Thanks for your message. I have added my comments below yours.

-----Original Message-----
From: GENE G GIBBS 
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
Date: 02 January 1999 03:10
Subject: Re: 21 Issues still unanswered on the law


>Bro. Mann, The reason Protestantism came about was to eliminate the errors
>and excesses of the Catholic church.  Salvation is by faith not by works as
>the RCC of the Reformation era taught.


What do you make of the fact that most SDAs give Roman Catholic answers to
questions about faith and works? What do you think this indicates?

>In doctrine the RCC has been the corrector of errors, and the framer of
>doctrines.  All the great doctrines were formulated by the RCC.  There is
no
>great divide between Protestantism and Catholicism, except that RCC
>eliminates the biblical second commandment and splits the biblical tenth
>commandment into two.


This is too large a subject to go into, but I think there is more to
separate Protestantism and Catholicism than this!

>
>Now to your questions
>We will keep the Sabbath in the new earth.  The festival of the new moon
may
>or may not be kept. I will get back to you on this one.


The broader question is what we make of details of the new earth in the Old
Testament prophets. As you will be aware, there are many details given in
the prophets of Israel rising up and defeating all other nations, then
ruling them. The text in Isaiah in which the Sabbath and New Moon are kept
in the "new earth" is part of one of the general descriptions of Israel
being victorious. Do you believe we should take all these texts literally?
If so, do you believe Israel will become a great world power and defeat all
other nations etc? I don't see how you can take just this one text and apply
it literally unless you are prepared to be consistent and take all the other
OT prophets literally also.

>
>The law is the objective standard of righteousness by all, but RCCs break
>this law by worshipping Mary, and appealing to the saints, which has no
>Biblical ground.  In the catechism the RCC has great respect for the law,
>like any good church would.


OK.

>
>Th ten commandments are the summary of the covenant.  They are the words of
>the covenant.  The detail of the covenant are to be found in the subsequent
>laws in Exodus, Leviticus and numbers.  The full interpretation of the law
>into daily life is found in Rom 12 and Matt 5-7.
>
>Torah takes in different meaning. sometimes it is the whole five books of
>Moses, while at other times it is the ten commandments.  Paul makes such
use
>in Rom 7 and James in ch.2 & 3.

I don't think these texts make your case. The fact that Paul and James quote
from the ten commandments doesn't prove that they are referring only to the
ten commandments. It is more natural to assume they are just referring to
the whole law, of which this commandment is an example. James makes my point
in James 2:8, where he quotes "love your neighbour as yourself" and the
immediately afterwards "do not commit adultery", the first is not part of
the ten commandments the second is.

I may say "Shakespeare said 'but soft what light through yonder window
breaks'", that doesn't mean I am equating Shakespeare and _Romeo and Juliet.
I still equate "Shakespeare" will all his plays, I just happen to be quoting
from one particular play at the moment.

Jesus also often moves between the ten commandments and the rest of the law,
without any special reference to the ten commandments. So I don't agree that
you have shown that "Torah" is used to refer to only the ten commandments.

>
>U are correct that the law makes no such division as we do.  But
>systematically it is so, as the sacrifices, ritual and even the temple are
>no longer around for us to perform these rituals.  Most of them died with
>the death of Christ.


On what grounds do you believe this?

>
>Paul makes it clear that we ought to keep the law correctly.  Furthermore,
>Jesus statement to the rich young ruler is for all of us.  Unless we fully,
>and completely obey the law, we will not see life Eph 2:10.


As you will have read from my other postings, the rich young ruler is a very
interesting example of Jesus and the law, as the story makes the contrast
between keeping the old covenant and the requirements of the new. The gospel
isn't suggesting we keep the old covenant like the rich young ruler (see
Mark 10:17-22).

Eph 2:10 does not explicitly refer to the law, although it says we will do
good works.

>
>Jesus said he would not destroy the law OR the prophets. He made a
>distinction between the two.


What is your point?

>
>
>The covenant incorporates, but is not limited to the ten commandments.
>Abraham, Abimelech, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac all new the righteous requirements
>of the law.  Stealing was a sin before Sinai, so was adultery, as well as
>Sabbath breaking.

>


You are nearly right. There were a number of covenants, the covenant with
Israel was made at Sinai and included the ten commandments. This covenant
was not made prior to Sinai (Deut 5:3, "it was not with our fathers that the
LORD made this covenant, but with us").

>The Jewish law is summed up in the commands to love God and ones fellow
men.
>The same command was the one Jesus gave to the disciples in the upper room
>
Again, this is basically correct, but we need to be clear that although Paul
and Jesus are saying the new covenant encompasses the old (they are both
based on loving God and ones follow men), neither are saying of course that
the outer "symbols" of the old are unchanged - they are still true and
binding, but operate differently in the new covenant. We are still
circumcised, but of the heart, not of the flesh etc.

>Very true on the law in Ps 119.


Although of course Ps 119 was written under the old covenant and would
naturally at the time have been read as referring to that law, in fact we
can see that David was (probably unconsciously) describing the law written
on the heart, the spiritual law, rather than the literal old covenant law.
>
>
Bye bye

John

>