Originally posted by NorrinRadd
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Theology 201 Guidelines
This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?
While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.
Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.
Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.
Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.
Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Are Christians Permitted to Eat Unclean Animals?
Collapse
X
-
-
Darfius is doing the same type of argument as Soyeong. The argument is external to scripture without any mildly supportive scripture to show that Christians are obligated to the Mosaic Law.
The argument about Abraham's covenant misses the scope of that ... Abraham's physical descendants and, possibly, from one of the covenant passages, just the seed -- who is Jesus.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DarfiusI like how even though Soyeong has been nothing but cordial and respectful even in the face of ridicule in this thread, you guys still ridicule and disrespect him.
One post later:
Originally posted by Darfius to ChrawnusSo you are either stupid, a liar or--my personal favorite--both.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostDarfius is doing the same type of argument as Soyeong. The argument is external to scripture without any mildly supportive scripture to show that Christians are obligated to the Mosaic Law.
The argument about Abraham's covenant misses the scope of that ... Abraham's physical descendants and, possibly, from one of the covenant passages, just the seed -- who is Jesus.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostPaul says Christians have been "grafted in" to the covenant. Why use that language if the covenant's rules are no longer in effect? And "Abraham's covenant" only applying to Abraham's physical descendants was a mistake the Jews made. I would hope a Christian would know better.
Wow. your idea about the Jews' mistake is certainly an unusual proposal.
In Galatians, Paul notes that people in Christ have the benefit of the Abraham covenant fulfilled through Jesus. In this fashion, the whole Israel covenant of law has been bypassed. While few recognize this implication, Paul's argument seems to be built around this point.Last edited by mikewhitney; 07-22-2019, 12:59 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostWhere is the written law called "the obsolete covenant" in Scripture?
In that same verse, the author speaks of the "New Covenant." It is explicitly the Covenant prophesied in Jer. 31. The early part of the chapter shows that the New and better Covenant replaces the Covenant of Moses, and that the change was needed because God found fault with the Mosaic Covenant (8:7). The previous chapter noted that the priesthood instituted by Moses was being replaced by the Melchizedek priesthood, that with a change in priesthood must necessarily come a change in law, and that a former commandment is set aside because it was "weak and useless" (7:18). This then leads into the discussion of the "better covenant" (7:22) which evolves in ch. 8.
I will here take the liberty of expanding on some things to which I alluded in the post to which you replied:
-- Matthew 12:39-40 records Jesus teaching that the whole Law depends on the Commandment(s) to "Love the LORD your God..." and the second which is like (or "the same as") it, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Elsewhere in Matthew, He boils it down further -- "Treat othes as you wish them to treat you" -- and says this one instruction fulfills the entire Law AND Prophets.
-- Mark 2:27 records Jesus teaching that "The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath." This sentiment seems rather starkly at odds with Ex. 31:15, which mandates the death penalty for profaning the Sabbath. We have already noted in this thread that in 7:19, Mark parenthetically avers that Jesus declared all foods clean.
-- Luke 10:27 records the Two Great Commandments as a single command, and Jesus affirming that keeping it is sufficient. Luke 22:20, during the Last Supper, records the first NT mention of "New Covenant."
-- John 6 records Jesus teaching that the only "work" needed to obtain eternal life is to "believe in Him." John 13:34, during the Last Supper, records the institution of the New Commandment. The sense of 15:12 in context seems to be that "love one another" replaces the numerous Commandments Jesus fulfilled (15:10).
-- In Romans, Paul famously makes clear that we are saved by faith, not works. Rom. 13:8-10 explicitly reduces the entire Law down to "Love your neighbor as yourself" or "Love one another," and says this is the only debt we owe each other. Rom. 14 makes clear that laws about holy days and permissible foods no longer apply.
-- In Galatians 3, Paul says that we progress in our salvation the same way we began -- by the Spirit, and by believing what we heard, not by works of Law. He also says we are "redeemed from the curse of the Law," which is probably a synecdoche meaning "We are released from the curse of living under Law," given that he goes on to say that the Law was a child-conductor needed only temporarily. Also in Galatians (4:10) he again notes with dismay that the church has reverted to thinking of some days as "special," and also, as in Romans, he sums up the whole law as "Love your neighbor as yourself" (5:14).
-- In Eph. 2, he famously says we are saved by grace through faith, not works. He goes on to say explicitly that God "nullified" the Law of "decrees and Commandments" for those in Christ. This clearly did not refer to just some man-made laws, because the context is that it was those laws given specifically to Jews to distinguish them from gentiles, i.e. the Laws of the Covenant that defined them as God's people.
-- In Col. 2:14, somewhat like Eph. 2:15, Paul says God "destroyed" the decrees against us. Therefore (v. 16), we are not to allow people to judge us in regard to holy days -- including the Sabbath -- or allowable foods, or whatever.
-- James spends the last section of ch. 1 talking about how we should live and treat each other, and sums it up with "27 Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their adversity and to keep oneself unstained by the world." Then in the next chapter, he gives practical examples, with the apex of his argument being, "8 But if you fulfill the royal law as expressed in this scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well." The rest of the chapter, including the famous and sometimes controversial "faith without works is dead" completes the context, showing that THE evidence of "faith" is doing acts in line with "Love your neighbor as yourself," and that these are the "works" to be concerned about.Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostPaul says Christians have been "grafted in" to the covenant. Why use that language if the covenant's rules are no longer in effect? And "Abraham's covenant" only applying to Abraham's physical descendants was a mistake the Jews made. I would hope a Christian would know better.
As to the Abraham thing, Paul makes clear that we are part of that in that Abraham's righteousness was due to his faith.
In any case, the Covenant to which we are party is the New and better Covenant with its new law, not the Obsolete Covenant which was found faulty.Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostI like to bring verbal hellfire to save people from literal hellfire.
However, you should be aware that Gal. 5 says that attempts at righteousness via law-observance leave one fallen from grace and separated from Christ, and Gal. 1 says anyone trying to foist such a false "gospel" on others is to be accursed (implicitly, "damned to hell").Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
Comment
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View PostHeb. 8:13 uses that term. "Obsolete Covenant" is an expression I've been using for several years, well before Andy Stanley stirred up a stink-storm several months ago with a book he wrote.
In that same verse, the author speaks of the "New Covenant." It is explicitly the Covenant prophesied in Jer. 31. The early part of the chapter shows that the New and better Covenant replaces the Covenant of Moses, and that the change was needed because God found fault with the Mosaic Covenant (8:7). The previous chapter noted that the priesthood instituted by Moses was being replaced by the Melchizedek priesthood, that with a change in priesthood must necessarily come a change in law, and that a former commandment is set aside because it was "weak and useless" (7:18). This then leads into the discussion of the "better covenant" (7:22) which evolves in ch. 8.
I will here take the liberty of expanding on some things to which I alluded in the post to which you replied:
-- Matthew 12:39-40 records Jesus teaching that the whole Law depends on the Commandment(s) to "Love the LORD your God..." and the second which is like (or "the same as") it, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Elsewhere in Matthew, He boils it down further -- "Treat othes as you wish them to treat you" -- and says this one instruction fulfills the entire Law AND Prophets.
-- Mark 2:27 records Jesus teaching that "The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath." This sentiment seems rather starkly at odds with Ex. 31:15, which mandates the death penalty for profaning the Sabbath. We have already noted in this thread that in 7:19, Mark parenthetically avers that Jesus declared all foods clean.
-- Luke 10:27 records the Two Great Commandments as a single command, and Jesus affirming that keeping it is sufficient. Luke 22:20, during the Last Supper, records the first NT mention of "New Covenant."
-- John 6 records Jesus teaching that the only "work" needed to obtain eternal life is to "believe in Him." John 13:34, during the Last Supper, records the institution of the New Commandment. The sense of 15:12 in context seems to be that "love one another" replaces the numerous Commandments Jesus fulfilled (15:10).
-- In Romans, Paul famously makes clear that we are saved by faith, not works. Rom. 13:8-10 explicitly reduces the entire Law down to "Love your neighbor as yourself" or "Love one another," and says this is the only debt we owe each other. Rom. 14 makes clear that laws about holy days and permissible foods no longer apply.
"Romans" is a letter to Gentile members of the church who--as is made clear in the letter from the elders in Acts--were not held to a strict standard in regards to keeping the written law as they integrated into the family of God's people, which is all Romans 14 "makes clear." Paul wasn't saying he enjoyed ham sandwiches now.
-- In Galatians 3, Paul says that we progress in our salvation the same way we began -- by the Spirit, and by believing what we heard, not by works of Law. He also says we are "redeemed from the curse of the Law," which is probably a synecdoche meaning "We are released from the curse of living under Law," given that he goes on to say that the Law was a child-conductor needed only temporarily. Also in Galatians (4:10) he again notes with dismay that the church has reverted to thinking of some days as "special," and also, as in Romans, he sums up the whole law as "Love your neighbor as yourself" (5:14).
-- In Eph. 2, he famously says we are saved by grace through faith, not works. He goes on to say explicitly that God "nullified" the Law of "decrees and Commandments" for those in Christ. This clearly did not refer to just some man-made laws, because the context is that it was those laws given specifically to Jews to distinguish them from gentiles, i.e. the Laws of the Covenant that defined them as God's people.
-- In Col. 2:14, somewhat like Eph. 2:15, Paul says God "destroyed" the decrees against us. Therefore (v. 16), we are not to allow people to judge us in regard to holy days -- including the Sabbath -- or allowable foods, or whatever.
-- James spends the last section of ch. 1 talking about how we should live and treat each other, and sums it up with "27 Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their adversity and to keep oneself unstained by the world." Then in the next chapter, he gives practical examples, with the apex of his argument being, "8 But if you fulfill the royal law as expressed in this scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well." The rest of the chapter, including the famous and sometimes controversial "faith without works is dead" completes the context, showing that THE evidence of "faith" is doing acts in line with "Love your neighbor as yourself," and that these are the "works" to be concerned about.
Comment
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View PostHow noble.
However, you should be aware that Gal. 5 says that attempts at righteousness via law-observance leave one fallen from grace and separated from Christ, and Gal. 1 says anyone trying to foist such a false "gospel" on others is to be accursed (implicitly, "damned to hell").
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostI am already aware that ritualism is not Christianity. But there is something you should be aware of, too:
The Jewish universe did come to an end. Heaven and earth did pass away at the destruction of the temple.
Where did you get such a legalistic bias in reading Paul's letters?Last edited by mikewhitney; 07-23-2019, 12:37 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostWhy do you think that 5:17 is there? There would be no reason for people to think Jesus was abolishing the law unless the law was coming to an end. The reign of the law came to an end because Jesus fulfilled the law.
The Jewish universe did come to an end. Heaven and earth did pass away at the destruction of the temple.
Where did you get such a legalistic bias in reading Paul's letters?Last edited by Darfius; 07-23-2019, 12:55 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostSo you read "do not think I have come to abolish the law" as "I have come to abolish the law"? And you ask me where my bias came from? The phrase "Jewish universe" does not appear in scripture. And I have no respect whatsoever for those who call the Lord Jesus, maker of heaven and earth, a lie-telling, rhetorical, flamboyant, ignorant backwoods rabbi. He meant every word He said.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment