Adventist Online

Rob

 

Since the discussion on the other thread had gotten so far off of that thread, I am moving the comments over to this thread.  I'll copy and past the last two rounds of our discussion and we can move on from there.  OK?

 

Ray

Views: 6170

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Rob

If you reread what I said, which was:

"Which is most likely why the early Jewish Christians continued to observe them. They were still clinging to their Jewish roots. However, just because they kept them, or did not keep them, is no argument for their observance today. This same argument is used in many other issues too."

This is not a statement saying that they kept these feast for 100 years. However, whether they did or did not, that is no proof of anything other then that they were hanging on to their old tradtions. This is a human choice, not based on a divine command.

They you took a comment out of context that Ellen White made. You quoted her saying:

RH.1875-05-06.010

"In consequence of continual transgression, the moral law was repeated in awful grandeur from Sinai. Christ gave to Moses religious precepts which were to govern the everyday life. These statutes were explicitly given to guard the ten commandments. They were not shadowy types to pass away with the death of Christ. They were to be binding upon man in every age as long as time should last. These commands were enforced by the power of the moral law, and they clearly and definitely explained that law."

Now, let's read what that statement says. "the moral law was repeated in awful grandeur from Sinai." The law regarding the feast was never repeated in "awful grandeur from Sinai." Yet, you are claiming this passage as proof of the continual obligations to keep the feast. She is speaking of what is now best known as the Ten Commandments. They had been Ten Promises, but when Israel said that they would do what God had promised, they changed to commands instead of promises. There is not one shred of legtimate evidence in the writtings found in the Bible or by Ellen White commanding us to keep the yearly feast. They just do not exist.

That is extremely poor scholarship, my friend. This level of scholarship is far below what you are capable of. You cannot apply counsel the Bible gives to one set of instructions and transfer it to another. I'm sorry to have to say this, but this is not intellectually honest.

You say that these are called "Torah." So what? The entire Old Testament is called Torah. So, what proof does that make about anything? The word "Torah," first and foremost means: "instruction." That is all that one can make of that label. It certainly does not mean that everything that is "Torah" is for everlasting. The truths and principles are, but not every speck of instruction to individuals, which are included in the Old Testament. God's command to Elijah to cross the Jordan before he was translated is also Torah. Yet, God is no telling us today to go and cross the Jordan.

Sorry, but such an example of poor scholarship just does not set well with me at all. I have seen you do much better then that. Never stoop to that level again, it not only hurts you, but reduces your credibility.

Maranatha :)
Ray
Rob

Since the technology of the forum did not allow me to respond to your later post. I am attaching my response to both the above and the later response here, OK?

In the above post, you wrote:

"JohnB and MSMS, thanks for replying, now I don't wish to disturb any of us, I am new to this Messanic truth stuff, and am not sure I would embrace it, but I see no harm in following it either...."

The sure sign of a member of the Laodicean church is that "they cannot see what is wrong with it." This is why it is vital that we have a more sure word of prophecy and not just what sounds interesting from another author. That can be a sure way to be misled in these days when so many deceiptions floating around. No matter what level of education or what position one might hold, unless they have solid scriptural basis for their assertions, we follow them with the distinct possibility of being led astray.

Notice this warning from Ellen White.

"Agitate, agitate, agitate! The subjects which we present to the world must be to us a living reality. It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith, we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny. . . . " {CW 40.3}

Unless the arguments we present can stand up to the closest investigation, we should not use them. This is one place where the arguments of those who advocate the modern observances of the feast days can not stand up.

They have no authority for advocating the current observance of the feast days. OK, in Leveticus, some translations do put in the word "forever" or "everlasting," etc. However, a check of the Hebrew does not seem to support that. It just states that it is an appointed feast to them, the house of Israel, for the forseable future.

Which is most likely why the early Jewish Christians continued to observe them. They were still clinging to their Jewish roots. However, just because they kept them, or did not keep them, is no argument for their observance today. This same argument is used in many other issues too.

EXAMPLES

Acts 20:7 (ESV)
"On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight."

This has long been used as an example of the early Christians worshipping on Sunday. Of course, it is an extremely flimsy excuse, but for some it is all the excuse they need to do what they want to do.

Romans 16:1-2 (ESV)
"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, [2] that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well."

This text is used by those advocating the ordination of women. Yet, the reason fo Pheobe being honored is found in verse 2, she was a "Patron," or "Benefactor" of the church and the apostles.

This has nothing to do with ordination. While it is true that many men have been ordained as local elders, not because of their spiritual leadership, but because of their bank account, this was not true back then and it should not be true today. Which, in fact, opened the door to women being ordained. For after all, they reasoned, if men who did not qualify could be ordained, then why not women? Such arguments built on a faulty premise, such as this one are seldom if ever valid.

Genesis 9:3 (ESV)
"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."

Some have used this passage to justify eating flesh for food. However, they conveniently ignore the next verses which says:

Genesis 9:4-5 (KJV)
"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. [5] And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man."

A person can quote mountains of texts. But unless they look at the entire picture, the chances of being wrong are very high. Just like the discussion of the nature of Christ. One that has raged for years. Yet the answer is simple when one looks at all of the evidence. Likewise for some others that could be named.

The accuracy of a teaching is not dependant upon the majority of texts that are found. In fact, at times it only takes one passage to discredit an argument built up by many texts.

One such example is in regards to the accountability for sin. This one text drives a stake that can not be moved.

James 4:17 (ESV)
"So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin."

Then the one word: "knows," when one looks at the original Greek, one will find that it comes from the Greek word root "oida" which carries the idea that knowledge is available to the person. It is within one's scope of information, whether they chooses to listen or not.

And this is supported by the passage that reads:
John 14:15 (ESV)
"If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

If we love Jesus, when information about truth is available to us, we will want to know that information and apply it in our lives. By inference, if we love Jesus, we will not want to accept information that is not from God.

The argument for keeping the feast days does not have that line of logic or support. It is primarily based on the idea that the statue is "forever," not stopping to think what that word meant back then, and it ignores the fact that is was not a requirement for the Gentile Christians.

Yes, the early Jewish Christians may have kept the feasts for a hundred years or so, but that is not a biblical mandate. People are human and make mistakes. To claim that a mistake made by early Christians justifies or demands that we make the same mistake is not solid exegesis.

In your post of Nov. 7, you wrote at the end:

"This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live. (Leviticus 23:26-28, 31) Day of Atonement

If you read my earlier posts, early Christian believers kept the festival feasts in the Book of Acts...please explain...."

This has already been addressed above. But just one more bit of information. Let's look at one text you flagged.

Leviticus 23:31 (KJV)
"Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings."

There are two words here that need to be examined.

"for ever."
"your generations."

The first word in Hebrew is:
"`owlam, o-lawm'; or olam, o-lawm'; from Hebrew 5956 (`alam); properly concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practical) eternity; frequent adverb (especially with prepositional prefix) always :- alway (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end)." Strong's number 5769

This would be rendered in modern English as: "Into the foreseable future." This word "forever," as used in the Bible, is often misuderstood, no matter if it is Hebrew or Greek. They did not think the way we do and for them "forever" was into the future beyound anything they might have to deal with. While for the Western mind, we extend that into all eternity, in many cases. So, to understand these "forever" statements we need to let the context define just what is meant, which happens here.

This is forever, for all your generations. Or as long as there is a theocracy, this is the rule. Nothing in this passage, in context, even hints at this being a perpetual, never ending, into all time hereafter. It is for sure we will not be celebrating the day of attonement in Heaven. Then why claim that it is celebrated up to that time? Unlike the Sabbath, which will be celebrated in Heaven, the yearly feast will not, nor should they be seen as part of God's plan today.

This is akin to another false argument that is used to support everlasting punishment.

Rev. 14:11 (ESV)
"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."

This use of the term "forever and ever: is a reference to the fact that it will never be extinquished. The punishment for sin is not eternal, unending burning, but eternal, unending death. If something will never exist again, it will never exist forever. How can you put an end to something that no longer exists? See the frailty of that argument? It is the same for arguing that the feast days will go on forever and ever. They ceased at the cross. How can they continue when they no longer exist?

This is also the danger of attempting to be more righteous then God. Since there is no divine command, since the cross, for their continuation, then let them end at the cross and let's move on to present truth

Maranatha :)
Ray
Manuel

Your answer is within your question. The types found in the feast meet their antitype in Jesus. In the Bible, all of the types I can think of all point to one facet of Jesus or the plan of Salvation, of whom Jesus is the central feature.

Search as you will, you will not find a symbol of China, or South Africa, or Australia in the Bible prophecies. WHY? Because these countries, as great as they are, have not had a major impact on the growth of Christianity in the world. All the nations that are presented in prophecy are one of three kinds.

1. God's People.

2. Those who give protection to OR those who hurt or hinder God's people.

3. Those used by God to punish those who hurt God's people.


None of these above named nations have had a major impact on the course of God's church in the world. Little nations like the Midionites are mentioned, while China is not. WHY? Because the Midionites had an impact on God's people.

There are many good authors in the Adventist church. One is Uriah Smith and his book: "Daniel and Revelation." Do I beleive all he wrote? No, he was way beyound his time, but so much more information has come to our attention since then, that his book is "dated." Yes, if I recall correctly, Ellen White did see an angel guiding his writing. But, Uriah Smith was not inspired by God as the Bible writers were.

Dr. Murdoch, was a major contributer to the SDA Commentary section on Daniel. He was a friend of mine, in fact, he asked me to teach his class in Daniel for a couple of days when he had to be out of town. That, my friend, was one of the most scary times of my life. There was no way I could fill his shoes as a scholar (actually, my real feet are bigger then his were. G).

But, he made a statement, as I recall, the first day in class, that endeared him to me. He said that he wished he could rewrite what he had written, becasue in the interim between the time the SDABC came out and then, he had learned so much more, which he shared with us in class. So, I could contradict some things in the SDABC on Daniel, using the evidence that the author of that information shared with me years later.

Another good friend of mine, Hans LaRondelle, a brilliant man and a friend. He and I debated an issue for almost a year. In the end, we both were much wiser for the interaction and he had to rewrite his class notes.

Another brilliant man, Dr. Mervyn C. Maxwell. We developed a close friendship. I was one of the last people outside of his family that he talked to before his untimley passing. He knew he was dying and he called me to say goodbye. An honor I'll never forget.

Yet, some months before that sad call, I ran into something new that I had found. So, I wrote up a position paper (this was not the first time) and sent it to him. About 10 days later, he called me, some 3,000 miles away, and shared that he too had found the same thing I had found at, as near as we could tell, at the same time. He came to realize that he had been teaching that point wrong for 25 years.

Another time, I was attending the graduation ceremony of my wife's niece at Loma Linda Universtiy, Loma Linda, California. The commencment speaker was the head of one of the departments, I do not remember which one now. But he said that he had a speach that he gave to every freshman class that came to the school. He said that he would tell them that at least 50% of what they would learn while at Loma Linda University would be incorrect. Something that they would have to unlearn when they went into practice. However, he went on to say, no one knew which 50% was right and which was wrong.

The medical students would be given the tools to go out and discover what they had learned was right and what was not. Then they could correct what was being taught for the classes that followed them.

During my learning career, I have met many educators and some who thought they were educated. I remember one young man who came into a garage where I was repairing a car. He did not know that I was a theology major, as I was in greasy overalls and looked a mess. In other words, more or less normal. G

He came in with a big expensive Bible to witness to the owner and myself. The owner did not want to talk to him, so he came to me. He made a statement and in turn I referred him to a passage in the gospel of John. That was when I heard something that I have never heard before or since. He told me:
"I do not beleive anything written in the gospel of John."

Had I had false teeth, I'm sure I would have swallowed them. He left me speechless for a moment. When I could recover, I asked him why.
He said:
"Well, that book was written by a Baptist and I do not beleive anything a Baptist tells me."

Please, these are his words and sentiments, not mine.

At that point I knew that I had a certifiable nut case on my hands. When I could recover my thoughts and speech, I tried to lead him into more reasonable topics, but he would not be led. He had the truth and it had set him free. What he had, had indeed set him free from his senses, but that was about all.

At that time I carried a small pocket Bible that I had purchased for a couple of dollars. Now it would probably be ten dollars, but this was a long time ago. His Bible at that time was probably a $50.00 Bible, it was really a nice one. It is only too bad that he did not know how to use it. Little knowledge in the wrong hands can be most dangerous.

Anyhow, he asked me if I would trade him Bibles. Every word I am saying is true, even though it is incredibly hard to believe, even by myself and I was there. I asked him why he wanted to trade a $50.00 Bible for a $2.00 Bible? He said that when he tried to witness to some people that when he pulled that expensive Bible out, it scared them off.

By that time I had lost my tact, and I told him that is was not the expensive Bible that drove people off.

Another time, a man I was giving Bible studies to claimed that He was Jesus Christ. As one might expect, that series of Bible Studies went nowhere.

So, where am I going with these stories?

Just this. Truth is progressive, not static. Unless we are willing to continue studying in God's word, we will be left at the level of those whose writings we are reading. I cited several theolgians who were my teachers and how they were constantly advancing in a knowledge of truth even though they were teaching theology. I admired them becasue they would test everything, even what a student told them, to see if it was truth. When it was, they would even change their class notes, when so indictated, to accomdate the new information. This is the model I have tried to emulate. As a result, I am constantly finding new information that the Holy Spirit is bringing to my attention.

Now, had I read Dr. Murdochs excellent efforts in the SDABC and refused to listen to the new information that Dr. Murcdoch presented in class, I would have been hopelessly out of date. The same with the other techers I dialouged and interacted with. These men were not so grounded in their degrees that they had stopped learning and I admired them and still do.

I have yet to meet anyone who spends their time in the old authors who has come up to anything near the truths that are available today, or the present truths for this time, with the exception of Ellen White and the authors recorded in the Bible. If you read what I have written on some topics, 10 years or 20 years ago, I will probably not be presenting the same thing, or possibly in the same way today, becasue I have learned so much more in my study of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy.

Like going into the food store and coming out with second hand food and paying twice the price and thinking you have something wonderful. When you could have bought the new food for much less money and have much more quality.

Go for the new food, the present truths, do not drink at the putrid, stagnant pools in the valley, but move up to the fresh spings that provide fresh water for the thirsty souls.

Maranatha :)
Ray

Hi Ray

A simple consideration is said to be that the separating of the law is not Biblical, but done and handed down to us by tradition, and that such was one of the items of discussion in 1888.

Paul speaks of keeping passover, new moons etc.

You may want to check that out.

Take Care

Walt

Where did Yahshua "separate" the law?

Shalom haShem Yahshua,
Will Anderson

Perhaps Paul was saying do not let the legalists judge you in your observance of these things...

Just saying...

There is an alternate interpretation that makes Paul absolutely consistent with himself, Torah and the rest of scripture.

Shalom haShem Yahshua,

Will Anderson

Paul became as a Jew to win the Jews.  He never counseled any to keep the feasts but even once said that he could not make it to the celebration in Jerusalem as he was busy working where he was for souls.

Check out Feasts and the Faithful: the Rest of the Story on my profile. In the video section.

Where did Paul celebrate the feasts when he did?  What did it mean that he became a Jew to win the Jews?  What would he have done differently?

Check out the video. It's a great explanation of your questions.
Pastor Ray

You admitted the early Christians kept the festivals for 100 years as recorded in the Book of Acts....actually Peters, Paul John and Timothy and others were not Gentiles, they were Chrsitian Jews, the early assembly were a different sect from Jewish Jews and CHristian Jews. There were NO true Gentiles in the assemblies on those days, for for hundred's of years later ?

The chrsitian Jews spoke Hebrew, practiced Hebrew and followed Jesus who was Hebrew and spoke Hebrew too. I know we like to change things so we can justify change, one day the BIble scholars will show the NT was written in Hebrew and Jesus spoke Hebrew too.

Any way back to my proof...thank God for EGW....could it be that from 1875 when she wrote this, that our church was not listening and still not listen to her present truth.....? After all we are a people with some light, and not all light, as EGW presented it to us. For example it took her husband 45 years to accept the Holy Spirit as a co-eternal being, let alone the Holy SPirit being called the Shadday, as EGW writings show....another point....

Here's your proof....

RH.1875-05-06.010
In consequence of continual transgression, the moral law was repeated in awful grandeur from Sinai. Christ gave to Moses religious precepts which were to govern the everyday life. These statutes were explicitly given to guard the ten commandments. They were not shadowy types to pass away with the death of Christ. They were to be binding upon man in every age as long as time should last. These commands were enforced by the power of the moral law, and they clearly and definitely explained that law.

Please note the context of EGW writing, they were NOT shadowy types
They were not abolished at the cross
They are binding on every man as long as time should last

Where are these instructions ? In the Bible they are called torah....
Who spoke them as EGW says ? JESUS did.
Hence they are called YESHUA's TORAH of salvation.

Who should be followng them ? The SDA church should.

We should embrace our truth from 1875, yet we ignore EGW counsel...

These are instructions of Jesus spoken after He spoke the Father's laws from SInai, beginning from Exodus 21 to Exodus 23.

Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Notice there are TWO commandments unto salvation, not ONE as SDA people tend to believe. What are the labels ?

1 Jesus commandments
2 Father's commandments

What is the Father's commandments ? The ten words in Exodus 20
What are Jesus commandments ? The entire BIble of instructions, the torah of salvation that bear witness to the Father's laws of salvation.

I hope you see that Jesus instructions (torah) is binding on us as christians.
(as well as Father's laws)

Ex 23:14 Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year.
Jesus goes on to list the Feasts, Unleavened bread, Harvest of first fruits, and Feast of Ingathering... in this additional laws from Mount SInai.

Hence these instructions are still binding upon all beleivers of Jesus.

Now Pastor Ray, since you know the Hebrew assembly for 100 years kept the feasts, and EGW say we are to keep these instructions, its up to you to show why as a church we are not keeping them, and why we never raised the issue from 1875 ? Have we lost the book of law in the temple, as Dave Westbrook says in his sermon, www.backtoenoch.org ? The book of law is SOP writings that point us to Jesus torah, that points us to the Father's laws.

May we go back to SOP and see what we failed to embrace....

SHalom
Rob
You wrote:
Pastor Ray, thanks for making the threads into a new post....I am sorry you think my EGW quote is extremely poor scholarship. That is not my intention, and at casual reading I thought my English ability was good enough, but perhaps I am wrong.
So for the record. lets go through the statements one at a time, mainly for my sake. My reason for this is because this is one of the rare statements EGW makes on statues, I believe helps my cause....
RH.1875-05-06.010
I am not sure how Review and Herald stuff is written or compiled. OK. I assume the 10th paragraph makes sense as it reads....
"In consequence of continual transgression, the moral law was repeated in awful grandeur from Sinai.
Rob
You are making this far more complicated then it is. Note this statement:
The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are false teachers. It was to such a class that Jesus declared: "Ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God." Mark 12:24. The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." John 7:17. If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error. {GC 598.3}
The “obvious meaning” of this statement is that this is dealing with the “Moral Law.” This law was known to Israel and was repeated on Mt. Sinai. All that follows is in regards to this moral law, i.e. the Ten Commandments.
None of the jumping through the hoops of the various parts of speech changes this fact in the slightest. It is best just to leave it where Ellen White left it, as a discussion of the moral law.
Maranatha 
Ray
You wrote:
“First sentence, has subject noun, "moral law", verb "was repeated" and object noun "Mt SInai".
Christ gave to Moses religious precepts which were to govern the everyday life.
There are two sentences here, I relate to second half, subject noun "precepts" verb "to govern" object noun "life"
Here in just two sentences we have a change in subject noun. FIrst sentence was moral law. Second sentence is precepts. Confused ? I am already, is EGW referring to moral law as precepts, or something else ?”
Rob
Trying to say this kindly, but your confusion is obvious. The problem may be in that you may not have American English as your first language. That is just a guess, not an accusation. A law and a precept are in many ways the same.
LAW = law 1 n., v., lawed, lawing. -n. 1. the principles and regulations established by a government or other authority and applicable to a people, whether by legislation or by custom enforced by judicial decision. 2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. 3. a system or collection of such rules.
PRECEPTS = precept n. 1. a commandment or direction given as a rule of action or conduct. 2. an injunction as to moral conduct; maxim. 3. a direction for performing a technical operation. 4. Law.a written order issued pursuant to law.
Ellen White uses the term: “Precepts” and “Law” interchangeably. She does not differentiate between them that I have noticed. Likewise with “Statutes.” Since I have grown up with this interchanging of these three words, this is probably why I felt you were using poor scholarship. So, I apologize.
Om this paragraph you quoted, there in no subject change. It is all about the Moral Law.
Ray
You wrote:
“After all precepts is a noun with meaning in Exodus 20 and does not refer to the ten commandments ?
These statutes were explicitly given to guard the ten commandments.
Here is the third simple sentence, subject noun "statutes" verb "to guard" object noun "ten commandments".
Now with three sentences the paragraph is even more confusing. The subject noun has changed...
(1) moral law
(2) precepts
(3) statutes
In the third sentence, the statues are to guard the ten commandments. So the subject of the sentence is the statutes. Not the ten commandments. The ten commandments are the object noun. What does EGW mean by the statutes ?”
Rob
As stated above, these three terms all mean the same thing, they all refer to the Moral law.
Ray
You wrote:
“A paragraph should have a subject noun that is used consistenly throughout.
Rob
In American English, there are many such instances. In fact they are consistent, but another aspect of American English writing is to use synonyms in order to keep the material fresher and not repeat the same word over and over again. Also, sometimes a synonym will bring in a different aspect of the meaning which broadens the information being presented. So, in fact the “noun” Moral Law” is consistent throughout. However, synonyms are being used.
Ray
You wrote:
The most common subject noun is"Statutes" whatever EGW means by this ....
Does EGW mean ten commandments by her use of statutes ? Or something else ?
Rob
She is referring to the Moral law when she speaks of “statutes” quite commonly.
Ray
You wrote:
In consequence of continual transgression, the moral law was repeated in awful grandeur from Sinai. Christ gave to Moses "the moral law" which were to govern the everyday life. The "moral law was" explicitly given to guard the ten commandments. The moral law were not shadowy types to pass away with the death of Christ. The moral law were to be binding upon man in every age as long as time should last. The moral law commands were enforced by the power of the moral law, and they clearly and definitely explained that law."
Is this the intention of EGW writing her paragraph ? I don't believe so, but I could be wrong ?
Rob
Yes. That is much better scholarship. LOL
Ray
You wrote:
Now according to EGW writings, these precepts given to Moses by Jesus were to govern everyday life. What are these precepts ? They have to be Exodus 21 to Exodus 23. Am I wrong in this conclusion....?
Rob
Yes.
Only the Moral law is perpetual. It is a description of God, so it is as eternal as God is eternal. The precepts/principles/laws/statutes it consists of are very God. Statutes and laws are normally understood to be the same thing.
STATUTE - statute n. 1. a. a formal enactment by a legislature. b. a document setting forth such an enactment. 2. an instrument annexed to an international agreement, as a treaty. 3. a permanent rule established by an organization, corporation, etc., to govern its internal affairs.
So, it is improper to attempt to see these different synonyms as referring to different “statutes/laws.”
Maranatha :)
Ray

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2017   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service