| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11611 Registered: 12-2003  |
Well-said, Martin. Your post exactly summarizes what I understand from studying Romans. I know, Dennis, that your viewpoint is shaped by "covenant theology", but the fact that covenant theology has been around since the Reformation doesn't necessarily make it accurate. If I read only the Bible and know nothing of covenant theology, I would not come up with covenant theology. The New Testament is actually very, very clear about the role of Law. The Ten Commandments are not "God's moral law". As Martin wrote a few days ago, God's moral law cannot be reduced to a mere "ten words". "The Ten" were given for a very specific purpose to a specific people for a specific time (Gal. 3) and were literally the very words of the old covenant (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 29:1). God's moral law is part of His actual divine attributes. We submit ourselves to His moral law when we surrender our law-keeping and our theology and our sin and our analysis to Him and read only His word. I have HUGE respect for the Reformers. I believe God gave them to the church and the world. But none of them had all their theology straight any more than any of us does. One more thing...this sentence seems a bit random to me and bears no resemblance to anything I've read on this forum:
While there are undoubtedly people who ignore God's word and simply seek spiritual experiences and power, I do not see any evidence of that sort of attitude here. Being born again puts the Holy Spirit literally into our spirits and gives us life and the mind of Christ. But this "mind of Christ" is uneducated and uninformed unless it is consistently trained by Scripture. Truth is not in our heads; it's in the Word of God. We cannot understand Scripture without being born again; we cannot know God's will without being born again and studying Scripture. The two are inseparable, and learning to live by the Spirit NEVER negates submitting to every word of Scripture. In fact, we will really have no idea HOW to submit to Scripture apart from submitting our mind to the Holy Spirit's teaching of His own word. And studying Scripture will reveal that the Holy Spirit is the One who makes Scripture come alive, who teaches us all things, and who convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement. Moreover, Scripture reveals that we are not to quench the Spirit—and we quench Him when we refuse to live in the new covenant but cling to vestiges of the old. We cannot put new wine into old wineskins. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 6599 Registered: 9-2006  |
Well said Martin and Colleen. The question is deadly serious, literally. Martin, I know exactly what you are saying. About thirty some years ago I set out to be 'good'. I started one Sunday to obey the letter of the law, and man, did I ever get a wake up! I found out I was totally corrupt! I found out how really bad I was that week, the harder I tried the worse I became! I saw every corruptible thing that I did, thought, said, implicated, you name it! Even as a borned again Christian, had had the gifts of the Spirit operate through me, I was totally corrupt, useless. It only took me less than a week to send me back to my knees, back to prayer, and depending upon the Holy Spirit of God for my very existence, otherwise I was doomed. I have seen a teaching trying to creep in here, that is so deadly,diabolical, and disgusting like I have not seen in all my years as a saved person. And not only that, but keeps insisting, steadily pecking away, trying to undermine what is being learned by those who would be free on this forum. And you wonder why I spurn it? No matter how much we yearn, the flesh will war against us. There are people here who are trying to come out of a lifetime of bondage. I just cannot imagine what a life time of that is like, when only a week of it darned near done me in. I just cannot fathom what four years would do to a person. I only got one thing to say to that, Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Might I suggest anyone who still feels in bondage? Read Romans 8:1 thru 17 ten times a day if you have to, and don't let this man pull you back into bondage. River | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 2101 Registered: 4-2000  |
Colleen, Since NINE of the Ten Commandments are restated several times in the NT, does this thereby make these NT moral declaratives immoral, obsolete, or abrogated? Please give me at least one example where a moral law is actually immoral and/or useless as a guide to Christian living. Though the believer's works do not merit salvation and always have something imperfect about them (Rom. 7:13-20; Gal. 5:17), in their character as expressions of the love and fidelity that faith calls forth they are the basis on which God promises rewards in heaven (Phil. 3:12-14;2 Tim. 4:7-8). For God thus to reward us according to our works is his gracious crowning of his own gracious gifts. As Spurgeon aptly declared, "The grace that will not change your life will not save your soul." Dennis Fischer | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 743 Registered: 8-2008 |
Since a "moral law" cannot, by definition, be "immoral," you have asked Colleen to do what is intrinsically impossible. If she were to show you a law that is unprofitable for a Christian to follow (and Paul names several such laws in Galatians 4 and Colossians 2-3), then your reply would have to be that such laws are not moral laws. But if they are not moral laws, then that means it was morally acceptable for Israel and Judah to break them during the time of the prophets. But their decision to break such laws was one of the reasons God brought His judgment on them and sent them away to captivity as He had previously promised to do in the Torah. This is why the Torah cannot be broken into "moral, ceremonial, and civil" components. If one is under the jurisdiction of a Divine commandment, one is morally obligated to perform that commandment. And if one knew that refusing to obey certain allegedly "ceremonial" aspects of the Torah would cause God's wrath to break out upon one's family, friends, and one's entire nation, then it seems it would be morally far worse to break that command than it would be to murder only one person. The concept of splitting the Torah into "moral, civil, and ceremonial" laws is a creation of man 3000 years after the Torah was given, and there is not a single shred of evidence in the Bible that either God or the Israelites who received the Law ever viewed it in such terms. | ||
| Christo Registered user Username: Christo Post Number: 234 Registered: 2-2008 |
The law never made anyone perfect, for the simple reason that the law has no ability to convict. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. The reason this is so is because human nature, has a self justification modus operandi, that will blind anyone to their state of sin. By human standards certain sins can feel quite harmless, except to the one that is hurt by that sin. Sin can be acts of omission, not helping another, when you truly could have. Only the Spirit could even reveal this to you. People will even use Christ's law of love to justify their sin, and will call in their own mind, a certain sin, as only an expression of their love for another person. By human standards sin can appear to be quite subtle, but in comparison to the glory of God, they are grievous.The treachery of law keeping, can be evidenced by the levels of obvious sin in churches everywhere, ( high divorce rates for example) because the Gospel is so often presented as behavior modification in sermons all across the land, and one should all ready know they are no damn good, cause the Spirit has been telling them that, and the preacher should have nothing to add. When you know you are no damn good, it makes it possible to ask for forgiveness, and be forgiven, but also allows you to forgive others. Only God can reveal that, the law never can. You see, repentance in the new testament, ultimately means to change your thinking, to realize you are a sinner, to realize you are no damn good, that God is holy, and we are not, to realize we have so much to be forgiven for, and that we have received so much forgiveness,we have now received the atonement with God through Christ Jesus. To realize there is nothing to boast about, except your faith in Jesus, and what he has done for you. I met an adventist preacher who claimed to have not sinned in over four years, and all I could think was, " What a self, and satan deluded lier ." He arrived at this conclusion by so called law keeping. Chris | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 2102 Registered: 4-2000 |
Bskillet, Are you saying that the judicial, ritual, and civil laws for the nation of Israel, are really moral laws? Moreover, are you saying that NOT wearing a garment of mixed fabric is a MORAL law for all believers throughout redemptive history? Are you further saying that the NINE commandments from the Decalogue that are restated many times in the NT are merely shadows or pictures pointing forward to the Cross? Clearly, the Jews were smart enough to know the difference between moral, judicial, civil, and ceremonial laws. Not all of the 613 laws of the Torah carried the same weight, importance, and purpose. Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on August 27, 2010) | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 166 Registered: 9-2006 |
The four years I mentioned above are the marvelous, frightening period of my life since I have been born again. Before the Gospel and the Spirit convicted me, I was much more comfortable about my intellectual knowledge of ethics and law. I was a good person. Now that I'm alive I can see my flesh, that clinging corpse that Paul describes, with increasing horror. I must flee to Christ, desperately and often where there is comfort and clear thinking. I think that is what Paul was saying in Romans 7. When we attempt to live by knowledge of the law, it is easy to make ourselves think we are making "progress" and doing God's will. When challenged, we want to defend our actions and protect that precious moral progress, and all our blood sweat and tears. Alive in Christ and dead to the law, there is no "progress" to protect. Here is a case in point. Lately I have been so focused on study, work, and this forum, that I have neglected family and self-care. Last night, my wife confronted me about it. I argued with her but I knew she was right. After a few minutes of reflection I came to a full confession that I had been neglecting her, our son, and my sleep as well. Before, I would have vigorously defended my honor with some complex rationalization, and perhaps thrown in some superficial accomodation to get her off my back. Sometimes I still do. But last night I realized, "I am your shield and your very great reward. After you repent, I will still be." It was not some law or rule that convicted me last night. It was trusting a Person, who revealed Himself clearly when He reminded me that I belong to Him. That's where I stay, and from there I learn what is required of me. I spend a lot of time in study of His word, not to know rules, but to know Him. Was I antinomian last night because I did't seek guidance through the law? What laws did I need to consult to make me a better husband and father? Mature love can't be captured by rules and regulations. Martin C | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 745 Registered: 8-2008 |
No, because the believer is not under the Old Covenant's jurisdiction. If you have been ritually circumcised and brought under the Old Covenant's jurisdiction, then it is immoral to not wear mixed clothing. If you promised as an Old Covenant adherent to keep every single one of the 613 commands, then it is immoral to go back on your vow. But if you have not been ritually circumcised, or have been redeemed from circmcumcision like Paul was, then you are morally free to wear mixed clothing. Why did you make the jump to "all believers throughout redemptive history," when not all believers throughout redemptive history were brought under the Old Covenant agreement, and thus not all believers were subject to its requirements? Are you denying that Jesus was the only one who has ever kept these nine commandments, and thus is only one who could fulfill the Old Covenant's requirements? Moreover, are you saying that the only reason it is wrong to murder is that the Decalogue says not to? Was it okay to murder before the Decalogue was given? A statement without any support given. Moreover, your statement also implies that only stupid people do not believe in such distinctions. True, but that does not mean that we have any Biblical justification for arbitrarily dividing them into man-made categories that the Bible does not state. Do you believe that it was morally acceptable for the Israelites to violate commands that you deem to be only "ceremonial"? Also, if violating one of the "ceremonial" commands would cause God's wrath to come upon my entire nation, wouldn't an Israelite now be morally obligated to keep such a command? (Message edited by bskillet on August 27, 2010) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 2103 Registered: 4-2000 |
Bskillet, Thank you for your response. It is my impression, from reading your comments, that it is not possible to know God's revealed will for our lives today (due to an innate inability to rightfully distinguish sacrificial laws from the obligatory righteous standards of a holy God). By the way, moral (ethical) laws existed long before being given in written form at Sinai (e.g., murder was prohibited in the days of Cain and Noah as well). Since it is clear that the 613 laws of the Torah do not all have the same weight, importance, and purpose, how would you suggest to appropriately decipher them? Obviously, they can't all be categorized into merely one segment alone (like making them all ceremonial or ritual in nature, etc.). The Ten Commandments functioned first as a part of the constitutional law of a nation; in Jesus' teaching they became the ethic of the kingdom of God, adding substance and direction to the "first and greatest commandment," that we love God with the totality of our being (Matt. 22:37-38). The commandments as such are not the basis of salvation; rather, to those who have found salvation in the gospel of Jesus Christ, they are a guide toward that fulness of life in which love for God is given rich expression. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 746 Registered: 8-2008 |
Not at all. Rather, what you seem to be saying is that God's revealed will for us can be found ONLY in the Old Covenant Law. The New Testament contains not only ethical guidance but also directs and teaches the believer to submit to the indwelling Holy Spirit. In addition, the New Testament is the guide to the Old, and gives us a proper hermeneutic for understanding the Old Covenant. So sacrificial laws were unrighteous? Paul called the entire Torah "Holy, just, and good." This included all 613 commandments. What you are suggesting, it seems, is that what we today call sacrificial and civil laws were amoral. This is not something the Bible agrees with. Worship, for instance, is usually performed in some form of ceremony, so we could call it ceremonial. But we know that worship is also ethical. As Paul says in Romans 1, the foundation of all man's sin is his refusal to "glorify Him as God or show gratitude" (Rom. 1:21). For Israel this ethical demand to worship God was put into application through what we today call "ceremonial" laws. These were God's prescribed form of worship for OT Israel, and until the Cross He would accept nothing other. In fact, when one reads the prophets one finds that the beginning of all of Israel's immoral actions was traced to abandonement of the so-called "ceremonial" form of worship in favor of the worship of other gods and the use of other ceremonies. I disagree to some extent with this interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus would quote one of the commandments in the Law, saying, "You have heard," and then contrast it with something new "But I say." Covenant Theology claims Jesus was quoting a distortion from the Pharisees, but the fact is He directly quoted a command from the Torah, and there is no teaching from Rabbis in His day that would demonstrate that He was quoting from them rather than from the Torah itself. In fact, more often then not we find that the rabbinical literature of His day agreed with His assessments. Moreover, the Sermon on the Mount did not even mention some members of the Decalogue, and it included commands in the Torah that are not in the 10 C's. Jesus was claiming to be a greater law-giver than Moses, which is re-iterated in Hebrews, where it says that the Law was given through angels, but Jesus' instruction came directly from the mouth of God the Son. Jesus was demonstrating that 1) His authority as law-giver is greater than that of Moses, 2) New Covenant ethical guidance and standards are higher that of the Old, and thus that 3) one cannot completely obey the totality of the Old while remaining obedient to the totality of the New. One cannot put old wine in new wineskins. In my experience, one treads on very thin ice when one says, "I keep the Old Testament Law, but it is not the basis of my righteousness before God." The reason is that the Law does not purport to be simply some way to live fulness of life in Jesus. It says, "Do this, or die." Period. You cannot take it as anything other than the Bible gives it. The NT says its purpose is to drive us to see our condemnation and thus put our faith in Jesus. But the NT also says that once we have faith in Jesus, we are no longer under the written code's jurisdiction (Gal. 3:23-26). When we offer a different interpretation of the Law's meaning to the Christian, we are substituting something other than the direct and literal words of the Bible. Paul tells us in no uncertain terms what our relationship is to the Old Covenant Law. Paul contrasts the written code with the New Covenant in 2 Cor. 3. According to his contract, the Law served in place of the Spirit. In the Old Testament, the Israelites lived by the written code. In the New, we live by the indwelling Spirit. The Law was the means by which the two foundational ethical laws were applied in the daily lives of Israel. Israel, however, was a rebellious house, and the Torah refers to them as such in dozens of places. Their later histories and words of the prophets bear this out. This is why Jesus said that the Law allowed divorce where the New Covenant does not: Israel was hard-hearted. Before being born again, we were "hostile in mind" (Col. 1:21) just like OT Israel. But since we have been born again--because of the death and resurrection of Israel's Messiah--we are indwelt by the Spirit. Thus, our spirits are submitted to Him. The Law, however, was not given to born-again Christians. It was given to rebellious Israelites. While the Old Testament is a faithful witness to the working of God in redemptive history, its primary purpose is to lead the unregenerate to Christ. Paul does indeed a few times quote from commands in the Torah when encouraging or admonishing believers, but he does so to point to a greater underlying reality which the Law reflects. The Christian is not obligated to the written commands of the Old Testament Law. He is, however, a slave to righteousness who recognizes that the OT faithfully informs him about the righteous God he serves. I think where you are missing the point is that you are not differentiating between ethics and the actual covenant situation. It seems to me that you believe that if a former SDA directly quotes from Paul to say that he is no longer under the jurisdiction of the Law, then that former means that he is free to do as he jolly well pleases. This is a straw man. In fact, your argument seems to be the exact same one that Paul's critics used against him in Galatia. I'm sure you are familiar with his response in Galatians 5. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 2104 Registered: 4-2000 |
Bskillet, Many thanks for your comments. If two people agree on everything only one is thinking (smile). Just five further questions to get a better understanding of your position: (1) Are the nine moral commandments from the Decalogue (plus many other ethical directives sprinkled throughout the Torah), that are reiterated many times in the NT, somehow now abrogated, obsolete, or irrelevant for Christian living? (2) Should the Christian place his complete trust in OT ethics found reiterated throughout the NT? (3) Is the OT canon somehow inferior and dependent upon NT inspiration if one should only interpret the OT through the lens of the NT? (4) Does the Holy Spirit now actively oppose, contradict, or differ with God's revealed will for us found throughout sacred Scripture? (5) Should the Christian embrace or seek any relevant, spiritual comfort or counsel from the OT canon? Oh yes, don't forget to review my list of basic antinomianisms that are alive and well in some religious circles today. It has been my studied observation that various former Adventists react negatively to Christian standards as an overreaction to their past exposure to legalism. Consequently, the legalistic elements of Seventh-day Adventism continue to adversely affect many formers. Tragically, some even insist upon being completey finished with Christianity and prefer atheism and agnosticism instead. They can't bear the thought of ever being burned again. Dudley Canright, Adventism's most notable heretic, found this to be true even in his day. Indeed, this is what Adventism does to many people. I hear the cries of their heart on a continual basis in my online chaplaincy. Dennis Fischer | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 6601 Registered: 9-2006 |
Quote: Oh yes, don't forget to review my list of basic antinomianisms that are alive and well in some religious circles today. All accept his of course.  | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1366 Registered: 7-2007 |
Dennis; is a person to rely on THEMSELVES to keep those nine commandments repeated in the New Covenant (New Testament) or is a person to rely on God? I realize that you know that a person is saved by grace and not by following rules. I think you're trying to say how to live victoriously as a Christian AFTER being saved. I really liked how Martin explained it earlier! (Especially post #165 and also #166) | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 6602 Registered: 9-2006 |
We look to the whole Bible for knowledge, not just a set of Ten Commandments. The bible inexorably begins pointing to the coming savior from the very beginning, and continues to do so throughout the old Testament, Jesus stands and reads the words and then declares, “This day is this fulfilled in your ears, Luke 4:21. Jesus indicates that flesh and blood has not revealed to Peter who he is, but the Father, Matthew 16:17 the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit are one. And in John 14:16 Jesus declares that no one comes to the father accept by him. Since the Holy Spirit is God, Jesus is God and there is only one God, then we are lawless if we constantly look to God for guidance day and night? Isn’t that what this Guy said when he said, “Spirit-centered antinomianism puts such trust in the Holy Spirit's inward prompting as to deny any need to be taught by the law how to live.” Spirit centeredness is Lawlessness? He calls a person a lawless person because of being Spirit centered? A babbler? And since Holy Spirit is God? Then I gladly join the ranks of the lawless, because it is the Holy Spirits prompting that brings me constantly back to scripture for comfort, for guidance, for truth revealed in him. What Jesus said in John 14:16 is still as true today as it was then, no man comes to the father accept by him, and by his stripes we are healed, forgiven, and given the Holy Spirit as our guarantee. Not only has his Spirit been given to me, but I have been baptized in his Spirit, with accompanying evidence of speak in tongues, and afterwards then used in most of the gifts of the Spirit, and with the gift of prophecy right here on this form as a comfort to Gods children, and I will not shirk of shrink back if and when he calls upon me again. And there are others, formers, who have been baptized in the precious Holy Spirit, who have told me, River, yes, I see now. Like the ones who advanced out of the old testament living, saw the Blood stained cross of Jesus, and declared, HALEUJAH! Haleujah JESUS, GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST! How do I know pretty much what they exclaimed, whether in their hearts or aloud? Because I visited that same blood stained cross, had my sins covered! And I am not ashamed to stand on this forum with my brothers and sisters, and cry Abba father with them. When I visited that blood stained cross, my lips began to stammer, and I was baptized by the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is that same Jesus! There is not three Gods, there is one God, and he is the same God that slew the animals to cover Adams nakedness, and he covered my nakedness with a robe of white for I had nothing but rags, he reached down and picked me up, and I will ever look to him for morality, or anything else I might ever need. What seems bad that comes at me I receive as from his hand, I am helplessly and hopelessly lost without him ,and this worlds goods cannot satisfy. When this mans world of false theology falls in, then let him ask for the saints of God who depend upon the promptings of the Holy Ghost come and pray for him. River | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11614 Registered: 12-2003 |
The underlying problem here is that covenant theology does not actually accept the literal words describing the old covenant and the new covenant. Covenant theology makes God's covenants with people the central point of Scripture, whereas the Bible makes Jesus the Sacrifice the central point of Scripture. Of course God keeps His covenant with humanity. But the phenomenon of "covenant" is the structure used to shape God's revelation of Himself and to provide ways humanity could be intimate with Him. The old covenant pointed to Jesus in every respect...and if we can't accept the plain meanings of the words of Scripture about this point, we end up in a similar place to that from which we came: rationalizing what Scripture means. God IS morality. He is the personification, the essence, and the Source of it. The Law is not God, nor is God subject to His own transcribed law. God IS the law. Several years ago, someone I knew wrote a 27-page litany of complaints against me and sent it to people, without my knowledge, who I respected very much. I also received a copy of this document (true story). As I read through it with my emotions mounting, I discovered that the document was FULL of supposed quotes and statements I had made. I recognized some of the things this document claimed I said. I had, indeed, said them...but NOT in the arrangement and context represented in the document. In fact, the author of the document had done such a thorough "cut and paste" job on my words that the document presented me stating exactly the opposite of what I had said--while using my own words taken out of context to indict me. This example is analogous to taking the Ten Commandments out of the Mosaic Covenant of which they were the literal "words of the covenant" and superimposing them onto the New Covenant by arguing that nine of them have been reiterated in the New. Wrong! The Ten Commandments are the Ten Commandments, and they are the Words of the [old] covenant. The rules for godly living listed in the New Testament are not in the context of "do this and live; break this and die". Rather, the words of the New Testament are in the context of Jesus' finished work, the new birth, and learning to live by the Spirit. the NT is a completely new and different document from the Mosaic Covenant, and one cannot transfer the words of the Mosaic covenant to the New Covenant just because the words of the two sound the same. To do so is like saying my name, Colleen, has the same connotation it has when used as a common noun, colleen, by an Irish person referring to a young girl. In fact, my name signifies ME; small case "colleen" simply means "girl". We cannot insist they are interchangeable because they are the same word. Context is everything. All 613 laws of the old covenant were moral laws for Israel because God demanded them. None of those 613 laws are our laws. We have a new law—the actual LAW Himself living in us and teaching us the truth and meaning of His Word. The argument that we are making nine of the laws immoral is a straw-man argument. It is not real. The issue of "covenant" is the real issue here...and the new covenant is exactly what the New Testament describes it as. Christ is the end of the law for those who believe (Romans 10). Colleen | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1293 Registered: 3-2009 |
I like that, Colleen. Hec | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 748 Registered: 8-2008 |
The issue isn't whether individual mandates are abrogated, obsolete, or irrelevant. No one here is saying that the Christian is free to commit adultery because the Tables of the Testimony have been fulfilled. The Decalogue constituted the Old Covenant (Ex. 19:5, 31:18, 32:15, 34:28; Deut. 5:2-3). It has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and the born-again Christian is not under its jurisdiction. The book of Hebrews states in no uncertain terms that this covenant is "old" and "obsolete" and has been replaced by a better covenant. This is simply not the same thing as saying one is free to commit adultery. You are using a non sequitir. Simply because we find similarities in instruction, doesn't mean that the Christian is still under the Old Covenant Decalogue. Nor does it follow that the overlap occurs because the Decalogue is the ultimate source. Both can be based on something else, and Jesus tells us what that is in Matt. 22. If I move from England to America, I am no longer under the English law against murder. But I am under the American law. No American judge will find me in violation of the English law, but I will still go to jail. What do you mean by this? If the NT says, "Don't engage in murder" then the Christian shouldn't murder. Both the OT and NT have as their base the two foundational ethical duties of man given by Christ in Matt. 22. Both the OT and the NT have as an ethical base the fact that man is made in God's image (James 3:9). But how these two foundational mandates are applied to a given person's daily life apparently depends on where he stands in redemptive history (pre-Cross versus post-Cross), as well as other circumstances. When circumstances change, or when people change (born-again vs. unregenerate), the method of application of broader principles must change. We have numerous instances of this in every day life. Where I am differing is that I do not believe one can easily slice the Old Covenant Law into "moral, civil, and ceremonial" laws. The approach you appear to be using is, if the command from the OT Law is reiterated in the NT, that means it is one of the "moral" laws. If it is not reiterated, or was fulfilled, or we are otherwise told that we are not required to keep it, then it is not a "moral" law. You then call us antinomian, not because we desire to engage in the works of the flesh, but simply because we do not agree with your hermeneutical approach. This is actually two separate questions, so I will split them up. Inferior in what way? Inferior in whether or not it is inspired? No, the OT is God-breathed just like the NT. Both are given by the Spirit. However, we are told in John 1:16-17, "Indeed, we have all received grace after grace from His fullness, for although the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." What Moses wrote was true. But it wasn't the Truth above all truth that came in Jesus Christ. The entire first two chapters of Hebrews also tell us that what came to us in Jesus Christ is greater than what came to us in the Law and the Prophets, and that obedience to His Gospel is even more important to us than obedience to the Law was for an Israelite. The Law and Prophets were a shadow. Jesus is the reality. This does not mean that the Law and the Prophets are uninspired. Rather, it means that the Spirit chose to hide the Gospel in shadow form in the Old Testament before He chose to fully reveal it in the New. But both Old and New are verbally inspired, innerant, and infallible. Per what I just wrote, the NT authors seem to believe that the Gospel is the ultimate message that was not explicitly stated in the OT. If we read the OT as if the NT has never happened, we will not have the complete story. Nor will we be using God's inspired instruction to us in the NT epistles about how we are to view the OT. The OT was not written to us who are born-again Christians. It was written to those before Christ, to point forward to Him. Much of it took on new meaning to the early church that it didn't have to first century Jews. We must look back upon the OT from the other side of the Cross. If we do not, then we do both the OT and NT a disservice, because we disconnect the OT from the Cross and render it meaningless. No, and no one said He does. What He does make clear to us is that God's commands for us today as born-again Christians, is not the same as God's commands for unregenerate and unbelieving Israelites before Christ. The situation has changed, the people are different, and the time in redemptive history is different. The Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and has faith in God. The OT Israelites were by and large "rebellious" and lacked faith (Heb. 4:2). Simply because God commanded someone, somewhere to do X, does not imply that He also requires me or you today to do X as well, or that He is looking for the same immediate outcome. Furthermore, simply because God commanded someone else long ago to do X, and now commands me to do X, it doesn't mean that His command to me is caused by or dependent upon his command to the other person. Nor does it follow that He is actually looking for the same response from me as from the other. The NT states that God's commands in the Law were intended to increase sin, impute sin, and thus drive the Israelites to see their condemnation and accept Christ. The NT may have instruction for us that is similar to what is found in the Law, but the NT states that there is a different purpose for us: That we, who have already accepted Christ, may grow into the full stature of Christ. Yes. Very much. For instance, in showing that the Christian is not under the Sinaitic Covenant, Paul actually twice (Gal. 3 and Rom. 4) uses the OT to demonstrate that the Christian is instead under the everlasting, or Abrahamic, Covenant, which pre-dated the Sinaitic. The Abrahamic Covenant was one of justification by faith. The Sinaitic was a covenant of works. The Abrahamic was delivered to Abraham in the Old Testament, but was not actually ratified until Jesus' death on the Cross, as is stated in Hebrews. The Christian reads the OT understanding that it points to Christ, and consequently he reads it as a New Covenant Christian who knows that the Messiah has already come, died, and risen. The Old Covenant Jew reads the OT believing that the Messiah hasn't yet come, and without a clear understanding of what the Messiah's purpose or mission was about. The Christian does not read the commands in the Law and say, "How must I perform these?" Instead, he says, "How did these point forward to Christ, and how did Christ fulfill these?" I think where you and I differ is that Covenant Theology cannot accept an Old Testament Jew and a New Testament Christian are under different covenants. CT denies that there is such a thing as a truly New Covenant, and instead says that Jesus is simply the new minister of the Old Mosaic Covenant. So when I say "I am not under the Covenant of Sinai," CT interprets this as saying, "I am an unregenerate heathen who wants to sin with abandon." The problem with this, as I pointed out earlier, is that Paul's explanation of justification by faith hinges on his inspired counsel that the Abrahamic Covenant is distinct from the Mosaic Covenant. If, as CT alleges, they are one and the same, then we all ought to have stayed Adventists, because we're still saved by our works. And that is our point: When we hang on to the Old Covenant, and deny that it was fulfilled Christ and we are under a New Covenant, this has far-reaching consequences. If we accept Paul's literal, plain words in Galatians, Romans, and elsewhere, then the Christian cannot be both under the Sinaitic Covenant and justified by faith. Those coming from a reformed tradition try to hold both of these ideas at the same time. While you and I probably have no disagreement on ethics, and I know we both believe in justification by faith, the fact remains that when the rubber hits the road in the life of the church, one will eventually have to choose between preaching adherence to Sinai or preaching justification. When a former Adventist has difficulty finding a church, it is usually because he finds that many churches have made compromises on the article of justification in order to maintain their adherence to the Sinaitic Covenant. In fact, I have heard sermons with exactly this, demanding that we have to keep the "eternal moral law" of the Ten Commandments in order to approach God, but then making a quick half a second nod about "yeah, we know about justification by faith and all that, but still, we have to do this stuff...." | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1300 Registered: 3-2009 |
Brent, as always, I enjoyed your post. You say:
Where in Hebrews? I thought that the ratification came when Abraham was sleeping and God walked among the halves of the animal. What is that all about them? Hec | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 749 Registered: 8-2008 |
Hec, Heb. 9:15-22, though my interpretation may not be precisely correct. The covenant was not put into effect until Jesus' death. I think it was probably better to say that, though Abraham was justified by faith, the act that enabled him to be justified occurred much later, at the Cross. At that point, the New Covenant was put into effect. In other words, the New Covenant was promised to Abraham, but made effective by Christ. | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 554 Registered: 1-2006  |
Hi friends, sorry for checking in late. Just wanted to share this . . . Christians are not left without a moral rudder! In the new covenant, Christ has given us clear commands, and has promised that His Spirit would guide us into all truth. Jesus said: “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of My own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded Me what to say and how to say it. I know that His command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told Me to say and how to say it. I know that His command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told Me to say.” John 12:48-50 NIV There are many prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament. In Deut. 18, after telling the Israelites that a failed prophecy is the mark of a false prophet (yes, even one unconditional, unfulfilled prophecy makes the false prophet!), God says that when Christ would come He would put His words into the Savior’s mouth, and He would speak God’s commands. Jesus affirmed this when he said “that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of My own accord, but the Father who sent Me commanded Me what to say and how to say it.” At the transfiguration, God said, “This is My Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased. Listen to Him! Matt 17:5 NIV And , of course, Hebrews 1:1-3, where we are told that God has in these last days spoken through Jesus, His Son, through whom He made the worlds. (not an exact quote). Before this we were to hear the law and the prophets (represented by Moses and Elijah) but now the Father is telling us to listen to His Son. The Father had given all things into His hands (John 3:35), so it makes sense that Jesus “taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” Matt 7:29 NIV Jesus left no doubt that He placed His teachings above all those who had taught before Him, even above the 10 commandments. “You have heard that it was said to people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you . . . Matt 5:21-22 NIV Jesus made sure that His listeners understood that He had authority to change the Law of Moses, and did not hesitate to quote directly from the 10 commandments and then to trump them with His own commands. “It was said . . . but I say.” It has been said, . . . but I say. v27-32. This got Jesus into trouble with the Jewish leaders, and it is safe to say that there are religious leaders today who fail to understand the authority with which He spoke. Jesus is putting the authority of His commands, given to Him by the Father, above that of the Ten Commandments and all the Old Testament. He made it clear that the commandments of the old covenant law would be replaced with His own commands. This change in the law was foretold by the prophet Hosea (Hosea 2:11). Colossians 2:16 confirms Hosea’s prophecy. Insistence on keeping the ceremonial laws of the old covenant, including the Sabbath (v. 16) was part of the Colossian heresy. In the great commission, Jesus clearly emphasized that it was His teachings which were to be carried to all the earth, not those of the old covenant, when He said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me . . . go . . . teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” See Matt 28:18-20. So when Jesus says, “If you love Me, keep My commandments,” or if when He says “he that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him.” (John 14, KJV), or when he says, if ye keep My commandments, ye shall abide in My love” or “Ye are My friends, if you do whatsoever I command you” it is clear that Jesus is talking about His own commands, given Him by the Father. The book of Hebrews (1:1,2) tell us that though in the past God spoke to the fathers by the prophets, He now, in these last days, has spoken to us by His Son. The Lord Jesus Christ has the last word, so to speak. Did Jesus, or His apostles, ever command Christians to keep the seventh-day Sabbath? Never. Astonishingly, Ellen White quotes these verses, but removes the reference to God’s Son, and inserts her own writings (which she calls the spirit of prophecy) in the place of Christ--the very definition of the word “antichrist!” This would seem a bit dangerous, eh? It is absolute blasphemy. Luke says our Lord was taken up, “after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles He had chosen.” Acts 1:2 . The commandments of our Lord were given through the Holy Spirit. Paul, writing under the power of the Holy Spirit, identifies the gospel commandments like this: “If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.” The King James puts it: “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” I Cor 14:37 I think that 2 Cor 3:7 has been mentioned above, but it is quite clear on the tables of stone, so I'll not comment on that. Bob |
