-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law
- Thread starter Heavenly Pilgrim
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
It wasn't. I made one comment about how law is often divided, and HP jumped on it, denied it, and turned this whole thread into a needless discussion about it. You can ask HP about it being a side trail. There are different ways to classify law.Fine - what does that have to do with the ceremonial vs moral law topic -- other than pointing out that "in some cases" moral law just so happens to also be coded into civil law with civil penalties attached?
How is this not a side trail?
in Christ,
Bob
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK: 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. ....
HP: If all men have the ten commandments written in their heart, is there a penalty for violating them? Is man told of the penalty for violating them intuitively even if it has never became civil law? If the ten commandments have no penalty, why cannot it also be said that they can violate the law with impunity as long as it has not became civil law? If the ten commandments and that which is given to all men according to you are one in the same, either both have a penalty or neither has a penalty. Which is it?
If you say law is granted a penalty by becoming civil law, what if one of the commandments is not upheld by civil government and no penalty is ever attached? Does that mean there can be no penalty for the violation of the moral law that has not been recognized by civil law?
Last edited by a moderator:
You tell me.HP: If all men have the ten commandments written in their heart, is there a penalty for violating them?
Thou shall not covet.
What penalty is the government going to slam on you when you break this law?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK: You tell me.
Thou shall not covet.
What penalty is the government going to slam on you when you break this law?
HP: Forget the civil law for a minute. What will God’s law slam you with when you break this law?
That depends:HP: Forget the civil law for a minute. What will God’s law slam you with when you break this law?
It depends on whether you are saved or unsaved.
If saved, it depends on whether you are speaking in relation to salvation, or the Christian walk after salvation.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Give us the breakdown in all the circumstances you mentioned.
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Or..just make it simple on yourself and start with 'if you are unsaved and there is no established civil penalty.'
Last edited by a moderator:
Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
God has written his law on the hearts of every man, covetousness included. When man covets, he intuitively knows he is doing wrong. That law is written in his law verified by his conscience bearing witness against the wrong that he is doing.
Why?
Because the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.
The law cannot save; but Christ can.
When the unsaved breaks the law it condemns him. In God's sight there is no difference between "law" or sin.
"Sin is a transgression of the law" (1John 3:4)
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Covetousness is just as bad as murder, rape, theft, etc. It is a transgression of God's law. Any sin will send one to hell. No one can keep God's law perfectly. Sin condemns. It is the condemnation of sin that shows man his unworthiness and his need of a Savior.
FOR A BELIEVER:
1. In relation to his salvation--the sin of covetousness makes no difference. It is under the blood. It is buried in the depths of the deepest sea. It is forgotten to be remembered no more. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." None whatsoever. The sin of covetousness will never affect a believers salvation--never.
2. In relation to his walk with God. The sin of covetousness will temporarily separate him from having fellowship with God. He will not lose his salvation but lose the fellowship or the walk with God that he had. It affects our growth in the Lord. It affects our sanctification, not our salvation.
That is why John wrote:
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
--This verse is written to believers only. John includes himself "our sins".
Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
God has written his law on the hearts of every man, covetousness included. When man covets, he intuitively knows he is doing wrong. That law is written in his law verified by his conscience bearing witness against the wrong that he is doing.
Why?
Because the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.
The law cannot save; but Christ can.
When the unsaved breaks the law it condemns him. In God's sight there is no difference between "law" or sin.
"Sin is a transgression of the law" (1John 3:4)
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Covetousness is just as bad as murder, rape, theft, etc. It is a transgression of God's law. Any sin will send one to hell. No one can keep God's law perfectly. Sin condemns. It is the condemnation of sin that shows man his unworthiness and his need of a Savior.
FOR A BELIEVER:
1. In relation to his salvation--the sin of covetousness makes no difference. It is under the blood. It is buried in the depths of the deepest sea. It is forgotten to be remembered no more. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." None whatsoever. The sin of covetousness will never affect a believers salvation--never.
2. In relation to his walk with God. The sin of covetousness will temporarily separate him from having fellowship with God. He will not lose his salvation but lose the fellowship or the walk with God that he had. It affects our growth in the Lord. It affects our sanctification, not our salvation.
That is why John wrote:
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
--This verse is written to believers only. John includes himself "our sins".
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Is hell a penalty or not? What I cannot understand is why you would say the ten commandments are “without penalty” and then tell us that any violation of them (except for the one you feel is not in reality a violation of moral law) receives a penalty of hell?? (excluding the believer, which for now I will not address so we can stay more focused) What is the point in your “without penalty” comment? Do you think it might be misunderstood or raise red flags when one hears such a comment?DHK: God's moral law is stated in the Ten Commandments without penalty
DHK: Covetousness is just as bad as murder, rape, theft, etc. It is a transgression of God's law. Any sin will send one to hell.
This question has been answered earlier in the thread, but I think you like to argue for arguments sake.HP: Is hell a penalty or not? What I cannot understand is why you would say the ten commandments are “without penalty” and then tell us that any violation of them (except for the one you feel is not in reality a violation of moral law) receives a penalty of hell?? (excluding the believer, which for now I will not address so we can stay more focused) What is the point in your “without penalty” comment? Do you think it might be misunderstood or raise red flags when one hears such a comment?
I think you know what the Ten Commandments are.
I think you know where to find them (Exodus 20).
You can look them up if you need to review them.
We can use the same commandment as an example: Thou shalt not covet
Where is the stated penalty in "Thou shalt not covet."
Please explain.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK: Where is the stated penalty in "Thou shalt not covet."
Please explain.
HP: You are the one that needs to explain DHK. You say there is "no penalty" and then tell us the penalty is 'hell." You present a trangression of the law as sin and then say the following:
DHK: "Any sin will send one to hell."
Where do you come up with the penalty you claim sin merits???
What part of Thou shalt not covet do you not get?HP: You are the one that needs to explain DHK. You say there is "no penalty" and then tell us the penalty is 'hell." You present a trangression of the law as sin and then say the following:
DHK: "Any sin will send one to hell."
Where do you come up with the penalty you claim sin merits???
Where in that statement is "a stated penalty?
Do you need a lesson in English grammar?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK, where do you come up with the penalty you claim you claim the sin of covetousness merits???
Hint:
Hint:
DHK: In God's sight there is no difference between "law" or sin.
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK: In God's sight there is no difference between "law" or sin.
HP: DHK stated this in another post. This comment as well should raise red flags for some such as BR who use the terminology of ‘ceremonial law.’ Is this statement of DHK truth or is it in all actuality in error in light of what is commonly denoted as ‘ceremonial law?”
still straining at gnats; arguing for arguments sake; treading on a tread mill and going nowhere.HP: DHK stated this in another post. This comment as well should raise red flags for some such as BR who use the terminology of ‘ceremonial law.’ Is this statement of DHK truth or is it in all actuality in error in light of what is commonly denoted as ‘ceremonial law?”
ccrobinson
Active Member
HP is a troll. Further, HP is a troll who's obsessed with you, DHK. I've never seen anybody on this, or any other, message board who has become so obsessed with one particular person.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
This is precisely what I instinctively knew what would happen. As soon as one puts the slightest spotlight on the separation of the law that DHK proposed and the contradictions it imbibes, all we get is smoke and personal attacks. So much for meaningful debate.
As for you CCR, if you have nothing to add to the debate, why not go play tiddly winks with the kiddos or do something constructive for a change?:thumbsup:
As for you CCR, if you have nothing to add to the debate, why not go play tiddly winks with the kiddos or do something constructive for a change?:thumbsup:
ccrobinson
Active Member
As for you CCR, if you have nothing to add to the debate...
What debate, troll? I see no debate here. When you start actually debating, please let me know, because I'd like to see that.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK, where do you come up with the penalty you claim you claim the sin of covetousness merits???
- Status
- Not open for further replies.