Actually I agree with the quote in context, but not the way you see it. She is talking about the principles of the 10C, not the 10C themselves. Notice what she is talking about in context:



Notice how the 10C are an expression of the thought of God. They are not the actual thought of God nor are they the revelation of God’s character in its fullness. They are an expression that, “when received in Christ” it lifts us above the power of natural desires and tendencies, above temptations that lead to sin. The 10C never had that power and in fact the only credit they are given is to point out sin and cause us to see our need of a Savior.

Notice what she says next:

When the law was proclaimed from Sinai, God made known to men the holiness of His character, that by contrast they might see the sinfulness of their own. The law was given to convict them of sin, and reveal their need of a Saviour. It would do this as its principles were applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit. This work it is still to do. In the life of Christ the principles of the law are made plain; and as the Holy Spirit of God touches the heart, as the light of Christ reveals to men their need of His cleansing blood and His justifying righteousness, the law is still an agent in bringing us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Psalm 19:7. The Desire of Ages (1898), page 308, paragraph 2

The law proclaimed from Sinai causes us to see our own sinfulness, but it is the principles of the law applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit (the new covenant) is work still to be accomplished. In the life of Christ the principles are made plain!!!!

I find it interesting how you pick out a sentence in this truth feast and make a point that she isn’t even making!

She is not in any way promoting the 10 Commandments, but the principles they project when understood in Christ through the revelation of the Holy Spirit. In other words it is Jesus’ life that give the 10C meaning. It is the Holy Spirit that teaches us what it means to love God and our fellow men through the life of Christ.

The principles behind the 10C are “unchanged and unchangeable.” God never changes, but the glory of the law expressed on stone is dim compared to the glory of God expressed in Jesus. In fact it is a shadow that passes away when the Son comes out.

scott

How are these different?

Hi Arnold,

They are as different as night and day depending on whay you mean. When you say "the precepts of the Decalogue are unchanged and unchangeable" do you mean that the 10C are unchanged and unchangeable or that the principles that they represent are unchanged and unchangeable?

The bible presents the 10C as being a temporary expression that is designed to lead us to Christ who is the fullest expression of God, but because of the Sabbath many SDAs have presented the 10C as being eternal rather than the principles they express. And they are willing to twist the scriptures to preserve them. This is what is dangerous. We would do much better to figure out what the NT writers are saying than to twist their words into what we want them to say to substantiate our theology.

If you can't see the difference you need to look at the issues leading up to 1888 between Butler and J&W. The issue that caused the GC (most of it anyway) to reject their message was the law in Galatians. Butler was so intent on keeping the 10C intact that he wasn't willing to allow their shadowy expression of the law to be swallowed up by Christ's full and perfect expression. The 10C have become an obstacle to seeing Christ and accepting the fullness of His message. They must decrease and Christ must increase.

scott

Scott,
First, I hope you are not speaking about me, because I’ve not made any comments about you/the view you hold, except that I completely disagree with you/it.
Second, in my opinion it’s you who are throwing the baby out with the bath water. It’s impossible to know the spirit of the law without its letter. “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet’” (Rom. 7:7). You cannot say that “once Christ came” the law “became unemployed, gone, fired, dismissed, ready to pass away, nailed to the cross,” and at the same time say that the law is a standard still valid to give men the knowledge of sin. How can something be defined by an obsolete, dismissed, abolished parameter?


This has always been true. It was already true at Sinai and during the whole Jewish dispensation. So what has changed with Christ’s death in this respect? Absolutely nothing.


Then you hear me wrong.
The truth we human beings can know is within the range of what was revealed, and what was revealed was revealed through the prophets. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deut. 29:29). No single prophet has all the truth, but what any true prophet conveys is truth. A true prophet cannot convey a falsehood.
We can advance in the understanding of truth, but only God can reveal the truth, and He does it through His prophets.

When EGW said "precepts of the Decalogue" and I said "precepts of the 10C" (typing laziness at its finest), did you think "precepts" meant "words"? IOW, did you think we were saying the words of the 10C were unchangeable, and therefore you had to straighten us out by saying that it is the principles that are unchangeable? If so, then you would be very opposed to what EGW was saying, or more precisely, what you thought she was saying, right?

I think if you read the part of my statement that you didn't quote I answered your question. The 10C led us to Christ, but now we hold up Christ and the 10C fall by the way (for believers only). This is necessary to see God's grace and accept His righteousness. In my mind you have been promoting the 10C and unwilling to let them go. Is this not what you believe? You seem to equate "the Law" with "the 10 Commandments". I equate "the Law" with "the character of Christ". (even though I use the word law in talking about the 10Cs at times)

scott

If that's the case, then it seems to me that you believe precepts = words. You are mistaken. Precepts = principles.

When someone says that the "precepts of the Decalogue" are immutable, that's talking about the principles, not the words. To say that precepts and principles are "as different as night and day" shows a serious misunderstanding.

Why? Is there a contradiction between the two? Wasn't it Jesus who wrote the 10C in the first place?

Why is that in your mind? Did I say that?


WDYM? Do I believe that the 10C should not be thrown away? I believe that. I believe it's still good to not have other gods; abstain from idolatry; hallow God's name; rest in His providence; honor our parents; keep from murder, adultery, theft, falsehood, and covetousness. No, I don't want to let this code of conduct go. Beyond conduct, it is a description of what a "new creature" is on the inside; that's an even more important reason to keep the mirror around.


Why does it seem that way to you? Is that how I explained Rom 3:31? BTW, I'm still waiting for your comments on what "the law" was that Paul established in Rom 3:31.


Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was. He said, "Love God, love man; on these hang the law and the prophets." The fundamental principle upon which the law and the prophets is founded is love. Love, which Jesus defined and ever manifested in His life, is the root from which the law and the prophets grew.

That's why I reject the teaching that there is a dichotomy between law and love. A proper understanding of both clearly shows that one is the root and the other is the fruit. Paul could say that love fulfills the law because rather than seeing a contradiction, he saw underlying connection between the two.

It is instructive to note that Jesus did not say, "Love God, love man; forget the law and the prophets."

Hi Arnold,

All three of your last posts make my point very well. Whether or not “precepts” means principles many read it as meaning “words”. You make your argue that you never said precepts mean “words”, but then you make your point that the 10C are the precepts. All your posts tell me is that you aren’t hearing a word I’m saying.

You believe the 10C are still the standard of righteousness! That's what I keep hearing you say. They are only the standard of righteousness for unconverted men, men under the Old Covenant who are trying to earn their way to heaven. The OC tell these men that they can never do it and that they need a Savior.

For the believer, the life of Christ is our standard of righteousness and we are told that the law (Old Covenant including the 10Cs) has done its job, finished its work, and accomplished what God intended it to do by leading us to a knowledge of sin and the need of a Savior. Now it is time to embrace the Savior and let the law retire.

It’s like riding an old covered wagon 3000 miles to get on a space shuttle and then insisting that the wagon will fly you through the cosmos. The 10C is not capable of bringing us into the relationship with God by simply pointing out our sin. All they have the power to do is lead us to repentance. The new life in Christ is what we need to be overcomers. We need the love of God manifest in Jesus and, by the way, there is nothing in the 10C that Jesus didn’t cover! His life if fully adequate to get us to heaven had we never heard the 10C.

scott