Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Still under 10 C's? | Ps 111:7 | chris a | 57786 | ||
respectHim, How about using II Cor. 3:7-9 to justify not practicing the 4th commandment, "But if the MINISTRY OF DEATH written and engraved on STONES was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory WAS PASSING AWAY, how will the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the MINISTRY OF CONDEMNATION had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory." NKJV (emphasis mine) When did Moses veil his face? What part of the Law was engraved on stones? What is this text referring to in the Old Testament? (hint: Ten Commandments) Clearly the ministry of the Spirit is different and distinct from the ministry of condemnation and death written and engraved on stones (i.e. the Law INCLUDING the Ten Commandments!) Your opinions on Col. 2:15,16 may have support but they are in no wise conclusive. I think you'll have more trouble dancing around the above Scripture which confirms that we are no longer under the Law (any of it)! I must also mention your misinterpretation of Scripture which borders on misrepresentation for a specific view point! Lets examine Rms 7:1-12 (ASV) '¶ Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law hath dominion over a man for so long time as he liveth? For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ;' Paul gives a detailed example of how one is freed from law and then shows why Christians are free from the Law and married to Christ. 'that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter.' Again, Paul states that we are no longer under the Law, here we are discharged from the Law because sin was wrought through the Law. '¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead. And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died; and the commandment, which was unto life, this I found to be unto death: for sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me.' Notice that SIN attacks US through the Law! Yes, the Law is holy and good, but we are corrupted by sin and as long as the Law lives in us sin still takes advantage of our weakness! Also, notice what section of the Law Paul uses to make his point, 'Thou shalt not covet' and this is of course one of the Ten Commandments which again makes clear that we are NOT under the Ten Commandments. 'So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good.' Clearly, your use of verse 12 out of context manipulates the meaning! Paul stresses through out ch. 7 that we are no longer under the Law, but you choose to quote only verse 12! Yes the Law is holy, but sin kills because of human weakness and sin exploits that weakness through the holy Law! For the record Rms 2:13 is also out of context, Paul is making an argument to Jews that having the Law doesn't make them doers of the Law. And that discussion leads to the consumation of this first argument in the great book of Romans, 3:20, 'Therefore by the deeds of the law NO FLESH WILL BE JUSTIFIED in His (GOD's) sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.'NKJV (emphasis mine). So, why don't we recognize the Sabbath, because we are no longer under the Law including the 4th commandment! As an additional aside, the Sabbath came before the Law and we do recognize it in a Spiritual sense, reference Hebrews for the Sabbath rest that we enter when we sacrifice our works toward salvation and enter the rest of GOD! But this recognition has nothing to do with Saturday. GOD bless, chris |
||||||
2 | Still under 10 C's? | Ps 111:7 | kalos | 57844 | ||
"...the law cannot be altogether invalid since the New Testament affirms its abiding applicability." The Law under the New Covenant. (Note: The following is a selection from the article "The Law". It is recommended that you go to the website included here and read the entire article.) 'The New Testament's statements about Old Testament law are difficult to harmonize. On the one hand, some New Testament statements indicate that under the new covenant the whole law is in some sense abrogated (Rom 6:14, "you are not under law" Rom 10:4, "Christ is the end of the law" ). (...) 'On the other hand, the law cannot be altogether invalid since the New Testament affirms its abiding applicability. "All Scripture is … useful" (2 Tim 3:16-17), including Old Testament laws. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20). The law is the embodiment of truth that instructs (Rom 2:18-19). It is "holy" and "spiritual, " making sin known to us by defining it; therefore, Paul delights in it (Rom 7:7-14,22). The law is good if used properly (1 Tim 1:8), and is not opposed to the promises of God (Gal 3:21). Faith does not make the law void, but the Christian establishes the law (Rom 3:31), fulfilling its requirements by walking according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4) through love (Rom 13:10). When Paul states that women are to be in submission "as the Law says" (1 Cor 14:34) or quotes parts of the Decalogue (Rom 13:9), and when James quotes the law of love (2:8 from Lev 19:18) or condemns partiality, adultery, murder, and slander as contrary to the law (2:9, 11; 4:11), and when Peter quotes Leviticus, "Be holy, because I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16; from Lev 19:2), the implication is that the law, or at least part of it, remains authoritative. (...) 'The New Testament writers also apply the principles in the law. From Deuteronomy 25:4 ("Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out grain"), Paul derives a principle that workers ought to be rewarded for their labors and applies that principle in the case of Christian workers (1 Cor 9:9-14). In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul again quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, this time in parallel with a saying of Jesus (Matt 10:10) as if both are equally authoritative. Likewise, the principle of establishing truth by two or three witnesses (Deut 19:15), originally limited to courts, is applied more broadly to a church conference (2 Cor 13:1). The principle that believers are not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers is derived from a law concerning the yoking animals (2 Cor 6:14; cf. Deut 22:10). 'In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 13, Paul affirms on the basis of Leviticus 18:29 that incest, a capital offense in the Old Testament, is immoral and deserves punishment. A person practicing incest in the church must be excommunicated to maintain the church's practical holiness. Paul maintains the law's moral principle, yet in view of the changed redemptive setting, makes no attempt to apply the law's original sanction.' ------------- Bibliography. G. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics; W. S. Barker and W. R. Godfrey, eds., Theonomy: A Reformed Critique; H. J. Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus; D. A. Dorsey, JETS 34/3 (Sept. 1991): 321-34; H.-H. Esser, NIDNTT2:438-51; M. Greenberg, Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, pp. 3-28; idem, Studies in Bible: 1986, pp. 3-28; idem, Religion and Law, pp. 101-12, 120-25; H. W. House and T. Ice, Dominion Theology: A Blessing or a Curse?; W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics; idem, JETS33/3 (Sept. 1990): 289-302; G. E. Mendenhall, Religion and Law, pp. 85-100; Dale Patrick, Old Testament Law; V. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses; R. J. Rushdooney, The Institutes of Biblical Law; R. Sonsino, Judaism33 (1984): 202-9; J. Sprinkle, A Literary Approach to Biblical Law: Exodus 20:22-23:19. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1996 by Walter A. Elwell. Published by Baker Books. (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/) |
||||||
3 | Still under 10 C's? | Ps 111:7 | chris a | 57897 | ||
Kalos, No, the Law is not without purpose, but Christians are not bound to keep the Law as such. For certain issues the apostles do gleen from the Law, but that is just relating truth from the Mosaic covenant to the New convenant; it doesn't make us bound by the Mosaic, rather it reveals some important truth about the New. The overriding theme in the New covenant is that we are NOT under the Law, not the Ten C's or the Moral portion, Paul and James emphasize that if you are under any of the Law you are under all of it, so we can't pull these portions out. We are to abide in Christ by the Law of Christ. I don't have time now to go through some of these Scriptures but I will try over the next week and I will get back to you. GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
4 | Still under 10 C's? | Ps 111:7 | kalos | 57902 | ||
chris: First, let me say that we are not saved by keeping the Law. However, when Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, what he meant was: he did not come to abolish the law. Many times I have heard people say that in Matthew 5:17, the word "fulfill" means to abolish. If that be true, then Jesus is saying: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law...I did not come to abolish, but to abolish." Second, you write: "James emphasizes that if you are under any of the Law you are under all of it." That is not what the verse SAYS. What it says is: NASB James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. AMPLIFIED James 2:10 For whosoever keeps the Law [as a] whole but stumbles and offends in one [single instance] has become guilty of [breaking] all of it. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
5 | Still under 10 C's? | Ps 111:7 | chris a | 57907 | ||
Kalos, I never said Christ came to abolish the Law. But we are not 'under' the Law, Christ redeemed us from the Law and we fulfill the righteous requirement of the Law because He fulfilled it for us! For us to turn around and say, 'I need to fulfill it myself' is an insult to Christ! I must also mention that you are interpreting Mat. 5:17 quite differently than I would, but we don't need to go there now, and that 'fulfill' certainly can be translated 'accomplish' or 'complete'. You again quote one verse in James, but if you follow through, I believe it is clear what he is saying: James 2:8-12 (ASV) ¶ Howbeit if ye fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as men that are to be judged by a law of liberty. James continues that if you keep one command from the Law but break another you're guilty of all, why? Because God spoke ALL the commands and ordinances to Moses, so if you claim to keep one of the Laws you must keep them all, as they have a common source, ie Mosaic covenant or Law of Moses, and he doesn't mean just the Ten C's because the thought starts with the Royal law from Deut. which is not one of the Ten C's, but notice what he ends with in vs. 12! What is the Law of Liberty? I would argue that it is the same liberty that Paul speaks of in Galatians Ch. 4 and 5. I believe James is saying that if you obey the Law you do well(v.8), but if you live by the Law you will be judged based upon the whole Law(vs.9-11), so speak and act as one under the Law of Christ, ie liberty (v.12). I don't believe James is endorsing the Law in vs. 8, because of the warning in vs. 12. The question I have for you is, how do you interpret vs. 12, what is the Law of Liberty? GOD bless!! chris |
||||||