Bringing down the 4 pillars of Seventh Day Adventism
Dec 30, 2013 8:41:38 GMT
Post by Colossians on Dec 30, 2013 8:41:38 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
________________________________________________________
BRINGING DOWN THE 4 PILLARS OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISM
Pillar 1: False declaration as to the writer of the 10 commandments
The SDA wants to maintain his idea of Sabbath keeping, whilst not having to put up with the (other) 603 OT laws which are in addition to the decalogue.
So he tells us that the law of Moses does not include the 10 commandments, but that God’s law does, and that he therefore agrees with our not having to obey the law of Moses, but that we still have to keep the Sabbath because that is part of what he declares to be the law of God.
He thinks to have support for this in thinking that God wrote the 10 commandments with His own finger.
But God didn’t write them with His own finger at all. He did so with the first copy (which Moses subsequently broke), but not with the second copy. The second copy was written my Moses himself.
Here it is:
“And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.” Ex 34:27,28
The SDA reads Exodus 34:1 where God says that He would write another copy of the 10 commandments, but forgets to read on to v27,28. The reason that God at v1 declares that He (Himself) would write the replacement copy of the 10 commandments, was simply that He Himself was the ultimate author of the work.
Summary
Moses did the actual writing of not only the 603 (other) commandments, but also of the 10 commandments which were placed in the Ark of the Covenant.
The SDA idea that God’s law is separate to and distinct from Moses’ law, is false: it is all the law of Moses.
The SDA is wrong.
Pillar 2: False logic in statement of salvation
The SDA tells us that one does not try to keep the law to be saved, but that if one is saved one tries to keep the law.
We may set out this idea as follows:
A. One is saved
B. One tries to keep the law
If A, then B.
which is equivalent to
If not B, then not A (modus tollens)
Summary
“If one is saved one tries to keep the law”, has the same truth value as “if one does not try to keep the law, one is not saved”.
The SDA is wrong.
Pillar 3: False definition of sin
The SDA is a quick reader, but a little too quick. He tells us that according to John’s first epistle, sin is transgression of the law.
But John does not say this: he in fact says that “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4).
So sin is not "transgression of the law" (many possible transgressions), but "the transgression of the law" (one possible transgression).
That is, he is not referring to the OT law(s), but the (singular) law of faith detailed only a few verses later in his (same) epistle. Here it is:
"And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment" 1 John 3:23.
And thus it is written elsewhere:
"whatsoever is not of faith is sin" Rom 14:23.
Seeing then that we are also told that "[trying to keep] the law is not of faith" (Gal 3:12), we see that trying to keep the law is in fact sin, the reason being that it is trying to establish one's own righteousness before God.
And so and contrasting, we read of the apostle Paul's desire to be:
"found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" Phil 3:9
Summary
The SDA, in thinking he is avoiding sin by trying to keep the OT law, is in fact doing the very opposite: he is committing the sin of self-effort and therefore breaking "the law of faith" (see Rom 3:27).
The SDA is wrong.
Pillar 4: False definition of “not under the law”
The SDA tells us that our being "not under the law" (Rom 6:14), does not mean that we are not under the law, but only that we are not under the penalty of the law.
But “not under the law” is far more likely to mean that we are not under the law, than it is to mean that we are not under the penalty of the law. The SDA is therefore in denial of the fact that the phrase “not under the law” has its own meaning separate to and distinct from that of “not under the penalty of the law”.
Paul declared at Galatians 4:21 that certain of those to whom he wrote desired to be under the law. Obviously no-one desires to be under the penalty of the law: he was referring to those who wanted to be under the law itself (under the directives of the law).
He also declared that Christ had been “made under the law” (Gal 4:4).
It is plain then that to be “under the law”, means that it has been placed over you with directive power. And so we read that “what things soever the law saith [(e.g. keep the Sabbath)], it saith to them who are under the law” (Rom 3:19).
Summary
To be "not under the law" does not merely mean to be not under the penalty of the law, but to be not under the law itself (not within its jurisdiction at all), with the result that "what things soever the law saith" are simply inapplicable to the born again believer.
The SDA is wrong.
________________________________________________________
BRINGING DOWN THE 4 PILLARS OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISM
Pillar 1: False declaration as to the writer of the 10 commandments
The SDA wants to maintain his idea of Sabbath keeping, whilst not having to put up with the (other) 603 OT laws which are in addition to the decalogue.
So he tells us that the law of Moses does not include the 10 commandments, but that God’s law does, and that he therefore agrees with our not having to obey the law of Moses, but that we still have to keep the Sabbath because that is part of what he declares to be the law of God.
He thinks to have support for this in thinking that God wrote the 10 commandments with His own finger.
But God didn’t write them with His own finger at all. He did so with the first copy (which Moses subsequently broke), but not with the second copy. The second copy was written my Moses himself.
Here it is:
“And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.” Ex 34:27,28
The SDA reads Exodus 34:1 where God says that He would write another copy of the 10 commandments, but forgets to read on to v27,28. The reason that God at v1 declares that He (Himself) would write the replacement copy of the 10 commandments, was simply that He Himself was the ultimate author of the work.
Summary
Moses did the actual writing of not only the 603 (other) commandments, but also of the 10 commandments which were placed in the Ark of the Covenant.
The SDA idea that God’s law is separate to and distinct from Moses’ law, is false: it is all the law of Moses.
The SDA is wrong.
Pillar 2: False logic in statement of salvation
The SDA tells us that one does not try to keep the law to be saved, but that if one is saved one tries to keep the law.
We may set out this idea as follows:
A. One is saved
B. One tries to keep the law
If A, then B.
which is equivalent to
If not B, then not A (modus tollens)
Summary
“If one is saved one tries to keep the law”, has the same truth value as “if one does not try to keep the law, one is not saved”.
The SDA is wrong.
Pillar 3: False definition of sin
The SDA is a quick reader, but a little too quick. He tells us that according to John’s first epistle, sin is transgression of the law.
But John does not say this: he in fact says that “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4).
So sin is not "transgression of the law" (many possible transgressions), but "the transgression of the law" (one possible transgression).
That is, he is not referring to the OT law(s), but the (singular) law of faith detailed only a few verses later in his (same) epistle. Here it is:
"And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment" 1 John 3:23.
And thus it is written elsewhere:
"whatsoever is not of faith is sin" Rom 14:23.
Seeing then that we are also told that "[trying to keep] the law is not of faith" (Gal 3:12), we see that trying to keep the law is in fact sin, the reason being that it is trying to establish one's own righteousness before God.
And so and contrasting, we read of the apostle Paul's desire to be:
"found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" Phil 3:9
Summary
The SDA, in thinking he is avoiding sin by trying to keep the OT law, is in fact doing the very opposite: he is committing the sin of self-effort and therefore breaking "the law of faith" (see Rom 3:27).
The SDA is wrong.
Pillar 4: False definition of “not under the law”
The SDA tells us that our being "not under the law" (Rom 6:14), does not mean that we are not under the law, but only that we are not under the penalty of the law.
But “not under the law” is far more likely to mean that we are not under the law, than it is to mean that we are not under the penalty of the law. The SDA is therefore in denial of the fact that the phrase “not under the law” has its own meaning separate to and distinct from that of “not under the penalty of the law”.
Paul declared at Galatians 4:21 that certain of those to whom he wrote desired to be under the law. Obviously no-one desires to be under the penalty of the law: he was referring to those who wanted to be under the law itself (under the directives of the law).
He also declared that Christ had been “made under the law” (Gal 4:4).
It is plain then that to be “under the law”, means that it has been placed over you with directive power. And so we read that “what things soever the law saith [(e.g. keep the Sabbath)], it saith to them who are under the law” (Rom 3:19).
Summary
To be "not under the law" does not merely mean to be not under the penalty of the law, but to be not under the law itself (not within its jurisdiction at all), with the result that "what things soever the law saith" are simply inapplicable to the born again believer.
The SDA is wrong.