A good point.
In the old testament God was personally involved with the civil laws of the nation of his people. When a case was to be decided it wasn't left to man's decisions. There was the Urim and Thummim as well as other "tests".
They were directly responsible to God.

But we no longer live in a temple centered Urim and Thummim directed society.
Thus the civic laws are now left to secular governments who have no right to impose religious laws.

We have the scriptures as our authority as to how we are to live. Thus the moral laws are still binding, but not the laws that would give a secular government the right to impose religious laws.

Also we live in a world of many religions with a lot of people wanting to dominate other people's beliefs.

We also realize that in these last days, God has released the restaint upon Satan and his demons who will try to replicate God's signs with a lot of signs and wonders of their own.

Sunday used to be enforced by severe penalties, even death in centuries past.
And Sunday will again be enforced with threats of death using the same arguments saying that scripture demands it.
The ground work is now in full progress with thousands of religious thought leaders declaring that the change from Sabbath to Sunday was God inspired and Sunday is the true Christian day of worship.

Colossians says let no man JUDGE YOU concerning a sabbath day.

It's no longer the perogative of man (who has sought to change the Sabbath) to enforce it's keeping.

The Sabbath will be a sign if we worship our Creator out of love and committement, or if we bow to the powers that sought to obliterate the true Sabbath under the guise of "following the levitical code".

Our commitment to worship God and set apart for holy purposes God's holy day, must come from scripture and personal commitment to rightly worship God, not from civil laws being enforced or from miraculous demonstrations.

Both are still binding. However, Jesus doesn't enforce the death penalty nowadays. That's the point, right?

Um.. NO.

Chapter and verse on this, please. Where does Jesus say he reserves the right to make the final decision? This speculation is entirely unsupported.

The support comes from another commandment that had the death penalty. Adultery. The woman caught in adultery -- you remember the story of Jesus and the writing in the sand? It's found in John chapter eight.

The truth is that the death penalty is still there, it's just not to be in the hands of human beings.

Christ suffered that death penalty in our behalf.
Isa. 53:5 "For he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

When we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteouseness. 1 John 1:9
When we come to Him with a contrite heart and confess our sins, that penalty will NOT fall upon us, becaue He already suffered the penalty.

Those who refuse to accept Christ's gift of forgiveness and cleansing will suffer the penalty in the final judgement.

People are far to quick to "pick up the stones" but God
"is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

Sorry, I don't connect Sabbath-breaking and adultry at all. So Jesus let her off the hook. That in no way supports the wild speculation that "Jesus reserves the right for the final decision."

This idea finds supported neither in Scripture nor EGW.

How can we have a rational discussion if you simply invent theology as we go along.

Good question. I suppose the best answer is implied in Numbers 15. In this incident Moses felt compelled to inquire of Jesus what course of action to take. Enforcing the death penalty requires knowing motives, and since only Jesus knows motives, it stands to reason He must make the final decision.

Good answer. You cited a text and gave your interpretation/application of it.

Ya dinna' convince me, but it's much better theology. I can at least follow your reasoning, even if I do not change my mind immediately.

Theology (to the Western mind) is like science; one must show step by step how they got to their conclusions, so others can perform the same experiment (ie: exegesis) and, if not come to the same conclusion, at least see how it was done.

He that is without sin, cast the first stone. (John 8:7)

To make a dramatic separation between stoning for adultery and stoning for Sabbath breaking is refusing to look at the fact that both are sin, and both had the death penalty.

Have you kept the Sabbath perfectly all your life?

If you haven't you have no right to stone anyone who broke the Sabbath.
And the fact is -- NO ONE has kept the Sabbath perfectly. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"



Thus instead of stoning we are admonished to encourage one another in right doing, looking to Jesus the perfector of our faith.

Jesus gives us the NT way of dealing with sin in church members in Matthew 18.

First try to reason with the person individually.
If they refuse to change
take a few other trusted church members and try again to reason with the person.
If he still refuses then present it to the church.

If he refuses to change his membership is removed and he is to be regarded as a non-believer.

There is no mention that "stoning" ANYONE in the New Testament is a right method that should be used.
There are several instances where people DID stone someone, or wanted to stone someone, and everytime it was the WRONG thing to do.

One way you could approach it is to determine if the premise is valid. With a valid sample size, see if the only time they stoned people was when God told them to, and they never stoned anyone without His ok. Then, consider if any other methods of death penalty were implemented and how they fit in.
(I don't believe God told anyone to stone Stephen)

The way I see it was they lived in a theocracy. Where did their laws come from and who enforced them? The reason it came to death penalties was from previous choices they had made. God is always about free will and choices. He doesn't force people to follow a certain way. Due to their choices, He next implemented another choice. If they followed His teachings, it could mitigate the damage done. They could either follow it or not. Many things He asked them to do, they did not do. For some reason, when it came to killing others, they seemed to follow that advice without much of a problem.

The theocracy went for awhile, but then they refused to listen to God a made another choice. To determine if this is invalid, after they had kings, did God ever tell them to stone people, or did the king/kingdom decide who to kill and how?

To me, that's why we don't stone people, is because we usurp God's way and methods. Therefore, our lawmakers decide for what reasons, how we are punished, and by what methods. We don't stone people today -- we electrocute them