Sybil has brought up the issue of the distinction between the first four and the last six commandments a number of times and perhaps others have as well. Although her summary is correct and clear, I shall recapitulate it here with some supporting arguments.
I and others have pointed out, through several examples, why there are issues in the first section of the law that refer to human relations and human liberty and need to be taken into account in legislation. The result is a conundrum of issues that fail of resolution. Any reasonably intelligent person can create havoc. Where real genius lies is in the courage and insight to cut the Gordian knot, not sit and unravel it.
The Spirit of Prophecy, the real genius, makes the distinction between the first table and the second table of the Decalogue as the distinction between duty to God and duty to humankind, the latter of which is subject to human legislation and the former not. That should be enough for me, just as it is enough that the Spirit of Prophecy makes the dual-distinction between the ceremonial law and the moral law, despite my capacity to multiply categories and cloud the issue.
Thus we have, defined by the Spirit of Prophecy, ceremonial law, which is not binding after Christ, and the moral law, which is binding. We have within the moral law, again defined by the Spirit of Prophecy, the first table of duties to God, which not humanly legislable, and the second table of duties to humankind, which is humanly legislable. There may be areas of difficulty in this, as we have pointed out, but in theory the distinction is clear.
Brother Arnold brings up the very valid issue of human authority in human legislation. Who has the right to bind whom? We can easily tie another Gordian knot here as well. Setting the church aside for the moment, the answer seen by most commentators of Genesis 9 is that under the covenant of Noah, which is binding on all people, humans living in societies have the divinely given duty to legislate and enforce laws to maintain order and safety. This interpretation implies 1) the divine sanction of human legislation and 2) the right and duty of humans to legislate order and safety on the basis of their own reason and perceived needs. As I see it, this interpretation of the covenant of Noah demolishes the Lutheran and Anabaptist concept of the State as evil, but does not conflict with the American Baptist, Adventist, et al. concept of separation of Church and State.
In sum the State has the right and duty to legislate moral laws that further and maintain order and safety, but not the establishment of religion. The establishment of religion is under the jurisdiction of the Church and not the State.
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
We cannot, through freedom of conscience, legislate worship - the "first four" - Babylon will do that through a spurious command that will persecute the saints. The seventh day Sabbath will stand as the very test to define those "of God" and those who are not. To legislate such would require a force of the will and that is contrary to the nature of God. And we cannot throw a moral obligatory blanket over the entire ten precepts as they are distinctly separate in duties to God (not legislated) and the duty to man - (legislated). God does not force worship, but man will before the Second Coming.
The secular mind does not profess to be governed by the commandments of God, especially through the "first four." They will, however, agree that most, if not all, of the "last six" are a guard against complete lawlessness. They are "moral" in their minds and good for society.
On those points Thomas brought up against prohibition, etc., it is our duty to assist society with our involvement ... we must do more of it.