Originally posted by Darfius
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
-
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostI would not want you to respect man. I do wish that you would understand what Paul has shown in the deployment of the message and doctrine of the resurrected Jesus. I do wish that you understood why Jewish laws didn't ever become a written law over Gentiles. This point about is in Rom 3:19-20. Do you follow Chinese laws and go to jail for not doing them?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostThe phrase "Jewish laws" doesn't appear in scripture either. I sure wish you'd stop presenting your sunday school lessons as deep theology.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostI missed your explanation of why those words in Matt 5:17 were important. Jesus anticipated that the people would say that Jesus abolished the law. Why would they think he did that??
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostBecause in teaching a deeper, Spirit-filled keeping of the law, it sometimes sounded as if He and His apostles were teaching an abandonment of the law. Now it was not enough merely to abstain from murder: to hate your brother was murder. Now it was not enough to abstain from adultery: to lust after a woman was adultery. But to teach that mere ritualistic keeping of the law was not enough was not to teach abandonment of the law.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostBecause in teaching a deeper, Spirit-filled keeping of the law, it sometimes sounded as if He and His apostles were teaching an abandonment of the law. Now it was not enough merely to abstain from murder: to hate your brother was murder. Now it was not enough to abstain from adultery: to lust after a woman was adultery. But to teach that mere ritualistic keeping of the law was not enough was not to teach abandonment of the law.
Not the dietary ones, or the ceremonial ones. Those were just for the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostHow would your interpretation make them think he was abandoning the law rather than showing them that an obligation to the law was harder than they imagined?
Alternatively, people could abuse that notion by saying following the written law was not necessary at all anymore because they "served the Spirit behind the law 'in Christ.'"
In essence, Christ was cutting the "spiritualizers" and "just-for-the-Jew'ers" off at the pass.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostGentiles never belonged to the old covenant. The only "laws" that apply to us are the moral laws which apply to all mankind and which Jesus said can be summarized by Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.
Not the dietary ones, or the ceremonial ones. Those were just for the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostGentiles could always choose to belong to the old covenant. When you show me the scripture that says the written law was "only for the Jews", I'll believe you. Until then, I'll believe you're shirking your responsibilities and teaching others to do the same.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWhy would Christians choose to belong to the old covenant?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostGentiles could always choose to belong to the old covenant. When you show me the scripture that says the written law was "only for the Jews", I'll believe you. Until then, I'll believe you're shirking your responsibilities and teaching others to do the same.
You are applying 'Gentile' in Sparko's question to pre-Christ when he would mean Gentiles as Christians.
How do you envision this obligation to old covenant laws? What do you do daily to keep these laws? Which laws do you keep?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostOne way would be when He and His disciples walked through the field picking grains to eat on the Sabbath. Legalistically speaking, they broke the law. But they served the Spirit behind the law. They were keeping the Sabbath holier than inaction would have kept it.
Alternatively, people could abuse that notion by saying following the written law was not necessary at all anymore because they "served the Spirit behind the law 'in Christ.'"
In essence, Christ was cutting the "spiritualizers" and "just-for-the-Jew'ers" off at the pass.
What's the point of applying the law if they are just breaking it? how do you know when they are okay when breaking the law?Last edited by mikewhitney; 07-23-2019, 02:22 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostMy saying Gentiles could always choose to belong to the old covenant was in response to your false claim that "Gentiles never belonged to the old covenant." Christians have a new covenant which includes following the written law with the help of the Spirit.
The new covenant relies on Jesus' fullfilment of the law and his taking the punishment we deserve and our receiving his righteousness, not our keeping the law (which we can't do) -- you might want to read Romans and Hebrews again.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostI showed you that the Jewish laws were only for the Jews -- see Rom 3:19-20. Did Moses ask Egyptians to agree to the covenant?
Words which you seek to nullify. And by the way, many Egyptians joined the Mosaic covenant:
How do you envision this obligation to old covenant laws? What do you do daily to keep these laws? Which laws do you keep?
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostYour argument is not convincing. But you are partly accurate about the problems created when people are subject to such laws.
What's the point of applying the law if they are just breaking it? how do you know when they are okay when breaking the law?
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment