Works Relation to Salvation

[Gary K]

Thanks, but no, the numerical value of 613 has significance in Gamatria.

You buy into the Kabbalah? You're another Madonna in some fashion? That is pure mysticism.

 

[Soyeong]

You buy into the Kabbalah? You're another Madonna in some fashion? That is pure mysticism.

I didn't say anything about buying into Kabbalah or into Gamatria, nor do I think that Gamatria is Kabbalah, but rather I spoke in regard to the reading behind why there is traditionally considered to be 613 commandments.

 

[Gary K]

I didn't say anything about buying into Kabbalah or into Gamatria, nor do I think that Gamatria is Kabbalah, but rather I spoke in regard to the reading behind why there is traditionally considered to be 613 commandments.

Then why bring it up as it is numerology?

 

[Soyeong]

Then why bring it up as it is numerology?

Personally, I've seen enough Gamatria to think that maybe there is something there, though there is also a danger to it because it is easy to make connections that aren't actually there. However, I was not speaking about my personal views, but about the views of the people who started the tradition of there being 613 commandments.

 

[Bob S]

Now Bob,

The Old/New Covenant as defined by the God who created it, has nothing to do with the abolition or destruction of any of God's 10 commandments. This teaching you are promoting, is a doctrine of men promoted by "many" religious businesses which exist in this world God placed us in, not by the God of Abraham. Jesus warned us of these "many" who come in Christ's Name.

The term "Old Covenant Sabbath" is your creation or a doctrine you have adopted, but it doesn't come from the Scriptures anywhere.

Why are you so obstinate? Most everyone refers to the Sinai Covenant as the Old Covenant. That covenant was meant for one nation, Israel. To try to make it universal is a bunch of Hooy. Paul wrote in 2Cor3:6-11 that the ten commandments are no longer Israel's guide. Nothing you can say will supersede or negate Paul's words. He was Jesus' Ambassador to the Gentile World

What the God "of the Bible" says, is that HE writes His Laws on the hearts of His People. And according to the Apostle of the Christ of the Bible, this is how a person knows if they know God or have been snared by one of these religions, who come in Christ's Name.

1 John 2: 3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

I don't advocate for adopting any religious business of this world or supporting them. The Pharisees created a huge religious business that claimed God's Sabbath as their own. But Jesus said about them, "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." So then God's Sabbath Commandment, although important and created by God for man, is not greater than other Commandments of God.

If religious men work 24/7 to build a religious business worth billions, how is that honoring God in His Sabbath?

The truth is, God's Sabbath was created by God, not Gamaliel or Ellen White. And was created for men, not the SDA religion or other religious sects of this world. And Jesus said "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Not Valentinus or Wesley or Calvin or Russell, or Hastings or Copeland.

If you trusted the Scriptures for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: you would not be promoting the manmade doctrine of "Old Covenant Sabbath" as there is no such thing, at least not according to the Holy scriptures.

The Sabbath law was exclusively given to those that came out of slavery in Egypt. God never gave it to any other nation. To try to make it universal is Biblically unethical. Another thing, you cannot prove that the Sabbath was given to any other person on Earth except those that came out of Egypt and their posterity. All of you Sabbath believers have yet to prove me wrong. You just try your best to belittle me for believing what is soundly scriptural.

 

[Studyman]

Why are you so obstinate? Most everyone refers to the Sinai Covenant as the Old Covenant.

Jesus said there would be "many" deceivers who come in His Name. Am I obstinate because I don't bow myself to this world's religions, as you have done? What I did, was post Scriptures for examination and discussion, that shows us how the God of the Bible defines His Own New Covenant. Scriptures you once again, refuse to acknowledge as is the custom of "Many" who call Jesus Lord, Lord.

That covenant was meant for one nation, Israel. To try to make it universal is a bunch of Hooy. Paul wrote in 2Cor3:6-11 that the ten commandments are no longer Israel's guide. Nothing you can say will supersede or negate Paul's words. He was Jesus' Ambassador to the Gentile World

Again, that isn't what Paul teaches in 2 Cor. 3:6-11. The "Ministration of Death" is not "Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and Love your neighbor as thyself, and all that hangs on these two greatest Commandments.

The "Ministration of Death", according to Scriptures is;

Lev. 4: 27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; 28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

And you are right about Paul's words. Nothing you or Valentinus, Calvin, Wesley, or the Pope, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn can say, will negate any of Paul's words.

Rom. 2: 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

I don't accuse you, Paul, in whom you trust, accuses you.

The Sabbath law was exclusively given to those that came out of slavery in Egypt. God never gave it to any other nation.

Is. 56: 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

My issue with this world's religious philosophy you have adopted and are now promoting, is based on the difference between your preaching, and what the Scriptures actually say. This disconnect between God's Word and yours is clearly evident regarding God's Covenant promises to men "Who Love Him and Keep His Commandments".

To try to make it universal is Biblically unethical.

I fully understand that the image of God you created, a respecter of persons who judges men according to the DNA they were born with, is a popular image of God.

I believe creating such wicked images of God, and promoting this image to others, is unethical. To post God's Inspired Words where HE Himself defines His Own Character, is not un-Ethical, in my view.

Lev. 19: 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Another thing, you cannot prove that the Sabbath was given to any other person on Earth except those that came out of Egypt and their posterity.

No, but I can Prove through scriptures, that "The Old/New Covenant as defined by the God who created it, has nothing to do with the abolition or destruction of any of God's 10 commandments".

This can be proven clearly by scriptures.

All of you Sabbath believers have yet to prove me wrong. You just try your best to belittle me for believing what is soundly scriptural.

No Bob, I simply post Scriptures where the God of Lights expose through the Holy Scriptures HE Inspired, that the religious philosophy you have adopted, and are now bewitching others with, regarding God's definition of His Own New Covenant, is from man, not from God. This is clearly evident in the Scriptures you refuse to acknowledge or discuss.

I don't make you preach these doctrines of men. I think a member of God's Church should not promote falsehoods about Him. This is why I reply to your posts regarding your preaching of God's Promise of a New Covenant.

 

[DamianWarS]

So the fact that God placed the 4th commandment inside His moral law means nothing?

God placed the 4th commandment on the two tablets of covenant law. (Ex 31:18). This is explicit but there is not a single mention of the 10 isolated from the law then called "God's moral law". You're hijacking the word "moral" and manipulating it to fit a bias, then shame people that don't do the same. Dictomising the law this way is scripturally unsupported but calling it covenant law is explicit. Why do you need to recategorize something that was already categorized by God when it was made? Do you think God made a mistake we he calls it covenant law?

 

[Gary K]

God placed the 4th commandment on the two tablets of covenant law. (Ex 31:18). This is explicit but there is not a single mention of the 10 isolated from the law then called "God's moral law". You're hijacking the word "moral" and manipulating it to fit a bias, then shame people that don't do the same. Dictomising the law this way is scripturally unsupported but calling it covenant law is explicit. Why do you need to recategorize something that was already categorized by God when it was made? Do you think God made a mistake we he calls it covenant law?

Nope. A covenant is a legal agreement so it's founded in law. Speaking of the 10 commandmets as a law isn't even close to being a misnomer especially as God called it His law even before the10 commandments were given on Sinai.

Exo 16:4 Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.
Exo 16:5 And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.

How is it high jacking anything to call the 10 commandments moral law when there were, and still are, legal penalties for breaking them.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

For a number of people there seems to be some confusion as to why they should observe the Sabbath. Aside from the fact that its part of the Ten Commandment covenant in which the command itself says we are to "Remember the Sabbath day"; Aside from the fact that the Sabbath provides all humans with a day of physical rest; Aside from the fact that each Sabbath is to be observed in honor of Jesus creating the heavens and the Earth; Aside from the fact that God says we're to call the Sabbath a delight; Aside from the fact that Jesus said that the Sabbath was "made for human beings"; Aside from the fact that Jesus, the apostles, Paul and Gentiles all observed the Sabbath; I guess there's really no reason at all ::shrugs::

But let's set all of that aside and consider what Jesus says about salvation:

Matthew 5:27-30​

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.​

• Jesus quotes from the Ten Commandment covenant: "You shall not commit adultery."
• Jesus magnifies the law and equates adultery with looking lustfully at a woman.
• Jesus says it is better to pluck out your eye rather than to be guilty of adultery.
• Jesus says it is better to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. (Translation: LOSS OF SALVATION)

The act of adultery (or murder, or theft, or +7) is not what denies salvation. It merely reveals your lack of love for the One you claim to love. God says, "Those that honor Me, I will honor." Do you know where that quote is found in the Bible? Go look it up sometime. It's very enlightening.

So, what do you think? According to Jesus, is there any correlation between what you do and your salvation?

For those of you who are inclined to reject, deny or abolish the words of Jesus I suggest you take the following text into account:

Mark 8:38​

If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”​

And also these verses:

Luke 6:46-49​

“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”​

And this passage:

John 12:47-50​

“If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”​

But maybe you think that Paul will go easier on your belief? Let's see:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ​

Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? [Note that here Paul equates doing wrong with loss of salvation.]Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, [Look at that! One of the Ten Commandments! And if Paul mentions one, of necessity he includes all ten.] or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.​

Do you suppose Paul is a works-oriented legalist? Probably not, but could it be that if you've ever used that legalist term against someone I'm surmising you probably weren't applying it consistently. If you were I'd bet that Paul wouldn't pass your muster.

Again, works don't earn our salvation--works merely validate our claim that we love Jesus.

Paul says, "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?" Your works reveal whether your faith is real.

James very succinctly explains that faith without works is dead (James 2:14-26). If you claim you love Jesus, yet don't do what He says, then your faith is dead.

John 14:15-21 records Jesus saying the following:

“If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”​

Conversely, what about those who do not love Jesus? In verse 24 Jesus says, "Anyone who doesn't love me will not obey me."

It's amazing how many of the critics of Adventism have attempted to redact all of the commands of Jesus down to two commands which apparently they believe are open to interpretation. Love for your neighbor is not nebulous and left undefined. Jesus provided explicit commands in His Ten Commandment covenant which define how we are to love our neighbor. The covenant/agreement was canceled, but it was canceled based on the failure of the people to keep their end of the agreement. What they agreed to (ie. the law) was obviously not the problem. "God found fault with the people," not with His perfect law.

• Since most critics believe there is no law then they have no need to "stop sinning," as Jesus, Peter, John and Paul all admonish Christians;
• Since formers have no law to identify sin, then they are sinless;
• Since they are "sinless," they have no need for grace;
• Since they have no need for grace, then they have no need for forgiveness;
• Since they have no need for forgiveness, then they have no need for a Savior;
• Since they have no need for a Savior, then they have no need for Jesus;
• If they have no need for Jesus, then we see who's truly in a cult. A religion without Jesus is empty and devoid of any eternal value.

Let's review what we've learned today:

• We've established that Jesus says to cut out your eye rather than to look at a woman lustfully and go to hell. / SALVATIONAL
• We've established that Jesus says to cut off your hand and throw it away rather than to go to hell. / SALVATIONAL
• We've established that Paul says if you worship idols you "WILL NOT inherit the Kingdom of God" / SALVATIONAL
• We've established that Paul says if you commit adultery you "WILL NOT inherit the Kingdom of God" / SALVATIONAL
• We've established that Paul says if you steal you "WILL NOT inherit the Kingdom of God" / SALVATIONAL

For which one of these established biblical beliefs do you wish to condemn me as being a legalist?

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

Jesus presented His sermon on the mount to show us our sinfulness. His standards for us are impossible for us to meet in order to be righteous of ourselves. Paul says that the Law is our tutor in order to point us to Christ. Once we have faith in Christ, then we don't need the tutor any longer. The Law shows us our sinfulness and that because we can't keep its standards, we are condemned. But then we are presented with the Good News that Jesus died on the Cross to take our penalty for sin upon Himself. He paid the debt that we owed to God, and then bestowed His own pure righteousness on us as a free gift.

But does this mean that we don't keep the Law. Absolutely not. We now keep the law to the best of our ability not through an obligation in order to stay saved, but out of love for the Saviour who loved us and gave Himself for us while we were yet still sinners. It is not a matter of having to live a holy life, but we want to because we know that living a holy life glorifies Christ and provides our testimony to the Good News to the world around us.

Some may criticise us and accuse us of being legalistic because of our strictness of life; but it is not legalism that induces us to holiness, but it is a sincere love from the new heart that God has put in us when we received Christ and were converted. Also, the Holy Spirit who dwells within us encourages and exhorts us to holiness and guides us to 1 John 1:9 when we fall off the holiness wagon at times.

 

[DamianWarS]

Nope. A covenant is a legal agreement so it's founded in law. Speaking of the 10 commandmets as a law isn't even close to being a misnomer especially as God called it His law even before the10 commandments were given on Sinai.

Covenants are contracts between different parties. The Sinai covenant was between Israel and God. It is sanctioned under the 10 but the 10 alone are incomplete. It indeed is law, but only the poster of a much larger system. My issue is not with the name "law" but with "moral law" when motivated to dochtomise law it has no place in scripture.

How is it high jacking anything to call the 10 commandments moral law when there were, and still are, legal penalties for breaking them.

My issue is not with broadly calling that which is of-God morally based but rather when it's used to call only a select few moral leaving the others as non-moral. This is a dichotomy not support by scripture, not a single verse suggests such a thing.

You're hijacking the word because you're using it like a strawman, making an argument forcing agreement like it's some sort of mic drop. It's not scripturally supportted so you're just manipulating the word to fit an idea that can't be found in Scripture. The 4th is a ceremony of rest repeated weekly and doesn't describe coventional moral actions, so it is odd to call it moral yet call other laws like not to reap the edges of your crop non-moral, when I would probably reverse those two. So the question is if not from the bible, where did you get this idea from?

I cannot accept this moral/non-moral dichotomy of the law until you can show this dichotomy has endorsement from scripture. Lacking the support is just labels traditions have used to establish their own systems. What should be troubling to you is why you so strongly believe in something not scriptually endorsed.

 

[Gary K]

Covenants are contracts different parties. The Sinai covenant was between Israel and God. It is sanctioned under the 10 but the 10 alone are incomplete. It indeed is law, but only the poster of a much larger system. My issue is not with the name "law" but with "moral law" when motivated to dochtomise law it has no place in scripture.


My issue is not with broadly calling that which is of-God morally based but rather when it's used to call only a select few moral leaving the others as non-moral. This is a dichotomy not support by scripture, not a single verse suggests such a thing.

You're hijacking the word because you're using it like a strawman, making an argument forcing agreement like it's some sort of mic drop. It's not scripturally supportted so you're just manipulating the word to fit an idea that can't be found in Scripture. The 4th is a ceremony of rest repeated weekly and doesn't describe coventional moral actions, so it is odd to call it moral yet call other laws like not to reap the edges of your crop non-moral, when I would probably reverse those two. So the question is if not from the bible, where did you get this idea from?

I cannot accept this moral/non-moral dichotomy of the law until you can show this dichotomy has endorsement from scripture. Lacking the support is just labels traditions have used to establish their own systems. What should be troubling to you is why you so strongly believe in something not scriptually endorsed.

Sorry, but the but the 10 commandments are the law under discussion here. Yeah, the Mosaic law is based in morality but they do not specifically address moral issues like the 10 do. Idolatry, lying, respect for parents. murder, covetousness, and the Sabbath are all moral issues. Not because I say so, but because God says so as He placed the 4th commandment in with the 10. You have a problem with that? Take it up with God and tell Him He's wrong, not me. Telling me that the 10 commandments are not moral law does not make it so, and neither does telling me that there is no scriptural support for that as the entire Bible is about moral issues.

Your ideas are not scriptural.

 

[DamianWarS]

Sorry, but the but the 10 commandments are the law under discussion here. Yeah, the Mosaic law is based in morality but they do not specifically address moral issues like the 10 do. Idolatry, lying, respect for parents. murder, covetousness, and the Sabbath are all moral issues. Not because I say so, but because God says so as He placed the 4th commandment in with the 10. You have a problem with that? Take it up with God and tell Him He's wrong, not me. Telling me that the 10 commandments are not moral law does not make it so, and neither does telling me that there is no scriptural support for that as the entire Bible is about moral issues.

Your ideas are not scriptural.

The 4th is not a moral law. God did not place the 4th inside a group of moral laws so that we can call it moral. There isn't the slightest hint of that in scripture. He did not place the 4th inside of anything, it is covenan law written on tablets, nothing was moved, relocated or put inside, it is built exactly how it is.

No where in Scripture does it refer to the 10 as moral law. Your just beating a dead horse with this argument. That doesn't mean there isn't moral components in it but to label it uniquely moral then claim it makes all inside moral, then claim this moralization of these laws was God's plan is just plain bizzare, as not a single part of that is revealed in Scripture.

What exactly do I ask God? Why did you do something that scripture says you never did? What part of that makes sense? This is cause to question the tradition with scripture not question God with tradition.

The whole bible is about moral issues but that isn't the problem. The problem is that you've separated a group of laws, given them a special label called "moral" and for the ones that don't fit you claim it's moral simple because it's a part of this special group, yet no where in Scripture referes to the 10 this way. Why are you so bent at calling them God's moral law? God already put them in a group, he called it "the two tablets of covenant law". Why is there need to call it something else?

Me calling them moral laws or your calling them moral laws doesn't change a thing about the laws. They are exactly the way they are with or without the labels, just the same if I call them purple laws doesn't actually make them purple. Scripture doesn't say either and it's harmless until you start demanding others to agree because they are the divine moral laws so you must accept them as universal. All I hear you say is to stop questioning God's moral law... But you have failed to establish that is how God wants us to view his law. Show me where in Scripture it dichotomize law this way so why are you trying so hard to do it?

 

[Gary K]

The 4th is not a moral law. God did not place the 4th inside a group of moral laws so that we can call it moral. There isn't the slightest hint of that in scripture. He did not place the 4th inside of anything, it is covenan law written on tablets, nothing was moved, relocated or put inside, it is built exactly how it is.

No where in Scripture does it refer to the 10 as moral law. Your just beating a dead horse with this argument. That doesn't mean there isn't moral components in it but to label it uniquely moral then claim it makes all inside moral, then claim this moralization of these laws was God's plan is just plain bizzare, as not a single part of that is revealed in Scripture.

What exactly do I ask God? Why did you do something that scripture says you never did? What part of that makes sense? This is cause to question the tradition with scripture not question God with tradition.

The whole bible is about moral issues but that isn't the problem. The problem is that you've separated a group of laws, given them a special label called "moral" and for the ones that don't fit you claim it's moral simple because it's a part of this special group, yet no where in Scripture referes to the 10 this way. Why are you so bent at calling them God's moral law? God already put them in a group, he called it "the two tablets of covenant law". Why is there need to call it something else?

Me calling them moral laws or your calling them moral laws doesn't change a thing about the laws. They are exactly the way they are with or without the labels, just the same if I call them purple laws doesn't actually make them purple. Scripture doesn't say either and it's harmless until you start demanding others to agree because they are the divine moral laws so you must accept them as universal. All I hear you say is to stop questioning God's moral law... But you have failed to establish that is how God wants us to view his law. Show me where in Scripture it dichotomize law this way so why are you trying so hard to do it?

So, lying, cheating, stealing cheating on your spouse, etc... is not immoral. You're the first Christian I've ever known of to make that assertion. It seems to me to be a very weird assertion for a Christian to make.

Also saying that God didn't put the fourth commandment inside the 10 is also a very weird assertion to make. Seems to me He wrote them with His own finger on tablets of stone.

And where have I "demanded" that anyone agree with me? You feel like pointing out that post to me?

 

[DamianWarS]

So, lying, cheating, stealing cheating on your spouse, etc... is not immoral. You're the first Christian I've ever known of to make that assertion. It seems to me to be a very weird assertion for a Christian to make.

Also saying that God didn't put the fourth commandment inside the 10 is also a very weird assertion to make. Seems to me He wrote them with His own finger on tablets of stone.

And where have I "demanded" that anyone agree with me? You feel like pointing out that post to me?

So there is no confusion the 4th is part of the 10 commandments, I've never claimed otherwise, you'll have to sort why you've jumped to this conclusion yourself.

The 10 commandments are not called "moral law" which is a foriegn term in the bible. There are conventional moral laws in the 10 such as what you pointed out and there are laws that don't fit conventional moral laws in the 10 such as the 4th. There are also conventional moral laws outside of the 10. Identifying the 10 uniquely as moral law theb is the odd part as it would disqualifying all the other moral laws as being morally based not to mention mislabel laws with in the 10.

The word "moral" is not the issue, it is your motivation to exploit the word to prop up the 10 commandments that is the issue. You seem to be avoiding critical engagement and just turning this into a red herring. Calling the 10 moral law and the others outside of this not a part of this moral law is a false dichotomy not because I say so, but because this idea is biblically unsupported. The bible either makes this dichotomy or it doesn't. Until you can biblical show me where it says this I cannot accept it. Do you not value sola scriptura?

 

[Gary K]

So there is no confusion the 4th is part of the 10 commandments, I've never claimed otherwise, you'll have to sort why you've jumped to this conclusion yourself.

The 10 commandments are not called "moral law" which is a foriegn term in the bible. There are conventional moral laws in the 10 such as what you pointed out and there are laws that don't fit conventional moral laws in the 10 such as the 4th. There are also conventional moral laws outside of the 10. Identifying the 10 uniquely as moral law theb is the odd part as it would disqualifying all the other moral laws as being morally based not to mention mislabel laws with in the 10.

The word "moral" is not the issue, it is your motivation to exploit the word to prop up the 10 commandments that is the issue. You seem to be avoiding critical engagement and just turning this into a red herring. Calling the 10 moral law and the others outside of this no

So there is no confusion the 4th is part of the 10 commandments, I've never claimed otherwise, you'll have to sort why you've jumped to this conclusion yourself.

The 10 commandments are not called "moral law" which is a foriegn term in the bible. There are conventional moral laws in the 10 such as what you pointed out and there are laws that don't fit conventional moral laws in the 10 such as the 4th. There are also conventional moral laws outside of the 10. Identifying the 10 uniquely as moral law theb is the odd part as it would disqualifying all the other moral laws as being morally based not to mention mislabel laws with in the 10.

The word "moral" is not the issue, it is your motivation to exploit the word to prop up the 10 commandments that is the issue. You seem to be avoiding critical engagement and just turning this into a red herring. Calling the 10 moral law and the others outside of this not a part of this moral law is a false dichotomy not because I say so, but because this idea is biblically unsupported. The bible either makes this dichotomy or it doesn't. Until you can biblical show me where it says this I cannot accept it. Do you not value sola scriptura?

t a part of this moral law is a false dichotomy not because I say so, but because this idea is biblically unsupported. The bible either makes this dichotomy or it doesn't. Until you can biblical show me where it says this I cannot accept it. Do you not value sola scriptura?

Here are your words:

The 4th is not a moral law.

Just because the Bible doesn't use the word moral doesn't mean the 10 commandments aren't a set of laws that legally define what is immoral behavior. To argue against that is foolishness plain and simple. And to argue that I am trying to make the 4th commandment a moral law is just as foolish. I didn't write the 10 on two tables of stone with my finger. That's so far beyond my capabilities it's nuts to make that argument.

 

[Icyspark]

God placed the 4th commandment on the two tablets of covenant law. (Ex 31:18). This is explicit but there is not a single mention of the 10 isolated from the law then called "God's moral law". You're hijacking the word "moral" and manipulating it to fit a bias, then shame people that don't do the same. Dictomising the law this way is scripturally unsupported but calling it covenant law is explicit. Why do you need to recategorize something that was already categorized by God when it was made? Do you think God made a mistake we he calls it covenant law?

Hi DamianWarS,

How many "laws" are in this "covenant law"?

God bless.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[Fervent]

Covenants are contracts different parties. The Sinai covenant was between Israel and God. It is sanctioned under the 10 but the 10 alone are incomplete. It indeed is law, but only the poster of a much larger system. My issue is not with the name "law" but with "moral law" when motivated to dochtomise law it has no place in scripture.


My issue is not with broadly calling that which is of-God morally based but rather when it's used to call only a select few moral leaving the others as non-moral. This is a dichotomy not support by scripture, not a single verse suggests such a thing.

You're hijacking the word because you're using it like a strawman, making an argument forcing agreement like it's some sort of mic drop. It's not scripturally supportted so you're just manipulating the word to fit an idea that can't be found in Scripture. The 4th is a ceremony of rest repeated weekly and doesn't describe coventional moral actions, so it is odd to call it moral yet call other laws like not to reap the edges of your crop non-moral, when I would probably reverse those two. So the question is if not from the bible, where did you get this idea from?

I cannot accept this moral/non-moral dichotomy of the law until you can show this dichotomy has endorsement from scripture. Lacking the support is just labels traditions have used to establish their own systems. What should be troubling to you is why you so strongly believe in something not scriptually endorsed.

The dichotomy really only functions to turn us from doers of the law to judges, since even if it were supported which laws fall into the various categories is also not found within the text nor would the Israelites have considered particular laws moral and others non-moral. The whole law was moral, because it was God's commands for maintaining their status as His peculiar people and receiving right standing before Him. The only way to separate bits and pieces of the law is to deny that the rest of it was given by God, and completely misses the point of being under a new priesthood.

 

[Gary K]

The dichotomy really only functions to turn us from doers of the law to judges, since even if it were supported which laws fall into the various categories is also not found within the text nor would the Israelites have considered particular laws moral and others non-moral. The whole law was moral, because it was God's commands for maintaining their status as His peculiar people and receiving right standing before Him. The only way to separate bits and pieces of the law is to deny that the rest of it was given by God, and completely misses the point of being under a new priesthood.

Who around here denies that the law of Moses was given by God? Not a single Sabbath keeper I know of does.

 

[Fervent]

Who around here denies that the law of Moses was given by God? Not a single Sabbath keeper I know of does.

How can a God-given law be anything but moral?

 

[Gary K]

How can a God-given law be anything but moral?

It can't. Unfortunately DamianWarS says the 10 commandments aren't moral.