Historicity of the change of the Sabbath Commandment

[Meowzltov]

Thank you. Do you yourself keep a kosher kitchen?

Yes I do, meat separated from dairy, dishes, fridge, the whole spiel.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes I do, meat separated from dairy, dishes, fridge, the whole spiel.

Very good. Unlike certain individuals who give lip service to the Law, I will not accuse you of hypocrisy.

 

[BABerean2]

History of the SDA Sabbath keepers movement revealed in the "Shut Door" documents from the estate of Ellen White

THE "SHUT DOOR" DOCUMENTS
Statements Relating to the "Shut Door,"
the Door of Mercy, and the Salvation of Souls
by Ellen G. White and Other Early Adventists
Arranged in a Chronological Setting from 1844 to 1851
Compiled, with Occasional Commentary, by
Robert W. Olson
Ellen G. White Estate
Washington D. C.
April 11, 1982

[p. 2]

1. October 22, 1844--After the Great Disappointment the Belief was Widespread That Probation had Closed on October 22, 1844.

In 1868 James White wrote:

And a general impression remained upon the minds of believers for some time after the disappointment, that the seventh-month movement was in the direct providence of God, and that those who had been engaged in this work had done his will.

And according to the best light they then had, there was a general agreement that the seventh-month movement was the last great test, that the harvest of the earth was ripe for the sickle of the Son of man, and that the door was shut. That the salvation of the soul, or perdition, hung upon the manner in which those who heard treated that solemn message, I doubt not. And this is especially clear in the case of the disappointed believers after the time passed. In holding fast and believing, there was salvation; in drawing back, the result would be perdition. The view, however, that the harvest of the earth was ripe, and that the door was shut, was soon abandoned. But although all, long since, gave up this position as incorrect, I fail to see why they should be censured for taking it upon the passing of the time. In fact, the conclusion seems very natural, and I hardly see how they could have come to any other. I will here mention some of the reasons why such conclusion was reasonable, if not unavoidable.

1. William Miller and others had taught that the door would be shut, and that probation would close a short time before the second advent. In a letter to Elder J. V. Himes, October 6, 1844, he said: "I am strong in the opinion that the next will be the last Lord's day sinners will ever have in probation. And within ten or fifteen days from thence, they will see Him whom they have hated and despised, to their shame and everlasting contempt."

2. And, certainly, that probation will close prior to the second advent is plainly taught in the following emphatic testimony from Rev. xxii, 11, 12: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And behold I come quickly." I will only add, that the order of events here given is, first, the final decision of all men living at the close of probation, and, second, then follows the advent of Him who says, "And behold I come quickly."

3. All true believers expected that probation would close as soon as the tenth day of the seventh month. And as the time of expectation drew near, their burdened spirits felt more and still more heavily the weight and responsibility of doing every duty to others. But as the point of expectation was finally reached, all this burden at once fell off. This was as true of the isolated brother or sister, in some distant part of the country, as with those in the crowded city mingling with hundreds of like faith. It was true of all. All felt that their work in warning sinners was done. No one can have a just idea of this great change, only those who participated in the movement, and came up to the time of expectation with the burden of the solemn work upon them. Jesus had not come as they expected, and why this great change had come over all was a matter of proper inquiry. And how natural the conclusion, to say the least, that probation was ended.

4. The change that had suddenly come over the ungodly seemed to strengthen the conviction that the door was shut. Although the passing of the time, removing their fears, may now be regarded as a sufficient cause for the change in them, yet at that time the fiend-like conduct of many after the tenth day passed, who but a few hours or days before had appeared penitent, gave the idea that the restraining influence of the Spirit of God had forever left them.

In view of these things it should not be a matter of surprise to any, that Adventists were agreed that the midnight cry was the last great test, that the work for the world was finished, and that the door was shut. (Emphasis supplied.) --Life Incidents (1868), pp. 184-186. See also E. G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. IV, p. 268; The Great Controversy, p. 429.

[p. 3]

2. November 18, 1844--William Miller Believed His Work Was Done and the Door Was Shut.

We have done our work in warning sinners, and in trying to awake a formal church. God, in his providence has shut the door; we can only stir one another up to be patient; and be diligent to make our calling and election sure. We are now living in the time specified by Malachi 3:18, also Daniel 12:10, Rev. 22:10-12. In this passage we cannot help but see that a little while before Christ should come, there would be a separation between the just and unjust, the righteous and wicked, between those who love his appearing, and those who hate it.--William Miller Letter of Nov. 18, 1844, quoted in The Advent Herald, Dec. 11, 1844, p. 142.

3. October 22-November, 1844--In Common With Most of the Millerites, Ellen Harmon Also Believed for a Time that the Door of Mercy was Shut on October 22, 1844.

For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold, in common with the advent body, that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world.--Ellen G. White Ms. 4, 1883; Selected Messages, book 1, p. 63.

4. November-December, 1844--Ellen Harmon Gave Up Her View That the Door Was Shut.

At the time I had the vision of the midnight cry I had given it up in the past and thought it future, as also most of the band had.--Ellen G. White Letter 3, 1847, written July 13, 1847 to Joseph Bates.

The "midnight cry" (Matt. 25:6) was the powerful proclamation of Christ's imminent return made by the Millerites from August 12 to October 22, 1844. When Christ did not return on October 22, as anticipated, the Millerites at first thought that human probation had closed on that date. Christ's glorious second advent was expected in a few weeks' time at the most.

However, when time continued into the month of December, most of the advent "band" in Portland, Maine, where Ellen Harmon lived, gave up their confidence in the Millerite interpretation of Daniel 8:14, Matthew 25:6, and related texts. Apparently for several weeks late in November and early in December, 1844, Ellen [p. 4] Harmon looked upon the Millerite computations as one big mistake. She concluded that the door of mercy had not been shut, after all, on October 22.



(from the online documents available from the White Estate)

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/shutdoor.html
.

 

[bbbbbbb]

History of the SDA Sabbath keepers movement revealed in the "Shut Door" documents from the estate of Ellen White

THE "SHUT DOOR" DOCUMENTS
Statements Relating to the "Shut Door,"
the Door of Mercy, and the Salvation of Souls
by Ellen G. White and Other Early Adventists
Arranged in a Chronological Setting from 1844 to 1851
Compiled, with Occasional Commentary, by
Robert W. Olson
Ellen G. White Estate
Washington D. C.
April 11, 1982

[p. 2]

1. October 22, 1844--After the Great Disappointment the Belief was Widespread That Probation had Closed on October 22, 1844.

In 1868 James White wrote:

And a general impression remained upon the minds of believers for some time after the disappointment, that the seventh-month movement was in the direct providence of God, and that those who had been engaged in this work had done his will.

And according to the best light they then had, there was a general agreement that the seventh-month movement was the last great test, that the harvest of the earth was ripe for the sickle of the Son of man, and that the door was shut. That the salvation of the soul, or perdition, hung upon the manner in which those who heard treated that solemn message, I doubt not. And this is especially clear in the case of the disappointed believers after the time passed. In holding fast and believing, there was salvation; in drawing back, the result would be perdition. The view, however, that the harvest of the earth was ripe, and that the door was shut, was soon abandoned. But although all, long since, gave up this position as incorrect, I fail to see why they should be censured for taking it upon the passing of the time. In fact, the conclusion seems very natural, and I hardly see how they could have come to any other. I will here mention some of the reasons why such conclusion was reasonable, if not unavoidable.

1. William Miller and others had taught that the door would be shut, and that probation would close a short time before the second advent. In a letter to Elder J. V. Himes, October 6, 1844, he said: "I am strong in the opinion that the next will be the last Lord's day sinners will ever have in probation. And within ten or fifteen days from thence, they will see Him whom they have hated and despised, to their shame and everlasting contempt."

2. And, certainly, that probation will close prior to the second advent is plainly taught in the following emphatic testimony from Rev. xxii, 11, 12: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And behold I come quickly." I will only add, that the order of events here given is, first, the final decision of all men living at the close of probation, and, second, then follows the advent of Him who says, "And behold I come quickly."

3. All true believers expected that probation would close as soon as the tenth day of the seventh month. And as the time of expectation drew near, their burdened spirits felt more and still more heavily the weight and responsibility of doing every duty to others. But as the point of expectation was finally reached, all this burden at once fell off. This was as true of the isolated brother or sister, in some distant part of the country, as with those in the crowded city mingling with hundreds of like faith. It was true of all. All felt that their work in warning sinners was done. No one can have a just idea of this great change, only those who participated in the movement, and came up to the time of expectation with the burden of the solemn work upon them. Jesus had not come as they expected, and why this great change had come over all was a matter of proper inquiry. And how natural the conclusion, to say the least, that probation was ended.

4. The change that had suddenly come over the ungodly seemed to strengthen the conviction that the door was shut. Although the passing of the time, removing their fears, may now be regarded as a sufficient cause for the change in them, yet at that time the fiend-like conduct of many after the tenth day passed, who but a few hours or days before had appeared penitent, gave the idea that the restraining influence of the Spirit of God had forever left them.

In view of these things it should not be a matter of surprise to any, that Adventists were agreed that the midnight cry was the last great test, that the work for the world was finished, and that the door was shut. (Emphasis supplied.) --Life Incidents (1868), pp. 184-186. See also E. G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. IV, p. 268; The Great Controversy, p. 429.

[p. 3]

2. November 18, 1844--William Miller Believed His Work Was Done and the Door Was Shut.

We have done our work in warning sinners, and in trying to awake a formal church. God, in his providence has shut the door; we can only stir one another up to be patient; and be diligent to make our calling and election sure. We are now living in the time specified by Malachi 3:18, also Daniel 12:10, Rev. 22:10-12. In this passage we cannot help but see that a little while before Christ should come, there would be a separation between the just and unjust, the righteous and wicked, between those who love his appearing, and those who hate it.--William Miller Letter of Nov. 18, 1844, quoted in The Advent Herald, Dec. 11, 1844, p. 142.

3. October 22-November, 1844--In Common With Most of the Millerites, Ellen Harmon Also Believed for a Time that the Door of Mercy was Shut on October 22, 1844.

For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold, in common with the advent body, that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world.--Ellen G. White Ms. 4, 1883; Selected Messages, book 1, p. 63.

4. November-December, 1844--Ellen Harmon Gave Up Her View That the Door Was Shut.

At the time I had the vision of the midnight cry I had given it up in the past and thought it future, as also most of the band had.--Ellen G. White Letter 3, 1847, written July 13, 1847 to Joseph Bates.

The "midnight cry" (Matt. 25:6) was the powerful proclamation of Christ's imminent return made by the Millerites from August 12 to October 22, 1844. When Christ did not return on October 22, as anticipated, the Millerites at first thought that human probation had closed on that date. Christ's glorious second advent was expected in a few weeks' time at the most.

However, when time continued into the month of December, most of the advent "band" in Portland, Maine, where Ellen Harmon lived, gave up their confidence in the Millerite interpretation of Daniel 8:14, Matthew 25:6, and related texts. Apparently for several weeks late in November and early in December, 1844, Ellen [p. 4] Harmon looked upon the Millerite computations as one big mistake. She concluded that the door of mercy had not been shut, after all, on October 22.



(from the online documents available from the White Estate)

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/shutdoor.html
.

Thank you. It really must have been a terrible shock when the absolute certainty proved to be quite false.

 

[BobRyan]

Okay, so which, if any, of the dietary commandments apply?

All of them

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not surprised that they say they are sola scriptura, it is another tactic to make people believe they are "more correct" than another group that doesn't when in fact they are more like that other group than they are the group that believes in sola scriptura.

false accusations are not has hard to come up with as actual facts.

 

[bbbbbbb]

All of them

Are the dietary commandments "moral" and where do we find any of them in Exodus 20?

 

[BobRyan]

Are the dietary commandments "moral" and where do we find any of them in Exodus 20?

Distinctives between clean and unclean animals are found long before Sinai - they are found in Gen 6 and 7.

And years after the cross the Christians were still upholding them - as we see in Acts 10.

And Acts 15 upholds OT laws about not even eating clean meat that had blood in it "strangled".

 

[Sophrosyne]

false accusations are not has hard to come up with as actual facts.

When you reject scripture that calls into question your groups doctrine and instead take the word of man over it (or woman in this case) then you aren't really sola scriptura.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Distinctives between clean and unclean animals are found long before Sinai - they are found in Gen 6 and 7.

And years after the cross the Christians were still upholding them - as we see in Acts 10.

And Acts 15 upholds OT laws about not even eating clean meat that had blood in it "strangled".

However, you have not answered my questions which merely require a simple yes or no for an answer. The questions are, as follow:

1. Are the dietary commandment "moral"?
2. Are the dietary commmandments found in Exodus 20?

 

[Acts24Fourteen]

... The questions are, as follow:

1. Are the dietary commandment "moral"?
2. Are the dietary commmandments found in Exodus 20?

Consider carefully, that Adam/Eve sinned in eating that which God forbade them to eat. It is why diet is important in the Everlasting Gospel itself. Appetite deals with desire, and desire is more than food. God created desire, but it is the misuse of that gift leads us to sin, and death:

1 Corinthians 6:13 KJV - Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body [is] not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

Philippians 3:19 KJV - Whose end [is] destruction, whose God [is their] belly, and [whose] glory [is] in their shame, who mind earthly things.)​

Some people are enslaved to their bellies, their desires, and thus have another god and bow down to its demand, rather than God's:

Exodus 20:3 KJV - Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Exodus 20:4 KJV - Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

Exodus 20:5 KJV - Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

Exodus 20:6 KJV - And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.​

They think that they may eat whatever they will, ignoring God's clear instructions on what is "good for food", and in so doing, tip out of balance that which God ordered in perfection, so bringing death into the system by eating that which was never "good for food", even if it "looked" so:

Exodus 20:13 KJV - Thou shalt not kill.​

Thou shalt not kill [murder] includes oneself. As Eve coveted, she took, and stole that which was not hers to have, for it belonged unto God:

Exodus 20:15 KJV - Thou shalt not steal.

Exodus 20:17 KJV - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.​

God is the author of Life, and in disregarding the regulations which He has given, brings unrest, and death, and in setting up our own standard, we choose and idol, spiritual adultery over the Ever Living God:

Exodus 20:8 KJV - Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Exodus 20:9 KJV - Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

Exodus 20:10 KJV - But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:

Exodus 20:11 KJV - For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exodus 20:14 KJV - Thou shalt not commit adultery.
​

It is dishonour to our Father in Heaven to refuse His clear instruction:

Exodus 20:12 KJV - Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
​

It is a sin to claim to be the children of the Father in Heaven, and disobey Him, for it takes His name in vain and bears a false witness:

Exodus 20:7 KJV - Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Exodus 20:16 KJV - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
​

James is correct, that to transgress one, is to transgress all:

James 2:10 KJV - For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
​

Moral? Yes. More than you realize, for to do what you will outside of God's will, is to remain in bondage, but God would have us free:

Exodus 20:2 KJV - I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.​

For God defined what Love is:

Exodus 20:6 KJV - And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.​

 

[BobRyan]

However, you have not answered my questions which merely require a simple yes or no for an answer. The questions are, as follow:

1. Are the dietary commandment "moral"?
2. Are the dietary commmandments found in Exodus 20?

The diety commandment is moral in that it "defines what sin is' according to the Word of God in Is 66 and in Lev 11 "An abomination" is sin - is immoral.

1 John 3:4 "SIN IS transgression of The LAW"

======================================

Distinctives between clean and unclean animals are found long before Sinai - they are found in Gen 6 and 7.

And years after the cross the Christians were still upholding them - as we see in Acts 10.

And Acts 15 upholds OT laws about not even eating clean meat that had blood in it "strangled".

Consider carefully, that Adam/Eve sinned in eating that which God forbade them to eat.

indeed - if it were "moral" to act in rebellion against the Word of God - we would not have the fallen race of mankind that we have today.l

 

[bbbbbbb]

Consider carefully, that Adam/Eve sinned in eating that which God forbade them to eat. It is why diet is important in the Everlasting Gospel itself. Appetite deals with desire, and desire is more than food. God created desire, but it is the misuse of that gift leads us to sin, and death:

1 Corinthians 6:13 KJV - Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body [is] not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

Philippians 3:19 KJV - Whose end [is] destruction, whose God [is their] belly, and [whose] glory [is] in their shame, who mind earthly things.)​

Some people are enslaved to their bellies, their desires, and thus have another god and bow down to its demand, rather than God's:

Exodus 20:3 KJV - Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Exodus 20:4 KJV - Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

Exodus 20:5 KJV - Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

Exodus 20:6 KJV - And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.​

They think that they may eat whatever they will, ignoring God's clear instructions on what is "good for food", and in so doing, tip out of balance that which God ordered in perfection, so bringing death into the system by eating that which was never "good for food", even if it "looked" so:

Exodus 20:13 KJV - Thou shalt not kill.​

Thou shalt not kill [murder] includes oneself. As Eve coveted, she took, and stole that which was not hers to have, for it belonged unto God:

Exodus 20:15 KJV - Thou shalt not steal.

Exodus 20:17 KJV - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.​

God is the author of Life, and in disregarding the regulations which He has given, brings unrest, and death, and in setting up our own standard, we choose and idol, spiritual adultery over the Ever Living God:

Exodus 20:8 KJV - Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Exodus 20:9 KJV - Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

Exodus 20:10 KJV - But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:

Exodus 20:11 KJV - For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exodus 20:14 KJV - Thou shalt not commit adultery.
​

It is dishonour to our Father in Heaven to refuse His clear instruction:

Exodus 20:12 KJV - Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
​

It is a sin to claim to be the children of the Father in Heaven, and disobey Him, for it takes His name in vain and bears a false witness:

Exodus 20:7 KJV - Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Exodus 20:16 KJV - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
​

James is correct, that to transgress one, is to transgress all:

James 2:10 KJV - For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
​

Moral? Yes. More than you realize, for to do what you will outside of God's will, is to remain in bondage, but God would have us free:

Exodus 20:2 KJV - I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.​

For God defined what Love is:

Exodus 20:6 KJV - And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.​

James is correct, that to transgress one, is to transgress all:

I could not agree more. When was the last time you kept all of God's commandments?

 

[bbbbbbb]

The diety commandment is moral in that it "defines what sin is' according to the Word of God in Is 66 and in Lev 11 "An abomination" is sin - is immoral.

1 John 3:4 "SIN IS transgression of The LAW"

======================================

Distinctives between clean and unclean animals are found long before Sinai - they are found in Gen 6 and 7.

And years after the cross the Christians were still upholding them - as we see in Acts 10.

And Acts 15 upholds OT laws about not even eating clean meat that had blood in it "strangled".


indeed - if it were "moral" to act in rebellion against the Word of God - we would not have the fallen race of mankind that we have today.l

Then, by your own definition all of God's commandments are moral, are they not?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Then, by your own definition all of God's commandments are moral, are they not?

Their morality isn't based upon Jesus himself but Old Testament laws. One would say that in a modern society they feel they must keep old west laws because they were written before today's laws and if they were wrong back then they must still be wrong today. There are many laws on the books in some cities/states that are very old and still on the books and not enforced at all. I have problem with those people who drag up laws from the Old Testament that don't ALSO go check the archives of Laws of their city and state to make sure they are ALSO not sinning (breaking those laws).

 

[Meowzltov]

James is correct, that to transgress one, is to transgress all:

I could not agree more. When was the last time you kept all of God's commandments?

It's not a matter of being perfect. It's a matter of aspiring to be perfect. God provides for our imperfection, both in the OT and in the new.

 

[BABerean2]

And Acts 15 upholds OT laws about not even eating clean meat that had blood in it "strangled".[/QUOTE]





.

And what OT laws does Acts 15 not uphold?

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
(Nothing more than these things, seemed good to the Holy Ghost and the men of the Jerusalem Council.)

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

The Jerusalem Council said...

Do not commit fornication.

Do not eat meat that has been offered to idols, or blood, or things strangled.


That was it.


They did not say... "Keep the Sabbath day."

They did not say... "You must be circumcised."

They did not say... "You must keep the feast days."

They did not say... "Do not eat shrimp."

They did not say... "Keep the law of Moses."

Some of us would like to change the decision of the Jerusalem Council, because it does not fit our Sabbath doctrine.

.

 

[BobRyan]

bbbbbbb said: ↑
Are the dietary commandments "moral" and where do we find any of them in Exodus 20?

Distinctives between clean and unclean animals are found long before Sinai - they are found in Gen 6 and 7.

And years after the cross the Christians were still upholding them - as we see in Acts 10.

And Acts 15 upholds OT laws about not even eating clean meat that had blood in it "strangled".

Clearly acts 15 is not a rewrite of the existing scriptures known to the saints in the NT and quoted by them all through the NT text.

And what OT laws does Acts 15 not uphold?

Acts 15 is not deleting any scriptures - it is also not replacing all of scripture with 3 or 4 sentences. We see that by the fact that much more scripture is quoted by the NT authors than you find in Acts 15.



Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
(Nothing more than these things, seemed good to the Holy Ghost and the men of the Jerusalem Council.)

Does that "nothing more" mean that the 5th commandment quoted in Eph 6:2 is to be deleted? no!
Does that "nothing more" mean the commandments in Rom 13 and James 2 - not quoted in Acts 15 - are to be deleted/ no!

Acts 15 deletes no commandments of God.

And it appeals to laws of Moses regarding meat that has blood in it.


Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Lev 17
14 “For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’ 15 When any person eats an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or an alien, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening; then he will become clean.

 

[BobRyan]

Then, by your own definition all of God's commandments are moral, are they not?

"In Context".

As the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" also admit - the laws that were given to the NATION of Israel - "civil laws" -- do not apply outside of that theocracy. And so not "sin" when they are not applied outside of a theocracy.

In the same way in both OT and NT - there is no law stating that all believing gentiles must be circumcised - not a sin at all for gentiles not to be circumcised.

In the same way in Heb 10 God states specifically that the laws about animal sacrifices have ended for all mankind- so that fact that Christians do not sacrifice animals today - not a sin.

In the same way - in Heb 7 God states specifically that the earthly priesthood is abolished. So not having an earthly priest to officiate sacrifice - to mediate for you - is not a sin today.

So then "in context" I do agree that when God's Word applies to you - and you rebel against it - you sin.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Sophrosyne said: ↑
I'm not surprised that they say they are sola scriptura, it is another tactic to make people believe they are "more correct" than another group that doesn't when in fact they are more like that other group than they are the group that believes in sola scriptura.

false accusations are not has hard to come up with as actual facts.

When you reject scripture that calls into question your groups doctrine and instead take the word of man over it (or woman in this case) then you aren't really sola scriptura.

That is merely a factless false accusation -

In real life we test all doctrine and tradition "Sola Scriptura" -

Here is how Christ applies that "Sola scriptura" rule - and notice that the Commandments of God are what is being discussed.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.