| Author | Message | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 794 Registered: 10-2002  |
I wrote this the other night on the 4TG forum, and thought I'd re-post it here for discussion:
| ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 749 Registered: 9-2006  |
Well now the response to this one I have to see. Bout the only this I have to discuss about this is "Hey, we finally agree on something!" Good work Ramone. River | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1310 Registered: 7-2003  |
Well said Ramone. I especially like this:
Chris | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1057 Registered: 4-2000  |
Ramone, Are you saying that all moral laws in the Torah are invalid for Christians because they are appear side by side (all mixed together) with ritual laws? The Sabbath NEVER was a moral law--not even for the Jews. Did this invalidate the Decalogue for the Jews? Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on May 12, 2007) | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 918 Registered: 8-2004  |
They're simply superceded. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1058 Registered: 4-2000 |
The timeless, holy moral laws of God are NEVER superceded--only reiterated and expanded (not abrogated) by Jesus and the Apostles to validate the unity of Scripture on moral expectations. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 222 Registered: 1-2004  |
How about using the terminology of the time under consideration... I have read somewhere that the word "moral" has no real equivalent in the New Testament. Thus, there is no term "moral law" in the New Testament. Or the Old Testament, for that matter. Here's an example from the middle of the second century of having this discussion without using the term "moral law"; "There will be no other God, O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing" (I thus addressed him), "but He who made and disposed all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other (for there is no other), but in Him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. But we do not trust through Moses or through the law; for then we would do the same as yourselves. But now -(for I have read that there shall be a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe, as many as are seeking after the inheritance of God. For the law promulgated on Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this is for all universally. Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law-namely, Christ-has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandment, no ordinance. Have you not read this which Isaiah says: `Hearken unto Me, hearken unto Me, my people; and, ye kings, give ear unto Me: for a law shall go forth from Me, and My judgment shall be for a light to the nations. My righteousness approaches swiftly, and My salvation shall go forth, and nations shall trust in Mine arm? ' And by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: `Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt'). If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for a light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of Him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety. Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed. Jeremiah | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1060 Registered: 4-2000 |
Jeremiah, The law that God gave through Moses had many aspects--e.g., civil, dealing with the legal system of the people that God considered as a state, with courts and penalties; moral, the law of holy living; and religious, the law of the ceremonies and sacrifices. With the law so central to life, it is understandable that the OT should develop a rich legal vocabulary. The first word descriptive of God's law is "testimonies" (Ps. 119:2). In his law the Lord has "testified" regarding himself and his requirements. This self-revelation was given in "teaching" (Ps. 119:1), such as a loving parent would impart. Once given, the teaching is a "word" (Ps. 119:28)to live by, an intelligible body of truth to be pondered and applied. But the Lord's testimony is also imperative, taking the form of "statute," a permanent enactment (Ps. 119:5), "judgment" (Ps. 119:7), "precept" (Ps. 119:4), and "commandment" (Ps. 119:10), applying the law to the details of life. As a whole, God's law is a "way" (Ps. 119:37) or characteristic lifestyle. Importantly, it is not necessary to find exact words like "moral" or "Trinity" in the Bible in order for them to be a reality or absolute truth. The biblical concept of law is nowhere seen more clearly than in the continuance throughout the Bible of the same pillars of true religion: grace and law. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 795 Registered: 10-2002 |
I really like Dale Ratzlaff's "answers" in the last edition (Easter) of Proclamation -- the letter focused on the external, but the New takes things internal. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5820 Registered: 12-2003  |
We're dividing over definitions again...No one is disagreeing over the eternal continuance of total morality. No one is suggesting that the expression of God's moral demands be silenced. What some of us are saying is that today we have a new covenant which, according to Hebrews and Galatians and Romans, fulfills and supercedes the old covenant. Today we express morality within the reality of the new covenant instead of the old covenant. Morality has never changed and will never change, and God's Law has never and will never change. Replacing the obsolete covenant with the new covenant is not immoral or antinomian. It is simply accepting what Jesus has done as defining God's law more fully and accepting HIMSELF as the replacement of the external law. I know that all of us agree that God demands the same things of us all for all time. Definitions are everything. The fact of God's Eternal Law is a fact. Defining God's Law by the Ten Commandments is backwards. The Ten Commandments partially expressed the shape of God's law. We now have a more complete expression. Again, though, to say that the Decalogue is incomplete and replaced by something better demands that a certain view of reality be exanded and changed. We have to see that Jesus Himself is the core of reality and His covenants are merely expressions of His faithfulness. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 796 Registered: 10-2002 |
Very true. I was thinking today about what it means if we say a certain commandment is "timeless"... is it the same as saying it's "eternal"? I remember in Adventism it was said that the Decalogue was the foundation of God's government for all eternity -- in the beginning and even in the new earth. Paul, however, said that the Law was given 430 years after Abraham, meaning that it was not eternal. So it's not the commandments that are timeless, but rather the principles behind the commandments. Going even deeper, it's the principles behind some of the commandments that are timeless. There is the one about honoring parents. In its Decalogue wording, it was not timeless enough because it spoke of the promised land of Canaan, so Paul extracted the greater principle from it and modified it before re-quoting it in Ephesians 5. As it was in the Decalogue, the commandment was dated. The principle behind it, however, was not. Then there is the one about adultery. Remember how the Sadduccees grilled Jesus about marriage in heaven, and He responded by saying that the children of the resurrection are like angels and aren't given in marriage anymore? If this is true, then what becomes of the commandment about adultery after the resurrection?! It passes away with sin. The Decalogue was made to show Israel's sin. The principles that can be extracted from it can still reveal sin, yet they must be generally extracted and applied. And when the end comes, the Law will disappear... it is only eternal if sin is eternal. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 797 Registered: 10-2002 |
I think that Jeremiah made a profound point in saying that the term "moral law" is not recorded in Scripture. It is our own invention. Which does not negate things, but we must recognize that the Decalogue was not given as a document of moral laws. It was given as a covenant document. Most of our trouble and arguments about things come because we have grown up seeing it as a document of morality -- we've removed it from its original biblical context. Once we return the Decalogue to its biblical context (a covenant document), we are free to speak of it just as Paul did without having to worry about sounding immoral. We can talk about moral things from anywhere in Scripture. The "engraving in stone" does not mean its morals were higher or more eternal than others; rather, the stones were engraved because they were the "tablets of the covenant". | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1061 Registered: 4-2000 |
Ramone, If the moral commandments of the Decalogue are so twisted and inaccurate as you claim, why would the basic moral laws of the Ten Commandments be repeatedly reiterated and powerfully proclaimed in the New Testament as the Law of Christ? Dennis Fischer | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 798 Registered: 10-2002 |
Bro. Dennis, No one called anything twisted and inaccurate. The moral commandments of all the Torah are reiterated throughout the NT, but they are done so in a way that goes much deeper, more penetrating, and more thoroughly beyond the externals of the Old Covenant. The moral commands of the Old are proclaimed in the New, but take note, my brother in Jesus, take note that "The Decalogue" is not proclaimed in the New Testament. The only way "the Decalogue" is referenced in the New is as: 1) The ministry of death 2) The ministry of condemnation 3) The letter that kills 4) The tablets of the Old Covenant The reason for this is because "The Decalogue" is the document of the Old Covenant. It is not a fundamental list of moral commands given to all people for them to follow. While it does contain moral commands, the Decalogue ("The Ten Words") are "the tablets of the covenant" and "the words of the covenant". It's a covenant document. Again, the moral commands (and more importantly, the moral principles behind the commands) from all the Torah are re-stated in the New, but "The Decalogue" is not, except as the document of the Old Covenant. I've made this point many times. Somehow, by saying this it is believed that I've called the Decalogue "twisted" and "inaccurate"?? Is it such a bad thing to call it what Scripture calls it -- a covenant? I wonder what you thought about my examples demonstrating the "timelessness" of the Law? What happens to the commandment about "adultery" after there is no more giving in marriage? What happens to the Law after sin is no more? Brother, I mean no insult to the Law or the Decalogue (or to you). Rather, I believe that by accepting Scripture's definition of the Decalogue, we are paying it the highest honor possible. When we shy away from Scripture's definition, I think we may unintentionally dishonor the actuality of what God intended. Not to mention get ourselves a bit confused -- or offended. Blessings in Jesus, Ramone (Message edited by agapetos on May 13, 2007) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1062 Registered: 4-2000 |
Ramone, The fact that the moral directives of the Decalogue were historically-conditioned for the Hebrew people does not impinge upon their application under the Law of Christ. For example, I find absolutely no difficulty in determining the basic morality expressed in the Fifth Commandment. Moral laws are holy and timeless in every age in this world. I am not familiar with the rules in heaven. However, I am certain that heaven is a very orderly place. By the way, the Ten Commandments were a "ministry of death" in the OT as well. Today the teaching of the Law helps control evil in our world, it still terrorizes sinners to fall on their knees, and it remains a "God-breathed" guide for believers. I noticed that you somehow omitted the Apostle Paul's declaration in Romans 7:12: "So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good" (NASB). The Decalogue was a covenant with Israel, and it is not binding as a unit today (same with the entire Torah). Importantly, all the moral laws in the Decalogue as now a part of the Law of Christ. Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on May 13, 2007) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1786 Registered: 10-2004  |
Yes, the entire Law is holy and righteous and good. Of course, that must include the "ceremonial" laws. (I can't imagine anyone claiming that the "ceremonial" laws are unholy, unrighteous, or evil!) That does not mean that the Law is binding on us, however. Just 6 verses earlier, Paul says: "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:6 NIV.) Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on May 13, 2007) | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 757 Registered: 9-2006 |
Thank God for that Jeremy, if the law were binding on us today we would all be in trouble. Look at the part where it says "But now, by dying to what once bound us," that is the part I have trouble with, course I suppose all of you are dead to the world so it's probably just me. River | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 758 Registered: 9-2006 |
Fact is a lot of the churches must be dead to the world or at least asleep in Jesus, if you stuck them with a hat pin they wouldn't move. But if some one yelled "dinner" you would have a sudden mass exodus without any frogs er flys er plagues being involved. My Pastor went to the flower shop to get some flowers for mother's day and he was slogging up and down the isles looking lost so the girl said "What can I do for you? He said he was looking for flowers, the girl said "We have some impatience, and he said no thanks, he already had plenty of that, he just needed some flowers" he wasn't aware that there were flowers called impatience, so this morning at church he said he brought along a load of impatience for all the mother's. It saved my bacon because I forgot to get my wife anything, I took them home to my wife who wasn't there and kissed her and presented them to her. I didn't tell her I didn't even have to leave my seat! I wasn't going to take them and all of a sudden a light came on and I skedadled out there and picked them up on the way out. The Lord provides.  River Psssst! If she walks in here, I will multi task and bring up a spreadsheet. So I brought my wife some impatience but I didn't tell her what they were, she probably thought they were for-get-me-nots. (Message edited by river on May 13, 2007) | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 799 Registered: 10-2002 |
Well, I think Jeremy's post about answers the Romans 7 question. (Thanks, Jeremy!) I think it boils down to our view of "The Decalogue" -- are we seeing it as a moral document or as a covenant document? Which is the Biblical view? If we view it as a moral document, we hold onto verse Romans 7:12 very tightly, and may become upset when people talk of the Decalogue as if it were something other than a great moral document. But if we view it as a covenant document, we read Romans 7 in context and can agree with all of it. Actually, bro. Dennis, this is where I would firmly say that you're wrong. I live in a country the size of California with about half the population of the United States, but with much, much less crime than in America. The same can be said for many godless parts of Europe. Yet in the United States where the Decalogue has been put in plaques, there is much, much crime and trouble. The Decalogue does not terrorize sinners and bring them to their knees, and the ministry of death and condemnation is not utterly necessary for people to see their sin. Jesus said as much in John 16:9-11, and also when He said, "If I am lifted up, I will draw all men unto Myself." It is the Cross that helps us see clearly. Brother, I grew up under the Decalogue all of my life -- under the Old Covenant, the Ministry of Death and Condemnation. And you know what? I rebelled even harder. It never fully convicted me, and it did not draw me to Christ or the cross. Do you know what drew me to Christ? It was His very real presence. It was Him interrupting my life and my personal pain, offering His unconditional love. This whole formula of "the law shows you your sin, then you repent and accept Christ" can work for some, but it is not a standard for everyone, nor is it a necessary "way" in which we all find Christ. When people are living in darkness, you don't get them to run to the light by telling them how dark they are!! You simply turn on the Light, brother! When Christ's love shines in their midst, they see Him, and they also see their sin. Sinners came to Christ while He walked on earth -- they wanted to hang out with Him and He was their friend. But sinners run away from us, the Church! Why is this? We attract only the Religious! Jesus repelled the Religious. I believe one big reason is because we have sold ourselves to the Law. We have preached Law before giving Christ's love. We have given Law, death and condemnation to those who were living in darkness instead of turning on the light. We have said that you must agree with this before we will share the Light. In stark contrast to us is the awesomeness of Christ's blessings from the mount -- given before the obedience. The Law gave blessings as a result of obedience. But Christ blessed and then later talked about obedience. In Christ the blessing comes first. But to us, we think the "way", "method" or "formula" of salvation is to have people fall on their knees to the Law before they accept Christ. Yes, Christ will bring us to repentence. For many it comes before they accept Him, but for many it also comes while or after they accept Him. It is not necessary for everyone to bow to the Law before they know Grace and Truth in Jesus Christ. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1787 Registered: 10-2004 |
We also need to keep in mind that God's Word says: "The Law came in so that the transgression would increase;" (Romans 5:20a NASB.) Jeremy |
