Is there a New Testament "Law"?
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:52 am
If the apostles were given "more instructions" that they were to impart to future believers, then why wasn't it written into a single writing and delivered to all the churches the same? If the various letters are to be taken as delivering instructions then why do we have to track through various letters to discover this? Jesus freed us from the Law ... I think we must be careful not to create a new "Law" ... "teaching as doctrine the precepts of men".
I think we (myself included) miss it sometimes in thinking that the NT is a series of books that contain Law (Other than what Jesus spoke). I think Jesus made it very simple: Be patient, love one another as Christ loves us, be merciful, be longsuffering, be forgiving, serve others, be baptized, etc. I think the absence of any instruction by Christ to establish a formal church function or congregational order - and that the Apostles didn't either - says volumes. The Lord certainly did so in the Old Law, and Christ had many times available to do so. I don't know much about church history, but I do think that Paul warned various groups to be careful not to go back to something that Christ had freed them from. Paul warned of those who would "pervert" and change and say smooth words that seemed like something, but wasn't. There are volumes to say ... Sorry if I ramble.
Furthermore, why are the qualifications for elders & deacons different in the letters to Timothy & Titus? If the letters are "Law", then there is a contradiction - either there were two sets of rules...for different audiences, or if they were to be combined, then why would it have been delivered in this manner. I point this out as an example of the things that men claim as "law", but there are inconsistencies or variances, and I don't believe God would deliver a set of rules without being "exact", as he was with the Old Law. To say that the New Testament is a set of laws means that, while it wasn't written down in a single writing, believers had to wait several hundred years before a fairly concise group of letters were gathered together, and then, it took a gathering of men to make a decision as to which ones were "law" and which were not "law". Based on history, it took another couple of hundred years before it was widely accepted. It was also presented and accumulated by a church that had fallen into error (Catholic name, priests, indulgences, and many other practices). I continue to hope that my words are taken in the way meant...a point of view and not criticism.
I think we (myself included) miss it sometimes in thinking that the NT is a series of books that contain Law (Other than what Jesus spoke). I think Jesus made it very simple: Be patient, love one another as Christ loves us, be merciful, be longsuffering, be forgiving, serve others, be baptized, etc. I think the absence of any instruction by Christ to establish a formal church function or congregational order - and that the Apostles didn't either - says volumes. The Lord certainly did so in the Old Law, and Christ had many times available to do so. I don't know much about church history, but I do think that Paul warned various groups to be careful not to go back to something that Christ had freed them from. Paul warned of those who would "pervert" and change and say smooth words that seemed like something, but wasn't. There are volumes to say ... Sorry if I ramble.
Furthermore, why are the qualifications for elders & deacons different in the letters to Timothy & Titus? If the letters are "Law", then there is a contradiction - either there were two sets of rules...for different audiences, or if they were to be combined, then why would it have been delivered in this manner. I point this out as an example of the things that men claim as "law", but there are inconsistencies or variances, and I don't believe God would deliver a set of rules without being "exact", as he was with the Old Law. To say that the New Testament is a set of laws means that, while it wasn't written down in a single writing, believers had to wait several hundred years before a fairly concise group of letters were gathered together, and then, it took a gathering of men to make a decision as to which ones were "law" and which were not "law". Based on history, it took another couple of hundred years before it was widely accepted. It was also presented and accumulated by a church that had fallen into error (Catholic name, priests, indulgences, and many other practices). I continue to hope that my words are taken in the way meant...a point of view and not criticism.