Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Hey CCR. Help make this a real debate.:thumbs:

Here is an opportunity for you to join in the actual discussion here. DHK seems to be having problems deciding just where any penalty is attached to covetousness, and maybe you could come to his aide. According to DHK there is no penalty attached to the ten commandments, (or nine in the mind of DHK) so it cannot be established by them. Where does it say that it is sin and as such deserves the penalty of hell DHK states it will incur,.......... of less of course you are a believer, in which case you can sin with impunity as far as hell is concerned, including but not limited to breaking any of the 10/9 commandments according to DHK.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Oooooh, another thread to get involved in Although thats 19 pages <ack> to catch up on first...

Any New Covenant Theology proponents already active in this thread?

 

[DHK]

Hey CCR. Help make this a real debate.:thumbs:

Here is an opportunity for you to join in the actual discussion here. DHK seems to be having problems deciding just where any penalty is attached to covetousness,

Let's not make any false accusations, lest you, according to your own theology lose your salvation for lack of continued obedience in the faith. Am I correct? You do walk a thin line.

You need a reading lesson. My children could read at this level when they were four years old--benefits of home-schooling.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET

There, That is about a simply as I can write it, and yet it that is exactly what it says in Exodus 20--one of the Ten Commandments.

Now in that simple command, tell me where is the stated penalty.
Do you see a stated penalty? If so will you please tell me what it is. Don't quote me; tell me from the statement itself what the stated penalty of this commandment is.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

OK. There is no stated penalty in that verse. DHK, where do you come up with the penalty you claim you claim the sin of covetousness merits???

 

[dwmoeller1]

Who is saying what here? HP say DHK has trouble showing any attached penalty, then DHK comes back apparently agreeing that there is no attached penalty and asks HP to show where it is. It looks like you both agree that there is no attached penalty and both believe the other thinks there is/should be.

I is confuzzed.

 

[dwmoeller1]

And I will just state up front for everyone's benefit that I am see no consistent or reasonable basis for creating a distinction between moral and ceremonial law. As far as I can tell in Scripture there is no such distinction and, even if such a distinction does exists, there is no way to determine what law falls where. Same for any sort of "governmental" distinction as well.

Furthermore, even if there were such a distinction and even if you could determine consistently which law fell where, the NT deals with the OT law only as a whole - it certainly never makes this sort of distinction. So even if the distinction exists, as far as Christian living and doctrine goes, its meaningless - at best its of the same sort of interest to the Christian as how much gold was used to build the tabernacle.

 

[dwmoeller1]

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

Just to point out, I believe what you really mean to refer to is covenant theology. Its the part of reformed doctrine which makes heavy use of this sort of distinction - not Calvinism per se.

So, for instance, I am a "Calvinist" (since I don't mind labels as long as people avoid using them to overgeneralize and create straw men, and since no better label probably applies, feel free to refer to me as such - of course, being a 4 or 4.5 pointer any good Calvinist would disclaim me ), yet I reject covenant theology (and the distinctions in the law it creates). I hold to what is referred to as "New Covenant Theology".

Anyways...probably more info that you cared about

 

[dwmoeller1]

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.

For instance, when DHK or anyone else concludes there are no conditions to salvation, there is but one logical conclusion. Something must be the cause of ones salvation, and if it is all of God, God necessitates the outcome. If God necessitates the outcome, that is precisely the same end as that of the deterministic fatalism known the world over by the name of Calvinism. Double predestination rules by logical implication regardless of rhetoric from DHK or any one else to the contrary that makes God the sole cause of salvation. If it is all of God, God determines all. If God determines all, God determines those that will be damned as well as those that will be saved.

Now, back to the OP. :thumbsup: What can you offer the lists as to what ‘law’ entails and your definition of moral law and or ceremonial law?

Sorry, I know this is offtopic but I just have to interject. Strictly speaking, Cism does not hold that *salvation* is unconditional. In fact, I know plenty of Cists who would agree that *salvation* is very much conditional. Depends upon the distinctions they make between regeneration, forgiveness, and salvation. What all Cists agree upon though is that God's choice in *election* is unconditional.

Now, obviously, all these terms tend to get mixed together when discussion happens - for instance, does one stick with their very precise meaning of "regeneration" or does one do what others do and tend to use it as a synonym for "salvation", etc. etc. So, I am sure you would find many Cists who might say salvation is unconditional - I am sure you will find a post in the future where i say some such thing - but for most of the studied Cists who say this, if you questioned them closely they would come up with something about "necessary but sufficient conditions" to salvation.

Just sayin...

 

[dwmoeller1]

Several pages into it now and I am sorry to say HP, but it looks like we agree, so you are unlikely to be getting any debating on this from me

 

[dwmoeller1]

The Moral law includes things like the Ten Commandments.

It also includes things like Lev 19:18 "Love our neighbor as yourself".

In the verse though, "neighbor" is defined in pretty narrow terms. At most a "neighbor" is "one of your people". Thus under the old law, a person could legitimately choose to not-love someone who was not one of their people. Christ, though, expands the definition of neighbor way beyond this. Sure they are related, but Christ's law and the old law are essentially different.

Peter affirms (in Acts 10 ) that his post-cross practice was to continue to uphold ALL of the moral law as it relates to food not just the Lev 17 portion.

There is no mention of Peter upholding the moral law. He doesn't make that distinction. All that happens in this chapter is that he stops worrying about the law having to do with jew and gentile associating together. Which...btw, where is that found in the OT law?

The "moral law" distinction can only been seen in this passage if one assumes first that the distinction exists.

 

[BobRyan]

Regarding Lev 19:18

In the verse though, "neighbor" is defined in pretty narrow terms. At most a "neighbor" is "one of your people". Thus under the old law, a person could legitimately choose to not-love someone who was not one of their people. Christ, though, expands the definition of neighbor way beyond this. Sure they are related, but Christ's law and the old law are essentially different.

In Matt 5, 6, and 7 Christ claims "I have not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill" and then in this sermon - years before the cross - Christ explains the deeper meaning in the law.

So my question is - did God suddenly "figure out He meant more than what He said" or is this a case of Christ explaining the meaning that was already in the text of scripture?

For example in Matt 22 the Jews ask Christ "what is the great commandment" - He does not say "Thou shalt not kill" - but rather He says "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18. And the Jews readily agree. (Of course He also had the Deut 6:5 command to Love God - but I am going to focus on Lev 19:18 for the sake of this discussion).

In Genesis 9:5-6 God says that if man kills man (if man murders) then by man he must be killed.

1. If the Law not to kill is in fact contained within the much more all-embracing Law of Lev 19:18 (as Christ affirms in Matt 22 and as the Jews agree)
2. - and if God's Word - the writings of Moses also includes the Genesis 9 context of God-Spoken Law (Law that even preceded Sinai by about 1000 years)
3. - and if we agree that neither Noah nor any of his immediate family were "Jews"

-- then how can it be said that God's WORD restricted "Love your Neighbor" to "just love Jews" - because that would mean that it was "just wrong to murder Jews" -- given that "thou shalt not kill" is merely one small part of the larger "Love your Neighbor" and Love your Neighbor is supposedly being restricted by God Himsefl - to "just Jews" in your comments above. And clearly God said it was wrong to murder non-jews in Genesis 9.

It seems to me that the scriptures are instead fully in line with the expanded meaning Christ gave - and that this was true from the very start.

Thoughts?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR, sounds like good preaching to me.:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

Who is saying what here? HP say DHK has trouble showing any attached penalty, then DHK comes back apparently agreeing that there is no attached penalty and asks HP to show where it is. It looks like you both agree that there is no attached penalty and both believe the other thinks there is/should be.

I is confuzzed.

When I finally get HP to agree to the fact that "Thou shalt not covet," has "no stated penalty," attached to it, then we can take baby step #2.
For covetousness, just like any other sin, does have a penalty (though not explicitly stated in the Ten Commandments), and that is death (eternal death or separation from God for all eternity). That is the penalty for every sin, including covetousness, as stated in Romans 6:23.

This came from a discussion where I stated that the law given to Moses could be generally divided into two groups: one that had a penalty attached to it, and ones that did not have any penalty attached to it, but were in and of themselves moral truths or laws stated without penalty. The Ten Commandments are examples of such. So are the Ten summarized by Jesus: "Love the Lord thy God...", "and thy neighbor..."

 

[BobRyan]

When I finally get HP to agree to the fact that "Thou shalt not covet," has "no stated penalty," attached to it, then we can take baby step #2.
For covetousness, just like any other sin, does have a penalty (though not explicitly stated in the Ten Commandments), and that is death (eternal death or separation from God for all eternity). That is the penalty for every sin, including covetousness, as stated in Romans 6:23.

This came from a discussion where I stated that the law given to Moses could be generally divided into two groups: one that had a penalty attached to it, and ones that did not have any penalty attached to it, but were in and of themselves moral truths or laws stated without penalty. The Ten Commandments are examples of such. So are the Ten summarized by Jesus: "Love the Lord thy God...", "and thy neighbor..."

Your comments as stated above - would be consistent with what D.L Moody says of the Ten Commandments - so why are you so antagonistic against my quote of his remarks?

I thought you at one time were arguing that the Ten Commandments were downsized to "nine".

 

[DHK]

Your comments as stated above - would be consistent with what D.L Moody says of the Ten Commandments - so why are you so antagonistic against my quote of his remarks?

I thought you at one time were arguing that the Ten Commandments were downsized to "nine".

#1. The Law is in no way connected to salvation.
#2. There is not a single command anywhere in the Bible that commands Gentile Christians to keep the Sabbath. The Sabbath was a sign of the covenant between Jehovah and the Jews and their generations forever.

 

[BobRyan]

#2. There is not a single command anywhere in the Bible that commands Gentile Christians to keep the Sabbath. The Sabbath was a sign of the covenant between Jehovah and the Jews

Is 66 "from Sabbath to Sabbath... shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship".

Gentiles were considered part of "mankind" in the OT.

Mark 2:27 "The Sabbath was made for MANKIND"

Gentiles were considered part of "mankind" in the NT

Gen 2:1-3 God rested on the seventh-day and made it HOLY in Eden itself. Adam was not a Jew.

Is 56 has a specific blessing for gentiles who choose to worship God and honor the Creator of mankind by keeping the Lord's Holy day.
6 ""Also the FOREIGNERS who join themselves to the LORD, To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD, To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning THE Sabbath And holds fast My covenant;
7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for ALL the PEOPLES.''

You yourself have been arguing for the Ten Commandments as the Law of God - as that which still to this day "defines sin" for the Whole World. Turns out - the 4th commandment is one of the Ten Commandments.

So what?

And so? That is not a command. Shoes are made for mankind these days too. I wear them, boots too when it gets to minus 50 Fahrenheit.

Is there a point to this? So are the Jews. Or are they animal-kind, and no I am not a racist. I am making fun at your logic.

Never said Adam was a Jew. So God rested on the seventh. He created on the other days. What did he do on the eighth and ninth? Do you find that relevant?

Squirming is not the same thing as actually addressing the points raised.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Is 66 "from Sabbath to Sabbath... shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship".

Gentiles were considered part of "mankind" in the OT.

So what?

Mark 2:27 "The Sabbath was made for MANKIND"

And so? That is not a command. Shoes are made for mankind these days too. I wear them, boots too when it gets to minus 50 Fahrenheit.

Gentiles were considered part of "mankind" in the NT

Is there a point to this? So are the Jews. Or are they animal-kind, and no I am not a racist. I am making fun at your logic.

Gen 2:1-3 God rested on the seventh-day and made it HOLY in Eden itself. Adam was not a Jew.

Never said Adam was a Jew. So God rested on the seventh. He created on the other days. What did he do on the eighth and ninth? Do you find that relevant? What I find relevant is there is no command there.

Is 56 has a specific blessing for gentiles who choose to worship God and honor the Creator of mankind by keeping the Lord's Holy day.
6 ""Also the FOREIGNERS who join themselves to the LORD, To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD, To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning THE Sabbath And holds fast My covenant;
7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for ALL the PEOPLES.''

This is not a command for us to keep is it? This is sometime in the future, after believers have been to heaven and back, and now have their glorified bodies. It is totally irrelevant to the believer today. There is no command in the Bible for any Gentile believer to keep the Sabbath, and you haven't produced a single one.

You yourself have been arguing for the Ten Commandments as the Law of God - as that which still to this day "defines sin" for the Whole World. Turns out - the 4th commandment is one of the Ten Commandments.
Bob

The fourth Commandment is not one of God's moral laws and never has been. Study Exodus 31, or do you just cut it out of your Bible. The Sabbath was given explicitly to the Jews for a sign between them and Jehovah and their generations forever. It was a sign for the Jews alone. If you will believe your Bible you will believe this statement. It is clearly written in Exodus 31, and it is written more than once.

 

[BobRyan]

Your dismissal of scripture with "shoes were made for mankind" only deepens the hole you are digging for yourself - since you STARTED by telling us that the Sabbath was only made for Jews.

 

[BobRyan]

Again - we note -

Is 66 "from Sabbath to Sabbath... shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship".

Gentiles were considered part of "mankind" in the OT.

Mark 2:27 "The Sabbath was made for MANKIND"

Gentiles were considered part of "mankind" in the NT

Gen 2:1-3 God rested on the seventh-day and made it HOLY in Eden itself. Adam was not a Jew.

Is 56 has a specific blessing for gentiles who choose to worship God and honor the Creator of mankind by keeping the Lord's Holy day.
6 ""Also the FOREIGNERS who join themselves to the LORD, To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD, To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning THE Sabbath And holds fast My covenant;
7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for ALL the PEOPLES.''

You yourself have been arguing for the Ten Commandments as the Law of God - as that which still to this day "defines sin" for the Whole World. Turns out - the 4th commandment is one of the Ten Commandments.

For covetousness, just like any other sin, does have a penalty (though not explicitly stated in the Ten Commandments), and that is death (eternal death or separation from God for all eternity). That is the penalty for every sin, including covetousness, as stated in Romans 6:23.

This came from a discussion where I stated that the law given to Moses could be generally divided into two groups: one that had a penalty attached to it, and ones that did not have any penalty attached to it, but were in and of themselves moral truths or laws stated without penalty. The Ten Commandments are examples of such. So are the Ten summarized by Jesus: "Love the Lord thy God...", "and thy neighbor..."

That was flip


here is flop

The fourth Commandment is not one of God's moral laws and never has been. .

 

[DHK]

Your dismissal of scripture with "shoes were made for mankind" only deepens the hole you are digging for yourself - since you STARTED by telling us that the Sabbath was only made for Jews.

Who is the one who dismisses Scripture?

Exodus 31:13-18 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying,

14 Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

15 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

16 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

17 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Do you keep the Sabbath Bob, as the Jews did?
Do you put to death those in the SDA that violate it in any way?
Do you know what a Sabbath Day's journey is? Do you go farther than that? Do your members? 5/8 of a mile is not far. That is a Sabbath Day's journey. You cannot violate that on the Sabbath. That is only an example.
What tribe are you from: Benjamin? Dan? Simeon? Which one?

The Sabbath was given to the Jews, and only the Jews.
If you don't believe that then you don't believe the Scriptures which so clearly spells it out for you.

18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.