licence to keep smoking.  

Indeed, the law points out sin.

That is undisputed. That is, for converted Christians, also the problem -- if we stop there.

That is why as converted Christians are to be led by the Spirit rather than by the law.  After conversion, the law -- sin consciousness -- leads us to focus more on sin and our efforts to overcome it than on Christ and His victory over it (Romans, 7:21-24; Romans 8:5).  It is an enticing trap for  religious people.  The Pharisees fell into it.  It is the the problem that I see in FB 19.  Focusing on the law is, by definition, "binding."  We are intended to be free (Galatians 5:13) and led by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16; Galatians 5:18; 2 Corinthians 3:3,6,8)

The very passage that you cite that tells us that the law makes us aware of sin (Romans 7:7-8) also the law, by itself, brings death (Romans 7:10-11).  The same passage tells us that we are no longer to be bound by the law.  Our death in Christ, has freed us.  It says, explicitly, we are to be led by the Spirit. (Romans 7:6).

The gospel, the good news, is that in Christ, we have the victory over sin.  Why should I REMAIN conscious of my debt when it has already been paid?  Why should I be overly conscious of what has enslaved me when I have been made free and become a son (Romans 8:14)?

Yes, Paul spoke to the 5th Commandment as having value and promises, but he labored to let us know that the New Covenant way is Spirit-led.

We are free to choose which way we will follow.  As the law is perfect and holy (Romans 7:12), we can choose to live by it (Galatians 4:24).  But it is the old way and and unbending demands (Galatians 5:3).  Or we can choose what is recommended: to be walk in faith and be led by the Spirit.  As my friend, laffal, says, a little of both is likened to spiritual adultery (Romans 7:1-4).  We must choose.

This is why the wording of FB 19 is problematic for me.

Public opinion should not be discounted.  Smoking here in California has decreased to the extent that it has been reported as the state with the fewest smokers.

But laws discouraged smoking to the extent that it is seen as a detriment to employment because of the mandatory smoke breaks that must be outdoors and plain public disgrace.

Just think of how attitudes have changed in the past 20 years on gays, women's employment and equal pay, disability laws, and more. 

Only when Christians can embrace and live under the New Covenant rather than the Law which was the former guide, will we develop personal character to make good decisions.  When people obey the law to avoid penalty, it is not from the heart but for automatoms.

Preston

Was there ever anyone who was saved under the old covenant? You say say we are not to be led by the law but by the spirit right?
Can we at least agree that the spirit will lead new covenant christians to be commandment keepers in the last days Rev 12:17 and Rev 14:12.

Preston, I am impressed to remark that your remaining level and gracious despite the mischaracterization of your columns point and your gospel. I pray I might continue to learn to do this more. I very much agree with you that if our "distinctives" as the self-described "remnant" faith community is on the basis of our convoluted FB's we have missed the boat, and waste precious time and effort defending our errors. Perhaps it is time to do away with the whole mess! Was not the distinctive "by their LOVE you shall know them?" Sadly lacking in many responses even here is any semblance of "love" and an immediate exclusive divisiveness. Surely this is not the internal environment Christ intends for our church to display to the world.

 

I understand that in the 50's (with contentious 75 year history against) the church decided to institute FB's as a defacto "creed", in order to answer the charge made in a publicly televised RC feature  that the SDA church was a cult, as evinced by its lack of synopsis of unchanging faith. 

 

Although we have historically been reluctant to formalize a creed, we have historically wrestled with it a long time . In an 1872 pamphlet produced presenting twenty-five Fundamental Principles not to "secure uniformity" but "to meet inquiries" and "to correct false statements. In 1931 a list of 22 Fundamental Beliefs was produced and published in the Adventist Yearbook, and subsequently in the Adventist Church Manual." In Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (1957), Adventists outlined the core doctrines that they share with Protestant Christianity. This book was not officially the  position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the content of the book has been highly controversial within Adventism from publication until current times. The book was taken out of print in 1963..

 

The FB's were not officially instituted until 1980. In 2005 we inserted number 11, making 28. If we keep adding, changing, arguing about something as elemental as our core beliefs, are we  not effectively saying we don't know what we believe? If we make that U-haul behind us any longer, will we able to back it out of the cul-de-sac we mistakenly pulled into?

In the October 8, 1861 Review and Herald, J. N. Loughborough wrote "The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is, to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And fifth, to commence persecution against such." :"Doings of the Battle Creek Conference, Oct. 5 & 6, 1861" (DJVU). Review and Herald 18 (19): 148. 1861-10-08. Retrieved 2006-11-06.

 

Perhaps it is time to be even more radical with revisions to the FB's and do away with the whole mess! Was not the distinctive stated "by their LOVE you shall know them?" Sadly lacking in many responses even here is any semblance of "love" and an apparent and  immediate exclusive divisiveness.

 

Surely this is not the internal environment Christ intends for our church to display to the world.

 

 

Elaine: "Only when Christians can embrace and live under the New Covenant rather than the Law which was the former guide, will we develop personal character to make good decisions.  When people obey the law to avoid penalty, it is not from the heart but for automatoms."

Elaine I actually agree with this - I think it is close to the heart of stating the truth of this very complicated debate.  It isn't the Law which changes so much as our attitude to it.  My sister discovered this when she realised that it was not enough that the anti-smoking laws were making her life difficult, although they were effective in pointing out she needed to give up but in of themselves could help her give up, but that it was adopting a new healthy addiction for fitness that did it in the end.

The other interesting thing, and no doubt some might be offended by the notion, but many religions distinguish between a written, external and negative set of morality or laws, compared with an unwritten, internal and positive set of morality or laws.

Confucious said:  "If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame. If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of the shame, and moreover will become good."

'This "sense of shame" is an internalisation of duty, where the punishment precedes the evil action, instead of following it in the form of laws as in Legalism.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius

Buddhism (Sila): In Buddhism there are the Noble Eight Path - akin to a Decalogue of 8 rules.  Depending upon various traditions, at enlightnment Nirvana, these are said to be internalised.  Buddhism especially emphasises personal and experiential knowledge and ethics.

Stephen,

Your sister's giving up smoking is the perfect illustration:  laws can command action or inaction, but only our internal moral foundation and conscience can make right decisions; not by external laws.

This is the entire thesis of the relationship of the (former) Law and covenant given to the Jews and the new relationship, not with Law but with Christ, the initiator of the New Covenant.  Going back to external duties demanded by the Law is contrary to all that Christ intended and it is a dishonor to Him and the great sacrifice He made, to return to the Law as our guide and moral compass.

Tapiwa, your references to the Commandants in Rev.12 & 14, i believe are those quoted by Christ.  Matt. 22: 37-40, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all your heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these hang all the law and the prophets.
Note: Tapiwa, Jesus said these two greatest Commandments were ALL the law. This is the NEW covenant. It is not the Ten Commandments given to the Jews at Sinai, which condemmed mankind.

   As long as we separate the Sabbath from Christ we will not make it attractive.  The Sabbath repesents rest in Christ from our works just as God rested from the works of creation. 

Christ is our Sabbath rest in symbol and in reality.  We celebrate Sabbath as a sign/seal of His rescue and salvation from the second death.  We no longer need to worry about our works but can rest in Him.  Through our relationship and closeness with Him, his commandments are written on our hearts and gradually (through sanctification)become our life and reflect His love for others. It becomes a time to worship Him as Creator and Re-creator.

Ella,

Do you not believe that Christians since the beginning also believed in their salvation through Christ?  And they believed that his Resurrection was the sign we would be raised without experiencing the second death. 

Where in Scripture do you read that sabbath is a seal?  The NT, in several places, says that Christians who were not observers of sabbath, yet  have been sealed with the Holy Spirit

I have the impression that the difference is between legalism and something far more profound.

On the one hand, one complies with the law or the regulations. If one complies, one can feel blameless, even holy--but there is something missing. That is, or can be, a sort of blind and reflexive compliance.

On the other hand, one embraces a positive and loving style of life, and there are all sorts of benefits to this, for the individual and those around them.

One pattern is motivated by avoidance of "breaking" laws and regulations. The other is motivated by a pervasively positive loving attitude.

There is a world of difference, in word and in deed. 

I also get the impression of a Creator God going through a sort of trial and error process of creation, in which He is trying to perfect organisms that will do the right things for the right reasons. So, He tries to get people to just "obey," but this is problematic with regard to free will.

First it is just forbidding eating the fruit of one tree in the garden, but that doesn't work. Next, he tries to get people to choose going onto Noah's ark rather than being destroyed. It doesn't work. Then he hardens his position with commands written in stone. People just don't get it. Some are oppositional and defiant. Others simply avoid acting contrary to the specifications, but make it an onerous task and treat anyone who is even slightly noncompliant as dirt. So, that approach doesn't work either.

So Jesus comes into the picture. He says that obediance is not the issue. Love is the issue. God loves you more than anything and is worthy of your love. If you love Him, you will love and respect yourself and others and act in harmony with His intentions for you. So, does this work? Does it work for you?

Don't you find a loving and considerate lifestyle liberating?

Practicing Christians may have their shortcomings; but it is an extreme overkill say the least, that they 'treat anyone who is even slightly noncompliant as dirt' which really goes against every tenet of love taught by the gospel of Christ.  Most Christians when interacting with other sinners will use the 'come to Jesus' rather than the 'go to hell' approach.  Whilst they may not condone or approve of the sinner's ways, they most definitely will not seek to treat them badly - although, at times their actions may incorrectly be perceived this way.  This would also apply to those who hold differing beliefs which may perhaps cause them to part ways - but there's no need for bad blood - even when we disagree or talk right passed each other.

On the other hand is it possible for people to be treated like dirt right here on this forum for holding traditional Adventist views?

RE: "Jesus said these two greatest Commandments were ALL the law. This is the NEW covenant. It is not the Ten Commandments given to the Jews at Sinai, which condemmed mankind." - earl calahan
-------------
I am quite sure that the 'two great commandments' mentioned by Jesus is a summary of the Ten.  In [Rom 13:9-10] Paul states this.   In fact in [Gal 5:14] this teaching is summarized further as being embodied in 'one' commandment. 

Then Jesus himself mentions some of the Ten Commandments in [Matt 5:21, 27, 17-19].  He then speaks of the law in [Matt 19:17, 18, 19] where he mentions commandments from the Ten.   This shows clearly that the Love God Love Man commandment is summary of the Ten. 

[James 2:8, 10-11] also teaches that the Ten are summarized or embodied in the Love God Love Neighbor tenet.  The New Covenant does not in any way make void the Law as we know [Rom 3:31]. The New Covenant provides a summary the Law but doesn’t limit its tenets to a summarized format only as can be seen when Jesus further amplifies them in [Matt 5:21].  Jesus also said very clearly in [John 14:15] that keeping the commandments is an indication that we love him.  In fact love is quite often used in conjunction with commandments in many other instances [John 14:21; John 14:23; John 15:10; 1John 5:3] without any negative connotations. 

[Ps 119:10-12, 33-34, 44-45, 46-48, 69, 97, 172] These verses illustrate the role God's commandments play in the context of love, the word, righteousness, happiness, mercy and obedience.  In [Ps 119:172] the Psalmist says that the all the commandments are righteousness.  These tenets and sentiments aren't changed in the new.

Psalms was pre-Jesus. You do think Jesus came for some reason, right?

One should not think they can keep the Ten given at Sinai, they condemn, they carry a death sentence. The law Jesus is quoting, is the greatest commandment, to love thy God with all thy mind, and the second is like unto it, love your neighbor as you wish others to love you. The positive law of Jesus gives life.

Is there anyone out there who would prefer to live under the Law given the Israelites--by God?

The Ten Commandments are all positive righteous precepts. Death Threats or Death Sentences aren't included in any of them. It condemns or brings death only because of transgression which we are all privy to. It is a mirror showing us where we fall short of God's standard thereby exposing our desperate need for the Saviour. This includes the understanding that the law in itself - and our own works, cannot save us. We need Christ. It is part of the 'set the captives free' gospel embodied in the NT New Cov.

The Ten Commandments are prescriptive, authoritative, instructive and informative. They reveal God's standard for mankind and who the Law Giver is. They reveal the domain of His sovereignty and His rightful authority and His personal interest maintaining his relationship with us as our Creator. The Ten Commandments were written by the hand of God Himself: twice. They are perfect eternal precepts and the standard by which Christ lived by even unto death so that we might receive the gift of eternal life. They are Holy even as God is Holy. They also point out sin.

The Love God Love Man commandment meets this standard and is therefore a concise summary of the Ten. In fact the same principles are outlined in the OT which Jesus believed and drew from [Zech 8:17; Exod 20:16-17; Deut 11:13; Lev 19:34; Deut 6:5; Deut 10:12; Deut 30:6]. The NT confirms this [Luke 10:27; Lev 19:10; Mark 12:31; Rom 13:19; Gal 5:14; 1Thess 4:9; James 2:8]. This is the 'theme' of the Bible: that in Christ we can Love God and Love Man thereby upholding the precepts of His Law which he writes in our hearts through Sanctification. We know that the law can't save for obvious reasons but it is in Christ that obedience is made possible.   Victory over sin is possible in Christ and is evident in the life of a converted believer.  That is in essence what FB#19 reflects.

The various clauses in the Old Covenant Agreement use the Ten Commandments as a basis for their moral standard as individuals and as a people; hence they were agreed upon and subsequently meted out. The Old Cov shows our desperate need for a Saviour and the gravity of sin. It was demonstrated in type and was given by God as a temporary means to instruct his people of the Salvation he promised in the provision of the coming Messiah. There was hope; there was faith; there was love; there was patience; there was obedience; there was mercy; there was grace; there was blood; there was salvation; there was thanksgiving; joy; singing; praise; righteousness; holiness; kindness; healing; forgiveness; miracles; Holy Spirit; worship; rest; peace; victory over sin; and so forth during the time of the Old Cov. The Newer Cov brings the whole thing home in Christ Jesus. We don't need the types, symbols and ceremonial rituals of the OT for now the Messiah has come. Praise God!

One has to note also that the incident in [Matt 22:35-40] we find that the lawyer who approached Jesus tried to trap him when he asked 'which is the great commandment in the law' [Matt 22:36]. Jesus showed in his answer the essential principle outlined in the Ten Commandments.  In [Matt 19:17-21] Jesus goes through a number of them before highlighting the Love God Love Man principle as reflected in the Ten Commandments when he challenges the rich ruler to give to the poor.  In other words he amplifies what the lawyer and the ruler were missing in their understanding of it.

Example of positive: The 'kill' mentioned in one of the Ten is associated with a 'thou shalt not kill'. An instruction not to murder is a good positive principle. Honouring mom and dad is too. It also indicates that obedience brings blessings and disobedience brings death.  Both are positive bits of information and relevant counsel.

On the other hand, as the story is told, were not Eve and Adam in a "pre-fall" state? Whatever state they were in, we are told that they failed to follow instructions (which were prohibitionary, rather like the commandments).

I continue to get the impression that were are being told of an evolving strategy, in which prohibition and threats are found to be ineffective in dealing with human nature. The positive message, it seems, is intended as a replacement for the negative message, even if it is intended to accomplish the same thing (getting people to choose to behave constructively).

It is simply not accurate to say that the 10 Commandments are not a death sentence.  It is exactly what they are for mankind.  The Law, the 10 Commandments, as we have all agreed here, defines what sin is.  All have sinned (Romans 3:23).  And the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

This is not an extrapolation: it is a direct, biblical definition, to wit:

- "Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was," (2 Corinthians 3:7).

- "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree . . ." Galatians 3:13.

- "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death," James 1:15.

- "These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar," Galatians 4:24.

- "For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code," Romans 7:5-7.

It takes a theologic and spiritual  contortion to be led by both the law and (in faith) by the Spirit.  One brings death, the other, life.  Being led by both, simultaneously, simply does not work.  It is not what is intended under the New Covenant (Romans 7:4; Hebrews 12:18-24; Galatians 3:23-25).

All of this is summarized in the simple, but powerful declaration:

- "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth," Romans 10:4.

Preach it brother Preston!

"The Ten Commandments are all positive righteous precepts. Death Threats or Death Sentences aren't included in any of them."

Exodus 31:14-15 "You shall keep the Sabbath, for it is holy unto you: every one that defiles it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever does any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Not sure if it is allowed, but there is a very interesting statement at the end of an interesting article on Spectrum about natural law, prescriptive law (i.e. like the Decalogue) and the Fall:

"Since the fall, we have felt the need for prescriptive law, but prescriptive law cannot heal our brokenness. At best, it serves as duct-tape to piece together fractured relationships and hold us to an appearance of righteousness, but it can do nothing to transform us internally."

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/jean-sheldon/2013/02/04/story-fall-trajectory-toward-magic

"Laws are like cobwebs which may catch small flies but let wasps and hornets break through."    Jonathan Swift

A writer earlier in this thread referred to the "Royal Law" and equated that term to the ten commandments.  James 2:8 says, "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well." 

Two comments.  First, the problem with the ten commandments (I know some will blanch at that  expression) is that mostly they tell me what not to do.  But we all know I can refrain from all the prohibited actions and still be be a sinful, seething, hateful, nasty mess in my inner life and in my relatioships with others.  This can be true even if I don't kill them, lie to them, steal from them, etc.  

But the Royal Law referred to by James, and so starkly illustrated by Jesus in the sermon on the mount, shines the floodlights on the real challenge:  Am I a loving, giving, healing person?  

Second, why are many of us afraid to let go of the our sense of urgency to defend the ten commandments and assert their continuing validity?  What would happen if we would just focus on the Royal Law as presented by James and see what would happen?  I dare say good things would happen.  I dare say that disaster would not follow.  Couldn't we just rely on Genesis 2:3 for our Sabbath practice and let go of our focus on the ten commandments?  

Stephen Ferguson,
 
You have hit upon something that has wide-ranging implications it seems me.
 
Some claim that the Golden Rule is all Christianity is about—and all it is good for—yet for ethical purposes, they interpret the Golden Rule as if it was an eleventh commandment of what not to do; that we should not do anything to anyone that we would not want to have done to ourselves.
 
However according to the Golden Rule, we are rather to do unto others whatever we would like to have done to ourselves, which is telling us what we should do. We are also told that is better to give than to get.

Doing to and for others those things that we would have done to and for ourselves with an impulse or compunction or reflex to give rather than receive, are both impossibilities without the indwelling Spirit of the Source of the Golden Rule.
 
Both absolutely defy our sinful human natures.

Jesus lived it as if it were the first-and ONLY command. We must not relegate it as if it were a nonexistent-perhaps last ditch effort to be tried only when-or IF-we realize we failed miserably in the first ten.

 

Just enough religion to hate ourselves, and too little spirituality to love our neighbors and enemies and brothers (thank you Elaine for the timely Swift quotes). What I have done to myself, I have inflicted upon you-and to God. And God, in the person of Jesus, already suffered both!

 

Yet, He tarries a time, waiting for Love in a garden. "Where are you, he sighs...."

 

Just enough religion to hate ourselves,
and too little spirituality to love. 
Ourselves, our neighbors and enemies and brothers.
What I have done to myself, 
I have inflicted upon you-
forgive me for failing to receive
-and give-
grace

In response to a few comments:

The Ten Commandments in [Exod 20:3-17] does not include the judgments referred to in the verses quoted by Preston Foster in a post above [Exod 31:14-15].  The latter was part of the legislature of the Old Covenant which included the moral, ceremonial and judicial laws (among others) and their subsequent punitive measures which were to be meted out as and when necessary (thereby fulfilling the OC requirements of death with Christ himself paying the price on our behalf).  The death sentence and death judgments aren’t found in the Ten Commandments per se; however, as can be seen in the verses quoted by Preston Foster, they were the judicial aspects regarding disobedience which were written in the Covenant document which is also correctly called the law.  In fact the Torah is also called the law, whether referring to one law or the entire OT Torah.  Why then not remove the entire OT Torah from the bible?  How does [2Tim 3:16] apply to this that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in Righteousness which would include the Ten Commandments?

I will also add that the Royal Law mentioned in [James 2:8] refers to the Ten Commandments as it makes reference to the Love God Love Man essentials which are undoubtedly embodied in the Ten.  In fact [James 2:8] is based on OT counsel given by God such as in [Lev 19:18].  Then we find that in the NT [Matt 22:39; Mark 12:31; Eph 5:2; 1Thess 4:9] also highlight the Love God Love Man principle.  In addition to this we find in [Rom 13:8] Paul says that we fulfil the law by loving one another.  [Gal 5:14] says that the whole law can be summed up as Love your neighbour, which doesn’t even mention the Love God part, showing that there is a marked principle of Love which underlines the principles of the New Cov.  We don’t say that there’s no need to Love God because the verse only includes Love Man as being the sum total of the law.  [Gal 5:18] says that we are not under the law when we are led by the Spirit.  What law is he referring to?  Paul lists a number of sins a few verses later in [Gal 5:19-21] which include, but not limited to: Adultery, Idolatry and Murder which are Part of the Ten [Eph 5:5; Rev 22:15; 1Cor 6:10].  Note also that in [Rom 13:9] he lists commandments from the Ten and sums them up in the Love God Love Man principle.  This clearly shows that the Love God Love Man commandment is directly congruent with the Ten Commandments which stipulate the same principle of love.  Jesus of course takes it to the next level in the New Covenant application where he says that if we hate we are guilty of murder and if we lust we are guilty of adultery in [Matt 5:21-22] and [Matt 5:27-28].  In [1John 3:15] we find the same.  The New Covenant in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit raises the bar to a spiritual plain where there is no longer a law against those who believe and are saved, yet the principles and sentiments and requirements the law are given to us in Christ and though they still exist they don't bring condemnation - neither are they made void when we are saved through faith [Rom 3:31]. 

These verses [John 14:16, 26; John 16:7, 8; Luke 11:13; Eph 1:13; John 15:26] show that the Holy Spirit represents Christ and has a work in the conviction, salvation and sanctification of sinners.  Christ’s  obedience to the Law of Love is imputed to us as righteousness thereby making atonement for our sin and giving us victory over sin by the indwelling Holy Spirit [Rom 4:11, 22, 23-25; ].  He (Christ) fulfilled the requirements of the Law of Love as seen in the Ten Commandments and His obedience becomes ours by faith in Him [Gal 2:20]. [Romans 5:13] says the sin is not imputed when there is no law [James 2:23].  The fact that we need Christ’s righteousness in order to be saved shows that there is a law which we aren’t able to keep on our own of course of which the bible resonates this principle throughout its pages and in turn expresses  the sentiments of the Ten Commandments whichever way you look at it.

One last thought for now is that those of us Seventh-day Adventists who see the Ten Commandments for what they are worth in terms of God’s Love Code whether perceived as negatives by some – yet they are a valuable reminder of who God is, His Love and the price Jesus paid for us on Calvary.  This side of the cross we don’t have ties to the Old Covenant as it no longer exists.  We see the gospel not through types and symbols but through Christ who gave his life for us.  To assert otherwise is to accuse the Holy Spirit of convicting us wrongly of sin under Old Cov terms when He is given to us to be led by the Spirit in the New Cov of the Christian Church era.  We are therefore saved and walk in the Spirit in obedience to God, loving Him and our neighbours as Christ commanded us to.  The Ten Commandments or the concise version even when summarised to one commandment [Gal 5:14] reflects in essence the wording found in FB#19.  Those who lean towards an antinomian position for whatever reason will see the Ten in negatives and not for what God’s Positive Royal Law of Love is worth.

Any law is meaningless unless there are penalties.  The Law did not say:  Please observe the seventh day, that is what God wants you to do."  How effective would traffic laws be if there were no penalties?

 

That is why the entire Law cannot be separated.  It is the Covenant made with Israel, and no other nations.  God never told the surrounding pagans that the Law He gave applied to them. 

 

Neither is the Law a transcript of God's character; Christ came to represent God who was not among the people as was Jesus.  Jesus is our guide, and replaced the Law.  He made a New Covenant with us at his death and the symbolic tearing of the curtain separating the Holy from the Most Holy in the temple demonstrted that all sacrifices ended, and now there is a New Way.

The Law given in the Torah was for former slaves to reveal sin.  Christians need no laws to tell them not to steal or kill, because the law of love is in their hearts.  We are no living in the New Covenant which is repeated many times in the New Testament.  Too often Adventists find their doctrines in the Old Testament rather than the New which was especially written for them which describes their duties.  There are no laws that supersede the law of love.

It was sin when Cain murdered Abel.  There must have been a ‘thou shalt not murder’ law back then given by God - even if in principle or perhaps a ‘love your neighbour’ for that matter.  In [Gen 4:7] God counsels Cain regarding his position and warns him about sin ruling over him.  Cain didn’t listen and was cursed as a result of his disobedience when he murdered his brother [Gen 4:8].  The arrogant ‘am I my brother’s keeper’ uttered by Cain [Gen 4:9] contrasts significantly with what God required then in the pre-Sinai era.  God’s command to ‘love your neighbour’ is also found in the post-Sinai Old Covenant era [Lev 19:8] and then on the post-Cross New Covenant era too [John 13:34].  This is a good theological basis supporting a law not to kill - but to love your neighbour, which binds all mankind in all ages to the divine principles embodied in the Ten Commandments and summarised by Jesus in the Love God Love Man law. 

[Heb 11:4] speaks of Abel having faith and of him being righteous; yet simultaneously Cain was condemned by the Law.  We see this in [1John 3:12] which denotes Cain’s evil works and Abel’s works of righteousness even in the context of a pre-Sinai sacrificial system of worship.  In order for evil and good to exist, there must be a Law which distinguishes between them.   Also, if all have sinned and are sinners then there must be a Law therefore which identifies and exposes them of this condition [Rom 3:23].  This distinguishing factor was evidently in place right from the Fall when the sacrificial system was introduced.  There must have been a Law for this act of sacrifice to be meaningful.  This also shows God being very particular in how we fulfil his requirements concerning obedience, faith and worship in the context of Loving God and being our brother’s keeper in the Love Man context.  The Ten Commandments are indeed a Law for all seasons, albeit this time it is written in our hearts with the deeper (weightier) essentials of Christ's Love being accentuated by Him dwelling in us through the Holy Spirit [Matt 23:23].

[1John 3:15-16] illustrates the love principle found in God’s law (both the Ten Commandments and the summary of it as seen in the Love God Love Man commandment).  The law to Love God and Love Man is eternal in principle and undeniably also embodied in the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20.  God is Love: His Law reflects His Love too.  I have noted that in a number of places where the Love God Love Man law is alluded to in the NT, we find some sort of reference to the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 in the surrounding verses and within the parameters of the New Covenant ideals.  The Ten Commandments is a measure by which we are judged and what we avoid having to deal with when we get by with Christ’s merits of obedience to the said Law.  In fact, I have reason to believe that every command of the Ten, including its Love God Love Man summary, is and has always been a code of righteous principles that has been with us throughout the ages – This would include the Sabbath.  In [Deut 11:13] God command’s Israel to love and serve Him with all their heart and soul.  Then in [Lev 19:8] God commands them to love their neighbour. 

The sentiments and instruction found in the OT regarding the Love God Love Man principle together with Righteousness by Faith, Grace, Changed hearts, is exactly the same in the NT.  In [Jer 31:33] we see the prophecy concerning the New Covenant and in [Jer 31:31] the verse says that the New Covenant will be made with Israel and Judah who were also part of the Old Covenant.    [Heb 8:8, 10] Confirms this New Cov but also emphasises that He will put His laws in the hearts of His people.  This confirms that God speaks of no new laws as such but of a New Covenant.  The Love God Love Man laws aren’t independent of the Ten Commandments and therefore are a précis of the essential theme of Love it contains – Love for God and Love for Man.

Jesus amplified the Ten Commandments further in the New Covenant - for example - by saying ‘love your enemies’ [Matt 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35].  Let’s put this to the test here: Who’s a real baddie? Ok - Osama Bin Laden for example.  He was undoubtedly a confirmed enemy of not just one or two people – but of the whole Western Civilization. 

Many Christians who claim to live under the New Covenant dispensation walk in the Spirit [Rom 8:1] and practice the Love God Love Man principle which is written in our hearts which compels them to love their neighbour through the dynamic indwelling Christ.  This principle of love is further amplified in [Matt 5:43-44] when Jesus emphasises this absolute love which is really in itself a tall order. 

Jesus taught strongly that in fulfilling the New Covenant ‘Golden Rule’ Law, we should even go to the extent of loving our enemies, blessing those that curse you and doing good to them that hate you [Matt 5:44]. 

From what I have gathered concerning one such formidable evil enemy like OBL (used here just to illustrate my point), I have not seen one significant call from any single person across all of Christendom and the West who has called for us to forgive and love Osama – dead or alive.  There were just many calls for his death.  Yeah sure he deserved to face the might of the law but my point is how is the New Covenant ‘golden rule’ of Love God Love Man applicable in this instance, extreme as it may be.  If the Love Card was so all powerful on its own even to the extent of loving enemies then how does a New Covenant Christian love enemies like Obama and where is the evidence that anyone (on our planet) in the name of Christ did? 

Ah - the weightier matters of the Law!  It seems to me that the Golden Rule isn’t as cut and dry as it seems and has a much  bigger principled side to it, just like the Ten Commandments.

If we love God we will keep his commandments [John 14:15].  Loving our enemies is one such commandment.  Talk about the positive aspects of the Law!  FB#19 likewise stresses the principles outlined in the Ten Commandments.  A tall order indeed but with God all things are possible [Mark 10:27].

The premise of this blog is that the Sabbath as shown in the Ten Commandments is no longer binding or applicable in terms of the law serving as a basis for its observance.  One has to take note that the first instance of a pre-Sinai (yes pre-Sinai) command to observe the Sabbath is given in [Exod 16:23] when Manna was given to them.  This was before they entered into the Covenant at Sinai.  Prior to this, there is no actual request for its observance, at least in a written form, except the record that God rested on the seventh day which is confirmed this in these verses - [Gen 2:2; Heb 4:4; Exod 20:11; Exod 31:17]. 

Jesus observed the Sabbath as indicated in the blog which is quite important as He is the Law-Giver and Judge too [Matt 16:27; 2Cor 5:10; Rev 22:12; 1Cor 10:4; John 12:46; Isaiah 33:22].  [Rev 17:12] refers to those who keep the commandments.  If there is no law with regards to Sabbath observance in the New Covenant as some assert then on what basis can we conclude that the Sabbath or any of the commandments are referred to here.  The Genesis account makes no written command for this except God's observance of a seventh day rest.  There may have been a prior requirement for mankind to observe the Sabbath, even before the Fall, as indicated when God called Israel to 'remember' the Sabbath day.  The Fourth Commandment also informs us of the seventh day when God rested and denotes Him as Creator.  God reminds them to observe this rest which He Himself observed [Exod 20:8, 11]. 

To be concerned that the law as a basis for Sabbath keeping may be a deterrent in winning more Sabbath keepers,  poses not so much a risk as not having a basis at all - which is what first day observers have argued all along.  Only this time by taking away the credibility of law they have more leeway in non-observance than of accepting the Sabbath as a day of rest.  Is it not still a sin to trample on the Holy Sabbath even from whichever basis one may prefer?  If it is a sin – then there must be a law or commandment.  Which is it?

22oct1844,

"The premise of this blog is that the Sabbath as shown in the Ten Commandments is no longer binding or applicable in terms of the law serving as a basis for its observance."

This is completely inaccurate conclusion.

I will simply paste some excerpts from the blog -- with emphasis added:


It is difficult to understand how you conclude what you do.  The premise of the blog seems to be clear.

You have presented a strawman.

It has been remarked that our faith community, indeed the entire Christian fellowship has failed because we have, to one reader at least, failed to love Obama Bin laden.

 

I would suggest the failure to love is far deeper than that. Brothers within the same faith community branch regularly violate both the codified law (keeping it only so far as outward appearances demand) and consequently abrogate the love principle underlying them-

but the same brothers demand "law" and deride love...

 

Could we learn to love with whole our beings-heart, head, and hand as we are called to?

Identity, doctrine, deed...perhaps we would have a different view of Abba and each other.

The Decalogue is often referred to as the "moral law" which is a misnomer and implies that disobedience to any is immoral, and the individual would also be "immoral."  Surely, no one is suggesting that someone who does not worship God is immoral, so there must be another explanation.  Morals are only relational.  Can a hermit be "immoral"?

The first four commandments cannot be called moral laws because they  only prescribe man and his honor to God. Atheists and non-Christians are moral when obeying the five commands that are ethical laws, how we relate to others.  The Jewish ceremonial laws are all listed in Lev. 23, and ceremonies are an occasion determined by a specific time, not applicable to everyone or all the time.  Ceremonies are celebrated at regular set times. 

For all those reasons above, sabbath can never be a moral law and was never meant a a universal command:   "God made a covenant with us at Horeb.  It was not with ou fathers but with us who are here and living today."

God said to Moses:  "Speak to the sons of Israel and 'You must keep my sabaths carefully, because the sabbath is a sign between myself and you from generation to generation."

To dismiss the New Covenant is to reject its meaning:  To write the law of love on our hearts, not a set of prohibitions, because "He has overriden the Law....From now onward, never let anyone else decide what you should eat or drink, or whether you are to observe annual festivals, New Moons or the sabbath day."

Paul could not be more explicit:  the ceremonies to which he refers:  annual, monthly and the sabbath are all listed in Lev. 23, and for Christians they are no longer necessary to observe, for the reality is Christ.  They were all part of the Old Covenant.  "If you have  really died with Christ why do still let rules dictate to you?"

 

Regarding the law being "binding" on Christians, note the biblical contrast:

 

And when has that text in Romans been used as a sermon or to explain the non-relevance of the Law?