| Author | Message | ||
| Michaelmiller Registered user Username: Michaelmiller Post Number: 148 Registered: 7-2010  |
All, We heard a great sermon on Mat 5:17-20 at church yesterday. Since it crosses paths with so many of the things discussed here, I thought I would share a link to it: http://gracechapel.net/teaching/index.html?p=detail&id=270 Aside from a couple points of caution I thought it was a good sermon. Those points: I'm not sure why the pastor felt it necessary to divide the law into categories when it didn't matter to the points being made in the rest of the sermon (I get a bit nervous about any dividing of the law into categories), and I felt that the exposition of Mat 5:19 and John 14:15 would have better had entole/nomos been compared (even though he ended up at the right conclusion, the path there was a bit weak). Jim - This sermon may help you since it touches on your question of what you do to please God. Michael | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 925 Registered: 2-2008  |
Hey Michael... I'm definitely going to check this out. Thanks for posting the link. vivian | ||
| Dljc Registered user Username: Dljc Post Number: 207 Registered: 7-2010 |
"Aside from a couple points of caution I thought it was a good sermon. Those points: I'm not sure why the pastor felt it necessary to divide the law into categories when it didn't matter to the points being made in the rest of the sermon (I get a bit nervous about any dividing of the law into categories), and I felt that the exposition of Mat 5:19 and John 14:15 would have better had entole/nomos been compared (even though he ended up at the right conclusion, the path there was a bit weak)." Michael, I understand your apprehension when this comes up. Considering what all you all were taught while you were an SDA and all. But the law is divided into three different categories as the Pastor mentions. When you can break them down into categories as Ceremonial, Civil, and Moral law you realize which is which. Meaning what category this particular law is in or that one. It's a matter of keeping them separate from each other and understanding how they work. Knowing that Christ has fulfilled all the law and our righteousness is through Him. Because we have no righteousness of our own, that wouldn't be "self"-motivated. I was reading further in Isaiah 66 today and I went back to the beginning of the chapter, I like how the NKJV puts it. True Worship and False 1 Thus says the LORD: “ Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest? 2 For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist,” Says the LORD. “ But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word. 3 “ He who kills a bull is as if he slays a man; He who sacrifices a lamb, as if he breaks a dog’s neck; He who offers a grain offering, as if he offers swine’s blood; He who burns incense, as if he blesses an idol. Just as they have chosen their own ways, And their soul delights in their abominations, 4 So will I choose their delusions, And bring their fears on them; Because, when I called, no one answered, When I spoke they did not hear; But they did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight.” In those verses we see that God doesn't delight in Ceremonial worship or ritualistic worship. It's our heart that He sees, and that's why Jesus gave us the two Commands in Matthew 22:36-40 that simplifies things for us. Love Him with everything we are, and love our neighbor as we love ourselves. (paraphrased for simplicity) That is as much of the fulfillment of the law as we can do. | ||
| Michaelmiller Registered user Username: Michaelmiller Post Number: 150 Registered: 7-2010 |
Dljc, The nervousness does come from my SDA background. I do realize that dividing the law into types to pick apart how it worked (past tense) has advantages as an analysis tool. So long as it is used as only a tool (and it is made clear that it is a -human- division, not a division that the Bible itself speaks of), then that is ok. As you pointed out, the pastor did say that all of it (all three of his divisions) was fulfilled. Good! The caution flags went up from a combination of two things: 1) My background - SDAs build an entire theology out of division of the law. SDAs have to do this to build a moral element (10C specifically) which is then remapped into God's everlasting law and character... a law that even the angels were given and keep. This is a misapplication of a simple tool without any notice of the human element involved. Anything that resembles it makes my "extra-biblical" flag go up immediately. 2) Context - It was completely unnecessary to include a division within a sermon which was making the point that everything is fulfilled. He did it so early into the sermon that I had an "uh oh, where is he going with this" moment. I shouldn't be so paranoid I know... he was probably just outlining them so everybody knew they were included in the fulfilled list. Nobody could go away thinking that a category still stood since it was listed. The concern that remains is that he will later expose a theology around the divisions. The poor treatment of Mat 5:19 and John 14:15 didn't do anything to ease that fear. Yes, he did end up at Jesus two commands (love God, love your neighbor), but SDAs end up there too just before turning the table over and declaring those to be a summary of the 10C instead of a new law entirely (of the Spirit). Michael | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 6920 Registered: 9-2006  |
Michael, if I have ever learned anything from being on this forum, it is that Former SDA's are really GUNSHY. Ha! |
