Jump to content
IGNORED

Harmonizing Paul and the Twelve


stillseeking

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  146
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   86
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/31/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Quote

Paul is not a Torah observant, as the term observant can be a very misleading term. A Torah observant could mean someone insists on abiding the Mosaic Law to a high extent and tend to reject Christianity. Thus it shouldn't be used to describe Paul.

Torah-observant Jews don't necessarily reject Christianity.  Even today, there are Jewish believers of Jesus. 

Quote

You are confused about what Law and covenants are.  

Everyone, both Jews and gentles, are born with and bound by an older covenant. The New Covenant doesn't come with your birth. It's a covenant chosen with consent when you are grown up.

You as gentile is bound by an old covenant (could well be from Noah), you thus need to act by your conscience and moral code to the best as you are aware of. However, this won't save you because you are expected to fail at some point. You need the New Covenant for your salvation. Even Christians need to deal with their sins, it is because you may consider covenants have the 'overlapping' effect. Even when you are a Christian saved by your faith, you need to act by conscience and moral code. It is a misunderstand to say because you are a Christian thus you have no law thus you can break every single piece of law acting upon you. This is never a biblical idea. To put it another way, you need to always act in accordance to the covenant born and bound with you. As gentiles, the law given to us through an older covenant is the "law written in our hearts" which is our conscience and moral code.

This doesn't sound very definitive, unfortunately. 

You state that I as a Gentile am bound by an old covenant.  However, you then continue and suggest that it might have started at Noah, but you're not really sure when it began (correct me if I'm understanding you wrong).  This is confusing and not definitive. 

Do you have scriptures to support the specifics of your viewpoint? 

If the law of the new covenant is our conscience and moral code, then why does Paul name a list specific sins which will prevent one from entering the kingdom? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  13
  • Topic Count:  48
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,726
  • Content Per Day:  2.91
  • Reputation:   6,258
  • Days Won:  5
  • Joined:  12/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

 

All such “ lists” are either taken out of context or are not addressed to The Body of Christ.The sin issue has been resolved via the Cross.Unbelief in Paul’s Gospel is what damns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  146
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   86
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/31/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Quote

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
(Mat 5:17)
 

For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
(Rom 10:3-4)

If you keep reading Matthew, verse 18 says: " For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Heaven and Earth are still here.  What you have posted is one of the contradictions I struggle with: Jesus says the law will never pass away until Heaven and Earth do, and yet Paul claims that it did.  Do you have an answer for how you believe this harmonizes? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  146
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   86
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/31/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Quote

Here's the verse: "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

^ Why do you think that's about Sabbaths?"

*******************************************************************

Romans 14: 6, He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 

I still wonder why many purport these verses to be about the Sabbath. 

Many early Christians followed the Sabbath, in some parts of the world it's still common, and the context of the time the verses above was a population where fasting on certain days was a common thing--and not necessarily designated holy days. 

I know WHAT you believe about these passages, that they refer to Sabbaths (and not fasting or other things).  Please explain WHY you think this way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  146
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   86
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/31/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Quote

the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Galatians 3:24-25), he was explicitly referring to “the law, which was four hundred and thirty years” after the covenant God made with Abraham (verse 17);

Thanks for this specific.  I know there are portions which refer to a law of sin and death, and portions, like this one, which refer to the whole of the law of Moses.  I still am unsure how this harmonizes with Jesus' command in Matt 23:1 to obey the literal Torah but ignore the religious leaders' other words. 

Why would Jesus say to obey it, where here, Paul tells us it's a tutor?  What then actually defines sin? 

Furthermore, if the WHOLE of the law is "a tutor", then any tendency we have to discard "ceremonial" laws ought to apply to "moral" ones as well, as they're all included in "the law, which was four hundred and thirty years".  Obviously we're not to disregard some laws.  Which ones?  Why? 

Quote

And if there was still any doubt, he uses circumcision (a requirement of the Law) as a more specific example (verses 2-3).

I get that circumcision is specifically mentioned throughout the NT as no longer required, as it is specifically mentioned.  I'm fuzzy on what else is/isn't required.  I thought Acts 15:28 was such a distinction for a while ("It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.")...but, later, it was pointed out to me that James tacked on his reason for such a short list: "For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”"...which seems to imply that the Gentiles would learn the rest of it in synagogue which they'd be attending. 

Quote

We are considered by God to be righteous because the penalty for our sin has been paid. So when we who are in this covenant do commit sins, we have an advocate standing between us and God's justice. Justice has no legal right to condemn or curse us because the punishment has already been inflicted on our Saviour. The main purpose of the Old Covenant of Law (i.e. the list of rules) was to guide us to the New Covenant. But then its job is done (Galatians 3:24-25).

The OT still is used to define what sin IS, though.  Jesus tells us to avoid sin even at extreme costs (through the analogies of cutting out one's own eye, etc.)  Sure, we're covered if we mess up, but it would be extremely ignorant of us to insist that because we're covered, we shouldn't even try.  It seems fitting that we ought to be extremely aware of what sin is, and sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). 

I do agree that we're covered if we screw up.  I am not sure, though, why some OT laws are then considered to to define sin and others aren't (at least by most Christians, who disregard those that they classify as "ceremonial"). 

Quote

So grace actually reinforces the concept of sin – i.e. that there are, in fact, actions that are morally wrong? Without the concept of sin, grace would be meaningless. Nevertheless, the system of grace renders lists of rules logically “obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13).

I'm still not really sure what to take away from this.  I currently accept that:

1) We should try not to sin

2) We're covered if we mess up

3) Sin is defined as...?  All OT laws?  Some OT laws?  The 9 commandments + love God / love neighbor (only bc you guys don't seem to like the one about the Sabbath)?  Why/why not BTW?

Quote

In choosing morality over immorality, we are not obeying a written rule, but deciding to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit, rather than succumbing to temptation and the lusts of our flesh. “Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16).

Is this ^ how you would define sin, then?  Why is it also said, then, that sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4)? 

Praying about everything, you often just won't get answers.  It's sort of why we have the Bible in the first place, to guide us.  Then everyone jumps all over everyone because some people think ABC is ok and others think it's wrong, for a huge array of issues. 

I'm not seeing a logical way to tie all this together.  Sin is the transgression of the law, but it's also "walking in the spirit", but also some OT moral laws apply, but several "ceremonial" ones don't???  I just don't see the biblical support for this, and yet this weird and contradictory view is held by the majority of Christians I know, and none of them can explain it logically. 

Quote

Christians are not obligated to any rule listed in the Law – none whatsoever – no exceptions!!!

Then on what basis do you justify labeling anyone else's behavior as sin?  Or, your own behavior?  When churches in Revelation are called out for tolerating "sin", what were they doing if not breaking rules?  I'll go back to my example from before: On what basis do you claim that being gay is wrong?  There are certainly gay Christians who walk in the spirit.  Many of them even tried being married, even multiple times, to women, and of course it didn't work. 

Quote

If you decide that Paul is not scripture, then we have different faiths.

I think I've mentioned previously, but I'll state again that at this point, my thinking is that there's enough consistency among early apostolic writers and others who were close to them to establish that Paul is probably credible, and my questions at present mainly circle around HOW he harmonizes with what Jesus actually said. 

Quote

I can see how he's accepted and corroborated by the real apostles, which at least gives his writings a bit of credibility. That doesn't convince me he's infallible

So by what standards do you accept other scriptures as scripture? Why is Exodus and Matthew scripture? What are the standards you'll accept? Either Paul meets your chosen standards, or he doesn't. That's the first logical step in this process. We've been approaching this conversation from the wrong direction.

If you believe in simply "walking by the spirit", then fallible scriptures don't present a problem :)  Sin is transgression of the law, though, not transgression of having walked in the spirit wrong. 

All scriptures are potentially fallible because they're written by fallible people.  We have bits and pieces and not a whole lot of clarity.  We have letters and varying iewpoints and histories that paint a fuzzy picture.  I don't see a problem with this.  We're trying to figure out bits of history, the same way historians figure out other bits of history. 

All of the randomness actually gives Christianity credibility, IMHO.  Christian gospels are comprised of letters and histories and genealogies and such, whereas other holy texts purport to be miraculous flowery poetry of sorts.  In other words, the way we know about Jesus is kind of the same way historians know about other historical people, and that in itself is significant.  Nonetheless, I digress.  We're still comparing the ideas presented by Jesus, as we have them, and those presented by Paul. 

How they harmonize is going to be a product of our interpretations.  I've proposed a few ideas, and you've also proposed one (yours, namely).  Ultimately, only one interpretation can be the truth, and that's what I'm after here. 

Quote

Why do you think Sabbaths are excluded? It's a general statement that some people think some days are more important to God than others, whilst others believe that every day is equally important. Sabbaths clearly fall under the purview of this statement.

Because of the 10 commandments and because of the 7th day being blessed long before the Torah was given and because according to Isaiah we'll mark Sabbaths again in the future...and because God doesn't change. 

Quote

I don't think anyone truly examining the context could sincerely come to this conclusion. In Romans 14, verse 2, Paul introduces an example distinguishing between those who eat “only vegetables”, and those who eat “all things”. In verse 5 Paul introduces another example distinguishing between the one who “esteems one day above another” and the one who “esteems every day alike”. Verse 6 is a summary of the point of those two examples. Nothing to do with “fasting days”.

Why would you assume that, though?  You haven't said why you think it's Sabbaths and not fasting days.  Religious people of the time would fast on certain days to 'be more holy' than each other.  Jesus even called them out when they were being hypocrites.  It's established that people fasting on various days for devotional reasons was common practice. 

And again, why would God negate one of the 10 commandments, especially the one that he seems to have established all the way back in Genesis?  Paul cancelling Sabbaths through one super vague verse doesn't seem that likely based on what we already know about God and his rules up to this point. 

We need more proof to be able to establish what you are claiming here. 

Quote

But Jesus doesn't make that distinction. He said, “whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do” (verse 3) – which would include the “man-made teachings”. It's a general statement to respect the office of those in authority, but without being tempted to emulate their poor example of hypocrisy.

Read carefully.  He's talking about those sitting in the Moses seat specifically--the place you sit when you're reading the Torah literally and not making commentary:

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them."

Jesus is telling people to listen to the people in the Moses seat--the ones reading the Torah verbatim. 

Quote

Regarding Mark 10:17-22 you said, “he also told him to sell everything he owned. We're not all required to do that, are we? So how can you assert that the item which you cherry picked (becoming a disciple) is the qualifier to eternal life?

You are being persnickety. Jesus described the whole process as “One thing”. For this man, selling his possessions was first step in following Jesus – which was clearly the outcome Jesus was referring to.

Haha well no, not really.  It's a serious question.  Remember I probably don't see things the way you do, or the way most people do. 

You've cherry picked that the point of the story of the rich young ruler was that being a disciple is the qualifier to eternal life, and I'd really like o understand why.  Reading the story, we see other specifics.  Why not them?  What is the ACTUAL reason it's not them?  What is the actual reason you believe it's 'being a disciple'? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Online

On 7/3/2018 at 4:32 PM, stillseeking said:

Thanks for this specific.  I know ..

Apologies for the belated response.

You said, “I know there are portions which refer to a law of sin and death, and portions, like this one, which refer to the whole of the law of Moses. I still am unsure how this harmonizes with Jesus' command in Matt 23:1 to obey the literal Torah but ignore the religious leaders' other words. Why would Jesus say to obey it, where here, Paul tells us it's a tutor?

A tutor leads and guides us. If the purpose of the Law is to lead Jews to a different covenant, then they are explicitly obeying the Law by entering into that New Covenant. But then once faith has come, choosing to remain in subjection to Law is actually contrary to Law. The Law's job is to lead those under Law to something better than the Law – i.e. to a covenant of grace which can save us (unlike the Law which condemns).

 

What then actually defines sin?

Sin is, and always has been, defined against God's holiness. In Christianity, morality is an absolute, unchanging standard. Adam sinned thousands of years before the Law – so it is logically anachronistic to define sin by the Law.

 

Furthermore, if the WHOLE of the law is "a tutor", then any tendency we have to discard "ceremonial" laws ought to apply to "moral" ones as well, as they're all included in "the law, which was four hundred and thirty years". Obviously we're not to disregard some laws. Which ones? Why?

Christians are free from the "WHOLE" Law. All of it. Even the moral ones.

That is not the same as claiming Christians are free to be immoral. It means that our sense of morality comes from a source that supersedes what is written in one particular covenant. We get our sense of morality from the Holy Spirit of God, confirmed by His whole Word - not by focussing on a list of rules designed for a specific time and context. Obviously the Law agrees with God in regards to morality. So on issues of morality, a Christian can legitimately use the Law to support claims about morality. But the Law also contains many rules which have nothing to do with morality – but are specific to Israel's relationship with God.

So in practice, a Christian can use moral laws to support and confirm the witness of our spirit regarding a moral claim (since we know the Law agrees with God's Holy Spirit). But the Law is only a part of God's Word; a portion of God's revelation to humanity – but as with all scripture, the Law has to be understood within it the broader context of God's whole Word. The Law is scripture, and therefore provides knowledge and guidance pertaining to reality and nature of God (including, but not limited to, His morality), but the Law itself only has authority over those for whom it was intended.

 

I get that circumcision is specifically mentioned throughout the NT as no longer required, as it is specifically mentioned. I'm fuzzy on what else is/isn't required.

I think you may have missed the context of my provided argument. As discussed, circumcision is specifically mentioned in Galatians 5:2-3. But I also demonstrated that the short letter of Galatians is essentially a thesis about freedom from the whole Law (explicitly, the Law given at Mt Sinai). In that context, circumcision merely serves as an example for the whole Law. See verse 7; “A little leaven leavens the whole lump”. Even the smallest amount of Law undermines the integrity of grace. Early Christian converts were being pressured by Jews to be circumcised (as they tried to compel Titus: Gal 2, see also Gal 6:12, Acts 15) – so it was an example relevant to their circumstances. According to Paul, the claim that new gentile Christians must 'at least be circumcised' is akin to preaching a false gospel (Gal 1:6-9). Throughout Galatians, Paul applies that logic to the whole Law; not just circumcision.

 

I thought Acts 15:28 was such a distinction for a while ("It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.")...but, later, it was pointed out to me that James tacked on his reason for such a short list: "For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”"...which seems to imply that the Gentiles would learn the rest of it in synagogue which they'd be attending

I think you have found a way to interpret this verse in a way that is the exact opposite of the clear intent of the context. I don't think it could be more obvious that the gentile converts were NOT to be burdened with the Law. There is no provision in the Law for partial compliance. If we are obligated to any of the Law, we are obligated to all of the Law.

Deuteronomy 27:25 Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law by observing them

Deuteronomy 28:15 But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you

Galatians 5:3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

James 2:10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.

The interpretation you suggest doesn't exist in the words of the verse. It doesn't say, or suggest that the gentiles will learn the rest of Moses from the synagogues. The statement about Moses is in past-tense – which I think suggests a more likely interpretation; that the letter be specifically addressed to gentile Christians (who lack the benefit of Moses' teaching), since the Jewish Christians already knew not to emulate pagan rituals or practice sexual immorality (reinforced by generations of moral teaching from Moses).

 

Jesus tells us to avoid sin even at extreme costs (through the analogies of cutting out one's own eye, etc.)

I read this differently. Jesus first tells us that He has come to fulfil the Law. And so now there are two options available to Jews; 1) accept His offer of salvation by faith, or 2) remain subject to Law. But Jesus then reminds us that the Law is zero tolerance – so if anyone chooses to remain under Law, they'd better be prepared to take extreme measures to avoid sin – since even one sin condemns us under Law.

 

Sure, we're covered if we mess up, but it would be extremely ignorant of us to insist that because we're covered, we shouldn't even try.

No one is suggesting that we should have a lax attitude to sin. If sin wasn't important, our redemption wouldn't have cost so much. Repentance (turning to God and away from sin) is integral to a sincere faith confession.

 

The OT still is used to define what sin IS, though. ... It seems fitting that we ought to be extremely aware of what sin is, and sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4)

The Law (contained within the OT) articulates certain sins, but the sins were sins before the Law said anything about them (i.e. before the Law existed).

I also think it is spiritually unhealthy to be so sin-focussed. Our sin was dealt with on the cross. Jesus gives rest, and liberty from condemnation and bondage (Matthew 11:28, Luke 4:18, 2 Corinthians 3:17). He freed our focus from sin-avoidance (as mandated by Law) to life and sanctification (under grace). We are taught that repentance stems from “the goodness of God” (Romans 2:4). If we are focussed on were God is taking us, we'll be less inclined to be distracted by sin.

Galatians 5:16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

Christians should not be living under a cloud of condemnation; in constant fear of sin. God has given us a life to live; a destiny to fulfil. That should be our focus.

 

I am not sure, though, why some OT laws are then considered to to define sin and others aren't (at least by most Christians, who disregard those that they classify as "ceremonial")

The Law does not define sin. The Law enshrines some sins into a written covenant between God and Israel – but they were already sins before they were written down. Furthermore, the Law is much more than a list of sins. It is a covenant defining the terms of how God and the nation of Israel are to relate to each other. So it contains edicts that are specific to that relationship. For example, many rituals in the covenant are designed to point Israel to the Messiah – such as, the animal sacrifices pointing to the fact that a blood sacrifice is required to atone for sin.

Matthew 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins

Hebrews 9:22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission

So ritual laws are not about what is morally right or wrong. They have a different purpose.

 

Sin is defined as...? All OT laws? Some OT laws? The 9 commandments + love God / love neighbor (only bc you guys don't seem to like the one about the Sabbath)? Why/why not BTW?

Firstly, it has nothing to do with what we “like”. Our Lord paid a very high price to purchase our freedom from bondage. So we consider that choosing to return to bondage disrespects that sacrifice. We have no emotional attachment either for or against a particular day. We have been freed from any such obligation – so we choose to embrace and glorify God in that freedom.

Sin is a breach of God's Holy standards. As such, sin is an act of treason against the highest Authority in all of reality. The Law sets down certain sins in writing – but they are not sins because they are written in the Law, they were written in the Law because they are sins. The Law simply agreed with what was already mandated by God. So whilst the Law contains sins, sin itself exists apart from the Law.

 

Why is it also said, then, that sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4)?

You are anchoring much your argument on a very specific interpretation of this one verse. There is no direct reference to “the law” in the Greek of this verse. In the version you are using, the phrase “transgression of the law” is translated from a single Greek word, anomia, which is a general term meaning iniquity, unrighteousness, evil, sin etc. Many translations use the word lawlessness – which I think is fine; except when a reader is inclined to interpret every mention of "law" as the Law of Moses (except, of course, when Paul explicitly references the Law of Moses ;)).

So reading the Law of Moses into this verse is a significant stretch of credulity. Verse 3 tells us that those with the hope of Christ purify themselves because, as verse 4 explains, we understand that even though we are saved from sin, sin is still evil.

 

It's sort of why we have the Bible in the first place, to guide us.

Absolutely. The Bible is our highest authoritative communication from God. But in establishing the intent of the Author, we have to consider issues of context. The origin of sin is in Adam (roughly 2500 years before the Law). The Bible is overtly clear that the covenant of Law was mediated specifically to the nation of Israel through Moses. Subsequent prophets under the Law (most notably Jeremiah) prophesied that there would be a New Covenant that would replace the covenant of Law. And now the New Testament (namely Paul) teaches explicit freedom from the Law. So the Bible guides me into freedom from the Law.

 

I'm not seeing a logical way to tie all this together. Sin is the transgression of the law, but it's also "walking in the spirit", but also some OT moral laws apply, but several "ceremonial" ones don't??? I just don't see the biblical support for this, and yet this weird and contradictory view is held by the majority of Christians I know, and none of them can explain it logically.

Given the way you are characterising the issue, I agree that it's not “logical”. I can't speak to the views “held by the majority of Christians [you] know”. But I have made statements in every response to this thread to the effect that Christians are free from all of the Law – without exception. So I can't answer for those who think “some OT moral laws apply” to Christians. I agree that it doesn't make sense to suggest a partial adherence to Law. But that 'partial adherence' to Law is the exact position of everyone advocating continued subjection to Law. How many obligate adherence to circumcision or animal sacrifices, or dietary restrictions etc.? Even orthodox Jews in Israel can't fully keep the Law – since there is no temple or ark to perform the necessary rituals of the covenant.

And again, I don't accept you restrictively defining sin by the Law. I don't think that makes sense either; given that sin existed long before the Law.

 

on what basis do you justify labeling anyone else's behavior as sin? Or, your own behavior?

You are conflating issues. Of course God communicates His morality to us through scripture. But we are specifically discussing the issue of whether Christians are obligated to the Law of Moses (i.e. the covenant between God and Israel). Sincere Christians seek to do right because we have a heart for God, not because an ancient covenant codified certain morals in a list of rules. We want to do right because we understand the spirit of God's morality, whereas the Law doesn't require understanding – just obedience; blind obedience. Under Law, comprehending the morality is unnecessary; just 'do what you're told'. A higher standard is required of Christians. We tend towards what is morally right because our heart is in the process of renewal; being transformed to come back in line with God's own heart. We don't just know what to do (according to some list), but we understand the reasons behind the morality.

The Spirit of God teaches us to walk in “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Gal 5:22-23). These are the selfless motives of God, which His Spirit encourages us to emulate. We don't, for example, need a rule specifying not to commit adultery, or worship false Gods, or murder etc. Such a list is obsolete to someone who understands the moral reasons behind the actions.

 

On what basis do you claim that being gay is wrong?

Firstly, from a Biblical perspective, there is no such thing as “being gay”. We all have ungodly desires (i.e. we are all corrupted by sin and need a Saviour), but God doesn't define us by our ungodly desires (sexual or otherwise). Homosexuality defines a behaviour; i.e. something people do – not who they are.

Before the Law:

According to Jesus, God set the designed order for sexual relations in place with Adam and Eve – i.e. before the Law. The righteous Noah, who “walked with God”, continued this example for himself and his sons. Also before the Law, the moral depravity of Sodom was exemplified by the men of the city presuming to force homosexual relations on God's messengers. Abraham had sexual relations outside of marriage – resulting in an antagonism that continues to this day (and there are many other examples of deviations from God's design leading to dysfunction).

Under Law:

The Law specifically reaffirmed that any sexual relationship outside of Godly marriage is immoral – including, but not limited to, homosexual practice.

The New Covenant:

The same moral standard is explicitly continued through the New Covenant – with Jesus tying God's morality on this issue back to Adam and Eve. Homosexual practice is specifically addressed in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9.

I therefore determine homosexual practice to be immoral based on this consistent pattern throughout scripture pertaining to God's designed order for sexual relations.

 

my thinking is that there's enough consistency among early apostolic writers and others who were close to them to establish that Paul is probably credible, and my questions at present mainly circle around HOW he harmonizes with what Jesus actually said

Paul couldn't be more explicit regarding our freedom from Law. He is, in my opinion, unequivocal and overwhelming on this issue – including the first half of Romans, and almost all of Hebrews and Galatians. I don't think Paul can be harmonised with adherence to Law.

When you talk about “what Jesus actually said”, you are referring to a handful of verses (none of which were penned by Jesus) that are not specifically addressing this debate, and which are ambiguous enough to permit a reading that agrees with Paul.

It's important to note that Jesus didn't pen scripture - because if we accept Paul as scripture, we are not harmonising Paul with Jesus, but Paul with Matthew (for example). If we say Paul with Jesus, then there may be an errant tendency to attribute more weight to some scriptures than others.

 

Because of the 10 commandments and because of the 7th day being blessed long before the Torah was given and because according to Isaiah we'll mark Sabbaths again in the future...and because God doesn't change

We are not talking about God changing. We are talking about understanding morality within the broader context of scripture. No one was ever obligated to keep Sabbaths before the Law (i.e. for the ~2500 years before Moses). By contrast, Abraham was circumcised 400-or-so years before the Law (but no-one before that). Yet, as previously discussed, circumcision is explicitly not a requirement of the Christian covenant.

 

[Regarding Romans 14] Why would you assume that, though? You haven't said why you think it's Sabbaths and not fasting days

You have been arguing that Christians are obligated to observe the Sabbath. I presented Romans 14 as evidence that Christians are not obligated to consider any day to be more or less important than any other. Then you tried to argue that Paul was only referring to “fasting days” in that passage. I demonstrated, by examination of the context, that Paul's comments were not specific to “fasting days”. The passage is referring to just what it says; i.e. “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike.” (verse 5). That is, the passage is not specific to any particular kind of devotional day.

 

We need more proof to be able to establish what you are claiming here.

I think you are requiring an unreasonable standard. Someone with too much time on their hands has determined that there are 613 laws in the Old covenant. By your standard, you need Paul to go through them one by one and state that Christians are no longer obligated to them.

Instead, Paul generalises about Christians being “dead to the law through the body of Christ” (Romans 7:4); being “delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter” (Romans 7:6, see also Galatians 2:9); Jesus having “having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us” (Colossians 2:14), “having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances” (Ephesians 2:15).

Likewise, rather than address every holy day in the Jewish calendar, he speaks in broader terms; e.g. that Christians are not obligated to esteem “one day above another” (Romans 14:5). “So [according to Paul] let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17).

Paul speaks in generalisations because the principle is universal; Christians are free from all of the Law – no exceptions or exclusions – including all of the holy days (Sabbaths, fasting days, and the rest).

 

Read carefully. He's talking about those sitting in the Moses seat specifically--the place you sit when you're reading the Torah literally and not making commentary:

… Jesus is telling people to listen to the people in the Moses seat--the ones reading the Torah verbatim.

You have developed a very specific idea about what “Moses' seat” means. I can't find any justification for your confidence in that idea. It is a rarely used phrase whose meaning has been long debated.

Nevertheless, Matthew 23 does not say to only listen to what the scribes and Pharisees tell you when they read the Torah from Moses' seat. It says, a) “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”, and b) “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do”.

So there are two ways to consistently interpret this passage; 1) We can be super-pedantic – interpreting Jesus' words to mean obey everything the scribes and Pharisees tell us (including both human traditions and the Law), or, 2) we can take Jesus' words more generally, as an edict to respect the “governing authorities” as representatives of God (as Paul also teaches in Romans 13:1-2). Given the actual words used in the passage, I don't see a way to consistently interpret Jesus' statement here as only referring to obeying the Law.

 

Regarding Mark 10:17-22 you said, “You've cherry picked that the point of the story of the rich young ruler was that being a disciple is the qualifier to eternal life, and I'd really like o understand why. Reading the story, we see other specifics. Why not them? What is the ACTUAL reason it's not them? What is the actual reason you believe it's 'being a disciple'?

Basically, there are two general hermeneutics I've applied; Context Principle and Scripture Interprets Scripture Principle.

Briefly, Jesus does not explicitly tell the rich young ruler to follow the Law. He points to the Law as part of a broader argument; leading the rich young ruler to a larger revelation. The passage does explicitly teach that any supposed adherence to Law is insufficient to “inherit eternal life”. Nowhere else does God's word teach the necessity of selling all one's possessions to “inherit eternal life”. The clear teaching lesson of the passage is that it is hard for rich people to transfer their faith from their riches to Christ (verses 23-25).

So my interpretation is consistent with what other scriptures teach about salvation – for example Paul teaches; “by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9). The rich young ruler boasted of his adherence to Law. Good works will be the natural outcome of a sincere salvation, but faith (“apart from works” - Romans 4:5-6) is the fundamental requirement of Christian salvation. But the “the law is not of faith” (Galatians 3:12).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...