Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law

[ccrobinson]

I have tried to show that the end of DHK’s theology is precisely the same as that of Calvinism in the following regard.

So, I did get it right. Why'd you say this then?

That has never been the focus of any of my endeavors.

Discrediting DHK and attempting to prove he's a Calvinist is clearly one of the things you've been trying to do. Pretty poor show by you to blatantly lie about it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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.

Some things have become exceedingly apparent in this conversation. One such thing is, no more can DHK tell us that he arrives at his theology from Scripture alone, for all he has offered as evidence on this list has came straight from the pen of his teacher/ philosopher. He has claimed that he gets his theology from Scripture and not Calvin, but follow the trail of his philosophical studies. Is he going to tell us that the man he has evidently studied under, Eugene Merrill, and the only source of his understanding of the law given on this thread so far, is as ignorant of Calvin and as far from Calvin as DHK tries to paint himself??? Do you just suppose old Eugene might just be just a wee bit 'deterministic' himself upon examination of his studies and duties, with his apparent degrees coming from Bob Jones University and being a professor at Dallas Theological School??:wavey:

For whatever DHK has not studied concerning Calvin, you can bet the farm that those he has sat under or read and studied certainly have. Could the possibilty exist just a tad bit might have 'incidentally' rubbed off on DHK as a student?

 

[DHK]

For whatever DHK has not studied concerning Calvin, you can bet the farm that those he has sat under or read and studied certainly have. Could the possibilty exist just a tad bit might have 'incidentally' rubbed off on DHK as a student?

HP, do you ever read books? Do you enjoy learning? Or do you prefer to remain woefully ignorant as you infer on this thread?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, have you learned your theology from the philosophy of men?

 

[DHK]

DHK, have you learned your theology from the philosophy of men?

No, but it seems you have. You have developed your own HP-philosophical brand of theology that is totally different from any other poster on this board. You deny the sin nature of man. You make inferences of others based on the simplest of statements. Your entire philosophy is so obfuscated that no one can understand it.

To give you a straight answer, however, I have learned my theology from the Bible, and I teach it to my students. You don't know what it is because you only infer from simple statements that I make.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: 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

Quote:
DHK: 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/b...ters-bible.htm

HP: Oh really DHK. You learned it all from Scripture. Hmmmmm. You must have just forgot to put the Scriptural reference where this knowledge came from. :laugh:

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
CCR: HP, I'm just interested to see how you attempt to prove that DHK is a Calvinist.

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.

So, you've tried to show that the beliefs held by DHK are the same as those held by Calvinists, but you're not trying to say he is a Calvinist. Did I get that right?

The fact that some who claim to be Arminian - happen to unwittingly accept a few key errors that only fit the Calvinist model - is not a claim that those Arminians go around admitting to that flaw or go around claiming "I am Calvinist".

For example - OSAS only works in extreme 4-point or 5-point Calvinist models. And yet - there are Arminians who will choose to go down that road as if it was consistent with the Arminian position.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As Already noted previously - even D.L Moody understood the continued and binding nature of the Ten Commandments for the NT Saints.

============================================
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.

 

[DHK]

As Already noted previously - even D.L Moody understood the continued and binding nature of the Ten Commandments for the NT Saints.

============================================
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?

 

[DHK]

HP: Oh really DHK. You learned it all from Scripture. Hmmmmm. You must have just forgot to put the Scriptural reference where this knowledge came from. :laugh:

As I stated HP, I have learned my theology from the Bible. I am not opposed to reading other books.
Let me ask the same question that I asked previously. Perhaps you didn't understand it:

HP, do you ever read books? Do you enjoy learning? Or do you prefer to remain woefully ignorant as you infer on this thread?

__________________

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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

HP: BR, you just don’t get it do you. If you would post something by DHK’s favorite philosopher,…….shazam!! It translates to pure gospel, but Dwight L. Moody?? Why would you even think something he has to say might be relevant to the discussion???
:laugh:

 

[ccrobinson]

Perhaps you'd care to answer my question from post #121, HP?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CCR, post something concerning the topic at hand, or maybe help DHK find that definition in a dictionary out there as he clearly implied existed that he has yet to produce, or something else constructive to the discussion and I will try my best to respond. Fair enough?:thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

CCR, post something concerning the topic at hand, or maybe help DHK find that definition in a dictionary out there as he clearly implied existed that he has yet to produce, or something else constructive to the discussion and I will try my best to respond. Fair enough?:thumbsup:

I have given you definitions in proper dictionaries. What more do you want?
Do you really want a first grader's primary dictionary? Are you that elementary? Every field has its own dictionary.

I studied Biology. Biology has its own dictionary.
Were you aware that:

Sheehan's Syndrome was postpartum hypopituitarism caused by ischemic necrosis of the pituitary.

I didn't think so.
I don't think all the words are found in your basic Webster's dictionary either.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

And the name of that 'proper dictionary' you gave me a definition of 'causuistic' was...?

 

[DHK]

And the name of that 'proper dictionary' you gave me a definition of 'causuistic' was...?

After four times, you would think you would have it by now. Go back a few pages; it won't hurt you.

 

[steaver]

The fact that some who claim to be Arminian - happen to unwittingly accept a few key errors that only fit the Calvinist model - is not a claim that those Arminians go around admitting to that flaw or go around claiming "I am Calvinist".

For example - OSAS only works in extreme 4-point or 5-point Calvinist models. And yet - there are Arminians who will choose to go down that road as if it was consistent with the Arminian position.


in Christ,

Bob

Such a fascination with Calvin. It's funny how if you are not a actual Calvinist then you could be a 3 point Calvinist, or a 4 point Calvinist. Calvinist, Calvinist, Calvinist. What's up with this obsession?

Have you ever heard anyone speaking of a 3 point Arminian? How about a 4 point Baptist or a 5 point Catholic?

Bob and HP really have a disdain for Calvin. Yet even though I would not agree with Calvin's freewill denial I would judge that Calvin had more theology correct than the SDA or HP when it comes to the gospel of Jesus Christ as it relates to the law. At least Calvin did not preach that keeping the commandments was part of justifying a person for salvation. This alone places Calvin above HP and Bob in understanding the teachings of the bible.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, be a sport. Give us the name of that 'proper dictionary.'

 

[DHK]

DHK, be a sport. Give us the name of that 'proper dictionary.'

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1547725&postcount=77

http://www.philosophy-religion.com/b...ters-bible.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.

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

Specifically:
The New Interpreter's Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version With the Apocrypha [Hardcover]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0687278325/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: As I stated HP, I have learned my theology from the Bible.

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??

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.

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?

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.