Discussion on the 28 fundamental beliefs....

Laodicean

Regular Member
Jan 30, 2010
747
8
Florida
✟8,437.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Those passages were written by David and Jeremiah. They were never the representatives of the human race and they wrote millenia after God had already put his plan of salvation into action. My point is that man never asked to be saved, meaning that they did not want to be saved. It counters your claim that God surrenders to human will.

Okay, if you don't consider David and Jeremiah to be part of the human race, then let me speak for myself. I have asked to be saved....all on my own freewill. And your point again?

You have rewritten history to fit your views. According to you, you know those who aer lost and those who are in rebellion. You must know how to reas minds. If that is the case I am out of my element.

Senti, where have I said I know which people are lost and which are rebellious? Read again.

If you accept the Bible -- and I don't know if you do, which might be part of our problem here -- then it clearly states that there are some in rebellion, others who want to be saved.

And, no, I am not a mind reader.
 
Upvote 0

AzA

NF | NT
Aug 4, 2008
1,540
95
✟17,221.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Lao, consider that a sample of a set is not the same as the spokesman for that set.
That's the distinction between what you and Senti are arguing.

David and Jeremiah were samples of humankind. But not spokesmen for humankind.
According to the process Paul described, there were only two Adams, and it was those two Adams whose intentions changed the trajectory of the whole species.
 
Upvote 0

Laodicean

Regular Member
Jan 30, 2010
747
8
Florida
✟8,437.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Lao, consider that a sample of a set is not the same as the spokesman for that set.
That's the distinction between what you and Senti are arguing.

David and Jeremiah were samples of humankind. But not spokesmen for humankind.
According to the process Paul described, there were only two Adams, and it was those two Adams whose intentions changed the trajectory of the whole species.

Okay. I see where he's going with that. A different discussion, I dare say.

But how does he know that mankind did not want to be saved?

Senti?
 
Upvote 0

Byfaithalone1

The gospel is Jesus Christ!
May 3, 2007
3,602
79
✟11,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why do you think I've reached an alternate conclusion? What is the conclusion that you think I've reached, BFA?

If I've correctly understood, I believe you are in sync with the SDA fundamental belief which implies that "perpetual," as used in Exodus 31, means something close to "has no end."

Unless you observe all of the holy convocations listed in Leviticus 23, I'm assuming that you conclude that "perpetual," as used in Leviticus 23, means something less than "has no end."

If I've misunderstood, let's discuss more. I'm always happy to see that I've missed something and that will certainly be true in this case as well.

BFA
 
Upvote 0

Laodicean

Regular Member
Jan 30, 2010
747
8
Florida
✟8,437.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
If I've correctly understood, I believe you are in sync with the SDA fundamental belief which implies that "perpetual," as used in Exodus 31, means something close to "has no end."

If the SDA fundamental means the same thing that I have taken it to mean, then we are in sync. Here's my understanding: that "perpetual" means for the duration of whatever the context is. For the Sabbath, it could be perpetual until heaven and earth pass away, or it could be perpetual throughout eternity, or it could be perpetual until done away at the cross, as some suggest.

Unless you observe all of the holy convocations listed in Leviticus 23, I'm assuming that you conclude that "perpetual," as used in Leviticus 23, means something less than "has no end."

I make a distinction between the 7th day Sabbath of the ten commandments, written by the finger of God and placed inside of the ark, and the ceremonial sabbaths found in the laws written by Moses, which were set on the outside of the ark. So, in context, "perpetual" lasts only as long as a given situation exists, which could be temporary or long-lasting, or eternal.

If I've misunderstood, let's discuss more. I'm always happy to see that I've missed something and that will certainly be true in this case as well.

BFA
 
Upvote 0

sentipente

Senior Contributor
Jul 17, 2007
11,651
4,492
Silver Sprint, MD
✟46,642.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Politics
US-Others
Okay. I see where he's going with that. A different discussion, I dare say.

But how does he know that mankind did not want to be saved?

Senti?
The question is whether man asked to be saved.

Since you mentioned wanting to be saved, if the first Adam wanted to be saved then all men want to be saved, regardless of whatever boasts they may make in their personal discussions.
 
Upvote 0

Laodicean

Regular Member
Jan 30, 2010
747
8
Florida
✟8,437.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
The question is whether man asked to be saved.

Since you mentioned wanting to be saved, if the first Adam wanted to be saved then all men want to be saved, regardless of whatever boasts they may make in their personal discussions.

no, I think you are mixing up genetics with free will.
 
Upvote 0

Byfaithalone1

The gospel is Jesus Christ!
May 3, 2007
3,602
79
✟11,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
For the Sabbath, it could be perpetual until heaven and earth pass away, or it could be perpetual throughout eternity, or it could be perpetual until done away at the cross, as some suggest.

In your opinion, which is it? Until heaven and earth pass? Throughout eternity? Or done away at the cross?

I make a distinction between the 7th day Sabbath of the ten commandments, written by the finger of God and placed inside of the ark, and the ceremonial sabbaths found in the laws written by Moses, which were set on the outside of the ark.

OK. I understand that you've made a distinction. Is the reason for this distinction based on your understanding of that which was placed inside and outside the ark? What do you do with the fact that the ten commandments were found among the laws written by Moses which were set on the outside of the ark?

How do you view Leviticus 23 and Exodus 34; passages that comingle the two sets of laws that you've divided?

So, in context, "perpetual" lasts only as long as a given situation exists, which could be temporary or long-lasting, or eternal.

Is it safe to conclude that you define "perpetual" as follows:
1. When referring to the holy convocation known as "the seventh-day sabbath," "perpetual" means eternal.

2. When referring to other holy convocations, "perpetual" means temporary.
BFA
 
Upvote 0

StormyOne

Senior Veteran
Aug 21, 2005
5,424
47
63
Alabama
✟5,866.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
BFA you have highlighted a problem that some adventists choose to perpetuate.... they make the artificial separation between the "moral" law and the "ceremonial" laws.... to the ancient jew there was no separation... NONE... it was all viewed as the law... In fact in this past week's sabbath lesson, the official study guide of the church, that point was made... here it is, emphasis mine:
It is convenient for us to classify Old Testament laws into various categories: (1) moral law, (2) ceremonial law, (3) civil law, (4) statutes and judgments, and (5) health laws.

This classification is in part artificial. In actuality, some of these categories are interrelated, and there is considerable overlap. The ancients did not see them as separate and distinct.
here is the link to the lesson:
Lesson 2
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sophia7

Tall73's Wife
Supporter
Sep 24, 2005
12,364
455
✟59,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
BFA you have highlighted a problem that some adventists choose to perpetuate.... they make the artificial separation between the "moral" law and the "ceremonial" laws.... to the ancient jew there was no separation... NONE... it was all viewed as the law... In fact in this past week's sabbath lesson, the official study guide of the church, that point was made... here it is, emphasis mine:

here is the link to the lesson:
Lesson 2

It's interesting that they acknowledge in the SS quarterly the artificiality and convenience of their separation of the law. Official Adventist publications don't often do that, at least from what I've observed. The realization that the ancient Jews didn't classify the law into separate "moral" and "ceremonial" categories was what initially led me to question the Adventist view of the law and the Sabbath.

I see that in the SS lesson, they list five categories: "(1) moral law, (2) ceremonial law, (3) civil law, (4) statutes and judgments, and (5) health laws." Throughout my experience in Adventism, I most often heard about the "moral" and "ceremonial" laws and only occasionally heard references to the other categories. Some Adventists talk about a "natural law" as well, into which category they place EGW's dietary instructions; I guess that would be the same as the fifth category listed in the lesson.

Also, I find it ironic that the concept of the division of the law into "moral," "ceremonial," and "civil" categories has its origins in the writings of Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic theologian. From his Summa Theologica (articles 3 and 4):
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 4:13, 14): "Ten words . . . He wrote in two tables of stone; and He commanded me at that time that I should teach you the ceremonies and judgments which you shall do." But the ten commandments of the Law are moral precepts. Therefore besides the moral precepts there are others which are ceremonial.

I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), the Divine law is instituted chiefly in order to direct men to God; while human law is instituted chiefly in order to direct men in relation to one another. Hence human laws have not concerned themselves with the institution of anything relating to Divine worship except as affecting the common good of mankind: and for this reason they have devised many institutions relating to Divine matters, according as it seemed expedient for the formation of human morals; as may be seen in the rites of the Gentiles. On the other hand the Divine law directed men to one another according to the demands of that order whereby man is directed to God, which order was the chief aim of that law. Now man is directed to God not only by the interior acts of the mind, which are faith, hope, and love, but also by certain external works, whereby man makes profession of his subjection to God: and it is these works that are said to belong to the Divine worship. This worship is called "ceremony" [the munia, i.e. gifts] of Ceres (who was the goddess of fruits), as some say: because, at first, offerings were made to God from the fruits: or because, as Valerius Maximus states [*Fact. et Dict. Memor. i, 1], the word "ceremony" was introduced among the Latins, to signify the Divine worship, being derived from a town near Rome called "Caere": since, when Rome was taken by the Gauls, the sacred chattels of the Romans were taken thither and most carefully preserved. Accordingly those precepts of the Law which refer to the Divine worship are specially called ceremonial.

Reply to Objection 1: Human acts extend also to the Divine worship: and therefore the Old Law given to man contains precepts about these matters also.

Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Q[91], A[3]), the precepts of the natural law are general, and require to be determined: and they are determined both by human law and by Divine law. And just as these very determinations which are made by human law are said to be, not of natural, but of positive law; so the determinations of the precepts of the natural law, effected by the Divine law, are distinct from the moral precepts which belong to the natural law. Wherefore to worship God, since it is an act of virtue, belongs to a moral precept; but the determination of this precept, namely that He is to be worshipped by such and such sacrifices, and such and such offerings, belongs to the ceremonial precepts. Consequently the ceremonial precepts are distinct from the moral precepts. . . .

On the contrary,
It is written (Dt. 6:1): "These are the precepts and ceremonies, and judgments": where "precepts" stands for "moral precepts" antonomastically. Therefore there are judicial precepts besides moral and ceremonial precepts.

I answer that, As stated above (AA[2],3), it belongs to the Divine law to direct men to one another and to God. Now each of these belongs in the abstract to the dictates of the natural law, to which dictates the moral precepts are to be referred: yet each of them has to be determined by Divine or human law, because naturally known principles are universal, both in speculative and in practical matters. Accordingly just as the determination of the universal principle about Divine worship is effected by the ceremonial precepts, so the determination of the general precepts of that justice which is to be observed among men is effected by the judicial precepts.

We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. "moral" precepts, which are dictated by the natural law; "ceremonial" precepts, which are determinations of the Divine worship; and "judicial" precepts, which are determinations of the justice to be maintained among men. Wherefore the Apostle (Rom. 7:12) after saying that the "Law is holy," adds that "the commandment is just, and holy, and good": "just," in respect of the judicial precepts; "holy," with regard to the ceremonial precepts (since the word "sanctus"---"holy"---is applied to that which is consecrated to God); and "good," i.e. conducive to virtue, as to the moral precepts.
Perhaps Adventism traditionally has followed more closely in the footsteps of Catholicism than they realize.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

StormyOne

Senior Veteran
Aug 21, 2005
5,424
47
63
Alabama
✟5,866.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's interesting that they acknowledge in the SS quarterly the artificiality and convenience of their separation of the law. Official Adventist publications don't often do that, at least from what I've observed. The realization that the ancient Jews didn't classify the law into separate "moral" and "ceremonial" categories was what initially led me to question the Adventist view of the law and the Sabbath.

I see that in the SS lesson, they list five categories: "(1) moral law, (2) ceremonial law, (3) civil law, (4) statutes and judgments, and (5) health laws." Throughout my experience in Adventism, I most often heard about the "moral" and "ceremonial" laws and only occasionally heard references to the other categories. Some Adventists talk about a "natural law" as well, into which category they place EGW's dietary instructions; I guess that would be the same as the fifth category listed in the lesson.

Also, I find it ironic that the concept of the division of the law into "moral," "ceremonial," and "civil" categories has its origins in the writings of Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic theologian. From his Summa Theologica (articles 3 and 4):
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 4:13, 14): "Ten words . . . He wrote in two tables of stone; and He commanded me at that time that I should teach you the ceremonies and judgments which you shall do." But the ten commandments of the Law are moral precepts. Therefore besides the moral precepts there are others which are ceremonial.

I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), the Divine law is instituted chiefly in order to direct men to God; while human law is instituted chiefly in order to direct men in relation to one another. Hence human laws have not concerned themselves with the institution of anything relating to Divine worship except as affecting the common good of mankind: and for this reason they have devised many institutions relating to Divine matters, according as it seemed expedient for the formation of human morals; as may be seen in the rites of the Gentiles. On the other hand the Divine law directed men to one another according to the demands of that order whereby man is directed to God, which order was the chief aim of that law. Now man is directed to God not only by the interior acts of the mind, which are faith, hope, and love, but also by certain external works, whereby man makes profession of his subjection to God: and it is these works that are said to belong to the Divine worship. This worship is called "ceremony" [the munia, i.e. gifts] of Ceres (who was the goddess of fruits), as some say: because, at first, offerings were made to God from the fruits: or because, as Valerius Maximus states [*Fact. et Dict. Memor. i, 1], the word "ceremony" was introduced among the Latins, to signify the Divine worship, being derived from a town near Rome called "Caere": since, when Rome was taken by the Gauls, the sacred chattels of the Romans were taken thither and most carefully preserved. Accordingly those precepts of the Law which refer to the Divine worship are specially called ceremonial.

Reply to Objection 1: Human acts extend also to the Divine worship: and therefore the Old Law given to man contains precepts about these matters also.

Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Q[91], A[3]), the precepts of the natural law are general, and require to be determined: and they are determined both by human law and by Divine law. And just as these very determinations which are made by human law are said to be, not of natural, but of positive law; so the determinations of the precepts of the natural law, effected by the Divine law, are distinct from the moral precepts which belong to the natural law. Wherefore to worship God, since it is an act of virtue, belongs to a moral precept; but the determination of this precept, namely that He is to be worshipped by such and such sacrifices, and such and such offerings, belongs to the ceremonial precepts. Consequently the ceremonial precepts are distinct from the moral precepts. . . .

On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 6:1): "These are the precepts and ceremonies, and judgments": where "precepts" stands for "moral precepts" antonomastically. Therefore there are judicial precepts besides moral and ceremonial precepts.

I answer that, As stated above (AA[2],3), it belongs to the Divine law to direct men to one another and to God. Now each of these belongs in the abstract to the dictates of the natural law, to which dictates the moral precepts are to be referred: yet each of them has to be determined by Divine or human law, because naturally known principles are universal, both in speculative and in practical matters. Accordingly just as the determination of the universal principle about Divine worship is effected by the ceremonial precepts, so the determination of the general precepts of that justice which is to be observed among men is effected by the judicial precepts.

We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. "moral" precepts, which are dictated by the natural law; "ceremonial" precepts, which are determinations of the Divine worship; and "judicial" precepts, which are determinations of the justice to be maintained among men. Wherefore the Apostle (Rom. 7:12) after saying that the "Law is holy," adds that "the commandment is just, and holy, and good": "just," in respect of the judicial precepts; "holy," with regard to the ceremonial precepts (since the word "sanctus"---"holy"---is applied to that which is consecrated to God); and "good," i.e. conducive to virtue, as to the moral precepts.
Perhaps Adventism traditionally has followed more closely in the footsteps of Catholicism than they realize.
Sophia exactly... not only doctrinally, but structurely too.... I am thinking about the overall organizational system...
 
Upvote 0

Laodicean

Regular Member
Jan 30, 2010
747
8
Florida
✟8,437.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Originally Posted by Laodicean
For the Sabbath, it could be perpetual until heaven and earth pass away, or it could be perpetual throughout eternity, or it could be perpetual until done away at the cross, as some suggest.
In your opinion, which is it? Until heaven and earth pass? Throughout eternity? Or done away at the cross?

Definitely not done away at the cross.

I can't say for sure for eternity, though some texts seem to give that impression.

But the texts do make it clear that it will last at least until heaven and earth pass away -- "heaven" referring to our local heavens, not the universe.

Originally Posted by Laodicean
I make a distinction between the 7th day Sabbath of the ten commandments, written by the finger of God and placed inside of the ark, and the ceremonial sabbaths found in the laws written by Moses, which were set on the outside of the ark.
OK. I understand that you've made a distinction. Is the reason for this distinction based on your understanding of that which was placed inside and outside the ark? What do you do with the fact that the ten commandments were found among the laws written by Moses which were set on the outside of the ark?

What text do you use to state that the ten commandments were found among the laws written by Moses? The Bible clearly states that the 10 commandments were placed inside the ark, and the laws written by Moses were placed outside the ark. That's a pretty sharp distinction.

Deuteronomy 31:24, 25 says, "When Moses had finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenent of the Lord: Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenent of the Lord Your God."

Other translations say, "put it by the side of the ark," or "place it beside the ark" or "put it in the side of the ark" (Greek-English translation).

And if by any chance you might be tempted to say, well, "by the side of the ark" means inside of the ark along with the 10 commandments, consider
1 Kings 8:9, "[There was] nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made [a covenant] with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt."

And 2 Chronicles 5:10, "[There was] nothing in the ark save the two tables which Moses put [therein] at Horeb, when the LORD made [a covenant] with the children of Israel, when they came out of Egypt."


How do you view Leviticus 23 and Exodus 34; passages that comingle the two sets of laws that you've divided?

in what way do you see them commingled? Please quote the specific text, not the whole chapter, if you can.

Originally Posted by Laodicean
So, in context, "perpetual" lasts only as long as a given situation exists, which could be temporary or long-lasting, or eternal.
Is it safe to conclude that you define "perpetual" as follows:
1. When referring to the holy convocation known as "the seventh-day sabbath," "perpetual" means eternal.
2. When referring to other holy convocations, "perpetual" means temporary.

BFA

No to No. 1, since I am not yet prepared to go beyond "till heaven and earth pass away".

Yes to No. 2, because the holy convocations were nailed to the cross. Colossians 2:14 "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross."

"Handwriting of ordinances" is a phrase that does not describe the 10 commandments written wih the finger of God. It describes, more aptly, the laws written down by Moses.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Byfaithalone1

The gospel is Jesus Christ!
May 3, 2007
3,602
79
✟11,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's interesting that they acknowledge in the SS quarterly the artificiality and convenience of their separation of the law.

It is interesting. Without this separation, many of SDAism's unique doctrines quickly fall apart.

BFA
 
  • Like
Reactions: VictorC
Upvote 0

Byfaithalone1

The gospel is Jesus Christ!
May 3, 2007
3,602
79
✟11,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Definitely not done away at the cross.
Definitely not? Why so definitive? Are sabbaths shadows?

I can't say for sure for eternity, though some texts seem to give that impression.
Only if we are also willing to assume that (i) we will celebrate new moons in the New Jerusalem, and (ii) we will look out on dead bodies in the New Jerusalem.

But the texts do make it clear that it will last at least until heaven and earth pass away -- "heaven" referring to our local heavens, not the universe.
The texts to which you refer indicate that not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all is accomplished. If this is the basis for your belief in the observance of one holy convocation, should it not also be the basis for believing in the ongoing observance of all holy convocations?

The Bible clearly states that the 10 commandments were placed inside the ark, and the laws written by Moses were placed outside the ark.
I'm not sure how to start with this idea and then end up with a conclusion that that SOME of the jots and tittles of God's law have passed, but not ALL? To reach this conclusion, I would not only need to make some big assumptions but I would also need to negate other passages of Scripture.

Deuteronomy 31:24, 25 says, "When Moses had finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenent of the Lord: Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenent of the Lord Your God."
Other translations say, "put it by the side of the ark," or "place it beside the ark" or "put it in the side of the ark" (Greek-English translation).
Deuteronomy can be an interesting read. For example, Deuteronomy 5 is as much a part of the book as any other chapter. I believe that all was placed by the side of the ark.

in what way do you see them commingled? Please quote the specific text, not the whole chapter, if you can.
I'm not sure that I understand this request. The whole context is necessary to understand the passage. In both passages, you will find laws that you view as "moral" (such as "do not make cast idols" and "observe the sabbth") listed right alongside laws you view as "ceremonial" (such as "celebrate the feast of weeks" and "celebrate the feast of unleavened bread"). Together these comingled laws fall under umbrella categories such as "God's holy convocations" and "I am making a covenant with you today."

No to No. 1, since I am not yet prepared to go beyond "till heaven and earth pass away".
Yes to No. 2, because the holy convocations were nailed to the cross. Colossians 2:14 "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross."
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. So you believe that some of the jots and tittles have passed and others have not. You believe that some of the holy convocations ended at the cross, but one did not. If so, I think I now understand your position. It seems that we have reached different conclusions after reading the same passages. Differences like this will happen from time to time.
"Handwriting of ordinances" is a phrase that does not describe the 10 commandments written wih the finger of God. It describes, more aptly, the laws written down by Moses.
And how are we to define the phrase "a sabbath day?"


BFA
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Laodicean

Regular Member
Jan 30, 2010
747
8
Florida
✟8,437.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Laodicean: Definitely not done away at the cross.
Definitely not? Why so definitive? Are sabbaths shadows?

There are ceremonial sabbaths and then there is the seventh-day Sabbath of the fourth commandment. The ceremonial sabbaths were shadows of what was to come. The fourth commandment is part of the moral law, and, in my opinion, is not a shadow of anything. It points back to creation, the Creator, and the author of the moral law, the 10 commandments. It tells us WHO gave the 10 commandments. And it should not be pulled out of the 10 and discarded.
Laodicean: I can't say for sure for eternity, though some texts seem to give that impression.
Only if we are also willing to assume that (i) we will celebrate new moons in the New Jerusalem, and (ii) we will look out on dead bodies in the New Jerusalem.

Many times, Scripture conflates two scenarios in one. This might be one of those times. No matter. Whatever happens in eternity is fine with me.


Laodicean: But the texts do make it clear that it will last at least until heaven and earth pass away -- "heaven" referring to our local heavens, not the universe.
The texts to which you refer indicate that not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

In the context of "I come not to destroy but to fulfil," if you read a few verses further along, Jesus is talking about the commandments, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment"

and "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery."

So I take this as an indication that the law from which not a jot or tittle will pass until heaven and earth pass away, is the 10 commandments.

If this is the basis for your belief in the observance of one holy convocation, should it not also be the basis for believing in the ongoing observance of all holy convocations?

I make a distinction between one convocation and another. They are not all the same or serve the same purpose.


Laodicean: The Bible clearly states that the 10 commandments were placed inside the ark, and the laws written by Moses were placed outside the ark.
I'm not sure how to start with this idea and then end up with a conclusion that that SOME of the jots and tittles of God's law have passed, but not ALL? To reach this conclusion, I would not only need to make some big assumptions but I would also need to negate other passages of Scripture.

See above.



Laodicean: Deuteronomy 31:24, 25 says, "When Moses had finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenent of the Lord: Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenent of the Lord Your God."
Other translations say, "put it by the side of the ark," or "place it beside the ark" or "put it in the side of the ark" (Greek-English translation).
Deuteronomy can be an interesting read. For example, Deuteronomy 5 is as much a part of the book as any other chapter. I believe that all was placed by the side of the ark.

Was Deuteronomy 5 written on tables of stone, with the finger of God, and that version placed inside the ark of the covenant? Just because Moses' exposition on the 10 commandments was placed by the side of the ark does not mean that the law written on stone by the finger of God was also placed outside of the ark. Actually, I'm not sure what point you are making here. Care to elaborate?


Laodicean; in what way do you see them commingled? Please quote the specific text, not the whole chapter, if you can.
I'm not sure that I understand this request. The whole context is necessary to understand the passage. In both passages, you will find laws that you view as "moral" (such as "do not make cast idols" and "observe the sabbth") listed right alongside laws you view as "ceremonial" (such as "celebrate the feast of weeks" and "celebrate the feast of unleavened bread"). Together these comingled laws fall under umbrella categories such as "God's holy convocations" and "I am making a covenant with you today."

and the only point I'm making is that the 10 commandments, spoken by the voice of God, written on tables of stone with His finger, and stored alone inside the ark, gives those 10 commandments distinction from any other discussion of God's instructions to Moses. Just because Moses talks about the ten commandments does not remove them from their special place inside of the ark.



Laodicean: No to No. 1, since I am not yet prepared to go beyond "till heaven and earth pass away".
Yes to No. 2, because the holy convocations were nailed to the cross. Colossians 2:14 "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross."
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. So you believe that some of the jots and tittles have passed and others have not.

Yes. It is known as making a distinction. Not everything gets lumped together.

You believe that some of the holy convocations ended at the cross, but one did not.

No, not that one did not. The entire moral law, the ten commandments did not end at the cross, and since the 7th day Sabbath is in the midst of those 10, it, too, has not been nailed to the cross.

You know, the only commandment that seems to cause a problem in the minds of some is the fourth. Every other one of the 10 are considered actions that are good and to be kept. But for some strange reason, the fourth one turns people off. They go to great lengths to get rid of it, even to the point of throwing out the rest of the 10, if necessary. Why is this? What's so terrible about remembering the Creator? Even if it were to be discovered that keeping the 7th day Sabbath has been deleted from the 10 commandments by God, why do some get so up in arms against those who see value in the day and want to remember it simply out of love for their God? I don't get it.


If so, I think I now understand your position. It seems that we have reached different conclusions after reading the same passages. Differences like this will happen from time to time.

Sure. Glad you understand.


Laodicean: "Handwriting of ordinances" is a phrase that does not describe the 10 commandments written wih the finger of God. It describes, more aptly, the laws written down by Moses.
And how are we to define the phrase "a sabbath day?"

I'm not sure which text you are referring to. But there were sabbath days that fell on other days of the week besides the 7th day, and then there was the weekly Sabbath day. If there is mention of "a sabbath day," the context probably is one referring to a ceremonial sabbath.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums