Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Questions about Galatians

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
    If you are stealing from your neighbor, you are a bit messed up from a Christian standpoint. But does it take a Jewish written law to reveal hat to you?

    If you learn from the scripture something new, like it is wrong to steal, that is okay. But that doesn't make you obligated to the Mosaic Law. I'm just addressing the apparent use of the Decalogue in Romans 13 -- not trying to excuse misbehavior.
    Actual, not apparent. There's a story about one Hillel (1st Century BC)

    when asked by a prospective convert to Judaism to teach him the whole while he stood on one leg, replied: “That which is hateful unto you do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole of the Torah, The rest is commentary. Go forth and study.”


    Romans is showing that even the Old Testament had what we would call "the spirit of the law" which extended beyond "the letter of the law, and therefore remains useful for teaching and training in righteousness. Relevant points bolded.

    8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      Actual, not apparent
      I used an ambiguous sense of 'use.' It would have been better to speak of Paul's apparent purpose for referring to the Decalogue. His approach seems to be that of mentioning many commandments in order to say that all you really have to focus on is "lover your neighbor as yourself." To interpret the purpose differently, we would have to suggest that Paul had used unrelated commandments for the purpose of promoting the paying of tribute/taxes.

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      Romans is showing that even the Old Testament had what we would call "the spirit of the law" which extended beyond "the letter of the law, and therefore remains useful for teaching and training in righteousness. Relevant points bolded.

      8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.
      The problem I see with such summary of Rom 13:9-10 is that Paul was essentially doing all he could do to tell people to behave -- yet at the same time he was pretty much avoiding anything that might tempt them to follow Jewish laws. Paul was fine with the gentiles doing the summarized purpose of the law but he was careful not to have them become beholden to the letter of the law. Maybe we have agreement on this.

      The problem with the Jewish laws was that the people became focused on fine detailed legal points (either to obey them or to avoid obeying requirements --while still feeling justified) rather than on simple obedience toward God. It seems that Paul wished to avoid triggering this behavior among gentiles.
      Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-28-2017, 02:14 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by mikewhitney
        If you are stealing from your neighbor, you are a bit messed up from a Christian standpoint. But does it take a Jewish written law to reveal hat to you?

        If you learn from the scripture something new, like it is wrong to steal, that is okay. But that doesn't make you obligated to the Mosaic Law. I'm just addressing the apparent use of the Decalogue in Romans 13 -- not trying to excuse misbehavior.
        Wrong. We know that it was unloving back then, so we know it is unloving now. Stop being so wishy-washy.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
          Wrong. We know that it was unloving back then, so we know it is unloving now. Stop being so wishy-washy.
          sorry. i don't understand what you are saying. Like I had posted earlier, we may not be on the same track as to the meaning of the Jewish law in a Christian context. Are you saying that God is deciding whether you are justified before him based on whether you follow the Jewish laws? Maybe you are saying that the Jewish laws merely provide a guideline how we should act. If you are Lutheran you may simply be saying that the Mosaic Law simply reminds us of our sin and the need to rely on God's grace.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by mikewhitney
            Are you saying that God is deciding whether you are justified before him based on whether you follow the Jewish laws?
            Except for the instance of Jesus, God has never decided that people are justified on the basis of following the Jewish laws.

            Maybe you are saying that the Jewish laws merely provide a guideline how we should act.
            The moral laws, yes.

            If you are Lutheran you may simply be saying that the Mosaic Law simply reminds us of our sin and the need to rely on God's grace.
            The moral laws, yes.

            If God had the command "Love your neighbor" in the OT, and then he expounded numerous different ways that your neighbor should be loved, and then the apostles (after the crucifixion) explicitly repeat the command to "Love your neighbor" in the NT, then clearly all the moral laws are still in force for how we should behave. Further, Jesus often judges his own people with temporal judgments based on whether they are following said laws. That is what James 2, which I quoted above, is talking about.

            Comment


            • #21
              I'll probably end up reiterating things from some other posters in the thread, mainly, I think, "mikewhitney."

              Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
              It is specifically stated (on multiple occasions) that "Love your neighbor as yourself" means obeying the moral laws.

              Romans 13:15
              For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
              First, I don't see a verse 15 in Rom. 13 in any translation I have handy.

              More pertinently, ISTM that your approach is bass-ackwards. The context of Rom. 13, esp. vv. 8-10, clearly (to me) indicates something along the lines of, "If you just follow Lev. 19:18, you don't need to be concerned with any of the rest of the Law."

              This is also the clear (to me) implication of Gal. 5:14.

              Contrary to your assertion, I am not aware of any of the "multiple" places where we are "specifically" told that "Love your neighbor" means adhering to the "moral laws." I'm aware of a *few* places in 1 John that could *imply* that -- places where he says that "love" means "keeping His commandments"; there are at least as many that give the reverse implication, viz. that love itself is THE commandment.

              Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
              He explicitly says, "if there be any other commandment," then it is summarized by the phrase, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Hence, he doesn't have to list all the commandments. The point is that all the non-ceremonial laws are something that Jesus wants us to follow because they all fall under the category of love for neighbor. In Hebrews 9, it specifically describes the obsolete laws as being matters of food and drink, washings, etc. The moral laws are part of the law of Christ.
              I cannot but see that the divisions among moral, ceremonial, and civil are inventions of men, not the clear teaching of Scripture itself.

              1 Corinthians 9:21
              [T]o them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.


              James 2:12
              So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
              The context seems (to me) to indicate that the "law of liberty" may be the "Royal Law," "Love your neighbor as yourself" in v. 8. As with the Pauline examples, I see James saying that in following the Royal Law of Lev. 19:18, one need not concern himself with the specific laws of the Decalogue.

              Paul explicitly said that "Love your neighbor as yourself" fulfills the entirety of the Law, and that love does no harm to a neighbor. In the Synoptics, Jesus said that all the Law and Prophets depended on "Love the LORD with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself." In Matthew, He said that the essence of the entire Law and Prophets is "Treat others as you wish others to treat you." That wording is reminiscent of Paul in Rom. 13, where he says that love does no harm to a neighbor. Even apart from that, I can think of no better way of expressing "Love your neighbor as yourself" in *practical* terms.
              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

              Beige Federalist.

              Nationalist Christian.

              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

              Proud member of the this space left blank community.

              Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

              Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

              Justice for Matthew Perna!

              Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

              Comment


              • #22
                The purpose of the Law was to show we are in need of salvation. Like a mirror where we can see ourselves and see we have dirt on our face.

                Since we are all sinners, all the law can do is condemn. The law also pictured the promised solution (Hebrews 10:1; Colossians 2:16-17).

                1 Timothy 1:9,
                . . . Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. . . .


                Also see Romans 3:19; James 2:10; Deuteronomy 27:26.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  True enough. The old law was made obsolete - but there is a new law which has its own provisions. It is like moving from (say) America to Canada. Murder and such are violations of the law in both, but definitions and penalties aren't quite the same.
                  In Biblical terms, the old law permitted divorce at will - the new law doesn't. The old law had a definition for murder which is not the same as the definition for murder under the new law. etc and so forth.
                  The Old Law, having been fulfilled, no longer is in force.
                  I agree that the old law was made obsolete. The doing away with the Old Covenant implies doing away with the old law.

                  Before the Law of Moses came into existence, certain things were morally wrong. Cain killed Abel and this was wrong. People were doing wicked things during the time of Noah, which is why God brought the flood upon the earth. Does this imply that there was some other law before the Law of Moses? Is this law applicable to us today?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    It is a simple matter of the Old Law having been fulfilled, there is no requirement to continue in the provisions of that law. To paraphrase the analogy in Hebrews - once the obligations imposed under the terms of a mortgage have been fulfilled (the mortgage being paid out) there is no longer an obligation to continue paying the mortgage. To continue and expand on that analogy, however, the Old Mortgage hasn't been paid out by the original mortgagee, but by someone else to whom the original mortgagee is now indebted, with a new and different kind of contract in place. The New Contract (testament) needs to be checked for whatever provisions may apply.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      It is a simple matter of the Old Law having been fulfilled, there is no requirement to continue in the provisions of that law. To paraphrase the analogy in Hebrews - once the obligations imposed under the terms of a mortgage have been fulfilled (the mortgage being paid out) there is no longer an obligation to continue paying the mortgage. To continue and expand on that analogy, however, the Old Mortgage hasn't been paid out by the original mortgagee, but by someone else to whom the original mortgagee is now indebted, with a new and different kind of contract in place. The New Contract (testament) needs to be checked for whatever provisions may apply.
                      However, we should be cautious of reading any of those provisions as new "laws" to which we are obliged.
                      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                      Beige Federalist.

                      Nationalist Christian.

                      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                      Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                      Justice for Matthew Perna!

                      Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                        However, we should be cautious of reading any of those provisions as new "laws" to which we are obliged.
                        "Laws" or "commands," if the latter be preferred, do apply methinks.

                        Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who keeps saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get into the kingdom from heaven, but only the person who keeps doing the will of my Father in heaven.
                        Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you... [Jesus]

                        Acts 26:20 Instead, I first told the people in Damascus and Jerusalem, then all the people in Judea—and after that the gentiles—to repent, turn to God, and perform deeds that are consistent with such repentance. [Paul]

                        Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them

                        James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. ... 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          "Laws" or "commands," if the latter be preferred, do apply methinks.

                          Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who keeps saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get into the kingdom from heaven, but only the person who keeps doing the will of my Father in heaven.
                          Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you... [Jesus]
                          Which Jesus should we follow -- this one, or the one who in John 6 taught that in order to do the work of God and inherit eternal life, the only "work" necessary was faith/belief in Him?

                          Acts 26:20 Instead, I first told the people in Damascus and Jerusalem, then all the people in Judea—and after that the gentiles—to repent, turn to God, and perform deeds that are consistent with such repentance. [Paul]

                          Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them
                          Which Paul should we believe -- the one quoted here, or the one who taught in Romans and Galatians -- and in fact in the previous two verses in Ephesians -- that it is faith, not works, that saves us; and in Gal. 3 that we complete and perfect our walk the way it began -- by faith and the Spirit; and perhaps most pertinently, taught us in 2 Cor. 3 that "the letter kills"?

                          James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. ... 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
                          Do we believe James rather than his brother Jesus as quoted by John in John 6? Do we believe James rather than Paul, who just as explicitly -- and repeatedly -- said that in fact we *are* saved by faith and not works? Or do we, seeing v. 18, perceive James to be saying that works *demonstrate* faith that saves, as opposed to being rules we must follow in order to achieve salvation?

                          I frankly find Scripture inconsistent and ambiguous. I choose the way of grace and liberty, and so the only guideline I make a conscious effort to follow is "Treat others as you wish others to treat you." And even then, I don't understand it as something I "must" do in order to hang on to salvation.
                          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                          Beige Federalist.

                          Nationalist Christian.

                          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                          Justice for Matthew Perna!

                          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            As the Mosaic Law was to lead the Jews to Jesus and thus when he came the Law was not longer needed as Jesus would take over leading in the worship of God so the Law of the Jews was no longer of any use to worship God, it was ended.-Rom. 10:4
                            BU

                            Comment

                            widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                            Working...
                            X