Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law

[billwald]

>Not to slay an innocent person (Ex. 20:13) (CCN32).

Why is this have moral implications and wearing a garment spun of wool and flax does not have moral implications? Who are we to tell God which of his laws have moral implications? Are not "God's ways higher than our ways?"

The Jews - the people who transmitted and interpreted the Mosaic Law for 2000 years before Jesus was born - agree that the laws requiring blood sacrifice are null because there is no Temple thus using this part of the Law is a red herring. Your argument should be made from the parts of the Law that can be observed without a temple existing.

>BR: The Moral law includes things like the Ten Commandments.

DISAGREE!!!!!!! Moral (NT) LAW PARALLELS things like the Ten Commandments.

In other words, The British Traffic Code requires motorists to stop at stop signs. The Revised Code of Washington requires motorists to stop at stop signs. The Revised Code of Washington does NOT include the British Traffic Code or vice versa. They are parallel but independent requirements.

 

[BobRyan]

The idea that the OT texts quote by NT authors should still not be noticed - is fiction.

The idea that the NT authors were just making up "new scripture without reference to the Bible" is fiction.

The idea that NT authors taught their readers to ignore the scriptures - is fiction.

The idea that NT saints were not "studying the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul, WERE SO" - Acts 17:11 relies on our not reading the Bible to see just how directly that idea is refuted in the text of scripture.

When Paul writes to Timothy in 2Tim 3:16-17 he does not say "NO scripture given by God before the cross is profitable today for doctrine, for correction, for instruction".

Pause for reflection is appropriate on that point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BR: The Moral law includes things like the Ten Commandments.

DISAGREE!!!!!!! Moral (NT) LAW PARALLELS things like the Ten Commandments.

In other words, The British Traffic Code requires motorists to stop at stop signs. The Revised Code of Washington requires motorists to stop at stop signs. The Revised Code of Washington does NOT include the British Traffic Code or vice versa. They are parallel but independent requirements.

The illustration fails becuse NO source argues "they STUDIED the British Traffic code daily to SEE IF the American Traffic code was actually valid".

A not-so-subtle problem that would need to be addressed in your scenario.

In Eph 6:1-3 Paul argues that the 5th commandment is binding (in the UNIT of TEN) and that it is the FIRST commandment (in that unit of ten) "With a Promise". Something that is ONLY true in the TEN COMMANDMENT unit since this reference to the 6th commandment in Eph 6 is NOT the first promise EITHER in the NT or in the OT!

Again - it is a detail that provides "pause for reflection" for the unbiased objetive Bible student.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: As Paul points out in Romans 3 and in Romans 7 - God's Law "defines sin". God's Law is among other things - a written transcript of God's perfect will.

HP: First, thank you BR for your input this far. So far I believe BR is the only one that has attempted to define moral law. Lets look at his comments briefly. He says, “God's Law "defines sin.” OK, but that begs the question, what is sin? If we go back to Scripture and find that sin is a transgression of the law, we have in reality gained little by this one so far that I can tell.

BR's second remark was, “God's Law is among other things - a written transcript of God's perfect will.” Here again that begs the question, what is God’s perfect will? Not to dismiss what BR has added, still yet I find that in reality somewhat less than defining God’s moral law. I still give BR thumbs up for giving it an honest attempt. :thumbsup:

In my estimation, I can think of no other way to begin to understand law, and moral law, apart from first defining law and moral law respectively, and then move on to recognizing some clear attibutes of moral law.

It has been said that, ‘law is a rule of action with sanctions,’ so moral law would be ‘a rule of moral law with sanctions.’ Moral law governs over the actions of free will alone. Moral law does not govern over matters of necessity, but rather things of necessity would be ruled by the laws of nature. So as we see, there are two opposing realms of law, one ruling over things of necessity and one ruling over the free acts of the will. If the will of man is not free, moral law cannot govern or rule over its intents or actions. I see that as one of the most basic concepts we need to grasp if we are going to begin to understand moral law. Without this basic understanding of moral law, confusion will reign in any discussion of ceremonial law as we go along.

Is there anyone that would disagree with the comments made so far or would add or clarify any point? Do all agree that moral law governs over free acts of the will alone, and not acts driven by neccesity?

 

[DHK]

The NT authors did not teach that the Jewish Christians were to ignore their obligations as Jewish Christians - neither did they argue that Gentile Christians must become Jewish Christians.

So as we see in 1Cor 7:19 "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing - but what matters is KEEPING the COMMANDMENTS of God"

The obligation for us (gentile christians) is to accept the Bible (all 66 books) as the inspired infallible Word of God to be used for doctrine (2Tim 3:16-17) and to honor and obey God's Commandments.
Bob

I opened this thread at random. It is just one of many that I have participated in and know that Bob has participated in. Note carefully how Bob uses the above verse (1Cor.7:19) in almost every thread that he posts in over and over again as a proof text. What does Bob emphasis here:
keeping the commandments of God

It is his favorite proof text.
Let us be reminded that in the 66 Books of the Bible which Bob just reminded of us every command is of God. Every command that Paul wrote is a command of God. They are all inspired of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God. When Ananias lied it was against the Holy Spirit, and Peter says it was against God. The Holy Spirit is God.

Now consider 1Cor.7:19 and the "commands" that Paul is referring to in the context of the chapter:

1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
--This is a command of God.

1 Corinthians 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
--This is a command of God.

1 Corinthians 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
--This is a command of God.

1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
--This is a command of God.

1 Corinthians 7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
--This is a command of God.

1 Corinthians 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
--Note how Paul de-emphasizes the importance of circumcision--the OT law. Not even circumcision is important. The law has been fulfilled. These commands are not important. These commands are not the commands that are being referred to--not the OT law, ceremonial law, Levitical law. No!

1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
--The commandments of God, in context, is referring to love.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, your mind.
Love your neighbor as your self.
But most of all it is speaking of love in the context of marriage. This is a chapter about marriage, and the problems that marriage has. Keeping the Sabbath and dietary laws and clothing laws of the OT have nothing to do with this chapter. Those are not the commandments of God that Paul is referring.

Thus whenever BobRyan refers to this verse again as an overall proof text about keeping all the commands of God, let us remind of him the context of marriage, and tell him that he is out to lunch.
He ought not to use this verse again, unless he is speaking of love or marriage.

 

[steaver]

Bob does not like "details" and "context" when these things are inconvenient to his belief system.

As you pointed out "the commandments of God" are fulfilled in just the two and in one word "love". Love for God and love for one another.

Does anyone besides Bob believe that what you eat makes God feel loved?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: --The commandments of God, in context, is referring to love.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, your mind.
Love your neighbor as your self.

HP: Thus whenever DHK speaks of loving God with all your heart, your soul, your mind and your neighbor as yourself, that includes obedience to all his commandments, not just marriage. Second, we should remind him that if God commands it to be done, He has made a way to accomplish just that in our lives, and lying, or sin in general, is not acting in such total and complete love.

1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Let us remind DHK when he calls all men liars he has done so in haste. Ps 116:11 I said in my haste, All men are liars.

When he tells us that every believer has sin, let him be reminded that those that have been born again have either been cleansened at least one time from all sin at salvation or they have not been saved. Ro 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
Ro 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

When he tells us there are no conditions to salvation including but not limited to obedience to the end, he knows not whereof he speaks. Lu 13:3 "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Jn 8:31b "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;"

When he tells us no free gift can have conditions, let us remind him he has never offered one scintilla of evidence other than his own words to support such a notion.

Now, how about back to the OP and 'your' definitions or input on moral, and what you denote as "ceremonial." law DHK? :thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

HP: Thus whenever DHK speaks of loving God with all your heart, your soul, your mind and your neighbor as yourself, that includes obedience to all his commandments, not just marriage. Second, we should remind him that if God commands it to be done, He has made a way to accomplish just that in our lives, and lying, or sin in general, is not acting in such total and complete love.

1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Let us remind DHK when he calls all men liars he has done so in haste.

Was it last year that I posted something like that, and your poor feelings are still hurt?
Or are you carrying a grudge? It sounds like it. Perhaps you better look in the archives and find out the last time I referenced Romans 3:4 specifically to you. The Bible has something to say against those who hold grudges, can't let things go, etc.

But I never called you a liar, HP.
The Bible did. You are offended because the Bible calls you a liar.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

It doesn't say "every man a liar except HP."
Did you want to change the wording of the Bible??

 

[steaver]

Now, how about back to the OP and 'your' definitions or input on moral, and what you denote as "ceremonial." law DHK? :thumbsup:

Gal 5:14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

So does it really matter?

Even this law cannot be kept with the perfection God demands for it to result in one's salvation.

By grace are we saved, by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Tell us HP, do you keep this law with perfection?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

It doesn't say "every man a liar except HP."
Did you want to change the wording of the Bible??

HP: That would be an EXCELLENT verse and topic for discussion,,,,,on another thread. Why not start one for us? :thumbsup:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Tell us HP, do you keep this law with perfection?

HP: If I do, God will be the judge. If I don't, shame on me, and again He is still the judge.

If the topic of the thread does not suit you, and you do not desire to converse on it, why not start one that does?:thumbsup:

 

[steaver]

HP: If I do, God will be the judge. If I don't, shame on me, and again He is still the judge.

If the topic of the thread does not suit you, and you do not desire to converse on it, why not start one that does?:thumbsup:

According to the scriptures God has already judged. So it isn't a question if you do, because you don't, just like me and every other person ever born. It was a rhetorical question. This is why only grace through faith can save.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Now that we made it past that rabbit trail, what about the OP and the other posts on it?

 

[steaver]

First, what is the meaning of 'law' itself?

A "law" is an instruction.

Does 'law' have any noticable attributes that define it, or is it something that is subject to anyones whim of definition?

A "law" is an instruction.

If law has attributes, what might they be?

Rom 5:20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Gal 3:24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Second, can anyone here define moral law and ceremonial law respectively?

moral; of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

ceremonial; of, pertaining to, or characterized by ceremony; formal; ritual: a ceremonial occasion.

Who decides what is one or the other, and are either mandatory for a believer, or anyone else for that matter, to follow

Context.

Define mandatory. Do you mean mandatory as for salvation? If so then no, keeping the law cannot save. Never could, the law was not given for salvation, but to reveal to us our sin and bring us unto grace.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: A "law" is an instruction.

HP: A law without penalty might be instruction, good advice, or even counsel, but it is no law at all. Law must always have a corresponding sanction if it is indeed law.

 

[steaver]

HP: A law without penalty might be instruction, good advice, or even counsel, but it is no law at all. Law must always have a corresponding sanction if it is indeed law.

You did not ask for a corresponding sanction. According to the scriptures, disobeying God's laws brings death. Since all disobey then the only way to life is through Jesus Christ.

 

[DHK]

HP: A law without penalty might be instruction, good advice, or even counsel, but it is no law at all. Law must always have a corresponding sanction if it is indeed law.

Many of the Ten Commandments (thou shalt not kill) are written into man's civil law with stated penalties, some even the death penalty.

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

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

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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

HP: What? The verse you quoted says no such thing, neither does it in any way imply such notion. Violation of moral law always carries a penalty, without which it would not be 'law.' You can ask anyone from Adam to the last knee bowing and you will in the end get the same answer.

 

[BobRyan]

Steaver: Tell us HP, do you keep this law with perfection?

The idea being that the Word of God can be "bent" by simply "judging others" -- if someone is less than perfect in the area of coveting - then you do not need to bother with the command about honoring parents.

By contrast - an actual Bible solution would have served your argument better.

In Jer 31:32 God tells us that the New Covenant promise writes the Law of God - (as Jeremiah and his readers would have known it - hint: exegesis) upon the heart)

The response to Jeremiah from Steaver appears to be in the form

"Steaver: Tell us Jeremiah, do you keep this law with perfection? "

How transparent to the reader is that flawed argument? What say you?

HP: If I do, God will be the judge. If I don't, shame on me, and again He is still the judge.

Indeed - any one person's success or failure in any point of God's Word - has nothing to do with which Laws/commands are Biblically shown to apply to mankind. It is simply a rabbit trail to defocus from an actual "sola scriptura" response to the question.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Many of the Ten Commandments (thou shalt not kill) are written into man's civil law with stated penalties, some even the death penalty.

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

True - but in Romans 3 and 7 Paul states that it is God's Law that "defines what sin is" and as you pointed out on another thread 1John 3:4 "sin is transgression of God's Law".

In Romans 6 the "penalty for sin" is stated as follows "the wages of sin is death" Rom 6:23. (The second death - torment in fire and brimstone, found in Rev 20).

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

And as Paul points out in Romans 2 - this means that the Gentiles that are DOING the actual works of the law are accounted as saved Israel - while any Jew that supposes they have God "in a contract" and He cannot send them to hell no matter what they actually do regarding God's law are accounted by God as non-Jews not-Israel not the people of God.

22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?
24 For "THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU," just as it is written. [/quote][/B]

Rom 2
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 So [b]if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?[/b]
27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
28 For [b]he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter[/b]; and his praise is not from men, but from God. [/b]