1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidI am not leaping to any such conclusion. galveston75's claim was that "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change." And yet in the examples that people are giving, it seems perfectly clear that the "law" has changed. "Replacing a fulfilled contract with a new contract" involves a "change" in what is in that new contract. Have "God's ways" with regard to endorsing slavery changed? Yes they have. He purportedly endorsed slavery but then later did not endorse it anymore. This is "change".
To leap to the conclusion that the Sovereign Himself changed in any way, is incorrect. Replacing a fulfilled contract with a new contract doesn't require that the Sovereign changed, or even require that the Sovereign changed his mind.
Originally posted by FMFWhere is an evangelical lawyer when you really need one ?🙄
I am not leaping to any such conclusion. galveston75's claim was that "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change." And yet in the examples that people are giving, it seems perfectly clear that the "law" has changed. "Replacing a fulfilled contract with a new contract" involves a "change" in what is in that new contract. Have "God's w ...[text shortened]... dly endorsed slavery but then later did not endorse it anymore. This is "change".
Originally posted by sumydidIndeed, its very clear.
Who cares. A Covenant is a Covenant. It's an arrangement between a Sovereign and the Sovereign's subjects. There is an Old Covenant--which the Sovereign ended (which a Sovereign has every right to do), and a New Covenant which replaced it.
To leap to the conclusion that the Sovereign Himself changed in any way, is incorrect. Replacing a fulfilled cont ...[text shortened]... changed, or even require that the Sovereign changed his mind. That is an open and shut case.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, no one can force you to engage. So if you want to just make personal remarks, it is your prerogative.
I believe FMF was seen with a huge pile of gnats recently strained, he seemed inebriated from quaffing down barrel loads of camels.
Has God's "law" pertaining to slaves and slavery - with regard to the "principles" that govern His followers - "changed" or stayed the same?
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFI not only engaged and provided a basis as to why your assertions are ludicrous, the entire forum has also taken efforts to do so also. Slavery was not a part of the new covenant, it has its basis not ordinances and mandates, but the conscience, unlike the old, which did contain ordinances and mandates with regard to slavery. That is why your question is so stupid. God does not change as has been amply demonstrated to you. The matter is clear to everyone except you because you are a gnat strainer and a camel gulper. You have failed to demonstrate that God has changed, that his laws have changed and completely fail to understand how covenants or agreements work and until you do so, you will always be asking ludicrous questions like this of which we as Christians are counselled to avoid.
Well, no one can force you to engage. So if you want to just make personal remarks, it is your prerogative.
Has God's "law" pertaining to slaves and slavery - with regard to the "principles" that govern His followers - "changed" or stayed the same?
(2 Timothy 2:23) Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing they produce fights
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo God's law clearly changed in so far as what it allowed in terms of slavery.
I not only engaged and provided a basis as to why your assertions are ludicrous, the entire forum has also taken efforts to do so also. Slavery was not a part of the new covenant, it has its basis not ordinances and mandates, but the conscience, unlike the old, which did contain ordinances and mandates with regard to slavery.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't think your constant personal remarks add anything to what you are saying. To me the contradiction between what galveston75 claimed ["God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change"] and the details and examples of changes in "ways", "laws" and "principles" on the part of your version of God that you and others have provided in your efforts to argue that there has been no change, have been numerous and clear. I believe that you are encumbered by inconsistent literature and that you have to make all manner of intellectual contortions to squeeze what it is, into what you want it to sound like.
The matter is clear to everyone except you because you are a gnat strainer and a camel gulper.
Old Covenant changes to New Covenant. Laws change. Principles change. Ways change. Areas of everyday life affected by the law change. Punishments change. Rituals change. Emphasis changes. Law on slavery changes, indeed the "principle" underpinning slavery changes. Laws on diet, farming, clothing etc. all change. I have been furnished with details and examples of all these "changes" by galveston75, robbie, sonship and sumydid, and other changes are already well known and much discussed. But, galveston75's upside down back to front contradictory claim is still there on the table: "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change."
Originally posted by FMFhis statement is sound, you have produced nothing which suggests that it is either erroneous or contradictory, despite your claims.
Old Covenant changes to New Covenant. Laws change. Principles change. Ways change. Areas of everyday life affected by the law change. Punishments change. Rituals change. Emphasis changes. Law on slavery changes, indeed the "principle" underpinning slavery changes. Laws on diet, farming, clothing etc. all change. I have been furnished with details and examples of ...[text shortened]... on the table: "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change."
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOthers will make what they will of my observation.
his statement is sound, you have produced nothing which suggests that it is either erroneous or contradictory, despite your claims.
Here is an example:
Slavery was not a part of the new covenant, it has its basis not ordinances and mandates, but the conscience, unlike the old, which did contain ordinances and mandates with regard to slavery.
The poster who wrote this was describing an example of "change" in God's law. To concede things like this AND insist that there has been no "change" is entirely contradictory. To package it as an 'Old Covenant' and a "New Covenant" not only does NOT disguise the fact that there has been "change", it concedes and draws attention to the fact there has been "change".
In the face of this, galveston75's "God's ways do not change and neither do his laws and principles change" sounds nonsensical.
Originally posted by FMFa choice between remonstrating with you or playing my xbox360 soccer game, mmmmmmmmm
Others will make what they will of my observation.
Here is an example:
[b]Slavery was not a part of the new covenant, it has its basis not ordinances and mandates, but the conscience, unlike the old, which did contain ordinances and mandates with regard to slavery.
The poster who wrote this was describing an example of "change" in God's law. To con ...[text shortened]... o not change and neither do his laws and principles change" sounds nonsensical.[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie, I am late to this conversation
a choice between remonstrating with you or playing my xbox360 soccer game, mmmmmmmmm
but a question springs to mind.
If we are all God's creation and God's children and He is supposed to have equal
love for all of us.
Why then are some of his children to be slaves?
1 edit
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodywho enslaved them johnny, God or men? One only needs to look at the Roman treatment of slaves and compare it with the ordinances in the Bible to see a chasm of a difference, yet you never hear people cracking up about the Romans, do you.
Robbie, I am late to this conversation
but a question springs to mind.
If we are all God's creation and God's children and He is supposed to have equal
love for all of us.
Why then are some of his children to be slaves?