Valid point? Says who? The law of Moses is composed of parts: judicial, diet, health, ceremonial, etc. Do you believe every aspect of the law of Moses was nailed to the cross? If not, which aspects or parts do you believe are still binding?

By the way, Scott made an unkind and unwarranted judgment call. He accused me of not rightly dividing the Word of God to suit my theology. Who gave him the right or authority to criticize me? What good does it accomplish? Can you imagine Jesus criticizing a sincere seeker after truth? Or, do you assume I am not sincerely seeking after the truth, and that I deserve such criticism?

Not even ignorantly? That is, was he sinning ignorantly?

He wasn't accusing you of anything; He was simply stating in opinion. It would have been good internet etiquette for him to have prefaced his statement with "in my opinion" or "imo." He certainly has a right to express his opinion.

I asked you a question, btw, which you didn't respond to, although you did ask me 9 questions in return.

Regarding polygamy being a sin of ignorance, given that a thing is contrary to God's will, there's only 2 possibilities, aren't there? (either the thing is a sin of ignorance, or a willful sin)

Valid point? Says who? I am not rejecting certain aspects of the truth to suit my theology. Just because you and Scott disagree with me it doesn't mean I am rejecting the truth. I believe the OC contains parts that are still binding today. Don't you? Of course, certain parts are not binding. Right?

The law of Moses is composed of parts: judicial, diet, health, ceremonial, etc. Do you believe every aspect of the law of Moses was nailed to the cross? If not, which aspects or parts do you believe are still binding? Do you agree with me that the ceremonial law is no longer binding? And, do you agree with me that the health and dietary laws are still binding? If so, then how can you agree with Scott that I am wrongly dissecting the OC?


There are several recent posts you seem to have overlooked; is it possible I addressed your question in one of them? Please check out posts #100729, #100730, and #100731 on this thread. If not, please post your question again. Thank you. Also, I would be interested in your response to those posts, too.


In this case, as I see it, there is another possibility - God permitted polygamy under very specific circumstances in the law of Moses. Having more than one wife at a time under any other circumstances would have, therefore, been a sin. But, unless one is willing to believe God permitted sinning in the law of Moses, it would not have been a sin of any sort to have more than one wife at a time in accordance with the law of Moses. Do you agree? Or, do you believe God permitted sinning in the law of Moses? If so, why would God permit sinning in the law of Moses?

Hi MM,
I think this is where we have to either accept the NT writers or have use the Bible to support our pet ideas. My answer to you question is “NO, the OC is gone; there are no binding parts today, period! It is obsolete and gone (Heb. 8), nailed to the cross (Col. 2), and we are no longer under its control (Gal. 3).



This is where I see you dissecting the OC, keeping what you want that fits your theology, and throwing out what doesn’t fit. It is like eating at a buffet!

The OC has little originality in itself, but is comprised of existing parts. The priesthood, the temple, the sacrifice, the law, the clean and unclean, and even tithing all existed before the OC was given. God spoke to us in a language that we understood. He used familiar things when He put together the OC so that the COI could understand. We don’t need to hold onto the OC as authority of anything. The Sabbath, the clean and unclean, the New Covenant of salvation though Christ, and God’s law of love all have their beginnings and authority before the OC was given at Sinai. Even tithing has its root in the fact that God owns everything and that we are simply stewards, vice regents under God’s authority and care.

Why do we insist on maintaining the authority of the OC in conflict with the New Testament? This makes our position very hard to defend and if we learned anything from 1888 it should be that our position of supporting our theology from a law that is done away with doesn’t work. We don’t keep the Sabbath because it is commanded in the OC. We keep it because of what God originally gave it to us for. We keep it because it was God’s wedding gift to humanity. God blessed it (knelt down) and sanctified it (set it apart as something holy), and built it into our weekly cycle so that we would remember Him as our Creator and Lover. This is language of a marriage ceremony. We don’t need the authority of an obsolete law to keep or teach it.

In the OC we have the 10 Commandments as the standard of righteousness, but in the NC we have Christ’s life and love as our standard of righteousness. Which is greater? What can the law teach us that Christ didn’t? What is it that we need from the OC that Jesus doesn’t give us?

scott

This was my question, MM:

How could he (Scott) have made the point that you are accepting some things and rejecting others in order to fit with your theology in a way which would not have been offense?

So you think the circumstances determine whether a thing is a sin or not? In some circumstances it is adultery to have sexual relations with someone who is not your partner, but in other circumstances it is not?

[qutoe]But, unless one is willing to believe God permitted sinning in the law of Moses, it would not have been a sin of any sort to have more than one wife at a time in accordance with the law of Moses. Do you agree? Or, do you believe God permitted sinning in the law of Moses? If so, why would God permit sinning in the law of Moses?[/quote]

There are all sorts of things which God permitted in ignorance which are not in harmony with God's will. Polygamy is just one of a multitude of examples. Cutting off women's hands is another. Divorce is another. God permitted things contrary to His will because of the ignorant and stiffnecked people He was dealing with.

If we want to know what God's will is, how He wants us to be, we need to look to Jesus Christ! He is the "revealer of the character of God."

The law of Moses depicts God in a positive way, as one who graciously met an ignorant and stubborn people on their own terms, with the intent of leading them into the path of righteousness, which righteousness was revealed by Jesus Christ. He had to get from point A to point B in order to do this. Unfortunately, the people chose not to walk with God, and so never got to point B.

I see what you mean, Scott. Just because the OC contains laws we are still obligated to obey under the NC it does not mean we are partly still under the OC. The NC trumps the OC. The OC borrowed from the NC, and not the other way around. Even though the OC spells out certain aspects not clearly articulated in the NC it does not mean they were not inherent in the NC. Thus, I would say the OC helps us to more fully understand what God expects of us and Himself under the NC.

Here's how it is explained in the SOP:

The minds of the people, blinded and debased by slavery and heathenism, were not prepared to appreciate fully the far-reaching principles of God's ten precepts. That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments. These laws were called judgments, both because they were framed in infinite wisdom and equity and because the magistrates were to give judgment according to them. Unlike the Ten Commandments, they were delivered privately to Moses, who was to communicate them to the people. {PP 310.1}

The object of all these regulations was stated: they proceeded from no exercise of mere arbitrary sovereignty; all were given for the good of Israel. The Lord said, "Ye shall be holy men unto Me"--worthy to be acknowledged by a holy God. {PP 311.2}

These laws were to be recorded by Moses, and carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law, and, with the ten precepts which they were given to illustrate, the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel. {PP 311.3}

Under the new covenant, the conditions by which eternal life may be gained are the same as under the old--perfect obedience. Under the old covenant, there were many offenses of a daring, presumptuous character, for which there was no atonement specified by law. In the new and better covenant, Christ has fulfilled the law for the transgressors of law, if they receive Him by faith as a personal Saviour. "As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." Mercy and forgiveness are the reward of all who come to Christ trusting in His merits to take away their sins. In the better covenant we are cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ (Letter 276, 1904). {7BC 931.10}

PS - Scott, in light of the title of this thread, what do you think? Was a man guilty of sinning, violating the 7th commandment, if he had more than one wife at a time in harmony with the law of Moses?

Hi MM,

We are all sinners and all stand guilty before God. God, in His wisdom and mercy, didn't try to correct all of our misunderstandings at once. He is patient and good and is a friend to sinners. Some things He corrected right away like stealing and killing, but others had roots deeply embedded in society such as multiple wives.

In their economy and mentality there was no work for women, no support, no jobs available and had God forbade multiple wives there could have been a wave of prostitution and undo disrespect for unfortunate women who lost their husbands. Thus God didn't make an issue about woman's rights until the last couple hundred years. And look how long it's taken to get to where we are. We still resist! Most of the world still thinks of women as inferior. As John Lennon put it, "Women are the niggers of the world" and it is sad that a rock star recognized what many religious fanatics can't see to this day.

We, as Christians, need to be on the front line for woman’s dignity! Jesus gave His life for our freedom.

To answer your question; I think polygamy is vial and is a sin on par with bigotry and racism, but God made provision for it because of the hardness of our hearts just like divorce! Again I say that the laws allowing multiple marriages reflect what is in our hearts and not what is in Gods!

scott