• 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!

PSA...Found this on X today

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Just wanted to give thanks for this post. Letting you know that I read it and see more of your clarification in it. I won't respond to it due to your other post that I think my responses that would be in it, would cover what is in this post.


Peace to you brother
Thank you.

I believe if we want to get the law of sin, the Mosaic Law, and the Law of Christ straight we would probably have to work through each passage as a whole as it would be too easy to make a mistake when we jump around looking for the word "law".

That would be an exercise for another thread and probably another time.

But I appreciate you taking the time for this discussion and thank you for your insights. Your posts have caused me to go back to several passages and I have benefited from the experience.
 

Zaatar71

Active Member
Found this on facebook today;

Ken Kovach

August 22 at 11:03 PM ·
PENAL SUBSTITUTION: THE TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE
By Malcolm H. Watts
1] Christ is said to “bear” our sins (Isaiah 53:1 Peter 2:24).
To bear sins is not only to assume responsibility for them, but also to undergo the punishment due to them (Leviticus 20:17 cf. vv.18-20). Francis Turretin observes: “to bear sin is the same thing as to bear the punishment of sins” (‘Institutes of Elenctic Theology’, volume 3, page 429).
2] The penal nature of Christ’s death is implied some key references to it.
He was delivered “for our offences” (Romans 4:25), the preposition “for” in the Greek is dia – “because of, on account of.” This can only mean that these offences were the cause of His death. The same meaning is in the propositions of 1 Corinthians 15:3 – “for our sins” (huper – “in behalf of, for the sake of”), and 1 Peter 3:18 “suffered for sins” (peri – concerning, because of), and Matthew 20:28 “a ransom for many” (anti – “because of, instead of.”
3] His death is described as a “sacrifice” (Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 9:26, etc.)
With respect to sacrifices, guilt was transmitted and, in consequence, life was taken as the penalty due (see: Leviticus 1:5). As Robert Dabney says concerning the Old Testament sacrifices which prefigured Christ’s sacrifice, “these bloody sacrifices were intended by God to symbolise the substitution of an innocent victim in place of the guilty offerer; the transfer of his guilt to the substitute; satisfaction for it by the vicarious death, and the consequent forgiveness of the sinner (Leviticus 1:4; 14:21; 17:11, et passim.)” (Christ our Penal Substitute, page 88).
4] In Isaiah 53:7, it says “he was oppressed” – literally, “it was exacted” – that is, Christ bore the penalty which the Law demanded. B.W. Newton comments, “it must be very strongly stated that the commencing Hebrew word (‘it was exacted’) indicates that the suffering was the result of judicial infliction from the hand of God; because He who so suffered stood as one who had voluntarily undertaken to bear penalties which the Law of God ‘exacted.’ The word (nagas) indicated not merely oppression, but oppression that was the result of a demand. It means to have payment of a debt sternly executed, and is thus used in Deuteronomy 15:2,3, ‘Every creditor that lendeth aught to his neighbour shall (on the seventh year) release it; he shall not EXACT it of his neighbour or his brother, because the Lord’s release hath been proclaimed. Of a foreigner thou mayest EXACT it again, etc.’” (Thoughts on the Whole Prophecy of Isaiah, pages 265,266).
5] It is said that Christ became “a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13).
Since the curse of the Law was the penalty of sin (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10), this can only mean that He was charged with sin and was judged as if He was a sinner – although, of course, He Himself knew no sin (see: 2 Corinthians 5:21).
6] The fact that His death was a “ransom” (Matthew 20:28; 1 Timothy 2:6; cf. Romans 3:24; Ephesians 1:7) shows that the sinner’s freedom has been bought by the payment of a required price.
Christ paid the price, an equivalent for the sins of men (1 Peter 1:18,19; Revelation 5:9). In his classic work, The Atonement and Intercession of Christ, William Symington concludes, “The passages, thus, without controversy, prove the fact that salvation is effected by the blood or death or the Lord Jesus Christ, which is offered to and accepted of by God, as a perfect satisfaction, a proper equivalent for the sins of such as are made partakers of redemption. They are not their own, but BOUGHT WITH A PRICE. Can anything more distinctly express the idea of satisfaction, which is just the idea of atonement?” (pages 185,186).
7] The very concept of a “surety” (Hebrews 7:22) requires one who performs a service or pays a debt on behalf of another (Gen 43:9; cf. Philemon 18).
8] There is no doubt that God inflicted “chastisement” or “punishment” upon Christ (Isaiah 53:5,10; Zechariah 13:7).
God “condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:4). “The Punishment which God meted out to Christ was the very punishment which was due to his people. (Arthur Pink, The Atonement, page 93). Pink proceeds to quote Dr. John Brown: “To the enlightened eye, there is found on the cross another inscription, besides that which Pilate ordered to be written there: The Victim of Guilt. The Wages of sin” (ibid.)
9] Our salvation came about by “reconciliation.”
That is, satisfaction being rendered to the offended party whose justice must be fully met and, as a result, God’s most righteous displeasure with us on account of sin has been removed (Romans 5:10; Colossians 1:20; Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). After a most learned treatment of “propitiation” in both Testaments, Dr. Leon Morris makes this telling point: “The Scripture is clear that the wrath of God is visited on sinners or else that the Son of God dies for them. Either sinners are punished for their misdoings or else there takes place what Hodgson calls ‘that self-punishment which combines the activities of punishing and forgiving.’ Either we die or He dies. ‘But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us’ (Romans 5:8)” (The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, page 213).
10] The nature of Christ’s death can only be understood in terms of penal substitution.
His was no ordinary anguish and pain. His was no ordinary death (Matthew 26:37; Mark 14:33-35; Luke 22:44; Hebrews 5:7). As Turretin says, “Such things can have no other adequate cause except in vindicatory justice demanding from Christ a most full satisfaction for us” (op. cited, pages 434,435). A scripture comes to mind: “Is it nothing to you all ye that pass by? behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is done unto me, wherewith the Lord hath afflicted me in the day of his fierce anger” (Lamentations 1:12)........
Your sins on the Lamb, and He bore them away.
Contrary to what Steve Chalke alleges, Penal substitution is not a theory of the Atonement: it is the Atonement. And if a sinner rejects it, he places himself beyond hope of the salvation of God.
 

Paleouss

Active Member
Site Supporter
This is the timeline I am thinking of with the Law (with comments because that's how I roll ;) ).
Please correct me if I made an error.

1. Adam sinned. Through Adam's sin death entered the world and spread to all mankind for all have sinned.
2. God made an unconditional covenant with Abraham.
3. God named Jacob "Israel" and through him called a nation (Israel).
4. 430 years passed between Abraham (either his calling, the covenant, or his death) and God giving the Law to he Israelites living at that time and their descendants.
5. The Law was in effect for roughly 1,450 years (from its giving to its fulfillment).
6. Jesus fulfilled the Law, canceled that "certificate of debt", nailed it to the tree.
Greetings to you JonC. May God bless those that seek Him.

I like how you present how you are thinking through it. It also helps with my understanding of your thought process. Before I give any responses, I agree that Paul may at times be referring to different laws.

Looking at your timeline above, I don't disagree, but I am getting an isolated approach from your outline and I would like to suggest a wider perspective (which is this discussion in a nutshell, I think).

Wider Perspective
(1) God gives one law, ‘thou shall not eat’.
(2) Adam breaks that law, i.e., sinned. Sin, death, and the kingdom of darkness now enter this world under a lawless rule. This enslaves all mankind, our master is sin.
(3) God reveals that He already has a plan in Gen 3:15. Everything is already all worked out. There shall be a Seed and the trail, both lineage wise and historically, that leads to that Seed shall be through Abraham.
(4) God chooses the Jewish people, through Abraham, to be His light unto the nations and to prepare the way, be the seedline, for this Seed. All the spiritual preparation, revelations, prophets, the Scripture is given to the world through this vessel, that is the Jewish nation and Abraham’s seedline up to THE Seed. Thus, God intends Israel to be a light unto the nations just like Jesus Christ (the new Israel) will be and is a light unto the world.

My point here is, it seems to me that the nation of Israel and the Jewish people are just the messenger, or vessel, of how God is doing it from Gen 3:15. Now it is clear that the chosen messenger, the Jews’ or Jewish nation, of God’s light unto the world dropped the torch. For they did not accept the Son of God, the Savior. Thus, the torch of light unto the world was given to the Gentiles. Who was grafted in. Now the Gentiles, and Jews for Jesus :), take that light unto the world.

We can look back through history and glean spiritual knowledge from how God chose to do it. Here is where we might part ways, in that, I clearly see that some of the Jewish law, and promises, are for the Jews only. But some are intended for the whole world. So I tend to distinguish between (A) The Moral Law, (B) The Ceremonial Law (C) The Civil Law. (A) is for the world and the Jews were used as the vessel to deliver this message as the light to all the nations. God used the exodus and all the miracles to be a light unto the nations. Got all the nations attention so that the Moral Law would be a light unto the world that is in darkness.

(B) is for the Jews only, but again to be a light unto the world of what was to come and (C) incorporates (A) and is the law unto themselves (as other nations have their own (C), which is the law unto themselves that has incorporated (A) also).

In other words, I’m suggesting that God choosing the Jewish people, as He pleased, was a choice of which ‘vessel’ He would use to be His light unto the world. Israel, the people and nation, was God’s light unto the world. Thus, some things given to Israel were to be a message, a light, a foreshadowing, and apply to the world.

The Moral Law seems to me to be one of those things. It specifically had a purpose to bring law to lawlessness, stop every mouth, bring the whole world guilty before God and prepare the way for the knockout blow, the Incarnation, death and resurrection.
Therefore there has to be several ways Paul uses the word "law" (obviously the Law of Moses when saying sin reigned apart from the Law, and obviously "the law of sin" that he struggles with in the flesh.
I think we are in agreement here
IF this is the Mosaic Law then it shut the mouth of those under the Law and all are guilty (the Jews could not look to the Law to become righteous).
IF this is the law of sin then it applies to both those under and aoart from the Law.
WHILE one has to be a misunderstanding the result is the same - all are guilty.
Agreed
So yes, Paul could be talking about the law of sin rather than the Mosaic Law in that verse. I can see it either way, kinda. But the comment seems more logical to me if Paul was speaking of the Moasic Law because he speaks of it being godly, the flaw being man. This seems to be different from the law of sin (sin begats death, sin comes from the lusts of the flesh, whereas God have Israel the Law through Moses and Christ fulfilled this Law).
We might need to consider what each of us think it means to be the fulfillment of the Law. Further, what exactly does "the law of sin and death" mean. What I mean by this second question is that sin and death is described as "lawlessness". Therefore is saying there is a "law of sin and death" a contradiction in terms? Or is it the case that when Paul refers to the "law of sin and death" he means (sin+Moral Law= law of sin and death)? Or (sin+law unto themselves = law of sin and death)? We do know that the Bible says that the law is the strength of sin, thus making a combination of the two (sin+law=strength) as already been established within scripture.
I certainly do not agree with posts by some on this forum that God looked upon Jesus as a Law breaker or sinner.
I don't have a hard stance on this yet. Mainly because it doesn't resonate with me and it seems like a needless position to hold. So I haven't studied it in depth enough. So I'll avoid it here like I do most of the time. :)
Rather than God treating Jesus as a sinner on our behalf God treated Jesus as righteous, having unjustly suffered the wages of sin, having fulfilled the Law, and God justly raised Him to His right hand. Jesus unjustly died a sinners death under the bondage of sin and death and was judged righteous by God.
I don't see any problems with holding this position.

Peace be to you brother Jon.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Greetings to you JonC. May God bless those that seek Him.

I like how you present how you are thinking through it. It also helps with my understanding of your thought process. Before I give any responses, I agree that Paul may at times be referring to different laws.

Looking at your timeline above, I don't disagree, but I am getting an isolated approach from your outline and I would like to suggest a wider perspective (which is this discussion in a nutshell, I think).

Wider Perspective
(1) God gives one law, ‘thou shall not eat’.
(2) Adam breaks that law, i.e., sinned. Sin, death, and the kingdom of darkness now enter this world under a lawless rule. This enslaves all mankind, our master is sin.
(3) God reveals that He already has a plan in Gen 3:15. Everything is already all worked out. There shall be a Seed and the trail, both lineage wise and historically, that leads to that Seed shall be through Abraham.
(4) God chooses the Jewish people, through Abraham, to be His light unto the nations and to prepare the way, be the seedline, for this Seed. All the spiritual preparation, revelations, prophets, the Scripture is given to the world through this vessel, that is the Jewish nation and Abraham’s seedline up to THE Seed. Thus, God intends Israel to be a light unto the nations just like Jesus Christ (the new Israel) will be and is a light unto the world.

My point here is, it seems to me that the nation of Israel and the Jewish people are just the messenger, or vessel, of how God is doing it from Gen 3:15. Now it is clear that the chosen messenger, the Jews’ or Jewish nation, of God’s light unto the world dropped the torch. For they did not accept the Son of God, the Savior. Thus, the torch of light unto the world was given to the Gentiles. Who was grafted in. Now the Gentiles, and Jews for Jesus :), take that light unto the world.

We can look back through history and glean spiritual knowledge from how God chose to do it. Here is where we might part ways, in that, I clearly see that some of the Jewish law, and promises, are for the Jews only. But some are intended for the whole world. So I tend to distinguish between (A) The Moral Law, (B) The Ceremonial Law (C) The Civil Law. (A) is for the world and the Jews were used as the vessel to deliver this message as the light to all the nations. God used the exodus and all the miracles to be a light unto the nations. Got all the nations attention so that the Moral Law would be a light unto the world that is in darkness.

(B) is for the Jews only, but again to be a light unto the world of what was to come and (C) incorporates (A) and is the law unto themselves (as other nations have their own (C), which is the law unto themselves that has incorporated (A) also).

In other words, I’m suggesting that God choosing the Jewish people, as He pleased, was a choice of which ‘vessel’ He would use to be His light unto the world. Israel, the people and nation, was God’s light unto the world. Thus, some things given to Israel were to be a message, a light, a foreshadowing, and apply to the world.

The Moral Law seems to me to be one of those things. It specifically had a purpose to bring law to lawlessness, stop every mouth, bring the whole world guilty before God and prepare the way for the knockout blow, the Incarnation, death and resurrection.

I think we are in agreement here

Agreed

We might need to consider what each of us think it means to be the fulfillment of the Law. Further, what exactly does "the law of sin and death" mean. What I mean by this second question is that sin and death is described as "lawlessness". Therefore is saying there is a "law of sin and death" a contradiction in terms? Or is it the case that when Paul refers to the "law of sin and death" he means (sin+Moral Law= law of sin and death)? Or (sin+law unto themselves = law of sin and death)? We do know that the Bible says that the law is the strength of sin, thus making a combination of the two (sin+law=strength) as already been established within scripture.

I don't have a hard stance on this yet. Mainly because it doesn't resonate with me and it seems like a needless position to hold. So I haven't studied it in depth enough. So I'll avoid it here like I do most of the time. :)

I don't see any problems with holding this position.

Peace be to you brother Jon.
Thanks for your insights. I try to present how I think through issues as I believe any mistakes on my part are more easily identified by others and merely providing conclusions hide errors.

I agree with most of your wider perspective.

I would point out that the Jewish people were not chosen through Abraham but through Jacob (who was renamed "Israel"). I believe this is important because the unconditional covenant God made with Abraham applies broader than does the Old Covenant which was made to Israel (the nation) alive during Moses time. Maybe this is something we can blend into a "moral law" for our current discussion, but I hesitate as we are also discussing the fulfillment of the Law.

My point is God gave the Law through Moses and this was one covenant. As such there were no divisions (moral, ceremonial, etc.).

To show what I mean let's just look at one transgression of God's law. Let's consider the transgression through which sin and death entered the world, the sin that demonstrated a boundary between God and man.

Adam ate a piece of fruit.

Was this a violation of the "moral law"?

If so, was eating pork less a moral violation (for those who commanded not to eat pork under the Law) than eating fruit?
 
Last edited:

Paleouss

Active Member
Site Supporter
Adam ate a piece of fruit.

Was this a violation of the "moral law"?

If so, was eating pork less a moral violation (for those who commanded not to eat pork under the Law) than eating fruit?
Greetings JonC. Hope you are enjoying your day. Many blessing to you.

The only law that the Scripture would seem to have presented as being transgressed was the law of "thou shall not eat" (Gen 2:17, 3:1, 3:3). Could one look at the Moral Law (by this I specifically mean the Ten Commandments), and find a transgression? Yes, I think so. However, the Bible doesn't tell us this was a law, the Moral Law, over Adam (nor does it say that this is what was transgressed). The only law over Adam, at least from Scripture that I know of, was "thou shall not eat" (Gen 2:17, 3:1, 3:3).

So the answer is, no. Adam eating of the fruit was not a violation of the Moral Law (Ten Commandments). For Adam had no such law over him.

Now I do understand that through logical deduction most Reformed minded want to assert that Adam had within him the Moral Law. But I seriously question that claim and the scriptural verses used to deduce it. First, nowhere does it say or even suggest such a thing, imo. Second, it pretty clearly tells us through the story what law Adam was under and broke, i.e., thou shall not eat.

This position I am presenting is also supported, I believe, by Romans 5:12-14.
(Rom 5:12-14 NKJV) 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
This seems to suggest that there was no law condemning those that came after Adam that sinned, yet, they were still dying. It would seem to therefore follow that Adam only had one law over him in the garden at the specific time in which he sinned. That law being, thou shall not eat. If Adam had the moral law over him, it would seem to follow that those from Adam to Moses would have had the moral law over them also. But the Bible seems to suggest that these people from Adam to Moses were not being condemned by any law for their sin. Hence the significance of God needing to bring law to lawlessness (to all, Jew and Gentile).

If so, was eating pork less a moral violation (for those who commanded not to eat pork under the Law) than eating fruit?
More specifically to your question. Hmmm... so eliminating the concept to of 'moral violation' (since this is the Ten Commandments). No, eating of the fruit is no more or less a transgression of law than eating pork. But each transgresses a different, specific, law. Each is a transgression of a law, the law being either (a) thou shall not eat of the tree, or (b) thou shall not eat pork.


Peace to you brother
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Greetings JonC. Hope you are enjoying your day. Many blessing to you.

The only law that the Scripture would seem to have presented as being transgressed was the law of "thou shall not eat" (Gen 2:17, 3:1, 3:3). Could one look at the Moral Law (by this I specifically mean the Ten Commandments), and find a transgression? Yes, I think so. However, the Bible doesn't tell us this was a law, the Moral Law, over Adam (nor does it say that this is what was transgressed). The only law over Adam, at least from Scripture that I know of, was "thou shall not eat" (Gen 2:17, 3:1, 3:3).

So the answer is, no. Adam eating of the fruit was not a violation of the Moral Law (Ten Commandments). For Adam had no such law over him.

Now I do understand that through logical deduction most Reformed minded want to assert that Adam had within him the Moral Law. But I seriously question that claim and the scriptural verses used to deduce it. First, nowhere does it say or even suggest such a thing, imo. Second, it pretty clearly tells us through the story what law Adam was under and broke, i.e., thou shall not eat.

This position I am presenting is also supported, I believe, by Romans 5:12-14.

This seems to suggest that there was no law condemning those that came after Adam that sinned, yet, they were still dying. It would seem to therefore follow that Adam only had one law over him in the garden at the specific time in which he sinned. That law being, thou shall not eat. If Adam had the moral law over him, it would seem to follow that those from Adam to Moses would have had the moral law over them also. But the Bible seems to suggest that these people from Adam to Moses were not being condemned by any law for their sin. Hence the significance of God needing to bring law to lawlessness (to all, Jew and Gentile).


More specifically to your question. Hmmm... so eliminating the concept to of 'moral violation' (since this is the Ten Commandments). No, eating of the fruit is no more or less a transgression of law than eating pork. But each transgresses a different, specific, law. Each is a transgression of a law, the law being either (a) thou shall not eat of the tree, or (b) thou shall not eat pork.


Peace to you brother
Thank you. I hope your day is going well also. I believe we are getting closer to distinctions regatding the Law, transgressions and sins.

I agree that Adam had one law as a command that he transgressed. Paul also makes the point that Israel violating the Law and Adam violating the command is a transgression while those from Adam to Moses sinned but did not commit that type of transgression.

Those who did not transgress the Law (or in Adam's case, the command) died because they still sinned. Sin produces death. The command to Adam and the Law showed us, because man has a mind set on the flesh), our sin. But sin was there even apart from the Law (the Law did not create sin).

One issue with the "moral law" theme is determining what is "moral" (vs ceremonial). Can we absolutely say working on Saturday is a ceremonial rather than moral violation? If so, what is the standard?

Jesus said that loving God and others is the command upon which the entire Law hinges. These two are the greatest commandments. And if we loved God we will obey Him. I believe that there is no "moral law". Instead I believe that we are to obey God, regardless of how we would classify those instructions. If we loved God then we will obey Him. But more so, if we loved God we are transformed into the image of Christ. We set our mind on the things of the Spirit. We desire what God desires.


What is the greater offence - stealing from another (a "moral offence") or eating a fruit (Adam's transgression)?

I believe it all goes back to loving God, and this evidenced by obedience.
 

Paleouss

Active Member
Site Supporter
Thank you. I hope your day is going well also. I believe we are getting closer to distinctions regatding the Law, transgressions and sins.
Greetings brother. God blesses in ways even unseen. So I am doing well.

I think we are
I agree that Adam had one law as a command that he transgressed. Paul also makes the point that Israel violating the Law and Adam violating the command is a transgression while those from Adam to Moses sinned but did not commit that type of transgression.
:)
Those who did not transgress the Law (or in Adam's case, the command) died because they still sinned. Sin produces death.
Agreed. Sin produces death, the power of sin is death, the sting of death is sin. This is without the law, thus, it is lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness.
The command to Adam and the Law showed us, because man has a mind set on the flesh), our sin. But sin was there even apart from the Law (the Law did not create sin).
Agreed. The law only condemns, makes guilty before God (Rom 3:19, Gal 3:11). Brings law to lawlessness. It confines and defines sin.
One issue with the "moral law" theme is determining what is "moral" (vs ceremonial). Can we absolutely say working on Saturday is a ceremonial rather than moral violation? If so, what is the standard?
Here you may be using the word "moral" as a more modern (or inclusive) term where I am using it only in the context of the Ten Commandments. By this distinction, the Ten Commandments (what I am calling the Moral Law) is easily distinguished from the ceremonial law.

An important concept to consider is that only the Ten Commandments were placed int the Arch of the Covenant. Once a year the Hight Priest sprinkled blood on the mercy seat (the lid of the Arch). Thus making the connection between the law (literally the Ten Commandments) and the blood sacrifice (the blood is life).

I also think you are correct in that the Ten Commandments (moral law) filters down into all other laws. Thus, the ceremonial and civil laws contain the moral law concepts. In this way, just saying 'The Law' would encompass all that I think you would suggest. It is what most of the verses do, i.e., just call it 'the law'.
Jesus said that loving God and others is the command upon which the entire Law hinges. These two are the greatest commandments.
I agree that the first two, according to Scripture, is the greatest. I also agree that "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Matt 22:40). Additionally, that "love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom 13:10) and Jesus was the fulfillment of the law (Matt 5:17, Gal 6:2, Jam 2:8). Thus, Jesus came into this world to show His love.
I believe that there is no "moral law". Instead I believe that we are to obey God, regardless of how we would classify those instructions. If we loved God then we will obey Him.
I do not deny concepts of the Moral Influence theory of Atonement (if this is where you are going). However, like my complaints about the Ransom and Penal theories, the Moral Influence theory is incomplete.

It seems to me that the Scriptures explicitly states that Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, death, resurrection did something regarding the Law (Rom 7:6, Col 2:13-14, Eph 2:15, Tit 2:14, Rom 3:25, 1John 2:2, Rom 6:14, Rom 3:26, Rom 3:31, 1Thes 1:10, Rom 4:15, John 3:36).

It seems that the Bible suggests and sometimes explicitly states that some law, whatever one might want to include in it, was (had to be) addressed. To its credit, the Penal Sub theory address it. To its fault, it ignores everything else (that's a little harsh but you get my point).
I believe that there is no "moral law".
Since I mean Ten Commandments when I say moral law, I know you don't mean you don't believe there was/is no Ten Commandments. So then I look at your next sentence for further information.
Instead I believe that we are to obey God, regardless of how we would classify those instructions.
So you are saying, traditional theology may divide the Jewish law into moral, ceremonial, and civil. But regardless of what you call them, one must believe and obey God. I don't have much objection to this preposed view.

The only hang up is that the Scriptures takes up a significant amount of space talking about 'the law'. That God gave it, that it has dominion over us, that it brings death, that Jesus delivered us from it, that what the law couldn't do Jesus came to do. Considering what I have just said, it would seem that saying that God gave 'the law' and we are all under the law, means something.

So I agree that we are to obey God, regardless of how we would classify those instructions. Further, I would agree that when we say the law has dominion over us it means every law applicable.

But would also say that regardless of how we classify those instructions... we live under them, they have dominion over us in some way, and we need something to be done about that. According the Bible, Jesus did something regarding the law (whatever the law is and whatever needed to be done regarding it).

Peace to you brother.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Greetings brother. God blesses in ways even unseen. So I am doing well.

I think we are

:)

Agreed. Sin produces death, the power of sin is death, the sting of death is sin. This is without the law, thus, it is lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness.

Agreed. The law only condemns, makes guilty before God (Rom 3:19, Gal 3:11). Brings law to lawlessness. It confines and defines sin.

Here you may be using the word "moral" as a more modern (or inclusive) term where I am using it only in the context of the Ten Commandments. By this distinction, the Ten Commandments (what I am calling the Moral Law) is easily distinguished from the ceremonial law.

An important concept to consider is that only the Ten Commandments were placed int the Arch of the Covenant. Once a year the Hight Priest sprinkled blood on the mercy seat (the lid of the Arch). Thus making the connection between the law (literally the Ten Commandments) and the blood sacrifice (the blood is life).

I also think you are correct in that the Ten Commandments (moral law) filters down into all other laws. Thus, the ceremonial and civil laws contain the moral law concepts. In this way, just saying 'The Law' would encompass all that I think you would suggest. It is what most of the verses do, i.e., just call it 'the law'.

I agree that the first two, according to Scripture, is the greatest. I also agree that "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Matt 22:40). Additionally, that "love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom 13:10) and Jesus was the fulfillment of the law (Matt 5:17, Gal 6:2, Jam 2:8). Thus, Jesus came into this world to show His love.

I do not deny concepts of the Moral Influence theory of Atonement (if this is where you are going). However, like my complaints about the Ransom and Penal theories, the Moral Influence theory is incomplete.

It seems to me that the Scriptures explicitly states that Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, death, resurrection did something regarding the Law (Rom 7:6, Col 2:13-14, Eph 2:15, Tit 2:14, Rom 3:25, 1John 2:2, Rom 6:14, Rom 3:26, Rom 3:31, 1Thes 1:10, Rom 4:15, John 3:36).

It seems that the Bible suggests and sometimes explicitly states that some law, whatever one might want to include in it, was (had to be) addressed. To its credit, the Penal Sub theory address it. To its fault, it ignores everything else (that's a little harsh but you get my point).

Since I mean Ten Commandments when I say moral law, I know you don't mean you don't believe there was/is no Ten Commandments. So then I look at your next sentence for further information.

So you are saying, traditional theology may divide the Jewish law into moral, ceremonial, and civil. But regardless of what you call them, one must believe and obey God. I don't have much objection to this preposed view.

The only hang up is that the Scriptures takes up a significant amount of space talking about 'the law'. That God gave it, that it has dominion over us, that it brings death, that Jesus delivered us from it, that what the law couldn't do Jesus came to do. Considering what I have just said, it would seem that saying that God gave 'the law' and we are all under the law, means something.

So I agree that we are to obey God, regardless of how we would classify those instructions. Further, I would agree that when we say the law has dominion over us it means every law applicable.

But would also say that regardless of how we classify those instructions... we live under them, they have dominion over us in some way, and we need something to be done about that. According the Bible, Jesus did something regarding the law (whatever the law is and whatever needed to be done regarding it).

Peace to you brother.
Good evening.

I agree that Scripture often speaks of the Law, especially when dealing with the Old Covenant. I was not suggesting that you may lean against concepts of the Moral Influence Theory (that was not where I was going).

I do contend that there are truths found in several theories of Atonement with a few exceptions - Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, and Penal Substitution Theory being a few theories that are completely anti-Christian (while several theories focus on one aspect over another, those three theories stand in direct opposition to God's Word).

Regarding the Law, I am saying it is one covenant (the Old Covenant). Defining dividing the Law into categories as "traditional" depends on one's traditiin (the categorization is Catholic tradition and Calvinistic tradition). I am not saying grades of sin ate not worth exploring as there is biblical evidence that severity of sin exists.

I am strongly suggesting, however, that Penal Substitution Theory not only applies a judicial philosophy to the Atonement that os unbiblical but also focuses on the "moral" at the expense of understanding the Atonement.

What Penal Substitution Theory addresses is human philosophy (and one that, while popular from the 15th to early 20th century, primarily resides only in Reformed tradition today).

For example, I could say Mormonism addresses aspects of how God the Father became a god, but if what is addressed is false what it addresses is irrelevant.

My point is that sin is greater than a moral failure. The Atonement does not address our moral violations. What is addressed is our sin.

The first moral violation of man recorded in Scripture is the murder of Able. This was not the first sin.
 
Top