Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law

[DHK]

HP: Ohhhhhhhhh. If I would have known that it was 'his' book I would not have been so hasty with my comments.
The lesson of this conversation must be, (for readers who are still wondering) never question Mr. Merrill. If 'Mr. Merrill' stated it, that settles it.

My advice, even at this late date, would be; be careful when choosing who and what to believe.

I am sure it must be fairly reliable if a college chose it to teach hundreds of students year after year. They wouldn't advocate in teaching lies or that which is not true.

But then new words to HP's vocabulary are sure to be questioned as not true, just because they aren't in his "all-knowing" vocabulary.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I am sure it must be fairly reliable if a college chose it to teach hundreds of students year after year. They wouldn't advocate in teaching lies or that which is not true.

HP: Are we in need of being reminded that many cults have colleges to???? Because something is taught in colleges, does that make a book true???? If evolution, for instance, is taught in a college does that make it true???? Becuse something is taught in a college with a particular theolological slant, does that make what is taught true???

Come on DHK. DHK, you need to start examining the basis of obtaining factual information more closely.

DHK: But then new words to HP's vocabulary are sure to be questioned as not true, just because they aren't in his "all-knowing" vocabulary.

HP: Really DHK? I always am open to increasing my vocabulary, and will admit I have not used two words mentioned by you in your posts, so enlighten us. One thing is for certain. If I use a word it is because it has relevant meaning to the issue(s) being discussed.

Teach us with your superior vocabulary the meaning of the words you use, and show us logically how either one can be applied to Scripture in reference to the law in the manner you try to use them. The words to define for us and show us the how they in any way define or explain what the word law means in varying places of Scripture are, 'apodictic' and 'causuistic.'

 

[BobRyan]

As we saw here - the Commandments of God are mentioned both Pre-cross and Post-Cross and are definitely the Word of God - scripture - the Law of God.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1546706&postcount=51

By contrast as we see in Eph 2 and Gal 5 and Acts 15 the concept of "circumcision" embodies the entire concept of being a traditional and cultural Jew.


18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.


Thus in 1Cor 7:19 the fact that Jew-Gentile differences (circumcision or not) is dismissed but rather "what mattters is keeping the Commandments of God" leaves the NT saint STILL obligated to honor the same "Commandments of God" as Christ referenced in Mark 7.



Notice that in Mark 7 - Christ notes how the "traditions of man" are continually being aligned against the "Commandments of God".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

As we saw here - the Commandments of God are mentioned both Pre-cross and Post-Cross and are definitely the Word of God - scripture - the Law of God.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1546706&postcount=51

By contrast as we see in Eph 2 and Gal 5 and Acts 15 the concept of "circumcision" embodies the entire concept of being a traditional and cultural Jew.


18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.


Thus in 1Cor 7:19 the fact that Jew-Gentile differences (circumcision or not) is dismissed but rather "what mattters is keeping the Commandments of God" leaves the NT saint STILL obligated to honor the same "Commandments of God" as Christ referenced in Mark 7.


Notice that in Mark 7 - Christ notes how the "traditions of man" are continually being aligned against the "Commandments of God".

in Christ,

Bob

No, you have connected Mark 7 to 1Cor.7 without rhyme or reason. Both have different contexts, different subject matters, different authors, different audiences. To insert what the subject matter and the context of Mark 7 is into the context of 1Cor. 7, which speaks of marriage is horrid hermeneutics (and quite sadly something that is characteristic of most cults).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: But then new words to HP's vocabulary are sure to be questioned as not true, just because they aren't in his "all-knowing" vocabulary.

HP: Let the reader understand that I am not disputing about any word or words used, but rather I am disputing concerning the false application of such words as they are being falsely applied to define the word ‘law.’

What we are seeing first hand is a fundamental basis for the philosophical approach DHK and obviously other use in the interpretation of the Scripture and the words used, in this case the philosophical manner in which the word ‘law’ is used and applied by DHK. I see his aproach as a fundamentally flawed philosophical approach. It does not, as far as I can tell thus far, have the slightest basis of establishing his understanding of what in reality the law really entails. His understanding appears to me at this time to be based upon the false philosophical notions of the teachers he has chosen to blindly follow. We shall see if in fact I am correct as we go along.

 

[DHK]

HP: Let the reader understand that I am not disputing about any word or words used, but rather I am disputing concerning the false application of such words as they are being falsely applied to define the word ‘law.’

What we are seeing first hand is a fundamental basis for the philosophical approach DHK and obviously other use in the interpretation of the Scripture and the words used, in this case the philosophical manner in which the word ‘law’ is used and applied by DHK. I see his aproach as a fundamentally flawed philosophical approach. It does not, as far as I can tell thus far, have the slightest basis of establishing his understanding of what in reality the law really entails. His understanding appears to me at this time to be based upon the false philosophical notions of the teachers he has chosen to blindly follow. We shall see if in fact I am correct as we go along.

What I have stated, I have stated what I believe to be truth. Instead of mocking posts (where you stand in ignorance of the definition of words), then refute what I have said. Demonstrate that what I have said is false and stop being childish!

 

[billwald]

>but rather I am disputing concerning the false application of such words as they are being falsely applied to define the word ‘law.’

Please define "law." How does it differ from "commandment?"

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BW: Please define "law." How does it differ from "commandment?"

HP: Law is a rule of action with sanctions. The word commandment may be used to indicate a law or it may not. A commandment may simply be a commission or charge without stated or implied sanctions, whereas something that is properly denoted as 'law' always has sanctions stated or implied.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, when you make a statement as you have, the burden of proof is not upon anyone else to prove it wrong, but rather lies upon you to establish the validity of it. You have done nothing but make a man made philosophical comment with no basis for it being factual other than Mr. 'so and so' said it, or many colleges have textbooks which say it, etc. It is your obligation to set forth evidence to its validity if you believe it to be true.

Show us by clear definitions of the words you employed the connection to the law, and then show us from the manner in which ‘law’ is used in Scripture that there is a clear connection between the way it is used and the definitions you apply to it. I say you cannot do either one and hence you know not whereof you speak. I say you are doing nothing other than regurgitating a philosophical position of someone you have read without taking the time to honestly study if in fact it is in accordance to truth.

 

[DHK]

DHK, when you make a statement as you have, the burden of proof is not upon anyone else to prove it wrong, but rather lies upon you to establish the validity of it. You have done nothing but make a man made philosophical comment with no basis for it being factual other than Mr. 'so and so' said it, or many colleges have textbooks which say it, etc. It is your obligation to set forth evidence to its validity if you believe it to be true.

Show us by clear definitions of the words you employed the connection to the law, and then show us from the manner in which ‘law’ is used in Scripture that there is a clear connection between the way it is used and the definitions you apply to it. I say you cannot do either one and hence you know not whereof you speak. I say you are doing nothing other than regurgitating a philosophical position of someone you have read without taking the time to honestly study if in fact it is in accordance to truth.

You are being very childish. Do you know all the words in the Oxford dictionary. If I happen to choose some others that you don't know, then is the onus on me to define the words that you don't know because of the ignorance of limited vocabulary. Hogwash!

I gave you a reference where the words were defined. If you don't accept it then the onus is on you to disprove what I have said. These are proper distinctions between two classifications of law that are commonly used when talking of law in general. If you don't like it, fine. But quit complaining about your own ignorance on this board. I am under no obligation to defend your ignorance.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You are …….

HP: I know full well what the Oxford dictionary defines the words as, that is not what is at stake here. What is at stake is the application you are making between their meanings and the word 'law' itself. If you believe you have an understanding of the issue at hand, show us where any dictionary makes the connection you are making concerning the law. So far all we have from you is the philosophy of some man you have swallowed, personal attacks, and hot wind. Are you even capable of a logical and reasonable discussion? If so, show us some evidence that any such connection can be made.

 

[DHK]

HP: I know full well what the Oxford dictionary defines the words as, that is not what is at stake here. What is at stake is the application you are making between their meanings and the word 'law' itself. If you believe you have an understanding of the issue at hand, show us where any dictionary makes the connection you are making concerning the law. So far all we have from you is the philosophy of some man you have swallowed, personal attacks, and hot wind. Are you even capable of a logical and reasonable discussion? If so, show us some evidence that any such connection can be made.

I have already shown you, in fact twice. What more do you want?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

The only thing you have shown or demonstrated is your ability to regurgitate another mans philosophical position.

 

[DHK]

The only thing you have shown or demonstrated is your ability to regurgitate another mans philosophical position.

The only thing you have shown is your inability to accept terms you fail to understand or that are not in your vocabulary. And for that you ought to be ashamed.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Just wait until the next time you start harassing anyone concerning man made philosophy……..:laugh:

 

[DHK]

Just wait until the next time you start harassing anyone concerning man made philosophy……..:laugh:

According to you, "trinity" "theology" "Christology" are all man made terms because they are not in the Bible. Is this what you want? A term that is in the Bible to define the law. Sorry, I gave you terms that are outside your vocabulary, but accurately describe how the law is divided. You have yet to refute it, but only to mock.

 

[DHK]

Main Entry: apo·dic·tic
Pronunciation: \ˌa-pə-ˈdik-tik\
Variant(s): also apo·deic·tic \-ˈdīk-tik\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin apodicticus, from Greek apodeiktikos, from apodeiknynai to demonstrate, from apo- + deiknynai to show — more at diction
Date: circa 1645
: expressing or of the nature of necessary truth or absolute certainty

From Merriam-Webster

casuistry

Approach to ethics that begins by examining a series of concrete cases rather than by trying to deduce the consequences of a moral rule. Although Pascal criticized this method for the excessive, misleading, or harmful cleverness with which it was practiced in his day, it remains a common tool for applied ethics in a theological vein.
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/c.htm

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.
http://www.philosophy-religion.com/bible/glossary_new-interpreters-bible.htm

You could have done this work on your own.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

What you just did is not the work that needs to be done. I have the Oxford dictionary before me and I can read and comprehend. Anyway, at least now we can proceed with meaningful discussion for a change I hope.

Here was one of your first comments that started this vein of discussion. You said,

DHK: “In the Bible the Ten Commandments are stated as such without penalty and are considered God's Moral Law.”

Then you proceeded to quote the philosophical position from an author you have evidently read.


Now, tell us how you arrive at the conclusion in your quote above from any definition you have now given. Where in the dictionary does it ever associate the word ‘apodictic’ with ‘laws’ without penalty? Even if you could demonstrate that position, what gives you the right to determine that the ten commandments carry no penalty for breaking them???

 

[DHK]

What you just did is not the work that needs to be done. I have the Oxford dictionary before me and I can read and comprehend. Anyway, at least now we can proceed with meaningful discussion for a change I hope.

Here was one of your first comments that started this vein of discussion. You said, Then you proceeded to quote the philosophical position from an author you have evidently read.


Now, tell us how you arrive at the conclusion in your quote above from any definition you have now given. Where in the dictionary does it ever associate the word ‘apodictic’ with ‘laws’ without penalty? Even if you could demonstrate that position, what gives you the right to determine that the ten commandments carry no penalty for breaking them???

All the sources I have quoted, including Eugene Merrill have defined apodictic law as:
"expressing or of the nature of necessary truth or absolute certainty"

In Romans 2:14,15, Paul states that God has written His law on the hearts of all men.
What law has he written? The Ten Commandments minus one. There was one of those commandments (see Exodus 31) that was given specifically to the nation of Israel.
All nations know inherently that it is wrong to commit adultery. Many of them do it (like ours). There is no penalty attached. But it is wrong.
It is wrong to steal.
It is wrong to kill.
All societies know that these are wrong. It is written in their hearts.
Often these laws become causuistic when they are further defined as to how a man is killed and under what circumstances.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: All the sources I have quoted, including Eugene Merrill have defined apodictic law as:
"expressing or of the nature of necessary truth or absolute certainty"

HP: Where has anyone besides Mr. Merrill expressed ‘law’ as being ‘apodictic’ in the sense you use it as suporting the idea of law without penalty?