Page 1 of 4

The Gospel and the Law

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:36 pm
by August
I started this thread specifically to address the comments regarding Biblical Law vs the notion that the NT Gospel seem to abolish those laws.

Firstly, there is no difference between OT law and NT law, it is the same law, just as the Gospel is the same gospel in the OT and NT. The unique function of the law is to convince us of our sin:
Romans 7:7 (NIV)
"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

Biblical law can be divided into 3 parts:
1. Civil Law - those laws that were applied to Israel to ensure the proper running of their society, and relevant to their specific place and position in history. This is where the laws regarding Israels conduct towards other nations and their traditions were, and were put in place to ensure the survival of the Israelites at that point in history. Our society today is different, therefore these laws do not specifically apply to our society today, but the principles behind them stand, as demonstrated by Jesus.
2. Ceremonial Law - related specifically to the way Israel was to worship, and pointed forward to the coming of Jesus. This is also where the Pharisees added their traditions, which were condemned by Jesus as opposed to the Commandmentss of God. While we are no longer bound by the ceremonial laws, since the prophesies regarding Jesus in this part has been fulfilled, the principles of worshipping and loving a Holy God still apply.
3. The Moral Law, such as the 10 commandments, are the direct commands of God, and should be strictly obeyed. The moral law reveals God's will and nature, and was obeyed by Jesus completely. These laws call us to righteousness, and into strict obedience, along with the acceptance of God's grace through faith in Jesus. It is not a call for legal compliance, but righteousness that comes from what God does in us, be God-centered and not self-centered, be based on worship and reverance for God, go beyond keeping the law to the principles of God's law.

We cannot know that we are in sin, and therefore in need of someone who has fulfilled the laws demands, without Biblical law. The law crushes any hope that the sinner has to reach eternal salvation, but shows the reliance we have on Jesus, the only one who could fulfill the law. The law proclaims judgment and death, the gospel justification and life through Jesus, and knowledge of the nature and charactersistics of our sin.

Jesus did not in the gospel dissolve the moral law, but strengthened it.
Matthew 5:17-20 (NIV)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. [18] I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. [19] Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

The fulfillment Jesus speaks about here is the ceremonial law that was worshipping God for the coming of the Messiah, which he thus fulfilled, and we are no longer subject to. He also kept God's moral law perfectly, but did not come to abolish it. In fact, He teaches that one who teaches the commands of God will be called great in heaven. The Pharisees added their traditions to the law:
Mark 7:6-8 (NIV)
He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
[7] They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'
[8] You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

This is what is widely condemned throughout the NT, by Jesus and by His disciples, and is interpreted as abolishing all so-called OT law. In the cermonial and civil law, they added to God's commandments, and therefore was called hypocrites and worse by Jesus. In fact, Paul calls these traditions "old wives tales".

So how does all of this relate to life today? How is it determined what is right and what is wrong?

God is the ultimate power over all authorities. He alone has the power and right to appoint those who will oversee His creation. The Bible talks about 4 levels of authority:
1. In the home, authority is to the husband, and together with the wife, over the children.
2. At the workplace, managers, owners or employers are given the authority.
3. In church, the elders and pastors have the authority.
4. In society, the authority is with civil governments.

Each of those have the obligation to do God's will, since they were appointed by Him. This means complying with His moral law, as described in the Bible. All of these authorities are secondary to God's will, and we are implored to do God's will first.

Civil governments rule as agents of God. They answer to God and must submit to all of His laws as they carry out their duties. No government has any authority to infringe upon the authorities given to other levels of leadership assigned in scripture in the home, work place and church, except where abuses of those endanger the civil order.

Romans 13:1 (NIV)
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

To disobey government, is to disobey God Himself. Even the Jews found this out the hard way, when they did not submit to Roman authority, and were expelled from Rome, and ancient Jerusalem destroyed.

The Bible doesn't prescribe a specific form of government or political system. Whether its a monarchy, an empire, a republic, a social democracy, tribal elders, or a dictatorship God uses the civil authorities for his own purposes, even if they don't recognize that what they are doing fits into God's plan. God uses even our always imperfect and sometimes corrupt governments to maintain limits on social behavior, and to ensure a common peace and safety.

The duty of civil governments is clear in the Bible:
Romans 13:3-4 (NIV)
"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. [4] For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

It is clear that civil governments have the God-given duty to protect citizens from evil and wrongdoing, and that those who obey the laws have nothing to fear. Civil governments must administer good in the public sphere, and keep the civil order for those who obey the laws. Those who break the laws must not only fear the justice of the civil government, but also the wrath of God.

Governments have a right to use physical force against criminals. Bearing the sword is most often connected with the execution of capital punishment. It's not murder when the state executes a convicted murderer. God's word makes murder a capital crime because of the absolute dignity of human life. This is how God ordains to carry out his wrath in this world.

So government, through its courts and under the limits of due process and the laws of evidence, are the only rightful avengers in society. No one may take the law into his own hands.

Even Paul, when under arrest, agreed with that principle as it applied to his own case:
Acts 25:11 (NIV)
"If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!"

We further see that Paul instructs us to submit for the sake of being wise:
1 Peter 2:13-15 (NIV)
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, [14] or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.
[15]For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.

Therefore government has specific areas of proper God-given authority. They are to ensure public safety and to preserve life and property.

For example, they enact laws against: robbery, theft, assault, murder, rape, incest, perjury. For safety against irresponsible citizens they regulate traffic with speed laws, they license drivers, mandate us to register our vehicles and to keep them safe for use on the public roads.

If we think some laws are unwise, we can work to change them. But like it or not, we must obey them exactly as long as they don't require us to sin.

(Some information from the Genevan Institue for Reformed Studies)

So to the objections from Mastermind:
First of all, the OT laws were given to the JEWS. This country isn't jewish and neither am I.
Couple of points here.
1. By this logic, not much of the NT applies either, since most of the writings of Paul was addressed to specific churches, and we don't belong to those either.
2. By the grace of God, by sending Jesus, we all became part of the covenant with God, and therefore subject to His moral law. If we don't believe that, we have no way of knowing when we are in sin.
Second of all, the OT laws do not apply anyway because Jesus fulfilled them.
I think this point has been thoroughly addressed above. Fulfilled does not mean abolished. The ceremonial part of the law, which referred to the coming of the Messiah, was abrogated when Jesus was born, died and resurrected, but the moral law stands.

We need to distinguish between the different types of Biblical law before we can make absolute statements such as:
The OT laws no longer apply

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:53 pm
by jerickson314
In regards to what Mastermind said:

So, Mastermind, how many dollars worth of property have you stolen (Exodus 20:15)? You enjoy killing those you don't like, don't you (Exodus 20:13)? Enjoy having sex with your dog (Leviticus 20:15)?

You can't just dismiss all OT law as no longer applying. These are examples of "moral law" as August discusses.

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:18 pm
by Mastermind
jerickson314 wrote:In regards to what Mastermind said:

So, Mastermind, how many dollars worth of property have you stolen (Exodus 20:15)? You enjoy killing those you don't like, don't you (Exodus 20:13)? Enjoy having sex with your dog (Leviticus 20:15)?

You can't just dismiss all OT law as no longer applying. These are examples of "moral law" as August discusses.
Do you know the difference between sin and law or do I have to beat it into you?

Re: The Gospel and the Law

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:29 pm
by Mastermind
August wrote:I started this thread specifically to address the comments regarding Biblical Law vs the notion that the NT Gospel seem to abolish those laws.

Firstly, there is no difference between OT law and NT law, it is the same law, just as the Gospel is the same gospel in the OT and NT. The unique function of the law is to convince us of our sin:
Romans 7:7 (NIV)
"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

Biblical law can be divided into 3 parts:
1. Civil Law - those laws that were applied to Israel to ensure the proper running of their society, and relevant to their specific place and position in history. This is where the laws regarding Israels conduct towards other nations and their traditions were, and were put in place to ensure the survival of the Israelites at that point in history. Our society today is different, therefore these laws do not specifically apply to our society today, but the principles behind them stand, as demonstrated by Jesus.
2. Ceremonial Law - related specifically to the way Israel was to worship, and pointed forward to the coming of Jesus. This is also where the Pharisees added their traditions, which were condemned by Jesus as opposed to the Commandmentss of God. While we are no longer bound by the ceremonial laws, since the prophesies regarding Jesus in this part has been fulfilled, the principles of worshipping and loving a Holy God still apply.
3. The Moral Law, such as the 10 commandments, are the direct commands of God, and should be strictly obeyed. The moral law reveals God's will and nature, and was obeyed by Jesus completely. These laws call us to righteousness, and into strict obedience, along with the acceptance of God's grace through faith in Jesus. It is not a call for legal compliance, but righteousness that comes from what God does in us, be God-centered and not self-centered, be based on worship and reverance for God, go beyond keeping the law to the principles of God's law.

We cannot know that we are in sin, and therefore in need of someone who has fulfilled the laws demands, without Biblical law. The law crushes any hope that the sinner has to reach eternal salvation, but shows the reliance we have on Jesus, the only one who could fulfill the law. The law proclaims judgment and death, the gospel justification and life through Jesus, and knowledge of the nature and charactersistics of our sin.

Jesus did not in the gospel dissolve the moral law, but strengthened it.
Matthew 5:17-20 (NIV)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. [18] I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. [19] Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

The fulfillment Jesus speaks about here is the ceremonial law that was worshipping God for the coming of the Messiah, which he thus fulfilled, and we are no longer subject to. He also kept God's moral law perfectly, but did not come to abolish it. In fact, He teaches that one who teaches the commands of God will be called great in heaven. The Pharisees added their traditions to the law:
Mark 7:6-8 (NIV)
He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
[7] They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'
[8] You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

This is what is widely condemned throughout the NT, by Jesus and by His disciples, and is interpreted as abolishing all so-called OT law. In the cermonial and civil law, they added to God's commandments, and therefore was called hypocrites and worse by Jesus. In fact, Paul calls these traditions "old wives tales".

So how does all of this relate to life today? How is it determined what is right and what is wrong?

God is the ultimate power over all authorities. He alone has the power and right to appoint those who will oversee His creation. The Bible talks about 4 levels of authority:
1. In the home, authority is to the husband, and together with the wife, over the children.
2. At the workplace, managers, owners or employers are given the authority.
3. In church, the elders and pastors have the authority.
4. In society, the authority is with civil governments.

Each of those have the obligation to do God's will, since they were appointed by Him. This means complying with His moral law, as described in the Bible. All of these authorities are secondary to God's will, and we are implored to do God's will first.

Civil governments rule as agents of God. They answer to God and must submit to all of His laws as they carry out their duties. No government has any authority to infringe upon the authorities given to other levels of leadership assigned in scripture in the home, work place and church, except where abuses of those endanger the civil order.

Romans 13:1 (NIV)
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

To disobey government, is to disobey God Himself. Even the Jews found this out the hard way, when they did not submit to Roman authority, and were expelled from Rome, and ancient Jerusalem destroyed.

The Bible doesn't prescribe a specific form of government or political system. Whether its a monarchy, an empire, a republic, a social democracy, tribal elders, or a dictatorship God uses the civil authorities for his own purposes, even if they don't recognize that what they are doing fits into God's plan. God uses even our always imperfect and sometimes corrupt governments to maintain limits on social behavior, and to ensure a common peace and safety.

The duty of civil governments is clear in the Bible:
Romans 13:3-4 (NIV)
"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. [4] For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

It is clear that civil governments have the God-given duty to protect citizens from evil and wrongdoing, and that those who obey the laws have nothing to fear. Civil governments must administer good in the public sphere, and keep the civil order for those who obey the laws. Those who break the laws must not only fear the justice of the civil government, but also the wrath of God.

Governments have a right to use physical force against criminals. Bearing the sword is most often connected with the execution of capital punishment. It's not murder when the state executes a convicted murderer. God's word makes murder a capital crime because of the absolute dignity of human life. This is how God ordains to carry out his wrath in this world.

So government, through its courts and under the limits of due process and the laws of evidence, are the only rightful avengers in society. No one may take the law into his own hands.

Even Paul, when under arrest, agreed with that principle as it applied to his own case:
Acts 25:11 (NIV)
"If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!"

We further see that Paul instructs us to submit for the sake of being wise:
1 Peter 2:13-15 (NIV)
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, [14] or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.
[15]For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.

Therefore government has specific areas of proper God-given authority. They are to ensure public safety and to preserve life and property.

For example, they enact laws against: robbery, theft, assault, murder, rape, incest, perjury. For safety against irresponsible citizens they regulate traffic with speed laws, they license drivers, mandate us to register our vehicles and to keep them safe for use on the public roads.

If we think some laws are unwise, we can work to change them. But like it or not, we must obey them exactly as long as they don't require us to sin.

(Some information from the Genevan Institue for Reformed Studies)

So to the objections from Mastermind:
First of all, the OT laws were given to the JEWS. This country isn't jewish and neither am I.
Not much of a problem with most of it as it seems pretty general. I'll get into the law later.
Couple of points here.
1. By this logic, not much of the NT applies either, since most of the writings of Paul was addressed to specific churches, and we don't belong to those either.
About how Christians should behave. Don't play games like these with me.

2. By the grace of God, by sending Jesus, we all became part of the covenant with God, and therefore subject to His moral law. If we don't believe that, we have no way of knowing when we are in sin.
The law was made to convict. If you agree that the conviction is gone, why apply the eye for an eye rule (which was rebuked) in the case of capital punishment?
Second of all, the OT laws do not apply anyway because Jesus fulfilled them.
I think this point has been thoroughly addressed above. Fulfilled does not mean abolished. The ceremonial part of the law, which referred to the coming of the Messiah, was abrogated when Jesus was born, died and resurrected, but the moral law stands.

We need to distinguish between the different types of Biblical law before we can make absolute statements such as:
The OT laws no longer apply
Do not to murder is not an OT law. "Do not murder or you'll be stoned" is. Sin is sin. The law identifies and punishes sin. If sin is no longer punished by the law then the law is useful for identifying sin but the law itself does not apply. You're right that fulfillment does not mean abolishment but in both cases the law ends. Please read the topic I directed you to earlier, I really don't want to get into this all over again. However, the fact that Paul refers to the OT law as "miserable principles" and directly states he is not under the law should give you enough of a hint on the matter.

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:20 pm
by August
About how Christians should behave. Don't play games like these with me.
This is your logic, not mine, prove it. And you are the one who wishes to play games here by asserting something and then insist that it is not applied consistently.

Provide Scriptural support for your position and how this its different from the law that God gave the Israelites.
The law was made to convict. If you agree that the conviction is gone, why apply the eye for an eye rule (which was rebuked) in the case of capital punishment?
Did you even read all of my post? It is dealt with in there.

Again you assert without proof. Show how the law was made to convict, and how your comments relate to the duty of governments to uphold civil order. The moral law convicts us before God, and shows us what to repent for, and makes us realize we can never live up to God's expectations, thus the need for His grace.

Eye for an eye talks about personal revenge, not justice applied by a God-appointed authority.
Do not to murder is not an OT law.
Are you kidding me?

Exodus 20:13 (NIV)
"You shall not murder."
"Do not murder or you'll be stoned" is.
Civil law vs moral law.
Sin is sin. The law identifies and punishes sin.
Civil law vs moral law.
If sin is no longer punished by the law then the law is useful for identifying sin but the law itself does not apply.
Wrong. You again fail to understand the different laws. This does not follow, if the law does not apply, then how can it be used to identify sin? The punishment was defined by civil law, just as we have civil laws today. The moral part of the law stands.
You're right that fulfillment does not mean abolishment but in both cases the law ends.
You are again asserting without proof. Please show how the law ends, when Jesus clearly sadi nothing in the law changes. To clarify, H e was referring to the unchangeable moral law that God gave us.
Please read the topic I directed you to earlier, I really don't want to get into this all over again.
Please read the above. I don't want to go over it all again.

I did read it, and I don't agree with you, it should be quite obvious. If others were wrong in asserting the same as you, it does not make you right.
However, the fact that Paul refers to the OT law as "miserable principles" and directly states he is not under the law should give you enough of a hint on the matter.
Asserting again, please provide proof. I cannot discuss this with you if you don't give me the Scriptures to back up your statements. I did quote Paul above, in Romans 7:7. Looks like he did believe in the moral law, since he said it was not sin. He said he was not under the civil law anymore, as it became corrupted by men, and was not the revelation of God any more.

While we are at it, why don't you show all the moral laws found in the NT that are contrary to the OT moral laws? According to you they are different, since the "old" law ended, and there is now some "new" law.

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:35 pm
by August
Since I expect that we will get into this some more, here is what the Easton Bible Dictionary has to say about what law means in the Biblical context:

Definition:

a rule of action. (1.) The Law of Nature is the will of God as to human conduct, founded on the moral difference of things, and discoverable by natural light (Rom. 1:20; 2:14, 15). This law binds all men at all times. It is generally designated by the term conscience, or the capacity of being influenced by the moral relations of things.

(2.) The Ceremonial Law prescribes under the Old Testament the rites and ceremonies of worship. This law was obligatory only till Christ, of whom these rites were typical, had finished his work (Heb. 7:9, 11; 10:1; Eph. 2:16). It was fulfilled rather than abrogated by the gospel.

(3.) The Judicial Law, the law which directed the civil policy of the Hebrew nation.

(4.) The Moral Law is the revealed will of God as to human conduct, binding on all men to the end of time. It was promulgated at Sinai. It is perfect (Ps. 19:7), perpetual (Matt. 5:17, 18), holy (Rom. 7:12), good, spiritual (14), and exceeding broad (Ps. 119:96). Although binding on all, we are not under it as a covenant of works (Gal. 3:17). (See COMMANDMENTS.)

(5.) Positive Laws are precepts founded only on the will of God. They are right because God commands them.

(6.) Moral positive laws are commanded by God because they are right.

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:00 pm
by Mastermind
August wrote: This is your logic, not mine, prove it. And you are the one who wishes to play games here by asserting something and then insist that it is not applied consistently.

Provide Scriptural support for your position and how this its different from the law that God gave the Israelites.
Umm, God specifically gave the laws to Israel. Jesus told the apostles to preach the gospel TO THE WORLD.

The law was made to convict. If you agree that the conviction is gone, why apply the eye for an eye rule (which was rebuked) in the case of capital punishment?
Did you even read all of my post? It is dealt with in there.
You did not. Show me the specific instance.
Again you assert without proof. Show how the law was made to convict, and how your comments relate to the duty of governments to uphold civil order. The moral law convicts us before God, and shows us what to repent for, and makes us realize we can never live up to God's expectations, thus the need for His grace.

Eye for an eye talks about personal revenge, not justice applied by a God-appointed authority.
Define "moral law" and tell me how you differentiate between laws for starters. However, the eye for an eye was not talking about "personal revenge"

<i>19: When a man causes a disfigurement in his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him,
20: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has disfigured a man, he shall be disfigured. </i>

God gave the eye for an eye comment as a SPECIFIC GOVERNMNET LAW. The gospel references back to this and says not to do it anymore. Is this enough evidence for you?
Are you kidding me?

Exodus 20:13 (NIV)
"You shall not murder."
That's not the entire law.
Civil law vs moral law.
There is no such thing as a "civil law vs moral law". The law is a whole: kill and we'll kill you. Without the "civil" part it is no longer a law, it is simply sin.

Civil law vs moral law.
Load of crap.
Wrong. You again fail to understand the different laws. This does not follow, if the law does not apply, then how can it be used to identify sin? The punishment was defined by civil law, just as we have civil laws today. The moral part of the law stands.
Yes, the moral part of the law is sin. To apply the law means to identify the sin AND PUNISH FOR IT.
You are again asserting without proof. Please show how the law ends, when Jesus clearly sadi nothing in the law changes
Without proof? He said the law will not pass away UNTIL ALL IS FULFILLED. The fulfillment was his death. That's when the law passes away. Stop reading selectively, it's all there.
To clarify, H e was referring to the unchangeable moral law that God gave us.
Prove "he was referring to whatever you want it to refer"
I did read it, and I don't agree with you, it should be quite obvious. If others were wrong in asserting the same as you, it does not make you right.
*sigh* Very well.
Asserting again, please provide proof. I cannot discuss this with you if you don't give me the Scriptures to back up your statements. I did quote Paul above, in Romans 7:7. Looks like he did believe in the moral law, since he said it was not sin. He said he was not under the civil law anymore, as it became corrupted by men, and was not the revelation of God any more.
1 Corinthians 9:20: To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law.

I have a feeling we are having a communication program. I'm guessing that what you refer to as "moral law" is what I refer to as sin. Moral law is a bad word to use because we are all condemned without christ and redeemend in christ no matter what.
While we are at it, why don't you show all the moral laws found in the NT that are contrary to the OT moral laws? According to you they are different, since the "old" law ended, and there is now some "new" law.
Eye for an eye, for starters. And I never say they have to be "contrary". Most of the old laws have been eliminated. In fact, Jesus summed up the NT with "love God" and "love thy neighbour".

Now, a statement in your original post I wish to address:
Governments have a right to use physical force against criminals. Bearing the sword is most often connected with the execution of capital punishment. It's not murder when the state executes a convicted murderer. God's word makes murder a capital crime because of the absolute dignity of human life. This is how God ordains to carry out his wrath in this world.
I agree with the first sentence, but not with the second. God does not "ordain to carry out His wrath" in that manner. What did God do when Cain slayed Abel? He let Him go because he was not a threat as he likely realised what he had done. Ancient times were very different, imprisonment difficult and a waste of food, thus His laws to Moses.. We do not live in ancient times and are more than capable of isolating criminals from society without needing to kill them.

Let's get a few things straight here, before we continue.

Here is how I believe the OT relates to us:

God gave laws. There are different "covenants" with different people. Moses, Abraham, etc.

The mosaic contract does not concern us for any other purpose than understanding Christ's laws. Christ repeated the necessary "laws" for us to abide by which can be found in the Gospel as well as the other books of the NT.

A law has two purposes:

A - to identify sin. This is the only useful part of the laws that do not apply to us.
B - they condemned men before God and men. This is irrelevant as this part was given to the jews and ended with Christ. We are all condemned without Christ.

Some things, like washing your hands or not eating pork were also given to the Jews and are what you would call "ceremonial law".

So what is my objection with your attitude? You are taking OT punishment for sin as if we're still suppose to apply it. We're not and to do so is a slap in the face to Christ who died so that we may live. What is my problem with capital punishment? Apart from Jesus saying "forget about it", you are doing 3 things:

1) Killing a man when you don't have to. Does jail not provide enough protection to society? Is the state obligated to kill a man?

2) You are likely damning somebody to hell.

3) What if you kill an innocent person? Is that "carrying out God's wrath"?

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:29 pm
by August
Umm, God specifically gave the laws to Israel. Jesus told the apostles to preach the gospel TO THE WORLD.
And the gospel is made up of 4 books, which I never disputed. Pauls writings are all addressed to specific audiences as were the Israelite laws. By your logic, both of these are exclusive. Seems to be a moot point, anyhow.
You did not. Show me the specific instance.
The moral law convicts us before God, and shows us what to repent for, and makes us realize we can never live up to God's expectations, thus the need for His grace.
The unique function of the law is to convince us of our sin:
Romans 7:7 (NIV)
"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."
Define "moral law" and tell me how you differentiate between laws for starters.
See the Easton definitions in the follow-up post.
However, the eye for an eye was not talking about "personal revenge"

19: When a man causes a disfigurement in his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him,
20: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has disfigured a man, he shall be disfigured.

God gave the eye for an eye comment as a SPECIFIC GOVERNMNET LAW.
Your interpretation is not accurate. The Scipture you are referring to was a general instruction to make the punishment fit the crime in civil law. In the NT, where Jesus talks about it, he refers to personal revenge.
The gospel references back to this and says not to do it anymore. Is this enough evidence for you?
Jesus talks about not taking the law into our own hands. I don't see how this has anything to do with administering justice in society. Following your logic, no criminal should ever be prosecuted, not even for the most serious or trivial things.
That's not the entire law.
Yes it is. See the definition of moral law above. It is a code of conduct, and does not have anything to do with specifying punishment.
There is no such thing as a "civil law vs moral law". The law is a whole: kill and we'll kill you. Without the "civil" part it is no longer a law, it is simply sin.
I would encourage you to study this a bit, you are simply wrong.
Load of ****.
Infantile assertion.
Yes, the moral part of the law is sin. To apply the law means to identify the sin AND PUNISH FOR IT.
It does not, see the definitions below. (4.) The Moral Law is the revealed will of God as to human conduct, binding on all men to the end of time. It was promulgated at Sinai. It is perfect (Ps. 19:7), perpetual (Matt. 5:17, 1, holy (Rom. 7:12), good, spiritual (14), and exceeding broad (Ps. 119:96). Although binding on all, we are not under it as a covenant of works (Gal. 3:17).

It has nothing to do with punishment.
Without proof? He said the law will not pass away UNTIL ALL IS FULFILLED. The fulfillment was his death. That's when the law passes away. Stop reading selectively, it's all there.
You are the one reading selectively. Why don't you show where it is stated that His death was fulfillment of the moral law? If you read what I said, the fulfillment was of the ceremonial law.
Prove "he was referring to whatever you want it to refer"
It was your statement that in both cases the law ends, and remains up to you to prove.
1 Corinthians 9:20: To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law.
Selective reading and application on your part.
1 Cor. 9:21 (NIV)
To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.

If you read one verse further, he says he is not free from God's law, the moral law.
I have a feeling we are having a communication program. I'm guessing that what you refer to as "moral law" is what I refer to as sin. Moral law is a bad word to use because we are all condemned without christ and redeemend in christ no matter what.
Yep, we are having a communication gap of sorts, which is why I gave you the definitions from the dictionary. We cannot have a sensible discussion without a common frame of reference. The definitions I use are from a common frame of reference. In this case, your definition of sin seems to agree with my definition of moral law.
Eye for an eye, for starters. And I never say they have to be "contrary". Most of the old laws have been eliminated. In fact, Jesus summed up the NT with "love God" and "love thy neighbour".
I think we have spoken about that already. You said the OT laws don't apply, that excludes them from applying anywhere, ever, including the NT, and therefore has to be contrary. Yes, Jesus did sum up the NT with that, and His premise was the 10 commandments.
I agree with the first sentence, but not with the second. God does not "ordain to carry out His wrath" in that manner.
The OT clearly mandates capital punishment. Please show where in the NT is it expressly repudiated. The KJV is even more clear on the authority of government to apply justice, with the sword if needed:
Romans 13:4 (KJV)
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

The wrath that is spoken about here is the wrath accoring to God, who as we earlier saw, mandated that the punishment fit the crime.
What did God do when Cain slayed Abel? He let Him go because he was not a threat as he likely realised what he had done.
So we should murderers go and let them walk away? Anyway, the little evidence we have here is that this was a crime of passion, which does not mandate the death sentence in the US, as determined by the civil government.
Ancient times were very different, imprisonment difficult and a waste of food, thus His laws to Moses.. We do not live in ancient times and are more than capable of isolating criminals from society without needing to kill them.
Sorry, no, there are many mentions of imprisonment in the OT, including the whole of the nation of Israel held in captivity. As for what punishment fits the crime today, it is down to the officials popularly elected to decide that. More later...I see more below.
Here is how I believe the OT relates to us:

God gave laws. There are different "covenants" with different people. Moses, Abraham, etc.

The mosaic contract does not concern us for any other purpose than understanding Christ's laws. Christ repeated the necessary "laws" for us to abide by which can be found in the Gospel as well as the other books of the NT.
Right, therefore the difference between temporary civil and ceremonial law, vs permanent moral law. Christ is God, so He cannot contradict Himself by giving laws that are in violation of His earlier moral laws.
A law has two purposes:

A - to identify sin. This is the only useful part of the laws that do not apply to us.
B - they condemned men before God and men. This is irrelevant as this part was given to the jews and ended with Christ. We are all condemned without Christ.
I don't follow your reasoning here. I agree with the first part of your first statement, it is to identify sin. But then I lose you, if it is to identify sin, how does it not apply to us? How else would you identify sin?

As for B, you are yet to show that it ended with Christ. I agree we are all condemned without Christ, but we need to know when we are in sin, otherwise Christ died for nothing, since you cannot accept His grace without knowing what it's for. We are then back to A.
Some things, like washing your hands or not eating pork were also given to the Jews and are what you would call "ceremonial law".
Right.
So what is my objection with your attitude? You are taking OT punishment for sin as if we're still suppose to apply it.
This is a bit of a stretch. What I said was that Biblical moral law consistently shows what is wrong, and that the Bible further teaches that the punishment should fit the crime, as applied by the authorities God appointed.
We're not and to do so is a slap in the face to Christ who died so that we may live.
I agree that ceremonial law and civil law is not valid anymore, but I would disagree that because the civil law of today corresponds with the ancient law, it has no bearing. Where did the concept of law and punishment originate, if not from the Roman law based on Biblical law?

I want to add here that the Bible does not mandate captial punishment, but certainly makes it available to civil governments to use.
What is my problem with capital punishment? Apart from Jesus saying "forget about it"
Please show where Jesus said that.
1) Killing a man when you don't have to. Does jail not provide enough protection to society? Is the state obligated to kill a man?
As stated before, you are now arguing outside of moral law and about application of current civil law. The state is not obligated to kill anyone, as stated above. Jailing someone long term does not protect the wardens and fellow prisoners, nor does it protect society under current rules. Convicted murderers serving long term prison sentences still have the ability to influence a sick part of society by assuming an innocent victim status.
2) You are likely damning somebody to hell.
This is speculation only, seeing as death row inmates sit there for years on end, with plenty of time to repent. And I am not damning anybody to hell, the person who committed the murder did that to himself. If the person never committed the crime, there can be no damnation.
3) What if you kill an innocent person? Is that "carrying out God's wrath"?
This is an argument against poor application, not the death penalty itself. Yes, it can happen, just like some criminals walk free. And I agree it is grossly unfair and sad for an innocent person to die.

For the record, I never said I supported the death penalty. I am subject to it, because the God-appointed government in the country where I live has deemed it to be a suitable punishment for murder. My personal beliefs can only come into play when it is time to elect officials that reflect my worldview.

I also think it is clear that God's moral laws transcends both Testaments.

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:29 am
by Mastermind
August wrote:
Umm, God specifically gave the laws to Israel. Jesus told the

apostles to preach the gospel TO THE WORLD.
And the gospel is made up of 4 books, which I never disputed. Pauls writings are all

addressed to specific audiences as were the Israelite laws. By your logic, both of these

are exclusive. Seems to be a moot point, anyhow.
No, it's not a mute point. God made it clear that only the Israelites are bound by the

Mosaic law. Paul's letters are used as more detailed description of how a Christian should

act and were sanctioned as universal by the early church.
You did not. Show me the specific instance.
The moral law convicts us before God, and shows us what to repent for, and makes us

realize we can never live up to God's expectations, thus the need for His grace.
The unique function of the law is to convince us of our sin:
Romans 7:7 (NIV)
"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known

what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was

if the law had not said, "Do not covet."
This has nothing to do with what I asked, but you did answer the question in the coming

paragraphs.
However, the eye for an eye was not talking about "personal revenge"

19: When a man causes a disfigurement in his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to

him,
20: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has disfigured a man, he

shall be disfigured.

God gave the eye for an eye comment as a SPECIFIC GOVERNMNET LAW.
Your interpretation is not accurate. The Scipture you are referring to was a general

instruction to make the punishment fit the crime in civil law. In the NT, where Jesus

talks about it, he refers to personal revenge.
No, my interpretation is perfectly accurate. Jesus disagreed with the old law still being

in place. He is making a direct reference to this, objects to it, then gives advice. While

the latter is indeed personal, it does not change his objection to the "eye for an eye"

law.
Jesus talks about not taking the law into our own hands. I don't see how this has anything

to do with administering justice in society. Following your logic, no criminal should ever

be prosecuted, not even for the most serious or trivial things.
No, you're not following my logic. Jesus was talking about revenge, no matter who inflicts

it. I have no problem with the government keeping people in jail for REHABILITATION

purposes, but at capital punishment I draw the line. Vengeance is God's not man's.
Yes it is. See the definition of moral law above. It is a code of conduct, and does

not have anything to do with specifying punishment.
Then it is not a law. A law gives the code of conduct and the punishment for it.
I would encourage you to study this a bit, you are simply wrong.
I have no wish to study it as I have a feeling we are arguing over semantics. Let's assume

sin and moral law are interchangeable from now on.


It does not, see the definitions below. (4.) The Moral Law is the revealed will of God as

to human conduct, binding on all men to the end of time. It was promulgated at Sinai. It

is perfect (Ps. 19:7), perpetual (Matt. 5:17, 1, holy (Rom. 7:12), good, spiritual (14),

and exceeding broad (Ps. 119:96). Although binding on all, we are not under it as a

covenant of works (Gal. 3:17).

All I see is the law. No mention of your "Moral Law". Not to mention that referencing the

Psalms which were written by people under all 3 of your clasifications cannot be talking

about the exact same law as Paul does.

You are the one reading selectively. Why don't you show where it is stated that His

death was fulfillment of the moral law? If you read what I said, the fulfillment was of

the ceremonial law.
Where does it say "I fulfilled the ceremonial law"

I don't see ceremonial law or moral law anywhere. All I see is "the law". NOt only are you

reading selectively but you're reading stuff that isn't there.
It was your statement that in both cases the law ends, and remains up to you to

prove.
Already have.
Selective reading and application on your part.
1 Cor. 9:21 (NIV)
To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free

from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.

If you read one verse further, he says he is not free from God's law, the moral

law.p
Sorry, not only is that not how my translation worded it, but we are discussing OT laws.

He is under Christ's law. He gets his laws from Christ. If they happened to coincide with

OT laws that's fine but the OT is not a reference.
I think we have spoken about that already. You said the OT laws don't apply, that

excludes them from applying anywhere, ever, including the NT, and therefore has to be

contrary.
No, sorry. The OT laws had earthly punishments attached to them. Christ's did not. The OT

had eye for an eye attached to murder, for example. Christ did not and thus the laws are

different.
Yes, Jesus did sum up the NT with that, and His premise was the 10 commandments.
9/10 actually. He never did say to rest on the sabbath.
The OT clearly mandates capital punishment. Please show where in the NT is it

expressly repudiated.
The OT laws no longer apply. Since you haven't proved that when Jesus and the apostles say

"law" they "really mean moral law", it's up to you to prove it.

The KJV is even more clear on the authority of government to apply justice, with

the sword if needed:
Romans 13:4 (KJV)
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be

afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to

execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Where does it say to kill them? For all I know it could be talking about using the sword

during something like a robbery.

The wrath that is spoken about here is the wrath accoring to God, who as we earlier

saw, mandated that the punishment fit the crime.
No OT laws please.
So we should murderers go and let them walk away? Anyway, the little evidence we

have here is that this was a crime of passion, which does not mandate the death sentence

in the US, as determined by the civil government.
What do I care about the US or any country's laws? A crime of passion? In the OT, killing

somebody out of anger mandated death. God did not kill Cain before the mosaic covenant and

since I am not under the mosaic covenant, nor can you prove to me that I am, God's

attitude before it stands.
Sorry, no, there are many mentions of imprisonment in the OT, including the whole

of the nation of Israel held in captivity. As for what punishment fits the crime today, it

is down to the officials popularly elected to decide that. More later...I see more

below.
Yep, taking people into slavery was common practice. I don't see how this relates to

punishing criminals.
Right, therefore the difference between temporary civil and ceremonial law, vs

permanent moral law. Christ is God, so He cannot contradict Himself by giving laws that

are in violation of His earlier moral laws.
No law Christ gave is in violation of anything. God is, however, free to do with the

covenant as He wishes because I guarantee that Israel did not keep it to perfection.

I don't follow your reasoning here. I agree with the first part of your first

statement, it is to identify sin. But then I lose you, if it is to identify sin, how does

it not apply to us? How else would you identify sin?
The law needs both parts to apply to us. As it stands, it is just the sin part of the law

that applies thus the law itself does not apply.
As for B, you are yet to show that it ended with Christ. I agree we are all

condemned without Christ, but we need to know when we are in sin, otherwise Christ died

for nothing, since you cannot accept His grace without knowing what it's for. We are then

back to A.
See above.
This is a bit of a stretch. What I said was that Biblical moral law consistently shows

what is wrong, and that the Bible further teaches that the punishment should fit the

crime, as applied by the authorities God appointed.
No no no, the bible told Israel to make the punishment fit the crime. It doesn't say "it

always should for everybody" otherwise God would have lightningbolted the crap out of

cain.
I agree that ceremonial law and civil law is not valid anymore, but I would disagree that

because the civil law of today corresponds with the ancient law, it has no bearing. Where

did the concept of law and punishment originate, if not from the Roman law based on

Biblical law?
I'm fairly certain the romans had a good law and punishment system. It's not just Israel

that had this. When Christianity came to power, it mellowed down the laws of the Roman

Empire, it did not make them harsher.
I want to add here that the Bible does not mandate captial punishment, but

certainly makes it available to civil governments to use.
This relies on personal interpretation of one verse. Personally, I'd rather not risk it.

Please show where Jesus said that.
That woman caught commiting adultery, for starters. I already know what you're gonna say about it and I have an answer ready. :lol:
As stated before, you are now arguing outside of moral law and about application of

current civil law. The state is not obligated to kill anyone, as stated above. Jailing

someone long term does not protect the wardens and fellow prisoners, nor does it protect

society under current rules. Convicted murderers serving long term prison sentences still

have the ability to influence a sick part of society by assuming an innocent victim

status.
Yes, I'm arguing about application of the civil law because it is counterintuitive given Jesus. First, criminals are put in jails that fit the crime, so "fellow prisoners" are usually fellow murderers and rapists and if they feel the need to beat the crap out of each other, that's their business. Second, the wardens know what they're getting into. They were probably pretty sadistic to begin with if they took such a job. Third, society is protected while they're in there. Now just because I'm suggesting that we jail them does not mean I am happy with the current system. Slavery till you're 70 instead of capital punishment suits me just fine. And I'm not sure I get your point on "assuming an innocent victim status". Care to elaborate?
This is speculation only, seeing as death row inmates sit there for years on end, with plenty of time to repent. And I am not damning anybody to hell, the person who committed the murder did that to himself. If the person never committed the crime, there can be no damnation.
So much for bringing people to God.
This is an argument against poor application, not the death penalty itself. Yes, it can happen, just like some criminals walk free. And I agree it is grossly unfair and sad for an innocent person to die.
You're missing the point. Since humanity is not perfect the death penalty is bound to kill somebody who is innocent.

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:50 am
by August
So let's summarize where we are.

You refuse to accept that there were different kinds of OT laws, and keep on asserting that there was one law in the OT, which does not apply to anyone anywhere any more. You wish to equate sin to moral law, which is false, You furthermore assert that since the one OT law was given to Israel only, it has no bearing on Christianity today, since Jesus fulifilled the law, and the Gospel and Paul established new laws by which Christians should abide. You further use the example of the death penalty to argue that OT law is not valid any more, since the concept of the death penalty was overturned by Jesus telling us to turn the other cheek. Hope I got all of that.

It is pointless to continue this discussion unless you can agree to the rather basic point that there are different types of law in the OT. You already agreed that there was ceremonial law, do you also agree that there was civil law and moral law?

You also insist that sin and moral law is the same thing, which it is not. I already showed the different definitions from Eatons regarding law, read it again since it does not look as if you understood it.

Here is the definition of sin from the same work:
Sin - is "any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God" (1 John 3:4; Rom. 4:15), in the inward state and habit of the soul, as well as in the outward conduct of the life, whether by omission or commission (Rom. 6:12-17; 7:5-24). It is "not a mere violation of the law of our constitution, nor of the system of things, but an offence against a personal lawgiver and moral governor who vindicates his law with penalties. The soul that sins is always conscious that his sin is (1) intrinsically vile and polluting, and (2) that it justly deserves punishment, and calls down the righteous wrath of God. Hence sin carries with it two inalienable characters, (1) ill-desert, guilt (reatus); and (2) pollution (macula)."

The law describes the sin, but is not "sin". Sin is the lack of conformity to the law, a state or deed, while moral law sets the standard. Moral law and sin cannot be used interchangeably, they are different things.
Paul's letters are used as more detailed description of how a Christian should act and were sanctioned as universal by the early church.
The following are quotes from Jesus on the eternal validity of God's moral law. He would not have referred to the Commandments or the law if it was not still valid:

Matthew 7:12 (NIV)
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 22:40 (NIV)
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Matthew 23:23 (NIV)
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

Luke 10:26 (NIV)
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

Luke 16:16-17 (NIV)
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. [17] It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

Mark 10:19 (NIV)
You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"

Since you claim that fulfill and abolish mean the same thing (Merriam Websters):
Main Entry: abol·ish
1 : to end the observance or effect of : ANNUL
2 : DESTROY

Main Entry: ful·fill

1 archaic : to make full : FILL <her subtle, warm, and golden breath ... fulfills him with beatitude -- Alfred Tennyson>
2 a : to put into effect : EXECUTE b : to meet the requirements of (a business order) c: to measure up to : SATISFY
3 a : to convert into reality b : to develop the full potentialities of

Since Jesus kept on referring to the Law and the great Commandments, they were valid also for those to whom the Gospel should be preached. He fulfilled the Law under which He was born, and in doing so, set us free from the command to be perfect under the Law in order to be saved.

Please show where Paul's writings were "sanctioned as universal".
No, my interpretation is perfectly accurate. Jesus disagreed with the old law still being in place. He is making a direct reference to this, objects to it, then gives advice. While the latter is indeed personal, it does not change his objection to the "eye for an eye" law.
You are contradicting yourself here. If it is personal, why does it apply to punishment given by governments? The sermon on the mount was addressed to inidividual Christians, and their conduct.

Please show how what Jesus said was in contradiction to the authority of governments to apply punishment that fit the crime, as mentioned in Romans 13.

God made available capital punishment before Mosaic law was established. (Gen 9:6)
No, you're not following my logic. Jesus was talking about revenge, no matter who inflicts it. I have no problem with the government keeping people in jail for REHABILITATION purposes, but at capital punishment I draw the line. Vengeance is God's not man's.
Those are your opinions, and not necessarily congruent to Scripture.

There is a difference between revenge and punishment. Romans 13 clearly establishes civil governments through which the punishment of God is administered as God's agent.

Romans 13:1-5 (NIV)
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. [2] Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [3] For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. [4] For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
I have no wish to study it as I have a feeling we are arguing over semantics. Let's assume sin and moral law are interchangeable from now on.
Already addressed this, sin and moral law is not interchangeable. Your unwillingness to study it, however, shows that you are in no way interested in learning the whole truth, only to continue to assert your misinformation, without considering the possibility that there may be thruths that do not coincide with your personal views.
Then it is not a law. A law gives the code of conduct and the punishment for it.
I don't know what source you will accept for what the definition of law in the Biblical context is, since you refuse to look at any sources that may endanger your views.

Webster's 1913 Dictionary

"\Law\ (l[add]), n. [OE. lawe, laghe, AS. lagu, from the root
of E. lie: akin to OS. lag, Icel. l["o]g, Sw. lag, Dan. lov;
cf. L. lex, E. legal. A law is that which is laid, set, or
fixed; like statute, fr. L. statuere to make to stand. See
{Lie} to be prostrate.]
1. In general, a rule of being or of conduct, established by
an authority able to enforce its will; a controlling
regulation; the mode or order according to which an agent
or a power acts.

Note: A law may be universal or particular, written or
unwritten, published or secret. From the nature of the
highest laws a degree of permanency or stability is
always implied; but the power which makes a law, or a
superior power, may annul or change it.

These are the statutes and judgments and law,
which the Lord made. --Lev. xxvi.
46.

The law of thy God, and the law of the King.
--Ezra vii.
26.

As if they would confine the Interminable . . .
Who made our laws to bind us, not himself.
--Milton.

His mind his kingdom, and his will his law.
--Cowper.

2. In morals: The will of God as the rule for the disposition
and conduct of all responsible beings toward him and
toward each other; a rule of living, conformable to
righteousness; the rule of action as obligatory on the
conscience or moral nature.

3. The Jewish or Mosaic code, and that part of Scripture
where it is written, in distinction from the gospel;
hence, also, the Old Testament."

2. above is the moral law, 3. is the civil and ceremonial.
All I see is the law. No mention of your "Moral Law".
Not surprising that you don't see it. First sentence, look closely....
Not to mention that referencing the Psalms which were written by people under all 3 of your clasifications cannot be talking about the exact same law as Paul does.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Where does it say "I fulfilled the ceremonial law" I don't see ceremonial law or moral law anywhere. All I see is "the law". NOt only are you reading selectively but you're reading stuff that isn't there.
Clearly you are not seeing anything. It is pointless to discuss this if you cannot grasp basic concepts from the Bible, such as different classifications. Are there different types of sin? Are there different types of worship? Are there diferent types of scriptures? Are we to take everything literal, or is there a difference between symbolism, prophesy and history? We can classify all of those, just as we can classify Biblical laws. We can analyze and understand by classifying, know the intent and context and draw conclusions, something you are clearly not interested in.
Already have.
Refresh my memory.
Sorry, not only is that not how my translation worded it, but we are discussing OT laws. He is under Christ's law. He gets his laws from Christ. If they happened to coincide with OT laws that's fine but the OT is not a reference.
What translation are you using?

1 Cor. 9:21 (KJV)
To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

1 Cor. 9:21 (ASV)
to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law.

1 Cor. 9:21 (Dar)
to those without law, as without law, (not as without law to God, but as legitimately subject to Christ,) in order that I might gain [those] without law.

1 Cor. 9:21 (YLT)
to those without law, as without law—(not being without law to God, but within law to Christ)—that I might gain those without law;

All of these state the same thing, that Paul was not without God's law, and also that since Christ is God, he was subject to the same law from Christ.

Is it your assertion here that Christ's law was not God's law?

There are no if's in the Bible. Jesus referred extensively to the commandments, as did Paul. It is no coincendence that they correspond. If the OT is not a refrence, where did they get it from?

Romans 13:9 (NIV)
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
No, sorry. The OT laws had earthly punishments attached to them. Christ's did not. The OT had eye for an eye attached to murder, for example. Christ did not and thus the laws are different.
This gets back to your unwillingness to accept the different classifications, as well as the fact that moral law does not mention punishment. Breaking the moral law through sin does specifiy punishment, on earth to be determined and executed by God's agents, and in the afterlife by God's judgment.

Again, are you saying that no criminals should be punished?
9/10 actually. He never did say to rest on the sabbath.
I agree. It was not ordained by God as necessary for salvation or held by angels, for example, and not observing it does no harm to God or our fellow human beings, i.e. it is not moral law. It is a tradition that establishes good order in the church.
The OT laws no longer apply. Since you haven't proved that when Jesus and the apostles say "law" they "really mean moral law", it's up to you to prove it.
So what do they mean when they say law? I think I have addressed this earlier.
Where does it say to kill them? For all I know it could be talking about using the sword during something like a robbery.
It says that the punishment should fit the crime, as determind by the civil government, who are agents, or ministers, of God. I should add here that the only time we are to rise against government, is when they no longer do the will of God. Death penalty is addressed lower down.
No OT laws please.
No punishment of criminals please, mastermind has decreed that we let them all run rampant. And no sin either, we have nothing to tell us when we are sinning.
What do I care about the US or any country's laws?
Apparently nothing, but it does not relieve you from God's instruction to be subservient to governments and civil magistrates.
A crime of passion? In the OT, killing somebody out of anger mandated death. God did not kill Cain before the mosaic covenant and since I am not under the mosaic covenant, nor can you prove to me that I am, God's attitude before it stands.
Already mentioned Genesis 9:6, before the Mosaic laws. And I already stated that we are not subject to OT civil laws, thanks for repeating my point. You are subject to God's eternal moral law, which did not change throughout the Bible.
Yep, taking people into slavery was common practice. I don't see how this relates to punishing criminals.
You are changing the topic. You said it was impossible to intern people in ancient times, therefore they were executed.

Genesis 39:20-23 (NIV)
Joseph's master took him and put him in prison, the place where the king's prisoners were confined.
But while Joseph was there in the prison, [21] the Lord was with him; he showed him kindness and granted him favor in the eyes of the prison warden. [22] So the warden put Joseph in charge of all those held in the prison, and he was made responsible for all that was done there. [23] The warden paid no attention to anything under Joseph's care, because the Lord was with Joseph and gave him success in whatever he did.

Genesis 40:3 (NIV)
and put them in custody in the house of the captain of the guard, in the same prison where Joseph was confined.

Genesis 40:5 (NIV)
each of the two men--the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were being held in prison--had a dream the same night, and each dream had a meaning of its own.

Genesis 42:16 (NIV)
Send one of your number to get your brother; the rest of you will be kept in prison, so that your words may be tested to see if you are telling the truth. If you are not, then as surely as Pharaoh lives, you are spies!"

Genesis 42:19 (NIV)
If you are honest men, let one of your brothers stay here in prison, while the rest of you go and take grain back for your starving households.

Judges 16:21 (NIV)
Then the Philistines seized him, gouged out his eyes and took him down to Gaza. Binding him with bronze shackles, they set him to grinding in the prison.

Judges 16:25 (NIV)
While they were in high spirits, they shouted, "Bring out Samson to entertain us." So they called Samson out of the prison, and he performed for them.
When they stood him among the pillars,

1 Kings 22:27 (NIV)
and say, 'This is what the king says: Put this fellow in prison and give him nothing but bread and water until I return safely.' "

2 Kings 17:4 (NIV)
But the king of Assyria discovered that Hoshea was a traitor, for he had sent envoys to So king of Egypt, and he no longer paid tribute to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year. Therefore Shalmaneser seized him and put him in prison.

2 Kings 25:27 (NIV)
In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin from prison on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month.

2 Kings 25:29 (NIV)
So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king's table.

2 Chron. 16:10 (NIV)
Asa was angry with the seer because of this; he was so enraged that he put him in prison. At the same time Asa brutally oppressed some of the people.

2 Chron. 18:26 (NIV)
and say, 'This is what the king says: Put this fellow in prison and give him nothing but bread and water until I return safely.' "
No law Christ gave is in violation of anything. God is, however, free to do with the covenant as He wishes because I guarantee that Israel did not keep it to perfection.
What does the covenant have to do with God's moral law?
The law needs both parts to apply to us. As it stands, it is just the sin part of the law that applies thus the law itself does not apply.
Moral law did not specify earthly punishment, but eternal punishment if we don't accept the grace and love of Jesus. How can it not apply to us? I already showed the difference between law and sin. And as I already mentioned many times, in the civil order today we are subject to the government.
No no no, the bible told Israel to make the punishment fit the crime. It doesn't say "it always should for everybody" otherwise God would have lightningbolted the **** out of cain.
Cain was not subject to civil authority, since there was none at the time, so you cannot compare that. God gives the authority to civil governments to establish punishment for crimes.

Why did Paul then agree to the death penalty if he was guilty?
Acts 25:11 (NIV)
If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!"

Again, by your logic there should be no punishment for criminals.
I'm fairly certain the romans had a good law and punishment system. It's not just Israel that had this. When Christianity came to power, it mellowed down the laws of the Roman Empire, it did not make them harsher.
Proof please.
This relies on personal interpretation of one verse. Personally, I'd rather not risk it.
It fits with the context of the rest of the chapter, it's not personal interpretation.
That woman caught commiting adultery, for starters. I already know what you're gonna say about it and I have an answer ready.
Invalid in context. Because the Romans held the rule of life and death and the right to implement the death penalty, this was a challenge to Jesus to commit sedition. If he had said, "Go ahead," he would have been arrested. By itself this offers no injunction against the death penalty, since it was not really an option; moreover, Jesus' reply indicates, "If we are to enforce it this time, some of you are next." The constraints of Roman power were acknowledged, though the death penalty itself was not thereby repudiated.
Yes, I'm arguing about application of the civil law because it is counterintuitive given Jesus. First, criminals are put in jails that fit the crime, so "fellow prisoners" are usually fellow murderers and rapists and if they feel the need to beat the **** out of each other, that's their business. Second, the wardens know what they're getting into. They were probably pretty sadistic to begin with if they took such a job.
This is just a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions. How do you know all wardens are sadists? Now suddenly the punishment fits the crime? So your eye for an eye doctrine does not apply inside prisons, since they can kill each other in there and you don't care? You see fit to condemn peopke to an environment such as that?
Third, society is protected while they're in there.
So wardens and prisoners are not part of society, and are not allowed equal protection under the law?
Now just because I'm suggesting that we jail them does not mean I am happy with the current system. Slavery till you're 70 instead of capital punishment suits me just fine.
And how is that Biblical?
So much for bringing people to God.
I'm all for bringing people to God, but you accused me of damning people to hell. Two different things. It was their choice that put them on death row in the first place, not mine. And where do you minister to inmates, or are you just being a hypocrite?
You're missing the point. Since humanity is not perfect the death penalty is bound to kill somebody who is innocent.
No you're the one missing the point. Poor application or an "imperfect humanity" does not invalidate the death penalty. So we should let innocent people be slaves for 70 years instead?

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:54 pm
by Forge
August wrote:No you're the one missing the point. Poor application or an "imperfect humanity" does not invalidate the death penalty. So we should let innocent people be slaves for 70 years instead?
To some extent, human imperfection can be grounds for abolishing the death penalty. It would be grossly irresponsible to keep a system that has been shown to convict innocents to death running. That's why the "we don't know if it's human or not, so have abortions anyway!" argument is flawed.

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 4:58 am
by August
To some extent, human imperfection can be grounds for abolishing the death penalty. It would be grossly irresponsible to keep a system that has been shown to convict innocents to death running.
As I said before, I am no passionate defender of the death penalty. In the last 100 years, 23 people are thought to have been executed innocently. (National Coalition for Abolishing the DP). Even one innocent life is too much. What has to change is the legal system, and the way evidence is examined, submitted etc, so that there can be as close to absolute certainty as possible. If there is any doubt, then judges should not give the death penalty. Bad application does not invalidate the punishment, though bad judicial practice needs to change.
That's why the "we don't know if it's human or not, so have abortions anyway!" argument is flawed.
Non-sequitor. This has nothing to do with the death penalty argument. Unborn infants are not subject to judicial process, they are simply murdered.

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:51 am
by Mastermind
It is pointless to continue this discussion unless you can agree to the rather basic point that there are different types of law in the OT. You already agreed that there was ceremonial law, do you also agree that there was civil law and moral law?
*sigh* The very second paragraph and you've already managed to misrepresent me. I did not agree that there was ceremonial law. If you wish to classify laws into 3 groups then go right ahead but the bible does not differentiate between the 3 whenever you feel like it. If the bible says “the law”, it refers to all 3 unless you can prove otherwise. If it makes you feel better, I can accept your classification provided you give evidence that a particular text is referring to one of your groups and no other.
Here is the definition of sin from the same work:
Sin - is "any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God" (1 John 3:4; Rom. 4:15), in the inward state and habit of the soul, as well as in the outward conduct of the life, whether by omission or commission (Rom. 6:12-17; 7:5-24). It is "not a mere violation of the law of our constitution, nor of the system of things, but an offence against a personal lawgiver and moral governor who vindicates his law with penalties. The soul that sins is always conscious that his sin is (1) intrinsically vile and polluting, and (2) that it justly deserves punishment, and calls down the righteous wrath of God. Hence sin carries with it two inalienable characters, (1) ill-desert, guilt (reatus); and (2) pollution (macula)."
Much like I suspected, there is no difference between your law and my sin. If it makes you feel better I can use “lawlessness” from now on.
The law describes the sin, but is not "sin". Sin is the lack of conformity to the law, a state or deed, while moral law sets the standard. Moral law and sin cannot be used interchangeably, they are different things.
You're right that they cannot because “Moral Law” is your addition to the text.

The following are quotes from Jesus on the eternal validity of God's moral law. He would not have referred to the Commandments or the law if it was not still valid:
The following are quotes from Jesus on the eternal validity of God's moral law. He would not have referred to the Commandments or the law if it was not still valid:

Matthew 7:12 (NIV)
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 22:40 (NIV)
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Matthew 23:23 (NIV)
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

Luke 10:26 (NIV)
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

Luke 16:16-17 (NIV)
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. [17] It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

Mark 10:19 (NIV)
You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"

Since you claim that fulfill and abolish mean the same thing (Merriam Websters):
Main Entry: abol·ish
1 : to end the observance or effect of : ANNUL
2 : DESTROY
Where does it say moral law? If I was to take your word on it we'd still be practicing Kosher and I should go repent for that pork I ate yesterday. Not to mention the fact that the law was in effect up until Christ's resurrection so Him telling people to keep it does not prove your point.
Since you claim that fulfill and abolish mean the same thing
I'm not. Stop purposefully twisting my position.
contradicting yourself here. If it is personal, why does it apply to punishment given by governments? The sermon on the mount was addressed to inidividual Christians, and their conduct.
Please show how what Jesus said was in contradiction to the authority of governments to apply punishment that fit the crime, as mentioned in Romans 13.
Where does it say “apply punishment that fits the crime”? Since you usually give exact verses I'm going to assume you were being dishonest. There is no point in having a conversation if you're going to resort to these kind of tactics.
God made available capital punishment before Mosaic law was established. (Gen 9:6)
Actually, that depends on how you read it. God could be simply issuing a warning that relies on common sense.
Those are your opinions, and not necessarily congruent to Scripture.

There is a difference between revenge and punishment. Romans 13 clearly establishes civil governments through which the punishment of God is administered as God's agent.

Romans 13:1-5 (NIV)
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. [2] Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [3] For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. [4] For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
Again, too vague. And I don't recall complaining about all punishment, just capital punishment.

Already addressed this, sin and moral law is not interchangeable. Your unwillingness to study it, however, shows that you are in no way interested in learning the whole truth, only to continue to assert your misinformation, without considering the possibility that there may be thruths that do not coincide with your personal views.
Oh please. I'm not interested in learning the truth while you are purposefully twisting what I say to make it easier for you to burn? Please.
I don't know what source you will accept for what the definition of law in the Biblical context is, since you refuse to look at any sources that may endanger your views.
You mean look at sources that have noting to do with the bible? Please tell me what is a law without punishment attached to it? A law needs something to enforce it according to your dictionary. Punishment. Without that, it is not a law.
Not surprising that you don't see it. First sentence, look closely....
You will not find “moral law” anywhere in the bible.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
I'm saying that the psalms writers' mentioning the law as eternal included every single bit of the law, including the ceremonial law which you claim Christ got rid of.
Clearly you are not seeing anything. It is pointless to discuss this if you cannot grasp basic concepts from the Bible, such as different classifications. Are there different types of sin? Are there different types of worship? Are there diferent types of scriptures? Are we to take everything literal, or is there a difference between symbolism, prophesy and history? We can classify all of those, just as we can classify Biblical laws. We can analyze and understand by classifying, know the intent and context and draw conclusions, something you are clearly not interested in.
It's not that “I don't see anything” but rather that you have not given me scriptural support for your classification. Until you do, I will not accept it.
Refresh my memory.
Galatians 3:25, Galatians 4 21-28, 1 Corinthians 9:20
What translation are you using?
It doesn't matter because you're quoting the wrong verse. :lol:
Again, are you saying that no criminals should be punished?
No, but at least you asked this time instead of just assuming I was saying that. ;)
There are no if's in the Bible. Jesus referred extensively to the commandments, as did Paul. It is no coincendence that they correspond. If the OT is not a refrence, where did they get it from?

Romans 13:9 (NIV)
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Or, Paul referred to Jesus who kept commandments that would fall under your classification of “moral law” (I assume). I don't feel the need to classify them that way. Instead, I classify them as “What the OT says” and “what Jesus says”. All of Jesus's laws can be found in the OT but not all of the OT laws can be found in Jesus's laws. Only Jesus's laws are bounding.
This gets back to your unwillingness to accept the different classifications, as well as the fact that moral law does not mention punishment. Breaking the moral law through sin does specifiy punishment, on earth to be determined and executed by God's agents, and in the afterlife by God's judgment.

Again, are you saying that no criminals should be punished?
Again, no. Your classification of laws is a man made construct that I do not feel the need to adopt.
So what do they mean when they say law? I think I have addressed this earlier.
No, you have not. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why I should accept your classification and how you know which set of laws the apostles and Jesus refers to when such a distinction is not made in the Bible.
It says that the punishment should fit the crime,
Quote the exact words that say this please because I don't see it.
No punishment of criminals please, mastermind has decreed that we let them all run rampant. And no sin either, we have nothing to tell us when we are sinning.
Oh, what a pity. For a second there I thought you would stop misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Apparently nothing, but it does not relieve you from God's instruction to be subservient to governments and civil magistrates.
Unless they go against God's will. The US government has done plenty of that.
Already mentioned Genesis 9:6, before the Mosaic laws.
Opinion.
And I already stated that we are not subject to OT civil laws, thanks for repeating my point. You are subject to God's eternal moral law, which did not change throughout the Bible.
Already stated that your distinction is man made.
You are changing the topic. You said it was impossible to intern people in ancient times
This is getting absolutely ridiculous. I had a good mind to end this conversation right now. If you lie about what I said one more time I'm done with this.
What does the covenant have to do with God's moral law?
Nothing because the moral law is a human fabrication.
Moral law did not specify earthly punishment, but eternal punishment if we don't accept the grace and love of Jesus. How can it not apply to us? I already showed the difference between law and sin. And as I already mentioned many times, in the civil order today we are subject to the government.
Moral law does not specify anything because it is a fabrication.
Cain was not subject to civil authority, since there was none at the time, so you cannot compare that. God gives the authority to civil governments to establish punishment for crimes.
Cain was subject to God's authority who was in a position to deal out His wrath. He didn't.
Why did Paul then agree to the death penalty if he was guilty?
Paul has the right to have himself punished if he did wrong, as all of us do. This proves nothing. If I had slaughtered dozens of children for the hell of it, I'd want to be executed too.
Proof please.
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html

It's about the Inquisition but it does mention a revival of brutal pagan methods like torture.

In addition, the Church Fathers were all 100% pacifist. Just look at this, from the Apostolic Tradition of Hyppolytus, part II, section 16:

Inquiry shall likewise be made about the professions and trades of those who are brought to be admitted to the faith. If a man is a panderer, he must desist or be rejected. If a man is a sculptor or painter, he must be charged not to make idols; if he does not desist he must be rejected. If a man is an actor or pantomimist, he must desist or be rejected. A teacher of young children had best desist, but if he has no other occupation, he may be permitted to continue. A charioteer, likewise, who races or frequents races, must desist or be rejected. A gladiator or a trainer of gladiators, or a huntsman [in the wild beast shows], or anyone connected with these shows, or a public official in charge of gladiatorial exhibitions must desist or be rejected. A heathen priest or anyone who tends idols must desist or be rejected. A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath; if he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected. A military commander or civic magistrate that wears the purple must resign or be rejected. If a catechumen or a believer seeks to become a soldier they must be rejected, for they have despised God.

There is a reason why gladiator matches and the like ended.
It fits with the context of the rest of the chapter, it's not personal interpretation.
My point is that it's not the only thing that fits.
Invalid in context. Because the Romans held the rule of life and death and the right to implement the death penalty, this was a challenge to Jesus to commit sedition. If he had said, "Go ahead," he would have been arrested. By itself this offers no injunction against the death penalty, since it was not really an option;
There is no such mention in the text. Jesus gives a specific answer as to why they should not do it and says nothing about the Romans. The Romans' rights do not matter since if that was the reason Jesus said no, He would have said it. Instead, He says something else. You touched upon it in your next statement but not to my liking. As a side note, I would like to add that Jesus was not afraid of dying and risked His life twice (before Abraham was, I AM ring a bell?) for what was right. If executing her was the right thing to do, he would have done it.
moreover, Jesus' reply indicates, "If we are to enforce it this time, some of you are next." The constraints of Roman power were acknowledged, though the death penalty itself was not thereby repudiated.
Oh? Lev 20:10 says clearly that those that commit adultery should be put to death. Is Jesus putting man made Roman law above God's law?
This is just a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions. How do you know all wardens are sadists? Now suddenly the punishment fits the crime? So your eye for an eye doctrine does not apply inside prisons, since they can kill each other in there and you don't care? You see fit to condemn people to an environment such as that?
“My” eye for an eye doctrine applies to whoever chooses to obey it. I can't force people not to sin, but I have no plan to allow the legal representative of the people (the government) to do it.
So wardens and prisoners are not part of society, and are not allowed equal protection under the law?
They are there because they chose to be there. It's like having a soldier whine about getting shot. I plan on joining the Canadian Rangers this year and if I end up falling through the ice into a frozen lake I don't plan on blaming anybody other than myself.

And how is that Biblical?
Show me one verse where slavery is rebuked.
I'm all for bringing people to God, but you accused me of damning people to hell. Two different things. It was their choice that put them on death row in the first place, not mine. And where do you minister to inmates, or are you just being a hypocrite?
No, I'd be a hypocrite if I went around killing infidels for no good reason. And believe me, you don't want me to minister anyway, I'd do more harm than good. ;)
No you're the one missing the point. Poor application or an "imperfect humanity" does not invalidate the death penalty. So we should let innocent people be slaves for 70 years instead?
Yep, and if they are found innocent during that time we can pay them a few millions. Better than killing them and thus making it impossible to undo the wrong.

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:21 pm
by Strix
Just an observation, August...

In your last post, you use NT Scripture to say that the Old Law is still in effect. We obey these commands because they are found in the New Testament. It is exactly the reason we do not obey some of the Old Testament commandments.

Deuteronomy 5:32,33; 12:32 establishes a principal of the Law and so, therefore:
No bacon for breakfast (Leviticus 11:7; Deut. 14:8)
No polyester/cotton blends (Lev. 19:19)
No tatoos (Lev. 19:28)
etc...

Simply put (as I believe MasterMind has already articulated), you cannot take the Mosaical Law buffet style (Galatians 5:2,3; Acts 15:5,10). Christ did come to fullfill the Law, but put away your dictionary and open your Bible for a complete understanding of what that means (Heb. 7:11-12;19-20).

Proverbs 2:6

Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 5:37 am
by Mastermind
I just realised I'm going about this the wrong way. August, are we saved by Faith or the Works of the Law?