The purpose of Christ’s coming
“If believers are living under grace, why is the Old Testament - the Law in particular - still part of our Bible? The reason is that the life and death of Jesus Christ fulfilled God’s Law.
First, Jesus was personally obedient. The Pharisees accused Christ of disobeying some of their man-made additions to the legal code, but He flawlessly followed Mosaic Law as given by God. This is an important distinction since Jesus cannot be called a holy and blameless sacrifice unless He was totally submissive to the Father.
Second, Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice. The Law clearly stated that death is the penalty for sin. (Genesis 2:17) But One who was perfect in keeping the Law could receive the punishment in place of one who sinned. That is exactly what Jesus Christ did for every believer. And through His death, He fulfilled God’s lawful requirement.
Third, Christ amplified God’s moral law. Through His example and teachings, Jesus explained that the moral law was more than just a set of rules to follow by rote. The Father’s commands are guiding principles for a successful life. For example, the Israelites avoided adulterous acts in order to keep the seventh commandment. But in Matthew 5:28, the Lord said that someone who lusts after another person has already committed adultery in the heart. The life principle here is purity.”
- Charles Stanley, In Touch Ministries
Tags: Theology
December 15th, 2006 at 10:27 am
“The Pharisees accused Christ of disobeying some of their man-made additions to the legal code, but He flawlessly followed Mosaic Law as given by God.”
I don’t believe this to be true, actually. Don’t the laws call for killing disobedient children, “men who lay with men”? Did Jesus ever kill anyone? There’s no record of it. Do you suppose he never came across a disobedient child?
Weren’t adulterer’s to be stoned, according to OT law? Yet, when given the chance to help stone the adulteress, Jesus merely forgave her, instead.
Why is this not a disobeying of the Law, do you suppose?
December 15th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Dan said:>I don’t believe this to be true, (ie - that ‘He flawlessly followed Mosaic Law as given by God’)
Do you believe that Jesus is not a flawless, perfect sacrifice on the cross on our behalf then? If he didn’t follow the Mosaic Law, He Himself would be guilty of sin and be no sacrifice for our sin. If the law was flawed, then God the Father is a sinner. Either way, a God in that belief system is guilty of sin.
Don’t forget - there’s still talk of ‘putting things to death’ in the New Testament.
Colossians 3:5
“Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.”
Jesus focuses our eyes on what normally falls on externals (laws) to where they rightly belong - on our own hearts. Is it possible to obey a law and still be disobedient in your heart? Yes, but once we understand it in our heart, the law will make sense and we’ll see its purpose.
Why don’t we still have laws that you mentioned? That is addressed here…
Ephesians 2:11-13.
“Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands– remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”
December 15th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
“Do you believe that Jesus is not a flawless…”
I believe Jesus is God and as such is flawless. I didn’t say that Jesus wasn’t flawless. I said that he didn’t flawlessly follow the OT laws.
“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.” Deut. 22:22.
According to that law, those who wanted to stone the adulteress were correct and Jesus was breaking the rule by NOT killing her. Clearly, Jesus broke this OT law.
Does that mean I think Jesus is flawed? No, it means that I think that OT law, as we understand it at least, is flawed. What do you do with this clear violation of OT law by Jesus?
December 15th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Dan said: >I believe Jesus is God and as such is flawless.
Who gave us the Old Testament law? God did!
Dan said: >What do you do with this clear violation of OT law by Jesus?
If you continue to struggle with this, it appears you have not accepted it in your heart…
I said:>Jesus focuses our eyes on what normally falls on externals (laws) to where they rightly belong - on our own hearts. Is it possible to obey a law and still be disobedient in your heart? Yes, but once we understand it in our heart, the law will make sense and we’ll see its purpose.
I can’t make you see as it is a spiritual issue - and it appears you don’t have the spiritual eyes to see.
By the way, this blog posting was from a recent Charles Stanley devotional. He is a good Bible teacher. I highly recommend him. Today’s radio sermon was about ‘The riches of God’s grace’ - you can hear it at his site: www.intouch.org
December 16th, 2006 at 11:18 am
I’m sorry, did you answer my question? What do you do with the clear violation of Jesus stopping the stoning of the adulteress?
If you did, I missed your answer.
And you can’t make me see what as a “spiritual issue?” You don’t win many folk over by insulting them, brother (”you don’t have the spiritual eyes to see.”)
I’m well aware of Charles Stanley, used to listen to him and read him some 20 years or so ago. Don’t have much use for his teachings these days. It’s not that I always reject his teachings, but mostly, I find that he’s not saying anything that pertinent to Christian life.
Don’t make the mistake to assume that I haven’t read/don’t read the Bible, read Stanley, Tozer, Ravenhill, Graham, Kennedy, Oswald Chambers, Swindoll, Dobson, Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, etc, etc, etc. I’ve been there, gleaned the good - where they were saying anything good - and left the rest behind.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Dan, Your posts remind me of the people in Jesus time, who were asking questions in an effort to trap Him. What are you really all about? This is an honest question. It is hard to determine.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Dan said…>I’m sorry, did you answer my question? What do you do with the clear violation of Jesus stopping the stoning of the adulteress?
If Jesus clearly violated the OT law, then He is a sinner, no better than us. Therefore the cross has no spiritual meaning. But that’s not true.
Dan said…>And you can’t make me see what as a “spiritual issue?”
I said…>Jesus focuses our eyes on what normally falls on externals (laws) to where they rightly belong - on our own hearts. Is it possible to obey a law and still be disobedient in your heart? Yes, but once we understand it in our heart, the law will make sense and we’ll see its purpose.
Dan, I didn’t insult you. I just stated what I believe to be fact after spending a lot of time with you studying these specific scriptures that you asked about. If you are given patient, careful biblical exposition and your answer is that you don’t understand - then I can’t blame you for not understanding. I just have to conclude that you don’t have the spiritual eyes to see what is being communicated. (Note: spiritual eyes aren’t earned or developed, they come with faith) Search the scriptures for the spiritual reason for Jesus coming and why He had to die on the cross. For if we don’t first come to the cross, all our knowledge of Jesus and the scriptures will be only head knowledge and not from our heart.
A biblical word study - ATONEMENT
A biblical word study - PROPITIATION
December 18th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.” Deut. 22:22.
“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death”. Leviticus 20:10
Are you saying that this law is NOT calling for them to be put to death? Isn’t that what it is straightforwardly saying, “The adulterer…shall be put to death.”?
Are you trying to spiritualize this? Saying that God didn’t really mean that commandment?
It’s not that I’m NOT understanding anything, Roger. You haven’t answered the question. Let me ask it another way: Did Jesus break the command to put to death adulterers when he forgave the woman? If not, then why isn’t what he did a breaking of the law?
December 18th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Dan said…>Did Jesus break the command to put to death adulterers when he forgave the woman? If not, then why isn’t what he did a breaking of the law?
No, and the answer can be found in why Jesus came and why He died on the cross. See my previous comment.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Your previous comment? This one?
Jesus focuses our eyes on what normally falls on externals (laws) to where they rightly belong - on our own hearts. Is it possible to obey a law and still be disobedient in your heart? Yes, but once we understand it in our heart, the law will make sense and we’ll see its purpose.
This?
If Jesus clearly violated the OT law, then He is a sinner, no better than us. Therefore the cross has no spiritual meaning. But that’s not true.
This?
If he didn’t follow the Mosaic Law, He Himself would be guilty of sin and be no sacrifice for our sin. If the law was flawed, then God the Father is a sinner. Either way, a God in that belief system is guilty of sin.
Don’t forget - there’s still talk of ‘putting things to death’ in the New Testament.
These aren’t responses to “Did Jesus break the law?” Roger, I am not seeing an answer anywhere to that question.
What I’m looking for is something along the lines of, “No, Jesus did not break that law in case of the adulterous woman because the Law says… and Jesus did…” Something that addresses the question. I am not seeing anywhere where you’ve answered that. What you’ve done is saying “God wrote the law, if Jesus didn’t follow it, then he’d be flawed and therefore he DID follow the law…” which is sort of talking around but not addressing the specific biblical instance I’ve provided.
How about responding with just the answer, “Jesus did not break the law when he didn’t kill her because…”
I apologize if I’m being obtuse, but I’m not seeing anywhere where you’ve addressed this question.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Dan said…>How about responding with just the answer, “Jesus did not break the law when he didn’t kill her because…”
Ok, He did not break the law when He didn’t kill her because of the reason He came and why He would die on the cross.
To further clarify:
A biblical word study - ATONEMENT
A biblical word study - PROPITIATION
December 18th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
We seem to be at an impasse. Apparently you think this is an answer and I don’t think so at all.
You are not addressing the law. Does the law say to kill adulterers? Yes or No?
Yes, it does.
Did Jesus kill the adulteress or even allow those who were going to do so (according to the Law) to do so?
No, he didn’t.
Saying, “But he is God” is not an answer.
The more logical answer, seems to me, is that the laws in the OT were/are imperfect representations of God’s Will. God doesn’t really want us to go around killing adulterers, I’d hope you’d agree.
The OT is a great witness, an integral part of our story, of God’s story. But clearly we are not to obey those laws verbatim. You don’t believe it nor do I.
Let’s look at the original statement that started all this:
“The Pharisees accused Christ of disobeying some of their man-made additions to the legal code, but He flawlessly followed Mosaic Law as given by God. This is an important distinction since Jesus cannot be called a holy and blameless sacrifice unless He was totally submissive to the Father.”
My response is that Jesus IS totally submissive to God (He IS God), yes. But being submissive to God REQUIRED Jesus (and us) to break the laws as they were understood. THAT is why he broke the law requiring the death of adulterers, because it was a flawed or incomplete understanding of God. That is why Jesus broke the Sabbath Rules, because Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath.
That is why WE rightly break that law, because it is not a valid representation of what God wants us to do.
We aren’t to be flawed or incomplete, but perfect, as God is perfect.
I think our difference is that you are uncomfortable saying that those Laws are not Right, that we ought NOT be obeying that law to the letter, even though you don’t think we ought to either.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Dan said…>We seem to be at an impasse.
I sure hope we’re not at an impasse. Did you read those definitions of ‘atonement’ and ‘propitiation’? Did they make sense? I believe that will shed some light on this.
Dan said…>Apparently you think this is an answer and I don’t think so at all.
You are not addressing the law.
Jesus Christ and the cross most certainly do address the law. It appears that you’re still not understanding why Jesus came and why He had to die on the cross.
It would help if we addressed that so I could hear from you and not misunderstand where you are coming from. So, I ask you….
Why did Jesus come?
Why did He die the Cross?
December 19th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
“Did you read those definitions of ‘atonement’ and ‘propitiation’? Did they make sense? I believe that will shed some light on this.”
Roger, as I’ve pointed out before, I’ve 40+ years of familiarity with mainstream evangelicalism, I’m well aware of the meanings of atonement and propitiation. Do they make sense? If it helps you wrap your mind about why Jesus came here, that’s okay with me.
Why did Jesus come?
Well, He said:
For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. ~John 6:38
For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. ~John 3:17
For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. ~Mat 18:11
I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. ~John 12:46
You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice. ~John 18:37
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. ~John 10:10
There are also places in the Bible that talk more closely like you’re talking:
1 John 4:10, for instance, says: “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”
I’m not saying that there isn’t some language in the Bible that supports the notion of a blood sacrifice - clearly there is. I’m saying that’s not the only way of looking at it, biblically speaking.
Jesus himself tells us he came to give life, to bring good news to the poor, sick, imprisoned, to testify to the truth, to fulfill the law, etc. I can’t think of places offhand where Jesus talks about the reason for his coming in terms of a blood sacrifice (I could be wrong, of course).
[There IS this passage: “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28) to back the dominant paradigm.]
Still, when I think about why Jesus came, I tend to think of the whole realm of reasons He gave - not discounting what might be said elsewhere, but taking them in context of Jesus’ own testimony.
He was crucified, as I said before, because of his message of Good News. His message was a radical one. Ours should be, as well.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
He was crucified, as I said before, because of his message of Good News. His message was a radical one. Ours should be, as well.>
He was crucified to fulfill God’s plan of salvation for a sinful man (and woman). If you will remember He prayed in the garden that if it was possible to take this cup from Me, nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will. Matthew 26:39
I believe it also says in another place that He could have called angels to rescue Him, but He was submissive to the Father’s will.
Why would we want to take away from His purpose to save mankind and then make it sound as though we blame those who crucified Him. We are as guilty as they were because of our sins.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Dan said…>Roger, as I’ve pointed out before, I’ve 40+ years of familiarity with mainstream evangelicalism, I’m well aware of the meanings of atonement and propitiation.
Ok, then do you believe in the atonement of the cross?
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Dan said…>He was crucified, as I said before, because of his message of Good News. His message was a radical one. Ours should be, as well.
But that’s not what Jesus said…
John 10:17-18
“For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”
There are other verses:
John 10:15
John 15:13
1 John 3:16
For more info on the connection between the Law and Christ, see:
Romans 6,
chapter 7,
chapter 8
December 19th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. I John 3:16
Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. John 15:13
just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. John 10:15
“For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”
John 10:17-18
You quoted these verses. I agree wholeheartedly with each of these passages. Jesus DID/DOES love us. We ought to stand ready to lay down our lives for the ones we love. No one forced Jesus to die, he did of his own accord.
I’m reluctant to say, “Yes, I believe in the atonement as you describe it,” because people have made that to mean a lot of stuff and because it’s rather extrabiblical. I prefer to stick with Jesus’ actual words, at least in this case.
I recognize there are verses in the Bible that describes Jesus’ death in a sacrificial way. There are other passages that don’t play up the sacrifice angle, but rather the redemption angle, or the triumph over death angle, or the following in Jesus’ steps angle.
With these terms being so loaded, I prefer to stick with what Jesus actually stated.
Sue said:
“Why would we want to take away from His purpose to save mankind and then make it sound as though we blame those who crucified Him.”
I’m not sure where you get that I’m blaming those who crucified him.
And my question remains unanswered. I’ve explained why I’m reluctant to embrace your terminology. Why is it that you’re reluctant to give a straight answer to my question about Jesus breaking the law (which was where your post and my comment began…)?
December 19th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Sue asked:
“Your posts remind me of the people in Jesus time, who were asking questions in an
effort to trap Him. What are you really all about? This is an honest question. It
is hard to determine.”
I’m all about following Jesus, sticking to what the Bible actually says rather than our traditions religions have built around them. This post began with one of those traditions that, to me, are extrabiblical in nature. It offers the suggestion that Jesus never disobeyed the rules found in the OT.
I responded by saying that clearly he did - he ate in the field, breaking their sabbath rules, he refused to kill the adulteress, breaking the rules found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, he healed on the sabbath, which appeared to be a violation of some rule (although I’m not sure offhand whether or not it is a rule found in the OT).
The reason I point out this error is because there are some who cling to the notion that the rules in the OT are lasting and applicable today and my point would be that this is not the case. Some - maybe most - rules found in the OT are quite valid and lasting, but not all. There are some that are just plain ungodly, in accordance with the whole of biblical teaching.
Whether that is because these rules were for some reason valid at some point but are no longer or they were wrongly ascribed to God I’d say is a matter of debate, but clearly, we are not to go around killing “sinners” as commanded in the OT.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
He was crucified, as I said before, because of his message of Good News. His message was a radical one. Ours should be, as well.>
That is YOUR conclusion. His death and everything surrounding it had been prophesied. Guess who was in control? God!
It is where you said it was because of his message, that makes me question if you are trying to place blame.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Sue said:
“It is where you said it was because of his message, that makes me question if you are trying to place blame.”
Okay, I reckon I see why you were thinking I was casting blame. But it was not my intent. My point is that Jesus’ message of good news for the poor, release of captives, his calls for the Year of Jubilee, his denunciation of those with wealth and power who misuse them - ALL of this is threatening to those with the power and the money. Talk of a new kingdom is threatening to the Old Kingdom.
Such talk inevitably sets up a confrontation between the status quo seekers and those who would embrace a new kingdom. This is what led to Jesus’ death, this is what led to MLK’s death, to Oscar Romero’s death, to the death and oppression of many around the world.
This is why WE feel uncomfortable with talk such as “Sell your belongings and give to the poor and come follow me.” It’s why we feel uneasy about talk about “Woe to you who are rich! Woe to you religious snakes!” It can be pretty intimidating and threatening if we have a lot invested in our wealth, positions of privilege or false religions.
Wouldn’t you agree?
December 19th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
My point is that Jesus’ message of good news for the poor, release of captives, his calls for the Year of Jubilee, his denunciation of those with wealth and power who misuse them - ALL of this is threatening to those with the power and the money. Talk of a new kingdom is threatening to the Old Kingdom.
Such talk inevitably sets up a confrontation between the status quo seekers and those who would embrace a new kingdom. This is what led to Jesus’ death, this is what led to MLK’s death, to Oscar Romero’s death, to the death and oppression of many around the world.>
Dan, these issues mentioned above are all issues of the heart. If man’s heart is right with God through faith in Jesus, these would be non-issues. Since the fall of Adam and Eve, man’s heart is inherently evil and all the finger pointing by anyone will not solve these problems. To try to analyze this and expect governmental solutions is useless, no matter which party.
As to the statement about what led to Jesus ‘ death, this is just a trouble making analysis also because in Matthew 26:18 Jesus said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him. “The Teacher says, ” “My time is at hand;
Jesus knew why he came to earth and he knew the time. This indicates that God was in control and as I said earlier, you and I are as guilty as the ones who brought about the crucifixion. We are all sinners and God sent His Son to redeem us.
To debate this in a political way is wrong. As Christians, we look at this through the eyes of the Spirit.
December 20th, 2006 at 8:52 am
Sue said:
“Dan, these issues mentioned above are all issues of the heart.”
That may well be. But they are also issues of policy and the head. If we ought not be concerned about them and only with “saving the lost” (as if there were a distinction), then why did the prophets wail against oppression?
I said nothing about “debating this in a political way,” but these are issues of policy as well as issues of the heart. The prophets urged Israel to repent of their failure to care for the poor and to re-institute the policies that were there to tend to the needs of the poor and marginalized.
Right?
And, as Christians, why wouldn’t we be there to do the same?
But all of this may be straying from the subject matter, so Roger, use your judgement on this…
December 20th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
This is why WE feel uncomfortable with talk such as “Sell your belongings and give to the poor and come follow me.” It’s why we feel uneasy about talk about “Woe to you who are rich! Woe to you religious snakes!” It can be pretty intimidating and threatening if we have a lot invested in our wealth, positions of privilege or false religions.>
Dan, A survey out said that conservatives and Christians or church goers were more charitable than liberals. I don’t think we should demand or expect anyone else to do what we might not be willing to do ourselves. When you sell everything you own and are willing to divide it with those less fortunate, then let me know and I might get on your band wagon. Jesus expects us to examine our own hearts before we examine someone else’s and that is why it does not set well when you talk about what you expect to be done. It was also concluded in the survey that the rich were the best givers. Another thing I would like to hear you talk about is what should be done about those involved in very lucrative things like gambling, pornography, and the movie industry. Those are ills that need to be dealt with in our country. It is well known that lottery tickets are bought with welfare money. Is that right to do that?
I think you can see by now that I think the problems of this world are too big to be dealt with by the government and yet that is what is expected. Only Christ can change hearts and cause people to do what is right and that is why the gospel is so important. The gospel is the good news that Jesus came to seek and to save those that are lost and the Holy Spirit is then the teacher to guide them into truth and the right way to live.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
We’d be straying further off-topic to deal with those issues. I’ll pass unless brother Roger wants us to carry on…
I am curious, you said: “A survey out said that conservatives and Christians or church goers were more charitable than liberals.”
What does that have to do with what we’re talking about? No one has brought up liberals/conservatives.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Dan said…>I recognize there are verses in the Bible that describes Jesus’ death in a sacrificial way. There are other passages that don’t play up the sacrifice angle, but rather the redemption angle, or the triumph over death angle, or the following in Jesus’ steps angle.
With these terms being so loaded, I prefer to stick with what Jesus actually stated.
I don’t understand. So, you say you recognize that the Bible talks about the cross as an atonement but prefer something else?
Dan said…>I prefer to stick with what Jesus actually stated.
How is that faith in God’s word?
Dan said…>With these terms being so loaded
They’re not loaded with double-meaning, but with the reality of our sin problem!
Dan said…>And my question remains unanswered. I’ve explained why I’m reluctant to embrace your terminology.
And behind that terminology are the principles of salvation! Salvation is not defined by you and me - salvation is of God. Here’s some scripture where Jesus (”what Jesus actually stated”) defines the terms:
Matt 5:3 - ’sin’
Matt 4:17 - ‘repent’
Matt 4:10 - ‘Lord’
John 13:13 - ‘Lord’
Luke 13:3 - ‘repent’
John 8:7 - ’sin’
John 8:24 - ‘repent’
John 10:9 - ’saved’
John 3:7 - ‘born again’
Dan said…>Why is it that you’re reluctant to give a straight answer to my question about Jesus breaking the law (which was where your post and my comment began…)?
I have (see Romans 6,7,8 if you’re not sure about the tie between the law and Christ). It apparently isn’t the one you’re looking for, though. Do you realize what that means? You will never find the answer you’re looking for because it’s not out there - it’s not the truth. And to make things worse, if you don’t realize that, you’ll be putting your faith in a lie. Don’t put your faith in a lie. Put your faith in the truth of God’s word. Your faith is only as good as the object that it’s placed in. You may say, “Sure, I have faith” - but if it’s in a lie, it’s worthless and has no power to save you. At that time you’ll feel cheated and look around for someone to plead your case. But the enemy’s deception will have done it’s job - resulting in you choosing error instead of truth and it will be too late to change your mind. The answer will be that God gave you His word and you preferred another Gospel (That the OT law as we have it in scripture is not of God, that the cross was not spiritual in nature, “Don’t have much use for … “, “It’s not that I always reject his teachings, but mostly”, “I’ve been there, gleaned the good - where they were saying anything good - and left the rest behind”, etc) Do you see the problem? You’re in essence saying “My will, not Thy will be done…” - and that is not following Jesus - for Jesus was above all obedient to His Father (John 15:10).
Dan said earlier…>I think our difference is that you are uncomfortable saying that those Laws are not Right,
Right - for one to do so would mean that they don’t have faith in God’s word and they’d be ignoring the scriptures (such as Romans 6,7,8) that address that very issue. I believe the heart of this debate is faith in God’s word - that the OT law is just as it appears to be in scripture.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
I’ll email you some scripture references on the OT law so you can study it more and see how it relates to Jesus and the NT.
December 21st, 2006 at 1:49 am
Roger, do you have any idea how much damage you’re doing to God’s Kingdom? I have stuck around to talk to you because I’m a believer concerned about the church. If I weren’t a Christian, you’d have just driven me further from God’s fold.
No, you haven’t done so by being obedient and quoting verses. You’ve done it by being unsufferably pompous and patronizing. I’m thinking you don’t realize it, that you think you’re merely being “faithful” - I’ve been there myself and have often been accused of being quite a bit pompous myself.
Doesn’t make it right.
Peace and blessing to you, along with a little humility and God’s grace.
December 21st, 2006 at 9:53 am
Dan, I think you and I and the whole race, still have a way to go. I think it would be good if you would go to a Bible preaching, believing church and seek to understand the Word. It appears that you still have a lot of doubts and instead of seeking, you seem to be on a mission to bring everyone on to your way of thinking and if you were right……that would be good. Ever think about the zeal that the JW’s, Mormons have? The master of this world seems to have a good crowd and he knows his time is limited so he works really hard. Just because you can’t convince us all to go your way, could YOU stick to humility and allow us to be treated the way you want to be treated? It works both ways.
You have a good day!
December 21st, 2006 at 10:15 am
Dan said…>Roger, do you have any idea how much damage you’re doing to God’s Kingdom?
By quoting the writer of Hebrews saying that it’s impossible to please God without faith? By pointing out that if we pick and choose scriptures, we are preferring another Gospel other than the one true Gospel? By pointing out that if you dismiss the OT law as you have, that it can be because of a lack of faith that it is really as stated in the Bible?
I’m sorry Dan. I don’t see how you can say that me wanting others to see the error of their beliefs is ‘pompous and patronizing’ - that is unless you are 100% sure that you are without error before the debate begins and that is outside of possibility for all of us. Isn’t that humility too? I’m not above error. I’d want my friends to point out my error and guide me back to the truth of scripture. I hope you do too. After all, we’re debating scripture here so we shouldn’t have personal interpretations of scripture. This isn’t my gospel. I’m not the one who’ll feel as though I was personally rejected by those that turn away and prefer other things. I didn’t die on a cross so people might be saved and know Truth. Read those notes that I sent you via email. Read and study those chapters in Romans. None of us are beyond learning more truths from God’s word.
December 21st, 2006 at 10:39 am
Sue said:
“I think it would be good if you would go to a Bible preaching, believing church and seek to understand the Word.”
This is the sort of hubris and pomposity that I’m talking about that is pushing people away from Jesus. I DO go to a Bible-preaching, believing church. I DO seek to understand the Word and to implement it in my life by God’s Grace.
For you to suggest I start attending one shows that you don’t know me very well and some presumption on your part. This is the sort of stuff that is a stumbling block to those who might otherwise come to Jesus.
I don’t point it out to embarass you (or Roger), because I have been and often am as guilty of this sort of approach myself. I do it to help you understand that in the real world, people don’t talk like this to people they hope to have a relationship with and to understand.
Instead, people say things like, “Do you go to a church that believes in the Bible?” or, “I find that this passage says to me …. What do you hear it saying?” All this presumption that someone doesn’t read the Bible or go to church or believe in God just because they believe slightly different than you is just irritating.
“I’d want my friends to point out my error and guide me back to the truth of scripture.”
Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves.
-2 Philippians 2:3
You younger men, follow the leadership of those who are older. And all of you serve each other with humble spirits, for God gives special blessings to those who are humble, but sets Himself against those who are proud. If you will humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, in His good time He will lift you up.
-I Peter 5:5-6
December 21st, 2006 at 10:42 am
Dan,
Did you read those chapters in Romans? Did you read the reference notes I sent you via email?
Like I said earlier, none of us are beyond learning more truths from God’s word.
December 21st, 2006 at 10:52 am
Dan, I read a lot of sites. I have read your posts as they have described the beliefs of your church. I would not attend it for one meeting after reading what you say. Rev. tells us that the churches are going to be judged. It matters what churches teach.
December 21st, 2006 at 10:55 am
Okay Roger, I usually look at your references but I didn’t in the case of the Law info you sent me mainly because the photo of the pages was difficult to read. But to demonstrate how I think a more fitting, polite conversation about the Bible would take place:
I notice in the first page of the Law info you sent me, the writer says that “rather than setting aside the moral the law, the NT reiterates its commands, develops more fully the germinal truths contained in it, and focuses attention on the spirit of the law as over against merely the letter.” The writer goes on to say, “Christians are free from the condemnation of the law… So it is that the Christian is under obligation to keep the moral law…”
Is this what you think? That all the laws found within the OT are not set aside, but are right and, while we’re not under condemnation of the law, we are obliged to keep the moral law?
If that is the case, why do you not think that we are to kill adulterers or disrespectful children? Why do you think that it’s okay to wear polyester, to set aside the rules to provide for the poor by requiring folk to leave a bit of their excess behind for the poor to glean?
In short, I don’t think you really believe that we are to obey each law in the OT, so do you agree with this writer or what do you think he means by we are obliged to keep the moral law?
=====
In writing all of this, I haven’t made any assumptions about what you think about the Bible or God, just asked for clarification of your view. I haven’t said that you’re spiritually blind or that you need to attend a bible believing church and start studying the Word. I’ve just asked for your opinion so that I might know a bit more about you (and in so asking, given you a bit of info about me, as well).
December 21st, 2006 at 11:09 am
Dan said…>I notice in the first page of the Law info you sent me, the writer says that “rather than setting aside the moral the law, the NT reiterates its commands, develops more fully the germinal truths contained in it, and focuses attention on the spirit of the law as over against merely the letter.” The writer goes on to say, “Christians are free from the condemnation of the law… So it is that the Christian is under obligation to keep the moral law…”
Don’t stop at the first few paragraphs. Read and study the whole thing. Your questions are answered in the fullness of the article. Also, don’t forget to read those chapters in Romans…
December 21st, 2006 at 11:11 am
Dan, I don’t know who’s telling you that we can’t know the truth and that we shouldn’t be concerned with error when we see it. Paul is guilty then too in these verses (from the Message translation)…
2 Corinthians 11
1-3 Will you put up with a little foolish aside from me? Please, just for a moment. The thing that has me so upset is that I care about you so much—this is the passion of God burning inside me! I promised your hand in marriage to Christ, presented you as a pure virgin to her husband. And now I’m afraid that exactly as the Snake seduced Eve with his smooth patter, you are being lured away from the simple purity of your love for Christ.
4-6 It seems that if someone shows up preaching quite another Jesus than we preached—different spirit, different message—you put up with him quite nicely. But if you put up with these big-shot “apostles,” why can’t you put up with simple me? I’m as good as they are. It’s true that I don’t have their voice, haven’t mastered that smooth eloquence that impresses you so much. But when I do open my mouth, I at least know what I’m talking about. We haven’t kept anything back. We let you in on everything.
So, is it hubris and pomposity? Nope. Just a passion of God burning inside of him that others may know the truth and not be deceived!
December 21st, 2006 at 11:11 am
Sue said, “I would not attend it for one meeting after reading what you say.”
Yeah, I wouldn’t expect you would. But that doesn’t change the fact that I DO attend a Bible-believing, Bible-preaching church that has a pursuit of God as our heart. For you to say that I ought to attend one, when you’re saying that you KNOW that I attend a church is very discounting of my faith.
It’s not a matter that we don’t believe the Bible or preach it. I’m a sunday school teacher. We talk about the Bible in every service. We believe it. We preach it. We study it. We believe it to be God’s Word to us.
It’s one thing to say what you said in ignorance and hubris, but to know that I attend a Bible-believing, preaching church and then to say that, is that not bearing false witness?
Disagreeing with you about parts of the Bible doesn’t mean that we don’t believe the Bible, right? I mean, I wouldn’t say that you need to start attend a Bible-believing church (assuming you go to church, which I don’t know, but am guessing), just because I think perhaps your church is getting it wrong on some issues. Why wouldn’t I say that? Because you already attend a Bible-believing church. It’s just that we disagree.
December 21st, 2006 at 11:21 am
sigh…
Roger said:
“Don’t stop at the first few paragraphs. Read and study the whole thing. Your questions are answered in the fullness of the article. Also, don’t forget to read those chapters in Romans…”
Read the whole thing. Read Romans. My question remains unanswered. I may well have missed it. Enlighten me. Tell me what YOU think.
I don’t think you really believe that we are to obey each law in the OT, so do you agree with this writer or what do you think he means by we are obliged to keep the moral law?
December 21st, 2006 at 11:36 am
Dan said…>I don’t think you really believe that we are to obey each law in the OT, so do you agree with this writer or what do you think he means by we are obliged to keep the moral law?
And the answer is that Jesus kept the moral law that we couldn’t ever possibly do - that’s why He came and died on the cross - to be the sacrifice for our sins. That doesn’t mean that because we can’t keep the moral law perfectly that we look back at the OT law and say it must surely be incorrectly recorded in scripture as stated. All that is addressed in those chapters in Romans. So, yes, I agree with the writer - that Jesus fulfilled the moral law on our behalf - perfectly! I’ll send you some notes on those passages in Romans later to help you understand it better.
December 21st, 2006 at 1:02 pm
“So, yes, I agree with the writer - that Jesus fulfilled the moral law on our behalf - perfectly!”
Again, forgive my lack of understanding, I was asking about what the writer said “So it is that the Christian is under obligation to keep the moral law…”
I’m still unclear on your answer: Are Christians obliged to kill disrespectful children? To obey the spirit of the Jubilee Code? To not wear polyester? To not charge interest?
December 21st, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Dan, it’s obvious at this point that you’re not following what I’m saying. I bring up the truth of Jesus fulfilling the moral law on our behalf and you follow it up with a question built upon on the premise that He didn’t. Hang on, I’ll get you some study materials via email to help clarify it for you.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:06 pm
What would clarify what your position for me would be for you to say, “yes, we as Christians are obliged to kill adulterers because….” and fill in the answer. OR, conversely, “No, we as Christians are NOT obliged to kill adulterers because…” and fill in the answer.
Or maybe even, “Well, sometimes we should kill adulterers and sometimes we shouldn’t because…”
Something along those lines, that’s all I’m looking for.
The writer of the essay seems to be saying we should kill adulterers, because he says, “the Christian is under obligation to keep the moral law…” unless he’s not including all of the OT under the moral law. If we’re under obligation to keep some part of the OT law, which part is it? How is he/are you defining “moral law”? In the context of the article, “moral law” appears to be a reference to all of the OT law, but I don’t think anyone is advocating following all of the moral law - but then I’ve rarely gotten a straight answer to this question.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Dan said…>The writer of the essay seems to be saying we should kill adulterers
But he isn’t, is he? Neither are the great numbers of believers who affirm that doctrine.
Hang on, more info is coming…
December 21st, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Dan,
I’ve noticed that you seem to be equating the ‘following of the moral law’ with the OT penalties for not following the moral law. One minute you bring up the OT penalty for not following it and then you say because we don’t punish disobedience in that manner today, we can’t be expected to follow it. Why don’t we punish them that way today? It goes back to the cross. Because of OUR sin, Jesus WAS PUNISHED in that manner. And His punishment on the cross was a once for all (for whoever believes) sacrifice on our behalf.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Oh, maybe herein lies our problem. Are you saying that when the OT says, “Adultery is wrong. Those caught in it should be killed,” that only the FIRST half of that is to be taken literally and is the Moral Law, but the second half is only the punishment for violating the Moral Law and not part of the law itself and therefore need not be taken literally?
December 21st, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Roger, you are right to challenge Dan on his equivocation of the morality of the Law and the punitive aspects of the Law. One thing that Dan just doesn’t seem to get is that Israel lived in a theocracy and thus they were commanded to rule themselves under such a structure. Membership in the community was tied to ritual purity and thus there had to be a punitive nature to the Law. When Christ came they were already beginning to not live in the same type of theocratic structure, and even more importantly they were about to live under a government that would not recognize their sovereignty whatsoever. The membership in the community would be completely voluntary and not related to ritual purity. Thus, when Dan equivocates the moral nature of the Law with the Punitive nature of it, he requires the context to be the same. This is a huge hermeneutical mistake - one that scholars are quick not to make, but guys like Dan press and press, even when they have been shown to be wrong and misguided in their thinking. Dan doesn’t want to be wrong (and I can understand that), but more than that, if Dan is wrong, then his whole world falls. He must admit that his friends who engage in homosexual activity must repent and he must view the God of the OT as being the same God as that of the NT. He cannot simply dichotomize God. This would be a huge blow to his worldview and thus he must defend the fort like the Alamo.
One of the biggest problems with Dan’s view is that he must relieve himself of the traditional idea of the Church that the same God who gave the Israelites the Law is also the same God who is Jesus Christ. If God is One and not divided against Himself, then Jesus Christ in one sense fulfilled the Law and in another sense called us to a greater, more difficult Law. The God of the OT said, “Do not commit adultery”, but Jesus Christ said, “anyone who looks upon a woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart”. You see the command is intensified, not recalled and not ignored. The same is true in every case when Jesus says, “You’ve heard it said.” Jesus does not ignore the Law, but rather intensifies it and makes it even more restrictive.
Even when Jesus encounters a Law where He could revoke the punitive aspect of the Law as He clarifies the Law itself, He does not do so. We see this in Matthew 15:3-14. In this text Jesus refers to the command with the punitive aspect included. Not only does Jesus not revoke the punitive aspect, He seems to CONFIRM it. Nothing He says suggests this text is to be ignored. And He calls this whole statement, “the Word of God”. Amazing! But now Dan suggests that we can ignore the Word of God simply because we do not live in the same context as the people of Israel. That is not how hermeneutics works however. Hermeneutics is the process by which we take the eternal kernal of truth in the Law and apply it to our context. The context of contemporary Christianity is not one whereby we must live in a community of ritual purity. NO, we live in Churches where the punishment for breaking the Law of God is the process of Church discipline instituted by Jesus in Matthew 18 and expanded upon by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5.
But Dan cannot get past his misunderstanding of the cultural shift and the role of hermeneutics in Biblical interpretation and application of the OT to our lives. This misunderstanding allows Dan to reject whole portions of Scripture in favor of his favorite passages, like John 8. The problem with John 8 being one of his favorites is that it is a sporatic text - a text that was inserted into the manuscript after it was written and certainly not by the author. In fact, with just a little research Dan would find that John 8 actually was found in earlier manuscripts in two different places in Luke (each with a slightly different wording and storyline). He would also find that almost every serious NT scholar believes that this passage is not unique to John and in fact interrupts the flow of John 7 to John 9, thus confirming its insertion as a foreign text. What does all this mean to serious Biblical scholars? That the text was certainly inserted possibly a hundred or so years after the event into the text of both Luke and John. As one of my professors once noted, it is a passage looking for a home. When scholars see a text like this (actually about as reliable as Mark 16) they pass on basing any theological doctrines on this one text, very much unlike what Dan has done here.
So Dan has made three mistakes in his view of the Scriptures.
1) He has ignored the historical context - in this case the theocracy of the monorgistic Israelites vs. the democracy of the pluralistic Americans.
2) He has ignored the role of the Law in Israel vs. the role of the Law in the Church - in this case the standard of ritual purity in the community of Israel vs. the role as teacher and conscience in the lives of individual Christians
3) He has forced a reading upon a text (that is first of all a sporatic text - agreed to be such by both liberal and conservative Christian scholars) based on both of these mistakes.
Now the first thing Dan is going to do when he reads this is claim that I am trying to flex my scholastic muscles and he may make some statement like, ” Perhaps it is your great genius that allows you to see what points you’re making and my own stupidity that doesn’t allow me to answer well enough to satisfy you. For that, I apologize for my ignorance and lack of erudition.” Then Dan will say that he has answered all challenges to his position as well as possible (though in the case of Matthew 15, he never answered the central questions regarding Jesus treatment of the text, but rather gave quite an illogical reading of the text based on, again, an insertion of his own view into the text). Then when challenged on his sarcasm, he will claim that “My acknowledging of your superior intellect was sincere. I have been unable to explain myself to you and that is no doubt due to my own shortcomings.” This only amounts to a false humility and a way to continue to dodge difficult questions, even though it is he who continues to go out looking for an argument, as he did on my website, on your website, on my friend Brent’s website, on Big Daddy’s Weave’s website, and who knows who else’s websites. If Dan really thought that he was unable to explain himself, why would he continue to try to convince everyone that he was right and 2000 years of Church history were wrong? If Dan is so confident in his view, why has the Church been so absolutely opposed to his way of thinking for so long? Why does he stand in opposition to Polycarp, Tertullian, John Chrysostem, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, A’ Kempis, William of Occam, Tyndale, Knox, Martin Luther, John Calvin, the early anabaptists (a tradition he claims to be apart of), Menno Simon, Richard Baxter, John Owen, Johnathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, Charles Wesley, James Boyce, John Broadus, A.T. Robertson, Deitrich Bonhoeffer, Billy Graham, C.F.H. Henry, J.I. Packer, F.F. Bruce, Donald Bloesch, John Piper, John MacArthur, Roger Olsen, Jerry Bridges, and Bruce Ware. I guess I could go on with name after name that have witnessed throughout Church history that your interpretation of the Law, of God’s view of Sin, of His view of Man, and especially your view of homosexuality in the eyes of God is wrong.
So Dan either you must stop your incessant argument and rampant travelling on the blogosphere to push your view of Scripture or you must admit that you see yourself as at least the intellectual and scholastic equivalent of (if not necessarily the superior of) these aforementioned men. Your tradition is based on (at the most) the last 50 years of Church History and has been a most fringe group of Christianity during that entire period, showing almost no growth and impacting the world very little for Christ (do we find your churches in Africa? NO! In Latin America? NO! In Asia? NO! In closed Muslim countries? NO! In China? NO!). And why has it not impacted the world for Christ like the historical church we see in the U.S. and in Africa and in Latin America, and in Asia, and in closed Muslim countries, and especially among the fastest growing population of Christians in the world in China? WHY DAN? Because it lacks the power of the Gospel. It is alas a false Gospel that you teach, a false gospel you spread. And a false gospel may feel good, it may look good, it might sound good, but a false Gospel will never have the power of the true Gospel - the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Look around you Dan - who is coming to Christ? Is it not those who throw off the sin of the world and hold to the literal truth of the Scriptures? Who is spreading the Gospel to China, to the Muslim world? It is time for you to quit talking Dan and start looking at the signs. If you disagree with all of those men who have been the hands and feet of Christ for 2000 years, isn’t that a bad sign for you? How can you not see it?
I pray that you would ask Christ to open your eyes and see Him clearly. At least quit looking for a fight everytime one of us posts something you disagree with and at least look at what your own tradition - the Baptists and the Anabaptists have said. Dan, this will be my last communication with you. I have tried. You will not listen. I will not spend any more time trying to point you to truth. May God have mercy on your soul and lead you to repentance (Romans 2:1-10).
December 21st, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Dan,
I think I know what you’re asking. Social legislation is not so much an issue of whether it’s ‘literal’ - you wouldn’t say that a speeding ticket is symbolic. It is what it is. Also, speeding ticket fines have gone up over the years. But since the fine years ago is not the same as it is today, do we not view it as the same law? Also, speeding tickets in another countries are the same in principle no matter what punishments are legislated.
Without a punishment for a sin, would we realize it was a sin and obey? Human nature says we wouldn’t. So, say we’ve been introduced to the punishment for a sin (the OT law), then someone steps in to take the punishment for us even though we are guilty of sin (Jesus on the cross). There wasn’t a dismissal of the sin - for that wouldn’t be fair to the one who created the law (God is holy, and can’t tolerate sin) - and there was a punishment as demanded by the law (Jesus willingly took the death penalty in our place). Our life was spared, even though we deserved death (that is grace). Jesus offers eternal life to those who believe in Him and accept what He did on their behalf. If they don’t (which they have a choice not to), they will face the penalty on their own (and since they are a sinner, they will be guilty of breaking the law) and have to pay the penalty for sin in full.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:19 am
Dan,
Does this make sense?
January 30th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Were it not for the fact that this is YOUR blog, I’d've thought this was mine. I don’t say this lightly, but I seriously doubt Dan’s salvation. There is something evil in his philosophy; something distasteful and shivering… like biting on tinfoil.
I’ve stopped commenting at his place, and I’ve severely restricted his privileges at mine. There’s nothing more I can learn from him, and if my intent is to reach an occasional passerby, I can’t have him cluttering up the comments with tripe.
Apologies for coming across as harsh, but I am reminded of Romans 1:22…..
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”
What follows is applicable as well.
He’s seems the kind of man who would believe Judas Iscariot and Satan himself could find forgiveness through Christ if his pastor said it was so…….
January 31st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Brother Eric, if you find something evil in my salvation, please point it out. Point out the passages in the Bible where I’m not following Jesus’ teaching. I will point out that this is not anything you’ve done, yet. You’ve pointed out that I disagree with your take on the Bible, but you’ve not pointed to Jesus’ words and said, “See, Dan? You’re teaching something against Christ.”
If you’re not able to address my so-called evil, then be careful of how you speak of the family of God and the movement of God’s Spirit. There are some who call that blasphemy.
Peace,
Dan
January 31st, 2007 at 1:31 pm
“He’s seems the kind of man who would believe Judas Iscariot and Satan himself could find forgiveness”
Are you suggesting that there are some people that God can’t forgive? Would you put God in a box and tell God who is and isn’t saved? Who can and can’t be forgiven?
February 1st, 2007 at 2:13 am
Dan said: “I believe Jesus is God and as such is flawless.”
Eric says in response: “No… You do not.”
If Jesus had sinned against the Law by even the slightest jot or tittle, the grave would have held him fast. Your Jesus is still in the grave.
Let’s break it down as simply as possible– though it won’t matter in the end, because you won’t accept the conclusion:
1. God is flawless
2. ‘Jesus is God and as such is [also] flawless’
3. God gave Moses the Law– proceeding from the very mind and lips of God
4. The Law is perfect in that God, through the law, perfectly ‘describes’ Godly righteousness– the state wherein men are to dwell from the moment of conception to the moment of death to NOT need a savior. As the Law CAME from God, it necessarily reflects His nature, and is therefore perfect. Men are not.
5. Jesus, as God in mortal flesh, lived a sinless life, fulfilling the requirements of the Law
6. Jesus rose from the dead three days after His crucifixion, by mandate of God the Father
7. Had Jesus broken the Law by the slightest jot or tittle, the grave would have held him fast– God would not have raised Him.
8. Jesus therefore did NOT break the Law by extending mercy to the woman caught in adultery
Conclusion: It’s not the Law that is imperfect, but rather, your understanding of the Law. If anything, you are an idolitor… you have shaped and created a god that reflects your own standards of belief. It is YOUR belief that is extra-biblical
And yes, I am more than “suggesting” there are people God cannot save. God Himself has stated that Satan will be cast into the Lake of Fire… that is NOT a picture of forgiveness.
Jesus said of his disciples in prayer, “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition [Judas Iscariot]; that the scripture might be fulfilled.” –John 17:12
Holding God at His word– which includes Jesus –is not putting God in a box, which is little more than a tired liberal argument/dart, and easily countered/deflected. You routinely accuse your detractors of setting up strawmen, yet you hide behind your own.
I honestly don’t know why I’m bothering with this response since you’ll only seek out a perceived flaw or two and use them to defend your own indefensible position. I couldn’t care less how many books you’ve read, how many times a day you fall to your knees in prayer, or how many degrees you have from and number of prestigious seminaries… you are still wrong in this. The Law is NOT flawed, only your understanding of it. If that seems more than a little unkind to you, then I apologize for not being as tactful as I could be… but not for pointing out your distortions. Benny Hinn, despite the praise of TBN and other evangelical groups, is still a false prophet.
Only God knows for certain whether or not you are saved, but I’ve read enough of your opinions to see your’s is a distorted faith, and not centered on the God of the Bible, but on a god of your own making. And that, friend, is a violation of the 2nd Commandment.
Apologies, Roger, for being unkind here. If Dan is content to wander about, seeking whom he might devour, then I must be content in seeking to blunt his attacks wherever and whenever I can.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:18 am
TYPO:
“…or how many degrees you have from ANY number of prestigious seminaries… “
February 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
“The Law is NOT flawed, only your understanding of it.”
Have I argued that the Law is flawed? Or have I argued that it is not to be taken literally by us today?
Help me out here, what exactly are you accusing me of? All you referenced was me saying that Jesus is flawless and you telling me that, “No, that’s not what you think.”
!!
Again, brother, it is not in Christ to accuse a brother of something he hasn’t said (ie, bear false witness). If you have a problem, please let me know and don’t, instead, yell at me because of what YOU think I mean by my words - despite what I’ve said.
You’re just not that omniscient, friend.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Dan,
Do you understand the difference between the New Covenant and the Old Covenant? We need to flesh out that potential misunderstanding apparently. It’s possible to read the scriptures and miss the spiritual nature of the gospel but it’s impossible to be saved without it. So, do you believe we are living under the old or the new?
February 1st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
New.
I’m saying that we can learn a great deal from the OT including the OT laws, but we are under a new covenant. I’m further saying that some seem to want to cling to the Old Covenant or selectively choose some Old Covenant rules that apply or partially apply and then say that they “believe” the whole Bible and that we don’t believe the whole Bible.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Dan said:>I’m saying that we can learn a great deal from the OT including the OT laws, but we are under a new covenant.
Please clarify what you mean by ‘new covenant’ … thanks!
February 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
In Hebrews 8, the author says that the new covenant is a better covenant based upon better promises:
“But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”
And the author of Hebrews goes on to repeat what God said to Jeremiah:
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people”
In short, the Old Covenant was about obeying the laws (and rules and regulations, etc, etc) to show yourself worthy of God and these laws were many and impossible to accomplish. Clearly, we can’t do the impossible.
So Jesus offers the New Covenant, in which the rules are written in our hearts and we accept the gift of heaven, not based upon our works but upon God’s grace made possible by Jesus’ life. The Old Covenant says, “Obey these millions of rules and you’re good to go.” The New Covenant says, “Accept my gift and you’re good to go. Come follow me.”
How’s that grab you?
February 1st, 2007 at 4:13 pm
3rd comment down, Dan said: “Does that mean I think Jesus is flawed? No, it means that I think that OT law, as we understand it at least, is flawed. What do you do with this clear violation of OT law by Jesus?”
Eric’s response: Do? We do nothing since Jesus did not clearly violate the Law. If we do ANYTHING we look for deeper, clearer understanding of the Law and it’s purpose, both in the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, God, in essense, is telling His people that the Law is the rule book for righteous living. “Want to be perfect in my sight? Obey the Law.” –Not to put words in His mouth.
Dan said: “The more logical answer, seems to me, is that the laws in the OT were/are imperfect representations of God’s Will… he [sic] broke the law requiring the death of adulterers, because it was a flawed or incomplete understanding of God.”
Eric’s response: The Law is neither incomplete, nor flawed. God does not change. What was true in the Old Testament in terms of sin and the Law still holds true. Jesus, further, did NOT break the law. God cannot break His own Law because God cannot sin, and therefore it is impossible for Him to transgress in the slightest, the Law He Himself penned. Besides which, to call the Law an imperfect representation is to accuse God of “typos” since it was His finger that inscribed them into the stone tablets given to Moses.
The Law, in EITHER dispensation, is THE standard of righteousness, but there isn’t much of a difference in terms of the Law’s purpose, between Old and New Testament. In the Old it was the standard by which God would bless or chastise His people. It was the code by which His people would be set apart from all other nations. And it was the solution for Adam’s sin, and the hope of his and mankind’s redemption. The same is STILL true of this present dispensation of Grace.
In the New Testament the Law is still a ’school-master’. It is still the standard by which He will judge not just His people but the entire world. The purpose of the Law in this New and swiftly declining dispensation, is to judge and convict men of sin. Without knowledge of the Law there can be no conviction of sin, and therefore no forgiveness… No hope of Heaven. Men will not seek God, or ask for forgiveness, if they do not believe they need His grace. Which is why I highly recommend the teaching tools of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron from The Way of the Master, and Living Waters Ministries. It is through the Law that we have knowledge of sin, and it is through the Law that the Holy Spirit convicts all– either in this life, or at the Great White Throne Judgment –of sin. No one, and I mean absolutely NO ONE can come to the Father and ask forgiveness unless the Holy Spirit draws that person to God.
Jesus DID convict the woman caught in adultery. He told her to go and SIN no more– calling the behavior that brought her to the verge of a just stoning for what it was… Sin. Jesus further told the people that divorce, despite its inclusion in the body of Laws within the Pentateuch, was not God’s perfect will, but rather, unless divorce is the result of fornication or adultery, it is prohibited, and only if one’s heart is so hardened toward a spouse that to remain married would create deeper resentment and greater sin should it EVER be allowed.
Jesus didn’t pick up a rock and slam it into that woman’s head because he saw the intent within the hearts of the hypocrites who threw her down before Him. Instead, being a RIGHTEOUS judge, He judged THEM!
Romans 9:14-18 says…
“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.”
Jesus, therefore, had mercy upon whom He chose, and did not transgress the Law in doing so.
Dan, you’re swallowing camels and straining at gnats here. You’re either confused and not near as knowledgeable as you think or would ahve us believe, or you’re deliberately creating strife and forcing others to engage in useless debate; in effect, deliberately creating strife within the body of Christ… Hardly the mark of a genuine Child of God.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:20 pm
For anyone interested:
Way of the Master
Living Waters Ministries
Seek and save the lost the way Jesus did….
February 1st, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Dan,
It appears as if you’re saying that our understanding of the law is flawed (and therefore certain moral aspects of the law are no longer binding) because we’re not currently living under the temporary aspects (rituals and ceremonies) of the the Law? Scripture states (Col. 2:16-17) that the rituals and ceremonies were a shadow of Christ who was to come, and now that He has come, the precursors are no longer necessary (or appealing) in the light of Christ. That’s what’s confusing to me (and I assume ELAshley as well). Why would anyone who understands the Spiritual truth of the gospel want to argue for the letter of the law (’Why don’t we punish “…” that way today’ or ‘Why are we allowed to wear …’ or ‘Why are we allowed to eat…’ - which are questions you consistently ask, are they not) ? An understanding of the Spiritual truth of the gospel makes that argument contradictory!
July 21st, 2007 at 8:03 am
I realize this thread is probably closed, but I wanted to add a comment regarding Jesus’ alleged breaking of the law with the adulteress.
1) That story isn’t in the earliest manuscripts. It may be true, but it may have been added later.
2) The law required TWO witnesses for her to be found guilty and stoned. And the witnesses had all left.
Some people really work overtime trying to disprove the Word of God. They always fail in the end, though.