http://www.philosophy-religion.com/b...ters-bible.htm
Why don't you look for yourself?
They are common terms.
-
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!
Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law
- Thread starter Heavenly Pilgrim
- Start date
- Status
Why don't you look for yourself?
They are common terms.
>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.
Penalty refers only to sanctions imposed by a human judge or also to penalty theoretically imposed in the next life?
"Law without penalty is merely advice." Are the 10Cs merely advice without penalty? Or to the next life? Or to "what goes around, comes around?"
Penalty refers only to sanctions imposed by a human judge or also to penalty theoretically imposed in the next life?
"Law without penalty is merely advice." Are the 10Cs merely advice without penalty? Or to the next life? Or to "what goes around, comes around?"
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK, your absolutely unsupported philosophical approach to Scripture and its commandments and laws is clearly showing for all to see.
1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
If I have stated that which untrue then declare it; demonstrate it.
If not, shut up and carry on with the discussion, please!
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Who, besides DHK and posssibly his teacher, would even suggest that the ten commandments have no penalty attached???
Certainly the ten commandments are not merely advice, and carry a penalty for their willful violation. Heaven will not be inhabited by individuals that have proven they do not love God.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK has asked for a statement by him that I believe is untrue. I have made mention of it before, but will post it again as asked. Here is a statement by DHK that is simply false as he states it. He is correct in that the ten commandments are indeed considered moral, but he is incorrect in stating that they are stated without penalty. Here is his quote:
Thou shalt not kill is stated without any penalty attached. It is apoditic.
The reason for that is that we all know that murder is wrong.
Now, look in the Bible and find examples of different causuistic laws that are very specific. There are many of them:
Numbers 35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 22:1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
Exodus 22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
Note: These are laws that arise from the Ten Commandments that do have stated penalties. Thus stated they are causuitic in nature, whereas the Ten Commandments are apoditic, for they are stated without penalty as general truths. It is part of the moral law, for example, not to steal or commit murder. We all know that. It is written on all of our hearts. How different societies implement that command is up to them. Not everyone has the death penalty for example.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
In 1John 3:4 (which I bevieve DHK has also quote) John states that "transgresssion of the law" is sin.
In Romans 7 Paul affirms that the Law of God defines sin - and then quotes from the Ten Commandments.
In Romans 6 Paul affirms that the "wages is sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life".
So there is a "penalty" for violating God's Law - the Commandments of God as Christ refers to them in Mark 7.
And in the OT there was a penalty for dishonoring parents (Lev 20 - death) and for adultery (death) and for murder (death) and for stealing, Sabbath breaking, worshipping false gods, - 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 assocated with the violation of it - and sin has the penalty of the 2nd death.
in Christ,
Bob
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
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.
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??? 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.
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 standard and consistency do you come to your conclusions???
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Not all of God’s moral law is written on the hearts of all men according to Scripture. Paul said that he would not have know lust apart from the law saying thou shalt not covet. Ro 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
HP: What are you referring to? What commandment of the ten have you crossed out??
HP: Now you are changing the whole scope of this discussion from what is law and does it have a penalty, to the practices of heathen nations which have exactly nothing to do with this discussion period.
HP: Not according to the accounts of missionaries, at least about the stealing part. What one society views as stealing another does not. Have you ever watched the “Pineapple Story?”
As a side note, we might need to be reminded that infants and small children have no developed notions of either stealing or killing, therfore are simply not moral beings. All issues of morality are not written on the heart. Some points of morality must be developed by training.
HP: This discussion is not how some men or governments might twist or interpret the law and it’s penalties. This discussion is about defining law and examining if in fact what is denoted as ‘ceremonial law’ is in reality properly denoted as ‘law.”
You have a problem understanding Romans chapter 7. God's moral law has always been written on the hearts of men. Who are you to deny what God has said in Romans 2:14,15:
Romans 2:15 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.
--Not only do they have the law written in their hearts hearts, they have a conscience that God gave them. And every time they go against God's moral law they know they have done wrong for their conscience bears witness against them that they have done wrong.
Paul always knew when he had done wrong for law has always been here.
The entire chapter speaks of the sin nature of man, a nature that we are born with. It speaks of the struggle Paul had with that sin nature as opposed to the new nature which he received when he trusted Christ. That is where your problem is in understanding the chapter.
I referred you to Exodus 31. Apparently you didn't bother to read it. There is no command given anywhere in the Bible for any Gentile believer to keep the Sabbath Day. According to Exodus 31 this was a sign of a covenant to the Jews and for their generations forever. It was never for Gentile believers. If it is for today, why do you worship on Sunday and not on Saturday (the Sabbath)?
No, I am not changing anything.
Romans 2:14,15 states that all nations have the law written on their hearts. That would be the moral law. That moral law becomes civil law when penalties become attached. There are different penalties according to the civil laws of different nations. Not every one of us follow Hebrew law. But previously, I gave you some quotes of Hebrew civil law, when I gave you examples of causuistic law. They are basically the same thing.
If a person's society allows a specific sin, they still know that sin is wrong. Our society allows adultery. Affairs happen all the time. They know it is wrong. There is no penalty for it. But in their heart they know they are doing wrong. Their conscience tells them so.
People who steal know they are doing wrong. Why do you think they run away when they do it? It is wrong of course. Their conscience tells them it is wrong.
I have raised four children and have two grandchildren. You don't need to lecture me on the morality of children. My thirteen month old grandchild knows the difference between right and wrong. He knows when he hits someone he has done wrong and deserves to be punished. That is moral law. He knows when he has taken something that doesn't belong to him that it is wrong. That is moral law. You don't know what you are talking about.
And you have failed to keep withing the bounds of this discussion. Christ nailed on the cross the ceremonial law of the Hebrews. We don't keep it any longer. He was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. He was lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world. No more sacrifices are needed. No more laws related to those sacrifices are needed are needed including the dietary laws of the Hebrews.
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Here is the rub. 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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
HP: Not all of God’s moral law is written on the hearts of all men according to Scripture. Paul said that he would not have know lust apart from the law saying thou shalt not covet. Ro 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
HP: I agree to a point, but everything inclusive in moral law has not been written on their hearts, hence the testimony from Paul I quoted. Was Paul a liar or mistaken, the very author of Romans??
Ro 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
HP: Again, that in no wise implies every element of moral law was written on their heart. Certainly there was ample testimony by conscience to condemn them, but that in no wise is suggestive that all moral law comes as a natural gift from God upon the heart and consciuence of every person. Paul makes that clear by his own testimony.
HP: You need to read the above quote by Paul again.
Quote:
HP: What are you referring to? What commandment of the ten have you crossed out??
HP: Quite to the contrary. If you notice it was not established when the commandments were given to the Jews. The Jews were told to ‘remember’ that which they knew full well had been in existence from the beginning for all people. God set aside that day and hallowed it long before the Jewish race ever existed and the law given in the form of the Decalogue.
Quote:
HP: Now you are changing the whole scope of this discussion from what is law and does it have a penalty, to the practices of heathen nations which have exactly nothing to do with this discussion period.
HP: I would contend that not the moral law in total, but simply enough to find them guilty before God for violating that which they were given.
HP: That is simply false. Moral law is moral law and civil law is civil law. They both have clear stated or implied penalties if in fact they are law.
Quote:
HP: Not according to the accounts of missionaries, at least about the stealing part. What one society views as stealing another does not. Have you ever watched the “Pineapple Story?”
HP: My conscience is not your conscience, and the conscience of heathen vastly differs. Some act in a manner that we would consider stealing, and do not run away when they do it. Even if they did run, it is not necessarily a sign of immorality at all. My dog runs away at times and is not a moral being. Morality involves understanding the basic intrinsic value of a command, and acting, not in accordance to punishment or rewards, but rather in light of that intrinsic understanding of the command as to ‘why’ it is wrong’ again apart from punishments or rewards.
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
HP: Not all of God’s moral law is written on the hearts of all men according to Scripture. Paul said that he would not have know lust apart from the law saying thou shalt not covet. Ro 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
HP: That feeling is mutual. You have a problem understanding Romans 7, but Romans 7 is not the focus of this discussion.
HP: I agree to a point, but everything inclusive in moral law has not been written on their hearts, hence the testimony from Paul I quoted. Was Paul a liar or mistaken, the very author of Romans??
Ro 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
HP: Again, that in no wise implies every element of moral law was written on their heart. Certainly there was ample testimony by conscience to condemn them, but that in no wise is suggestive that all moral law comes as a natural gift from God upon the heart and consciuence of every person. Paul makes that clear by his own testimony.
HP: You need to read the above quote by Paul again.
Quote:
HP: What are you referring to? What commandment of the ten have you crossed out??
HP: Quite to the contrary. If you notice it was not established when the commandments were given to the Jews. The Jews were told to ‘remember’ that which they knew full well had been in existence from the beginning for all people. God set aside that day and hallowed it long before the Jewish race ever existed and the law given in the form of the Decalogue.
HP: Because it was the practice of the Church from the cross to worship on the Lord’s day. I see not the actual day as the main focus, but one day in seven set aside as a holy day. I believe that worship on the Lord’s day sets us clearly apart from the Jewish system and rightfully so, to commemorate the type of the shadow they have for the most part failed to see and accept.
Quote:
HP: Now you are changing the whole scope of this discussion from what is law and does it have a penalty, to the practices of heathen nations which have exactly nothing to do with this discussion period.
HP: I would contend that not the moral law in total, but simply enough to find them guilty before God for violating that which they were given.
HP: That is simply false. Moral law is moral law and civil law is civil law. They both have clear stated or implied penalties if in fact they are law.
Quote:
HP: Not according to the accounts of missionaries, at least about the stealing part. What one society views as stealing another does not. Have you ever watched the “Pineapple Story?”
HP: My conscience is not your conscience, and the conscience of heathen vastly differs. Some act in a manner that we would consider stealing, and do not run away when they do it. Even if they did run, it is not necessarily a sign of immorality at all. My dog runs away at times and is not a moral being. Morality involves understanding the basic intrinsic value of a command, and acting, not in accordance to punishment or rewards, but rather in light of that intrinsic understanding of the command as to ‘why’ it is wrong’ again apart from punishments or rewards.
Last edited by a moderator:
By that reasoning you would have to conclude the same about the "trinity."
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?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK, look up the word as you posted it, 'causuistic' and show us the definition of it according to a dictionary of your choice.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Quote:
This issue needs its own post as it is very important. The distinction DHK makes is, again, completely and utterly false. Moral law is moral law because of the attributes that are rightfully attributed to it. Civil law may or may not be moral law, but civil law is civil law NOT because it has penalties attached. Civil law may have penalties attached when no moral principle applies directly period. Seatbelt laws should be an effective illustration.
Of a truth, all laws, moral or civil, have penalties if in fact they are law. Penalties, in and of themselves are part of law, both moral and civil, but penalties or sanctions themselves do not make either moral or civil.
This issue needs its own post as it is very important. The distinction DHK makes is, again, completely and utterly false. Moral law is moral law because of the attributes that are rightfully attributed to it. Civil law may or may not be moral law, but civil law is civil law NOT because it has penalties attached. Civil law may have penalties attached when no moral principle applies directly period. Seatbelt laws should be an effective illustration.
Of a truth, all laws, moral or civil, have penalties if in fact they are law. Penalties, in and of themselves are part of law, both moral and civil, but penalties or sanctions themselves do not make either moral or civil.
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
To get us back into the focus of the OP, let me ask this question. What makes moral law moral law? What attributes must law have to be classified as ‘moral?’
Not a true statement.
Which of the Ten Commandments have penalties attached to them?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: All violations of God’s moral law are sin, and the penalty for sin is eternal separation from God.
You don't get it do you?
When "Thou shalt not covet" is stated in Scripture, it is stated as a command without any penalty. Every one of God's laws, when broken are sin and have the penalty of separation from God. No one denies that. Not all laws are stated with specific penalties attached. That has been made clear from the beginning of this conversation.
- Status