Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: From: GLOSSARY from the New Interpreter’s Study Bible
(Hint: a Glossary is a dictionary)

HP: So here we have what DHK denotes as a "proper dictionary." A "glossary” of the terms that might be used in that specific translation. So, all one has to do to have a ‘proper dictionary’ according to DHK, is to develop a translation, provide a glossary for any term they might coin, and Walla! We have just concocted a ‘proper dictionary!

Does anyone beside me see the absolutely self serving principles involved that might cause any reasonable man to reject such a glossary as a ‘proper dictionary???

 

[steaver]

My point is that DHK is no different than the rest of us. We all approach Scripture from a philosophical position, stated or assumed. No one establishes a theology apart from a philosophy.

Please explain. Give me an example. Well, I will give you an example and you tell me how philosophy is in it.

I believe the word of God (bible) is perfect truth. So I go to it to see how this world began. I read in Genesis how God created this world in six days and all the details therein. So now I believe and hold the position that God created this world in six days and created all the living things just as He said so in Genesis.

Now what part of my new found position is founded on "philosophy"? Would it be the belief in God, or the belief in the word of God? Just how are you applying philosophy to all of us being effected by it in our beliefs?

 

[DHK]

HP: The truth of the matter is that every single one if us approach Scripture from philosophical positions, DHK has clearly allowed us all to see that he certainly is of no exception. Certainly I owe a debt if gratitude to many authors outside of Scripture. I have a library of books I have read and use for references as most likely all of us have. Would a student of the Scriptures have any less??

You philosophize more than anyone that I have seen on this board, and are very confused as a result of it. I stick to the Scriptures, and if you have noted stay away from the ECF. My approach is sola scriptura. It is theology, not philosophy. My approach is theological, not philosophical. Are you a student of the philosophy of your books, or of the theology of the Bible? It seems that you allow your philosophy to guide you rather than theology.
Philosophy is simply a vain man's attempt in seeking wisdom.

My point is that DHK is no different than the rest of us. We all approach Scripture from a philosophical position, stated or assumed. No one establishes a theology apart from a philosophy.

I approach Scripture from a Biblical point of view, entirely apart from some vain man's philosophy.

The real issue we need to be addressing is upon what grounds have we developed our philosophy? Where has our philosophy went in search of truth, to establish it as something of veracity that can be a trustworthy source of the philosophical notions we approach Scripture from?

You have philosophy. I have theology. I will be satisfied with "the study of God," theology. Philosophy "love of wisdom" is humanistic and has nothing to do with the Bible. It is vain. It is what Hindu gurus seek after, for example.

One thing is for certain. The basis for our philosophy had better be something other than a book by an individual or individuals. If it is not founded upon universal truths of immutable justice, matters of fact, and first truths of reason, by what means or standard will one establish the veracity of their philosophical approach taken? Something simply written by Mr. Merrill, or any other(s) for that matter, will not suffice.

Mr. Merrill, which I quoted from stated facts, not philosophy.
By your reasoning you would categorize the "trinity" as philosophy because the word is not found in the Bible. You would have to go to a dictionary or reference work to find it (like Merrill), and therefore call it philosophy. Thus you would end up denying the trinity (or at least arguing against it).
I use reference works as a guide. He gave me definitions, not philosophy. I hope you can see the difference.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Please explain. Give me an example.

HP: I would have thought it would be as plain as the nose on your face, …..but just for you Steaver, I will recap the philosophical input of DHK on the issue of law. :saint::smilewinkgrin:

On page 6 of this thread, post #43, DHK presents his philosophical approach to law as found in Scripture. He is establishing what he sees as the means by which we are to understand the import of laws in Scripture, by separating law into two distinct categories, “apoditic” and “causuistic.” That is the basis of the philosophical approach DHK has presented to the list in understanding what the Scriptures denote as law.

Any fault lies NOT in the notion that such is a philosophical approach, but rather the question can and should be ask if in fact such an approach is proper and why.

 

[steaver]

HP: I would have thought it would be as plain as the nose on your face, …..but just for you Steaver, I will recap the input of DHK on the issue of law. :saint::smilewinkgrin:

On page 6 of this thread, post #43, DHK presents his philosophical approach to law as found in Scripture. He is establishing what he sees as the means by which we are to understand the import of laws in Scripture, by separating law into two distinct categories, “apoditic” and “causuistic.” That is the basis of the philosophical approach DHK has presented to the list in understanding what the Scriptures denote as law.

Any fault lies NOT in the notion that such is a philosophical approach, but rather the question can and should be ask if in fact such an approach is proper and why.

Read my post again HP. I am asking you a question about philosophy, apart from you and DHK's argument over causistic.

Please explain. Give me an example. Well, I will give you an example and you tell me how philosophy is in it.

I believe the word of God (bible) is perfect truth. So I go to it to see how this world began. I read in Genesis how God created this world in six days and all the details therein. So now I believe and hold the position that God created this world in six days and created all the living things just as He said so in Genesis.

Now what part of my new found position is founded on "philosophy"? Would it be the belief in God, or the belief in the word of God? Just how are you applying philosophy to all of us being effected by it in our beliefs?

You said ALL theological positions are derived from philosophy. I gave you a sample and asked you to show me how philosophy played a part in my position taken.

 

[DHK]

HP: I would have thought it would be as plain as the nose on your face, …..but just for you Steaver, I will recap the philosophical input of DHK on the issue of law. :saint::smilewinkgrin:

On page 6 of this thread, post #43, DHK presents his philosophical approach to law as found in Scripture. He is establishing what he sees as the means by which we are to understand the import of laws in Scripture, by separating law into two distinct categories, “apoditic” and “causuistic.” That is the basis of the philosophical approach DHK has presented to the list in understanding what the Scriptures denote as law.

Any fault lies NOT in the notion that such is a philosophical approach, but rather the question can and should be ask if in fact such an approach is proper and why.

There is no philosophy there. It is a stated fact.
All laws can be categorized into two different groups: one with penalties and one without penalties. That is not a philosophy. It is an observation.
When that observation was made a label was given to each set of laws: labels that you were unfamiliar with and therefore fussed and fumed about ever since post #77. Which post are we on now? That has nothing to do with philosophy. It is fact.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Of a truth, a man convinced against his will, remains of the same opinion still. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, am I quoting you correctly by stating that you believe the distinction between moral law and civil law is that civil law has penalties? If not could you state once again your position on that distinction? Thanks.

 

[BobRyan]

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

BY
DWIGHT L. MOODY
The Ten Commandments:

http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The_TenCommandments_Text.html


Exodus 20:2-17


BINDING TODAY
Some people seem to think we have got beyond the commandments. What did Christ say?
"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18)
The commandments of God given to Moses in the Mount at Horeb are as binding today as ever they have been since the time they were proclaimed in the hearing of the people. The Jews said the law was not given in Palestine (which belonged to Israel), but in the wilderness, because the law was for all nations.

Jesus never condemned the law and the prophets, but He did condemn those who did not obey them. Because He gave new commandments, it does not follow that He abolished the old. Christ's explanation of them made them all the more searching. In His Sermon on the Mount, He carried the principles of the commandments beyond the mere letter. He unfolded them and showed that they embraced more, that they are positive as well as prohibitive. The Old Testament closes with these words:
"Remember ye the Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the Statutes and Judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the Earth with a curse." (Malachi 4:4-6)
Does that look as if the law of Moses was becoming obsolete?

The conviction deepens in me with the years that the old truths of the Bible must be stated and restated in the plainest possible language. I do not remember ever to have heard a sermon preached on the commandments. I have an index of two thousand five hundred sermons preached by Spurgeon, and not one of them selects its text from the first seventeen verses of Exodus 20. The people must be made to understand that the Ten Commandments are still binding, and that there is a penalty attached to their violation. We do not want a gospel of mere sentiment. The Sermon on the Mount did not blot out the Ten Commandments.

This proves nothing. Why do you keep harping on it?

In the model where there is respect for "priesthood of all believers" the idea is that D.L Moody "gets to have" that opinion even if it differs with DHK.

I am simply pointing out that Moody's position on the defintion not only of the "Commandments of God" but also his affirmation of the continued authority of God's Ten Commandments - is far more consistent with what we find in scripture - and what I have been saying - than some other things we see on this board from time to time.

Not everyone will agree with Moody of course - but based on the responses to the D.L Moody thread that I posted - I see some people here do respect his views.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

But BR, what if one can only count to nine???

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: In the model where there is respect for "priesthood of all believers" the idea is that D.L Moody "gets to have" that opinion even if it differs with DHK.

HP: Now that is a rewarding thought.
Selah:thumbs::godisgood:

 

[DHK]

In the model where there is respect for "priesthood of all believers" the idea is that D.L Moody "gets to have" that opinion even if it differs with DHK.

I am simply pointing out that Moody's position on the defintion not only of the "Commandments of God" but also his affirmation of the continued authority of God's Ten Commandments - is far more consistent with what we find in scripture - and what I have been saying - than some other things we see on this board from time to time.

Not everyone will agree with Moody of course - but based on the responses to the D.L Moody thread that I posted - I see some people here do respect his views.

in Christ,

Bob

Moody was an evangelist. There were and are hundreds of evangelists.
There are hundreds of theologians (both good and bad).
There are hundreds of cult leaders, as well as leaders of world religions.

I don't understand your fixation on Moody. What difference in the light of eternity will his views make on this board and in this discussion? Why him?
You have just stated that you believe in the Priesthood of the believer. Do you? If you do, you would act as a priest before God and go to God's revelation (the Bible) for truth.
Instead you are acting as a priest before Moody, and going before Moody for the truth of Moody. So what do you believe? The priesthood of the believer? Or, a priest before Moody??
What is your fixation on Moody, and why?
Or, are you suddenly unable to think on your own?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You have just stated that you believe in the Priesthood of the believer. Do you? If you do, you would act as a priest before God and go to the God's revelation (the Bible) for truth.

HP: In the words of Rush, “UMM, UMM. UMM!” How would you see your advice here in respect to your apparent fascination/fixation (using the same standard you use against DHK) with Eugene Merrill?

 

[DHK]

DHK, am I quoting you correctly by stating that you believe the distinction between moral law and civil law is that civil law has penalties? If not could you state once again your position on that distinction? Thanks.

Probably not. You have probably taken something out of context.
First define terms. What do you mean by "moral".
"Moral" simply means "relating to principles of right and wrong behavior"
"Thou shalt not steal" is moral law.
"If you steal you shall have your hand cut off." (law in Saudi Arabia)
--It is still moral--dealing with right and wrong. But it is not the "moral law" that God implanted on all mankind's hearts.
Just because it has a penalty to it does not suddenly make it "amoral."

 

[DHK]

HP: In the words of Rush, “UMM, UMM. UMM!” How would you see your advice here in respect to your apparent fascination/fixation (using the same standard you use against DHK) with Eugene Merrill?

It is your fixation HP, not mine. I made only one quote from him. Only once. After that I referenced other works, and gave links to them. Short memory, eh??

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, did you delete your post concerning your statement? I cannot seem to find it, nor my post when I first brought attention to your statement.

 

[DHK]

DHK, did you delete your post concerning your statement? I cannot seem to find it, nor my post when I first brought attention to your statement.

No, no deletions.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, is there any 'case law' that comes to your own mind that would allow or justify you if you did lie concerning any deletions? Just asking.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: That moral law becomes civil law when penalties become attached.

HP: Here is the quote I was asking about. Does moral law become civil law when penalties are attached? Why does not this comment suggest that moral law acording to you has no penalties, and only civil law does? Is that not precisely the point of your comment? If not, can you interpret your comment for us?

 

[DHK]

HP: Here is the quote I was asking about. Does moral law become civil law when penalties are attached? Why does not this comment suggest that moral law acording to you has no penalties, and only civil law does? Is that not precisely the point of your comment? If not, can you interpret your comment for us?

My point is this.
God's moral law is stated in the Ten Commandments without penalty
They are immutable truths, or laws that are written in the hearts of every man, according to Romans 2:14,15. It is generally what is referred to as God's moral law.
When man takes that law and begins to expand upon it, it does not take away any of its morality. Morals deal with right and wrong. But man adds penalties according to his societal mores. The Hebrews (directed by laws given straight from God through Moses) were told that for stealing they had to restore four times the amount taken.
That is not the penalty for stealing in our nation. Our laws are different.
They vary according to the theft or crime. Theft may require: recompense, community service, jail time, or some other judgment that a judge may impose. It is not as set in stone as the Hebrew law was. But that is civil law. The law, dealing with right and wrong, is still moral, but now it is civil as well.

Laws such as: Love your neighbor as yourself is moral and is always apodictic. There is never a penalty attached to it. There is no civil law about not loving your neighbor as yourself, and if you don't the police are not going to punish you for it. It cannot become a casuistic law. But it still is moral. Why? Because it is always right to love your neighbor. It still deals with right and wrong.