You, Me, and Moses
February 18th, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
The NT Christian’s Relationship to the OT Law
Introduction
In my article on home schooling last Wednesday, I noted that the Mosaic Law is not immediately binding on New Testament believers. This sparked a number of questions from our readers about the relationship of Christians to the Old Testament Law. In this series (which will span the next two weeks) we will attempt to deal with that issue.
There is significant disagreement within broader Christianity on this issue. Some, such as the theonomists and adventists, have argued that Christians should try to keep at least parts of the Mosaic Law. Others contend that only the Ten Commandments (usually with exception to the fourth) are for believers today. Some subdivide the Law into civil, ceremonial, and moral divisions. Still others insist that nothing in the Mosaic Law is for Christians. David Dorsey articulates the debate like this:
One of the most controversial theological issues among Christian scholars, and one that has troubled the Church throughout its history, is the question of the applicability of the OT law to the NT Christian. To state the problem simply: Which of the 613 laws given by God at Sinai are binding upon Christians in our time? The confusion in the Church today regarding this question could be aptly described by the words of John Wesley on the problem: “Perhaps there are few subjects within the whole compass of religion so little understood as this.” (David A. Dorsey, “The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise,” JETS 34/3 [Sept. 1991]: 321)
In our study of the issue we will propose a solution to this controversy.
We will begin by developing two main propositions about the New Testament understanding of the Law based on the relevant biblical data. At first glance, these propositions will seem contradictory, which is why (in our opinion) there has been so much confusion and debate among Christian scholars about this issue. Yet, it is our contention that these two propositions are perfectly reconcilable, and that, when properly harmonized, they lead to a proper Christian understanding of (and, hence, practical response to) the Old Testament Law.
(To Be Continued Tomorrow)
Looking forward to this :]
Much more important than disputing over which aspect of the law governs, if what a professed Christian does with the laws and rules he says he believes in. Like the health laws!
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/01/adventists-get-new-light.html
“Which of the 613 laws given by God at Sinai are binding upon Christians in our time?”
~ I believe this is framing the question wrongly. God gave Moses the “Ten Words” (commandments). And from these fundamental ten laws was the rest of the OT law derived. In other words they were outworkings and applications from the ten laws given at Sinai. God’s law is a reflection of the very character and nature of Himself. It shows us all that He views and holy, just and good (Rom. 7:12). So while the application of God’s Law varies, as from the OT to the NT, the essence of it never does. It still contains all of our duty to God and our duty to our fellow man; Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.
I completely agree with David. While in the dispensation of grace, we are not required to keep the law for salvation, it does reveal God’s character.
If my husband had written a book on all that he desired in a potential wife, do I pitch all that out because we are now married and I no longer have to worry about securing him? Or do I, in love, consider the things he found valuable and implement them in my life…not because I HAVE to, but because I love him and I want to please him?
Nathan, I believe one of the biggest mistakes English speaking people make in trying to sort through all this is that “law” is confused with “covenant” as if the two terms are interchangable. The Mosaic law is NOT the same as the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant CONTAINED the law, but the OC being done away with doesn’t necessarily mean that the law was done away with. One big point that causes this confusion are the artificailly manufactured and extra biblical terms, “Old Testamant” and “New Testament.” I prefer “Hebrew Scriptures” and “Greek Scriptures.” The Hebrew Scriptures are NOT equivalent to the Old Covenant (or Testament), but rather a small section of them contains the covenant.
We must remember that ALL Scripture is profitable for training in righteousness - at least in some way. I haven’t given my view on this issue (I’ve had at least four different views so far during my Christian life) and am interested in yours. One thing though, it isn’t a slam dunk topic that is easily solved.
Hey Nate,
This is HOT. Keep it up.
Hi Nathan,
One of my students pointed me to your blog. This is an interesting an important discussion. A few thoughts:
1) It would be useful to frame the debate in terms of the broader historic Christian tradition. In the Western Church it was the commonplace that the 613 Mitzvoth contain three distinct kinds of law, civil, ceremonial, and moral. Thomas Aquinas articulated the mainstream medieval view and it was the view of all the Protestant Reformers. The latter group argued, and all the Protestant Churches agreed (which anyone may confirm by reading the 16th and 17th-century Protestant confessions) that the civil (political) and ceremonial (cultic) laws were fulfilled by Christ such that they no longer bind the Christian beyond the “general equity thereof” as the Westminster Confession says. The moral law was said to belong to a distinct category, however, because it was understood to transcend the Mosaic theocracy. To be sure, it has always been recognized by the historic Protestant traditions that all the laws under Moses were civil, ceremonial, and moral in some sense. At the same time, it has been recognized that there is a distinct body of fundamental law, the moral law, which is not rooted in Moses and therefore does not expire with the Mosaic economy. That fundamental law is grounded in creation, not Moses and as creation is perpetual, so the Moral law is perpetual.
The Moral law came to expression under Moses, in the Decalogue (Exod 20 and Deut 5) in terms of the Israelite, typological economy, thus there is language about “the land” and the Saturday Sabbath, that belongs peculiarly to Moses. But the essence of the two tables of the Moral law is recapitulated by our Lord in Matt 22:37-40 (which is really just quotation from Deut): You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart etc and your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
As to the fourth commandment, the historic Reformed view has always been that the 4th commandment (the Sabbath commandment) is a moral law grounded in creation. It has always been recognized that the Jewish Sabbath was temporary and typological, but also that the Sabbat principle is grounded in creation AND redemption (hence Exod 20 and Deut 5). If it is grounded in creation it isn’t a distinctly Mosaic commandment and therefore the Sabbath principle (one day in 7 for rest and worship) continues. All the Reformed churches confess (e.g. Heidelberg Catechism Q 103) that our Lord claimed the first day of the week for himself and for rest and worship by virtue of his resurrection. It’s true that, in modern times, Sabbath observance has lagged but the confession of the Reformed churches (e.g. the Westminster Confession and Catechisms) has not changed on these points.
Finally, it’s helpful to distinguish between the ways that historic, confessional Protestantism (Reformed and Lutheran) has spoken about the ways the law can be used. There is a civil use of the (second table) of the decalogue to restrain evil. There is a pedagogical use of the law to teach us the greatness of our sin and misery and to drive us to Christ and there is the moral use of the law to norm the Christian life. This is the universal teaching of all the Reformed Churches, in all our confessions. In our view, anyone who says that the moral law no longer binds the Christian is antinomian. In the same breath we want to say that absolutely no sinner is ever justified before God on the basis of his law keeping in anyway.
Only Jesus, the Second Adam, who was not a sinner, kept the law perfectly for all his people and his law keeping is credited to those who believe. This righteousness is the basis for our justification and, out of gratitude, in union with the risen Christ, by the grace of the Spirit, we seek to keep the moral law. As we sin, we confess our sins and ask forgiveness by grace alone, through faith alone.
Finally, as you seem to suggest, theonomy (the abiding validity of the civil law in exhaustive detail) is a novelty and alien to confessional Reformed theology. It’s an unfortunate development borne of more zeal than knowledge. The Reformed churches confess the civil use of the law (which confession has been modified in the modern period) so that the civil kingdom (as distinct from the Spiritual kingdom or the church) should adhere to the moral or natural law, but we don’t expect nor do we wish the civil magistrate to interfere with the church or to do the work of the church in anyway, including the punishment of heretics. In the modern period virtually all the Reformed churches have repudiated the vestiges of Christendom so that we no longer hold to the civil enforcement of the first table of the law. That said, even though out tradition was theocratic (civil enforcement of the first table) we were never theonomic (civil enforcement of the Mosaic penalties). Calvin and Bullinger repudiated that notion as Anabaptist.
Sorry for going on so long.
Blessings,
R. Scott Clark
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology
Westminster Seminary California
Excited about all of this! I tried to do a study on different viewpoints, especially on the Sabbath, and most of the greatest Theologians seem to differ in some way on the beliefs. From Augustine, to Calvin to Edwards, to Macarthur, all seem to have a different take on the application of those laws today! Very confusing I believe for most folks.
Random question: would this be affected mostly by your standing as a dispensationalist/covenantist/or new convenantist?
I read Jonathan Edwards’ daily resolutions, he has some stating how he wouldn’t even joke on the Lord’s day, and no sports of course…
This will be a great series, hopefully it points to other sources for more study as well!
What I have found frustrating about the traditional Reformed view of the law is that it is non-covenantal. So when we are told to ask, “How does the law function in a covenant of works versus a covenant of grace?”, the very asking of the question assumes that the law hovers above and outside of redemptive history.
Sure, there is a thing called “The Moral Law” which is an expression of God’s essential character, but I thought we Reformed people weren’t supposed to concern ourselves with the Deus absconditus, and focus rather on the Deus revelatus?
And where has God “revealed” himself but in the covenants he has made?
Steve,
Can you support your claims from Scripture? It seems to me that when the NT writers speak of the “Law” that the Mosaic Covenant was in view. Hence, Paul saying that we are no longer under the Law.
I am afraid that the responses on the blog, as well as on your Deut. 6 blog entry, reveal the sad state of hermeneutics in the USA. I would assume that many would be offended if I explained that 2 Chronicles 7:14 (My people, who are called by My name humble themselves and pray … forgive their sin and heal their land) has absolutely nothing to do with America.
The more that people argue for keeping the fulfillment for “some of the Law”, the more it demonstrates a Biblical ignorance. Romans 7:1-6 would really help people immensely in their understanding, if they would study that passage.
Good luck Nathan in covering this subject (no I don’t believe in luck
)!
I think far to quickly people dismiss the Old Testament. Recently I was having a discussion regarding loving your neighbor as yourself and several people, who I respect, adamantly rejected my suggestion of looking at the principles laid forth in Leviticus 19. If you can’t turn to scripture to fence in people understanding as to what scripture means where do you turn?
Dan said, “Steve, can you support your claims from Scripture?”
Yes. The Old Covenant wasn’t given until Exodus 19. Genesis 1 through Exodus 18 aren’t part of the covenant. Then, many times in what we call the NT, the apostles use the law in application to us. Just one of many is Ephesians 6:2 where Paul quotes the fifth commandment, “Honor your father and mother”, etc. So the law isn’t equivalent to the covenant because it is being applied to people in the New Covenant.
Jesus says it quite clearly, and Paul expounds ( nowhere better than the book of Romans) upon what Jesus says. Quoted with little variation in three of the four gospels is the passage that there are two laws upon which all others rest, Love your God totally and Love your neighbor as your self. Implicit in that statement is the need to Love oneself. Paul gives us the keys to do that in Romans.
That seems pretty clear and all other discussion is just splitting hairs. The Jewish people prior to Jesus were under the Law and the Prophets. When Jesus came he brought a new way of interaction with God. Not only are we free from the Law we are free from Doctrine. Jesus is the way and only way. Churches are for support and growth - though education, but not new and different teaching. Doctrine imposes a rigidity that Jesus never intended. The only Doctine that is needed is the Word, which began with God and is God. We are forgiven in Christ, period. If we go astray we do not lose forgiveness, but we are not free from the consequences of our wayward actions. If we allow Jesus to Rule in our lives he guides our lives.
Church is vital, but only to the degree in which it supports Love and acceptance among Christ Followers and reaches out to the dispossed to bring Jesus to them. A church that is not humble is warned against repeatedly By Paul and others.
In Love,
Roy
Roy,
“We are free from doctrine” explicitly contradicts Scripture. A church which does not preach and teach clear and sound doctrine is not part of the church Jesus Christ is building. There is no doubt of the meaning of these instructions to the church and its leaders: Ephesians 4:14, 1 Timothy 1:3, 4:1, 4:6, 6:1, 6:3, 2 Timothy 4:3, Titus 1:9, 2:1, 2:7, 2:10.
“Implicit . . . is the need to love oneself” is the opposite of what those passages say. The fact is that we all love ourselves, and we’re commanded to expend our energy on loving others as fervently as we take care of ourselves.
Sound doctrine is not “splitting hairs,” it is getting to know the fulness of the full counsel of God as revealed in His word.
To further illuninate Ephesians 4:14, I include 11-15. (emphasis mine)
“(11)It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, (12) to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up (13) until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
(14) Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. (15) Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.”
Everything depends upon how you define Doctrine. Here are a few that I found via google. They seem pretty complete to me.
“Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) means “a code of beliefs”, “a body of teachings” or “instructions”, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine
The teachings of scripture (fundamentals, practices of ) [1 Tim.4:13-16 2 Tim.3:16]
http://www.calvarysbd.com/terms.htm
1) A body of teaching found in both scripture and the tradition of the Church. This material is formulated into a statement of beliefs which are recited in the various creeds.
http://www.easterncathedrals.org.uk/glossary/retrieve.php
A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group.
http://www.jabcreations.com/philosophy/philosophy-definitions.php
That which is held to be true by any person, sect, or school; especially, in religion, a tenet, or body of tenets
http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/diction.htm
The formal teachings of the church.
http://www.camdenrcia.org/glossary.htm”
The Bible is the only doctrine I accept. My faith in Jesus is complete enough to accept that I do not need man to provide additional explanations and interpretations of the Word.
The irony is that the Church - the one that is the Body and Bride of Christ - is tossed back and forth by the waves today. So it seems pretty clear that we do not have Unity of Faith. Just in this blog we have the divergence of faith that yeild discord - though passive - among Christ-Followers.
Does it really matter that one group teaches that once you say to Jesus that you yeild to him and then later in a short period of time go about your life with spiritually destructive behavior that you are still “saved”. Is it not most important that the person say to Jesus that he yeilds. The rest is all conjecture. God has sight into our hearts that man does not have.
There is an arrogance in humans, and in religion specically that we know the mind of God. No man on earth knows my inner most feeling, hurts, and needs. Only God know that. Only Christ can direct me through the dangerous currents of life.
Jesus tells us if your right hand offends, cut it off. He does not say cut off your right hand, nor does he say to judge if your brother needs to cut off his right hand. Faith in Jesus is just that, a one on one relationship. God understands that man needs other people and the Earthly Church - not the same thing as the Bride of Christ - provides support for education in how to know Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit, and how to let them work through us.
God gave us all we need in Jesus, yet for centuries we “christ-followers” slaughtered each other. In this country we killed “witches”. We fight wars in the name of God, all because we have elevated our interpretations if God’s will into “Cannon Law”, not God’s Law. Jesus tells us very clearly that there are but two commandments upon which all other law hangs: Love your God totally, and Love your fellowman as yourself.
Now this discussion is an arrogance upon my part. Reasonable men can disagree, but I have wrestled long and hard upon this and for me, God is Love and he is my sole master. I will listen and think upon others beleifs becasue for them in their relationship with God that may be what they need, and it may be of help to me as well.
God takes us unto Him where we are, so he must have different lesson plans for us all as we are all in different places when we yeild our lives to him. We must also assume that if we are to change or be perfected, over time our understanding of God changes. If that is true, then it seems to me that a fixed written statement of faith holds one as a picture frozen in time.
I was raised in the church and by the time I was in my early twenties knew the bible pretty well. Yet today as I have lived 40 more years I understand that I have so much more to understand. What has remained steadfast is the Love of God and my faith in the Power of His Love. Theological trends and fads are of man and come and go, but God’s Love we may always know.
Peace,
In Love,
Roy
this has always been an intriguing and puzzling topic for me at times. i find it hard to imagine that God’s people of the O.T. lived a grueling, strenuous life by keeping all the laws. although the ultimate Promise of the coming Messiah and His completed work has not yet come they still had to have hope and faith just as we do today. They looked forward to that which Abraham saw from afar. I have known people in our day and age of grace, even in my own family, that have lived that difficult life of “working” hard to gain entrance into heaven. I guess my point is that God laws/commandments are not neccesarily greivious. hope this makes sense.
Ya’ll are attempting to support unsupportable opinions. How many times did Christ say “As it is written?” OT- NT- what are the principles of faith and practice that God has set forth throughout His Word?
Based on Scripture, there is no mandate for a ’system’, and especially not a gov’t controlled system. If there is any ‘contemporary convention’, it is definitely the current public education system.
I would say that home education is mandated by Scripture, but not in the sense that most people assume is meant by that. Home education is parent determined and directed education, not necessarily the parent doing all the actual teaching, which is a common misunderstanding.
I can pick and choose who teaches my kids and what they teach and what resources are used. This is the most Biblical method of education- if one is going to be honest about what the Bible teaches with regards to our parental responsibilities.
For instance, I have signed my kids up for piano and guitar lessons. I have interviewed the teachers and decided on the curriculum and method. The lessons will take place in my home, and if at any time I am not satisfied, I can change teachers, or go with another company altogether.
Even with Christian schools, you have to take what you get. Some teachers are excellent facilitators, while others are heavy-handed, biased, and obnoxious. You cannot change teachers- you have to change schools, and the current system does not make this a feasible option. You cannot request a different curriculum or approach. You generally cannot expect your child’s interests and abilities to be nurtured. Pay your tuition and hope for the best. How is any of this truly a parent directed education?
The philosophy of home education has absolutely nothing to do with the OT-NT debate. IMO what Pulpit Magazine has done is ignore the form, function, and underlying philosophy of homeschooling, succumb to your own biases and institutionalized thinking, and proceed to pontificate based on ignorant assumptions. As you can tell by my tone, I mean no disrespect, but I have no patience for people in positions of spiritual authority who will twist the truth to fit their preconceived notions and patronize their customer base. Always follow the money, and while you’re at it, “answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”
Oh, sorry, that’s in the OT.
Sorry, I touched the wrong place before I finished 2 Peter 3:18. May you grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Jim
Roy;
“unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God”
You can’t have unity in the faith without unity of the facts. We are not commanded to have unity of faith with wrong doctrine. That is the apostasy in the church warned of throughout the NT and pictured repeatedly in the OT. Eve should have split hairs over that fruit with Satan! Standing firm on exactly what God said is the key to everything. It is not an easy thing to do in this age of worshiping “unity” instead of the Jesus of the scriptures. Eve “kept the unity” of the garden. Adam did too. Unity was a sin in the garden, and Revelation says unity will be antichrist’s one world religion. Whenever and wherever lies creep in, you have a battleground. Under the authority of the Lord Christ Jesus, we are soldiers who need to know what our Commander has said. We must be able to discern the lies just as the OT Hebrews practiced discerning clean and unclean as a constant reminder throughout all they did each day. Standing firm in the faith, building one another strong in the faith, being bold in the faith as we are commanded to do, requires unity in the knowledge of Jesus. Otherwise, we are prisoners of war without our sword. The complete true word of God as a weapon against lies requires that we rightly divide the word as commanded. Jesus gave up the unity, divided Himself from his brothers, and eventually won them to be used greatly of God in writing the very scriptures that warn against lies in the church. (Jude) Lord, thank You for the unity of the church and the joy of serving one another and alongside each other in Your love!
Did Roy just refer to witches as christians?? Can Roy explain this statement?
“You can’t have unity in the faith without unity of the facts.”
Lisa, what are the facts? Faith is not based upon facts, is it?
Doctrines are man made. Unity in faith that Paul speaks of is a simple faith.
The letters of the New Testament were written by Paul and others to address specific people in specific places about specific issues. When the Catholic Church compiled the current Bible they included these letters because they stated some universal truths that can nurture us today, and are words inspired of God, but one must be careful to narrow ones focus too much upon segments of these letters.
Jesus gave all the doctine anyone needs to the Disciples in John 14:23-27:
(23)Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
(24)He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
(25)”All this I have spoken while still with you.
(26)But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
(27)Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.”
We have God. We have Jesus. We have the Holy Spirit. Those are Jesus’ words. That is not a fact though. It is faith. I have accepted those words and have seen and felt a change in my life.
I left the church that I grew up in because they told me that I could not teach the Bible, we had to use literature of the church. I was 18 and rebelious and I was confounded that I had to use a filter. I probably would have dealt witht hnings differently today at 61, but I am not sure. I am still a rebel to the world. Jesus said that he is the way. We do not need churches, or pastors, or theologians to attain “salvation”.
We do need chruches to allow people to come and learn about Jesus. We do need teaching about Jesus and what we believe Jesus said. We do need to read the letters and talk about them and what experiences the early church had.
We no not need doctrinal hoops through which we have to jump to get to Jesus. Each person had their own path, neither I nor anyone else can determine that path. The best we can do is hope our lives and hearts can help lead people to know Jesus so He can change their lives.
I guess I am pretty ridgid in my flexibility. I spent many years out of the church. I knew I did not believe in the God that I was taught about in Church. I knew I did believe in the God that lived in the hearts of my parents.
At 19 I read Romans and my life changed. Then in a time of crisis I asked God to give me peace and my life was transformed. God sent me from the church in to the world. IT was when I left the church that I began to know God. Now I am back in the church and have a church family.
Doctrine divides and excludes. Doctrine tells us that the Bible says we much “do” certain things as signs of faith. If I were Satan and there was not doctrine in the world, I would create it.
Jesus awaits us with out condition, but that we call upon him. We can be eaten up with sin and he takes us just as we are, and breathes new lief into us. He is patient and leads us at our our speed to a life unencumbered by destructive behavior. He heals our souls and all we have to do is Love him. What a deal. What a shane that many do not come to Him because they think they have to be this way or that for Him to accept them.
“The complete true word of God as a weapon against lies requires that we rightly divide the word as commanded. “
The only division in the world is that which is created by man. I fail to see how anyone can read the message of in the Four Gospels and think that we are to do anything but love and accept. When you accept a person that is not accepting their sin. Their sin is none of our business. It is not for us to seek to change another, save in our children as they grow. We are powerless agaisnt our own sin, how can we be concerned about anothers. In Love we accept and share the Love that God through Grace has given us. That Love will lead others to Jesus and then he will address their sin as fits their lives.
I know I am howling at the moon. How man still loves a cage. We bind ourselves to worldly restrictions in comfortable prisons.
No, Roy Did not refer to witches as Christians.
“God gave us all we need in Jesus, yet for centuries we “christ-followers” slaughtered each other. In this country we killed “witches”.”
Two separate sentences. Both are true statements. No explanation needed.
Dear Roy,
Let’s start at the very beginning of your comment:
“what are the facts? Faith is not based upon facts, is it?”
Of course it is! Faith is either based on fact, or it is based on falsehood. If it is based on falsehood, it is not of God because God cannot lie. Man-made/fantasy/religions are of man, not God. God deals with the facts and says all creation is a set of facts that say He exists. Facts are everywhere to point to God, not to be worshiped as god.
Example: The fact is the sun rises in the east. I have faith it will do so again tomorrow based on that fact.
The fact is gravity keeps me from having to strap myself down to sit at the computer. I have faith gravity will do so again tomorrow based on that fact.
The facts of the scriptures encourage my faith.
It seems to me that Roy is absolutely sure that faith is simply relative-if not based on fact.
Roy,
You wrote: “Doctrines are man made.”
Don’t be decieved, my brother! The scriptures say doctrines are either God-breathed truth, or they are doctrines from demons.
I Timothy 4:1 “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (NASB)
The warning here is do not hurt yourself by paying attention to lies! God is love, and so He revealed Himself through His word. He tells us so we can know. How beautiful is that!?! God tells us to get understanding. Gain knowlege. Seek wisdom. God commands this. He fulfills this.
Satan deceived Eve by saying 1)God lied 2)get wise 3)be equal to God. Adam joined in the sinning and now man’s heart is evil and his doctrines say the same thing that Satan said to Eve. 1) God’s word is not all true. 2) You can know the truth apart from God’s word if only you… 3) What you think = what God said.
Lisa, my intent was to say that Doctrines are not made by God. If you wish to include demons, I have no problem with that.
In Love,
Roy
If faith is based upon fact it is not faith it is something else. Faith is a “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.” (http://www.spirithome.com/definif.html) Material evidence would be facts.
I do not want to get bogged down in semantics. If that is what I cause here, I will stop posting. This is a fine series and one that is not as fundamental to Christ Followers as it should be.
We as humans want to control and prove. We worry too much about what others do and not nearly enough about what we do. We woory about demons and the such. Jesus said to us,”Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God” (John 14) In John 14 Jesus lays it all out for us if we but haev ears to hear and eyes to read.
He tells us that if we know Him we know God. Thomas, the one in the group who I am most like, says, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?” Thomas always wanted the facts. He wanted to touch, feel, smell, hear, and see.
We are physical three dimensional beings who are doomed in this physical form to death and coruption. Jesus tells us that we are more than the facts, we are of the spirit.
It is the unseen the unproveable that is our salvation. I will tell you that in my life I have seen Love work wonders. I know in my heart that is true, but if you asked me to prove it, I can not do it. I can not prove that Jesus was the Som of God, Matthew tried very hard to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but I can find the faults in his arguement.
We have to rely upon the belief that Jesus is God, who is Love. Belief in that which we can not prove, except the change that comes into our lives that is evidenced by others but which has not proof of it’s source - but unto us.
Well, I am done. All arguement is but dust in the wind. Either God is or he isn’t. For me he is. He is, as John says, Love, and it is His Power that I ask to live inside me and be my Law. I am wed to no other.
In Love,
Roy
Roy,
Hey, thanks for hanging in there with me!
Two kinds of doctrine:
1) Doctrine is “sound”, “pure”, “faithful” word of God.
2) “doctrine of demons”, “myths”, “desires”, “rebellious”, “empty talkers”, “deceivers”
2 Timothy 4:1 “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:
2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”
Titus 1:9-10 “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers…For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith.”
Titus 2:7 “in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified”…15 These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
Lisa,
This is very late, but in case you see it . . . A post of mine was “lost” (I’m sure because of my own ineptitude) and only my apology for posting only part of my parting words made it into the thread.
Checking back tonight I discovered you cited all the Scriptures I thought of and included in the lost letter. Well said! My point is that we who are pastors are commanded by God to preach sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict, all for the edification and protection of God’s precious flock. That’s the sobering standard by which my faithfulness will be measured.
Jim
Jim,
Thank you for your faithfulness to the word, and your love of the flock and The Shepherd! Though I am not a “pastor”, I take seriously my role of service, espcially the work of praying for my pastor. The wisdom and patience shared at this site help me greatly in my prayers.
Thanks to all!
This issue is near and dear to my heart and I have set up a blog that is dedicated to this one question.
http://christianitylaw.blogspot.com/
While this topic is of great interest, it is next to impossible to find good articles supporting the different views. It is my goal to do just that and I challenge anyone to offer up their own that is of sufficient quality.
Sean Daily
Since i am a woman (which I know doesn’t make me inferior, but which God’s Word clearly shows I am to be subject to my husband and am not to be a teacher/preacher over men.
So, my dilemma about discussing the law as to whether or not it applies to us today is more practical than theological. It seems we could discuss forever the different views of various individuals - but of course as clearly brought out Jesus says we fulfill the law by loving God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourself.
The word “love” described in the Greek/Strong’s concordance is certainly used in different ways - with different “Greek” words being used in various contexts. However, when it comes to true doctrine and love of God and His ways as portrayed throughout the Old and New Testaments - man’s problem is sin - and so they love themselves first and do what is right in their own eyes.
However, I have questioned my own pastor’s integrity because of various things he has allowed and done - thus it is very difficult for me to know what my part is in honoring God and wanting His name glorified - especially when my husband and other men do not confront him about the issues that I am going to share with you.
Here is what is being allowed in our church. We allow a worldly musical group to have concerts in our church because they allow us to use their grand piano; we now have a Montesori school in our church run by people from India; the pastor tried to get the church to have a tower put in for “cell phone” use??? which was voted down. He baptized a woman living in fornication (who had two children by the man she is living with) and then presented her to the church to be accepted as a member - she was voted on as no one knew that she was living in sin. When my husband and I found out what was going on - we had a deacon plus ourselves confront our pastor why he did this. He said there was only one place in Ephesians that talked about this - but when we said that God’s Word clearly showed this was sin and she should have never been baptized nor presented as a member - and that unless he did something about it we would leave the church. I don’t know if we should have made this “threat” so to speak but at the time we felt it was necessary that he know we would not accept this type of thing going on.
The deacon who was present is a very good friend of his, and he asked the pastor to talk with the father of the children and he would talk with the girl we had accepted in the church. However, our pastor has a tendency to “run things his way” and he is the one that talked with the girl and nothing was ever said about why she withdrew her membership. She came back two or three times after she resigned her membership and even went forward and talked with the pastor, but she nor he ever confessed their wrong to anyone as the deacons announced that this girl had withdrawn her membership by talking with the pastor. No reason was given by them.
This makes it very difficult for me to accept the pastor as God’s man when such things go on. I need direction as to “what love would do in these cases”. My husband seems satisfied since the girl withdrew her membership. But I felt there was no repentance although most of the time have acted like everything is ok. But at times it does come out in front of my husband that I disagree with the pastor in these other areas (the worldly musical group, Montesorri school, etc.). I am more knowledgeable in the Scriptures than my husband is - as I was a widow for 20 years (my husband died) before I married my present husband - I had attended a Bible School with my three children after my husband died and have had many Bible studies, etc. He is not a reader nor a studier - but loves the Lord and faithfully reads the Word, he is a very kind, loving and gracious husband. We married when I was 50 and he was 62 and have been married over 20 years.
Thank you for whatever correction, encouragement or advice you could give me in my attitude toward our pastor.
I realize this is “my side of the story” - but have honestly prayed about this for months and have told it truthfully, knowing I am answerable to God for all that I say and do.
Also another time I confronted the wife of the youth leader on what was being allowed in the way the young people dressed - one girl who had been attending our church for about a year came to a dinner where the teens served and wore “short shorts and a top that showed much of her bosom.” It seems the men tried to keep their eyes off her but of course there she was and it was very difficult for them according to what I could see. This dear lady looked at me as though I was from another world and said, “God doesn’t care how we dress”. I said he certianly does - but was so taken aback by what she said that I failed to mention Titus 2 - which I was seeking to follow as an older woman. Anyway they went to the pastor and he told them to keep on doing what they were doing. Even though Scripture says this type of dress blasphemes God (Titus 2:1-5). They took the youth to “way out Christian rock concerts” and were following the way of “the purpose driven church” as far as I could determine, trying to win the world by worldly methods.
Eventually they left the church - and were away about a year - but they were going through great financial setbacks (according to what the wife told me and shared with the whole church) he was demoted at his job and had to do things that was against his consicence evidently (he was in a car salesmanship business) and so he finally left that job and got another one after he came back to our church. I could share many other things but it would take too much time and might not be what God would have me to say. I need Godly counsel and wisdom to know how to “let God” work in His way and time.
Thank you,
Mrs. Darlene (A.W.) Bailey