| Author |
Message |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1050
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 3:48 pm: |     |
Jeremy,
The Apostle John, for example, meticulously makes a distinction between "nomos" and "entole" in all his writings. Check it out!
Dennis Fischer |
Brian3
Registered user
Username: Brian3
Post Number: 102
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 3:57 pm: | |
Dennis,
Then yes, I am decidedly antinomian by your definition. Because I don't believe The Ten Commandments as a Unit are anymore in effect and the Decalogue is not the Decalogue with only Nine words
Just as food for thought, has anybody wondered how many of the 600+ other commandments in the old covenant are reiterated? |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1783
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 4:16 pm: | |
Dennis, you are correct that the Apostle John makes a distinction in his usage of those terms. He never uses nomos to refer to the New Covenant teachings of Christ, but always uses it to refer to the Law of Moses (all 613 commandments, including the Decalogue). Also, when he uses entole it is always in reference to the commandments of Jesus, and never in reference to the Law of Moses.
However, none of that contradicts what I said above.
If you are using "nomos" to mean "the Law of Moses," then yes we are saying that we are not under the Law/nomos--but so did Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:20! He said that we was "not...under the Law" (nomos)--but that he was under the Law of Christ!
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on May 10, 2007) |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1051
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 5:52 pm: | |
Brian,
Good question about how many extra-Decalogical prohibitions are reiterated in the New Testament. I can think of several including prohibitions against incest, homosexuality, etc. The vice listing in the New Testament is actually larger than in the Old Testament. Indeed, Christians are not a lawless, immoral community.
Dennis Fischer |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1307
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 5:55 pm: | |
Dennis,
I believe you are misusing the term "antinomian". It is a serious thing to call someone an antinomian because antinomianism is a serious heresy. The word "antinomian" is not properly used to describe someone who believes Christians are no longer under the Old Covenant Mosaic Law. The word "antinomian" is properly used to describe someone who believes they are no longer constrained by any law. That is a terrible heresy, but it is not what New Covenant Theology teaches.
If you were to say, "Christians are bound by those commands within the Decalogue which are moral, eternal, and which both predate and post date the Decalogue" then I would say "Amen. Absolutely." But If you were to say, "Christians are bound by the Decalogue" then I would disagree with you strongly. We are not under the Decalogue as a covenant document. We are not under the Decalogue as a unit. As Brian pointed out so well, "Decalogue" means "Ten Words" (eser debar in Hebrew) so we cannot at once say we are under the "Ten Words" and we are only under "nine words". That sentence is a self-contradiction.
You have taken the discussion in a different direction than it began. My contention has NEVER been that we are released from eternal moral laws. My assertion has been that Jesus Christ is the greatest revelation of God and is therefore also the greatest revelation of God's eternal transcendent law. Therefore, I personally believe that the Law of Christ is a preferable place to start when witnessing to gentile unbelievers. Now if I were witnessing to a Jewish person, it would make perfect sense to me to start with the Mosaic Law that they are living under and show them how that Law is now fulfilled and enlarged in Jesus Christ. In both cases I would be using biblical laws and in both cases I would use these laws to show our utter depravity and need for a substitionary savior. In no case would I ever teach antinomianism, nor do scholars who embrace New Covenant Theology, including Reisinger.
Perhaps the confusion here is coming from a misunderstanding of the term "antinomian". Again, this term does not mean "those who believe the Mosaic Law was fulfilled in Christ". Here is a proper definition of the term. I would suggest we stick to an accepted definition when using the term.
quote:ANTINOMIANISM
False teaching that since faith alone is necessary for salvation, one is free from the moral obligations of the law. The word “antinomianism” is not used in the Bible, but the idea is spoken of. Paul appears to have been accused of being an antinomian (Rom. 3:8; 6:1,15). While it is true that obedience to the law will never earn salvation for anyone (Eph. 2:8-9), it is equally true that those who are saved are expected to live a life full of good works (Matt. 7:16-20; Eph. 2:10; Col. 1:10; James 2:14-26). Since we have been freed from the dominion of sin through faith in Jesus, we have also been freed to practice the righteousness demanded by God (Rom. 6:12-22).
—Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary
To this, I can only say, "Amen".
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on May 10, 2007) |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5813
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 5:58 pm: | |
I believe we are actually dealing with two issues here:1. The definition of the law and whether or not Christians are answerable to the Law of God, and 2. Two different worldviews, one of which sees Covenants as the defining factor in God's dealings with mankind, and one which sees Jesus and His shadows as the defining factor.
The covenant view (in my understanding) puts the fact of COVENANT itself at the heart of God's relationship with humans. I see JESUS to be the heart of God's relationship with humans. To be sure, God's covenants give the shape and explanation to God's saving work among us, but I understand the covenants to be pointers and promises of Jesus and our salvation and justification and glorification.
My perception of the covenant paradigm is that Jesus confirms the role of the covenants and God's faithfulness, whereas my understanding is the reverse: the covenants prefigure and promise Jesus. In other words, the covenants serve as shadows and promises of the central Thing: Jesus and His work. From the covenant position, Jesus validates the Covenants that God has made with man.
These two different pardigms determine the role of the law. In the covenant paradigm, the law is a revelation of grace. In the "new covenant" paradigm, the law is a temporary shadow of the One who brings both grace and justice.
I do not believe this issue should be a point of division! I do believe, though, that these two points of view can have profound effects on how people understand their relationships to Jesus.
To those who know Jesus, these views may be relatively unimportant. To those who are being courted by various religions, however, the covenant paradigm may propel a vulnerable person toward bondage while a "new covenant" position may offer protection from being brought into bondage to the law.
Colleen
(Message edited by admin on May 10, 2007) |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5814
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 6:01 pm: | |
Chris, I just saw your post above. I agree, and I believe that you are right in your assesment that the problem here may be the definition of "antinomian".
Thank you for clarifying that.
Colleen |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 742
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 6:13 pm: | |
Well, now since you fellows are so set up on this covenant thing let me jump in and give you my take on it.
Jesus died to free us from the law, why? Because we have broken it
and God desired to reclaim us unto himself.
Not for the Israelis only but for the whole world, but there is a demand in order to receive that pardon or new covenant in Christ blood, we must repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for remission of sin. (Grace only).
Once you meet Gods demand, Jesus sure enough saves you “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” you look it up.
Once we have met that demand, repentance and belief, we are no longer under the law of sin and death, the old is past away, all things have become new, good on me but what of the sinner and the letter of the law keeper who looks to the keeping of the law for his salvation? Remember the first demand?
The sinner and the law keeper who would spurn Gods Son remain under the law and the sentence of death, both must meet Gods absolute demand in order to have access to the new covenant. If they do not they are condemned already, alrighty?
Now me and the sin-ner and the law-keeeper are all going to dieeeeeeee in our boooodddddies because of sin iiiiinnnn our bodddieee.
But I am speaking of the second death.
What does it take to please God? Faith, not Sabbath keeping or eating cheese. Faith in what? In Christ Jesus for remission of sin.
Now I know somebody is going to jump in and say “But what about the Sabbeth?” now this question is goin to drive me to beatin my old mule but fer your sakes I will answer it as best I can.
If you are going to keep the law you better keep all of it and you better have kept it from birth. Anybody done that? No, I didn’t think so.
By the way I doubt if Moses would know his own law if he saw the Adventist trying to keep it, He’d probly just stand there scratchin his head.
Ya see to me this thing is so simple, Faith, grace, salvation.
Law, death, sure judgment, hell and no color t.v.
That is why I am concerned for my Adventist friends, they look around with judgment staring them right in the eyeballs in the form of Sabbath keeping, IJ, E.G. and turnip greens.
Now does that make me one of them antinomianism’s er whut?
Oh yes, I believe whole heartedly in the new covenant of Jesus blood, but if you haven’t repented and believed on him you ain’t in it, or if you depend on Sabbath keeping and IJ and EG er cheese you ain’t in it.
Now I hate to be left out if you folks decide I ain’t got no antinomianism’s and your going to make me feel plumb bad. However I won’t grieve over that too long cuzz the Lord takes care a me in spite of it.
Now listen, if you don’t see it the way I do, I ain’t going to fault you. Now me and Brother Chris has done made up our mind twixt us afore hand about agreein and if we disagree we will agree on that and move on.
I was just thinking that a person might be able to phrase it like this.
Jesus took our law breaking upon himself and his body was nailed to a tree.
God cannot deny himself so he became sin that we might live.
Therefore our law breaking was nailed to a tree.
What love and compassion. I give him praise, all glory and honor; rivers of praise well up from the depths of my soul to him.
So there we have it Old covenant, sin, death, New covenant, life in Christ but you have to take one or the other in this year of 2007. Attempting to cling to both causes that dreaded word, yep you said it “cognitive dissonance!!” Oh my…!
So to me it’s not a matter of era or passing away, it is a matter of ACCESS.
Read about the parable of the marriage feast, the man did not have a wedding garment.
Now I know somebody is going to say “Well, what about what Paul taught? Well, what about it? Acts 13:39 "and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Acts 28:23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening.
What about Paul Chris, If I don’t conform I don’t guess he did either, he done it all day. That scripture is an aside lets go on.
Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law. What? Judged by what?
And on.
Romans 2:25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
And on.
Romans 2:29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
And much more good stuff but I will refrain.
One last word, after reading Chris last post I think I will fore go getting any of them ANTINOMIANISM’s. Thanks fer headin me off before I got one Chris. 
God bless.
Backatcha.
River |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 6:25 pm: | |
The proper definition and understanding of "antinomianism" is dramatically complicated when we disallow using, reading, sharing, and evangelizing moral commands from the Decalogue. It is like we really love and respect moral laws, but please don't even mention those in the Decalogue ever. As stated earlier, this stance makes believers very vulnerable to SDA deception when they don't know the difference between a moral and ceremonial law.
Dennis Fischer
(Message edited by dennis on May 10, 2007) |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1784
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 6:25 pm: | |
River,
"For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;" (Romans 2:12 NASB.)
Notice that it's only those who have sinned "under the Law" that will be judged by the Law. Those without the Law (the Gentiles) will perish without the Law.
We are not condemned by the Law of Moses--we are condemned by God Himself and His righteousness (since we are sinful).
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on May 10, 2007) |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1308
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 6:46 pm: | |
River,
I fully support teaching about Jesus from the Law of Moses and the Prophets. I do it every week in my class. I highly value the Old Testament and am spedning my private study time in Leviticus just now. I believe Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets. If that's true, then I better study the Law and the Prophets and teach from them. My issue is not with teaching that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, my issue is with presenting the Ten Words as the Nine Words we are to live by. That just doesn't make sense to me......especially since we have something that Paul didn't, a complete NT that clearly outlines what New Covenant life should like and that raises the bar of holiness to a whole new level.
Brother, I don't think we are quite as far apart as you might think. I'm just concerned about the confusion this can cause if we're not clear about these issues. If we were in the same room talking I would do some role playing with you and slip back into my SDA apologist role from yester-year. SDAs are extremely adept at taking the person who holds up the Decalogue (but only keeps nine of the ten words) and wrapping them into a pretzel. If this works for you with people you are witnessing too, God bless! (I mean it). I just have reservations about how well it would work with a relatively sharp SDA.
Chris |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1309
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 7:09 pm: | |
Dennis said:
quote:Galatians 4:24-31 is not saying you are a child of the bondwoman by honoring your parents or believing in the one and only true God of heaven. The Law in its totality is no longer in effect. Similarly, with the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments as a unit are ended. However, NINE of the Ten Commandments are reiterated in the New Testament--even several times. These reiternated laws from the Old Covenant are now a part of the Law of Christ. Yes, Jesus extended some of them, but murder is still murder and stealing is still stealing. God's holy and moral laws are always TIMELESS.
Dennis, I think that is well said and I agree with you completely on this point as stated immediately above.
Chris |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 743
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 7:56 pm: | |
I know that Chris, we just misunderstood each other, the first go around, I was just digging in the spurs a little bit. If I didn't like you I wouldn't have dug in.
No, I wouldn't challenge you using that tact if we Role playing and you were the Adventist, to tell you the truth Chris, I don't know from what direction I would come from but I sure would enjoy it. You see, I am here to learn from you and all on here, and maybe it would equip me to minister to my Adventist friends in a meaningful way. Yes Chris I truly would appreciate such role playing from the bottom of my heart. I came here searching out of concern for the law stance my Adventist friends take Chris, I am afraid for them.
As I said, God has demanded that we recognize and believe his only Son whom he has sent and I truly don't believe he will accept anything less. I wish I saw it some other way.
Jeremy, I understand that scripture to mean that "all" being anyone who takes up the law in order for salvation, not only Jews, but anyone.
Not just that scripture but others that support that, I just didn't want to cover the page with scripture. I really wanted to give my stance in simple everyday language mixed with a little comedy.
For one thing God is no respecter of persons and as you said It is God himself who condemns and his righteousness. Sin and disobedience to God goes deeper than paper but to the very core of our soul. Depravity in short.
Any time I look at myself I must look to the cross, to Jesus, I am so dependent on his love and forgiveness as to say I depend on it more than life itself. It is a simple mind that I have and my faith is equally simple, no other hope, no other way to turn, my eyes are riveted to the cross and no one living person can get my attention. I am mesmerized and totally oblivious to anything accept Jesus, I will forever praise him if he allows me I will throw crowns and garlands at his feet. No comedy and Arky talk now.
And you know what Jeremy? Even if we don't understand the whole Bible the same way, I bet we can agree on that. What do you think?
River |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 744
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 5:56 am: | |
Now I can see where I misspoke up there already.
I said "The sinner and the law keeper who would spurn Gods Son remain under the law and the sentence of death", the sinner is lawless and won't even have the benefit of law, he refuses to come under any rule of any kind, such as the atheist for example.
The law keeper who would refuse Christ and look to his law keeping, either one or all of them is under sentence because he has refused Gods provision for all and because he and no one else has ever kept the Ten Commandments from birth.
Now having given my stance, I am not hard and fast on my stance, it is just the way I understand the Bible at this time. I am fully prepared to change as God lights my path way in this life.
What I understand of the Bible and of provision that Christ has made for me and you far outshines my understanding of what we call "non-essentials" and at the end of the day, I have been baptized in the Holy Spirit so Jesus has fulfilled the promise of the earnest of the Spirit, that I cannot deny.
So although I do "See through a glass darkly, he is ever present with me.
Glory to God in the highest!
River |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1054
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 8:32 am: | |
The fact remains that the NINE reiterated moral commandments in the Decalogue (plus all the other extra-Decalogical moral commandments) are still binding under the Law of Christ. We lose our Christian credibility and witness when we try to diminish or avoid the Ten Commandments in any manner. Our understanding the Fourth Commandment as being clearly ceremonial does not authorize us to discard the other nine MORAL directives in any way. Let us not shoot ourselves in the foot!
Dennis Fischer
(Message edited by Dennis on May 11, 2007) |
U2bsda
Registered user
Username: U2bsda
Post Number: 471
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 10:31 pm: | |
I don't consider myself under the 9 moral commands of the 10 commandments, but under the law of Christ. The law of Christ holds us to a higher standard than the morality of the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments were the covenant given to Israel.
Also, believers are not commanded to love God. We love Him because He first loved us and filled us up with His love. We are not servants, but children and call Him our beloved Daddy. Love for Him comes naturally - it doesn't need to be commanded. |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 748
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 8:07 am: | |
Quote: Also, believers are not commanded to love God. We love Him because He first loved us and filled us up with His love. We are not servants, but children and call Him our beloved Daddy. Love for Him comes naturally - it doesn't need to be commanded.
Well now U2bsda I think you finally made the right point as far as I can see.
Although both sound much the same we are under grace and under Christ.
So, one might ask, what is the difference, stealing is stealing, well, the way I see it the difference is, I now have access to the father and forgiveness, I now longer have to slay a bull, I don’t say 17 hail Marys or count beads, I go directly to the father for cleansing for I am NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW, further more I no longer have a desire to steal, my desire is for my brother and my sister. That Agape love that Ramone keeps talking about.
Now I think the Bible plainly warns that if one chooses to go under the law in order to obtain righteousness before God, in other words puts his faith in the law, then he will be judged according to the law. But I have put my faith in a new and living way, Christ Jesus and he has become my righteousness.
Now if I choose to take the approach in my witnessing of “have you ever stolen anything” to show that we have all failed in these things, I feel that I am perfectly justified in doing so.
The cross is the central figure in the Bible, not the Ten Commandments.
The Christian under grace will look back from the cross, the person who is trying to fulfill the law will still look forward.
The Adventist seems to start at genesis and read forward, I start at the cross and read back, big, big difference.
The person that looks upon the Ten Commandments and tries to fulfill that will fail; I know that so I look to Christ for grace and help in time of need.
He not only forgives but fulfills ALL my needs according to his riches in glory. Glory to God. I needed peace with God and he has become my peace.
Now I have said this before, I am extremely concerned for my Adventist friends and this is exactly why, now when I say this someone says I am judging them, no, not at all, what I am afraid of is that they are bringing judgment on themselves by trying to fulfill the law by keeping Sabbath and not only that but teaching men to do also, I tell you it makes me shiver.
Jesus fulfilled the law in our stead, “here is the one the one that will save us”.
Now my stance (belief) on this is that one who would attempt to fulfill the law and attain to his own righteousness is in great danger. But it is God that judges, make no mistake.
Now if the law were no longer in existence for the one who would choose to come under it, that would relieve my concern for my Adventist friends, I would ignore it, it would amount to a none thing in my mind.
I will try to give example: I had a patient who had Alzheimer’s, he was sitting at table with his plate in front of him full of food but he just sat there bringing his hand to his mouth and chewing, no spoon in his hand, he thought he was eating but all he was doing was a none thing, he was getting no sustenance but he wasn’t breaking any rules, nor was he bringing harm to anyone else.
If the law WERE no longer in existence I would consider my Adventist friends as doing a non-thing, no sustenance in it, but no direct harm to him or anybody else. I would consider him as eating a non existent meal.
Further more I would consider none of you as having been delivered from anything other than you finally picked up your spoon and are now eating.
But I do consider you as being delivered out of something just as serious as my deliverance from the bondage of alcohol.
In fact a drunk might be easier to deal with than an Adventist at least I could get somewhere in preaching the word instead of this insidious thing of using the same language as Patria so aptly put it in her testimony.
God takes his Son seriously, he and the father are one regardless of what the world thinks and every knee will bow, better to bow now in love for Jesus than being forced to your knees under the mighty power of the living God.
Further more I don’t think anybody on this forum is even hinting that we can take grace as occasion to sin. As Paul said “God forbid such a thing”.
I think I see very well where we differ and I do not fault the one that differs in this precept. Why? Because we both/all know that we attain to righteousness through the blood of Christ and that grace is not occasion to sin.
Now these are just my precepts, I do not insist that you all have the same precepts as I do.
I am going to examine my own precepts in this matter but I am not going to examine yours.
What passionate responses this tread has brought, I sure never saw that coming, never dreamed that what seems so simple to me may not be that simple after all.
One thing it has accomplished is that I am going to seek counseling concerning my own beliefs in this matter.
Understand me here brothers and sisters when I say that this was no attempt to foster my beliefs on anyone here. Not the beginning of the thread and not now.
I do not think “occasion for sin” is up for debate nor should it be. Let us debate that with Adventist if we feel we just got too.
Now no one take anything I said here as offense, what I say I say in love and respect, just laying it out honestly and respectfully.
I think in future I need to think carefully about what Colleen has said about the plight of the former Adventist and the ones that are processing out of Adventism and that has been so noted and I am contrite and properly so.
Us meat eaters should be concerned with those still on milk.
River |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 11:03 am: | |
Since "antinomianism" was such a hot button on this thread, many may be interested in taking a hard look at the various forms of antinomianism in Church history. Antinomianism, which means being "anti-law," is a name for several views that have denied that God's law in Scripture should directly control the Christian's life.
Dualistic antinominianism appears in the Gnostic heresies against whom Jude and Peter wrote (Jude 4-9;2 Peter 2). This view sees salvation as for the soul only, and bodily behavior as irrelevent both to God's interest and to the soul's health, so one may behave riotously and it will not matter.
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. Freedom from the law as a way of salvation is assumed to bring with it freedom from the law as a guide to conduct. In the first 150 years of the Reformation era this kind of antinomianism often threatened, and Paul's insistence that a truly spiritual person acknowledges the authority of God's Word through Christ's apostles (1 Cor. 14:37; cf.7:40) suggests that the Spirit-obsessed Corinthian church was in the grip of the same mind-set.
Christ-centered antinomianism argues that God see no sin in believers, because they are are in Christ, who kept the law for them, and therefore what they actually do makes no difference, provided that they keep believing. But 1 John 1:8-21 (expounding 1:7) and 3:4-10 point in a different direction, showing that it is not possible to be in Christ and at the same time to embrace sin as a way of life.
Dispensational antinomianism holds that keeping the moral law is at no stage necessary for Christians, since we live under a dispensation of grace, not of law. Romans 3:31 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 clearly show, however, that law-keeping is a continuing obligation for Christians. "I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law," says Paul (1 Cor. 9:21).
Dialectical antinomianism, as in Barth and Brunner, denies that biblical law is God's direct command and affirms that the Bible's imperative statements trigger the Word of the Spirit, which when it comes may or may not correspond exactly to what is written. The inadequacy of the neo-orthodox view of biblical authority, which explains the inspiration of Scripture in terms of the Bible's instrumentality as a channel for God's present-day utterances to his people, is evident here.
Situational antinomianism says that a motive and intention of love is all that God now requires of Christians, and the commands of the Decalogue and other ethical parts of Scripture, for all that they are ascribed to God directly, are mere rules of thumb for loving, rules that love may at any time disregard. But Romans 13:8-10, to which this view appeals, teaches that without love as a motive these specific commands cannot be fulfilled. Once more an unacceptable weak view of Scripture surfaces.
In summary, it must be stressed that the moral law, as crystallized in the Decalogue and opened up in the ethical teaching of both Testaments, is one coherent law that is both changeless and timeless, given to be a code of practice for God's people in every age. In addition, repentance means resolving henceforth to seek God's help in keeping that law. The Spirit is given to empower law-keeping and make us more and more like Christ, the archetypal law-keeper (Matt. 5:17). This law-keeping is in fact the fulfilling of our human nature, and Scripture holds out no hope of salvation for any who, whatever their profession of faith, do not seek to turn from sin to righteousness (1 Cor. 6:9-11;Rev. 21:8). God's people, irregardless of time and location, are not a lawless, immoral community.
CREDIT: Packer, J. I., CONCISE THEOLOGY; Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois, pp. 178-180.
Dennis Fischer |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 751
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 12:47 pm: | |
Dennis, I wish I was more educated, before you used the word I had never heard it before.
Here is what one fellow said.
ANTI means against, but it also means a replacement for, an imitation, a caricature, a sham. NOMIANISM refers to the Law; in the case of Scripture, the Mosaic Law and the overall laws/ principles of God throughout Scripture. Nomianism comes from the same root as the English word, derived from Latin , “nominal,” which means to name or be named. The word “name” itself is of the same derivation. How does this come to be associated with the Law? The Law is the named will of God, the outwardly expressed will of God, the objective reality that God has revealed about Himself to us. Objectivity is the way we understand facts. 2 + 2 is an objective fact. Opposite to objectivity is subjectivity; subjectivity is established by emotion and immediate perception, by feeling. It is based in the “subject” experiencing it; it is egocentric, the world we build around our own experience with ourselves as the center.
River |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1059
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 3:57 pm: | |
River,
In Koine Greek, the original language of the New Testament manuscripts, "nomos" means law. The "nomos" of the New Testament is not an Old English derivative. The Greek word "nomos" can relate to law in general as well; however, the context always determines the meaning in the Epistles and elsewhere in the New Testament. Once again, we see how the hermeneutical principle of context affects the meaning of words in Scripture.
Dennis Fischer |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 752
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 5:38 pm: | |
Dennis, I am sorry but much of that stuff you guys rattle off just confuses me.
I will give an example of my view of the scripture the only way I know how.
Yesterday after taking a tractor engine apart and in the process of putting it back together I came to the governor, a real rubix cube of a gadget, it consisted of a shaft, two arms, a spool that fit over the shaft and intricate cams in the arms, I worked on it for two hours and could not figure out how it went together.
I knew if I forced it I would break or ruin something, this thing was built by a master engineer, I could not force it to go the way I thought it should, I had to find the way it worked.
My son who is slightly autistic, came by and knowing my son who is extremely high in some areas while low in others so I showed it to him and walked away, in about 10 minutes he came in the house and said O.K Dad, it is fixed, sure enough it was put together the proper way, I knew my son.
But the point I want to make is that the word of God is by the master designer, it is intricate yet simple too. If we add parts or subtract parts or modify parts of it something will not be right. It must be left intact as the designer intended.
I on the other hand am not so smart, I am a slow thinker, Just as in the case of the governor, I look at it, turn it this way and that to try and figure how it works, I may spend days or months, sometime years on one question.
Someone can make a statement that does not sound like it fits something else and I will turn it, look at it in light of other scripture but I won’t try to force a statement someone makes to fit scripture.
I stand prepared to change because I know the word of God will never, ever, change. Something may not look right and I may not be able to get it to fit but I know it is me, not the master designer.
I read and study the word prayerfully, I try to take it into my very soul, I eat it. If parts of the word I can’t get “fixed” I wait for the Holy Spirit to “fix” it.
I just say “Father, how does that work” and pretty soon in his own good time he will give me the answer I need and unlike my son, he is extremely high in all areas. I know my God, I will just leave him alone and trust him to “fix” it.
Yur friend.
River |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5822
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 7:00 pm: | |
The way I understand the new covenant and the old covenant does not fit into any of Packer's antinomian categories.
Colleen |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 4:10 pm: | |
Colleen,
I think many people will see themselves reflected in one category or in a combination of categories.
Dennis Fischer |
|
