Divide and conquer --
I agree that is something we need to be concerned about.
I hope and pray the church will not be split over this issue.
It's too late. The Pacific Union and the Loma Linda University Church are already trying to split off from the church.
I don't think they want to split off from the church. That's not their intention.
They want to push their convictions unto the church.
The thing to remember however, is that these "false brethren" felt they had the authority of the scriptures and long established Mosaic policies on their side.
While this may be the common opinion of what was going on, it does not stand up to scrutiny. The false brethren were trying to say that no Gentile could be saved unless he first became a Jew by being circumcised. And yet you can read the entire Mosaic code and you won't find any such requirement or sentiment. Descendants of Abraham had to be circumcised, but Gentile strangers never had to be unless they wanted to observe the Passover.
Scripture is pretty plain that circumsion was the sign of being within the covenant community.
Gen.17:11 " it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you."
Not only for descendants of Abraham but also for people brought into the camp. (Gen. 17:13)
It was difficult for some of these Jewish brethren to comprehend that someone could be part of the covenant community without bearing the sign.
They didn't understand the gospel, but they were zealously standing up for what they thought was scriptural law.
On the other hand, even Paul wasn't that strict on the "decree" which included "refrain from things offered to idols and from blood."
He didn't seem too worried about people eating meat sacrificed to idols as long as they didn't think of it as paying homage to the idol. And the meat bought in the markets-- was the blood drained from it? Yet Paul didn't seem too worried about people eating meat from the market.
Could it not be that Paul was instead acknowledging the arguments some of the Corinthians were making, that the idol was nothing really, and then telling them that they still weren't supposed to eat it? Do you have some references where you think Paul was not taking seriously the decision of Acts 15?
Romans 14, 1 Cor. 8 -- they were at liberty to eat if it wasn't OBVIOUS that it was offere to idols, but they weren't to eat it if it caused a stumbling block to someone "weak" in faith. Thus it was better not to eat it and offend a weaker brother.
"
Whatsoever is sold in the market, eat, don't ask question for conscience sake:
For the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
If any unbelievers invite you to a feast, and you decide to go; what ever is set before you, eat, don't ask questions for conscience sake.
But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, don't eat it for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? 1 Cor. 10:25-29
Slavery in the USA
The Southern states could make a pretty good case from scripture supporting their supposed right to own slaves.
There is no explicit mandate in scripture that specifically comes out and says, "Holding another person in subjection as your slave is an abomination"
The Bible outlines rules for how to treat ones slave, but fails to say anything definite against it.
In the case of the Dred Scott decision re: the Fugitive Slave Law, we do have an explicit example of the U.S. Supreme Court directly contradicting the Bible, and thus we had a moral obligation of disobeying a law of the land in order to be true to God's law.
So are you saying if the south were a little kinder to the slaves they would have been in harmony with scripture and no one would have had the right to interfer?
EGW also wrote extensively about the South being in "rebellion" against the principles of the republic. So it would be interesting to see just how closely the current entities in rebellion parallel the Southern slave states.
Another parallel would be, I think, the type of church government those in rebellion are advocating. They want more of a pro-state's rights confederacy than a unified republic, where each "state" can do as it pleases. We know which side of that issue EGW was on.
I think you missed the point.
As long as the North was fighting only for unity, God couldn't bless them. It was only after the declaration to free the slaves was made that God blessed them and they won the war.
The North, was not in unity, they all wanted to get the South back in, but they were divided over the slavery issue, they had to unify on their objective for fighting the war. The North had to unify on their commitment to free the slaves.
The republican principles state that all men are created equal. Slavery was in direct defiance to that claim. But until the North itself unified on that principle they could not win the war.
There are people now who feel denying women ordination is in rebellion to the republican principle of "all people are created equal." It shouldn't be just "all men" are equal.
They are working on getting unified in their unions to fight against what they see as a wrong position in the church.
Author
Topic: Legalese vs. Eternal Realities (Read 24196 times)
