The Law

[Drew]

And the law which is written within us and on our hearts is a covenant between God and Christians so I am not sure why you make such a distinction that the law of Moses was given only to the Jews.

I only make the distinction because there are some who are making the unBiblical assertion that Gentiles are under the Law of Moses. This is clearly not the case. See posts 215, 217, and 264. And there are other arguments as well.

The Law of Moses was given to the Jews and it was retired at the cross. The fact that some its "moral content" is found in the "law written on our heart" does not make it the Law of Moses written on our heart. Its a law of God. And it is written on our hearts. But it is not the Law of Moses.

You and others seem fixed on this idea that if the "content" is the same, it has to be the same law. This is patently not true. Many Canadian laws are basically identical to American laws. But that certainly does not make the Canadian law an American law. Or vice versa.

 

[Drew]

I have decided that there is nothing profitable to be gained from this discussion. We are going around in circles. Let us agree that we hope God will lead us all into the truth about this, whatever it turns out to be.

 

[stovebolts]

No. There are no laws within the Torah (i.e. the Law of Moses) that the Gentiles are under. This is well-established Biblically.

Take a step back Drew. Could we not say that God's law is in line with God's will? Was it God's will that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil? Certainly Adam and Eve were considered Gentiles and clearly they were transgressors. Without law, there is no transgression.

And what of Cain and Able? Did God not say, "If you do what is right, you will be accepted". Who defines what is right and what is wrong? Is it not God, and God alone who decides what is right and what is wrong?

And what of Noah's Flood? Without law there is no basis for justice. Noah was a Gentile as well.

And then there is Sodom and Gomorrah where it was socially acceptable to rape another of the same sex openly without recourse. Certainly they were under God's law.

The Torah is the Law of Moses.

In one sense yes, in another no.

By way of Example, and I see this as pertinent. The "Law of Moses" is directly associated with the Sinai covenant. It did not negate the Covenant with Abraham nor did it negate the Covenant with Noah. Rather, it affirmed those covenants by way of Mosaic authority.

When Paul speaks of the Law of Moses, he is most often speaking covenant language. Sinai to be more specific.

But what I am interested in Drew, is what are these "Laws" that are written within us and on our hearts? Where in the Bible do we find these laws? In other words, what scripture do we have that tells us what these laws are?

 

[stovebolts]

I have decided that there is nothing profitable to be gained from this discussion. We are going around in circles. Let us agree that we hope God will lead us all into the truth about this, whatever it turns out to be.

I would hope that you would not drop the discussion Drew. I am very interested in hearing more from you.

 

[stovebolts]

I only make the distinction because there are some who are making the unBiblical assertion that Gentiles are under the Law of Moses. This is clearly not the case. See posts 215, 217, and 264. And there are other arguments as well.

The Law of Moses was given to the Jews and it was retired at the cross. The fact that some its "moral content" is found in the "law written on our heart" does not make it the Law of Moses written on our heart. Its a law of God. And it is written on our hearts. But it is not the Law of Moses.

You and others seem fixed on this idea that if the "content" is the same, it has to be the same law. This is patently not true. Many Canadian laws are basically identical to American laws. But that certainly does not make the Canadian law an American law. Or vice versa.

Drew,
There are universal truths... Killing is God's law wheather he reveals that law to Canadians or Americans. All truth is God's Truth, which is why Paul could take truth from wherever he found it, gentile or not. Truth is truth.

Now then, I see the Bible as being very clear on the Matter. All will be judged come judgment day. That is clear. However, what we must make clear is that we are also talking about Covenants here. Gentiles did not come into a Covenant with God, especially at Sinai and as such, they are not bound by the 614 laws of Moses. However, they are bound by the 7 universal laws of God which do not need a covenant as they are universal truths.

As Christians, we are under a New Covenant and God's Laws are written within us and on our hearts according to Scripture. They are not burdensome, for Jesus even said that his Yoke was easy. Clearly non-Christians are not under this New Covenant, yet they are still bound by the 7 universal truths and will be judged accordingly.

 

[Stormcrow]

Killing is God's law

The injunction against murder predates the Law of Moses (and the 10 Commandments) by at least a couple thousand years.

For those who say Gentiles (and Christians) are [still] under the Law of Moses, may I offer the following list you might all want to make sure you're performing as required by law:

The Law of Burnt Offerings (Lev. 1)
The Law of Grain Offerings (Lev. 2)
The Law of Peace Offerings (Lev. 3)
The Law of Sin Offerings (Lev. 4)
The Law of Guilt Offerings (Lev. 5)
Laws Governing Clean and Unclean Animals (Lev. 11)
Laws of Motherhood (Lev. 12)
Laws for Leprosy (Lev. 13)
Laws of Cleansing Discharges (Male and Female) (Lev. 15)
Law of Atonement (Lev. 16)
Laws on Immoral Relations (Lev. 18)
Laws on Idolatry (and other, sundry laws) (Lev. 19)
Laws on Human Sacrifice and Mediums (Lev. 20)
Regulations Concerning Priests (Lev. 21)
Laws of Religious Festivals (Lev. 23)
Laws of the Lamp and Bread of the Sanctuary (Lev. 24)
Just Recompense (An "Eye for an Eye") (Lev. 24)
Laws of Sabbatic Years and Jubilee (Lev. 25)
Law of Redemption for the Land and the Poor (Lev. 25)
Blessings of Obedience (Lev. 26)
Curses of Disobedience (Lev. 26)
Rules for Valuations (Lev. 27)

And this list is by no means all-inclusive. Deuteronomy has more.

But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. Romans 2:29 (NASB)

The most righteous Jews that ever lived still had to have their sins atoned for once a year. If they couldn't keep all these laws knowing them, what hope do you who want to bind others up in them again have???

Here's a better way:

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Romans 10:4 (NASB)

And if you're not keeping the law for the sake of righteousness, why keep it at all???

One more thing:

Where's the Temple in Jerusalem where you are all going to practice these laws???

Better get building that Temple: you're all in violation!

 

[stovebolts]

For those who say Gentiles (and Christians) are [still] under the Law of Moses, may I offer the following list you might all want to make sure you're performing as required by law:

I do hope that you're not saying that I'm saying we are under the Law of Moses... :bigfrown

 

[Elijah674]

I do hope that you're not saying that I'm saying we are under the Law of Moses... :bigfrown

Hey, how is the weather up North??

But on a serious note 2 Cor, 4:2 quickly comes to my mind...

[1] Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
[2] But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
[3] But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

--Elijah

 

[stovebolts]

Hey, how is the weather up North??

But on a serious note 2 Cor, 4:2 quickly comes to my mind...

[1] Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
[2] But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
[3] But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

--Elijah

Hello Brother!
It's cold up here! Frost on the trees with a low of about 25. Was in the Bahamas last week and got a sun burn lol! Ironically it hit the 80's up north last week when I was down south. :shocked! OY!

Great verse

 

[Stormcrow]

I do hope that you're not saying that I'm saying we are under the Law of Moses...

I was under the distinct impression that's what some on this thread were arguing.

 

[stovebolts]

I was under the distinct impression that's what some on this thread were arguing.

I understand.

Do you believe that I hold that position?

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

Response to #215

by Jethro Bodine
The law was given to the people of God. If any gentile wanted to join him or herself to the people of God they were required to submit to the same law as the Jew (I'm thinking Leviticus 15, last few verses?).
I am actually very much aware of this and did not appropriately qualify my assertion (simply to save time). So, yes, some Gentiles - specifically those who were incorporated into Jewish society - were subject to the Law of Moses. But this is a "footnote" - the Law of Moses was given to one "group" and one group only - the Jews and the odd Gentile who was otherwise integrated into their society.

It is simply untrue (Biblically) that the Law of Moses was intended to be adopted by all humanity.

I think I disagree with the rest of your post - you seem to think that anyGentile who wanted to be a "member of the family of the one true God" would thereby become subject to the Law of Moses. I suggest this is not supportable Biblically - it would be only those who were physically incorporated into Jewish society who would come under the dictates of the Law of Moses.

Note this text from Romans 4:

For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written, “(Y)A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOUâ€)

Paul is clearly asserting that some believers are not "of the Law". This, and other Pauline material illustrates that one does not come under the Law of Moses by being a child of God - one comes under the Law of Moses by circumstances of birth and or being absorbed into Jewish society. I suggest that it is clear that Paul believes there are Gentiles that are in "the family of God", but who are nevertheless not subject to the Law of Moses.

“It is simply untrue (Biblically) that the Law of Moses was intended to be adopted by all humanity. â€

This is your assertion. To state an assertion that you think is true, doesn’t mean that everyone will agree with it or that it is true in and of itself. Initially I questioned your thesis because the whole bible is based on the Law of Moses. As clearly seen in that everything is understood in relation to it. The Law was explained by the rest of the OT. Something you don’t agree with. Jesus related everything to the Law of necessity since he was a Jew still under that Law. It is claimed he fulfilled the Law, not just part of it. So he kept the dietary and moral aspects of the Law. If we are to be conformed to the image of Christ, are to do less or differently? Is the Law that was for Christ, him being a Jew, less or different for us because we are under a NEW Covenant? Does Hebrews talk about the Tabernacle ritual as no longer to be practiced because that which is perfect has come? Or does it say that all the Law is no longer in effect because that which is perfect has come?

Romans 7:12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
Romans 7:14 ¶ For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.

Hebrews 7:16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.
Hebrews 7:19 (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
(NASB)

Is this just another contraction in the bible that can only be made to go away by interpretation? Or are they complementary views?

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (NASB)

We agree this was written concerning the OT. Isn’t the Law a part of the OT? Or did the NT writers interpret any part of the Law to not be a part of the OT, thereby proving that the Pharisees were right all along, that they didn’t keep the Law and are thus by Jewish standards lawbreakers proving that they couldn’t be what they claimed to be?

Philippians 3:6 ....as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless (NASB)

Was Paul deceived, a braggart, arrogant, or just plain stupid? Or was he telling the truth and realizing that insofar as justification is concerned blameless in relation to the Law simply wasn’t enough?

Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith (KJV, to me a better translation of this verse)

For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written, “(Y)A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOUâ€)

In contrast, to your emphasis on “not only to those who are of the Lawâ€, I emphasize “but also to those who are of the faith of Abrahamâ€. Not just those who are of the Law. Just as it says in,

Romans 3:30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. (NASB)

There is no indication that after faith any would NOT understand the Law according to 2 Tim 3:16.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

Response to #217

On the matter of who is under the Law of Moses:

Romans 3:28-29 demonstrate that Paul believes that only Jews are subject to the Law of Moses. Here is the text:

28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,...

Consider this analogous version of the text, analogous in the sense that the exact same basic argument that Paul is making is applied in another setting:
28 For we maintain that an employee should be promoted in a manner that does not depend onwhether they adhere to rule X, 29 Or is the boss going to promote male employees only? Is he not also the promoter of female employees also? Yes, of female employees also,...

I have been very careful to provide an analogy that is indeed a "proper" analogy. Challenge me on this, if you can.

Now: Do I really need to explain that "rule X" has to be a rule that only applies to men? I should not have to. If the writer expects the reader to believe that women are also subject to rule X (as well as men), he would expect the reader to also believe that women could be promoted by following it! Do you see the point? The point is this: If the writer believes the foregoing about the reader's beliefs, he would not refute his earlier claim about employees being promoted for reasons other than adherence to rule X by telling the reader something the reader already believes to be true if indeed all people are subject to rule X, namely that women can be promoted by obeying it! He would need to provide a different reason as to why employees are not promoted based on their following of rule X.

Obvious conclusion: the writer believes, like his reader, that only men are subject to rule X.

Now, translating back into the original text, Paul must see "the Law" as something that only Jews are subject to. Otherwise, verse 29 makes no sense!

Of course, I would slightly qualify this by saying that there were a small number of Gentiles, who by virtue of their integration into Jewish culture not by virtue of "faith in God" who were also under the Law of Moses. But this is a bit of a footnote, and Paul is basically correct to see the Law of Moses as applicable only to Jews.

“I have been very careful to provide an analogy that is indeed a "proper" analogy. Challenge me on this, if you can.â€

An analogy isn’t the text, and is thus irrelevant as anything other than your own interpretation of the text.


That one is justified apart from the works of the Law, doesn’t in any way imply that one is also sanctified apart from the works of the Law. To be conformed to the image of Christ, one must do what Jesus did, live as Jesus lived. And he lived according to the Law, the whole Law. That only doesn’t make sense if one doesn’t see that all the law was fulfilled by Christ, not just the ceremonial law. The fabricated divisions of the Law by some Christians, which changes according to the one making the determinations, is irrelevant. Some of that Law was fulfilled by what only Christ can do. As revealed in Hebrews. But some of that Law isn’t thus limited. Like the dietary laws in Lev 11, and the laws against homosexual acts in Lev 18 & 20.

And you who emphasizes that we shouldn’t view the bible through the eyes of 21st century Western ideas, should appreciate that the Laws dealing with women are in no way intended to disparage women, as some are wont to claim. They apply because women are women, with different needs than men. Nor are the Leprosy laws intended to do anything other than separate those with the disease from those who don’t have the disease. In order to limit the plague. Today, healing from that disease is by natural means through modern medicine. Yet the bible says that there is a supernatural way to heal that disease through faith. A way that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does indeed exist (or the uncanny power of the believer, depending on one’s point of view). The question in that regard....does a personal God exist or not? As Jesus couldn’t do anything because of a lack of faith among those he could have healed, so also today. How can God work a miracle among those who don’t believe miracles exist? Or believe in the existence of biblical miracles, but believe they don’t exist today due to an understanding of the bible through 21st century Western eyes?

So also, in the view I present, that the Law does not apply to believers today, is a view of the bible as seen through 21st century eyes. Or through a particular Tradition. The Law of Moses is also called the Law of God in Scripture, though that may be under contention as well. I don’t think anyone has responded one way or another to that issue as yet.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

Response to #264

Romans 3:28-29 demonstrates that Paul believes that only Jews are subject to the Law of Moses. Here is the text.

28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,...

See last post.

Like I said, you assert. And to you the assertion is indisputable truth. Nothing wrong with that. I also believe that what I believe is indisputable truth. But what we believe are only personal assertions to those who disagree. Due to the situation today in Christianity, when we assert anything as fact beyond a shadow of a doubt, then it can be perceived as merely arrogance by those who believe in a truth that differs from our own.

In the view I present, Christianity is a man-made religion the chief character of which that proves its nature is denominationalism. There is a difference between the ekklesia in the bible and the churches in Christianity. One is justified by the faith of Christ apart from the Law as it applies to those who are in Christ, not a personal faith in Christ. There is a difference between one who is in Christ and one who is a Christian. Those who are in Christ are Israel today, and thus the Law of Moses given to Israel, is a much for the one who is in Christ as it was for Israel in the past. In the Israel of today, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, as they are all the same in Christ. And as the Law was for Christ, so also is it for the one who is in Christ today. The Law isn’t for those who are in Christ because of some perceived authority of the Law. Rather, because of Jesus Christ who through the Holy Spirit is the life of that Law, the Spirit of life of that Law.

In the view I present, abortion is wrong for the simple reason that a fetus in whatever stage, once the two cells from the male and the female are joined, is not something less than a person, even if only in the sense of potential. The sanctity of life idea is presented most clearly in the OT, especially in the Law. Something rarely recognized by Protestants.

Tattoing is prohibited in the Law, Lev 19:28. There is nothing comparable in the NT. So apart from the Law, tattoos are quite legitimate. Just as legitimate as in any other part of secular society.

Homosexuality is wrong in the OT. Man was created in a complementary fashion. Homosexuals hate the cliché that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. But it is apt nevertheless. And Homosexuality is clearly denounced in Lev 18:22. It could be seen either in the context of the religion of Molech (vs. 21) or in the context of bestial sex (vs. 23). The only thing in question is, why isn’t Lesbianism mentioned here? The same exact thing is mentioned again in Lev 20:13 among other such sexual perversions, without any mention of Molech. Which should be taken into account insofar as what is said in Lev 18:22. The Romans account is within the obvious context of idol worship and it speaks of heterosexuals practicing something against their own nature in that context. And that has nothing whatever to do with the Homosexual lifestyle as understood today. Apart from what is said in the OT, in the Law, There is no reason to condemn the homosexual lifestyle, except through biased interpretation or opinion. What Jesus said was just in agreement with the Law and the creation account. If the Law isn’t for today, then what he said doesn’t apply to them either, since the creation account can and is understood as a metaphor today.

These are assertions that are claimed to be indisputable truth according to that view. But they are not indisputable to those who disagree. So rather than arrogantly say that they should be indisputable truth for everyone and then leave the unbelievers to their fate as unbelievers (fundamentalism in action), We must of necessity believe what we believe is true, while simultaneously being open minded to and tolerant of the beliefs of others. Including the Christians who may or not be in Christ who with honesty practice homosexuality and abortion, or are being tattooed on behalf of the Christian religion, openly. And they do so because they believe the Law of Moses is only for the Jews. Whether any who are more conservative than they think otherwise, whether because of what Christians have believed for centuries as a Tradition or because of how the Bible is understood in itself or historically, there is no valid ground to say anything against them because of a difference in interpretation of history, Tradition, or the bible.

Surely you agree that we all should be open minded to the fact that what is believed as indisputable truth, may in fact not be so indisputable after all. And according to your own idea that the bible is a very complicated book, that there are differences of opinion are inevitable. Which raises the question as to whether any Christian can legitimately present any Christian view, whether historical, Traditional, or biblical, to a non-believer as if it were indisputable truth.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

And while I’m at it, I didn’t post this response to #197. Because I was more interested in the questions I have, than answers I might have to your assertions. Ideas relating to timeless truths in one way or another seems to be a frequent flyer on this thread. Mostly because the assertion that the bible is NOT a book given by God to especially reveal timeless truths.

This idea that the Bible is a collection of timeless truths is so deeply embedded in people's minds that it may be nigh unto impossible for them to let go of this pre-conception.....
Now, to your question: If the Bible is indeed not a compendium of timeless truths, how can it be relevant to us today?
Well, if we see ourselves as participants in the unfolding narrative, then the Bible becomes normative for us to the extent that we properly situate ourselves in the plot and try to bring the narrative forward to its conclusion.
Do you see what I am saying?

Actually, yes. Your view is the common view in my experience. The view is that held by secular educators in relation to Judeo-Christian studies. And by all Christian educators that I’m aware of. Only fundamentalist Protestants dispute that view, and then only in part.

When I initially heard Stormcrow present his view that the bible isn’t written to us in the 21st century, I considered it an extreme view. But now, having had time to reconsider the matter, its not extreme at all. Only that you and Stormcrow have dared to attempt take the idea to its logical conclusion as you see it. And I guess, as per usual, I, from the perspective of one who is a former Christian, see the logical conclusion differently.

It’s a view that’s integral to the thinking of Roman Catholicism. But unlike Protestantism, the narrative doesn’t end with the bible, that is, in the 1st century. It continues to the present day in a continuing narrative from the Fathers of the Church to the latest word from the Pope. Which in my opinion is a more reasonable representation of the Christian narrative view. It is very similar to the narrative view of modern Orthodox Judaism, which has a continuing historical narrative Tradition of its own that extends beyond the narrative of the OT. For if the narrative ends in the first century with the NT, the idea implied by the bible alone scenario as held by the originators of the Protestant rebellion, and continues to be held by those who conservatively continue in that Tradition today; then it indicates that either God is dead or no longer cares, or that the religion ended in the first century and has nothing to do with us in the 21st century. Hence, my question. And your answer is apparently, it depends on the interpretation of each individual to glean that which is desired or considered needed from the bible. At least that’s the view of Stormcrow.

Narratives are linear, having a beginning, middle, and ending. Whatever follows supersedes that which has gone before. The end being the conclusion of the narrative. Like human history as it’s generally perceived today. Especially in the West where human history is seen as upwardly mobile. So either the narrative ends in the first century or it continues to the present day with an ending in the future. Or one could say that the narrative never ends, but continues on into eternity.

I have to say that if I saw the bible as a narrative, I would also see the Christian life as a narrative. Not just individually, but as a community that began historically with the first humans, whether perceived as a first couple created by God as literally described in Genesis, or perceived as a biblical metaphor of the Evolutionist’s idea of origins. If I saw the Christian life as a historical community narrative, I wouldn’t have to go all the way back to the bible to receive what is necessary to live within that narrative today. And I would have to agree that the RCC most closely embodies the idea of narrative within Christianity, and that it is in agreement with the secular idea of narrative. Not Protestantism wherein the narrative stops with the 1st century, nor Eastern Orthodoxy wherein the narrative stops with the 9th century. And rather than be a former Christian today, I would be either a Roman Catholic or an Atheist, depending on whether I personally found the RCC view that includes a literal living god in the narrative, or the secular view that does not, to be more persuasive.

In regard to the idea of progressive revelation, there are two ideas. In the view I present, Scripture is only progressive in the sense of block upon block, each block enhancing the last. The view Protestantism presents is that each block supersedes the next block, replacing the latter blocks as it goes. Particularly when one gets to the NT, which supersedes everything that went before. One could conceivably consider a third alternative, wherein the letter of Revelation supersedes every thing else in Scripture. Which is the practical practice of the Protestant futurists. Or a fourth alternative that revelation continues to the present day, so that the latest revelation or explanation of Scripture supersedes all that has gone before. Which is the practical practice of Roman Catholicism.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

Response to #286

By FC
Makes the commands of God just a little dependent on our own subjectivity, don’t you think?

It's a disputable matter. Disputable matters are subject to the conscience of the believer.

Well, any understanding of the commands of God that are different from what Scripture itself presents through subjective interpretation would automatically be in dispute, in the view that I present.

You hold to a common idea as presented in Christianity. The Law doesn’t apply to Christians. With which Drew agrees. With the exception of the moral law after some fashion. With which Drew disagrees. Basically a compromise position between no law and all law.

The Roman Catholic Church deals with it by saying the Church authoritatively decides what is and what is not for the Church. So that the ten commandments as they interpret them, including the Sabbath law as interpretively changed from the last day of the week to the first day of the week, are for Christians today. But the rest of the Law is not. A more reasonable view in my opinion, than that any individual would replace the Church in that regard.

But in the view I present, any interpretive position, whether Catholic or Protestant, is subjective, and not worth adherence by anyone except those who wish it to have meaning. An in that view, a faith based on subjectivity is about as valid as any other faith based on subjectivity in all of secular society.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

Response to #287

Again, the fact that there is one God over all does not mean that this God is "forced" to give the same set of laws to all people. Your whole line of argument appears to rest on this unsubstantiated assumption.

In the view I present, God isn’t forced into anything he doesn’t want to do. Only that God limits what he does in accordance with his promises to humanity. There is only one God who doesn’t have more than one system of reality or justice. This would be a necessary assumption just to believe that God is God and not a fabrication of man. And the Scripture presents God that way.

It is entirely coherent for God to give the following two sets of Law to Jews and Gentiles:

Law of Moses for Jews = {A,B,C,D,E}
"Universal" Law for Gentiles = {A,B}

Note what I have done. I have granted (and I never denied this in the first place) that some elements of the Law of Moses could also be "in" the universal moral law - in this case elements A and B which could well stand for "moral" laws.

But - and this is the key point - the Gentile is not under the Law of Mosessimply because the two sets of laws contain some of the same elements

That’s not an argument for two sets of laws. It’s an argument for one Law in which some have been granted a stipulation that they don’t have to abide by the whole law. It’s like saying thou shalt not murder is a law, but some receive a stipulation that they can go ahead and murder under certain circumstances. Which is how it is viewed among the nations when a state or a military authority is given free reign to murder according to their own discretion.

I am sorry, but I simply see no reason to assume that there cannot be different sets of laws just because there is one judge.

I sincerely hope you never have to appear before a Judge who has the same idea that you have about law. Because such Judges there are. Much to the chagrin of the honest ones in the Law Enforcement Agencies.

In fact, I suggest your argument eats it own tail. Suppose I used your line of argument to argue as follows:

1. There is one judge (God);
2. Therefore, there cannot be a ceremonial law for Jews only.

You would object: "But the Bible tells us that the ceremonial law is indeed for Jews only- the Bible clearly teaches this".

“Eats its own tail.†LOL Used to have a dog who constantly chased its own tail. Sometimes he would catch it and then settle down and gnaw at it. Not hard or anything. Just playfully. I think he knew how cute that was to watch. Cause he only did that when someone was watching. Anyone who thinks that animals don’t have a soul, and who thinks that dogs don’t have a sense of humour, know nothing about them.

The view I present doesn’t include the idea that the ceremonial law is for the Jews only. Fulfillment in Christ doesn’t imply that any part of the Law is for Jews only. By virtue of being in Christ, the ones who are in Christ, also have the ceremonial law fulfilled in themselves.

In saying this, you expose the error in your argument - you cannot claim that a law (in this case, moral law) is universal precisely because there is one universal judge. If that were really so, there could not be even a ceremoniallaw for Jews only. Do you see the problem now?

I see it, most do not.

Yes: the Bible does teach that the ceremonial law is for Jews only.

That I do not see. Except as a presupposition. To use verses referring to eternal salvation and justification that clearly show it isn’t accomplished by the Law doesn’t imply that the ceremonial law is for the Jews only. In fact the opposite. It shows that in relation to eternal salvation and justification, the ceremonial law is for neither Jew nor Gentile.

Sorry Teach, that’s as far as I got thanks to your extra-curricula assignment (Posts #’s 215, 217, and 264), and my revision of a post for extra points.

FC

 

[Stormcrow]

Do you believe that I hold that position?

Originally Posted by Drew
The Law of Moses is clearly "retired" and "replaced" by the indwelling Spirit, as Paul argues.

Clearly retired? I would say clearly transferred when it comes to the covenant. God's commandments have never been retired.

Drew is correct here and your response leaves the distinct impression that you disagree. If you have since modified your position, please point me to the post wherein you agree with Drew's statement.

 

[stovebolts]

The Law of Moses is clearly "retired" and "replaced" by the indwelling Spirit, as Paul argues.

Clearly retired? I would say clearly transferred when it comes to the covenant. God's commandments have never been retired.

Drew is correct here and your response leaves the distinct impression that you disagree. If you have since modified your position, please point me to the post wherein you agree with Drew's statement.

No. There are no laws within the Torah (i.e. the Law of Moses) that the Gentiles are under. This is well-established Biblically.

Stormcrow,
I can see how you would misunderstand my post. Clearly, Drew sees all of Torah as "The law of Moses". Even the Jews refer to the Torah as "The Law of Moses". However, even the Jews understand the difference between God's commandments and the laws of Moses. For example, Moses recorded Genesis and within Genesis we see many of God's commandments. By Mosaic authority, Genesis is considered "The law of Moses" as it affirms the Laws of God.

Drew would have us believe that all laws within Torah; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are "Laws of Moses" when in reality Torah is a combination of the "laws" of Moses and the "Laws" of God which fall within the authority of Moses while keeping in mind that Moses was the greatest Prophet to ever exist.

Jesus makes this distinction when he heals the Leper and tells him to go to the priest and offer the Sacrifices Moses commanded. Jesus does so again when he is asked why Moses allowed a certificate of Divorce yet the law of Moses does not trump the law of God, for "in the beginning"...

Drew also fails to make a connection between the different covenants and what is expected by those who are bound by each covenant.

Let me ask you, What is the law of God, and what is the law of Moses.

Deuteronomy 6:4-5 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

We see clearly that this law is directed at the recipients of the Covenant at Sinai and not at Gentiles. Are Christians not bound by this same law under the new Covenant and if so, where can we find this in the NT? A simple yes or no would suffice.

Now, is the below law a law of God or of Moses? Why? What offence would this be against God?
Genesis 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

[Drew]

Take a step back Drew. Could we not say that God's law is in line with God's will? Was it God's will that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil? Certainly Adam and Eve were considered Gentiles and clearly they were transgressors. Without law, there is no transgression.

And what of Cain and Able? Did God not say, "If you do what is right, you will be accepted". Who defines what is right and what is wrong? Is it not God, and God alone who decides what is right and what is wrong?

And what of Noah's Flood? Without law there is no basis for justice. Noah was a Gentile as well.

And then there is Sodom and Gomorrah where it was socially acceptable to rape another of the same sex openly without recourse. Certainly they were under God's law.

Well, I am back, at least for now.

Can you understand why it is frustrating when no one actually deals with the detailed arguments I presented in posts 215, 217, and 264? These arguments, I suggest, are solid cases to the effect that Paul sees the Law of Moses as being for Jews only.

Why are people not dealing with the arguments (unless I have missed some post, I believe they are untouched).

I have no issue with what you post above, except to point out that none of these commands were part of the Law of Moses. So I do not see how such observations are relevant to the question of whether the Law of Moses was only for Jews.