Setting our Personal Moral Boundaries

[Jon777]

A person’s moral boundaries are seen in his conscience. The conscience is made up of the natural instinct of law written on our hearts, Rm. 2:14-15. Then it is formed from infancy by example and instruction from family, religion, culture, society and peer influences, etc. The true and pure conscience must be in agreement with God’s word. Attempting to avoid subjectivity, I strive to obey what is explicitly stated for me in the New Covenant, the commands of Christ. I base that on Mt 28:19-20 and the following principles.

You must diligently observe everything that I command you; do not add to it or take anything from it. (Deu 12:32 NRSVue)
I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. (1Co 4:6 RSV)

It has been church tradition, both Catholic and Protestant, to see Mosaic Law in 3 parts: ceremonial, moral and civil. This is tradition not based on any specific statement of scripture, and it is not a tradition that I embrace. It is believed that Christ annulled the ceremonial and civil law, but the moral law, seen as being the “Ten Commandments”, was not abolished. In this approach, all sins are thought to be categorized under one of the "Ten Commandments", an illustration of which follows:

From the Westminster Larger Catechism
Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment? Ex. 20:14
A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks; impudent or light behavior; immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life; undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancing, stage plays; all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.

We know that idleness, glutton and drunkenness are sins, stated so in other scriptures, but what right do we have to insert them under the 7th commandment forbidding adultery? To me, that violates the passages I quoted, Dt. 12:32 & 1 Cor 4:6. Once you leave the explicit statements of scripture and go into implications and theological constructions, you become involved in imposing one man’s moral conscience upon another unjustly. I love my brothers in Christ of the Presbyterian Church, and only use their Catechism as a good illustration, because all churches believe this to some degree. I hold to what may be called a libertarian view of morals taught in the New Covenant and in the OT ‘wisdom books’ and try to resist the temptation to build theological constructions.

For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Gal 5:1 NRSVue)

You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. (1Co 7:23 RSV)

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath… Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,
(Col 2:16, 18 RSV)

Let not him who eats despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains pass judgment on him who eats; for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand. One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind. (Rom 14:3-5 RSV)

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Law exerts no authority over dead people, therefore law can't tell dead people what to do, and they can't be judged by it.

Christ is no longer subject to the law because he died.

Likewise, those who have died with him in baptism are not subject to the law either.

The law is useful for instruction and edification, but nothing more.

 

[GWH]

A person’s moral boundaries are seen in his conscience. The conscience is made up of the natural instinct of law written on our hearts, Rm. 2:14-15. Then it is formed from infancy by example and instruction from family, religion, culture, society and peer influences, etc. The true and pure conscience must be in agreement with God’s word. Attempting to avoid subjectivity, I strive to obey what is explicitly stated for me in the New Covenant, the commands of Christ. I base that on Mt 28:19-20 and the following principles.

You must diligently observe everything that I command you; do not add to it or take anything from it. (Deu 12:32 NRSVue)
I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. (1Co 4:6 RSV)

It has been church tradition, both Catholic and Protestant, to see Mosaic Law in 3 parts: ceremonial, moral and civil. This is tradition not based on any specific statement of scripture, and it is not a tradition that I embrace. It is believed that Christ annulled the ceremonial and civil law, but the moral law, seen as being the “Ten Commandments”, was not abolished. In this approach, all sins are thought to be categorized under one of the "Ten Commandments", an illustration of which follows:

From the Westminster Larger Catechism
Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment? Ex. 20:14
A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks; impudent or light behavior; immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life; undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancing, stage plays; all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.

We know that idleness, glutton and drunkenness are sins, stated so in other scriptures, but what right do we have to insert them under the 7th commandment forbidding adultery? To me, that violates the passages I quoted, Dt. 12:32 & 1 Cor 4:6. Once you leave the explicit statements of scripture and go into implications and theological constructions, you become involved in imposing one man’s moral conscience upon another unjustly. I love my brothers in Christ of the Presbyterian Church, and only use their Catechism as a good illustration, because all churches believe this to some degree. I hold to what may be called a libertarian view of morals taught in the New Covenant and in the OT ‘wisdom books’ and try to resist the temptation to build theological constructions.

For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Gal 5:1 NRSVue)

You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. (1Co 7:23 RSV)

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath… Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,
(Col 2:16, 18 RSV)

Let not him who eats despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains pass judgment on him who eats; for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand. One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind. (Rom 14:3-5 RSV)

You make a good point about sinners starting at a different point quantitatively morally speaking, so although we all should be headed in the right direction, the last may be making better or faster progress relatively speaking.

 

[Jon777]

Law exerts no authority over dead people, therefore law can't tell dead people what to do, and they can't be judged by it.

Christ is no longer subject to the law because he died.

Likewise, those who have died with him in baptism are not subject to the law either.

The law is useful for instruction and edification, but nothing more.

Justification is surely by the merit of Jesus Christ's life and death alone plus nothing! By what standard is sanctification measured?

Can loving one's neighbor be separated from commands of God's law?

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

 

[Aaron56]

Justification is surely by the merit of Jesus Christ's life and death alone plus nothing! By what standard is sanctification measured?

Can loving one's neighbor be separated from commands of God's law?

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

I posted this back in December 2023.

Matthew, chapter 22:34-36, “Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’”

Now, you’ll note that. Indeed, a lawyer, under the law could only ask Him a question about the law. He couldn’t ask Him about the new commandment; he was unaware of the new commandment. So the context of this question and the answer, both have to do with the law. What is the greatest commandment?

Matthew 22:37-40 “Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.’” (Inserted-Matthew 22:37-40)

His answer, summarized the teachings of the Law and the Prophets and in this, His answer is solidly to be found in the Law. This is the very thing that is to be replaced. But today most people think if you keep the 10 commandments and if you love your neighbor as yourself then you have done everything that God could have required. Now if you look at these two commandments you will immediately observe that they are foundationally different. Why? Because the standard is different.

Jesus said: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."

In the first case the “new” commandment has this as the standard: “…as I have loved you, so you should love one another.” The “old” commandment has this: “With all of your capacity to love so you should love God and so you should love one another.” Well you will notice that the standard of the “old” commandment is, of course, appropriate for the Law because the Law can only require you to do as much as it is possible for you to do. Objectively and theoretically it is possible to keep the Law because it does not require any more than all that you are capable of doing. It doesn’t say, “All that you feel like doing,” nor does it say, “All that you want to do.” It says, “All that you are capable of doing.”

So when the Law says, “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart...” all of your heart means all of the capacity that lies within you to do. All, in fact, means all. It doesn’t say, “All that you want to do, all that you feel like doing, all that on certain occasions you may be inclined to do.” No, it requires all. So in that sense, the Law and the standard of the Law is not haphazard but it does point out that it is all that is humanly possible.

Furthermore, the Law was designed to keep the Jews alive. God could not ask a man to give up his own life under the Law. There was no promise of a new life in the Law. To ask a man to give up his life would be to make the Law unrighteous. A man cannot give up his own life and simultaneously keep his life.

The standard is appropriate for the Law because if the Law asks of anyone more than all then by the existence of the Law you’ve been made lawless. In other words: if it is all plus 10% then the Law makes you lawless because it has exceeded your capacity to respond. But the Law begins and ends with what you can do. And it has a lesser standard for loving your neighbor.

What is the standard of the new and how is that different? The standard of the new is: “…as I have loved you.” Who is the “I” that is the measurement of this standard? The “I”, of course, is Christ, the one speaking. He is also the Living God. So the standard is: as Jesus has loved us so we are to love one another. Now what if you don’t love yourself? Well that is an irrelevant standard. He didn’t say, “as you love your neighbor, so you should love one another…” or “as I have occasionally loved you so you must love each other.” “As I have loved you” means “I, as God, have loved you perfectly; therefore I require you to love as God loves.” This is a fascinating standard because it’s the same standard for God as it is for man. The standard of love is the same for God as it is for man. That standard of the new commandment makes God and man equal on the matter of love. That’s an incredible observation. On the matter of love, God and man are equal.

Now don’t take my observation for that. Look at this: this is from Matthew5:48, Jesus is speaking. Now this verse of Scripture is very troubling. Matthew 5:48 says, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” What we’ve done is we’ve read that verse out of its context and we have inferred meanings to it that it does not mean. For example we’ve inferred that it means “be perfect in power” and so people come up with thoughts like, “if you’re not healed it’s your fault; you don’t have enough faith, you do not exercise enough power.” So if things go badly it’s your fault. God has given you all power, God has given you all faith, and so on, and if you do these things less than perfectly then it is your fault. Well that’s garbage because God would not require us to be perfect in power, whatever power we have is His power given to us, and no one is made "all powerful". Therefore we could only operate in whatever measures of power He has given us. This Scripture is not about being perfect in power; it’s about being perfect in love.

Note the context: jump back to verse 43 “‘You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies…” (so the context is love) “..and pray for those who persecute you…” Now why should you do that and how is this different? You must do that so that you can be sons of your Father in heaven, "..that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.” It means that just as natural children resemble their natural parents and the nature of natural children is like the nature of their natural parents, so the nature of the children of God is like the God Who is perfect in love. So it’s not surprising to us that the same standard would apply to God as would apply to us… in the matter of love. So that you will be as sons of your Father in heaven.

And then He gives us some examples of how he loves His enemies and does good for those who persecute Him. “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous…”. Then He contrasts and He says, “If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even the pagans do that?” In short, to be like your Father in heaven it means that you do not simply love your enemies as you love yourselves or you love your neighbor as yourself; it is that you would love your enemy by preferring them over your own life and in that sense, and within that context it says, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

The “old” commandment, under the Law, basically required you to love the extent of your capacity to love… love God as much as you are able and to love your neighbor as you are inclined to love yourself. That’s the “old” commandment. The “new” commandment says, “…as I have loved you.” And it establishes Christ as the standard for love. Christ being the Living God, the standard is the same for God as the standard is for man. Now the reason why the standard is the same is because, according to 2 Peter 1:4, the intent of God is that we be made to be partakers of the divine nature…"

“Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.” and "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature..."

The divine nature, the nature of God, is to love and to love perfectly; to love by preferring the life of another over your own life, to give up your life to God so that God would live through you. Now what’s left unanswered for us is: why? And furthermore, how does this prepare us to overcome the evil one?

Revelation 12:11 “They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.”) In this respect we are meant to be exactly as God—perfect in love—the same standard that applies to God applies to us and this is the measure that displays the reality that we are partakers of the divine nature.

By this it is abundantly clear that the “new” commandment is not simply the “old” commandment rehashed. It has the elements of a totally different standard, the same standard for God and man.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Justification is surely by the merit of Jesus Christ's life and death alone plus nothing! By what standard is sanctification measured?

Can loving one's neighbor be separated from commands of God's law?

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

He that loves fulfills what the law demanded. Love works no evil towards one's neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law

 

[Seeker47]

There is much here to digest, it took me a while to work through your post.

I fully agree with what you have written. I may express it differently but there is no substantive disagreement.

In your site of Deut. 12:32; I could not agree more. One weakness of many modern churches is to ignore God's words and instructions in the First Testament while focusing exclusively on the teachings in the Second. I believe this is "taking from" God's word. On that issue I feel like a wolf howling in the wilderness. If nothing else, we will miss the fullness and richness of all God's word.

I understand your concern with the Westminster Catechism but I do think in a larger sense their position is sound. Any sin we knowingly commit is a deliberate rejection of God in favor of a union with some earthly desire. In that view all sin does become adultery against God. (BYW Q/A1 for me has been one of the most profound doctoral statements I have ever read.)

Also, your comments about three parts to Torah is very similar to my own, perhaps just different words. I believe Yeshua raised Torah from the physical realm into the spiritual. For example, we are no longer required to surrender our physical possessions (animals, grain or bread) in sacrifice, but are now able to voluntarily surrender ourselves spiritually. We sacrifice ourselves "in the spirit" when we surrender our earthly selves to our loving and gracious God. I believe your Galatians quote states that very same thought. I have yet to find any of the so-called 613 Mosaic laws that do not have a spiritual requirement. The "Law" was fulfilled, just as Christ said, but not abolished. (Matt:5:17) (I have often wondered if those who believe Jesus abolished "The Law" have ever contemplated The 10).

Finally, Paul's warning to not become slaves of men (Gal. 5:1) was true for those victimized by legalism in his day, and also true in our own times.

Thank you for your well written and thoughtful post.

 

[Jon777]

There is much here to digest, it took me a while to work through your post.

I fully agree with what you have written. I may express it differently but there is no substantive disagreement.

In your site of Deut. 12:32; I could not agree more. One weakness of many modern churches is to ignore God's words and instructions in the First Testament while focusing exclusively on the teachings in the Second. I believe this is "taking from" God's word. On that issue I feel like a wolf howling in the wilderness. If nothing else, we will miss the fullness and richness of all God's word.

I understand your concern with the Westminster Catechism but I do think in a larger sense their position is sound. Any sin we knowingly commit is a deliberate rejection of God in favor of a union with some earthly desire. In that view all sin does become adultery against God. (BYW Q/A1 for me has been one of the most profound doctoral statements I have ever read.)

Also, your comments about three parts to Torah is very similar to my own, perhaps just different words. I believe Yeshua raised Torah from the physical realm into the spiritual. For example, we are no longer required to surrender our physical possessions (animals, grain or bread) in sacrifice, but are now able to voluntarily surrender ourselves spiritually. We sacrifice ourselves "in the spirit" when we surrender our earthly selves to our loving and gracious God. I believe your Galatians quote states that very same thought. I have yet to find any of the so-called 613 Mosaic laws that do not have a spiritual requirement. The "Law" was fulfilled, just as Christ said, but not abolished. (Matt:5:17) (I have often wondered if those who believe Jesus abolished "The Law" have ever contemplated The 10).

Finally, Paul's warning to not become slaves of men (Gal. 5:1) was true for those victimized by legalism in his day, and also true in our own times.

Thank you for your well written and thoughtful post.

Thank you, Seeker, for your comments. You have pointed out a couple of things I wish to clarify, first is about the Westminster Catechism and the Confession of Faith. One of the first commentaries I look to in my studies is by Matthew Poole, the Puritan and Presbyterian, along with John Gill the Baptist. Most of my studies in theology are Presbyterian and Reformed, so I did not mean a slight in any way toward my brothers among the Reformed. It is just that I do have a differing approach, and your reply prompts me to try and clarify, and I hope to do so without sounding combative or as if in a debate. I find discussions such as this as a way to seek truth, not make debating points, and your good, reasoned reply fits that goal.

I find the exact term “Ten Commandments” in 3 verses, Ex. 34:28, Deut. 4:13 & 10:4. While the Decalogue came to Moses, I believe the commandments can be found in Genesis, before Moses lived. I also believe nine of the ten can be found for the New Covenant believers as well. The command to rest one day after six days of labor I also see represented by the Lord’s Day example of the early church. So, the substance of the Decalogue I find cover to cover, so to speak. But I believe all of the Old Covenant was abolished on the cross, including the Ten Commandments as they came from Moses. I’ll try to compare what I mean using the commandment not to covet.

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female slave, ox, donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Exo 20:17 NRSVue)

“What then are we to say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’” (Rom 7:7 NRSVue)

Paul, speaking as a Jew, still wrote simply “You shall not covet” for the New Covenant believer. Missing is the idea of owning a wife or slave. Maybe as you said, the Holy Spirit will guide the Christian as to how to apply “You shall not covet” in his daily life in our day.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. (Mat 5:17-18 NRSVue)

I believe all was accomplished in Christ at the cross, therefore completing, abolishing, or annulling the law:

For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us, abolishing the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, (Eph 2:14-15 NRSVue)

I cannot see a way to state that only the ceremonial and the civil law was abolished at the cross, when I can find nowhere that 3-part division anywhere stated in scripture. I read Eph. 2:14-15 along with Col. 2:14; 2 Cor. 3:7-11 and the following from Exodus and then the book of Hebrews:

He was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. (Exo 34:28 NRSVue)

In speaking of a new covenant, he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear. (Heb 8:13 NRSVue)

Theologically I embrace the 1646 First London Confession of Faith, and what may be called New Covenant Theology, rather than Covenant Theology or Dispensationalism. Though often being thought to be “antinomian”, I see the substance of the Decalogue in Genesis as well as in the New Covenant. You made a comparison of the OT physical seen in the NT as spiritual, and in similar fashion, I see in the New Covenant, soul liberty, the Christian’s conscience as guided by the Holy Spirit to determine many things that fit only his circumstances and path in life, and that no other person can dictate to him.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Christ didn't come to dismantle the law, which is the word used in Matthew 5:17, but to render it obsolete and completely ineffectual, which is translated as abolish in other verses. So there are translation issues creating problems in understanding

 

[Seeker47]

Thank you, Seeker, for your comments. You have pointed out a couple of things I wish to clarify, first is about the Westminster Catechism and the Confession of Faith. One of the first commentaries I look to in my studies is by Matthew Poole, the Puritan and Presbyterian, along with John Gill the Baptist. Most of my studies in theology are Presbyterian and Reformed, so I did not mean a slight in any way toward my brothers among the Reformed. It is just that I do have a differing approach, and your reply prompts me to try and clarify, and I hope to do so without sounding combative or as if in a debate. I find discussions such as this as a way to seek truth, not make debating points, and your good, reasoned reply fits that goal.

I find the exact term “Ten Commandments” in 3 verses, Ex. 34:28, Deut. 4:13 & 10:4. While the Decalogue came to Moses, I believe the commandments can be found in Genesis, before Moses lived. I also believe nine of the ten can be found for the New Covenant believers as well. The command to rest one day after six days of labor I also see represented by the Lord’s Day example of the early church. So, the substance of the Decalogue I find cover to cover, so to speak. But I believe all of the Old Covenant was abolished on the cross, including the Ten Commandments as they came from Moses. I’ll try to compare what I mean using the commandment not to covet.

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female slave, ox, donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Exo 20:17 NRSVue)

“What then are we to say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’” (Rom 7:7 NRSVue)

Paul, speaking as a Jew, still wrote simply “You shall not covet” for the New Covenant believer. Missing is the idea of owning a wife or slave. Maybe as you said, the Holy Spirit will guide the Christian as to how to apply “You shall not covet” in his daily life in our day.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. (Mat 5:17-18 NRSVue)

I believe all was accomplished in Christ at the cross, therefore completing, abolishing, or annulling the law:

For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us, abolishing the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, (Eph 2:14-15 NRSVue)

I cannot see a way to state that only the ceremonial and the civil law was abolished at the cross, when I can find nowhere that 3-part division anywhere stated in scripture. I read Eph. 2:14-15 along with Col. 2:14; 2 Cor. 3:7-11 and the following from Exodus and then the book of Hebrews:

He was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. (Exo 34:28 NRSVue)

In speaking of a new covenant, he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear. (Heb 8:13 NRSVue)

Theologically I embrace the 1646 First London Confession of Faith, and what may be called New Covenant Theology, rather than Covenant Theology or Dispensationalism. Though often being thought to be “antinomian”, I see the substance of the Decalogue in Genesis as well as in the New Covenant. You made a comparison of the OT physical seen in the NT as spiritual, and in similar fashion, I see in the New Covenant, soul liberty, the Christian’s conscience as guided by the Holy Spirit to determine many things that fit only his circumstances and path in life, and that no other person can dictate to him.

I find that most "Discussions" here are really issues of semantics, not theology. None more so than discussion of "The Law". Here, there is no common understanding of what that term means. "The Law" can mean the Mosaic law, the Ten Commandments, civil law, natural law, and even Halakah.

My issue with the view that Yeshua "abolished" the law is that it becomes the basis for much false teaching including the popular prosperity doctrine and OSAS. Some Christians even use this statement to advance humanism; the ultimate act of adultery.

I have really enjoyed this discussion.

 

[JohnDB]

A person's moral boundaries usually are not really set by ourselves regardless of what we want to believe....
And OH how I want to believe that they are.

Even Sunday Morning Sermons, Small Group Bible studies or even well written devotionals don't set our boundaries except in theoretical terms....not "rubber meets the road" or real world actionable terms.

Our personal moral boundaries are set by our friends and associates. Now that friend group can set the boundaries as they understand the scriptures....and it may be fine....or not.

But history and even scripture itself is full of explanations surrounding this topic.

15 minutes with my friends can either support a years worth of Sermons or undo them completely.