Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

[Albion]

Your response here shows you have not been following the discussion. Moral laws are all laws of right doing which is covenant dependent. We also looked at the specific examples before you posted.

Post 1035 indicates that you didn't. But it doesn't look like there will be an answer to the question forthcoming, so you can forget it so far as I'm concerned.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Post 1035 indicates that you didn't. But it doesn't look like there will be an answer to the question forthcoming, so you can forget it so far as I'm concerned.

Then try reading post # 1034 and the rest of the discussion which shows that I did. It might be helpful.

 

[tall73]

So we can cut to the chase a little more here and speed up the conversation. I think we both know that there are many laws in the old covenant and new covenant that are still a requirement under the new covenant so there is no argument here in this regard. The question and discussions focus is therefore that we seem to be skirting around is, are God's 10 commandments a requirement for Christian living in the new covenant unless your trying to make an argument that we are to continue making animal sacrifices which I do not believe you are.

Therefore I think our earlier conversation therefore has been an important foundation for which I will be referring back to on a regular basis as much of what you are seeking to lead into now has also already been discussed already throughout this thread. So in order to avoid repetition. I believe we should focus on your main question here which is are God's 10 commandments a requirement for gentile believers in the new covenant.

I think we have laid a good foundation for this discussion already in showing that Gods' new covenant promises as shown in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:24-27 that Paul discusses in Hebrews 8:10-12 and Hebrews 10:1-22 are Gods' promise to His people (ISRAEL) in the new covenant of God giving His people a new heart to love and to walk in His Spirit and that love is not separated from God's law it is expressed in obedience to Gods' law as we have faith in God's Word. Of course Gods 4th commandment "seventh day Sabbath" is one of God's 10 commandments and our duty of love to God so should also be considered an important part of this discussion.

So without beating about the bush too much the real question should be, is God's 10 commandments a requirement for Christian living in the new covenant? We have already discussed the rest of your content in your post here through out this thread already.

Hope this is helpful

Well yes we are almost to the key point. However, I just answered your Israel query so I now will ask one more question before answering your primary one, now that we have gone over most of the background.

So the question is, why do you think physical circumcision is not required for Gentiles? If the two are made one man, reconciled to God through Christ, per Ephesians, why would physical circumcision not be required?

Now, we both of course know that Scripture says physical circumcision is not required forGgentiles under the new covenant, but that spiritual circumcision is required, the putting off of the flesh.

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

But the question is why, in your opinion is that the case?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Well yes we are almost to the key point. However, I just answered your Israel query so I now will ask one more question before answering your primary one, now that we have gone over most of the background.

So the question is, why do you think physical circumcision is not required for Gentiles? If the two are made one man, reconciled to God through Christ, per Ephesians, why would physical circumcision not be required?

Now, we both of course know that Scripture says physical circumcision is not required forGgentiles under the new covenant, but that spiritual circumcision is required, the putting off of the flesh.

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

But the question is why, in your opinion is that the case?

Step back please. How did you answer my ISRAEL query? You did not. Gods ISRAEL in the new covenant according to the scriptures are all those who believe and follow God's Word. There is now no more Jewish believer or Gentile believer under Gods' new covenant gospel commission *Ephesians 2:11-13; Galatians 3:28-29; Romans 2:28-29; Colossians 3:11; Romans 10:11-13 and God's kingdom is not of this world *John 18:36.

Yes there are those who were born into foreign earthly nations and the physical nation of ISRAEL though the scripture make it very clear that the physical nation of ISRAEL is not God's definition of ISRAEL *Romans 9:6-8. The name ISRAEL has only ever been a name given by God to his people in both the old and new covenants to all those who believe and follow His Word. All believers outside of where they were physically born according to the scriptures posted earlier are now one in Christ (Gods' kingdom - true ISRAEL).

According to the scriptures if we are not a part of God's ISRAEL born in the Spirit into God's kingdom (not physical ISRAEL born in the flesh) in the new covenant we have no part in God's new covenant promise of Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:24-27; John 3:3-7; 1 John 3:6-9. Gentile believers are now grafted in place of Jewish unbelievers according to the scriptures *Romans 11:13-27 and very much a part of God's true ISRAEL born of the Spirit according to the scriptures. (detailed scripture response starting here).

Context to our discussion of course here being to God's 10 commandments and not the "shadow laws" that pointed to Jesus and God's plan of salvation in the body of Christ that are fulfilled and continued in Jesus based on better promises *Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 8:1-6. Circumcision is an everlasting covenant *Genesis 17:13 and is required for all of God's people but let me explain what physical circumcision of the old covenant (no longer required) represents in the old and new covenant shortly.

Jesus did not come to abolish the law or the prophets remember. (Matthew 5:17). The "shadow laws" are fulfilled and continued in him *Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 10:1. Here we are discussing what the physical nation of Israel is which was a shadow of things to come in the new covenant which represents Gods people ISRAEL born of the Spirit in God's new covenant promise *John 3:3-7; Hebrews 8:10-12; 1 John 3:6-9; 1 John 5:2-4.

Hope this is helpful

 

[BobRyan]

I noticed you had no issue with me quoting Ellen White when it clarified she did not come up with Adventist doctrines, and made clear the timeline with her statements.

But those are responses to "We think Ellen White did this or that" -- getting actual historic facts about what she did or did not do - mixed up. Stuff that never comes up in normal Law-and-the-Sabbath forum or General Theology forums here. Bible doctrine posts gets Bible responses.

Those that are more focused on a kind of "all Ellen White all the time" type of posting will of course have to get some "well in real life she did or said exactly this .. or that" kinds of responses. I freely admit to that.

Now you keep making the claim that you don't use Ellen White
so that no one can claim that you got the teaching from Ellen White.

True - and I show that with about 30,000 posts proving it in detail.

However, you know I have not made that claim. I even specifically argued (using Ellen White's words and historical references) that Ellen White was not the one responsible for coming up with Adventist theology.

Agreed you did that - and thank you.

And when you claimed I stated Ellen White was the only reason to have a particular view of the tares, I never stated that either.

You are the one that brought up Matt 13 and Ellen White - did I miss something ?

In any case, whatever approach you take with non-SDA normally, that has little to do with your discussion with me. I will cite her because you think she is inspired. .

Well since this is a format where we are hoping that non-SDAs are still reading -- my focus is on the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, you agree you think everything she wrote is true. And even the fundamentals which you tell people to reference say her writings are inspired. That means everything she wrote is in fact admissible.

Ellen White wrote some things under inspiration but it is not true that every word she spoke at the breakfast table came from God.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
I think that non-SDAs on a forum like CF have two good sources for Adventist teaching.
1. The public online statement of beliefs for our denomination.
2. The people they find here who are SDA and who do not limit their response to "what did Ellen White say"

I will let you argue with yourself earlier in the thread:

BobRyan said: ↑
I understand that you are using it show that this is not just something you are saying off the top of your head and that she is a good SDA source to indicate what many SDAs think so from your context it probably is logical in that regard.
And of course, even the 28 Fundamental beliefs are not inspired (well unless you go with the notion that the GC in session is speaking for God), but you think Ellen White is. So it is obvious why non-sda quote her.

I will let you argue with yourself earlier in the thread:

And of course, even the 28 Fundamental beliefs are not inspired (well unless you go with the notion that the GC in session is speaking for God)

They are voted statements by the denomination and so it is fair (as Walter Martin also noted) to claim those voted statements as the position of the denomination and not simply "one person's opinion".

So it is obvious why non-sda quote her.

That's pretty rare on CF apart from former-SDAs. And when they do it they usually avoid posting it in the actual SDA forum on CF.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I think you can figure out these are not the same:

Exo 20:12 τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα, ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται, καὶ ἵνα μακροχρόνιος γένῃ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τῆς ἀγαθῆς, ἧς κύριος ὁ θεός σου δίδωσίν σοι.

Eph 6:3 ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται καὶ ἔσῃ μακροχρόνιος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

There are many cases where NT authors do not use the same verbatim quote of OT texts , or of the Hebrew OT text vs the LXX etc. In fact there are places in Deut 5 where Moses is quoting God's verbal commands of Ex 20 and does not do it verbatim.

But as already noted - moral law defines what sin is even in the NT 1 John 3:4 not just in the OT - and even gentiles were held accountable to it.

But specifically - Ephh 6:1-2 shows that the "unit of TEN" continues in the NT. Paul could easily have said "honor your parents" or "Children obey your parents because this is God's will for you" (just as he does so many other times with is instruction for the church) - but instead of that he goes out of his way to drag the TEN into that statement.

Which is the point.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
There are a great many commands from God from Genesis to Exodus 20, and with a number of them there are promises.

So then either...Paul is wrong, or

Or he is right and he is pointing to the distinct unit of Law kept inside the ark where the 5th commandment is in fact "the first commandment with a promise" of the TEN - written by God Himself.

I think that is a detail we can all see.

Bob, it only works if it is not just the unit of ten. He said the first with promise, not the only.

It is the first with a promise - your point that "it is also the only one with a promise in the UNIT of TEN" not withstanding, so also the point "this means the unit of TEN would be ahead of every other unit of LAW where a commandment had a promise" (which is the only way the promise in the 5th is ahead of all other commandments with promises in some unnamed order).

The fact that no matter how many other sets of moral commands the Bible has (and how many of them within each set has a promise) - still it is true that the FIRST commandment WITH a promise is the 5th commandment. And "not only" does Eph 6:1-2 single out the unit of TEN as still valid - but it places the Unit of TEN above every other list/set of Commandments that God gave where one of them has a promise in it. I don't see how this added point that you are highlighting is helping your argument in Eph 6:1-2.

As for my methods - the reason I don't mention it in my posts about Eph 6:1-2 in general is because some people still struggle with the first point, which is that the unit of TEN in which the 5th commandment is the first commandment with a promise - is still being appealed to by Paul in the NT text of Eph 6. If they are stuck there - it serves little purpose to argue further that this not only singles out the "Ten" it also places the TEN above any and all other unnamed lists/grouping of Law where a commandment in that list has a promise.

 

[BobRyan]

Now, we both of course know that Scripture says physical circumcision is not required forGgentiles under the new covenant, but that spiritual circumcision is required, the putting off of the flesh.

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

But the question is why, in your opinion is that the case?

Why would a spiritual application for it such as we see at the end of Romans 2 not be applicable or be questioned if the same holds true for other ceremonial types like animal sacrifice (1 Cor 5 - "Christ our Passover has been slain")

Rom 2
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a violator of the Law, your circumcision has turned into uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

 

[BobRyan]

And when you claimed I stated Ellen White was the only reason to have a particular view of the tares, I never stated that either. However, I did point out how your own arguments changed once a statement from Ellen White was mentioned.

Thanks for the opportunity for "do over"

Ok - that part of Matt 23 is pointing out that there is a very tight connection between saints and sinners in this life and simply uprooting the lost from the saved would risk losing the saved. So for example Christ could not simply ban Judas because the disciples would not understand - and God did not simply kill Lucifer because good angels would not understand.

So in many cases the saints and the sinners are fish in the same pond and one cannot simply "delete the sinners" without causing harm to the saints. So for example if your sister is a saint but one of your brothers is the known-to-God-sinner - God would do damage to your family by simply deleting that brother and even the church would have to be very careful about taking any action against that brother. So then often times it is the situation of all living together and letting things sort out, let both manifest their fruit. (By their fruit you shall know them Matt 7, is a rule that Christ said would be accurate)

Now that is not to say there are not 1 Cor 5 cases where church discipline has to happen in extreme cases. But "in general" the Matt 13 example serves as a good warning to the group about how far you can go.

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

In the parable the point comes where there is the end of the world and the wicked are destroyed while the saints are saved. A process exists in God's kingdom where what He knows to be the case is so fully conveyed to non-God beings like angels (for example) that even they can be sent to take action and separate saints from sinners at the harvest.

So for example in Matt 24 - the angels are sent out
1 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet blast, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other

That is my first response to your Matt 13 question (after having responded to the sower-and-the-seed part of Matt 13 instead of the wheat-and-tares part of Matt 13).

What part "changed"??

 

[tall73]

Step back please. How did you answer my ISRAEL query? You did not. Gods ISRAEL in the new covenant according to the scriptures are all those who believe and follow God's Word. There is now no more Jewish believer or Gentile believer under Gods' new covenant gospel commission *Ephesians 2:11-13; Galatians 3:28-29; Romans 2:28-29; Colossians 3:11; Romans 10:11-13 and God's kingdom is not of this world *John 18:36.

I answered it by largely agreeing. Not all physical descendants of Israel are Israel. That was always true. There was a faithful remnant.

Ephesians says He has made one man of the two, reconciling both in Christ. Gentiles and Israelites are both now one. So we agree.

However, having said that, it doesn't mean females stop being female. For instance, you indicated you were not a female, and wouldn't have to worry about uncleanness for pregnancy--agreed.

But it means that all are now under Christ in the new covenant as one.

And we see in Acts 15 that the church accepted the gentiles--but did not require them to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

That does not mean they are not under moral law. We see many moral commandments spelled out for gentile Christians.

Abraham is the father of all the faithful, circumcised or otherwise, and all are heirs to the promise.

Circumcision is an everlasting covenant *Genesis 17:13 and is required for all of God's people but let me explain what physical circumcision of the old covenant (no longer required) represents in the old and new covenant shortly.

Ok, thank you.

 

[tall73]

You are the one that brought up Matt 13 and Ellen White - did I miss something ?

Yes, you missed something. I stated I was not posting it to test Ellen White, per se. And I never stated that she does not at times agree with others, or she is the only reason to take that position on Matthew 13. In fact, I have mentioned several times she integrates other people's material. Again, Luke used sources as well, so that in itself is not disqualifying regarding inspiration.

The point of our exercise was to see how you relate to the Scriptures. And the point was to see how you relate to Ellen White's comments.

The point of the exercise is not that you need Ellen White to get a particular position. She rarely took a novel position.

The point is whether Adventists, once they are aware of her position, because they consider her inspired, will begin to fall in line. The whole point was looking at how Adventists treat her writings in connection with Scripture. If she is inspired, how do you avoid her being an inspired commentary. Yet she claims she should not be used that way....except then she also says some things that could go the other way.

 

[tall73]

Ellen White wrote some things under inspiration but it is not true that every word she spoke at the breakfast table came from God.

Now I didn't speak about her breakfast table. I indicated her writings. That is what the fundamental beliefs mention. And that is what she mentions.

Nor do I think you were at her breakfast table to hear what she said.

The statement which you quote from "Testimony," No. 31, that "in these letters which I wrote, in the Testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision -- the precious rays of light shining from the throne," is correct. It is true concerning the articles in our papers and in the many volumes of my books. I have been instructed in accordance with the Word in the precepts of the law of God. I have been instructed in selecting from the lessons of Christ. Are not the positions taken in my writings in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ? If not, point it out to me. {RH, September 6, 1906 par. 1}

And remember Bob:

And now, brethren, I entreat you not to interpose between me and the people, and turn away the light which God would have come to them. Do not by your criticisms take out all the force, all the point and power, from the Testimonies. Do not feel that you can dissect them to suit your own ideas, claiming that God has given you ability to discern what is light from heaven and what is the expression of mere human wisdom. If the Testimonies speak not according to the Word of God, reject them.--Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 691. {3SM 46.3}

 

[tall73]

They are voted statements by the denomination and so it is fair (as Walter Martin also noted) to claim those voted statements as the position of the denomination and not simply "one person's opinion".

The irony is you just told us to rely on posters here, who are but one person. But Ellen White's writings are not considered the opinion of a person, but inspired.

That is in the fundamentals. And it was voted by the GC.

 

[tall73]

There are many cases where NT authors do not use the same verbatim quote of OT texts , or of the Hebrew OT text vs the LXX etc. In fact there are places in Deut 5 where Moses is quoting God's verbal commands of Ex 20 and does not do it verbatim.

Indeed, yet here we have an intentional dropping of aspects that relate to living in the holy land, not just a paraphrase.

And in the case of Moses, it certainly was not a little mix-up where he paraphrased poorly. The entire rationale of the fourth commandment was substituted. Don't worry, we will get to that quote soon enough.

But as already noted - moral law defines what sin is even in the NT 1 John 3:4 not just in the OT - and even gentiles were held accountable to it.

But specifically - Ephh 6:1-2 shows that the "unit of TEN" continues in the NT.

We agree the commandment to honor father and mother is a moral command. as to that text showing the "unit of ten" is in the NT, that would be a poor choice to show that. It lists one.

Certainly other texts quote more than one from the "unit".

but instead of that he goes out of his way to drag the TEN into that statement.

Which is the point.

Did he go out of his way to drag the ox being muzzled command in?

He quotes from the law. We both agree this was from the 10.

Nor am I disputing the clear prominence given to the ten. They were spoken directly by God. They were inscribed with His finger. And they were the "words" of the covenant as well.

And we will look at all of that.

But there is no second in the ten. So he is talking about the whole law.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, you missed something. I stated I was not posting it to test Ellen White, per se. And I never stated that she does not at times agree with others, or she is the only reason to take that position on Matthew 13. In fact, I have mentioned several times she integrates other people's material. Again, Luke used sources as well, so that in itself is not disqualifying regarding inspiration.

ok

The point of our exercise was to see how you relate to the Scriptures.

I don't see how my first post on Matt 13 wheat and tares (or any of my posts since) varies in any significant way from what Bible commentaries that address the details have said about it.

And the point was to see how you relate to Ellen White's comments.

My only comment there is that her reference to wheat and tares applying to christ's church in the world is very closely in line with what other Bible commentaries have said about wheat and tares in the church when addressing Matt 13.

The point of the exercise is not that you need Ellen White to get a particular position. She rarely took a novel position.

Then how is this significant? I agree that there are areas that Adventists hold in common with many other denominations - but there are also distinctives in Adventist doctrine (And I am sure you would agree to this).

. If she is inspired, how do you avoid her being an inspired commentary. Yet she claims she should not be used that way....except then she also says some things that could go the other way.

In a number of places she has what I call "signature Ellen White" contribution where only an eye-witnesses would know that detail or in some cases only a mind-reader -- and other places are just connecting history detail that is not there as "God's correction of history" they are just there as well-known history to build context and transition to the next part of the text.

So then "signature Ellen White" example - would be this -

Now, priests and rulers, where is the power of your guard? Brave soldiers that have never been afraid of human power are now as captives taken without sword or spear. The face they look upon is not the face of mortal warrior; it is the face of the mightiest of the Lord’s host. This messenger is he who fills the position from which Satan fell. It is he who on the hills of Bethlehem proclaimed Christ’s birth. The earth trembles at his approach, the hosts of darkness flee, and as he rolls away the stone, heaven seems to come down to the earth. The soldiers see him removing the stone as he would a pebble, and hear him cry, Son of God, come forth; Thy Father calls Thee. They see Jesus come forth from the grave, and hear Him proclaim over the rent sepulcher, “I am the resurrection, and the life.” As He comes forth in majesty and glory, the angel host bow low in adoration before the Redeemer, and welcome Him with songs of praise. {DA 779.3}

At sight of the angels and the glorified Saviour the Roman guard had fainted and become as dead men. When the heavenly train was hidden from their view, they arose to their feet, and as quickly as their trembling limbs could carry them, made their way to the gate of the garden. Staggering like drunken men, they hurried on to the city, telling those whom they met the wonderful news. They were making their way to Pilate, but their report had been carried to the Jewish authorities, and the chief priests and rulers sent for them to be brought first into their presence. A strange appearance those soldiers presented. Trembling with fear, their faces colorless, they bore testimony to the resurrection of Christ. The soldiers told all, just as they had seen it; they had not had time to think or speak anything but the truth. With painful utterance they said, It was the Son of God who was crucified; we have heard an angel proclaiming Him as the Majesty of heaven, the King of glory. {DA 781.1}

The faces of the priests were as those of the dead. Caiaphas tried to speak. His lips moved, but they uttered no sound. The soldiers were about to leave the council room, when a voice stayed them. Caiaphas had at last found speech. Wait, wait, he said. Tell no one the things you have seen. {DA 781.2}
A lying report was then given to the soldiers. “Say ye,” said the priests, “His disciples came by night, and stole Him away while we slept.” Here the priests overreached themselves. How could the soldiers say that the disciples had stolen the body while they slept? If they were asleep, how could they know? And if the disciples had been proved guilty of stealing Christ’s body, would not the priests have been first to condemn them? Or if the sentinels had slept at the tomb, would not the priests have been foremost in accusing them to Pilate? {DA 781.3}

 

[BobRyan]

But there is no second in the ten. So he is talking about the whole law.

The first point is that the UNIT of TEN is unique with that 5th commandment and only in that specific unit is that commandment "the first commandment with a promise" and that has Paul pulling in the TEN in the letter to Ephesus when he had no compelling reason to do so (as if a command about "obeying parents" could not simply be accepted on the face of it as a command from the Apostle Paul -- but would need a reference to Moses before being accepted). He goes out of his way to pull in that unit of TEN.

The second point that you bring in is that of all other unnamed unit/list of LAW that would have at least one command with a promise in it - the TEN would have to be "ahead" of all other unit/list of moral Law. Not sure how this helps your point.

Did he go out of his way to drag the ox being muzzled command in?
.

Possibly -- he is arguing that pastors and evangelists should get paid and that command alone should be of value -- but instead he appeals again to the OT making it clear to the readers that the OT is still authoritative scripture even for NT writers and their readers.

 

[tall73]

It is the first with a promise - your point that "it is also the only one with a promise in the UNIT of TEN" not withstanding, so also the point "this means the unit of TEN would be ahead of every other unit of LAW where a commandment had a promise" (which is the only way the promise in the 5th is ahead of all other commandments with promises in some unnamed order).

I already clearly stated the ten commandments were the first given. They are also separated out for inclusion in the "words" of the covenant. They were engraved as the covenant document, and preserved in the ark.

The fact that no matter how many other sets of moral commands the Bible has (and how many of them within each set has a promise) - still it is true that the FIRST commandment WITH a promise is the 5th commandment.

Of course. And he changed the promise to fit a context outside the promised land.

And "not only" does Eph 6:1-2 single out the unit of TEN as still valid - but it places the Unit of TEN above every other list/set of Commandments that God gave where one of them has a promise in it. I don't see how this added point that you are highlighting is helping your argument in Eph 6:1-2.

Perhaps because you didn't understand my argument. I stated he gave the ten commandments first.

As for my methods - the reason I don't mention it in my posts about Eph 6:1-2 in general is because some people still struggle with the first point, which is that the unit of TEN in which the 5th commandment is the first commandment with a promise - is still being appealed to by Paul in the NT text of Eph 6. If they are stuck there - it serves little purpose to argue further that this not only singles out the "Ten" it also places the TEN above any and all other unnamed lists/grouping of Law where a commandment in that list has a promise.

Oh is that why? Bob, you know I am already well familiar with the arguments for the prominence of the ten commandments. Nor have I argued against them. And I stated they were given first.

But it does occur to the readers following along that by emphasizing the "unit of the ten" you are also doing something else. You are trying to argue for the Sabbath on the basis not that it is inherently moral law, but that it is part of the unit of ten.

Now again, we are nearly to the Sabbath arguments, and I will go through each of them.

In fact, at this point I have decided to go through each of them and give the evidence on both sides of the equation, since I am reviewing the whole thing again.

 

[tall73]

Why would a spiritual application for it such as we see at the end of Romans 2 not be applicable or be questioned if the same holds true for other ceremonial types like animal sacrifice (1 Cor 5 - "Christ our Passover has been slain")

Careful Bob, you are getting very close to what some say about Hebrews 4 in regards to the Sabbath.

Have to run for now, but will continue when I can.