As I pointed out in my previous post, it’s impossible to know the spirit of the law without its letter, or to keep the spirit and not keep the letter.

“Christ would here have us understand that our righteousness must include, not only the observance of the letter of the law, but also the spirit and principle of it. The letter of the law specifies how we must walk in order to please God; the spirit of the law points to Jesus Christ as the atoning sacrifice, through whose merits the sinner can fulfill the requirements of the law. ... There is therefore perfect harmony between the law and the gospel.” {ST, July 18, 1878 par. 22}


“But the law of God must be considered first of all, and obeyed in spirit and in letter. Jesus, our great exemplar, in His life and death, taught the strictest obedience. He died, the just for the unjust, the innocent for the guilty, that the honor of God's law might be preserved and yet man not utterly perish.” {TDG 162.4}


“That which they [the ceremonial precepts] shadowed forth had come to pass, and those who were living under the gospel dispensation had been freed from their observance. God's unchangeable law of Ten Commandments, however, Paul still kept in spirit as well as in letter.” {AA 190.1}

Yes. The OC was given to teach the Jews how to obey the NC. But it included aspects that were burdensome. These aspects were necessary to help keep the sin-hardened Jews on track. These aspects were nailed to the cross.

Then that would be error on the part of those who are reading, not the one writing.


The words are not the precepts. However, God wrote the words, and He knows the precepts very well and is well able to express Himself accurately.


I hear what you're saying. But I don't think your claims are accurate. You keep saying that you agree with EGW, but you don't, as Rosangela clearly pointed out.

If you don't agree with her, just say so. Then we know where we stand. The last antinomian I had long discussions with also taught that the 10C were abolished, and he knew and admitted that he was not in harmony with EGW on that point. We had many fruitful discussions, though we disagreed, because we knew where each other stood, and went from there.


No, you have it backwards. I believe righteousness fulfills the 10C.


And if one is living in Christ, does he ever act or think or feel in ways contrary to the 10C? IOW, does Jesus ever lead one to contradict what He wrote on the stone?

I say Jesus does not. What do you say?

But if the statutes and judgments were founded on the same principle of love as the and 10C and the NC, why would they be nailed to the cross? The only reason I could think of is if they were a types, and the antitype had already come. Is that what you're saying, that they were types?

What is Scott saying? What claims to you think are not accurate?



Pointed out where? In reference to what?



You just said Scott keeps saying he agrees with Ellen White. Why would you ask him to say something he doesn't believe?



If Scott were to do what you suggest, to say something he doesn't believe, it seems to me we would be further from knowing where we stand.



I think I'd have to agree with Scott that you have been hearing what he's been saying if you think he's an antinomian. Actually it's rather ironic, as Scott is one of the few people I know who is consistent in applying the law as a standard which accurately describes God's character, as well as principles by which we should live by at all times.

It seems to me that Ellen dissagrees with Paul. Look what Paul calls the 10C in the next verse:



scott

What does agreeing with Ellen have to do with my position? Must I agree with her to be right? Is Ellen the beginning and end of truth? I must admit that I agree with her much more than I disagree!

But . . . if Ellen claims that the 10Cs are still in charge of the converted man rather than the life of Christ then I certainly don't agree with her! And neither does the NT. Didn’t she tell us that if she ever disagreed with the Bible to “take the Bible”?

By the way . . . the last whited sepulchre I talked with also believed it their duty to keep the 10C and that their standing with God depended on it.

scott

P.S. By the way; an antinomian concludes that because we are no longer under the law it is ok to break it. I believe that the law (10Cs) , as a standard of righteousness, can't empower us to obey by pointing out our sin, but the gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation. You might want to rethink trying to pin cheap grace on me. Cheap grace is the baby of penal atonement. It teaches that Jesus took all of our sins upon Himself and acquitted us and declared us righteous therefore we can do what we want because we are saved. The 1888 message teaches that Jesus doesn’t hold our sins against us, because of His character of unconditional love, and longs to free us from the bondage of sin. The good news that Jesus taught empowers us with the greatest weapon to overcome evil available to man . . . Knowing God!

I don't believe that I've ever said this about this subject. I don't know how you can say that I "keep saying" I agree with EGW. I agree with her on most subjects, but if she veers from the Bible I'll take the Bible every time. She told me too and I respect that!

Is there anything you disagree with Ellen about?

If not you might want to consider cult rehabilitation!

scott

The very next sentence from where you stopped your quote.


In post# 102082, in reference to the dichotomy between the spirit and letter of the law.


I'm asking him to be transparent. He says he agrees with EGW, then goes on to contradict her.

Read post# 102127 and 102132. He doesn't agree with EGW.


In post# 102076, he said to me, "You believe the 10C are still the standard of righteousness! That's what I keep hearing you say." He didn't say it as a point he believed.

God's character = righteousness. That is definitive. Yet, Scott does not believe the law is the standard of righteousness.

Tom, read his last couple of posts. I think you are not hearing him.

By Arnold: Read post# 102127 and 102132. He (scott) doesn't agree with EGW.


Post 102127:


I find it interesting that Rosangela quotes Ellen and I quote Paul (in the Bible) where he totally disagrees with Ellen and you find fault with me rather than Rosangela (Ellen over the Bible).

You must have given up on trying to substantiate your position from the Bible since you are now name calling and diverting the subject to my view of inspiration. Our discussion would be much better if we stuck to the context of scripture.

I can’t remember how it works. Is the prophetic office determined by the prophet’s submission to the scriptures or does the prophet have the authority of latter day revelation without the support of the scriptures?

scott