Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You don't get it do you?....

HP: When “thou shalt not covet” is stated in Scripture, there is a clear implied penalty. Covetousness is a violation of God’s moral law and as such is indeed sin. No sin goes unpunished apart from an atonement being applied to it as the conditions for forgiveness are met. Are you suggesting that covetousness is not sin or that a violation of that law incurs no punishment?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Still waiting for a reply.

DHK, look up the word as you posted it, 'causuistic' and show us the definition of it according to a dictionary of your choice.

 

[steaver]

HP: No sin goes unpunished apart from an atonement being applied to it as the conditions for forgiveness are met.

Who is the Only One who has ever met the conditions for forgiveness you speak of?

 

[steaver]

Still waiting for a reply.

DHK, look up the word as you posted it, 'causuistic' and show us the definition of it according to a dictionary of your choice.

HP, 'causuistic' is a term used in the definitions of law. Do a search on the Web and you will find many articles using this term. So not finding it in a dictionary does not in any way show DHK made it up.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Every one of God's laws, when broken are sin and have the penalty of separation from God. No one denies that.

HP: In reality you deny that almost daily. You tell us that sins of a beleiver have already been atoned for before they have even been committed, so how in the world would any sin of a believer have a penalty of eternal separation from God?? If something is gone before it exists it must never have existed.

How have you taught anything short of a license to sin on this list for believers? Again, according to you, NO sin of a believer has any penalty for the individual that sins. If one is ever a believer, no penalty does or can exist for any sins committed.

 

[steaver]

HP: In reality you deny that almost daily. You tell us that sins of a beleiver have already been atoned for before they have even been committed, so how in the world would any sin of a believer have a penalty of eternal separation from God??
.

It wouldn't. This is what you are missing in the "good news".

How have you taught anything short of a license to sin on this list for believers? Again, according to you, NO sin of a believer has any penalty for the individual that sins. If one is ever a believer, no penalty does or can exist for any sins committed.

Sin always brings consequences for the believer, what it does not bring is condemnation to hell.

 

[DHK]

HP: In reality you deny that almost daily. You tell us that sins of a beleiver have already been atoned for before they have even been committed, so how in the world would any sin of a believer have a penalty of eternal separation from God?? If something is gone before it exists it must never have existed.

How have you taught anything short of a license to sin on this list for believers? Again, according to you, NO sin of a believer has any penalty for the individual that sins. If one is ever a believer, no penalty does or can exist for any sins committed.

DHK, said with a loud voice, HP, "thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad."
However I recant on the "much learning" part; it seems more like the much confusion instead.
Answer to the OP. This is not a thread on the atonement, on eternal security, or any other such related topic. If you want to start such a thread you are welcome to do so.

This thread is: Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law

That is the subject here. Keep on topic.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: HP, 'causuistic' is a term used in the definitions of law. Do a search on the Web and you will find many articles using this term. So not finding it in a dictionary does not in any way show DHK made it up.

HP: Well, here is my definition for ‘full of baloney’ found by searching the web, which by the way is a well recognized term used by individuals who dispel myths of those who make up self-serving terminology. Full of baloney: One that makes up and misapplies terms to try to give a bunch of nonsense the semblance of factual information.:thumbs:


Steaver, you need to either get yourself some glasses or read the posts. DHK claimed he has given me definitions out of the dictionary. I simply asked him to produce it which he has not nor has he in reality before as far as I can tell from the dictionaries I have researched. DHK needs to either produce the evidence that he flat stated he had, or admit he made up a story (giving him the benefit of the doubt he did not lie) concerning the evidence.:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

DHK needs to either produce the evidence that he flat stated he had, or admit he made up a story (giving him the benefit of the doubt he did not lie) concerning the evidence.:thumbs:

The evidence is in post #77. Why don't you read it for yourself:

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1547725&postcount=77

 

[steaver]

I guess who ever titled this grant is full of baloney as well....

Law Faculty receives two grants

12-17-09
In the Free Competition of the Division for the Social Sciences (MaGW) of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), the Faculty of Law received two grants for social relevant studies titled: Causuistic Problem Solving in Substantive Criminal Law and Obligations to rehabilitate: the interaction between civil law and labour and social security law. With receiving these grants, the Faculty of Law receives money for two PhD-positions, one PhD-candidate for each project.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Here was my quote: DHK uses the words, “apoditic” and “causuistic” ( ‘causuistic’ in reality not even in the dictionaries I have checked including but not limited to the Oxford English Dict. and Websters.) to make a distinction between laws with and laws without a penalty, when in reality the words used have nothing at all to do directly with penalties or the lack thereof concerning law. He is manufacturing a philosophical notion from borrowed terms that in actuality have nothing whatsoever to do with the point(s) of penalty of the law he is trying to make. What does something being a necessary truth or something being of absolute certainty have to do with ‘law not having a penalty attached??’

I say once again that the approach DHK is taking is nothing short of a philosophical approach to the law of God that is not founded on truth, reason, or the Scriptures.

Here was DHK’s response:

DHK: BTW, I gave you references to dictionaries, including Merriam-Websters to the very words you say you cannot find. I ask the same question of you again: Why do you expect me to defend your ignorance?

HP: DHK, are you capable of understanding your own posts? My comments above are right on with the facts. You have never once given a definition from Webster’s or any other dictionary of the word “causuistic.” It is a manufactured philosophical term without the slightest basis of any factual definition from any dictionary that I have found thus far. Produce the facts as you say exist or admit you mis-spoke (or storied) when you stated: DHK: “I gave you references to dictionaries, including Merriam-Websters to the very words you say you cannot find.”

You did no such thing. You gave the a singular, not plural, dictionary definition for one word, not “causuistic” by the way, as you clearly imply you have. I never once refuted your definition of apodictic. I simply commented that concerning it you and the philosophers you are following misapply the term when you associate it with penalties of the law or lack thereof which is not even remotely indicated in any definition of the word itself.

Man up or produce the facts DHK.:wavey:

 

[BobRyan]

BR: but there was no civil penalty for neighbor lying to neighbor or coveting or failure to Love God with all your heart (Deut 6:5) or failure to Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18).

Thus some of the moral law did have civil penalty attached but other parts did not. However ALL of the moral law does have SIN associated with the violation of it - and sin has the penalty of the 2nd death.

HP: An excellent post over all. :thumbs:Civil law is not what is being discussed here. I would still maintain that if any violation of civil law has no penalty attached, in reality, it is no 'law' at all. To suggest that it is law would be a misnomer. It might be a civil suggestion, good advice, counsel, etc, but it is no 'law' at all.

I agree that laws such as "Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5 and "Love your Neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18 and "do not covet" Ex 20:17 - that have no civil penalty at all attached to them -- could be considered "no law at all" from a "civil penalty" perspective.

But from a Roman 6:23 "Wages of sin is death" they will surely get the lost person toasted in the Rev 20 - "second death" event. Thus there is a penalty for those sins - just not a civil penalty determined and punishable by man.

What is amazing to me about DHK’s philosophy is that a violation of moral law may or may not have penalties attached. Take murder for instance. In one case (thou shalt not kill) he denotes it as “apoditic” while in another case of murder (Num. 35:16) he denotes it as “causuistic.” What, pray tell, are we to gain from that contradictory distinction???

Indeed - I don't know why it is of concern at all - given that God tells us that sin is violation of His Law (1John 3:4) and that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).

Given that standard - what difference does it make that "Love God with all your heart" in Deut 6:5 has no civil penalty associated with it - in the Theocracy of Israel?

I don't know why this point is being so earnestly tossed back and forth.

What I see on the horizon is DHK is placing himself as the only judge jury and executioner able to distinguish with his superior abilities to discern these meaningless man made philosophical nuances of the law when and when not to attach a penalty to that which is clearly moral law.

What does it matter given that we all know that the Lev 19:18 law and the Deut 6:5 law is binding even though there was no civil penalty for it. How is DHK's labeling of these laws - changing anything?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

What is amazing to me about DHK’s philosophy is that a violation of moral law may or may not have penalties attached. Take murder for instance. In one case (thou shalt not kill) he denotes it as “apoditic” while in another case of murder (Num. 35:16) he denotes it as “causuistic.” What, pray tell, are we to gain from that contradictory distinction??

Tell us DHK, when and when not murder is a violation of moral law and when or when not a penalty is attached for a violation of that moral law? By what consistent standard do you come to your conclusions?

 

[DHK]

Man up or produce the facts DHK.:wavey:

Actually, I wish you would do the same thing instead of complaining about everything. Read the posts.

casuistic
Case law, law applied to specific cases, most commonly in the form “If . . . , then . . .” where a crime is mentioned, then its punishment (e.g., Deut 22:23-29). See, in contrast, the discussion of apodictic law.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: casuistic

Case law, law applied to specific cases, most commonly in the form “If . . . , then . . .” where a crime is mentioned, then its punishment (e.g., Deut 22:23-29). See, in contrast, the discussion of apodictic law.

HP: What is the source? Is it from Scripture, a dictionary (as you clearly implied in your qoute I mentioned in the last post) a philosophy book, or what? Remember, cults make up terminology or attach manufactured definitions to known terms all the time.

 

[DHK]

HP: What is the source? Is it from Scripture, a dictionary (as you clearly implied in your qoute I mentioned in the last post) a philosophy book, or what? Remember, cults make up terminology or attach manufactured definitions to known terms all the time.

This thread is only 12 pages long. I have referenced this quote three times. It is your problem that you cannot or will not read. Find it yourself!

 

[ccrobinson]

CCR: HP, I'm just interested to see how you attempt to prove that DHK is a Calvinist.

HP: That has never been the focus of any of my endeavors. I have tried to show that the deterministic ends of the doctrines held by DHK and the logical ends of the necessitated Calvinistic system are one in the same in all reality.

So, you've tried to show that the beliefs held by DHK are the same as those held by Calvinists, but you're not trying to say he is a Calvinist. Did I get that right?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: This thread is only 12 pages long. I have referenced this quote three times. It is your problem that you cannot or will not read. Find it yourself!

HP: I found it but it was NOT from a dictionary as you indicated it was. You have never, contrary to your statement to me, ever provided one source other than a comment evidently out of a philosophy book to define "causuistic." At least we all know where you are establishing your doctrines from and it is not Scripture, logic or reason. You have chosen to follow a philosopher in his error, believing his false assertion of a manufactured distinction between of law with and without penalty. That is a false philosophical distinction without merit. That is certainly no foundation for sound or truthful theology.

 

[DHK]

HP: I found it but it was NOT from a dictionary as you indicated it was. You have never, contrary to your statement to me, ever provided one source other than a comment evidently out of a philosophy book to define "causuistic." At least we all know where you are establishing your doctrines from and it is not Scripture, logic or reason. You have chosen to follow a philosopher in his error, believing his false assertion of a manufactured distinction between of law with and without penalty. That is a false philosophical distinction without merit. That is certainly no foundation for sound or truthful theology.

HP, Please don't be so simplistic.
One doesn't go to a basic Oxford or Webster's dictionary to find terms dealing either with law or with theology. Go back and read Steaver's post. He gave you a reference:

Law Faculty receives two grants

12-17-09
In the Free Competition of the Division for the Social Sciences (MaGW) of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), the Faculty of Law received two grants for social relevant studies titled: Causuistic Problem Solving in Substantive Criminal Law and Obligations to rehabilitate: the interaction between civil law and labour and social security law. With receiving these grants, the Faculty of Law receives money for two PhD-positions, one PhD-candidate for each project.

But you dismissed this as well.
You don't find legal terms in basic dictionaries.
You don't find all theological terms in basic dictionaries.
I studied biology. I don't find terms used in biology in basic dictionaries.

So what is your problem? Your problem is that you look in the wrong dictionaries. If you want to play ball then get in the ball game, and play by the rules. Read the rule book, and learn the terminology. If you don't know what a "strike" is and what a "ball" is, you will have to go to the appropriate dictionary and find out.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CCR: So, you've tried to show that the beliefs held by DHK are the same as those held by Calvinists, but you're not trying to say he is a Calvinist. Did I get that right?

HP: I have tried to show that the end of DHK’s theology is precisely the same as that of Calvinism in the following regard. No matter how DHK tries to separate himself from that well know system of thought, the end of his theology is deterministic, just as are the ends of Calvinism. The whole problem with Calvinism is that it is a deterministic system opposed to any real semblance of freedom. I maintain that DHK’s system of theology fits that deterministic mold to a tee, especially evident in his adament elimination of all conditions to salvation. You cannot get any more deterministic than that period. 'All is determined by God' in his theology and in Calvinism as well, and that is precisely determinism defined.