Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Nashville Statement

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    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).

    Source: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114&context=sor_fac_pubs


    Longenecker cites Plato's characterization of pedagogues as "not those who are good for nothing else, but men who by age and experience are qualified to serve as both leaders (hëgemonas) and custodians (paidagögous) of children.'" Normally the παιδαγωγός was a male who oversaw a young boy and carried a large responsibility for the boy's upbringing.

    The role of pedagogues probably varied from family to family and culture to culture, but all seem to have had certain responsibilities in common. As a constant companion to the child, the pedagogue escorted the child to and from school, carrying books or other objects, sometimes securing an education for himself in the process. He took the child to athletic practice, oversaw his meals, made him do his homework, protected him from harm, and supervised his social engagements. Twenty-four hours a day the pedagogue accompanied the child in virtually every activity of life. In that close association the pedagogue was responsible for the moral development of the child by disciplining him when he erred and protecting him from harmful influences. Young cites Libanius as saying, "Tor pedagogues are guards . . . of the blossoming youth, they are keepers . . . they are a fortified wall . . . they drive out the undesirable lovers . . . thrusting them away and keeping them out, not allowing them to fraternize . . . with the boys/"20 In another passage Libanius praised a pedagogue as a " 'protective wall . . . and as a prison . . . stronger that the secret chamber of Danae.'"21 A pedagogue was comparable to a shepherd over sheep or to a pilot over a ship. "More importantly, the pedagogue was a moral guide and was to be obeyed. ... so the pedagogue was supposed to assist in the first pace toward virtue."22 The pedagogue was responsible for every aspect of the child's upbringing from correcting grammar and diction to controlling his or her sexual morals. Reciting a pedagogue's advice, Seneca said, "Walk thus and so; eat thus and so, this is the proper conduct for a man and that for a woman; this for a married man and that for a bachelor.'"23

    © Copyright Original Source



    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.
    As much as I respect Fee's treatment of the Holy Spirit, the Law itself has never been seen as a curse. Paul calls it holy in Romans 7:12. The curse applies to "everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law"! No curse is pronounced on those who obey "all the things" the law requires. The curse is not the law—it is clearly the penalty imposed for not keeping the law. THAT is what Jesus redeemed us from. The curse of punishment for breaking one of the laws.

    Galatians 3:13 also is a condensed quote of an Old Testament passage that explains exactly who is cursed and why: "If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance" (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). Those "guilty of a capital offense"—deserving the penalty of death—were hung on a tree after being executed to serve as a public example. They were displayed before all as convicted sinners, cursed for their sins.
    All human beings are guilty of sin. Therefore, we all deserve to be displayed as convicted and "cursed" sinners.

    Jesus Christ, by being crucified and in effect hung on a tree as a condemned criminal, "bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness" (1 Peter 2:24).
    He bore the full curse—the full public disgrace and penalty of death —that we all deserve. This was what Paul meant in Galatians 3:13 when he wrote, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us"


    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.
    Mark 12:28-34
    And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. ...

    Romans 13:8-10
    Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

    Galatians 5:14 ESV
    For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”


    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."

    James deals with false faith later in his book - specifically Ch 4.

    Jas 4
    1 What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you?
    2*You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God.
    3*When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.


    Come on now, it's my private interpretation of QUITE A FEW "particular verses."
    2 Peter 1:20
    Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.

    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.
    Matthew 5
    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

    The law was not abolished.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      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).

      Source: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114&context=sor_fac_pubs


      Longenecker cites Plato's characterization of pedagogues as "not those who are good for nothing else, but men who by age and experience are qualified to serve as both leaders (hëgemonas) and custodians (paidagögous) of children.'" Normally the παιδαγωγός was a male who oversaw a young boy and carried a large responsibility for the boy's upbringing.

      The role of pedagogues probably varied from family to family and culture to culture, but all seem to have had certain responsibilities in common. As a constant companion to the child, the pedagogue escorted the child to and from school, carrying books or other objects, sometimes securing an education for himself in the process. He took the child to athletic practice, oversaw his meals, made him do his homework, protected him from harm, and supervised his social engagements. Twenty-four hours a day the pedagogue accompanied the child in virtually every activity of life. In that close association the pedagogue was responsible for the moral development of the child by disciplining him when he erred and protecting him from harmful influences. Young cites Libanius as saying, "Tor pedagogues are guards . . . of the blossoming youth, they are keepers . . . they are a fortified wall . . . they drive out the undesirable lovers . . . thrusting them away and keeping them out, not allowing them to fraternize . . . with the boys/"20 In another passage Libanius praised a pedagogue as a " 'protective wall . . . and as a prison . . . stronger that the secret chamber of Danae.'"21 A pedagogue was comparable to a shepherd over sheep or to a pilot over a ship. "More importantly, the pedagogue was a moral guide and was to be obeyed. ... so the pedagogue was supposed to assist in the first pace toward virtue."22 The pedagogue was responsible for every aspect of the child's upbringing from correcting grammar and diction to controlling his or her sexual morals. Reciting a pedagogue's advice, Seneca said, "Walk thus and so; eat thus and so, this is the proper conduct for a man and that for a woman; this for a married man and that for a bachelor.'"23

      © Copyright Original Source



      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.


      As much as I respect Fee's treatment of the Holy Spirit, the Law itself has never been seen as a curse. Paul calls it holy in Romans 7:12. The curse applies to "everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law"! No curse is pronounced on those who obey "all the things" the law requires. The curse is not the law—it is clearly the penalty imposed for not keeping the law. THAT is what Jesus redeemed us from. The curse of punishment for breaking one of the laws.

      Galatians 3:13 also is a condensed quote of an Old Testament passage that explains exactly who is cursed and why: "If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance" (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). Those "guilty of a capital offense"—deserving the penalty of death—were hung on a tree after being executed to serve as a public example. They were displayed before all as convicted sinners, cursed for their sins.
      All human beings are guilty of sin. Therefore, we all deserve to be displayed as convicted and "cursed" sinners.

      Jesus Christ, by being crucified and in effect hung on a tree as a condemned criminal, "bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness" (1 Peter 2:24).
      He bore the full curse—the full public disgrace and penalty of death —that we all deserve. This was what Paul meant in Galatians 3:13 when he wrote, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us"
      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




      Mark 12:28-34
      And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. ...

      Romans 13:8-10
      Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

      Galatians 5:14 ESV
      For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”


      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.

      James deals with false faith later in his book - specifically Ch 4.

      Jas 4
      1 What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you?
      2*You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God.
      3*When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
      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.

      2 Peter 1:20
      Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.
      Yeah. So?

      Matthew 5
      17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

      The law was not abolished.
      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).
      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

      Related Threads

      Collapse

      Topics Statistics Last Post
      Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
      35 responses
      166 views
      0 likes
      Last Post Cow Poke  
      Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
      4 responses
      49 views
      0 likes
      Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
      Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
      10 responses
      119 views
      1 like
      Last Post mikewhitney  
      Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
      14 responses
      71 views
      3 likes
      Last Post Cow Poke  
      Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
      13 responses
      59 views
      0 likes
      Last Post Cow Poke  
      Working...
      X