Page 1 of 1

Authority of the Old Testament versus the New Testament

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:08 pm
by m273p15c
For the sake of this discussion, I would like to presume the New Testament is taken as authoritative, and I would like to presume the inspiration and inerrancy of the entire Bible (Old and New Testaments).

Given that starting point, what do you believe about the authority of the Old Testament? Can we use commands and approved examples from the Old Testament to justify practices today? (As an example, this thread was spun off from a thread discussing polygamy.)

I believe that the answer is generally negative. More could be said, but I'll start with this quote from one of the articles on this site:

The Old and New Testaments

Application

So what is the application for us today? There are two things we should learn: One, the Old and New Testaments are synonyms for Old and New Covenants, not testimonies. Second, the Old Testament was done away at the cross by Christ's death, which ushered in the New Testament. Therefore, we are no longer under obligation to keep the laws of the Old Testament, neither is it authoritative to justify our actions today. But rather, we are bound to the New Testament and to use it for authority. Please read this passage in which Paul uses the analogy of the law of marriage to further describe the nature of the two covenants:
Paul wrote:Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another - to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God." (Romans 7:4)
Some may wonder if just the ceremonial law was done away and if the 10 commandments still remain. This question is resolved by looking further down in the context where Paul refers to the law again, "For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, 'You shall not covet.'" (Romans 7:7). Therefore, the law that was done away also included the 10 commandments, which was directly referenced in this verse. God confirmed this upon the Mount of Transfiguration when He instructed the apostles to listen to Christ for authority and not to Moses and the prophets (Matthew 17:1-6 and Deuteronomy 18:15-22). Please see also Colossians 2:11-17.

The third and final lesson is that the Old Testament has been done away as an authority for how to be saved and how God's church should operate. However, the Old Testament is not been made worthless, but it serves as a great source of examples that are necessary for our spiritual growth and health (I Corinthians 10:6, 11-12; Romans 15:4).

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:07 pm
by Hugh McBryde
Doesn't the New Testament Certify the Old? The New Testament, at a time when there was only the Old to call "Scripture" says "All Scripture is inspired by God" and "Profitable for reproof and teaching".

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:53 pm
by sledford
Hugh McBryde wrote:Doesn't the New Testament Certify the Old? The New Testament, at a time when there was only the Old to call "Scripture" says "All Scripture is inspired by God" and "Profitable for reproof and teaching".
You are summarizing a quote from 2 Tim 3:16:
2 Tim 3:16 wrote:2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
and that must be harmonized with other scripture such as this:
Heb 8:13 wrote:Heb 8:13 In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away.
What do you think he means by decay, old, and vanish away in reference to the Mosaical law? I think we may need to start here and see what we can build out from this.

Superior to all authority here on earth and in scripture.

Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:03 pm
by Hugh McBryde
And that must be harmonized with this. Matthew 5:17-19:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
It is JESUS of course, who says this. God himself, speaking for all of us to hear.

Scripture must harmonize with Scripture, else misunderstood

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:44 am
by m273p15c
Hugh, you raise a good and valuable question, which I believe must be clarified to properly understanding all that Scripture says on this point.
Hugh McBryde wrote:And that must be harmonized with this. Matthew 5:17-19: ... It is JESUS of course, who says this. God himself, speaking for all of us to hear.
Please allow me to requote the passage and highlight a few phrases that could easily be overlooked in an effort to reconcile all the passages:
Matthew wrote:"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:16-19)
The instruction observed is limited by the phrase "till all is fulfilled". If the Old Law has been fulfilled, then the binding power you reference is gone! Obviously, the question that needs to be asked now is, "Has the Old Law been fulfilled?". First, please note that Jesus did say that He came "to fulfill". Do you think He accomplished what He set out to do? Or, did Jesus fail in His task to fulfill the Old Law?

Furthermore, please consider the following passages:
Paul wrote:For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, "The man who does those things shall live by them." (Romans 10:4-5)
Please notice that Jesus was "the end" of the Old Law. And if there was any doubt as to which law was in mind, Paul specifically refers to Moses, his writing of the law, and then he quotes from Leviticus 18:5! If Christ was the end of the law, then what could follow after the law's end?
Paul again wrote:What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. ... Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Galatians 3:19-25)
What was the purpose of the law? Was that purpose fulfilled? Has the system of faith not yet come? How can we be under the authority of the tutor, as you have suggested, but yet be "no longer under a tutor", as Paul has stated?

Based on these passages, I understand that the Old Covenant and its Law had a limited scope, purpose, and lifetime. Once its purpose was achieved, its authority was brought to an end. However, its value and usefulness was not ended...

I believe the keyword here is authoritative. No one is arguing that the Old Law would be destroyed and have no power whatsoever. As part of God's body of Scriptures it would always continue to exhibit power, being "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (II Timothy 3:16). As was noted in the original post:
Paul wrote: For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me." For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. (Romans 15:4-5)
Please notice how Paul quotes the Old Testament prophecy regarding Jesus to illuminate the character of Jesus, something that transcends all covenants beyond dispute. The Old Testament Scriptures and examples are still valuable to produce learning, patience, comfort, and hope, but they do not hold authoritative power as does current law. We cannot necessarily do something (or forbid something) just because it was practiced (or forbidden) in the Old Law.
Paul again wrote:Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. (I Corinthians 1:6-12)
Again, these Old Testament provide examples and admonishment, so that we do not test God, as did the Israelites.

I believe Paul's analogy of the husband's law over his wife provides the best explanation of how to reconcile these Scriptures:
Paul wrote:For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another -- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. (Romans 7:2-4)
Through Jesus' death on the cross, the Jews were released from the power, the authority, "the law" of the Old Testament. Now consider the analogy again (not for proof, but for explanation):

If a woman's husband dies, must she continue to submit to her dead husband? No, she must submit to her new husband. Does that mean her old husband has any meaning, value, or influence over her? No, of course not. Her memories of their relation continues as an example and encouragement to her for her new relationship, but whenever the wishes of her old husband come in conflict with her new husband, she is bound to her new husband and must submit to him. ... Her old husband is not annihilated. He is just dead, but yet he still continues to admonish, teach, and encourage her as she reflects on him.

Similarly, the Old Law continues to provide valuable wisdom, comfort, teaching, encouragement, and admonishment; however, just because the Old Law commands something, we are under no obligation to follow. In fact, it no longer holds the power of law over us. We have submitted ourselves to a new husband and a new law, and that is what we must follow.

This post may not follow good debate form, because I did not strictly "hold your feet to the fire" in answering my first questions. However, as I said earlier, I seek resolution, not winning. You asked a question, a good question. I believe I have answered all your questions. Furthermore, I have explained a construct that reconciles all passages on the point. Is it not fair for you to do the same, if you seek the same? If I have overlooked something, you would be my friend for pointing it out to me.

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:39 am
by sledford
2 Tim 3:16 wrote:2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
I would like to follow up with another very simple observation relative to this admonition given by Paul. Is every piece of scripture intended to satisfy ALL of the areas identified? Restated, is every context of Scripture profitable in ALL four areas: doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness?

I find common sense would answer that as no, not every passage of Scripture is useful in ALL four areas with the simple observation that not every passage reproves an individual. There are passages that are clearly reproof but not ALL of them are. By extension then, not every passage is considered to be "doctrine" either, and I mean doctrine as we commonly use it today as command that must be adhered to.

Therefore, the Old Covenant can be useful for the Christian as general instruction in the ways of righteousness of God by seeing and learning who He is and how he has interacted with man over time. But, the statement by Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16 is not sufficient to prove the Old Covenant is to be valid as doctrine after establishment of the New Covenant by Jesus. To establish whether the Old Covenant is or is not doctrine to the Christian, we must look elsewhere. And to that, I would commend to you the reasoning laid out by m273p15c in the previous post that the Old Covenant is no longer valid as doctrine to the Christian.

Straw men and Dualism.

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 4:33 pm
by Hugh McBryde
M,

You use the word "Harmonize" which I believe is a good first step in understanding scripture. Often there SEEM to be contradictions in scripture, that are not there, they are there only in our preconceptions when approaching scripture. I've gone through several major shifts realizing that I'm the problem, scripture is not.

First, in the Matthew 5 passage, I read it as clearly saying that all is not fulfilled. This is a part of my effort to "harmonize". If I am correct, it cannot truly be said to be my effort, but God's through the Holy Spirit. We shall see of course. In Matthew 5, I read it that all is not fulfilled until heaven and earth pass away. Some things are fulfilled, all is not. To say all is fulfilled excludes the 2nd coming and makes Hyper Preterists of us. Yet another discussion. I suggest you read the blog of Dee Dee Warren for a summary of the arguments against Hyper Preterism.

Also, the law is not my righteousness, the Holy Spirit is my tutor, but the anchor and the test of the "spirits" is God's word. I don't think you would propose that Murder would be righteous in any context, now or then, thus the law while not our tutor and while it no longer condemns us if we have Christ, it accurately tells us when an act is outside of God's original intent by design. Similarly, I don't think it was ever God's plan, in that sense, for men and women to have sex indiscriminately with one another, thus God's righteous model is reflected in the law, and the laws of sexual behavior can tell us when we are (putting it mildly) closer to God in our actions or farther away. To put it indelicately for the sake of illustration, there is only one proper way to mount a donkey. The fulfillment of any part of the law will not have us becoming one flesh with animals and so on.

I am pinning you now as a dualist. You want it one way when the law makes you uncomfortable, so you preach of it's "Fulfillment" without telling us what form that fulfillment will take, until a homosexual wants to "marry" their "partner" and then you're probably a firey bearded Old Testament prophet, complete with robe, staff and tablets of stone. When that's not the issue, you want to imply an evolving revelation, and abolition of the law and a better "modern" understanding of what God "really meant".

I am not deriving my righteousness from the law. But if the law and the scriptures are profitable for doctrine, what doctrine? Put this in action. While you are at it, tell me what reproof can come from a law and from prophets so fulfilled that they are only intriguing reading? How do you correct, when the line is obliterated? How can the Old Testament in fact tell me about righteousness?

I will again draw your attention to two passages in Acts. First let's stop at the letter in chapter 15 to the Gentile Churches.
"And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."
Several meetings have already occured at this point in time between Paul and James and Peter, and this is the verdict, and it wasn't an argument either, in which one lost, and others won. They agreed. That was the basis of Paul's rebuke of Peter, because Peter knew better, Paul knew that, and this had been settled. So now it's in letter form. So why keep yourself from anything? Better yet, on what basis do you judge something to be fornication? Paul and Peter and James were probably ALL Pharisees, and as I have remarked before, we know Paul was, and he continued to LOUDLY claim and proclaim that he was one, long after conversion.

So let's put this in action, the same people who are writing this letter, among whom there is NO dissent or disagreement later advise in council for Paul to behave a certain way. Paul, who is on his way back from the gentiles, having cut his hair, because he is under a HEBREW LAWFUL VOW, is consulted with, instructed to act, and acts this way, after which he loudly proclaims, years later, that he is a PHARISEE. Acts 21:17-26
"And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them."
To summarize, Paul goes to the temple, to do things the law required, to show that he DOES NOT teach against the law. So when we harmonize, must we not take into account what people who stated things actually DO? Nowhere is Paul said to be wrong in his acts. ALL agree, Paul included. The purpose of his acts are specificly to DENY what it is you seem to be saying. James by the way, writes later in scripture that Faith without works is dead. So what sort of faith is spoken of by these works, which James has a hand in advising?

Paul is clearly NOT teaching the Jews among the gentiles to forsake the law. He is clearly NOT teaching them to leave their children uncircumcised. He is clearly ZEALOUS for the law as all his converted Jewish bretheren are. He is going to the temple to PROVE precisely that. As I said, it is later, in relation to these events that Paul claims STILL, to be a Pharisee.

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:25 pm
by sledford
Hugh, it's going to take me some time to go through your logic. And on top of that I'm about to leave on a business trip for the next week and will have limited ability to reply. But, I would like to ask one question just to put into practical terms your point of view. Do you believe it is necessary for men today to be circumcised? And the natural follow on from that: is circumcision necessary for salvation? Ok, maybe two questions. :-)

Old Law fulfilled in Christ, but still valuable for teaching

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:48 am
by m273p15c
Hugh McBryde wrote:In Matthew 5, I read it that all is not fulfilled until heaven and earth pass away. Some things are fulfilled, all is not. To say all is fulfilled excludes the 2nd coming and makes Hyper Preterists of us.
As I said, I can sympathize with your interpretation, especially considering your worldview; however, I believe Scripture does not support it. Do you not see how the verse could legitimately be interpreted as I described? (Ignore your assumptions for a second, because that is what I am challenging, and we'll never get anywhere, if all our assumptions must be maintained.) If not, we can examine the grammar more closely.

Furthermore, I believe you have jumped to an unnecessary conclusion and argued against a straw man yourself. I did not say all of Scripture was fulfilled. I said all of the Old Testament was fulfilled. The New Testament foretells the end of the world and Jesus 2nd coming, so I do not believe it has been fulfilled.
Hugh McBryde wrote:Also, the law is not my righteousness, the Holy Spirit is my tutor, but the anchor and the test of the "spirits" is God's word.
Ok, so you have abandoned the Old Law, since it is not your tutor?

You are mistaken in thinking that the New Covenant needs the Old Covenant to forbid homosexuality or other sexual perversions. The Old Testament is corroborative and enlightening on these points, but it is not authoritative. The New Testament handles that just fine, and I would be happy to explain how, once we settle polygony.
Hugh McBryde wrote:I am pinning you now as a dualist. You want it one way when the law makes you uncomfortable, so you preach of it's "Fulfillment" without telling us what form that fulfillment will take ...
As I said, I try to avoid name calling during a discussion, because it detracts from the argument and assumes the thing to be proven.

I provided you the exact fulfillment of the Old Law - Jesus Christ. His death nailed the Old Law to the cross and it died with Him (Romans 7:1-4). You may reject it, but the Scriptures are clear and my wording was clear.
Hugh McBryde wrote:I am not deriving my righteousness from the law.
Well, Paul said the Old Law only provided righteousness through perfect obedience to the Law (Romans 10:4-5; Galatians 3:11-13). Since you have confessed to not use obedience to the Old Law as your source of righteousness, do you believe the Old Law was changed or put away? Which is it? It seems you have already surrendered the position that we cannot take the Old Law "as is" and just do what it says. Correct? Or, do you believe your righteousness arises from perfect obedience to the Old Law?
Hugh McBryde wrote:But if the law and the scriptures are profitable for doctrine, what doctrine? Put this in action. While you are at it, tell me what reproof can come from a law and from prophets so fulfilled that they are only intriguing reading? How do you correct, when the line is obliterated? How can the Old Testament in fact tell me about righteousness?
Easy. Does the story of Noah teach you anything? Did you learn about God, His wrath, His holiness, His expectation, His mercy? Did you learn about what it takes to please God? Yes and no, right? We learn we must obey God or suffer His wrath, but are you going to go out and build an ark? Did not Moses pen these words too? Did not God tell Noah to build an ark? Did not God tell Moses to record these events? So, why are you not building an ark?

Just because the specific commands no longer apply to you, it would be a cavalier to dismiss their teaching ability. Or, did you not learn anything from the story of Noah?

Furthermore, the OT prophecies combined with their fulfillment make a profound argument for both the identity of the Christ and the inspiration of Scriptures (Acts 18:27-28; II Peter 1:16-21). With this we can teach the unbeliever!
Hugh McBryde wrote:So why keep yourself from anything? Better yet, on what basis do you judge something to be fornication?
Because the New Testament is my authority and it condemns all forms of sexual perversion in multiple passages, amongst which not the least is Matthew 19:1-11. See also I Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; Romans 1:28-32. I admit there is a large amount of overlap between the moral requirements of the Old and New Covenants, but these morals are required today not because they were part of the Old, but because they are part of the New.

Primarily, I believe Matthew 19 establishes the pattern for acceptable intimate relations. Anything outside of that is unacceptable for the same reason that Jesus extracted rejection of divorce from Genesis 2:24. Once you understand how Jesus came to that conclusion, then you will understand the hermeneutic I am consistently following.
Hugh McBryde wrote:To summarize, Paul goes to the temple, to do things the law required, to show that he DOES NOT teach against the law. So when we harmonize, must we not take into account what people who stated things actually DO? Nowhere is Paul said to be wrong in his acts. ALL agree, Paul included. The purpose of his acts are specifically to DENY what it is you seem to be saying.
In debating terms, I believe this is called the fallacy of "the false middle" or the "false dichotomy". This is not an "either-or" proposition.

I accept that Paul and other writers taught the authoritative power of the Old Law had come to an end (Romans 7:1-4; 10:4-5; Galatians 3-4; Hebrews 8:6-13). However, I also accept that the Jews were free to keep the now innocuous traditions of the Old Law, which were originally considered commands under the Old Law, provided they did not bind them on others.
Paul wrote:Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. (Galatians 2:1-5)
Although Paul permitted Timothy to be circumcised (Acts 16:1-3), he did not permit Titus, because Judaizing teachers were compelling it as a requirement for keeping the Old Law. This gets back to sledford's question about circumcision, which answer I am also curious to hear.

You see, God does not ask any more of us than necessary. We can stay in whatever state the gospel finds us, provided it is not condemned in the New Covenant ("the commandments of God"):
Paul wrote:Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called. (I Corinthians 7:18-24)
Furthermore, gospel preachers are expected to conform as much as possible to the custom of their listeners to remove as many barriers as possible:
Paul wrote:For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you. (I Corinthians 9:19-23)
There is no real dilemma here: Paul taught that the authoritative power of the Old Law was dead (Romans 7:1-4 ...). However, he also taught and lived that Jews should stay as they are, provided that they did not compel others, and provided that their actions did not conflict with the New Covenant ("the commandments of God").

I believe polygony violates the New Law, but I will not argue it here. That's for another thread...

More could be said about several other minor points, but I'm trying to focus on the more fundamental points, while trying to elaborate on views that may be new to your thinking. ... If you feel I dodged a specific question, please let me know.

One last question, do you believe there were two covenants God made with man?

One Giant Covenant?

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:35 pm
by Hugh McBryde
m273p15c wrote:"Do you not see how the verse could legitimately be interpreted as I described?"
Yup. I can ask the same question though, and once two credible interpretations are on the table, one cannot dogmaticly enforce their interpretation on someone else. My argument also depends on other verses such as the ones I cite regarding Paul, so if I accept your view, a leg goes out from under a chair that has more than three legs.
m273p15c wrote:"Furthermore, I believe you have jumped to an unnecessary conclusion and argued against a straw man yourself. I did not say all of Scripture was fulfilled."
Good.
m273p15c wrote:"I said all of the Old Testament was fulfilled."
So, if I can find ONE THING in the Old that hasn't been? Do you say the "Resurrection" has occured? Clearly the Pharisees believed in it based on the existing scriptures, prior to Christ coming. Thus all cannot be fulfilled unless the resurrection is in the past.
m273p15c wrote:"Ok, so you have abandoned the Old Law, since it is not your tutor?"
The law contains within in the skeletal pattern of righteous behavior. It is not righteousness itself, I can count on the fact that if I listen to the Holy Spirit, whom I most certainly have, and study God's word, my behavior will seem to be following the law.
m273p15c wrote:"You are mistaken in thinking that the New Covenant needs the Old Covenant to forbid homosexuality or other sexual perversions. The Old Testament is corroborative and enlightening on these points, but it is not authoritative. The New Testament handles that just fine, and I would be happy to explain how, once we settle polygony."
Ok, where did Paul come up with his notion that a man having his father's wife was bad? Offhand do you know of any place in the New Testament that forbids marrying your sister, and if not, are you for that?
m273p15c wrote:"As I said, I try to avoid name calling during a discussion, because it detracts from the argument and assumes the thing to be proven."
My apologies, consider it the paradigm I will use in deciphering your words, until that assumption is shown as wrong. I don't think "dualism" is that heinous, particularly if unconcious. I don't think you are conciously dualistic, in practice you seem to be that way.
m273p15c wrote:"His death nailed the Old Law to the cross and it died with Him (Romans 7:1-4). You may reject it, but the Scriptures are clear and my wording was clear."
I patiently await your answer on the resurrection.
m273p15c wrote:"Paul said the Old Law only provided righteousness through perfect obedience to the Law (Romans 10:4-5; Galatians 3:11-13). Since you have confessed to not use obedience to the Old Law as your source of righteousness, do you believe the Old Law was changed or put away?"
I believe that it is put away as an avenue towards righteousness, which was always a trick question for us, since only Christ fulfilled the law by doing it and only he could. It was only theoreticly possible for us to fulfill the law, in the sense that you could concieve of someone actually doing it, even though they couldn't. Christ also died to take the punishment of the law, fulfilling it in that way as well. I think your concept of fulfillment is wrong.
m273p15c wrote:"Which is it? It seems you have already surrendered the position that we cannot take the Old Law "as is" and just do what it says. Correct? Or, do you believe your righteousness arises from perfect obedience to the Old Law?"
Actually doing the law in my case comes from Obeying Christ, which coincidentally produces behavior that would comply with the law, not obeying the Law, but instead Obeying and Relying on Christ causes me to do what would seem to be obeying the law. Again, the law is a pattern. I find that if I obey my God, personally, in the person of his Son Jesus Christ, who saved me, that I find I am doing the law. I don't obey the law.

If I follow a man who treads down one path as opposed to the other, and that Path is within the boundries of the law, would I not appear to follow the law? Yet I follow Jesus Christ, not a map called the Law.
m273p15c wrote:"Does the story of Noah teach you anything? Did you learn about God, His wrath, His holiness, His expectation, His mercy? Did you learn about what it takes to please God? Yes and no, right? We learn we must obey God or suffer His wrath, but are you going to go out and build an ark? Did not Moses pen these words too? Did not God tell Noah to build an ark? Did not God tell Moses to record these events? So, why are you not building an ark?"
So, it's only object lessons? Who's interpretation then tells us what these object lessons mean?
m273p15c wrote:"Because the New Testament is my authority and it condemns all forms of sexual perversion in multiple passages, amongst which not the least is Matthew 19:1-11. See also I Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; Romans 1:28-32. I admit there is a large amount of overlap between the moral requirements of the Old and New Covenants, but these morals are required today not because they were part of the Old, but because they are part of the New."
So if I find one form of "Sexual Perversion" that you name as such, that is not specificly named in the New Testament, what are you going to do?
m273p15c wrote:"I believe Matthew 19 establishes the pattern for acceptable intimate relations. Anything outside of that is unacceptable for the same reason that Jesus extracted rejection of divorce from Genesis 2:24. Once you understand how Jesus came to that conclusion, then you will understand the hermeneutic I am consistently following."
I'm exhausted, what "conclusion" does Jesus reach in Matthew 19 that has ANYTHING to do with monogamy other than the coincidental information that Adam and Eve were in one? He does not specificly refer to a monogamy, we just know that Adam and Eve's marriage fit the definition. They also fit the defintion of reproduction through asexual budding to produce a wife for yourself. They also fit a pattern of charging around naked or subsequently dressing in leaf aprons, or as God later clothed them, in animal skins. Do you wear NOTHING but Animal Skins?
m273p15c wrote:"In debating terms, I believe this is called the fallacy of 'the false middle' or the 'false dichotomy'. This is not an "either-or" proposition."
The conclusion that Paul was wrong is necessary for your approach to work, and in that you condemn all of the Jerusalem leadership when scripture does not. You are not free to teach this since it was never said. You can go ahead and believe it yourself, but you are not free to teach others that his uncondemned, urged and endorsed action, approved of by all in Church Leadership, leadership composed of people who KNEW Christ, who TOUCHED Christ, who no doubt KISSED Christ, who BELIEVED in and on Christ, was in fact WRONG. I think I stand on solid ground in saying that which was so obviously endorsed by those who wrote scripture, in scripture is probably right.
m273p15c wrote:"This gets back to sledford's question about circumcision, which answer I am also curious to hear."
My answer is that of the Jerusalem council and Paul as recorded in Acts 21. Paul did not teach Jews among the Gentiles to refrain from circumcising their children. What you speak of pertains to adults being circumcised of their own volition.
m273p15c wrote:"I believe polygony violates the New Law, but I will not argue it here. That's for another thread..."
Yes, but I urge you to show in that thread, the condemnation of this "New Law". I can't find it and you've said my point, that it's not there, "resonates" with you.
m273p15c wrote:"In my analysis, you have only made 2 arguments that remotely resonate with me: 1) The Old Testament approved and authorized polygynous marriages. 2) The New Testament nowhere explicitly condemns polygynous marriages."
Where? I don't accept Matthew 19 without a greater expansion of the argument you and others make about it. I continue to point out, Jesus was talking about divorce, and the permanence of Adam & Eve's union with regard to it, not about ALL aspects of their marriage as governing, and also as I have pointed out, you CANNOT apply all aspects of Adam and Eve's marriage as governing. Since you DO NOT have Christ pointing out their monogamy, only the permanence of their union, how is it that you seperate out their monogamy as important, or are you arguing some other passage?
m273p15c wrote:"One last question, do you believe there were two covenants God made with man?"
There is one Covenant, of which there are many installments. All "New Covenants" are variations on the orginal theme. The first was; "Here's everything, have fun, don't eat from that tree". EVERYTHING flow from eating of the tree, if not, New Covenants (and the Old Testament Law was a New Covenant once in that sense) reboot EVERYTHING, the mere presence of a Newer Covenant wipes away the Old, thus there would BE NO SIN to atone for. But the first Covenant of "Don't eat from that tree" governs us TO THIS DAY, that is why we need Christ.

Covenant versus Commandment

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:37 am
by Lionroot
sledford wrote:
Heb 8:13 wrote:Heb 8:13 In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away.
What do you think he means by decay, old, and vanish away in reference to the Mosaical law? I think we may need to start here and see what we can build out from this.
Aren't you confusing the concept of covenant and commandments here? The Covenant was made before the Law was given. They are separate items of consideration, and while the former is said to pass away the later is said to never pass away.
sledford wrote:Do you believe it is necessary for men today to be circumcised? And the natural follow on from that: is circumcision necessary for salvation? Ok, maybe two questions. :-)
This question shows a consistent confusion in your thinking. Physical circumcision is a matter of the Old Covenant which you rightly have shown has passed away. As for the Law it stands until Heaven and Earth pass away. At least that is what Jesus said.

God Bless,

Robert

multiple covenants, and they are package deals

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:46 am
by m273p15c
"till all is fulfilled"
Hugh McBryde wrote:So, if I can find ONE THING in the Old that hasn't been? Do you say the "Resurrection" has occured? Clearly the Pharisees believed in it based on the existing scriptures, prior to Christ coming. Thus all cannot be fulfilled unless the resurrection is in the past.
A few points here:
  1. What Scripture in the Old Law foretells the resurrection? I see no argument without Scripture backing.
  2. There is a difference between the Old Law foretelling the resurrection and its certainty being garnered, necessarily arising from non-prophetic texts. Promises require fulfillment. Prophecies require fulfillment. I believe all of the promises and prophecies associated with the Old Law were fulfilled. This goes back to the first question, "Where is the verse in the Old Law that foretells the resurrection?"
  3. Beside Matthew 5:17-18, many passages say that Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. Where is the passage that says the Old Law remains unfulfilled? For example, we have:
    Luke wrote:Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:44-47)
    But, where is the passage that speaks of anything yet remaining? I looked up all forms of "fulfill" in a concordance. Forty-one of those occurrences are past tense and refer to Jesus or some other event being "fulfilled" from the Old Testament. Yet, I only find one occurrence of "fulfill" in the future tense that refers to events prophesied/promised in the Old Testament - Matthew 5:17, which chronologically occurs before many of the events surrounding Jesus that are labeled as fulfilling the Old Law.
  4. Parallel passage helps interpret Matthew 5:17-18:
    Luke wrote:"The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail. (Luke 16:16-17)
    The idea is that the God's Law will not fail in fulfilling its mission. That is more sure than the sun in the sky and the earth on which you stand (the most sure tangible things).

    Interestingly, the parallel verse also limits the lifetime of the Old Law, pinning the preaching of its message up until John the Baptist, who first preached the gospel of the kingdom.
  5. Power of the parallel - Could we understand Jesus' statement to permit a little destroying of the Old Law? Just a few verses? No, He did not destroy any of it. Likewise, we are to understand that He fulfilled all of it. The remaining fulfillments all pertain to His coming, His life, His death, His resurrection, His ascension, His kingdom, His sending of the Spirit, His law, His judgment, and His wrath.
  6. Absurd alternative. Please consider the alternative. If the Old Law has not been fulfilled, then according to Jesus statement, we must not break one single law of the Old Law!
    Matthew wrote:"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)
    This is corroborated by other passages in the New Testament:
    Paul wrote:And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. (Galatians 5:3)
    Therefore, if one part of the Old Law is restored, (because it is part of the Old Law, not because it is reinstated in the New Law), then all must be kept!
    James wrote:For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. (James 2:10-11)
    Do you believe circumcision is necessary for salvation? It was under the Old Law (Leviticus 12:3). If you fail to keep this one point, or any other point, and fail to teach others to do the same, then you are guilty of the entire law!
  7. Jesus fulfilled the Old Law by fulfilling its prophecies (see #3), requirement for punishment, and righteous commands:
    Paul wrote:For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:3-4)

    For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them." Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:10-14)
    What is left to be fulfilled? Plus, I think this also clarifies the misunderstanding evidenced by this quote:
    Hugh McBryde wrote:Christ also died to take the punishment of the law, fulfilling it in that way as well. I think your concept of fulfillment is wrong.
The Old Law was a package deal.
Hugh McBryde wrote:The law contains within in the skeletal pattern of righteous behavior. It is not righteousness itself, I can count on the fact that if I listen to the Holy Spirit, whom I most certainly have, and study God's word, my behavior will seem to be following the law.
I believe this flatly contradicts Scripture. The Old Law is much more than a "skeletal pattern" of righteous behavior. It is a law which provided for both life and death. By it a man could be justified, if he kept it perfectly.
Paul wrote:The law contains within in the skeletal pattern of righteous behavior. It is not righteousness itself, I can count on the fact that if I listen to the Holy Spirit, whom I most certainly have, and study God's word, my behavior will seem to be following the law. (Galatians 3:12)

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, "The man who does those things shall live by them." (Romans 10:4-5)
The only kind of righteousness and salvation the Old Law can authorize is through perfect law keeping. If you go back to the Old Law alone for anything authoritative (do this, don't do that, can do this, can't do that, etc.), then you are bound to keep it all (Matthew 5:17-19; Galatians 5:3; James 2:10-11 - see point above)!

The most notable "weakness" of the Old Law was its inability to account for the weakness of man and provide salvation by grace through faith, apart from perfect law keeping (Romans 8:3-4; Galatians 3:21).

Again, I do not believe you are being consistent. You say that you are following the law, but what about circumcision, feast days, new moons, Sabbaths, temple worship, incense, animal sacrifices, tithing, etc.? If you are not doing these things, you are not following the law, because they all requirements of the law. ... I believe this is a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. :-)
Hugh McBryde wrote:I believe that it is put away as an avenue towards righteousness, ...
Again, I believe you have surrendered your position. As soon as any element of the Old Law is put away then it ALL must be put away. No partial change, addition, or annulment can be made to any covenant:
Paul wrote:Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. ... And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. (Galatians 3:15-17)
For example, if the priesthood is changed, then the law must be changed too, at least that's argument provided here:
The author of Hebrews wrote:Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest... (Hebrews 7:11-15)
Beside being an astonishing proof text for respecting the silence of the Scriptures, this passage also "necessitates" a changing of the law, because the priesthood was changed! Do you have an Aaronic priest, through whom you worship? If not, then you are not following the Old Law, and you have already dismissed its authority!
Hugh McBryde wrote:Actually doing the law in my case comes from Obeying Christ, which coincidentally produces behavior that would comply with the law, not obeying the Law, but instead Obeying and Relying on Christ causes me to do what would seem to be obeying the law. Again, the law is a pattern. I find that if I obey my God, personally, in the person of his Son Jesus Christ, who saved me, that I find I am doing the law. I don't obey the law.

If I follow a man who treads down one path as opposed to the other, and that Path is within the boundries of the law, would I not appear to follow the law? Yet I follow Jesus Christ, not a map called the Law.
Again, this is logically inconsistent with Scripture. The Old Law clearly represented a separate economy. It had a different government, mission, priesthood, and law. If you obey Christ, then you are not obeying the Old Law. (Recall circumcision, new moons, Sabbaths, animal sacrifices, tithing, killing idolatrous neighbors, etc.). Unless you do everything in the Old Law, you have already dismissed its authoritative power; otherwise, you are disobeying it. Unless you are doing all these things, then you are not "treading down a path that is within the boundaries of the law". You do not even remotely appear to be following the Old Law - just partially.

Again, same problem here:
Hugh McBryde wrote:My answer is that of the Jerusalem council and Paul as recorded in Acts 21. Paul did not teach Jews among the Gentiles to refrain from circumcising their children. What you speak of pertains to adults being circumcised of their own volition.
Yes, but he did not say that they had to do so either! Circumcision was not a requirement, as you have confirmed; therefore, the authority of the Old Law is dismissed! Just because somebody could or could not do something in the Old Testament, we are not free to think the same applies today. Commandments given then are not necessarily applicable now; otherwise, you would command circumcision, as did the Judaizing Jews who instigated the trouble in Acts 15:1-3.

Not one covenant - but multiple covenants

Although I understand what you are saying, I believe it flatly contradicts Scripture that there have been multiple covenants!
Paul wrote:Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it.
16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. (Galatians 3:15-17)
We have examined this one earlier, but it is worth repeating here: Paul flatly says that a confirmed covenant cannot be annulled or added to. It is impossible to insert extra "installments". Paul uses this argument to prove the ongoing validity of God's covenant to Abraham (covenant #A) in light of God's covenant to Israel (covenant #B).

Again...
Paul wrote:Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar -- (Galatians 4:20-24)
How many covenants?

Again, I understand your model, and accept its possibility; however, it must be backed with Scripture to be seriously considered. Furthermore, you must be able to reconcile the above passages.

Friendly Reminder

Maybe I overlooked your reply, plus it is charitable to assume it was an accident, but I believe you may have overlooked addressing the following passages, which merit a logical reply backed with Scripture:
Paul wrote:For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, "The man who does those things shall live by them." (Romans 10:4-5)
How is Christ the end of the Old Law?
Paul wrote:What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. ... Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Galatians 3:19-25)
Has the Old Law fulfilled this purpose? If so, then it is fulfilled and dismissed. Otherwise, we have still not been brought to Christ, and we are still under the bondage of perfect law keeping associated with the "tutor".

This one was briefly referenced in various posts:
Paul wrote:And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths (Colossians 2:13-16)
What document told us about sin? The Old Law taught us about sin (Romans 7:7-9); therefore, it was the document nailed to the cross! Furthermore, the nailing of this document also released us from judgment according to "food, drink, new moon, Sabbaths" and other cardinal ordinances. What covenant teaches us about Sabbaths, feast days, etc.? Is it not the Old Law? Therefore, it must be the document nailed to the cross!

Here's a new one, but it supports the same line of reasoning:
Paul wrote:For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. (Ephesians 2:14-16)
Through His death on the cross, did Christ "abolish" the law of commandments or not? If He did, then how can you use it as authoritative?

Secondary Objections

I believe the preceding arguments stand on their own. The following objections only challenge one's faith in accepting application of the broader rule. Unless we accept prejudice as authority, our preconceived notions on these points should not be used as basis for overturning a broader rule that is taught in Scripture.

It is backward to overturn a hermeneutic just because it violates a cherished doctrine. Hermeneutics produce doctrine, not the other way around.

In regards to continued profit of the Old Testament:
Hugh McBryde wrote:So, it's only object lessons? Who's interpretation then tells us what these object lessons mean?
The same people who tell us what every verse in the New Testament means.

In regards to pinning me up against undesirable conclusions:
Hugh McBryde wrote:So if I find one form of "Sexual Perversion" that you name as such, that is not specifically named in the New Testament, what are you going to do?
First, find it! Then, I'll search the New Testament, pray, and then accept the conclusion the New Testament teaches.
Hugh McBryde wrote:I'm exhausted, what "conclusion" does Jesus reach in Matthew 19 that has ANYTHING to do with monogamy other than the coincidental information that Adam and Eve were in one? ... Yes, but I urge you to show in that thread, the condemnation of this "New Law". I can't find it and you've said my point, that it's not there, "resonates" with you.
Will answer tomorrow (or soon) in the other thread. Actually, I may put it off until we are done here, because I believe this is more fundamental.
Hugh McBryde wrote:They also fit the definition of reproduction through asexual budding to produce a wife for yourself. They also fit a pattern of charging around naked or subsequently dressing in leaf aprons, or as God later clothed them, in animal skins. Do you wear NOTHING but Animal Skins?
No, because that part of the Old Testament was not reinstated as a pattern or requirement for anything.

Other Miscommunication
Hugh McBryde wrote:The conclusion that Paul was wrong is necessary for your approach to work, and in that you condemn all of the Jerusalem leadership when scripture does not. ...
No, you misunderstood me. I did not say that Paul or James were wrong in their actions.

As long as a Jew understood that it was not toward salvation, Paul taught that such a person would be better to continue in their Jewish traditions. However, these deeds were limited to those that did not conflict with the requirements of the New Law.

I believe my reconciliation still stands, because Paul did not require the Jews to continue the traditions for the purpose of salvation, and because these traditions did not conflict with the New Covenant. They were innocuous and actually recommended to facilitate the gospel's movement among the brethren (I Corinthians 9:19-23).

I believe you must show either a Scriptural or logical inconsistency in my reconciliation to disregard it.

Old Law, New Law? HUH?

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:46 pm
by Lionroot
m273p15c,


The scripture is clear about the Old Covenant and the New One.

By the term "Old Law" do you refer to the Torah or the Commandments? Perhaps like many you consider them an indistinguishable amalgamation? Is the term "Old Law" extra-Biblical?

I can find the term "New Covenant", where then is the term "New Law"? Is that an extra-Biblical term?

Christ quotes heavily from the Torah, especially Leviticus. Paul quotes similarly from the Torah and the Prophets, indeed he says he would not know what sin was if it wasn't for the Law, and elsewhere writes:

1Cr 10:1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;


1Cr 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;


1Cr 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;


1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

I leave this for your consideration.

God Bless,

Robert

Please excuse me if I missed anything...

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:26 pm
by Hugh McBryde
m273p15c wrote:"I believe all of the promises and prophecies associated with the Old Law were fulfilled. This goes back to the first question, 'Where is the verse in the Old Law that foretells the resurrection'?"
I really don't need to prove this, it is proven already in the bounds of the New Testament. Acts 23:6:
"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."
I need go no further. Paul declares in scripture, his commentary on the Old Testament, that it creates the hope of resurrection of the dead. If you confine this to the literal law, that resurrection be preached there, then that is another question. Is that your contention? That the Torah (Pentatuch) does not predict resurrection?
m273p15c wrote:"If the Old Law has not been fulfilled, then according to Jesus statement, we must not break one single law of the Old Law!"
No, I only contend that "all" has not been fulfilled, and as a result, the Law exists in the form that Christ said it would, until such time as "All has been fullfilled". Until all the conditions are met, there is still the law. I think you set up a straw man construct of what I'm saying though. I do not have to obey the law for salvation, I do not even have to follow all parts of the law, as all parts of the law were never said to apply to me in the first place. Alternatively, you COULD say I DO follow all the law and I DID have to follow all the law, with the Caveat that some of the law declares ITSELF to not be applicable to me. Thus I can follow the law for Kings without actually doing those laws, because they were not said to be for me in the first place.
m273p15c wrote:"The Old Law is much more than a "skeletal pattern" of righteous behavior. It is a law which provided for both life and death. By it a man could be justified, if he kept it perfectly."
It does for ME, since I come after the Law. Since Christ preached heart attitudes (something preached in the Law by the way) were the root of both righteousness and sin, then the Law is not the complete picture of righteousnes, even before Christ, but I guarantee that no one could keep it's provisions since at the core, we are sinful.
m273p15c wrote:"You say that you are following the law, but what about circumcision, feast days, new moons, Sabbaths, temple worship, incense, animal sacrifices, tithing, etc.? If you are not doing these things, you are not following the law, because they all requirements of the law. ... I believe this is a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too." :-)
A good portion of the law does not apply to me, I am a Gentile, born into Christ, not converted into the faith of the Hebrews as a Proselyte. I do not live in the boundries of their land. You do not understand that the land had a signifigance and the Law applied in the land fully, but not elsewhere? 2nd Kings 17:26 & 27:
"Wherefore they spake to the king of Assyria, saying, The nations which thou hast removed, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land: therefore he hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land. Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land."
There is a signifigance to the literal boundries of the land, with regard to keeping the Law, all of it that is.
m273p15c wrote:"You do not even remotely appear to be following the Old Law - just partially."
As I have pointed out, full compliance with the law never involved doing all of the things it asked, unless you include the Caveat that some of the law specificly directed itself to some persons, and not others. It was lawful as a Gentile among the Hebrews to take from their hands, food forbidden for Hebrews to eat. It was neither wrong for me to eat it or wrong for them to give it to me, yet it would have been wrong for the Hebrews to eat it. This is IN THE LAW.
m273p15c wrote:"How is Christ the end of the Old Law?"
He did it's requirements, we are no longer required to do them, though it would be expedient to do them for they reflect righteousness. Keep in my my Caveat. He fulfilled them also by taking their punishement, a cursed death on the cross, though he did not merit the punishment. Thus the law is done, in one man, as he did it. Thus the law's penalty is fulfilled, since he died. We live, since he overcame death. Unless you propose that it is OK to murder, then you say some form of obedience to the law is still advisable. It cannot be for righteousness however.
m273p15c wrote:"As long as a Jew understood that it was not toward salvation, Paul taught that such a person would be better to continue in their Jewish traditions. However, these deeds were limited to those that did not conflict with the requirements of the New Law."
Well, that's awfully close to my position, but I say little conflicted with the "New Law". This brings up an interesting sidebar however, as you seem to preach more restriction in the "New Law" than in the dead "Old Law".

law cannot be separated from covenant

Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:46 am
by m273p15c
Hello, Lionroot. Welcome to the forums!

Abrahamic covenant not the same as Mosaical Covenant
Lionroot wrote:Aren't you confusing the concept of covenant and commandments here? The Covenant was made before the Law was given.
sledford mentioned that he would be unavailable for a few days, so if I may interject a few thoughts...

What passage would you use to support the Old Covenant being made before the Old Law was given? Are you referencing the covenant given to Abraham? I do not believe it is the same covenant made with the Israelites at Mt. Sinai:
Paul wrote:Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar -- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Galatians 4:21-26)
This verse says there was definitely a covenant associated with Mt. Sinai, the giving of the law, and resulting bondage. Which covenant do you think that would be? The one given to Abraham, some 430 years earlier (Galatians 3:14-18)? Or, the one given to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai, when they received the Old Law?
The author of Hebrews wrote:Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you." (Hebrews 9:18-20)
So, when was the first covenant given? Well, it was "dedicated" at Mt. Sinai, when Moses sprinkled the people and the writing of the law with blood, and the people accepted it then and there, at Mt. Sinai. Furthermore, the covenant consisted of "words", "commands", "judgments", and "precept" "according to the law", which Moses read to the people, and unto which they committed themselves for obedience.
Moses wrote:So Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the judgments. And all the people answered with one voice and said, "All the words which the LORD has said we will do." And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD. And he rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars according to the twelve tribes of Israel. Then he sent young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the LORD. And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, "All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient." And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, "This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according to all these words." (Exodus 24:3-8)
Again, when was the covenant made with the Israelites?
Jeremiah wrote:"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. (Jeremiah 31:31-32)
Circumcision is part of the Old Law
Lionroot wrote:They are separate items of consideration, and while the former is said to pass away the later is said to never pass away. ... Physical circumcision is a matter of the Old Covenant which you rightly have shown has passed away. As for the Law it stands until Heaven and Earth pass away. At least that is what Jesus said.
First, in a previous post, Jesus' statement (Matthew 5:17-19) is shown to permit the passing of the law, once it was fulfilled, for which a case has been presented in preceding posts.

Second, circumcision is clearly associated with "the old law" in Scripture:
Luke wrote:And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called JESUS, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD"), and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons." ... And when the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law, ... So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.
Please note that both the rites for purification and circumcision are associated with "the law of the Lord" and "the law of Moses" - not just the covenant. In fact, the two separate commands, quoted in the above passage, are taken from Leviticus 12:1-8.

Anticipating a response -- If one argues that the "law of Moses" applied to purification only, then he must also say that in the book of Leviticus, chapter 12, verses 1-2 and 4-8 are associated with the law of Moses, while verse 3, in the middle of the same context, is limited to the covenant? Who can believe it? ... Regardless, Luke associates circumcision with "the law of the Lord", so if circumcision has passed, then so has the law with which it was associated.
John wrote:"Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?" (John 7:22-23)
Did Jesus limit circumcision's association with the Old Covenant? No! He clearly states that the law of Moses would be broken, if circumcision were not kept on the Sabbath. If Jesus thought circumcision was part of the Mosaical law, should not we?
Paul wrote:For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. (Romans 2:25)
When is circumcision important? When one is striving to keep the covenant or the law? Paul said it was profitable, if you were trying to keep the law!
Paul wrote:And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. (Galatians 5:3)
Again, this goes back to a previous point about the law being a package deal. You cannot pick and choose the parts you want to keep. However, please notice that in this verse, Paul associates circumcision with the law, not just the covenant.
Paul wrote:As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. (Galatians 6:12-13)
Notice how Paul points out the inconsistency and hypocrisy in these false teachers. They compel part, circumcision, but yet they do not keep it all (the law). What's the point if the "part" is not of the "whole"? If circumcision is not part of the law, then there is no complaint of hypocrisy, and Paul has not point! But, yet clearly Paul has a point, so these false teachers must have been inconsistent, which could only be true if circumcision were part of the law!

The covenant cannot be separated from the law

Third, Where is the passage for suggesting that the law and covenant are completely independent, such that one may pass away, while the other persists? Although I believe the old covenant is not the exact same thing as the old law, I do believe they are inseparable, as demonstrated by their interchangeable usage in the following verses:
Moses wrote:And the LORD would separate him from all the tribes of Israel for adversity, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this Book of the Law (Deuteronomy 29:21)
Moses wrote:So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel. (Deuteronomy 31:9)
Why was the law of Moses kept in the ark of the "covenant", if they were two separate things? (See also Deuteronomy 31:25-26; Joshua 8:33-34)
The seer wrote:Yet the LORD testified against Israel and against Judah, by all of His prophets, every seer, saying, "Turn from your evil ways, and keep My commandments and My statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by My servants the prophets." Nevertheless they would not hear, but stiffened their necks, like the necks of their fathers, who did not believe in the LORD their God. And they rejected His statutes and His covenant that He had made with their fathers, and His testimonies which He had testified against them; they followed idols, became idolaters, and went after the nations who were all around them, concerning whom the LORD had charged them that they should not do like them. (II Kings 17:13-15)
Notice the parallel: "My commandments and My statues according to all the law, which I commanded your fathers", but the children of Israel "rejected His statutes and His covenant that He had made with their fathers". Clearly, they are synonymous.

Furthermore, how did the Israelites reject "the covenant", according to the above verse? "They followed idols, became idolaters..." Where was that forbidden? In the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-5)!
David wrote:They did not keep the covenant of God; They refused to walk in His law. (Psalm 78:10)
Classic Hebrew parallelism demands equivalency: The two "they's" are the same people (the Israelites). The verb's are the same (did not keep = refused). The personal object of rejection is the same (God). The rejected instruments are the same (God's covenant = His law). If the covenant is not the same as the law, then the parallelism is destroyed!

Since they are interchangeable, if the old covenant was fulfilled, completed, done away, etc., then so was the old law associated with it.

The Power and Dominion of The Law was eliminated at the Cross

Again, let us revisit a passage from previous posts:
Paul wrote:Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another -- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. ... What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." (Romans 7:1-7)
According to your division, do the 10 Commandments pertain to the law or the covenant? Paul associates the command to not covet with the law (Exodus 20:17)! And, previously he said that we were made dead to the law by the body of Christ!

Therefore, the previous arguments apply to the law as well as the covenant!

In preceding posts, please see Romans 8:3-4; Romans 10:4-5; Galatians 3:10-14; Galatians 3:19-25; Ephesians 2:14-16; Hebrews 7:11-15, which say that the law was weak according to the flesh, fulfilled, ended, changed, and abolished. And, they also state that we are no longer under it, and that we have been redeemed from it's curse. So, why do you say the arguments only pertain the covenant, since the above passages so clearly mention the Old Law?

Old Law versus New Law
Lionroot wrote:By the term "Old Law" do you refer to the Torah or the Commandments? Perhaps like many you consider them an indistinguishable amalgamation? Is the term "Old Law" extra-Biblical?

I can find the term "New Covenant", where then is the term "New Law"? Is that an extra-Biblical term?

Christ quotes heavily from the Torah, especially Leviticus. ...
To answer your first question, I understand that the "Old Law" is the law associated with the Old Covenant, given at Mt. Sinai, which constitutes the much of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The "Old Law" includes the Ten Commandments, but it is not limited to it, because New Testament references are made to passages outside of the Ten Commandments, and they are labeled as belonging to the "the Law of Moses", "the Law of God", "the Law of the Lord", or just "the law".

Admittedly, the terms "Old Law" and "New Law" are not found in the Bible, but that does not mean the concepts are not contained in Scripture!
Paul wrote:For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; (I Corinthians 9:19-21)
In this passage, Paul professes to adapt to the customs and traditions of his audience, (where morally permitted of course) so that the gospel may have more free course among them. Notice, how he describes the Gentiles as being "not under law". This we understand, because the law of Moses was given to the Jews. However, he makes this caveat, in case someone thought he might have abandoned law altogether -- "but under law toward Christ". There is a law under Christ! It is a different kind of law (not based on works), but it is a "law" nonetheless:
Paul wrote:Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. (Romans 3:27)
Furthermore, the prophets foretold that the Messiah would have His own unique law, which they incidentally linked to His covenant:
Isaiah wrote:"Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles. He will not cry out, nor raise His voice, Nor cause His voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed He will not break, And smoking flax He will not quench; He will bring forth justice for truth. He will not fail nor be discouraged, Till He has established justice in the earth; And the coastlands shall wait for His law." Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it: "I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:1-6)
Therefore, just as when God recognized a "new covenant", He made the first "old", when God points out a different law, pertaining to Christ and the new covenant, He makes the first "old" and the second "new" (Hebrews 8:7-13). Just as the phrase "old covenant" is not found in the Old Testament but clearly taught there and therefore appropriate, so might we say that the terms "old law" and "new law" are not found in the Bible but clearly taught there, and therefore likewise appropriate.

Other Arguments
Lionroot wrote:Paul quotes similarly from the Torah and the Prophets, indeed he says he would not know what sin was if it wasn't for the Law, ...
Yes, and in this same context, Paul says that we are no longer under the law and that the law was put to death by the body of Christ (Romans 7:1-7; Galatians 3:10-25). As I stated earlier, I did not claim the Old Testament (Old Law) was without value, even unto teaching, rebuke, edification, and instruction; however, I did say it was without the authority associated with law, which is what I believe I have demonstrated.
Lionroot wrote:and elsewhere writes:

1Cr 10:1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Cr 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Cr 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
I don't see the point. Christ was a key instrument in both laws, but was He not a key player in both covenants too? Otherwise, why was His body sufficient for ending the Old Law (or covenant, as you say) (Romans 7:1-4)? Just because laws have similarities in some points, we should not conclude they are the same in all. Otherwise, we would have conclude the covenants were all the same too! ... I must confess that I am struggling to see the logic of this argument, much less its necessity. Please excuse me, if I am barking up the wrong tree here.

Thank you for your consideration...

What my contentions are, and are not.

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:40 pm
by Hugh McBryde
First, I say that all of the 66 books of the Bible as accepted by most "Protestant" denominations are in fact Scripture. Inspired and infallible, bare minimum, in the original languages.

Second, I say that all of scripture APPLIES all the time. Now, there's a catch to that one. Let's say that scripture were to say, "Do this until...." If the thing that it says you are to use as a boundry event occurs, then you don't do that anymore. If it says "Do this HERE" and names a place for the activity, you do that where it is stated you do the activity, and nowhere else. If it says for instance, "Do this if you are Hebrew", well, that means you do it if you are Hebrew, not if you are not and the same goes for Kings and Priests and so on.

For this reason, I cannot be said to be an advocate of various washings, or of literal Sabbath observance or of tithing or of refraining from a good lobster and a piece of bacon once in a while. Right or wrong I intepret the scriptures after many readings as saying I am not, nor was I ever responsible to God to behave in such ways. A thorough reading of the Law of God as given through Moses makes it clear that obeying all of the law (if I was said to OBEY it) would never have required me to do certain things as a Gentile Believer that I would have had to do as, say, King David, or as Jehoiada the Priest or even as a racial (genetic) Israelite.

Also I believe that when the New Testament refers to events in the Old Testament, unless there is a specific statement that the meaning of that event is being changed, it's not changed. What it meant then, is still what it means now. So when Jesus refers to a phrase or word in the Old Testament, he's not changing what that word or phrase meant, in that context, unless he says he is. That's sort of a trick remark since I don't think that he changes any such meanings, but point to a place where he claims to do that, and I'll listen to your argument. He has to actually SAY he's changing it though, it's not a case of you sincerely believing he changes the meaning.

This does not mean, as I have said before, that God could not approach a word or phrase or event or Law and reveal MORE meaning to them. So it could be that phrases like "One Flesh" contain more meaning than they seemed to have as originally used. That's OK, it's like looking at an egg from the outside all your life, and never cracking one. It isn't a lie to say an egg is white and ovate in appearance, nor would it be a lie to reveal that while white all this time, an egg is also sticky, clear in parts and yellow in others. All of this is allowed by our original perception of an uncracked egg.

Re: law cannot be separated from covenant

Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:06 am
by Lionroot
Thanks m273p15c for your warm welcome...
m273p15c wrote: What passage would you use to support the Old Covenant being made before the Old Law was given? Are you referencing the covenant given to Abraham? I do not believe it is the same covenant made with the Israelites at Mt. Sinai:
Have you not read:

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


Gal 3:17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.


You see here that the Covenant was "confirmed" on Mt. Sinai that had been made four hundred and thirty years previous.

I hope that clears things up for you.

God Bless,

Robert

Re: law cannot be separated from covenant

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 3:00 pm
by m273p15c
Lionroot wrote:You see here that the Covenant was "confirmed" on Mt. Sinai that had been made four hundred and thirty years previous.

I hope that clears things up for you.
Hi again Robert,

Actually, closer examination of this passage actually disproves the very point being suggested. Let us re-examine that last verse, while considering multiple translations (Proverbs 24:6):
Paul, in Galatians 3:17, wrote:KJV Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

ASV Galatians 3:17 Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect.

NIV Galatians 3:17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

NIB Galatians 3:17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

NAS Galatians 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

NAU Galatians 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

RSV Galatians 3:17 This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

NRS Galatians 3:17 My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

NKJ Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.

RWB Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before by God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot set it aside, that it should make the promise of no effect.

BBE Galatians 3:17 Now this I say: The law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, does not put an end to the agreement made before by God, so as to make the undertaking without effect.

YLT Galatians 3:17 and this I say, A covenant confirmed before by God to Christ, the law, that came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not set aside, to make void the promise,
To help understand this passage, please consider these questions: "What comes before what?" and "What comes after what?"

When was the covenant confirmed? "Before ... the law", which was "430 years after" the "confirmed covenant".

This verses does not say the Abrahamic covenant was confirmed at Mt. Sinai, when the law was delivered. On the contrary, it says just the opposite. Therefore, the Old Covenant, offered at Mt. Sinai, absolutely cannot be the exact same covenant offered to Abraham, confirmed some 430 years previously.

Also, as a friendly reminder to the points raised in the last post, might I offer that a tenable position cannot just ask all the questions? It must ultimately be able to answer all the questions too - in accordance with Scripture.

Re: law cannot be separated from covenant

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:03 pm
by Lionroot
Greetings m273p15c,

Don't you have a real name I could call you? I feel like I'm chatting with an inmate. "Inmate #m273p15c. you have email" LOL

Admittedly I miss-worded my response. However the scripture still disputes your claim. The law did not set aside the covenant previously established 430 years previous.
m273p15c wrote: NIV Galatians 3:17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
...
Also, as a friendly reminder to the points raised in the last post, might I offer that a tenable position cannot just ask all the questions? It must ultimately be able to answer all the questions too - in accordance with Scripture.
I'm not sure what that last part is about. I do ask questions. Is that offensive to you somehow? I cannot presuppose to understand anyones position, unless I first ask. When I can add something, I will happily interject. However answers given out of context of understanding are wasted.

Perhaps you wish I had addressed more points from your previous postings. Having disagreed with some of your initial premise, I felt it necessary to deal with that before addressing anything else.


God Bless,

Robert

Re: law cannot be separated from covenant

Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:46 pm
by m273p15c
Lionroot wrote:Admittedly I miss-worded my response. However the scripture still disputes your claim. The law did not set aside the covenant previously established 430 years previous.
I never claimed the law of Moses set aside the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, this does not answer anything I said.

Furthermore, since you acknowledged that you misworded your claim, and you did not answer my questions from the last post, are you conceding that Abraham's covenant was confirmed 430 years before the giving of the Old Law? How else do you deal with the "before" and "after"? I did not see an answer to that.

Previously, I believe you claimed that the covenant made at Mt. Sinai was really the confirmation of the same covenant made with Abraham. However, the verse you quoted actually disproves that. It shows that Abraham's covenant was confirmed some 430 years before the giving of the Old Law and the Old, Mosaic covenant. Unless one assumes that God can only hold one covenant at a time (which is not taught in Scripture), noting that the Old Law did not annul the Abrahamic covenant does nothing for your case - as far as I can tell.

As additional explanation, God can easily hold multiple covenants with multiple parties, even the same parties, at the same time - just as we do in modern contracts. Some of those covenants may even transcend others. For example, please consider God's covenant with Noah and his seed, to never destroy the earth again with a flood (Genesis 9:12-17). That covenant began before both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, and neither can annul the first. In fact, it continues to this day (Revelation 4:3), even though the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants have been fulfilled. Therefore, God can hold multiple covenants with the same party at the same time.

Back to your last point, I don't see how Galatians 3:17 disputes anything I said. Maybe I'm missing something?
Lionroot wrote:Perhaps you wish I had addressed more points from your previous postings. Having disagreed with some of your initial premise, I felt it necessary to deal with that before addressing anything else.
Oh, I'm glad to answer questions - all day long. However, one cannot seriously consider a position, if that position is only able to ask questions - not answer them.

You are certainly free and welcome to focus on what you see as the underlying, dividing premises. In fact, I try to do the same. However, since I have yet to see a sustainable Scriptural basis for the opposite position, and the position has not addressed any of the passages I gave previously, I think it only fair that you spend some time addressing what I consider the underlying, dividing premise too.

Statements such as the following leave an impression of "finality", as in "case closed".
Lionroot wrote:This question shows a consistent confusion in your thinking. ... The scripture is clear about the Old Covenant and the New One. ... I hope that clears things up for you.
The case is not clear until it has a Scripturally sustainable and consistent base, and until it can answer opposing questions. If you had not made the above statements, failed to answer any questions, and failed to present new, sustainable passages, I would not have provided the friendly reminder.

I'd rather get back to Scripture, but it seemed important that the logical burden of proof be emphasized.

Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:25 pm
by sledford
I'm back from my business travels and catching up with this thread which has had some thorough inter-change which is always good. Especially when the tone remains respectable. :-) Hugh and Lionheart, maybe I missed it somewhere but I didn't see a specific response to my question regarding the need for people today to be circumcised for salvation. If you did and could just highlight the response it would be most helpful. If not, could you please address this question? The reason I press it is because I think it will help me understand your thought process through your application to a specific case.

I have never preached circumcision for salvation.

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:05 pm
by Hugh McBryde
sledford wrote:"Hugh and Lionheart, maybe I missed it somewhere but I didn't see a specific response to my question regarding the need for people today to be circumcised for salvation. If you did and could just highlight the response it would be most helpful."
I'm not aware that I have ever preached or implied a need for circumcision. The closest I would come to it would be that I think racial and religious Hebrews/Israelites need to obey the law, not for salvation, but becasue I believe their (and our) God has asked them to.

At no point does any form of outward behavior or morality infuse us with Salvation. I am sure you would agree that it is not good to steal and we shouldn't do it. I am sure you would agree it is not good to commit adultery or murder, and we should not do it, but refraining from adultery and murder and theft is only an outward sign of inward righteousness, and as we know, could only be an outward veneer of righteousness covering hateful sin within.

Only Christ, accepted as LORD and as Savior, through his foreordination and election save us from death. Nothing else does. That does mean that when I have him as LORD and he asks me to do something, should it be circumcision or any other thing, I will do it if I love him. That action is not salvation, but the outward sign of Christ in my life.

Re: I have never preached circumcision for salvation.

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:58 pm
by sledford
Hugh McBryde wrote:I'm not aware that I have ever preached or implied a need for circumcision. The closest I would come to it would be that I think racial and religious Hebrews/Israelites need to obey the law, not for salvation, but becasue I believe their (and our) God has asked them to.
Thank you for the response. It has helped me understand your thought process better. I would like to follow then with how do you reconcile the above conclusion with these two scriptures? So as it doesn't seem that I am leading you along, I frankly cannot reconcile your statement with Scripture.
Galations wrote:Gal 3:24 So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise.
Colossians wrote:Col 3:10 and have put on the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him:
Col 3:11 where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all.

As you wish.

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:47 pm
by Hugh McBryde
To me the problem with your question is in part, it's implications. An approach that erases all race and gender roles is ok, superficially, it's egalitarean. People like it. It seems to be on first reading the most obvious meaning, at least to our culture. Reconcile this with other statements by Paul concerning homosexuality, concerning his being an apostle to the "uncircumcision" and Peter being to the "circumcision". Why homosexuality? Because if you erase all gender roles, then you cannot say it is wrong for a man to have another man, a woman another woman, and so on, all are equal in all ways. Or maybe not.

These passages refer to us being before God, in Christ, in Judgment, not to our earthly roles. We are to keep in mind our ultimate destination and judgment in dealing with Brothers and Sisters in Christ, because in the end, we ARE all equal in him. But we are not the same now.

Re: As you wish.

Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:04 pm
by sledford
Hugh McBryde wrote:To me the problem with your question is in part, it's implications. An approach that erases all race and gender roles is ok, superficially, it's egalitarean. People like it. It seems to be on first reading the most obvious meaning, at least to our culture. Reconcile this with other statements by Paul concerning homosexuality, concerning his being an apostle to the "uncircumcision" and Peter being to the "circumcision". Why homosexuality? Because if you erase all gender roles, then you cannot say it is wrong for a man to have another man, a woman another woman, and so on, all are equal in all ways. Or maybe not.
First let me state right off that this initial harmonization has to be established in context first before wandering into application with other points. So, what is the immediate context of these two quotes from Galatians and Colossians? Paul establishes the context with his introduction in Galatians 3:24:
Galatians 3:24 wrote:So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
The application for being neither Jew or Greek is then within the context of being justified by faith. To extend into the areas you eluded to (homosexuality) cannot be drawn from this context in Galatians and thus, I will set them aside because they have no immediate relevance or application. So, the conclusion within context is that to be justified comes through faith in Christ Jesus and being a physical Jew or Greek is no longer a basis of justification.

Now, tying back to your conclusion back a couple posts I think what Paul says in Galatians contradicts your conclusion here:
Hugh wrote:The closest I would come to it would be that I think racial and religious Hebrews/Israelites need to obey the law, not for salvation, but becasue I believe their (and our) God has asked them to.
The Jew was justified BEFORE faith in Christ through the Mosaical Law and what it prescribed for the Jew to do, circumcision being one of them. If justification now comes through faith in Christ Jesus then this means the basis for justification for the Jew by the Mosaical Law is no longer valid. These are two different paths to justification all together. Otherwise, how can a man be justified by faith? This is a point that Paul drives home throughout the first half of the book of Romans and it is also why in the first part of Gal 3:24 Paul calls the Mosaical Law a "tutor" and amplifies this point here:
Galatians 3:25 wrote:But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor.
The implications of my statement above is, I now see, where we have the greater problem. You are arriving from the assumption that the Mosaical Law is in effect and should be followed (if even for just a group of physical Hebrews today). Paul, on the other hand, I find completely refutes this conclusion in Galatians establishing that the Mosaical Law has no authority as the basis to be justified ("we are no longer under a tutor"). If Mosaical Law has no authority to justify then that means there is no requirement by God to follow or practice what it demands. I think you should step back and test your assumption based on Paul's reasoning here. It doesn't fit with Paul's conclusion.
Hugh wrote:These passages refer to us being before God, in Christ, in Judgment, not to our earthly roles. We are to keep in mind our ultimate destination and judgment in dealing with Brothers and Sisters in Christ, because in the end, we ARE all equal in him. But we are not the same now.
I must disagree. For one very simple reason as seen in the language used by Paul in Colossians:
Col 3:10 wrote:and have put on the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him:
I highlighted the critical part, "have put on", because that structure is past tense. Paul says that the action that creates no differentiation between Jew and Greek has already happened for them. The action that creates no differentiation is "have put on the new man" which ties back to how we are justified by faith in Galatians 3 quoted and analyzed earlier. Paul speaks of a present day condition of no difference between Jew and Greek as a result of a past action, not a future condition as you have stated.

Justification has to do with Judgement.

Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:47 pm
by Hugh McBryde
sledford wrote:"The application for being neither Jew or Greek is then within the context of being justified by faith."
Correct, justification has to do with Judgment. How are we justified before God? In this context Paul speaks of there being no Jew or Greek, male nor female, etc. Not in the context of our day to day living.
sledford wrote:"To extend into the areas you eluded to (homosexuality) cannot be drawn from this context in Galatians and thus, I will set them aside because they have no immediate relevance or application."
Actually, you MAY NOT, since this is critical to understanding your misapplication of these scriptures. IF THEY APPLY AS DIRECTIVES FOR DAY TO DAY LIFE then they mean that there ARE NO GENDER ROLES in Christianity. Since Paul CLEARLY says there are, this cannot possibly be a meaning of the passages you quote, thus they have no application as YOU would attempt to use them, not I. You do not take these passages and try to create an egalitarean context for Christians in the "Church Age" or some other such description since to do so invokes the laws of unintended consequence, namely that homosexuality is automaticly OK'd, female "eldership" is also OK'd and Paul clearly says these are not possible for the Christian. Either Paul contradicts himself, or in "harmonizing" his work, we find that he must NOT MEAN that these passages apply to our earthly relationships to one another.
sledford wrote:"The Jew was justified BEFORE faith in Christ through the Mosaical Law and what it prescribed for the Jew to do, circumcision being one of them."
No one but Christ was ever justified through the Law, since only he did it. Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God..." which is reiterated in Romans 5:12. Thus all are said to fail at attempts to justify themselves through the Law. As to sacrifice, that does no good either, since it forshadows only the effective sacrifice of Christ later, but does not in fact absolve, so there is no hope in the Law, nor has there EVER been. In the letter to the Hebrews, Chapter 10, Verse 4: "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Which is an echo of a principle not first preached in the New Testament, but the Old, for the author refers in the next several verses, to Isaiah and Samuel saying that obedience is better than sacrifice, and that he has no delight in the blood of sacrifices.
sledford wrote:"If justification now comes through faith in Christ Jesus then this means the basis for justification for the Jew by the Mosaical Law is no longer valid."
The "Mosaical Law" Sled, is God's law. This claim made by God is regularly interspersed throughout the Law of God as given to Moses, which you try to degrade by saying it's the "Mosaical Law" as if Moses wrote it. This is what you try to do to the casual reader, give the impression that this law is not God's but poor misguided Moses private vision of Godliness, the flawed and infererior "Mosaical" law, a term I never heard until you used it. It's God's Law Sled.
sledford wrote:"I must disagree. For one very simple reason as seen in the language used by Paul in Colossians..."
And I think you have contradicted yourself in the space of one post. For you refer to Justification as the context of these passages.

Hugh

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:34 pm
by sledford
Sorry for the couple of days delay. I wanted to give my reply careful thought to make this as clear as possible.
Hugh McBryde wrote:Correct, justification has to do with Judgment. How are we justified before God? In this context Paul speaks of there being no Jew or Greek, male nor female, etc. Not in the context of our day to day living.
That is not a correct definition of "justified" or the word forms that derive from it. I will lay out a word study of "justified" and also provide several passages to demonstrate that "justified" is a present tense state.
Strong wrote: dikaioō
dik-ah-yo'-o
From G1342; to render (that is, show or regard as) just or innocent: - free, justify (-ier), be righteous.
Thayer wrote: dikaioō
Thayer Definition:
1) to render righteous or such he ought to be
2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be
Part of Speech: verb
"Justified" as defined above is a present tense statement of the state of the individual, NOT a future final judgment of the person and can be seen for example in the parable of the Pharisee and Tax collector here:
Luke 18:14 wrote:Luk 18:14 I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Notice in the above context, Jesus speaks of the man going to his house justified, present tense not future tense, as a result of the humility he showed while praying.

And this is not in isolation either. Here's another context in Romans, a continuation of the quote you made:
Romans 3:23-24 wrote:Rom 3:23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Notice again the tense in Romans is not only present but present perfect, meaning that justification is a continual action that takes place as a result of the grace extended through Jesus.

And this will drive the point home even more but we have this statement in Acts about the present tense state of "justified":
Acts 13:38-39 wrote:Act 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, brethren, that through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins:
Act 13:39 and by him every one that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
In this case justification is connected with the action of belief which is a present tense action. In this case, please note the verb "is" indicating a present tense state as a result of the belief. If this is a future state then the verb should be "would be" or "will be". The tense of the verb does not match your definition and application Hugh.

In the contexts of Galatians or Colossians that are under consideration the present tense state is supported by past tense action "have put on" that resulted in the person being justified by faith in Christ Jesus as quoted from Col 3:10. Friend, you have the wrong definition of "justified".
Hugh wrote:Actually, you MAY NOT, since this is critical to understanding your misapplication of these scriptures. IF THEY APPLY AS DIRECTIVES FOR DAY TO DAY LIFE then they mean that there ARE NO GENDER ROLES in Christianity. Since Paul CLEARLY says there are, this cannot possibly be a meaning of the passages you quote, thus they have no application as YOU would attempt to use them, not I. You do not take these passages and try to create an egalitarean context for Christians in the "Church Age" or some other such description since to do so invokes the laws of unintended consequence, namely that homosexuality is automaticly OK'd, female "eldership" is also OK'd and Paul clearly says these are not possible for the Christian. Either Paul contradicts himself, or in "harmonizing" his work, we find that he must NOT MEAN that these passages apply to our earthly relationships to one another.
You are assuming the thing proven in your logic. You have assumed that if "justified" speaks of present day state then there are no gender roles. But, keep in mind the context as I stressed before. The context is about justification by faith in Christ Jesus. Can a man be more or less justified by faith than a woman? Can a Jew be more or less justified by faith than a Gentile? The entire notion is absurd as none of these personal traits have any bearing on being justified by faith in Christ. That is the primary point of what Paul is saying in each context of Galatians and Colossians as well. The man does not sin by being a man. A woman does not sin in being a woman. A Jew does not sin by being a Jew. And a Gentile does not sin by being a Gentile. These are all traits not actions of the person. And these traits do not make one sinful or not.

Now, if you want to extend into the areas such as gender roles and homosexuality then one must explore and harmonize what these actions do with respect to sin or righteousness and the "justified" state of the individual. But, you cannot disprove the present tense state of "justified" through extra-contextual (outside context) ideas on their own. The ideas you interject are not the primary point of what Paul is saying in Galatians and Colossians. They should be harmonized, yes, but you cannot derive a conclusion on them from these two contexts ALONE, which is what you are proposing. Since gender roles and homosexuality are extra-contextual and outside of the current scope and consideration of this thread, they are a non-sequitor, an unrelated thought to establishing the current, present day authority of the Old Law. Feel free to raise that as a new thread.
Hugh wrote:No one but Christ was ever justified through the Law, since only he did it. Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God..." which is reiterated in Romans 5:12. Thus all are said to fail at attempts to justify themselves through the Law. As to sacrifice, that does no good either, since it forshadows only the effective sacrifice of Christ later, but does not in fact absolve, so there is no hope in the Law, nor has there EVER been. In the letter to the Hebrews, Chapter 10, Verse 4: "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Which is an echo of a principle not first preached in the New Testament, but the Old, for the author refers in the next several verses, to Isaiah and Samuel saying that obedience is better than sacrifice, and that he has no delight in the blood of sacrifices.
That is a true statement that only Jesus was justified by the Law because he obeyed the Law perfectly. But, are you implying that because no one before kept it perfectly that the Law was an invalid basis for the Jew to be justified? This is a very important detail to understand. The ability to execute the Law has no bearing on it's validity as the grounds for justification. The only thing it proves is that everyone except Jesus under the Old Law had a very serious problem. A problem that had an answer delivered by Jesus:
Heb 8:6-9 wrote:Heb 8:6 But now He has gotten a more excellent ministry, also by so much as He is a Mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first was faultless, place would not have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault, He said to them, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will make an end on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah; a new covenant shall be,

Heb 8:9 not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day of My taking hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not regard them, says the Lord.
Which continues to be the primary topic of this thread. The Old Law could not justify a person unless they kept it perfectly. From the above quote in Hebrews 8:7-8, in particular why else would the writer say "For if that first was faultless"? What "fault" did the Old Law have? A second, the Law of Faith in Christ, was needed to provide the justification that man needed.
Hugh wrote:The "Mosaical Law" Sled, is God's law. This claim made by God is regularly interspersed throughout the Law of God as given to Moses, which you try to degrade by saying it's the "Mosaical Law" as if Moses wrote it. This is what you try to do to the casual reader, give the impression that this law is not God's but poor misguided Moses private vision of Godliness, the flawed and infererior "Mosaical" law, a term I never heard until you used it. It's God's Law Sled.
I'm really confused by the humbrage from my use of the phrase "Mosaical Law". Why are you trying to shove words in my mouth that I have not said or even implied? "Mosaical Law" is a phrase used often and frequently in theological circles as reference to the Law as delivered by Moses, shortened as "Mosaical Law". Sometimes it's referred to as the "Old Law", is there offense from that style of reference? None the less, you will need to address the language of the Hebrew writer in Heb 8:8, and through the inspiration of the writer, used the phrase "finding fault" in connection with the Old Law.
Hugh wrote:And I think you have contradicted yourself in the space of one post. For you refer to Justification as the context of these passages.

Hugh
Reference my opening comments regarding the definition of "justified". Once a proper definition for "justified" being a present tense state is applied there is no contradiction.

Having completed my response to your points, I'd like to come back to the primary thrust of this all. Paul very clearly says there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Being "justified" is a present tense state as I have laid out through simple analysis of the language involved. Therefore, if there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in the present tense, then the basis for distinction between them, the Old Law itself which created that distinction, is no longer in effect or in force to be used as the basis of being "justified".

I'm speculating here, but I think you see the implications of the present tense state of the word "justified" and it doesn't align with your conclusions. Please, I pray, consider this objectively and set aside your conclusions long enough to examine and weigh the evidence and logic I have presented.

How could Man's law Justify perfectly?

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:39 pm
by Hugh McBryde
sledford wrote:" 'Justified' as defined above is a present tense statement of the state of the individual, NOT a future final judgment of the person..."
I suppose you should know that I believe all our acts are reconciled through Christ's finished work on the Cross, the final judgement being the declaration of who that applies to. I really don't think tense matters. For you to apply tense in this case as a reason to apply the "jew and greek, male and female" provision still takes us to the same place. You have, via justifcation, erased all roles of all people when it comes to their race, their gender or any other distinguishing feature of their lives. We are all the same in this analysis, but clearly we are not. So let's go with your view of it, I'm comfortable with that angle, and say that we are Justified NOW. I agree. But still for your view of being in Christ to work, you can't stop where you want to stop, you have to logicly extend that justification/equalization to mean that NOTHING we do is linked to our being male or female, jew or greek, slave or free. This ushers in acceptable homosexuality and female eldership. I don't think Paul can be "harmonized" with that view. Thus you can't extend that passage the way you do.
sledford wrote:"You are assuming the thing proven in your logic. You have assumed that if 'justified' speaks of present day state then there are no gender roles. But, keep in mind the context as I stressed before. The context is about justification by faith in Christ Jesus."
No, I say that is the unintended consequence of your statement. I don't buy that.
sledford wrote:"The man does not sin by being a man. A woman does not sin in being a woman. A Jew does not sin by being a Jew. And a Gentile does not sin by being a Gentile. These are all traits not actions of the person. And these traits do not make one sinful or not."
So why does the man sin in wanting to or being a wife, or the woman in wanting to or being and elder.
sledford wrote:"That is a true statement that only Jesus was justified by the Law because he obeyed the Law perfectly. But, are you implying that because no one before kept it perfectly that the Law was an invalid basis for the Jew to be justified?"
In a sort of "trick question" way, yes, you could be justified by the law, theoreticly, but the writings of the time said that no one WOULD. It's kind of like saying that if we could fly to the moon, under our own power, we'd be saved. I suppose you could picture doing that, but you can't do that.
sledford wrote:"The Old Law could not justify a person unless they kept it perfectly."
My point exactly.
sledford wrote:"I'm really confused by the humbrage from my use of the phrase 'Mosaical Law' Why are you trying to shove words in my mouth that I have not said or even implied? 'Mosaical Law' is a phrase used often and frequently in theological circles as reference to the Law as delivered by Moses, shortened as 'Mosaical Law'."
And the way you use it, contradicts what you just said. EVERY time I say it's God's law, you don't acknowledge it and come back with "Mosaical Law". It's GOD'S LAW SLED, or the theoretical KEEPING of it that you refer to for JUSTIFICATION could NEVER have JUSTIFIED ANYONE. So thank you, you say that the law was enough to render you righteous, provided you kept it, so the law WAS PERFECT, wasn't it? SO WHY the continued emphasis that it was "Mosiacal"? I can only find one reason to do so, everyone who keeps EMPHASIZING that Moses had something to do with it in discussions like this are trying to spin the law to gain the advantage of an impression. That advantage is the IMPRESSION that Moses "kinda sorta flubbed it up somehow". Yet if KEEPING it would Justify you, it had to be perfect, and if it was PERFECT, it could only come from God. So yes, the law is "Mosaical", but saying that "Moses gave you this Law" from Jesus standpoint was High Honor, as Christ was the one who Gave that Law to Moses, and Christ is a Prophet in the same form that Moses was. You use it to degrade the Law. Christ used it to ENDORSE the law. Remember, if the "Mosaical Law" was good enough to justify you, IT HAD TO BE PERFECT.
sledford wrote:"Paul very clearly says there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Being 'justified' is a present tense state as I have laid out through simple analysis of the language involved. Therefore, if there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in the present tense, then the basis for distinction between them, the Old Law itself which created that distinction, is no longer in effect or in force to be used as the basis of being 'justified'."
Great, but I don't think Paul's behavior, at the specific request of the Jerusalem counsel, in Acts 21, support that view. I cannot accept that this "Paulical" behavior, or "Counsical" behavior that was slightly off kilter. Paul was doing what he thought was right, what the leaders of the church thought was right, to disprove the sort of notion that you are now advancing.
sledford wrote:"I'm speculating here, but I think you see the implications of the present tense state of the word 'justified' and it doesn't align with your conclusions. Please, I pray, consider this objectively and set aside your conclusions long enough to examine and weigh the evidence and logic I have presented."
I think you place too much empahsis on the tense. We are all, in my view, finally justified, the judgement is effectively over except we have not experienced it. But it is IN THAT CONTEXT that we are presently justified. In Christ, Before God, in Judgement. At the END. The erasure of our gender roles, and other roles, is realized THEN. We are to keep that in mind NOW because we deal with ultimate equals.

Re: How could Man's law Justify perfectly?

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:21 pm
by sledford
Hugh McBryde wrote:I suppose you should know that I believe all our acts are reconciled through Christ's finished work on the Cross, the final judgement being the declaration of who that applies to. I really don't think tense matters.
Thank you for stating that and yes, it does help clarify your point of view. With that said, Your disregard for the Law of Language then will create quite a roadblock to understanding and applying scripture and what God wants us to understand. What you are proposing is to suspend the Laws of Language and relevance of Language to communicating concepts and ideas. Instead you have a conclusion that then must eliminate the rules of Language used to build that conclusion. That is very circular logic.

As long as you assert the Laws of Language don't apply in building your conclusions our exchange will have an unresolvable problem of how to reason together as we hold to very different standards of how to achieve and understand much of anything, let alone Scripture. I will complete my response but I believe we have likely arrived at a loggerhead in our exchange because of this. If Language doesn't mean what it means in how it is expressed then there is no communication. Everything becomes a subjective, relativistic "game" of what something means to the reader only. Where is Truth to be discovered in that kind of process?
Hugh wrote:For you to apply tense in this case as a reason to apply the "jew and greek, male and female" provision still takes us to the same place. You have, via justifcation, erased all roles of all people when it comes to their race, their gender or any other distinguishing feature of their lives. We are all the same in this analysis, but clearly we are not. So let's go with your view of it, I'm comfortable with that angle, and say that we are Justified NOW. I agree. But still for your view of being in Christ to work, you can't stop where you want to stop, you have to logicly extend that justification/equalization to mean that NOTHING we do is linked to our being male or female, jew or greek, slave or free. This ushers in acceptable homosexuality and female eldership. I don't think Paul can be "harmonized" with that view. Thus you can't extend that passage the way you do.
No it does not take us to the same place. Let me be clear with respect to this: A ROLE, whether it is a gender role or a sexual role, is a CHOICE of the individual. However, the TRAIT of the person, whether racial or gender, is NOT A CHOICE and is not used in being justified in faith through Christ (Gal 3:24-25). That is an enormous difference and the two will never be the same. As already quoted from Acts 13 earlier, BELIEF is a CHOICE which results in the person being justified.

A person that engages in homosexuality has made a CHOICE to do so. A woman that usurps authority without rights has made a CHOICE to do so. On the other hand, a person is BORN as male or female, no choice involved by that person. A person is born to racially Jewish parents or racially Gentile parents, no choice is involved by that person. Under the Old Law, the racial Jew had a very different relationship with God than did the racial Gentile and the basis for how they could be justified. This is expressed in what Paul tells the Ephesians about "breaking down the wall of partition" separating them:
Eph 2:11-19 wrote:Eph 2:11 Because of this, remember that you, the nations, were then in the flesh (those having been called Uncircumcision by those having been called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands)
Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers of the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now, in Christ Jesus you who then were afar off, came to be near by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For He is our peace, He making us both one, and breaking down the middle wall of partition,
Eph 2:15 in His flesh causing to cease the enmity, the Law of the commandments in decrees, that He might in Himself create the two into one new man, making peace,
Eph 2:16 and might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, slaying the enmity in Himself.
Eph 2:17 And coming, He proclaimed "peace to you, the ones afar off, and to the ones near." Isa. 57:19
Eph 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Eph 2:19 So, then, you are no longer strangers and tenants, but you are fellow citizens of the saints and of the family of God,
What did Christ abolish Hugh? What does that action of abolishment result in? What does that abolishment of the "wall between" Jew and Gentile do to the very Law that created the wall? I find this text to be very straight forward to read and understand and has direct application to this thread and the immediate thought at hand. I noticed that you completely avoided in your response as well the context I raised from Heb 8 that I will address shortly. But Heb 8 speaks to the same basic conclusion regarding the Old Law.
Hugh wrote:No, I say that is the unintended consequence of your statement. I don't buy that.
Please refer to my response regarding the difference between physical traits and choices. But, I will say given your introduction I think this will not provide much common ground or basis for reasoning together either. I would conclude from your explanation that you believe that man has no choice and that God made all the choices for each and every one of us already. A full specific fore-ordination and pre-destination for every man. Is that a correct conclusion on my part? I don't want to build a "straw man" that may not accurately represent you so I will not pursue any thoughts in relation to this at this time.
Hugh wrote:So why does the man sin in wanting to or being a wife, or the woman in wanting to or being and elder.
Because there is specific instruction to the woman regarding her role, or lack of one I should say, in the assembly. The Elder has leadership responsibilities that are incompatible with a woman fulfilling that role, speaking in the assembly to teach or exhort being one such leadership function:
1 Cor 14:34-35 wrote:1Co 14:34 Let your women be silent in the assemblies, for it is not allowed to them to speak, but to be in subjection, as also the Law says.
1Co 14:35 But if they desire to learn anything, let them question their husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in an assembly.
That is some pretty direct language by Paul. I would be surprised if even you and I have a disagreement over what Paul means here. As I said before, the choices one makes in the roles they do is NOT in context of Galatians 3 and Colossians. Here is a simple question that bears this out: if a man chooses to NOT be an Elder is that person NOT justified or less justified than the person that is an Elder? Again, the notion is absurd and goes right to the heart of what the difference is between a choice of the person and a trait (Jew/Gentile, Man/Woman, Slave/Free) of the person. Therefore, the woman can choose to remain as a non-Elder and so fulfill the instruction by Paul in 1 Cor 14 and be justified just the same.

Now, this context of 1 Cor 14 MUST BE harmonized with your conclusion regarding Galatians and Colossians contexts quoted previously. Hugh, your assertion regarding no gender roles as a consequence of what Paul says in Galatians simply does not harmonize with this very direct statement by Paul in 1 Cor 14. Thus, we have very limited options to move forward:

a) Paul is right and Hugh is wrong
b) Hugh is right and Paul is wrong
c) Paul and Hugh are both wrong

I'm going with Paul being right.
Hugh wrote:In a sort of "trick question" way, yes, you could be justified by the law, theoreticly, but the writings of the time said that no one WOULD. It's kind of like saying that if we could fly to the moon, under our own power, we'd be saved. I suppose you could picture doing that, but you can't do that.
Hugh, that is no trick question I posed. I will nit-pick at your wording but the Scriptures say that no WAS justified by the Old Law because no one kept it perfectly, except Jesus. None the less, the Jew rightfully held the Old Law as sacred and to be followed in completeness and was for their benefit and good in the eyes of God. There is no sense of futility expressed by Jews with the Old Law as your analogy would lead one to conclude. Quite the contrary we have many a Psalm expressing the strong desire to perform the Old Law:
Psalms 1:1-3 wrote:Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, Nor standeth in the way of sinners, Nor sitteth in the seat of scoffers:
Psa 1:2 But his delight is in the law of Jehovah; And on his law doth he meditate day and night.
Psa 1:3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the streams of water, That bringeth forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also doth not wither; And whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
You are not properly representing the Jew under the Law at that time. So, again I will ask the question: are you implying that because no one before kept it perfectly that the Law was an invalid basis for the Jew to be justified?
Hugh wrote:
sledford wrote:"The Old Law could not justify a person unless they kept it perfectly."
My point exactly.
What is your point here? It is not obvious to me at all.
Hugh wrote:And the way you use it, contradicts what you just said. EVERY time I say it's God's law, you don't acknowledge it and come back with "Mosaical Law". It's GOD'S LAW SLED, or the theoretical KEEPING of it that you refer to for JUSTIFICATION could NEVER have JUSTIFIED ANYONE. So thank you, you say that the law was enough to render you righteous, provided you kept it, so the law WAS PERFECT, wasn't it? SO WHY the continued emphasis that it was "Mosiacal"? I can only find one reason to do so, everyone who keeps EMPHASIZING that Moses had something to do with it in discussions like this are trying to spin the law to gain the advantage of an impression. That advantage is the IMPRESSION that Moses "kinda sorta flubbed it up somehow".
First, I have already denied what you have said and you continue to shove words into my mouth I have not said and implications I do not mean. Let me be crystal clear with this: you are impugning me and my motives in a way akin to "character assassination" with unsupported conclusions in direct opposition to what I have said. You have built a "straw man" of me with only one path: agree with Hugh or he continues the character assassination. This is analogous to the age old question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" There is no right answer to your tirade Hugh. Now, I will ask that you desist in misrepresenting me, what I have said, and what I have clearly not implied as you assert above as it is not honest reasoning and will bring no glory to God. I hold the same view of scripture as Paul:
2 Tim 3:16 wrote:2Ti 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
Hugh wrote:Yet if KEEPING it would Justify you, it had to be perfect, and if it was PERFECT, it could only come from God. So yes, the law is "Mosaical", but saying that "Moses gave you this Law" from Jesus standpoint was High Honor, as Christ was the one who Gave that Law to Moses, and Christ is a Prophet in the same form that Moses was. You use it to degrade the Law. Christ used it to ENDORSE the law. Remember, if the "Mosaical Law" was good enough to justify you, IT HAD TO BE PERFECT.
Are you going to reason from yourself or from Scripture on this point? I note that your quotes from my post have completely removed all reference to Hebrews 8, which has a SERIOUS PROBLEM with what you just said. I will quote it again:
Heb 8:6-9 wrote:Heb 8:6 But now He has gotten a more excellent ministry, also by so much as He is a Mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first was faultless, place would not have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault
, He said to them, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will make an end on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah; a new covenant shall be,
Heb 8:9 not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day of My taking hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not regard them, says the Lord.
Why is the Old Law said to have fault if it was perfect as you assert? As the Hebrew writer says, why was there grounds for a new covenant? And the words used to amplify the Covenant established through Christ are: better covenant, better promises. And on the negative to the first, the Old Law, he says "not according to the covenant" (v9) because the fathers did not execute it perfectly.

So again, Hugh, you have your statements held up to the very direct language of Scripture in Hebrews 8 and Ephesians 2 as noted earlier, and your statements and conclusions don't line up at all. Your statement of perfection for the Old Law is not correct according to the Hebrew writer. If, as you assert, the Old Law is perfect, how can Christ bring in a New Covenant that is BETTER with BETTER PROMISES as Hebrews 8 says?

Now, saying the Old Law has a fault or is imperfect does not mean it is flawed or that God "got it wrong" with the Old Law. I don't want to leave the silent reader confused on this point so I will state what I find the Hebrew writer to be telling us. No one but Jesus executed the Old Law perfectly. There was no provision in the Old Law to be justified any other way than to execute it perfectly. Since no one did execute it perfectly then the Old Law had a fault, a deficiency, in rendering those under the Old Law justified. Therefore, for them to be justified required Christ to come, execute the Old Law perfectly, which gave Christ the authority to create a New Covenant with better promises (Heb 8:6) That better promise is justification through faith in Christ (Gal 3:24). This is why Paul calls the Old Law a "tutor" to bring us to the master, Christ:
Galatians 3:24-25 wrote:Gal 3:24 So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor.
The fact that the Old Law was a "tutor" and had a fault with respect to inability to render one justified when not executed perfectly IS NOT A REFLECTION OF A FLAW IN GOD OR HOW IT WAS DELIVERED. It is actually a reflection of God's design and purpose of the Old Law itself, the Israelite nation as a people, Jews as a race in delivering the Messiah, and the blessings we have now in Christ in contrast to the Old Law. This is something I believe is mis-understood about the value and purpose of the Old Law: take the Old Law away and you have no Messiah, no Savior because the Savior, Jesus, came through the Old Law and used the Old Law in fulfilling it and executing it perfectly as the basis of his authority as the writer and giver of the New Covenant (Heb 8).
Hugh wrote:Great, but I don't think Paul's behavior, at the specific request of the Jerusalem counsel, in Acts 21, support that view. I cannot accept that this "Paulical" behavior, or "Counsical" behavior that was slightly off kilter. Paul was doing what he thought was right, what the leaders of the church thought was right, to disprove the sort of notion that you are now advancing.
I think you're referring to this context here:
Acts 21:20-26 wrote:Act 21:20 And they, when they heard it, glorified God; and they said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law:
Act 21:21 and they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs.
Act 21:22 What is it therefore? They will certainly hear that thou art come.
Act 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men that have a vow on them;
Act 21:24 these take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges for them, that they may shave their heads: and all shall know that there is no truth in the things whereof they have been informed concerning thee; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law.
Act 21:25 But as touching the Gentiles that have believed, we wrote, giving judgment that they should keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication.
Act 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them went into the temple, declaring the fulfilment of the days of purification, until the offering was offered for every one of them.
It requires no speculation to understand what is at work here and the reasoning of Paul since Paul reveals his reasoning in 1 Corinthians:
1 Corithians 9:18-23 wrote:1Co 9:18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel without charge, so as not to use to the full my right in the gospel.
1Co 9:19 For though I was free from all men, I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more.
1Co 9:20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

1Co 9:21 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.
1Co 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.
1Co 9:23 And I do all things for the gospel's sake, that I may be a joint partaker thereof.
Paul performs a ritual that he has a choice about having been justified by faith in Christ. Paul can choose to either do this or not WITH NO CHANGE IN HIS JUSTIFICATION. Bear in mind the reasoning in Acts 21 is to avoid an invalid accusation against Paul by the Jews (one that is very similar to what you are accusing me of in using the pphrase "Mosaical Law" I might add!). If one is to carry through on your logic, Hugh, then if Paul did NOT complete this ritual as prescribed by the Old Law, then Paul is sinning which he clearly says is NOT the case in 1 Cor 9 as quoted above. Paul can do or not do what the Old Law prescribes in this regard demonstrating yet again that the Old Law is no longer an authority in establishing one as justified.
Hugh wrote:I think you place too much empahsis on the tense. We are all, in my view, finally justified, the judgement is effectively over except we have not experienced it. But it is IN THAT CONTEXT that we are presently justified. In Christ, Before God, in Judgement. At the END. The erasure of our gender roles, and other roles, is realized THEN. We are to keep that in mind NOW because we deal with ultimate equals.
I find this thought to have been thoroughly addressed in my response at the beginning. There is nothing more added here for me to respond to.

In closing, Hugh, I will ask again that you desist from this character assassination against me in your tirade of my use of the phrase "Mosaical Law". I have explained my self and you are accusing me of being a liar which is not true. Likewise, I find your counter-response and intentionally excerpting the context of Hebrews 8 to be troublesome to me in an endeavor of honest discourse and exchange. Can you not address Heb 8? Do you see how blatantly it and the other contexts I have quoted this time contradict your assertions about the Old Law?

As I said in the introduction, and only you can change this, if you cannot honor the Laws of Language as the basis for honest reasoning and discourse, then I think this is probably my last response to you in this thread. Without structured use and application of Language as revealed in God's Word then we can never come to a common understanding on any topic let alone what the Scripture means in the lives of men. I pray this is not the case but that is now left to you.

How much do you know?

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:54 pm
by Hugh McBryde
sledford wrote:"What you are proposing is to suspend the Laws of Language and relevance of Language to communicating concepts and ideas. Instead you have a conclusion that then must eliminate the rules of Language used to build that conclusion. That is very circular logic."
No, what I propose is more or less "triangulation". Word meanings move about like a waterbug, and sometimes the pond they live in is quite large. You disagree with me on the meaning and application of "neither jew nor greek" and I understand why. But the context to me of "male and female" remains that of Judgement before God in Christ, not this world. We are in fact told to treat each other with respect because this is our ULTIMATE condition, not our CURRENT condition. We could wear this out, but you agree that roles here on earth are different than roles hereafter. Any way you try to slice it you can't carve out egalitarean earthly roles from this passage. Some of the roles relate to choices, some relate to destiny. A slave may be a slave by choice, but a woman is a woman and a greek a greek by destiny. Paul is the Apostle to the uncircumcision, Peter to the Circumcison. The roles are clearly defined and described. You can go at me all day all week and all year on this sled, but we agree, there are roles here on earth that define our behavior over which we have no control. That means the leveling of the playing field you seek through "neither jew nor greek" cannot occur. You can't switch it on and off to suit you. You apply this passage to daily behavior and you've unisexed EVERYTHING.
sledford wrote:"Let me be clear with respect to this: A ROLE, whether it is a gender role or a sexual role, is a CHOICE of the individual. However, the TRAIT of the person, whether racial or gender, is NOT A CHOICE and is not used in being justified in faith through Christ (Gal 3:24-25). That is an enormous difference and the two will never be the same. As already quoted from Acts 13 earlier, BELIEF is a CHOICE which results in the person being justified."
Some roles relate to choices, some to traits. I made that point above.
sledford wrote:"A person is born to racially Jewish parents or racially Gentile parents, no choice is involved by that person. Under the Old Law, the racial Jew had a very different relationship with God than did the racial Gentile and the basis for how they could be justified."
Again, I refer to a slave.
sledford wrote:"What did Christ abolish Hugh?"
Once again, clearly not the law, or do you say all is fulfilled or accomplished?
sledford wrote:"What is your point here? It is not obvious to me at all."
That no mere man would ever keep the law and this has always been known, even from the time the law was given.
sledford wrote:"I have already denied what you have said and you continue to shove words into my mouth I have not said and implications I do not mean."
Oh come off it, you're doing the same thing to me, it's called extending something to it's logical conclusion. The only debate is how accurate either one of us is in their reasoning, playing hurt here doesn't win you too many points. I do contend you get a bit rougher than me and play the martyr more often.
sledford wrote:"Let me be crystal clear with this: you are impugning me and my motives in a way akin to 'character assassination' with unsupported conclusions in direct opposition to what I have said."
See?
sledford wrote:"Are you going to reason from yourself or from Scripture on this point?"
You disagree that this is based in scripture, that Jesus was a prophet of the same type as Moses and vice versa? I was hoping I was conversing with a scripturally literate person, if you want, I'll quote the passages or will you acknowledge that this is a scriptural concept? If you make me quote them, I'm going to assume you are scripturally illiterate, you will call that 'character assassination' and I'll just assume it's true. I won't discuss the veracity of scripture with someone who doesn't know it Sled, so either affirm or deny that I am accurately paraphrasing a concept in scripture, or cease playing to the crowd because I don't cut and paste the actual verse. Either that, or as I said, admit you don't know it, and withdraw from the conversation as you clearly have no place in it.
sledford wrote:"Now, saying the Old Law has a fault or is imperfect does not mean it is flawed or that God 'got it wrong' with the Old Law."
Since that is what you believe, I suggest you spend some more time "harmonizing".
sledford wrote:"Paul can choose to either do this or not WITH NO CHANGE IN HIS JUSTIFICATION."
Neither Paul nor I claim his justification has anything to do with his behavior in the temple. Apparently you agree.

Hugh

Re: How much do you know?

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:57 pm
by sledford
Hugh McBryde wrote:No, what I propose is more or less "triangulation". Word meanings move about like a waterbug, and sometimes the pond they live in is quite large.
Fortunately a historical text has the definitions that the words mean "frozen in time". Your "triangulation" is circular logic in reality as you define words based on your conclusions instead of reaching conclusions based on how words are defined. This seeks to discard the Laws of Language, in this case the tense of the word "justified" as being either present or future. The tense of words is as equally important as the very definition of the word. You have serious harmonization problems that require you to define the present tense of "justified" to be future instead. So, rather than modify your conclusion, you discard the Laws of Language, the laws of tense and structure that is part of all languages known to man past and present.
Hugh wrote:You disagree with me on the meaning and application of "neither jew nor greek" and I understand why. But the context to me of "male and female" remains that of Judgement before God in Christ, not this world. We are in fact told to treat each other with respect because this is our ULTIMATE condition, not our CURRENT condition.
Keep trying to re-cast "justified" to be future tense? As I said in my last response, this is at a loggerhead with no new information provided.
Hugh wrote:We could wear this out, but you agree that roles here on earth are different than roles hereafter.
Eh? What roles in the hereafter? I am aware of Jesus teaching that there is no marriage after the resurrection:
Matt 22:30 wrote:Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
We have Paul's description of taking on a spiritual body:
1 Cor 15:52-53 wrote:1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
What I'm seeing in these passages relates to the resurrected nature of a person, not their role. Again you keep confusing the two concepts.
Hugh wrote:Any way you try to slice it you can't carve out egalitarean earthly roles from this passage. Some of the roles relate to choices, some relate to destiny. A slave may be a slave by choice, but a woman is a woman and a greek a greek by destiny.
To state again, the context of Galatians 3 is NOT about roles and I am making no attempt to "carve out" roles from it. You have been seeking to shove roles into Galatians 3 which are not spoken of at all. Galatians 3 is about being "justified by faith in Christ". So, most slaves are slaves out of no choice at all. Still a slave that puts himself in that state, as a person of that time could do, what bearing does being a slave have on their being "justified by faith in Christ"? Being justified by faith is the immediate context of Galatians 3 and you still have to answer the question although you have consistently ignored it every time. Thus, I'll answer it for you: being a slave has NO BEARING, ZERO on being justified by faith in Jesus. Paul also says that being a racial Jew has no bearing on being justified and neither does being a man. That's what Paul says in Galatians 3.
Hugh wrote:Paul is the Apostle to the uncircumcision, Peter to the Circumcison. The roles are clearly defined and described.
Are you suggesting that the Gospel message of salvation, being justified by faith in Christ, was DIFFERENT for the uncircumcised and the circumcised? Because unless you are then the above is not a parallel to your point. The ironic twist is that since the Gospel message is the same for both circumcised and uncircumcised you have really proven the very thing under consideration: the difference between circumcised and uncircumcised doesn't exist anymore, the Old Law itself.
Hugh wrote:You can go at me all day all week and all year on this sled, but we agree, there are roles here on earth that define our behavior over which we have no control. That means the leveling of the playing field you seek through "neither jew nor greek" cannot occur. You can't switch it on and off to suit you. You apply this passage to daily behavior and you've unisexed EVERYTHING.
No, I'm pretty sure we don't agree. The central context of Galatians 3 is about being "justified by faith in Christ". It doesn't "unisex" a thing as the sex of a person has not relation to their being "justified by faith" just as being a racial Jew has no relation to being justified.
Galatians 3 wrote:Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
You still can't answer the question: can a Jew be more/less justified by faith in Christ as a Gentile?
Hugh wrote:Once again, clearly not the law, or do you say all is fulfilled or accomplished?
And to this you will have to deal with Paul in the context of Galatians 3, Ephesians 2, and the Hebrew writer in Heb 8. But so far you have not addressed or harmonized any of those with your conclusion regarding fulfillment. Recall again, Hebrews 8 says that a New Covenant was enacted on better promises and those are inspired words to describe the two. Rather than ignore scripture that fundamentally disagrees with your conclusion, it would be advisable for you to re-evaluate how you have defined these words and only then reach a conclusion.
Hugh wrote:Oh come off it, you're doing the same thing to me, it's called extending something to it's logical conclusion. The only debate is how accurate either one of us is in their reasoning, playing hurt here doesn't win you too many points. I do contend you get a bit rougher than me and play the martyr more often.
Hugh, that is a nice diversion from the reality of your words. You have extended to a conclusion that I have denied multiple times and yet do it anyway. Whenever that takes place it's nothing more than base, ad-hominem (argue the man) attacks. Ad-hominem arguments are an effort to discredit the person and thereby have people discredit their thoughts. I characterized your actions as impugning my character, a statement which is entirely accurate.
Hugh wrote:You disagree that this is based in scripture, that Jesus was a prophet of the same type as Moses and vice versa? I was hoping I was conversing with a scripturally literate person, if you want, I'll quote the passages or will you acknowledge that this is a scriptural concept? If you make me quote them, I'm going to assume you are scripturally illiterate, you will call that 'character assassination' and I'll just assume it's true. I won't discuss the veracity of scripture with someone who doesn't know it Sled, so either affirm or deny that I am accurately paraphrasing a concept in scripture, or cease playing to the crowd because I don't cut and paste the actual verse. Either that, or as I said, admit you don't know it, and withdraw from the conversation as you clearly have no place in it.
More ad-hominem attacks, Hugh? "Scripturally illiterate" is an argument to discredit me. Yet another question that does not have a right answer. If I ask you to quote them, then I'm illiterate according to you, but if I don't ask then Hugh doesn't have to explain himself. Either way, Hugh tries to get a "free pass" and doesn't have to prove his logic or reasoning. Yet, I have quoted scripture for the reasoning and thoughts I have expressed and will continue to do so. I would have thought someone that proclaims to know scripture would act under the instruction of Paul, yet you do not. Why?
2 Tim 4:2-4 wrote:2Ti 4:2 preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3 For a time will be when they will not endure sound doctrine, but they will heap up teachers to themselves according to their own lusts, tickling the ear.
2Ti 4:4 And they will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to myths.
In conclusion for the silent reader I will highlight the things that have are under consideration regarding this topic of Authority of the Old Law, that Hugh has failed to respond to time and again:

1) Hebrews 8:6-9 and why there is a need for a New Covenant. He is a Mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
2) Ephesians 2:11-19 The breaking down of the wall between Jew and Greek, abolishing the enmity, the Law of the commandments in decrees
3) Galatians 3:24-28 where Paul calls the Old Law a "schoolmaster" and then says "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."