Our attitude to the Law

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Since an attempted dialogue did not come to fruition in aother thread, I'd like to put some questions out here.

Amongst a lot of people (dispensationalists, I presume) who come to this forum, there seems to be what looks like a committed hostility to the Law (i.e. the ethical standards and teaching revealed through Moses). It has been said onnumerous occasions that we now follow the Law of Christ, not the Law of Moses.

To those who hold such antipathy towards the Law, I'd like toput a couple of questions out there to provoke some thoughts.

Firstly, consider this:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength.... And you shall love your neighbour as yourself."

Which law does this summarise? The Law of Christ, or the Law seen in the Old Testament?

Secondly, do you see yourself as part of the New Covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31? If so, why don't you believe you have the Law written on your heart? (realising that in Jer. 31 it is clearly the Torah, the Law given through Moses)


I'd be curious to hear answers to these. There is another thread where you can give long (long long long Looooong) sermons on your favourite texts that seem to you to teach the Law is abolished etc. But here I'd just like to see some responses to these two questions.

Glenn

[dizzle]

Interesting questions.... I am interested in hearing this.

[Sozo]

I am in meetings all day today and, so as you do not think I am avoiding your question, I do have an answer. You will find that it is different than what you may expect regarding the "law of Christ".

Thank you Theonomy, for not bowing out!

[Carl Smuda]

God Law, er, I mean Theonomy,
God Bless you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am an exdispensationalist. But seems to me, IMHO, that a dispensationalist isn't going to consider themselves part of the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 because, them being what they are (YOU know who you are :tongue: ), they wait the literal fulfillment of all those promises to Israel alone, not the Church of the Body, or Bride, or whatever...

The profuse illustrations that come from your corner are amazing and exciting. Too bad you guys still skirt the Sabbath issue. I really do need to read Rushdooney on that one. :read:

Being raised in the Word by this dispyland ilk I didn't know we was all antinomial. And now that I can say that word I'm sure I couldn't define it properly. (twice now I've been told my government issue dictionary definition is bogus :blush: ) But I do recall the teaching that the Law was in abeyance until after that slippery secret rapture.

My NIV study bible has a footnote in Habbakuk that reads: "The Law is a way of life for the redeemed, not a way of salvation for the lost." In the words of our great Apostle to the Gentiles, "Shall we sin so grace may abound?"

:cheers:
sincerely,
Carl

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Carl Smuda:
... a dispensationalist isn't going to consider themselves part of the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 because, them being what they are... they wait the literal fulfillment of all those promises to Israel alone, not the Church of the Body, or Bride, or whatever...

Well, there may still be some who cling to Darby etc, but in the literature, dispensationalists have come to accept thatthere is only one new covenant, not two.

How about you? How would you answer the above questions (just out of curiosity)?

The profuse illustrations that come from your corner are amazing and exciting. Too bad you guys still skirt the Sabbath issue. I really do need to read Rushdooney on that one.

As far as I have been able to tell, most Theonomists comment on the Sabbath. At least, Bahnsen, North and Rushdoony do. They might not agree, but they're certainly not avoiding it.

But I do recall the teaching that the Law was in abeyance until after that slippery secret rapture.

Yes, but I think questions like the ones I've posed atthe start of this thread can potentially lead to a rejection of that view, so I'm hopeful. I just hope they'll indulge me enough to answer. But it's not just dispies I'm interested in. I just want everyone in general to be a little more critical of the sloganised rejection of the Law we have heard so often - although the tide is turning in theology generally, thank God. Hopefully the questions I've raised (and my responses to the answers) might encourage this sort of more critical thinking.


Glenn

[Carl Smuda]

I read 4/5 of Bahnsen's book of Theonomy. Was that his master's thesis? The way he absolutely pounded Matthew 5:17-18 to dust analyzing beyond anything I've ever seen in my entire life, I thought for sure he was a Sabbatarian. So imagine my reaction when he surfed right past that issue. They don't ignore it, but the detail Bahnsen gave to making it perfectly clear what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-18, I was disappointed he missed the logical conclusion. But on the Theonomy website they told me to read a chapter on the Sabbath in a Rushdooney book which I will do. On my commutes back and forth from Carson City I'm listeningn to a Bahnsen class on systematic theology. I am also disappointed how much time he can talk about the knowledge of God without backing it up with scripture.

As for the new covenant? One new covenant by Christ. I like inaugurated eschatology so, I'm thinking, the new covenant of the Christian faith is Hebrews 8, 9, & 10; and therefore Jeremiah 31. Right?

I spent a lot of time trying to finish Bahnsen's book. Because of him I am truly uncomfortable with the flippant remarks "Christ fulfilled the Law so we don't have to!" Ouch! But on the other hand, I still wonder if theonomy might not be tricking Christians out of Justified by faith alone?

sincerely,
Carl

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Carl Smuda:
As for the new covenant? One new covenant by Christ. I like inaugurated eschatology so, I'm thinking, the new covenant of the Christian faith is Hebrews 8, 9, & 10; and therefore Jeremiah 31. Right?

Well I'd say so, yes. This means, however, that we have the written onour hearts, according to Jeremiah 31.

But on the other hand, I still wonder if theonomy might not be tricking Christians out of Justified by faith alone?

Now THAT I genuinely didn't expect to hear. Are you aware of any Theonomist who teaches that obedience to the Law contributes to our justification? I've seen Theonomists emphatically deny that the Law justifies, but I've never seen any say what you've implied. Do you know of any examples?

Glenn

[Carl Smuda]

No. Sorry. I think I do understand that we are not justified by the works of the Law.

The SDA's think Christ won't come back until enough of us are keeping the fourth commandment.

One splinter group that I know of from the Herbert W. Armstrong crowd seem to think that "you're not saved by keeping the Sabbath but you have to keep the Sabbath." Some circular thing.

And theonomists can really articulate but all the reasonings for the eternal validity of Matthew 5:17-18 made by them is flawed when they change the Sabbath to Sunday.

And honestly, I'm not even very concerned about it, it just amazed me how Bahnsen sounded so much like the local Sabbath Keeper's I personally know and then he ends up doing the same thing to change the fourth commandment.

I don't understand. I apologize for suggesting that Theonomists might stray from "justified by faith alone." That was really more aimed at Sabbath Keepers, which I am not one of them.

Am I making some sense to you? I mean when I tell you the case made by Bahnsen for Matthew 5:17-18 is identical to cases I've heard made for keeping the fourth commandment?

respectfully,
Carl

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Yes I realise that many parts of Bahnsen's argument could be used by SDAs.

However, Bahnsen does acknowledge that the application of the Law will not be identical with the Old Testament application. For example, or sin offering is Christ, not a slaughtered animal. Likewise, he thinks that since the Sabbath commemorates the day of redemption, we should keep Sunday now. He believes that the New Testament shows thatthis is what the Apostles did.

That being said, it is also conceivable to be a Theonomist and NOT a Sabbatarian. It may well be that there is some way to see that Sabbath as a ceremonial precept that had specific typological significance.

But as I think you'll agree, all such discussions are for those who are willing to accept the authority of God's Law. I think that the first and greater task is to get people to that point. :smile:

Glenn

[Mikeb]

In anwser to your original post.

The Law of Christ.. although I would argue that there the latter precludes the former. I would call it more the "eyes of Christ" which he explained in the Surmon on the Mount.

and Yes.. the covenant "written on the heart"

Since you want no long exposition do I get a cookie for the anwsers or the buzzer?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Aw go on Mike, have a cookie :smile:

The reason I asked it is that As best I can tell, the New Testament teaches that the command to love summarises the Law of Christ, and it summarises the Old Testament. This suggests to me that the moral teaching of Christ is the same as the Law.

This seems tome to be confirmed by the fact that in the New Covenant, it is the Torah that is written on the heart (as in Jeremiah 31). Givent hese facts, any view that seeks to relegate the standards of the law out of the Christian faith is clearly not right.

Glenn

[Mikeb]

Thanks for the cookie.

Can I argue now, or should I just take my cookie quietly into the corner and enjoy it.

btw.. Interesting question, I think I disagree with your conclusions, but its interesting.

[Hitch]

Fine work Glenn, its nice to know reason and insight exist in NZ.

H

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-21-2003 @ 04:25 PM
Mikeb:
btw.. Interesting question, I think I disagree with your conclusions, but its interesting.

Well then don't be bashful, let's hear your take on the questions and their answers.

Glenn

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Aw Hitch, you're embarassing me!

:cheers:

[GrayPilgrim]

02-20-2003 @ 08:11 AM
Theonomy:

Firstly, consider this:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength.... And you shall love your neighbour as yourself."

Which law does this summarise? The Law of Christ, or the Law seen in the Old Testament?

Secondly, do you see yourself as part of the New Covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31? If so, why don't you believe you have the Law written on your heart? (realising that in Jer. 31 it is clearly the Torah, the Law given through Moses)



Even though I don't hold antipathy to the Law I hope you don't mind an answer from one who loves the OT.

First, it is a summery of the Mosaic Law.

Second, The New Covenant is the same as Jeremiah. Moreover, this only make sense in the context of an ongoing Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants.

As you can see I am into radical continuity, I think both the promises and this stipualtions are still in effect and that a new covenant does not nullify a previous covenant. The problem is a complete misunderstanding of the Mosaic Covenant, IMHO, but I'll leave that discussion for another time and thread so as not to hijack this one).

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Thanks Gray.

I'm inclined to agree. It makes no sense at all to me to say that a new Covenant has come and so all the old standards of right and wrong must be obsolete.

What made me choose the above question is that Wayne Strickland, a leading evangelical promoter of dispensationalism talks freqently of the "Law of Christ" that we are to follow now. This is a Law, says Strickland, “that is fulfilled by loving one’s neighbour.” (Five Views on Law and Gospel, 278) But in admitting this, he has stumbled into the admission that the Law of Christ is identical with the Law of Moses, since the Law of Moses is summarised in exactly the same way. But I know I'm preaching to the converted by telling you this. :smile:

Glenn

[dizzle]

>> I am lurking and reading this one....

[Solly]

Theonomy: But as I think you'll agree, all such discussions are for those who are willing to accept the authority of God's Law. I think that the first and greater task is to get people to that point.

Solly: An admirable objective, Theonomy. But what do you actually mean by the authority of the law. Most people from your quarter would speak of the moral law which we are still to follow. But what is that?
The Ten Commandments?

Exodus Chapter 20
1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. 19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. 20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. 21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

No one would disagree that this is a revelation of God's righteousness. But look at the effect of it.

Heb 12.18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, 19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: 20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: 21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake).

But I might well ask. Do you keep the Sabbath? And if not, where is this pretended respecting of the authority of the Law? There is no NT statement that the Sabbath is laid aside out of the 10C's.

Instead we have this: "That being said, it is also conceivable to be a Theonomist and NOT a Sabbatarian. It may well be that there is some way to see that Sabbath as a ceremonial precept that had specific typological significance." So your own reason is of greater authority than the Law?

But interestingly, whenever one gets down to specifics, there is a retreat to:
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength.... And you shall love your neighbour as yourself."

Which law does this summarise? The Law of Christ, or the Law seen in the Old Testament?

But, how is the sabbath covered by the "Loving God and loving thy neighbour" principle, yet also set aside?
And anyone can sum something up. I cn sum up my job in one line. But I still have to do all the bits required of me. jesus "summed up" the law, but he let no one off even a jot or tittle. And if LG,LYN was all there was, why all the provisions in the NT. So again, on what authority do you decide which bits of the Mosaic law your observe or not?

But then, the Law of Christ is not identical with the law of Moses, because the Law of Moses was a covenant stipulation, and came with sanctions and blessings. it was ministered by angels, written on stone, passed on through Moses, and the people were in terror. It came from God, so would have a similarity both with the "law in the conscience" of every person, as well as the law of Christ. But that does not make the Law of Christ the same as the law of Moses, or the law of the conscience.

All you fall back on is a charicature of other positions, even when such was specifically denied on the other thread which you, in your love for your neighbour, entered with vitriol in full flow, speaking of oceans of error, and falsehood Thread is here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1022).

Theonomy: I'm inclined to agree. It makes no sense at all to me to say that a new Covenant has come and so all the old standards of right and wrong must be obsolete.

Solly: Nobody said the old standards were obsolete in the way you are implying, as if it meant right and wrong have changed places. Nobody said that the summary of the Law used by Christ was neither part of the Mosaic Law, nor of Christ's Law. What was stated is that one does not need to run to Sinai to impose a limited rule upon people, when they should be pointed to Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Word. Should America, now liberated froim control by the British throne, go back to British Law? No, there is a new law; though it reflects aspects of British Law, it is not in itself such, because it does not have the sanctions and punishments of British Law, and does not have the same provenance, since British Law did not clearly postulate the rights of every citizen, and respected heiracrchies in a way US law does not in recognising the inalienable rights of every man.
And you can't get away from the fact that the Law was for Israel, with sanctions and blessings for Israel, as much Matt 24 was for Israel: the names appear in both places.

Perhaps you would address Heb 7.12 and what it means? "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

[Sozo]

Adopt moral law from what ever source you choose, and legislate it to the utmost, but leave God and His righteousness out of the equation.

Righteousness and morality have nothing to do with one another.
Everyone should be moral, but only God can make one righteous.


Loving God & your neighbor are the fulfillment of the law, because before Christ's death and the impartation of life to believers, both were impossible.

The righteous requirements of the Law are fulfilled in us, because we are in Christ, in the Spirit, and no longer "in the flesh".

We love God, because He first loved us! We love our neighbor, because we now have the mystery of the gospel "Christ in you", to share with them! This is our hope, and the hope that we share with our neighbor.
We share in their sufferings, because we too know what it means to have "the first fruits of the Spirit, groaning within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body."

The law is written on our hearts, not as a guide to live by, but so that we may know that apart from Him, we are all the same (guilty) and that "in Him", we are all the same (justified)!

Paul's objective is to remove all reasoning behind any disputes, because we are all "one" in Him, as we were all "one" in the world. We would do no wrong towards ourselves, therefore we are to do no wrong towards our neighbor.

[Carl Smuda]

Thank you Solly. That was great. You did an excellent job describing the problem and confusion I have with Theonomy. It's complicated because, forgive me, it still sounds like we are going in circles. Or, we just came up with a more intellectual way of saying the same thing. It is a grand philosophy me thinks and I respect it.

Because the other side seems to be we DON'T need the Law and then we make a new Law of our own. Well, if we are gonna learn something we should go to the God breathed Law.

I will confess that these discussions put the Fear of God in me.:dunce:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-21-2003 @ 11:21 PM
Solly:
Most people from your quarter would speak of the moral law which we are still to follow. But what is that?
The Ten Commandments?

Well I don't think I've suggested that so far, but yes, that is a widely held view (not just a view that 'theonomists' hold). As I've noted however, there is not universal agreement about the fourth command, since some believe thatthe New Testament gives grounds for seeing the fourth command as typological in nature.

But I might well ask. Do you keep the Sabbath? And if not, where is this pretended respecting of the authority of the Law? There is no NT statement that the Sabbath is laid aside out of the 10C's.

We you might think so. However, you are aware that there are those who do think so, and they have offered biblical reasons for thinking so. I don't claim to have the perfect answer ont he Sabbath question, as I haven't decided on that issue myself.

Instead we have this: "That being said, it is also conceivable to be a Theonomist and NOT a Sabbatarian. It may well be that there is some way to see that Sabbath as a ceremonial precept that had specific typological significance." So your own reason is of greater authority than the Law?

Goodness no! My suggestion was not simply that I personally and of my own wuthority have DECIDED to set the Sabbath command aside. My suggestion, and maybe I could have said more to be clear (although I would be quite surprised to learn that you'd never heard the suggestion before) was that it may be possible that the BIBLE (not just my own reason) gave grounds for seeing the Sabbath as a typological institution.

So again, on what authority do you decide which bits of the Mosaic law your observe or not?

I attempt to decide on a biblical basis. Jesus gave clear grounds for the view that we should presume continuity. Thus, I presume continuity. As I've already noted however, certain applications of the law will change. I earlier gave the example of sacrifices. We have biblical grounds for seeing that Christ is our sacrifice, so we do not need to continue offering sacrifices. But again, the answer is "a biblical basis." If someone wants to claim that any given observance has changed in its application, they will need to prove it from the Scriptures.

But then, the Law of Christ is not identical with the law of Moses, because the Law of Moses was a covenant stipulation, and came with sanctions and blessings. it was ministered by angels, written on stone, passed on through Moses, and the people were in terror. It came from God, so would have a similarity both with the "law in the conscience" of every person, as well as the law of Christ. But that does not make the Law of Christ the same as the law of Moses, or the law of the conscience.

I think you might be hearing extra things that I have not said, perhaps due to your previous experience with others who you might think hold the same view as me. I never claimed that the New covenant is the Mosaic covenant. My point was and is thatthe Law Christ endorsed, and the law the New TEstament calls "the Law of Christ" has the exact same summary as the Mosaic Law. You know this to be true. How do you then avoid the fact that the moral obligations arising from this foundation are the same?

All you fall back on is a charicature of other positions, even when such was specifically denied on the other thread...

How have I falsely portrayed any position. In fact, whose position have I sought to misrepresent?

Nobody said the old standards were obsolete in the way you are implying, as if it meant right and wrong have changed places. Nobody said that the summary of the Law used by Christ was neither part of the Mosaic Law, nor of Christ's Law.
I never claimed that anyone had.

What was stated is that one does not need to run to Sinai to impose a limited rule upon people, when they should be pointed to Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Word...

Run to Sinai? That's a new one to me. I agree that people should be pointed to Christ. the question I'm raising has to do with right and wrong. If the standards of right and wrong taught int he Old Testament remain intact, then Christ will not teach those who come to him to do anything that would violate the Old Testament.

And you can't get away from the fact that the Law was for Israel, with sanctions and blessings for Israel, as much Matt 24 was for Israel: the names appear in both places.

The greatest sanction of all against Israel, or course, was eviction from the land. The interesting thing is, God evicted the nations before Israel for breaking that very same Law (Leviticus 18:24-27).

I'm not denying that God made a covenan only with Israel. My point is that in the Law God gave to His covenant people he expresses, standards of right and wrong. Now, it's good that you aren't claiming that these standards have been destroyed. I just wish you'd make the proper conclusion - therefore when we see such standards int he Law, we should keep them.

Perhaps you would address Heb 7.12 and what it means? "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

Sure, ok. Number 1 rule: establish the context. The context is about the change of priesthood. Now Christ is not from the house of Aaron. moreover, he was a priest in the order of Melchizedek. Now, the law governing the pristhood required that a priest be from the house of Aaron. Therefore, if Christ is of a different priestly order, then he is not a priest of the Mosaic covenant, since the Mosaic Laws governing the Aaronic priesthood clearly do not govern the priesthood of which Christ is a part.

Amd that's what I think it means. I get the impression that you think it means that since there has been a change in the priestly line, the entire Torah is changed. But this is self-evidently not the most obvious meaning given the context, and I think my offering fits the context much better. What say ye?

Glenn

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-22-2003 @ 10:10 AM
Sozo:
Adopt moral law from what ever source you choose,

Not on your life! I'll stick withthe moral Law that is set forth if God's word.

and legislate it to the utmost, but leave God and His righteousness out of the equation.
Righteousness and morality have nothing to do with one another.
Everyone should be moral, but only God can make one righteous.

I'm not talking about obeying the law so that we may be righteous, so in that sense, we agree. That's salvation by works, and like you, I reject it. I'm talking about how we should live, and whether the standards that God gives in His Law are a good reflection of that.

Loving God & your neighbor are the fulfillment of the law, because before Christ's death and the impartation of life to believers, both were impossible.

Well I have to disagree. Those who lived before Christ are saved by Christ and counted as righteous on the same basis as you and me: namely, the saving death of Christ.

The righteous requirements of the Law are fulfilled in us, because we are in Christ, in the Spirit, and no longer "in the flesh".

The real question there is, doesn't "fulfilled in us" mean that the standards of the Law are still good and a proper reflection of right and wrong? After all, that's what I've been talking about.

The law is written on our hearts, not as a guide to live by, but so that we may know that apart from Him, we are all the same (guilty) and that "in Him", we are all the same (justified)!

So we have God's standards written on our heart, but they are not a standard by which we should live? Surely the factthat the Law is written on our hearts implies obedience.

Paul's objective is to remove all reasoning behind any disputes, because we are all "one" in Him, as we were all "one" in the world. We would do no wrong towards ourselves, therefore we are to do no wrong towards our neighbor.

I agree with this, but it clearly doesn't mean that the standards revealed in the Law are still just as real today as they were then.

Glenn

[Sozo]

02-21-2003 @ 08:26 PM
Theonomy:
Not on your life! I'll stick with the moral Law that is set forth if God's word. All of them?

"Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people."

"But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."

"And those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation; and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp."

No more fires in the fireplace on a Saturday, without being stoned.

"If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."

"No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD."

So much for half of America ever going to church again.

What shall we do with all the laws we have that God did not address? Will I be able to drive as fast I want? Can I leave barking dogs out all night? Can I perform a kidney transplant for my neighbors, as long as they both consent?

I'm talking about how we should live, and whether the standards that God gives in His Law are a good reflection of that. Standard? I think God was pretty specific.

I said... Loving God & your neighbor are the fulfillment of the law, because before Christ's death and the impartation of life to believers, both were impossible.

You said...Well I have to disagree. Those who lived before Christ are saved by Christ and counted as righteous on the same basis as you and me: namely, the saving death of Christ. Nobody is saved by the death of Christ, we are saved by His life! (Rom 5:10) Furthermore, no one possessed the ability apart from the life of God to love God. The first commandment was impossible, and God made it that way, so that man would turn to God in total dependency; But instead, man
choose to try and please God through obedience to the Law, when it's purpose was to reveal to us our inabilities!
The real question there is, doesn't "fulfilled in us" mean that the standards of the Law are still good and a proper reflection of right and wrong? After all, that's what I've been talking about.Loving your neighbor as yourself is the standard of "right and wrong". The Law was given to lead us to Christ, and in Him we have the Spirit that makes it possible to know God's love for us, and so that we can now love others.
So we have God's standards written on our heart, but they are not a standard by which we should live? Surely the factthat the Law is written on our hearts implies obedience.No, God's laws our written on our hearts because we have obeyed Christ, and have fulfilled it's requirements. We no longer walk according to the flesh in obedience to God's Law, we walk in the Spirit, in newness of life, not according to the "letter".
...the standards revealed in the Law are still just as real today as they were then.Real in what way? I have already shown that not all of them are applicable, but you are free to apply whatever laws you want, in your home, business, church, city, state, or country, if you are in a position of authority to do so.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Sozo,

Firstly, you continue to repeat your Sabbath example, without interacting withthe comments I alreadymade about the Sabbath. Thus, I cannot consider your arguments about the Sabbath further at this point. They have not changed, and I've commented ont hem already.

Secondly, your line of argument is spurious when you simply quote the law as though it will obviously appear to be an outrageous and unacceptable law. Who are you to speak back to God?

Thirdly, your use of laws specifically related to the cult are irrelevant, unless I have some good grounds to accept the monolithic view of the law that refuses to allow God to distinguish between cultic and moral law. I have no such reasons, so I must reject such arguments.

And Fourthly, you make very quick passing reference to the fact that the "love your neighbour" command sumamrises a law that was meant to lead us to Christ. But this does not change the fact that we are in fact commanded to love our neighbour. In the Old TEtsament, just as in the new, we are commanded to do so. Surely we maynot respond to God, "but I will not obey that command, since it points to Christ, and I am in Christ." The fact remains: If this command summarises the law, and if we are commanded to obey this command, then we are commanded to live by the standards revealed in the Law.

So it seems to me (and perhaps to others) that none of the comments in your last post can effectively show that if we are to live ethically, we will obey the standards set forth in the law. Of course we will fail, and God is gracious and forgiving. But the fact that perfect obedience might not be possible hardly suggests that we should just give up obeying, does it? I'm sure you would not say so.

Glenn

[Sozo]

02-22-2003 @ 06:52 PM
Theonomy:
But the fact that perfect obedience might not be possible hardly suggests that we should just give up obeying, does it? I'm sure you would not say so.

Glenn

I most certainly would. We obey the gospel in relation to God, we obey laws only in relation to people!

Jesus said "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

It amazes me that people actually think that they have the ability to compare themselves to God's standard of perfection, and then to make judgements as to whether or not they are falling short!

God does not relate to man through the flesh.

The Law that you speak of was never intended for, nor was anyone in history, beyond Israel, ever bound to it. It was given to the Jews until the Seed should come.Secondly, your line of argument is spurious when you simply quote the law as though it will obviously appear to be an outrageous and unacceptable law. Who are you to speak back to God? God was totally serious, as am I about His Law, but you ignore it's intent and thus water it down.But this does not change the fact that we are in fact commanded to love our neighbour. In the Old TEtsament, just as in the new, we are commanded to do so. I have fully answered this, you just have a different definition of love, than the bible. Apart from the indwelling life of Christ, love is impossible! Just where within yourself, do you expect to find it?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-23-2003 @ 01:16 PM
Sozo:
We obey the gospel in relation to God, we obey laws only in relation to people!

OK, now we need to see exactly whatyou mean. When you say that we "obey the Gospel," does this involve doing anything?

The Law that you speak of was never intended for, nor was anyone in history, beyond Israel, ever bound to it.

Well if you want to demonstrate this, go ahead.

I have fully answered this, you just have a different definition of love, than the bible.

The Law is part of the Bible. Love is the summary of the Law. therefore when I say that Love entails keeping the law, my definition is the one used in the Bible. THIS you have not addressed. You continue to speak of love as though it did not summarise the Law. YES we must love, and in practice, the law describes love, since love is the summary of the law. Jesus taught this, and that's good enough for me.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-23-2003 @ 01:16 PM
Sozo:
you just have a different definition of love, than the bible.

Sozo, perhaps it would help if you could tell me: Do you think that the definition of love changed betweent he Old Testament and the New?

[Sozo]

02-22-2003 @ 10:22 PM
Theonomy:
OK, now we need to see exactly whatyou mean. When you say that we "obey the Gospel," does this involve doing anything?


Whether you are on either side of the "regeneration" debate, it is accepting the truth regarding God's provision and solution for man's problem. To obey the gospel, is to believe that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.
The Law is part of the Bible. Love is the summary of the Law. therefore when I say that Love entails keeping the law, my definition is the one used in the Bible. THIS you have not addressed. You continue to speak of love as though it did not summarise the Law. YES we must love, and in practice, the law describes love, since love is the summary of the law. Jesus taught this, and that's good enough for me. You have it backwards. You are attempting to define love by keeping the law! Love is the fulfillment of the Law, not the Law is the fulfillment of love. I have already fully explained to you what love is, and how it is manifested in our lives. You are attempting to prove love, through the law. If you are going to therefore love others through the law, then you must keep it perfectly, anything less than perfect, is not love. Are you prepared, as Jesus described, to sell all that you have and give it to the poor? If you are going to love your neighbor through keeping the Law, then you are falling short, unless you have done this.

[Sozo]

02-22-2003 @ 11:18 PM
Theonomy:



Sozo, perhaps it would help if you could tell me: Do you think that the definition of love changed betweent he Old Testament and the New?

No, not one bit! God is love, and the only possible way to love God or your neighbor is to be indwelt by the Spirit of God. Again, apart from God, you have no capacity to love, or be loved.

And behold, one came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." He said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieved; for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. "And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. And when the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?" And looking upon them Jesus said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

I can't believe that after Jesus answered the man's question, and he said that he had "kept" all those things, instead of keeping his mouth shut and being satisfied with Jesus response, he still asked for more things he had to do. In any case, Jesus chose the very thing that Jesus knew he would never do. The purpose of Christ's statements was to show that eternal life is impossible through keeping the commandments, including "loving God" and "loving your neighbor"

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-24-2003 @ 03:05 AM
Sozo:
Whether you are on either side of the "regeneration" debate, it is accepting the truth regarding God's provision and solution for man's problem. To obey the gospel, is to believe that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.

It is important to understand that I'm not talking about soteriology. I'm not talking about "what I must do to be saved." I'm talking about ethics. I'm talking about moral teaching.

You have it backwards. You are attempting to define love by keeping the law! Love is the fulfillment of the Law, not the Law is the fulfillment of love.

I'm just doing what the Bible does. The Bible gives the command to love as the summary of the Law, agreed? Thus, if you love, you will fulfil the Law. So love is the fulfilment of the law. If you LOVE, you will be fulifilling the law, not ignoring it.

Glenn

[Sozo]

02-23-2003 @ 03:09 PM
Theonomy:
It is important to understand that I'm not talking about soteriology. I'm not talking about "what I must do to be saved." I'm talking about ethics. I'm talking about moral teaching. I am well aware of that. You asked me what I meant about obeying the gospel. The problem is, you keep turning "love" into a thing of obedience to the law after salvation.I'm just doing what the Bible does. The Bible gives the command to love as the summary of the Law, agreed? Thus, if you love, you will fulfil the Law. So love is the fulfilment of the law. If you LOVE, you will be fulifilling the law, not ignoring it. No, Jesus fulfilled the Law, and you are in Him, and therefore the Law is fulfilled in you. You are in the love of God, because you are in Christ, and Christ is in God.

"And we have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him."

If you are in Christ, you love God, and your brother. There is no option, you either have the love of God, or you don't.

"By this, love is perfected with us, that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-24-2003 @ 12:24 PM
Sozo:
If you are in Christ, you love God, and your brother. There is no option, you either have the love of God, or you don't.

I don't think I've said anything to deny those two statements.

The issue is, however, what does this mean in practice? Can we just make up our own definition of love and what it entails, or should we follow the Bible's example. The question is: What IS love, in practice? The answer? "Love is the fulfilment of the law." That's how you love, according to the Bible.

Glenn

[Hitch]

02-24-2003 @ 01:31 AM
Theonomy:



I don't think I've said anything to deny those two statements.

The issue is, however, what does this mean in practice? Can we just make up our own definition of love and what it entails, or should we follow the Bible's example. The question is: What IS love, in practice? The answer? "Love is the fulfilment of the law." That's how you love, according to the Bible.

Glenn Exactly there is no either /or situation here.

H

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Alright! Let's resurrect an old thread! (or at least I'm bumping it so you can all see it again...)

[bar Jonah]

Who was it that raised your ire to begin with? Who was this that has some kind of "hostility" toward the law? I'm curious. That could help in understanding the context of your inquiry...

As to your two initial questions:

Firstly, consider this:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength.... And you shall love your neighbour as yourself."

Which law does this summarise? The Law of Christ, or the Law seen in the Old Testament?
Both.

Secondly, do you see yourself as part of the New Covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31? If so, why don't you believe you have the Law written on your heart? (realising that in Jer. 31 it is clearly the Torah, the Law given through Moses)
The New Covenant? Certainly not. I am in the Body of Christ, which is unprophesied, a mystery not revealed before Paul, unsearchable. The New Covenant was for Israel. She is set aside temporarily, at this time. I am not in Israel's covenant. Circumcision, for example, is an everlasting covenant between God and Israel. And yet Paul makes it quite plain that it is not for us. We are the Uncircumcision.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Who was it that raised your ire to begin with? Who was this that has some kind of "hostility" toward the law? I'm curious. That could help in understanding the context of your inquiry...[/quote[Usually they are dispensationalists. Good examples are Thomas Ice and Wayne House, but I've met many.
[quote]Both.Well I'm glad that we agre there. A lot of people try to say that actually there are two radically different laws, namely that of Christ, and that of God, who was the God of Israel. Funny how they are summarised in exactly the same way.
The New Covenant? Certainly not. I am in the Body of Christ, which is unprophesied, a mystery not revealed before Paul, unsearchable. The New Covenant was for Israel. She is set aside temporarily, at this time. I am not in Israel's covenant. Circumcision, for example, is an everlasting covenant between God and Israel. And yet Paul makes it quite plain that it is not for us. We are the Uncircumcision.The Corinthians Christians were part of the New Covenant, yet they were not Jewish (See Paul's comments in 1 Cor 11 where the New Covenant meal was to be practiced by the Corinthians, where the cup of the New Covenant was taken, or in 2 Corinthians 3:6 where he calls Christians ministers of a New Covenant). In the Epistle of grace - Galatians, Paul taught Christians that there are two covenants represented by Hagar and Sarah, and that we are not of the old covenant but the New (Gal. 4:24-31). The writer of Hebrews considered himself a recipient of the New Covenant (Hebrews 9 is an obvious one, as is Hebrews 12:24 where we are all included). So if you're not included in the New Covenant you're in serious trouble. Fortunately, brother, you are included with us in the New Coenant, the covenant made in Christ's blood shed for the remission of sins.

No sooner have I resurrected this thread, it goes off topic! Ah well....

[betzerg]

Since an attempted dialogue did not come to fruition in aother thread, I'd like to put some questions out here.

Amongst a lot of people (dispensationalists, I presume) who come to this forum, there seems to be what looks like a committed hostility to the Law (i.e. the ethical standards and teaching revealed through Moses). It has been said onnumerous occasions that we now follow the Law of Christ, not the Law of Moses.

To those who hold such antipathy towards the Law, I'd like toput a couple of questions out there to provoke some thoughts.

Firstly, consider this:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength.... And you shall love your neighbour as yourself."

Which law does this summarise? The Law of Christ, or the Law seen in the Old Testament?

Secondly, do you see yourself as part of the New Covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31? If so, why don't you believe you have the Law written on your heart? (realising that in Jer. 31 it is clearly the Torah, the Law given through Moses)


I'd be curious to hear answers to these. There is another thread where you can give long (long long long Looooong) sermons on your favourite texts that seem to you to teach the Law is abolished etc. But here I'd just like to see some responses to these two questions.

Glenn

83 percent of the words of YESHUA were directly from the Torah or from the rabbi's of the day. He didn't come to change anything...just to make it fuller...more complete...understandable. To say that there is difference between the "laws of G-d" and the "laws of Christ" is to negate the very words that were spoken "I ONLY do and say the things I hear my father say".

YES we are still to keep sabbath...maybe not in a JEWISH way if you are not a jew...(with sabbath candle lighting and barukahs)...but G-d asks us to REMEMBER and KEEP the sabbath.

Matthew 5:17 states that until heaven and earth pass away, not one yud or vav willl pass from the law.

It's a pretty scary thing to say outright "we dont have to follow the laws of G-d anymore". Sh"aul did not say this. HE called the law holy right and good.

As for "Loving the L-rd your G-d with all your heart"...that is the very core of the first five commandments. These tell us what loving G-d will look like.

And the rest summarize what loving our neighbor will look like.

Yeshua is the "word" made flesh according to John 1:1. NOt the greek rendering of "word"..but the TORAH made flesh. So when we ask YESHUA "into our heart" we are asking for G-d to instill his laws, His Torah, in our hearts. This looks like the jer. 31;31 covenantal promise. But we have to remember that it is made with Judah...not gentiles.

So, honestly...I ask the same question. Shaul quotes a time when Israel will return again to G-d thru Messiah and "alll Israel will be saved". Is this the covenant of Jer. 31:31?

Shalom,

BETZER


As for the "circular thinking" commit. The problem with christian thought is that it is a linear greek kind of thinking process, while "hebrew" thought is more "block thinking". This often looks circular to a greek thinker. The issue is this: A person is not righteous just because he keeps the sabbath...but a righteous person will keep the sabbath. We are not justified in the eyes of G-d by keeping the law...but we are required to follow the laws.

It is this: "how do we know that we Love G-d, if we keep His commandments..abd they are not a burden for us to keep". (james)

Does keeping the commandments make us love G-d, no, but if we Love G-d we keep HIS commandments.

Shalom,

BETZER