Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Problems

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Problems

    This are some of the problems I have with theology that teaches that the Mosaic law is no longer applicable:
    • How can Paul say that the law gives us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), that without it we wouldn't even know what sin was (7:7), that we are set free from the law (7:6), and yet that we are not set free to sin (6:15)?
    • How can Paul say that our faith upholds the law (3:31) and that our faith releases us from the law?
    • Why would we even need to be set free from something that is holy, righteous and good in the first place (7:12)?
    • How can the righteous requirement of the law be fulfilled in us if we don't do what the righteous law requires (8:4)?
    • How can Paul say that the mind that is set on flesh is hostile to God and doesn't submit to God's law, if he is saying that we shouldn't submit to God's law (8:6)?
    • How can the children of God who abide in Him be the ones who practice righteousness (1 John 3:6, 10), yet ignore the Bible's instructions for how to practice righteousness?
    • How can we be told that we are a holy nation (1 Peter 2:9-10), to have a holy conduct, and to "be holy, for God is holy" (1 Peter 1:15-16), yet ignore the Bible's instructions that are being quoted from that explain how to have a holy conduct?
    • How can we understand Paul to be saying we don't have to obey the law (Galatians 5:18) if he then goes on to say we should act in accordance with the law (Galatians 5:19-24), and that we should correct people who are caught in sin (Galatians 6:1)?
    • How can walking in the Spirit be in opposition to the law that the Father has commanded? How can Jesus, who kept the law perfectly and did nothing apart from the Father, be in opposition to the law that the Father has commanded?
    • How can the Father's grace be in opposition to the law that He has commanded? How can Paul, who was sent by both Jesus and the Father (Galatians 1:1) say anything in opposition to what Jesus said (Matthew 5:17-19) or against keeping the law that the Father has commanded?


    The easy solutions to these problems are what is found in Messianic Judaism by noting that there is an aspect of the law that holds us captive that we need to be set free from and an aspect of law that is holy, righteous, and good that our faith upholds. The aspect of the law that holds us captive is that it condemns us to death for transgressing it (Romans 7:1-4, 8:1-2), our sin nature has the propensity to be perverted into legalism (7:6), and our sin nature leads us to rebel against what we are told to do (7:6-25). The aspect of the law that is holy, righteous, and good, is its instructions for how to live in a manner that is holy, righteous, and good. The law is spiritual (7:14), so walking in the Spirit is walking in accordance with the law, and a role of the Spirit is to cause us to become obedient to the law (Ezekiel 36:27).
    Last edited by Soyeong; 04-20-2015, 10:32 PM.
    "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

  • #2
    Here we go again.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
      This are some of the problems I have with theology that teaches that the Mosaic law is no longer applicable:
      • How can Paul say that the law gives us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), that without it we wouldn't even know what sin was (7:7), that we are set free from the law (7:6), and yet that we are not set free to sin (6:15)?
      • How can Paul say that our faith upholds the law (3:31) and that our faith releases us from the law?
      • Why would we even need to be set free from something that is holy, righteous and good in the first place (7:12)?
      • How can the righteous requirement of the law be fulfilled in us if we don't do what the righteous law requires (8:4)?
      • How can Paul say that the mind that is set on flesh is hostile to God and doesn't submit to God's law, if he is saying that we shouldn't submit to God's law (8:6)?
      • How can the children of God who abide in Him be the ones who practice righteousness (1 John 3:6, 10), yet ignore the Bible's instructions for how to practice righteousness?
      • How can we be told that we are a holy nation (1 Peter 2:9-10), to have a holy conduct, and to "be holy, for God is holy" (1 Peter 1:15-16), yet ignore the Bible's instructions that are being quoted from that explain how to have a holy conduct?
      • How can we understand Paul to be saying we don't have to obey the law (Galatians 5:18) if he then goes on to say we should act in accordance with the law (Galatians 5:19-24), and that we should correct people who are caught in sin (Galatians 6:1)?
      • How can walking in the Spirit be in opposition to the law that the Father has commanded? How can Jesus, who kept the law perfectly and did nothing apart from the Father, be in opposition to the law that the Father has commanded?
      • How can the Father's grace be in opposition to the law that He has commanded? How can Paul, who was sent by both Jesus and the Father (Galatians 1:1) say anything in opposition to what Jesus said (Matthew 5:17-19) or against keeping the law that the Father has commanded?


      The easy solutions to these problems are what is found in Messianic Judaism by noting that there is an aspect of the law that holds us captive that we need to be set free from and an aspect of law that is holy, righteous, and good that our faith upholds. The aspect of the law that holds us captive is that it condemns us to death for transgressing it (Romans 7:1-4, 8:1-2), our sin nature has the propensity to be perverted into legalism (7:6), and our sin nature leads us to rebel against what we are told to do (7:6-25). The aspect of the law that is holy, righteous, and good, is its instructions for how to live in a manner that is holy, righteous, and good. The law is spiritual (7:14), so walking in the Spirit is walking in accordance with the law, and a role of the Spirit is to cause us to become obedient to the law (Ezekiel 36:27).
      Now please explain to me what the moral component of refraining from eating pork is.
      ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

      Comment


      • #4
        Soy, honestly, prayerfully read through the entire book of Galatians and Hebrews verse-by-verse. Debating verses out of context will get us nowhere.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
          This are some of the problems I have with theology that teaches that the Mosaic law is no longer applicable:
          How can Paul say that the law gives us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), that without it we wouldn't even know what sin was (7:7), that we are set free from the law (7:6), and yet that we are not set free to sin (6:15)?
          It's right there in the text; we're under grace - the law of the Spirit.

          Why would we even need to be set free from something that is holy, righteous and good in the first place (7:12)?
          It's in chapter 8: the law could not do what it needed to do because of the weakness of the flesh.

          The Christian like Paul distinguishes between different types of Laws given for a different time, Moses' before Jesus and the Spirit' after Jesus; the Judaizer that one needs to obey the Mosaic Law despite all the clear examples that we are no longer under it - despite the fact that the division he so seeks is nowhere implied in Scripture.

          Originally posted by Scrawly
          Here we go again.
          Soyeong is disagreeing with the ruling by the apostles and the Spirit on what is the (to the best of our knowledge) earliest major controversy in Christianity: whether the Mosaic Law needs to be followed by Christians. I propose marking him as an unorthodox Christian - as Paul says, let such be anathema - and be done with it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            Now please explain to me what the moral component of refraining from eating pork is.
            I didn't say anything specifically about the moral component eating pork. Nevertheless, morality is about what we ought or ought not to do, so if we ought to obey God and ought not to eat pork, then that's all the moral component that there needs to be. The dietary laws invite us to ponder why they were commanded, but at the end of the day, God does not require us to understand why He commanded something before we trust and obey Him.

            The dietary laws serve as an object lesson about separating the holy from the profane. Eating is one of our most common activities and God is teaching His chosen people to always be discerning about what we take into our bodies. Something is either pure or it is not and we should not pollute ourselves with the impure. The moral applications should be clear. Should we watch, listen, or do something? If Jesus were here, would he watch, listen, or do it? As his disciples, we should, by faith and through the leading of the Spirit, take steps toward becoming a copy of him both in how he thought and in how he acted in obedience to God as part of the process of sanctification. Keeping the dietary laws is part of what it means to be a holy nation, have a holy conduct, and to "be holy, for God is holy".

            1 Peter 2:9-10 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

            1 Peter 1:13-16 Therefore, preparing your minds for action,[a] and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”
            "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
              Soy, honestly, prayerfully read through the entire book of Galatians and Hebrews verse-by-verse. Debating verses out of context will get us nowhere.
              I have been studying Galatians verse-by-verse for the past few months, which is why I hold the view on it that I do. I'll continue in prayer, but I'll also ask that you prayerfully consider what I'm saying.
              Last edited by Soyeong; 04-21-2015, 01:07 AM.
              "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

              Comment


              • #8
                The new testament specifically teaches that the dietary laws are no longer in force.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  It's right there in the text; we're under grace - the law of the Spirit.
                  The Spirit is not opposed to the Father, so the law of the Spirit is not opposed to the law God gave to Moses. In fact, the law is spiritual and it is a role of the Spirit to helps us to keep it (Ezekiel 36:27). God's grace is that He takes our sin and gives us His righteousness, but it is not opposed to obedience. Rather, as God's children we should practice righteousness in obedience to the law (1 John 3:10).

                  1 Peter 1:13-14 Therefore, preparing your minds for action,[a] and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance,

                  Setting your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ does not mean we are not to be obedient children of God.

                  It's in chapter 8: the law could not do what it needed to do because of the weakness of the flesh.
                  The law is holy, righteous, and good, but simply being instructed how to behave in a manner that is holy, righteous, and good is not sufficient for us to meet the law's righteous requirement. Now that Christ has sent his own Son to condemn sin in the flesh so that we could meet the requirement through walking in the Spirit, should we reject what God has done for us and disregard His holy, righteous, and good instructions? It is the one who has their mind set on the flesh that does not submit to God's law (Romans 8:7).

                  The Christian like Paul distinguishes between different types of Laws given for a different time, Moses' before Jesus and the Spirit' after Jesus; the Judaizer that one needs to obey the Mosaic Law despite all the clear examples that we are no longer under it - despite the fact that the division he so seeks is nowhere implied in Scripture.
                  God's law is according to His holy, righteous, and good standard, which doesn't change. The Judaizers were wanting Gentiles to become Jews and keep all of the written and oral law as they understood it in order to be saved. I fully reject that position, so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't confuse me with them. I'm concerned with how a Christian should behave after they are justified. The clear examples are against those who were trying to become justified by keeping the law, which is a perversion of it, so you should not confuse a criticism of a perversion of the law with a criticism of God's holy, righteous, and good law.

                  Soyeong is disagreeing with the ruling by the apostles and the Spirit on what is the (to the best of our knowledge) earliest major controversy in Christianity: whether the Mosaic Law needs to be followed by Christians. I propose marking him as an unorthodox Christian - as Paul says, let such be anathema - and be done with it.
                  I don't disagree with the ruling of the Apostles and the Spirit, I disagree with your problematic understanding of them. The topic of Acts 15 wasn't even about whether Gentiles had to keep God's holy, righteous, and good law - that was a given. The issue was about whether Gentile had to become Jews and keep all of the written law and oral law in order to be saved. The Jerusalem Council rejected those man-made requirements, but they upheld the commands of God, which they had no authority to countermand. All it takes is a proper understanding of the context of Acts 15, but if you refuse to understand it and insist that Paul disagrees with what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19 and disagrees that God's law should be kept, then Jesus and the Father trump Paul, and Paul would disqualify himself as their Apostle (Galatians 1:1).

                  It's kind of like when there are a bunch of bad things on a bill, but they tacked on something to help grandmas at the end. When the bill is rejected for all of the bad things, they get criticized for hating grandmas. You can reject the man-made requirements and the legalistic perversion of the law without rejecting God's holy, righteous, and good law.
                  Last edited by Soyeong; 04-21-2015, 10:41 AM.
                  "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                    The new testament specifically teaches that the dietary laws are no longer in force.
                    Usually the verses that people use to support that conclusion are talking about man-made ritual purity laws rather than dietary laws.
                    "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                      I didn't say anything specifically about the moral component eating pork. Nevertheless, morality is about what we ought or ought not to do, so if we ought to obey God and ought not to eat pork, then that's all the moral component that there needs to be. The dietary laws invite us to ponder why they were commanded, but at the end of the day, God does not require us to understand why He commanded something before we trust and obey Him.
                      Yeah, no. We already know why the dietary laws were commanded, namely to set apart the Jews from the Gentiles surrounding them, just like most of the other ritual purity laws. It had nothing to do with morality.

                      Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                      The dietary laws serve as an object lesson about separating the holy from the profane. Eating is one of our most common activities and God is teaching His chosen people to always be discerning about what we take into our bodies. Something is either pure or it is not and we should not pollute ourselves with the impure.
                      Mark 7:18-23

                      Eating does not defile someone, even if what you're eating happens to be pork, or shellfish. Under the new covenant, that which pollutes us are impure thoughts, not impure food.

                      Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                      The moral applications should be clear. Should we watch, listen, or do something? If Jesus were here, would he watch, listen, or do it? As his disciples, we should, by faith and through the leading of the Spirit, take steps toward becoming a copy of him both in how he thought and in how he acted in obedience to God as part of the process of sanctification.
                      If you were "listening" you would see passages like Mark 7:18-23 and realize that your understanding of the purpose of the dietary laws are majorly flawed. And there's a difference between being conformed to the image of Christ and becoming a copy of Him.

                      Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                      Keeping the dietary laws is part of what it means to be a holy nation, have a holy conduct, and to "be holy, for God is holy".
                      Under the old covenant maybe.

                      Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                      1 Peter 1:13-16 Therefore, preparing your minds for action,[a] and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”
                      Except the dietary laws no longer have any effect on your holiness.
                      ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                        you refuse to understand it and insist that Paul disagrees with what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19
                        I've said this more than once: what Paul says is not that the Law is abolished but that we are not under it. Unfortunately, you still refuse to let go of that false dichotomy, so there is no point in further discussion.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                          The Spirit is not opposed to the Father, so the law of the Spirit is not opposed to the law God gave to Moses.

                          No one said they were opposed, dumbass.

                          Setting your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ does not mean we are not to be obedient children of God.
                          No one said that, dumbass.


                          Now that Christ has sent his own Son to condemn sin in the flesh so that we could meet the requirement through walking in the Spirit, should we reject what God has done for us and disregard His holy, righteous, and good instructions? It is the one who has their mind set on the flesh that does not submit to God's law (Romans 8:7).
                          Walking in the Spirit is different from living according to the written code, which is the Law. As Paul has made clear in the passage we have died to the Law, the written code.

                          God's law is according to His holy, righteous, and good standard, which doesn't change. The Judaizers were wanting Gentiles to become Jews and keep all of the written and oral law as they understood it in order to be saved. I fully reject that position, so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't confuse me with them.
                          You, like them, want Christians to still keep the Mosaic Law, the burden from which they have been delivered. You are anathema.

                          The topic of Acts 15 wasn't even about whether Gentiles had to keep God's holy, righteous, and good law - that was a given.
                          It was not a given. The Judaizers wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised according to the Law (as you should yourself, you hypocrite) "and required to keep the law of Moses" but the apostles by the Spirit ruled otherwise.

                          You can reject the man-made requirements and the legalistic perversion of the law without rejecting God's holy, righteous, and good law.
                          Indeed, but we have died to the Law.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                            This are some of the problems I have with theology that teaches that the Mosaic law is no longer applicable:
                            I think this is why people don't appreciate Paul's insight into Messianic Judaism. By the way, I refer to first century Christianity as simply being the Messianic/Christ-focused sect of Judaism at that time.



                            How can Paul say that the law gives us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), that without it we wouldn't even know what sin was (7:7), that we are set free from the law (7:6), and yet that we are not set free to sin (6:15)?
                            You speak as if the knowledge of sin was good. In 3:20, Paul had used this point as another negative statement against following the law. Again 7:7 doesn't say that it was good to know what sin is. People miss the manner by which Paul was trying to counter the audience's use of 'law' as a negative attribute to denounce Jews. Paul was showing that the law itself had been created as something good. But the end result, due to the flesh, was that the law brought wrath (Rom 4:15). And in 7:8 the teaching on 'sin' led them to sin; certainly this was not desirable. Yet you are seeking the law.

                            How can Paul say that our faith upholds the law (3:31) and that our faith releases us from the law?
                            The point of 3:31 is often missed. Paul has just said (in 3:9-30) that their justification was not by the law ... and more specifically he mentioned that gentiles were not in the jurisdiction of the law (3:19). "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law." In the context of the discussion "those under the law" were Jews. The law didn't extend to anyone else.

                            Any sense of "being released from the law" would simply be due to the confusion of gentiles having joined the Messianic sect of Judaism. Many Jews were saying "you have to follow the pre-Messianic ways." Paul says "no, you are released from any of the old laws, despite joining Judaism in this new sect. We have to remember that Jews had their lineage and religion; gentiles had their lineages and religions. There was not really a solid conceptualization of what it meant to be a gentile who followed the Christ. These gentiles were tweeners -- caught between two cultural systems.


                            Why would we even need to be set free from something that is holy, righteous and good in the first place (7:12)?
                            Why? because people corrupted the law and made it their goal instead of following God. The situation addressed in Rom 7 was apparently that part of the gentile audience had first experienced their Christian walk among Jewish followers of Christ, meeting in synagogues in Rome. A complex progression of events led the gentiles back to concern whether they could be made 'right' by following the law. Paul is arguing against this -- while still maintaining an apologetic for the pre-Messianic Jews. As such Paul was saying "there were good reasons behind the law and the law itself was good for its purpose" and then he also was warning them that attempts to follow the law would only promote a sense of condemnation.

                            How can Paul say that the mind that is set on flesh is hostile to God and doesn't submit to God's law, if he is saying that we shouldn't submit to God's law (8:6)?
                            This answer is straightforward in Paul's discussion. The Jewish laws were something followed by the flesh. So if gentiles were going to now try to follow God by the laws, they would thus be attempting to follow God by their flesh.

                            You are missing Paul's whole argument here. Paul was speaking against the desire (or presumed need) to follow the law and, hence, the flesh when seeking to follow God. If you are seeking the law, you are following a path that Paul said doesn't work, that is "the mind is set on flesh [and] is hostile to God." The law was something that had become the unnatural focus of Jews by the first century -- and was what Paul was trying to stop happening to the Christ-sect of Judaism.
                            Last edited by mikewhitney; 04-21-2015, 02:31 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Soyeung
                              Usually the verses that people use to support that conclusion are talking about man-made ritual purity laws rather than dietary laws.
                              Colossians 2:16-17
                              Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Ana Dragule, 11-13-2020, 01:47 AM
                              2 responses
                              33 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post seanD
                              by seanD
                               
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 11-11-2020, 03:18 PM
                              6 responses
                              55 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Started by mossrose, 11-08-2020, 03:50 PM
                              1 response
                              29 views
                              5 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Faber, 11-06-2020, 11:51 AM
                              1 response
                              5 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Faber
                              by Faber
                               
                              Started by mossrose, 11-01-2020, 04:09 PM
                              4 responses
                              77 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post mossrose  
                              Working...
                              X