Faith or Law?

[James456]

You recognized that there is something to interact with, but you are deliberately ignoring it.


My position is that the Jerusalem Council required Gentiles to obey the Law of Moses, which is the opposite of giving them a licensee to sin. You can keeping claiming otherwise without giving any sort of justification for your claim, but that won't cause it to become true. Claiming nonsense to be an indisputable fact does not make it indisputable.


If what I'm saying were contrary to what is plainly stated, then it would be easy for you to show that I am wrong, but you deliberately avoid doing so because you are unable to do that.

If you wanted a debate with me, of you trying to convince me the earth was flat, I would not waste my time joining in, for you would be arguing against an indisputable fact
If you tried to argue, from the bible Jesus was not the son of God, I would not waste my time joining in, for you would be arguing against an indisputable fact
And, if you tried to argue, according to your beliefs the Jerusalem council did not give gentiles a licence to sin, I would not waste my time joining in, because you would be arguing against an indisputable fact

 

[Toknow]

Ive been a bit reticent to come back to this, for although I generally agree with you, there is still much that can be said concerning it.

There's always much more to say !

In the church I grew up in, I gleaned from what was said Jesus died for the sins I committed before I got saved but not after. I then in effect lived under the law as a believer. I view things simply. If someone said to me

‘’The justified will obey the law’’ I would then consider my continued justification hinged on obeying it, and I would then view it, practically speaking as, I would be living under the law. Maybe that’s just me.

Jesus died for ALL our sins...those before and those after.
I do hope you know this now.

Jesus not only died for OUR sins but for those of the whole world.
This means that He died for every single sin ever committed and all those that are to come.
For instance...even those of the OT saints that did not even know about Jesus.

We are justified by faith, absolutely

Every Christian I know would be in agreement.
We are justified only and exclusively by faith.
God's grace and our faith will justify us before God..
nothing else.

Sanctified by obedience. I would say, it would vary from believer to believer as to how sanctified they become, would you agree?

Yes. I agree.
100%
And God does not expect us all to be the same.

I will never be Joan of Arch or Benedett of Lourdes.
I will never be like some ordinary folk I know that shine with God's light.

I agree the law is dead, insofar as a binding law as such. But I do believe what is written in nine of the ten commandments is now in the hearts and minds of believers

i think the words THE LAW are not properly being represented in this thread - which had me confused at the beginning.

The Law is what Paul speaks of as THE WORKS OF THE LAW.
This is what the Israelites did when they were travelling through the desert.
The dry and unfriendly environment they had to go through to get to the Promised Land.
They did their best to obey every single ordinance and rule but the Holy Spirit was not available to them as He is for us today.
Jesus had to die and go back to heaven and send HIM down to us.

I believe (not sure yet) that we're conflating this with GOOD WORKS.
Paul does say that good works are necessary....
this would be obedience to Jesus.

Romans 1:5
5 Through Him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from[c] faith for his name’s sake.

IE

I instinctively know in my mind God does not want me to steal, commit adultery, murder, covet, take his name in vain, lie

And in my heart(my flesh is another matter) I do not want to do those things.

When you say obedience to Jesus, are you referring to his individual commands in the Gospels, or as Paul stated in Galatians6:2?

Don't you believe that if we do what Galatians 6:2 teaches,,,it's the same as the Two Great Commandments?
Love God
Love your neighbor as yourself

Doesn't this cover all of the commandments?

However, to answer your question...
I hear and try to do everything that is written in read - which are the words of Jesus.

I said TRY.
some on these Forums claim works are good to do, but not really necessary.
Some claim they've achieved sinless perfection.

Galatians 6:2
2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

I would think, according to what Paul wrote we must show love to others, and in that way we fulfil the law of Christ.



I just felt I should respond to the post as you posted it to me

I think we agree.
Thanks for responding.

 

[Toknow]

Don't get me wrong, I agree that subcategories exis, that the mishpatim and hukkim are two of them, and that the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the mishpatim and hukkim (Ezekiel 36:26-27), however, the categories used by the Bible do not correspond to the categories of the civil, ceremonial, and moral law for a number of reasons that I discussed, especially because they do not distinguish between which laws are moral. Your article strongly made my point for me in no uncertain terms:

"The Westminster Confession adds the category of judicial or civil law."

"The division of the Jewish law into different categories is a human construct"

"nothing in the Bible indicates that God intended a distinction of categories."

We have no good grounds to interpret Paul as referring to the category of civil law when that category wasn't created until after he died. We have the freedom to create however many categories we want and to decide for ourselves which laws we think best fit into our categories, but we should not interpret the Bible as if authors were referring to categories that we created.

Why are you ignoring the issue that I was originally speaking about categories of law other than the Law of God rather than about subcategories within it?

I'm ignoring your post because it doesn't interest me.
YOU can believe what you wish to believe
It is NOT a salvation issue and I don't have a lot of time to spend here.

Theologians have read through the OT and have noticed that there are DIFFERENT CATEGORIES of laws.
You can accept this or not.

When I learned this I found it very interesting
Maybe you don't....
no problem.

 

[Soyeong]

I'm not going to debate this ad infinitum S.

You can believe what you will.

You are the one who brought up the subcategories of the civil, ceremonial, and moral law, so if you don't want to debate that then that is fine. My original point that I've been trying to get you to address is that Paul spoke about different categories of law other than the Law of God.

You have, however, made some comments above that would seem to express your idea that I somehow do not believe we are to follow the laws of Christ.

If I've misunderstood ...all good.

If I've understood correctly, let me assure you that I believe EVERYTHING Jesus said must be adhered to.

I did not claim that you do not believe we are to follow the Law of Christ. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example and he said that man shall to live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so I have made the case that the Law of Christ is the same as the Law of Moses. It is contradictory for someone to take the position that we should follow everything that Christ said but not follow the Law of Moses.

 

[Toknow]

You are the one who brought up the subcategories of the civil, ceremonial, and moral law, so if you don't want to debate that then that is fine. My original point that I've been trying to get you to address is that Paul spoke about different categories of law other than the Law of God.


I did not claim that you do not believe we are to follow the Law of Christ. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example and he said that man shall to live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so I have made the case that the Law of Christ is the same as the Law of Moses. It is contradictory for someone to take the position that we should follow everything that Christ said but not follow the Law of Moses.

Please explain:
WHAT IS THE LAW OF MOSES?

 

[Toknow]

You are the one who brought up the subcategories of the civil, ceremonial, and moral law, so if you don't want to debate that then that is fine. My original point that I've been trying to get you to address is that Paul spoke about different categories of law other than the Law of God.

I mistakenly believe it to be common knowledge.

When someone presents something new to me...
I don't claim that it's not in the bible.
I do my best to find out about this new idea and study up on it
to see if it fits scriptural teaching.

Do we all know what Divine Simplicity is?
Maybe.
Maybe not.

Good to know new stuff.

But it does not have to be accepted by everyone.....
it's something extra that might help us to understand.

 

[Toknow]

We have the freedom to categorize God's 613 laws in whatever way we seems best to us and to decide which of those laws we think best first into our categories,

NO!

What you've stated is why Christianity is in trouble today and losing all meaning.

YOU do not have THE RIGHT to categorize anything.
Does this mean that each and every one of us will be using A DIFFERENT LIST?

What confusion would that cause?

The llist, S, has already been established by Jewish and Christian scholars.
They all agree on THE LIST.

No need for YOU to start a new one of your own liking.

You're also trying to change Christian theology by stating that we must follow the Law of Moses.

No.
The Jews are following the Law of Moses.

We Christians are following the Law of Christ.

Maybe you're jewish?

but we should not interpret the authors of the Bible as referring to categories that we created. For example, I could categorize God's laws based on which part of the body is most commonly used to obey/disobey them, which as with the law against theft being a hand law, but just because I can do that does not establish that the authors of the Bible used the same categories or that they would agree with me that the law against theft best fits as a hand law, so if I were to interpret them as saying that the hand laws have been abolished, then I would be making the same sort of error that you are making.

Again, the issue of how the 613 laws should be categorized is different from the issue that I was originally speaking about in regard to different categories of law other than the 613 laws of the Law of God. For example, US traffic laws are a completely different category of law other than the Law of God.


In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message. Christ also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22 and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6). Christianity is about following what he taught, so why does the position that followers of Christ should follow his example cause Christianity to lose its meaning instead of the other way around?


How can you argue in favor of obedience to Jesus while also arguing against obeying the law that He taught to obey by word and by example? Jesus said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Toknow]

Okay, but you did not seem to address my comments, so I will repeat them:

1. I am unaware of laws in the Torah regarding weddings. Can you or your internet sources cite any?

No sir.
Will not be looking up any marriage ceremonial laws.
First, I used marriage as an example.
Marriage laws would fall under the Ceremonial Laws.
Mary and Joseph lived in OT times. They followed the ceremonial law for marriage.

Also, you may want to look into Deuteronomy 21, 24 and 25

2. I understand divorce to be a moral law per Matt.19:6-9. Is there some reason you do not agree with Jesus?

i agree with Jesus about EVERYTHING.
Your question assumes I do not agree with Jesus.


If you want to reword your question and remove that part, I'll be happy to respond.

3. I do see a distinction made between Levitical/sacrificial law and moral laws reaffirmed in the NT, such as stealing and murder
based on Scriptures such as Heb. 7:11, Matt. 5:20, 19:18, Eph. 4:28, 1John 3:15. Agree?

How can I know?
No scripture is posted.

4. I also see the moral "thou shalt not" laws as subsumed by the NT "thou shalt" law of love per Matt. 22:37-40 & Gal. 5:6. Agreed?

Some might have the NT memorized so that scripture is not necessary.

Unfortunately, I don't.

If you post scripture,,,I'll reply to it.

5. And yes, laws are intended to lead sinners to faith in Christ, because all humans except JC sin,
but this intent was not known/revealed to Moses or other pre-NT believers. Agree?

Over...

i do agree and believe I stated that Moses did not know.
However, I do want to reiterate that the LAWS were given to Moses so that some form of civility could be achieved among a community that had been enslaved for hundreds of years and that community was in need of laws.

Ceremonial Laws
Civil Laws
Moral Laws

Hope to discuss re the above.
Please post scripture.

 

[Toknow]

No, not right. The Law is the shadow and Christ the reality. All who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. There are two problems with following the law. First, we cannot. It was never given to man to keep. It was to expose the unwillingness of men to keep the law and to make known what sin is. Second, the law for the believer is a shadow of the reality.

Look at a shadow. What do you see? Just an outline. The shadow is cast by the Lord Jesus. Those who focus on the law are only looking at the shadow. You cannot have a relationship with words on stones or with a shadow.

The law has not ceased exist. However, God knows that it is useless for anything to do with being spiritual. The letter still kills and it is still the Spirit that gives life. We do not follow the Law. We have a vital relationship with the living, risen Saviour. We seek to be led by the Spirit and enjoy the fruit of the Spirit that comes as we walk in the Spirit.

A bird is a bird because it has the nature of a bird. It can fly without trying. A Christian is one who has a new nature. We do not have to try to be spiritual. I questioned this for years. How do I get in the Spirit? It seemed impossible. Then I read Romans 8:9. I'd read it before but it did not register. Believers are already in the Spirit.

So why all the controversy? Romans 8 says it all. It all depends on where we are looking. Are we looking at the flesh? Are we making our Christian lives dependent on what we can do, how we interpret God's word and how hard we have to try to suppress sin? Or do we give up on self and yield entirely to the Lordship of Christ. Do we seek for Him to live out His life in us, through us and in place of who we were in Adam. The former is a life of striving that is guaranteed to fail. The latter is humble submission to the Lordship of Christ, so that He can do the living in place of us.

The natural man is the nature that we received from Adam. All that I've said will make no sense to him. If we will allow the Holy Spirit to enlighten us, the penny will drop and it will become clear.

I struggle even to remember the 10 commandments. Never do I ask myself if I'm obeying the law. I ask Jesus to live out His life in me, through me and in place of who I am apart from Him. Then I leave it to Him. Lord Jesus has no problem living the Christian life. He does not sin. He never fails.

I understand how hard it is to grasp these truths. We are conditioned to obey rules. It's so much easier. But it's the difference between a mindless slave doing what he's told and a blessed servant who longs to please His gracious and loving master. I know which I prefer.

Gideon...
I know what you mean by the above...

I just have one comment.

YOU know in your heart what you're not supposed to do,
BUT
HOW do you know it?

I proffer that you learned it because you live in a society that has taught it to you....
both in a secular fashion and in a christian fashion.

Society tells you that you cannot steal from others.
The church one might attend teaches that one cannot steal from others.

If you lived in a closed society,,,would this really be known?
I don't think so.
What could be the possible harm if I just took something of my neighbor's that I need?

I think we don't give any credit to having learned the commandments by just being in a civilized society.

 

[Soyeong]

NO!

YOU do not have THE RIGHT to categorize anything.

This is a quote from your article;

"The Westminster Confession adds the category of judicial or civil law"

Do you affirm or deny that they had the right to add that category? Can you explain how it would be correct to interpret Paul as referring to the civil law when that category wasn't added until after he died?

"The division of the Jewish law into different categories is a human construct designed to better understand the nature of God"

Do you agree or deny the above quote? If it is a human construct, then there are no rules about which categories we must use we do have the right to categorize God's laws in whatever way makes the most sense to us.

"Since the Jews saw no difference between their God-ordained morality and their cultural responsibilities, this category is used by Christians far more than by Jewish scholars."

Do you have any grounds to establish that the set of laws that you consider to be part of the moral law are the same set of laws that Paul considered to be part of the moral law? If not, then you would be misunderstanding Paul by interpreting him as referring to the moral law.

 

[Gideon300]

Gideon...
I know what you mean by the above...

I just have one comment.

YOU know in your heart what you're not supposed to do,
BUT
HOW do you know it?

I proffer that you learned it because you live in a society that has taught it to you....
both in a secular fashion and in a christian fashion.

Society tells you that you cannot steal from others.
The church one might attend teaches that one cannot steal from others.

If you lived in a closed society,,,would this really be known?
I don't think so.
What could be the possible harm if I just took something of my neighbor's that I need?

I think we don't give any credit to having learned the commandments by just being in a civilized society.

Every society has some moral structure. Romans 2:14 & 15 says that man has a conscience and God has made it clear what His requirements are. It is one of the things that separates us from animals. Australian Aborigines had a legal and moral code before white people colonised the country.

 

[James456]

Every society has some moral structure. Romans 2:14 & 15 says that man has a conscience and God has made it clear what His requirements are. It is one of the things that separates us from animals. Australian Aborigines had a legal and moral code before white people colonised the country.

Don't you think believers know how God wants them to live as he places his laws in their mind and writes them on their hearts at conversion?
Im not speaking of a legally binding law with the power to condemn. Just believers knowing in their minds how God wants them to live and in their hearts wanting to live that way. Nothing like an external law you would be justified by obeying

 

[Soyeong]

YOU do not have THE RIGHT to categorize anything.

We can create categories for the laws that were given in regard to the conduct of the King, the High Priest, judges, men, women, children, or in regard to sexual immorality, ritual purity, offerings, feasts, tithing, the Temple service, those living in the land, those who are strangers living among them, and so forth. The subcategories are for our benefit to help us conceptualize God's laws and there is no rule about how many or which categorized we should use. We could categorize God's laws based on which book of the Bible they are found in and there is no rule against doing that, but just because we there is a way of categorizing God's laws that makes sense to us doesn't mean that the authors of the Bible categorized God's laws in the same way.

Does this mean that each and every one of us will be using A DIFFERENT LIST?

Some people think that just the Ten Commandments are the moral law while other people include others laws are being part of the moral law. Some people consider the Sabbath to be a moral law while others consider it to be ceremonial law. So, yes, everyone has their own list of which laws they think are part of the moral law that is most likely different from others.

What confusion would that cause?

Indeed, those subcategories create confusion, which is one of the reasons why I object to them.

The llist, S, has already been established by Jewish and Christian scholars.
They all agree on THE LIST.

You have no grounds to make that claim. If there was anything that all Jewish and Christian scholars agreed on, then that would be amazing. I've seen a Jewish scholar cited as using the categories of civil, ceremonial, and moral law, but it also states that they were influenced by Christianity.

[No need for YOU to start a new one of your own liking.

You're also trying to change Christian theology by stating that we must follow the Law of Moses.

It is bizarre for you to accuse me of trying to change Christian theology by taking the position that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded. That's the whole of being a follower of Christ.

No.
The Jews are following the Law of Moses.

We Christians are following the Law of Christ.

Maybe you're jewish?

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, so what grounds do you have for thinking that following the Law of Christ involves following something that is not in perfect accordance with following the Law of Moses?

 

[Soyeong]

Please explain:
WHAT IS THE LAW OF MOSES?

The Law of Moses refers to the laws that God gave to the Israelites through Moses as a mediator, which contains 613 commandments, ten of which are the Ten Commandments, and two of which are the greatest two commandments.

What do you think is the law of sin?

 

[James456]

What do you think is the law of sin?

My guess is, if you get a response, your return post will not be long in coming, as you have it already written out"!

 

[Soyeong]

If you wanted a debate with me, of you trying to convince me the earth was flat, I would not waste my time joining in, for you would be arguing against an indisputable fact
If you tried to argue, from the bible Jesus was not the son of God, I would not waste my time joining in, for you would be arguing against an indisputable fact
And, if you tried to argue, according to your beliefs the Jerusalem council did not give gentiles a licence to sin, I would not waste my time joining in, because you would be arguing against an indisputable fact

There are justifiable reasons for thinking that the earth is round and that Jesus is the Son of God, but you have given no justifiable reason to think that according to my beliefs the Jerusalem Council gave Gentiles a license to sin.

 

[James456]

There are justifiable reasons for thinking that the earth is round and that Jesus is the Son of God, but you have given no justifiable reason to think that according to my beliefs the Jerusalem Council gave Gentiles a license to sin.

Haven't I?

 

[Soyeong]

Haven't I?

No, you've only repeatedly insisted that that is the case while ignoring evidence otherwise.

 

[James456]

No, you've only repeatedly insisted that that is the case while ignoring evidence otherwise.

Well I will just copy what I wrote to you on another website:

The Jerusalem church met to decide which Mosaic laws gentiles be asked to follow. Four were given
God's applicable laws are NOT(NOT) arbitrary, you cannot pick and choose which ones you follow and which ones you ignore, you cannot pick and choose whether you commit sin or not!!
And your argument they only started with four laws fails anyway, as I keep telling you, for years later the leaders of the church confirmed to Paul they were STILL(STILL) only asking gentiles to follow the same four laws, none had been added!"(Acts21:25
So Im afraid, it is an indisputable fact, if you are correct, the leaders of the first century church, including Peter, James and Paul gave gentiles a licence to sin as sin is the transgression of the law. It really does not matter how much you write or reason, you cannot change that fact''''

And BTW, they were there to discuss disputable matters, not what is termed the moral law


Now you can write whatever response you like, but it will be ignored, for I have given you indisputable facts

 

[Toknow]

This is a quote from your article;

"The Westminster Confession adds the category of judicial or civil law"

Do you affirm or deny that they had the right to add that category? Can you explain how it would be correct to interpret Paul as referring to the civil law when that category wasn't added until after he died?

"The division of the Jewish law into different categories is a human construct designed to better understand the nature of God"

Do you agree or deny the above quote? If it is a human construct, then there are no rules about which categories we must use we do have the right to categorize God's laws in whatever way makes the most sense to us.

"Since the Jews saw no difference between their God-ordained morality and their cultural responsibilities, this category is used by Christians far more than by Jewish scholars."

Do you have any grounds to establish that the set of laws that you consider to be part of the moral law are the same set of laws that Paul considered to be part of the moral law? If not, then you would be misunderstanding Paul by interpreting him as referring to the moral law.

Judicial Law or as some call it, including my preference...Civil Law is a category.
The Westminster Confession is NOT an individual person.

Other theologians, biblical scholars have accepted this category since it does ACTUALLY exist.

And, it IS a human construct.
It divides the LAWS IN THE OT into categories that were noticed to be in the OT by SCHOLARS that spend their life studying scripture.

As @GWH has noticed....some of the categories overlap.

Indeed some of the civil laws are also moral...
for instance the divorce laws.

Divorce is a civil matter....
but for Christians it is also a Moral issue.
(and to Jews also).

I really don't care to discuss this any further so please don't bother to reply.