Nashville Statement

[Bill the Cat]

Short response: Sure I can. If I judge "tradition" to be "inconvenient" in that it does an insufficient job of reconciling conflicting portions of Scripture, I freely discard it.

So, you've basically made yourself the arbiter of what scripture says. Got it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "hierarchical" in this context.

Meaning who is ultimately in charge of the Church. Pope, Council, President, Apostle, Bishop, etc. Most have a title for their leader. And the bulk of disagreement is about who is in charge.

In any case, even if the differences are not numerous, the ones that do exist are not trivial.

Sure they are. If we (as denominations) could get past our pride, we'd be able to admit it. We have unity in essentials and liberty in non-essentials.

But that does not seem to be what the context of Gal. 3 is saying.

Sure it is! Gal 3:22 shows that the Law was what "shut us up under sin", or in other words, shows us what sin is and convicts us as guilty of that sin. The Law was never intended to produce righteousness. It was intended to identify sin.

The pedagogue-slave does not (explicitly, at least) "teach us what is holy and what isn't," it taught *something* -- to Israel, not us -- until Jesus came.

The pedagogue slave was a modern reference Paul was using to teach the Galatians that the purpose of the Law was to "carry" the Jews from covenant (Abrahamic) to covenant (Messianic).



So, yes. The pedagogue taught the young children right from wrong, what is acceptable and not, and led them from infanthood to adulthood. Paul's metaphor here was used to show the Galatians that the Torah was used to take the people of God from the promise of Abraham to the fulfillment of that promise in Christ. It showed, like the pedagogue, what God considered right and wrong.

Those under Law were slaves and prisoners, and the Law itself was a special kind of slave. Some were never under it, and no one in Christ is under it.

You, again, misunderstand what "being under it" means. EVERYONE is "under" law until they, by faith, accept God's grace through Christ Jesus. Paul's purpose for writing to the Galatians was to remind them that the Law does not confer justification. He tells them that the purpose of the Law was to instruct them in right and wrong, as a pedagogue would do, not to justify them before God for salvation.

This, IMO, is begging the question.

I think I've supported it pretty well, so it isn't question begging.

Does the Law really, in all its hundreds of details, "define what God considers sin"?

Yes. As Paul said in Romans 3:20 "through the law we become conscious of sin"

Or is "what God considers sin" much more simple -- e.g. refusal to believe in Him, and/or failure to treat others as we wish to be treated?

No. Even the demons believe in Him.

I don't believe that does justice to what He said. In fact, the details of the Torah are very "life-applicable." But He said that "Treat others as you wish to be treated" sums up all of it.

No. He said that loving God and treating others as you wish to be treated sums it up. And how does one show that He "loves God"? By obeying His commands. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him (1 John 3:6)

Now, pretty damn clearly, it does NOT. There are many details that do not fall into that category in any recognizable way.

They ALL fall under "Love God" and "Love each other". Every one of them. Disobeying God in our flesh shows we do not love Him.

But again, IMO the context suggests otherwise. Look at vv. 10-12. The specific sins listed are *all* acts that involve treating others badly -- ill-gotten treasures, cheating with false scales and measures, violence, lying. All are fairly obvious violations of "Love your neighbor as yourself" or Treat others as you wish to be treated" or, in the immediate context, acting with justice, lovingkindness, and humility.

Because others bear the image of God. Acting badly toward others IS hating God. But this does not preclude it also being about hating God directly, such as the idolatrous behavior of Omri and the works of the house of Ahab that are listed in the indictment of Micah in vs 16.

So, ask yourself... under your understanding of the NT, why is idolatry sinful?

No one is suggesting He "conform His justice to our sin," so this is a red herring.

That's absolutely what they are doing. Demanding that God no longer consider homosexual acts sinful.

I'm not sure what relevance your comments even have to what I actually said, unless *maybe* along these lines: You may be thinking that they are two totally distinct Commandments, and that "Love your neighbor as yourself" or "Treat others as you wish to be treated" covers a bunch of stuff, and then every jot and tittle of the hundreds of detailed regulations are included in "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." I do not see them so. I see one Commandment that is two-fold: We love God, and therefore we treat others with love. The wording of Luke suggests the two are one compound Commandment. The wording of Matthew 22 in Greek says the second is "the same as" the first. Paul says that the single Commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" fulfills the whole law. James says that following that Commandment is "doing well" or "doing right."

I did not say there were 2 separate commands that covered different parts of Torah. One can not love God and disobey His commands. One can not hate his brother and claim to love God. One can not openly live a sinful life and claim to love God. And since love is a fruit of the Spirit, we can't properly love our neighbor without first loving God. They are all complementary and hinge on a relationship with God in the first place.

Again, I see this as a red herring and begging the question. I am not starting with *my* "plumb line," I am seeking to find God's actual standard obscured in clashing Scriptures.

If you demand that God considers homosexual activity as not sinful, and look to interpret from there, then you HAVE started with your own plumb.

See above.

See above.

We often hear this, but the context seems to be that it brought to Christ those who once were *under* that Covenant, i.e. Jews.

So, how does God judge someone? What standard did He use to determine someone as sinful?

Maybe. Can you support this?

Romans 3:20, "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."

John 16:7*But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the [c]Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8*And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;

- Both the Father (Hebrews 12:5-9) and Jesus (Revelation 3:19) convict us of sin and the Holy Spirit is a witness for both of them (John 15:26).
- The scriptures themselves convict us of sin (Hebrews 4:12-13) and the Holy Spirit teaches us the Word of God (John 14:26).
- The human conscience is where conviction of sin takes place (John 8:9; Romans 2:15; etc.) and the Holy Spirit speaks to man through his conscience (Romans 9:1; I John 2:20); therefore, when man needs to repent, conviction of the Holy Spirit takes place

In my Word-Faith days, I was taught that "the curse of the Law" was found in Deut. 28, based at least partly on the idea that Gal. 3:10 clearly alludes to Deut. 27 and a bit of Deut. 29. So, supposedly, believers were "redeemed" from all those curses, and only the blessings remained. Since then, I've moved on. I'm sufficiently satisfied that Fee is correct, and that "redeemed from the curse of the Law" means redeemed from living under the Law, and the concomitant necessity to flawlessly perform every little bit of it.

And anyway, the Eph. and Col. passages are sufficiently clear in teaching that every bit of the old Law has been removed.

No. That is not at all what they are teaching. Or are you claiming that idolatry and worshiping Ba'al is fine now because it has been removed?

I agree that Paul teaches (Gal. 3:21) that the Law cannot impart life. However, assuming that when the rabbi says "the one safe path is impossible for us to stay on," he means "it is impossible to perfectly follow the Law," I believe Paul disagrees (Phil. 3:6).

Because you seem to think blameless = obeying all laws. It does not. Paul himself says he sinned in Romans 7:7-8 through his evil desires and covetousness. What he meant by blameless was that he had done all of the necessary sacrifices to be "ritually cleansed". Elisabeth and Zacharias were also said to be blameless concerning the law of God, much in the same way Paul was blameless. However, if they were sinless, then Romans 3:23 is wrong.

See above.

See above. blameless =/= sinless

Red herring and begging the question. What I am "demanding" is a clear and concise answer as to why Jesus said "Treat others as you wish to be treated" sums up the Law and Prophets if it really does not.

So, we see that the whole Law being summed up depends on what subject is being addressed. If duty to fellow man is being stressed, the sum of the Torah and Prophets is "love each other." If duty to God is stressed in the context being discussed, both loving God and loving each other is the sum. But, again, loving each other flows out of loving God, and we can't say we love God if we continue in sin.

Why? What makes written Torah commandments deadly, but not others?

It was the covenant at Sinai. Others are not. As I said, one breaking of a command of Torah broke the entire covenant for that person. Other commandments do not come with such strict requirements.

But look at the whole context of James 2. As I noted previously, he, like Paul, emphasizes "Love your neighbor as yourself." When he cites examples of breaking Commandments, he explicitly cites those that involve wronging another person. All the positive exhortations he gives of "works" that demonstrate genuine faith are deeds of kindness and mercy and equanimity. He never says, "Oh, and don't do gay stuff."

Come on now, it's my private interpretation of QUITE A FEW "particular verses."

I would venture to say that there are more "particular verses" suggesting the removal of all laws and Commandments except "Love your neighbor as yourself" than there are condemning homosexual practice as law-breaking.

[NorrinRadd]

So, you've basically made yourself the arbiter of what scripture says. Got it.

Effectively, yes. I compare various translations, I consider the opinions of commentators (which give data from "tradition," as well as from OT and NT cultural background, etc.); this could be considered roughly similar to the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral," I suppose. But I assign tradition a lower priority than the other data, and ultimately "I" decide what to believe.

Meaning who is ultimately in charge of the Church. Pope, Council, President, Apostle, Bishop, etc. Most have a title for their leader. And the bulk of disagreement is about who is in charge.

Huh. Ok. I guess I care more about doctrine than that stuff. Other than the old-school Protestant "The Pope is the Antichrist!" stuff, I don't recall hearing much about "who is in charge."

Sure they are. If we (as denominations) could get past our pride, we'd be able to admit it. We have unity in essentials and liberty in non-essentials.

Calvinists and Arminians have a lot in common. But I don't see how the differences are either trivial or non-essential.

Sure it is! Gal 3:22 shows that the Law was what "shut us up under sin", or in other words, shows us what sin is and convicts us as guilty of that sin. The Law was never intended to produce righteousness. It was intended to identify sin.



The pedagogue slave was a modern reference Paul was using to teach the Galatians that the purpose of the Law was to "carry" the Jews from covenant (Abrahamic) to covenant (Messianic).



So, yes. The pedagogue taught the young children right from wrong, what is acceptable and not, and led them from infanthood to adulthood. Paul's metaphor here was used to show the Galatians that the Torah was used to take the people of God from the promise of Abraham to the fulfillment of that promise in Christ. It showed, like the pedagogue, what God considered right and wrong.

Ok, I'll tentatively concede that point.

You, again, misunderstand what "being under it" means. EVERYONE is "under" law until they, by faith, accept God's grace through Christ Jesus.

No, only Jews were under the law to which Paul refers here. If there were any Gentiles in the congregation, they were never under that law, because they were never party to the Covenant to which that law belonged.

Paul's purpose for writing to the Galatians was to remind them that the Law does not confer justification. He tells them that the purpose of the Law was to instruct them in right and wrong, as a pedagogue would do, not to justify them before God for salvation.


I think I've supported it pretty well, so it isn't question begging.



Yes. As Paul said in Romans 3:20 "through the law we become conscious of sin"

So (to wield an old saw) wearing clothes of mixed materials was sin. Ok.

No. Even the demons believe in Him.

Said James. But Paul said the only debt we owe is to love one another. And Jesus said that the only "work" we need do to obtain eternal life is "believe."

No. He said that loving God and treating others as you wish to be treated sums it up.

No, in Matt. 7:12, He said nothing about loving God. There he taught that the simple (which of course is not to say "easy") instruction to treat others as we wish to be treated "is" the Law and Prophets.

And how does one show that He "loves God"? By obeying His commands. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him (1 John 3:6)

I tend to take from 3:22 that the "commands" boil down to "THE command," love.

They ALL fall under "Love God" and "Love each other". Every one of them. Disobeying God in our flesh shows we do not love Him.

You parsed my words in a misleading way. What I said in Post 89 (and proved here) was that Jesus said that "Treat others as you wish to be treated" sums up the entire Torah (and the Prophets as well), and then said that many of the details of the Torah do NOT fit neatly under that simple teaching. You imported the part about "Love God" from other passages without justifying doing so, and then argued based on that imported portion.

Because others bear the image of God. Acting badly toward others IS hating God. But this does not preclude it also being about hating God directly, such as the idolatrous behavior of Omri and the works of the house of Ahab that are listed in the indictment of Micah in vs 16.

So, ask yourself... under your understanding of the NT, why is idolatry sinful?

It is incompatible with faith in I AM.

That's absolutely what they are doing. Demanding that God no longer consider homosexual acts sinful.

If we believe the only Commandment is "Love your neighbor as yourself" or "Love one another," then it follows we believe God never did consider homosexual acts necessarily sinful.

I did not say there were 2 separate commands that covered different parts of Torah.

And I did not say that you said that.

To review, this is what I said:

I'm not sure what relevance your comments even have to what I actually said, unless *maybe* along these lines: You may be thinking that they are two totally distinct Commandments, and that "Love your neighbor as yourself" or "Treat others as you wish to be treated" covers a bunch of stuff, and then every jot and tittle of the hundreds of detailed regulations are included in "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." I do not see them so. I see one Commandment that is two-fold: We love God, and therefore we treat others with love. The wording of Luke suggests the two are one compound Commandment. The wording of Matthew 22 in Greek says the second is "the same as" the first. Paul says that the single Commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" fulfills the whole law. James says that following that Commandment is "doing well" or "doing right."

It was my best attempt to understand your POV. I'm still not sure I get it.

One can not love God and disobey His commands. One can not hate his brother and claim to love God. One can not openly live a sinful life and claim to love God. And since love is a fruit of the Spirit, we can't properly love our neighbor without first loving God. They are all complementary and hinge on a relationship with God in the first place.

I agree, with the caveat that I'm not sure anything other than lack of love is actually "sinful."

If you demand that God considers homosexual activity as not sinful, and look to interpret from there, then you HAVE started with your own plumb.

That is not what I'm doing. It is possible our viewpoints are so starkly different that we may never really be able to communicate.

I was saved in early 1980. For at least 20 years, I basically had the understanding that things like "saved by grace, not works" and "love fulfills all the law" were cheery little platitudes of no real substance; what really mattered were all the rules. But more and more, as I read, my focus shifted. If I "demand" anything, it is a way to harmonize Scripture.

See above.

So, how does God judge someone? What standard did He use to determine someone as sinful?

I suppose anyone that has ever treated another person in a way that one would not wish oneself to be treated has sinned.

I'm not sure how that question of yours arose from my observation about Gal. 3:24.

Romans 3:20, "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."

John 16:7*But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the [c]Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8*And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;

- Both the Father (Hebrews 12:5-9) and Jesus (Revelation 3:19) convict us of sin and the Holy Spirit is a witness for both of them (John 15:26).
- The scriptures themselves convict us of sin (Hebrews 4:12-13) and the Holy Spirit teaches us the Word of God (John 14:26).
- The human conscience is where conviction of sin takes place (John 8:9; Romans 2:15; etc.) and the Holy Spirit speaks to man through his conscience (Romans 9:1; I John 2:20); therefore, when man needs to repent, conviction of the Holy Spirit takes place

I think I mostly agree with your points, though I'm not sure of some of your proof-texts.


Yes, I realize Fee's view is probably not standard. Keener and Witherington both seem to disagree. But I'm satisfied with it.

No. That is not at all what they are teaching.

Then their author was an utterly incompetent communicator.

Or are you claiming that idolatry and worshiping Ba'al is fine now because it has been removed?

I would claim precisely that if faith in Christ were not the very (and only) basis for receiving and retaining eternal life. But the NT says it is.

Because you seem to think blameless = obeying all laws. It does not. Paul himself says he sinned in Romans 7:7-8 through his evil desires and covetousness. What he meant by blameless was that he had done all of the necessary sacrifices to be "ritually cleansed". Elisabeth and Zacharias were also said to be blameless concerning the law of God, much in the same way Paul was blameless. However, if they were sinless, then Romans 3:23 is wrong.




See above. blameless =/= sinless






So, we see that the whole Law being summed up depends on what subject is being addressed. If duty to fellow man is being stressed, the sum of the Torah and Prophets is "love each other." If duty to God is stressed in the context being discussed, both loving God and loving each other is the sum. But, again, loving each other flows out of loving God, and we can't say we love God if we continue in sin.

You will not be surprised to learn that I am not convinced. For one thing, in the absence of rites and sacrifices and holy days and such, all gone with the Obsolete Covenant, there is little "duty to God" that remains *except* duty to fellow man. For another, Luke links the "two" Commandments as one, and Matthew says the second is "the same as" the first.

It was the covenant at Sinai. Others are not. As I said, one breaking of a command of Torah broke the entire covenant for that person. Other commandments do not come with such strict requirements.

I'm tired and not going to go back and retrace the conversation to see what this bit is talking about.

Well, that passage isn't really useful for either of us. It makes no mention of "faith." It does not explicitly mention "love," though I would argue that the selfishness and strife evidence lack of love.

Yeah. So?

Then either Matthew was an incompetent quoter, or Paul was an incompetent writer (in Eph. 2 and Col. 2), as was the author of Hebrews (7).