Thoughts about the confusing word: "Law"

[sparow]

I wrote another post about what is really meant when we say "God" did something. I think of this as attributing the action to the Kingdom of God, with the Father at the top. Thus, because Moses was part of the Kingdom of God, and was operating in accordance to the goals of the Father to the best of his understanding, then the Law of Moses becomes equated with the Law of "God." Jesus, later, points out that Moses gave laws of divorce because of the hardness of people's hearts. But he implies that this was really NOT the best ideal law, when he says "but it was not so in the beginning." Jesus doesn't condemn Moses for giving this law, but He highlights a difference between what the Father might say, and what Moses said. In another situation, Jesus tells the people that the scribes and pharisees sit in the seat of Moses, and thus should be obeyed. But the people were not to emulate them. This tells me that Jesus was upholding the hierarchical organization while trying to also clean out the corruption.

The main thing about the law of God, regarding human behavior, is that it is also a means to God's end, requires degrees of flexibility and common sense, and for this reason just believing is not good enough, skill is required. Moses has a difficult job to do and he did well. There is a nuance in your statement that I cannot quite define but disagree with.

Moses had no choice regarding the giving of the Law, or in the terms of the covenant, nor did Abraham. The Kingdom of God is not a democracy, nor is God a democrat, certainly not a communist.

Young Israelites would fornicate, and Moses would declare them married, would such a marriage be a type or reflection of God's covenant with man; I think not, so a divorce in these cases may not constitute a broken covenant; God had already arranged that the lost sheep would be literally born again into a new generation and a renewed covenant.

I don't think Moses implied that the Law was not really the ideal Law, but rather he implied that Israel was not the Ideal people.

We are required to pay taxes and obey the Law of the land, but not the point of receiving the Mark of the Beast.

 

[sparow]

A friend of mine, great guy, but of a different denomination and different belief system, tried to help me understand his thinking about predestination. "Is there any part of creation that is not under God's control?", he asked me. "And if it is under God's control, then everything is following God's will." The implication is that if someone is ultimately lost, then this also was in accordance with God's will.

.... Yes, but more "No!" ...



I agree with what you are saying, and am just restating it to my own understanding.

God has a plan that leads to the best good. For an example, He has established the principle of gravity. Gravity is great, as it keeps us all from floating off into space and dying. But by creating gravity, essentially every toddler/child is going to end up crying with a skinned knee as they learn how to deal with the situation and not fall down. Is God happy about children with bumps and bruises? I would say "no," but it is necessary for the greater good. Jesus, in the garden before his betrayal, pleaded with the Father to take away the cup He had to drink. "All things are possible for You", He prayed. The Father could have allowed Jesus to escape crucifixion, or could have even destroyed the entire universe and started over. But consequences would follow. Thus when you say that "God is bound by the laws of His creation", I agree -- though I probably would say it as "God is consistent, and when He establishes a consistent law of creation, then that consistency creates consequences."

Ha!

Thanks for the feedback.

Kevin

I do not see God directly piloting every little thing; from time to time angels save us from evil, sometimes they do not. The Bible tells us that a war is being fought, and that the cost to the kingdom of God is great.

The doctrine of predestination is a doctrine of men, and most of the teachings of men are excuses for not keeping the commandments of God. Somethings are determined before creation, still all men live once to be judged regarding matters that God is not responsible for.

What happened to Jesus will determine the Magnitude of His wrath, blood to the belly of horses.

 

[Fervent]

What is meant by "law" is definitely a contextual issue, as it can have many meanings. In some places, it means the first 5 books of the Bible, in others it means the one called Deuteronomy, in others it means the legal code found within that book, in others it means basic Godly living, in others it means the entire code of traditions that were what bound them to God as His exclusive possession. The heart of the issue is not what legal codes we are to follow, but how we understand our identity. To the Jews, their identity was wrapped up in the distinctive things the law required of them. That is, circumcision, diet, and Sabbath observance. While these things can be good, they are not what makes someone belong to God in the new covenant. So where Paul opposed the law, it was a matter of fidelity to the Messiah and His work as the defining feature of Christianity and not the obedience to the distinctives of the Jewish nation.

 

[sparow]

What is meant by "law" is definitely a contextual issue, as it can have many meanings. In some places, it means the first 5 books of the Bible, in others it means the one called Deuteronomy, in others it means the legal code found within that book, in others it means basic Godly living, in others it means the entire code of traditions that were what bound them to God as His exclusive possession. The heart of the issue is not what legal codes we are to follow, but how we understand our identity. To the Jews, their identity was wrapped up in the distinctive things the law required of them. That is, circumcision, diet, and Sabbath observance. While these things can be good, they are not what makes someone belong to God in the new covenant. So where Paul opposed the law, it was a matter of fidelity to the Messiah and His work as the defining feature of Christianity and not the obedience to the distinctives of the Jewish nation.

The Law and its subsets introduced by Moses is mankind's requirement and obligation to the covenant (enabling some to be called and chosen as inhabitants of the kingdom), God's obligation to the covenant is to provide the salvation, the Law, the Kingdom and the King.

The greatest failure of Israel was the did not enter into the covenant, they did the actions without the relationship.

 

[KevinT]

The Kingdom of God is not a democracy...

Yes, and No.

I agree that when the Father issues a command, it is not subject to approval by His creation. For example, when He told Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit, that instruction (warning) was not debatable. And when our parents disobeyed, we see the natural consequences that have followed.

But I would point out that often God's commands are high-level instructions, such as "Love your neighbor as yourself." The principle here stands, but the implementation is left out to the individual. The children of Israel were instructed to conquer Canaan and to drive out the prior inhabitants. And in some cases He gave very specific instructions on how to do this. But in other cases He left the implementation of this instruction to the various military commanders, such as Joshua. So I think of this as the Kingdom of God, with the Father at the apex, but below him being a hierarchy of servants working to carry out the Father's instructions, using those under their command. Gideon is instructed by God to attack, and Gideon instructs his soldiers etc.

So it is not a democracy in terms of the members of God's kingdom being able to override the Father's instructions. But it is a hierarchical "democracy" whereby God's servants have the privilege of figuring out the best solution to achieving the overall goal. I imagine other worlds in God's creation. They would all be following God's will, but if I were to be able to visit their societies, I expect each world would have unique and wonderful solutions to common problems. So rather than the Father telling planet Earth, "you must drive on the right side of the road," He instead helps us understand the principle of not crashing, and letting us work out the details.

I may be belaboring a concept that is just common sense. But lately I have been focused on this issue because very commonly in the Bible, I see that "God" is attributed as the effector of many events such as famine, military losses etc. I may be wrong, but I suspect that the situation is more complicated than simple king sitting on a throne and making arbitrary declarations.

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[KevinT]

I do not see God directly piloting every little thing; from time to time angels save us from evil, sometimes they do not. The Bible tells us that a war is being fought, and that the cost to the kingdom of God is great.

I agree.

The doctrine of predestination is a doctrine of men, and most of the teachings of men are excuses for not keeping the commandments of God. Somethings are determined before creation, still all men live once to be judged regarding matters that God is not responsible for.

Paul speaks of predestination, and followers of this belief believe it is of God. Can you give an example of some things you believe are determined since before creation?

Best wishes,
Kevin

 

[KevinT]

What is meant by "law" is definitely a contextual issue, as it can have many meanings. In some places, it means the first 5 books of the Bible, in others it means the one called Deuteronomy, in others it means the legal code found within that book, in others it means basic Godly living, in others it means the entire code of traditions that were what bound them to God as His exclusive possession.

I like this reply. I bet someone, somewhere, has enumerated all the possible interpretations, and if we could all agree, we could just say Law1 vs Law2 vs Law3. Parsing your text above, I would use this:

Law1: "In some places, it means the first 5 books of the Bible"
Law2: "in others it means the one called Deuteronomy"
Law3: "in others it means the legal code found within that book"
Law4: "in others it means basic Godly living"
Law5: "in others it means the entire code of traditions that were what bound them to God as His exclusive possession"

A hopeful dream that will never happen, since Paul himself seems to swap between them fluidly.

The heart of the issue is not what legal codes we are to follow, but how we understand our identity. To the Jews, their identity was wrapped up in the distinctive things the law required of them. That is, circumcision, diet, and Sabbath observance. While these things can be good, they are not what makes someone belong to God in the new covenant.

So where Paul opposed the law, it was a matter of fidelity to the Messiah and His work as the defining feature of Christianity and not the obedience to the distinctives of the Jewish nation.

So what I hear you saying is that Law was opposed to Law5 (and possibly others), but not Law4.

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[Fervent]

I like this reply. I bet someone, somewhere, has enumerated all the possible interpretations, and if we could all agree, we could just say Law1 vs Law2 vs Law3. Parsing your text above, I would use this:

Law1: "In some places, it means the first 5 books of the Bible"
Law2: "in others it means the one called Deuteronomy"
Law3: "in others it means the legal code found within that book"
Law4: "in others it means basic Godly living"
Law5: "in others it means the entire code of traditions that were what bound them to God as His exclusive possession"

A hopeful dream that will never happen, since Paul himself seems to swap between them fluidly.




So what I hear you saying is that Law was opposed to Law5 (and possibly others), but not Law4.

Best wishes,

Kevin

Sort of, though not necessarily. The opposition is not to the law itself, but the finding of identity within the law and looking to the law to add a positive righteousness to their lives. What Paul was opposing was the creation of two tiers of believers, Jews and circumcised gentiles in the one tier and uncircumcised gentiles in the other. The law is good when it serves its purpose, but the law is for lawbreakers not for those who are free in the gospel. The law convicts and condemns, but there is no condemnation in Christ. Though Christians are still called to Godly living, and what's found in the law can reveal what it means to be Godly. The force of the law is in the threat of judgment, but that is not what motivates people who have been redeemed by Christ. So Paul emphasized that we are free of the law, but that freedom is so that we may act in love. It's both a freedom from and a freedom for, so the role of the law in the life of the believer is complex and nuanced since we have no reason to fear condemnation from it but we still will desire to please God and do those things that are in accordance with the law.

 

[sparow]

Yes, and No.

I agree that when the Father issues a command, it is not subject to approval by His creation. For example, when He told Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit, that instruction (warning) was not debatable. And when our parents disobeyed, we see the natural consequences that have followed.

But I would point out that often God's commands are high-level instructions, such as "Love your neighbor as yourself." The principle here stands, but the implementation is left out to the individual. The children of Israel were instructed to conquer Canaan and to drive out the prior inhabitants. And in some cases He gave very specific instructions on how to do this. But in other cases He left the implementation of this instruction to the various military commanders, such as Joshua. So I think of this as the Kingdom of God, with the Father at the apex, but below him being a hierarchy of servants working to carry out the Father's instructions, using those under their command. Gideon is instructed by God to attack, and Gideon instructs his soldiers etc.

So it is not a democracy in terms of the members of God's kingdom being able to override the Father's instructions. But it is a hierarchical "democracy" whereby God's servants have the privilege of figuring out the best solution to achieving the overall goal. I imagine other worlds in God's creation. They would all be following God's will, but if I were to be able to visit their societies, I expect each world would have unique and wonderful solutions to common problems. So rather than the Father telling planet Earth, "you must drive on the right side of the road," He instead helps us understand the principle of not crashing, and letting us work out the details.

I may be belaboring a concept that is just common sense. But lately I have been focused on this issue because very commonly in the Bible, I see that "God" is attributed as the effector of many events such as famine, military losses etc. I may be wrong, but I suspect that the situation is more complicated than simple king sitting on a throne and making arbitrary declarations.

Best wishes,

Kevin

I have no idea what it will be like in the kingdom to come, what you are calling democracy, I would call freedom, salvation.

There are a lot of things we are not told; we live and are then judged. In addition to this there is the magnitude of God's wrath, and the day of that, of which the book of revelation is an account of. Blood to the belly of horses, His enemy's blood on His white garments; and people say that "The Lord's Day", is the Sabbath, Saturday or Sunday as a distraction or denial.

 

[sparow]

I agree.

Paul speaks of predestination, and followers of this belief believe it is of God. Can you give an example of some things you believe are determined since before creation?

Best wishes,
Kevin

There is the plan of salvation/redemption and the putting away of Satan and evil, which was revealed progressively by prophets, and the plan involves the entrapment of Satan. Predestination does not describe foreknowledge.

 

[KevinT]

Sort of, though not necessarily. The opposition is not to the law itself, but the finding of identity within the law and looking to the law to add a positive righteousness to their lives. What Paul was opposing was the creation of two tiers of believers, Jews and circumcised gentiles in the one tier and uncircumcised gentiles in the other. The law is good when it serves its purpose, but the law is for lawbreakers not for those who are free in the gospel.

I hear what you are saying, and I agree that this is what Paul teaches. More on this below.

The law convicts and condemns, but there is no condemnation in Christ. Though Christians are still called to Godly living, and what's found in the law can reveal what it means to be Godly. The force of the law is in the threat of judgment, but that is not what motivates people who have been redeemed by Christ. So Paul emphasized that we are free of the law, but that freedom is so that we may act in love. It's both a freedom from and a freedom for, so the role of the law in the life of the believer is complex and nuanced since we have no reason to fear condemnation from it but we still will desire to please God and do those things that are in accordance with the law.

First of all, I think God works differently at different times. There have been times, for example when God was having Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt, where there was very frequent instruction given. Other times, not so much. For example (1 Sam 3): Meanwhile, the boy Samuel served the LORD by assisting Eli. Now in those days messages from the LORD were very rare, and visions were quite uncommon.

In Paul's time, the Holy Spirit seems to have been very active. It is recorded that Paul would lay hands on believers and the Holy Spirit would come on them. And he appears to have raised the dead back to life, when Eutychus fell out of the window. Isaiah promised (Isa 30:21) that in the future, "Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, 'This is the way; walk in it.'" So it seems to me that Paul was operating in just such a time. He was following God's will, and the power of God was with him and guiding him.

Against this situation, whereby Paul has access to a real-time guidance system (the Holy Spirit) that instructed him how best to move forward, the concept of going back to old-fashioned rules such as "don't eat something you find dead in the forest" must have seemed so restricting and unnecessary. Every rule has good and bad aspects. For example, we tell our children to stay out of the street because we don't want them to be hit by a car. But if the house were on fire, then it might be the appropriate time to flee into the street. But any rule that contains all the possible exceptions and provisions becomes unwieldy and unusable. So I agree you that Paul was against a two-tier system of converted Gentiles vs circumcised Jews, but I also think there was more going on.

In the world today, I am not aware of anyone operating with the power of Paul, or evidence of the action of the Holy Spirit as was the case in the time of Christ and immediately afterwards. I occasionally hear other Christians say the Lord (Holy Spirit) told them this or that, as if they picked up the phone and got a message just for them. And in the 1980's, Oral Roberts claimed that God told him He was going to call Oral home, and he would die, unless $8 million dollars was raised. It is possible that this is true, but it seems more likely the consequence of an overactive imagination. So it seems to me that we are back into a times of Samuel's youth where the messages from the Lord are rare.

So what should we do when we don't have new instructions from God? I think that we should follow the last guidance we were given. And this is where the problem of rules comes in. Consider this text:

1 Cor 5: It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this.​

Paul is criticizing a Gentile man for a particular action that was prohibited in Jewish law. Lev 18:8 says "Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father." But in addition to being against the Mosaic law, it was also understood to be a bad practice, such that "even the pagans do not tolerate" such actions. So what to do in this situation? Note that in addition to criticizing the man, he is also chastising the other church members because they had failed to act. In fact the entire text is written to them, not the immoral man.

So on the one hand, in Paul's system of following the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not relying on unwieldy written regulations, we have a principle whereby an individual is supposed to following God and being "free from the law." On the other hand, we have counsel that when we see others doing something wrong, we are subject to censure if we don't address the problem. If I was in that church at that time, then I would have been personally responsible to call out the bad behavior. As Jesus said (Mat 18):

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."​

So let's bring this to today. Imagine a church where a member has been found to embezzling money. It is wrong, and it is the responsibility of the fellow believers to confront the person and encourage them to do right. They should pray to God for wisdom of how best to address the situation. But at the end of the day, if they turn away and consider this to be someone else's problem, then it is just like the Corinthian church failing to address the sexual immorality there.

So there IS a role for written rules. It helps make clear what is right and wrong. Gal 3:24 says Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. The goal is for the church member to not steal, and to be "saved" from a life of criminal behavior. The role of the others in the church is to confront the error. And it is the role of God and the Holy Spirit to enable the person to change, when they ask for help. But how will the person be motivated to ask for help unless their error is plainly brought before their eyes?

So are there rules and regulations whereby we can (and actively commanded to) judge others? Yes. Does that mean we are "under the law"? I have no idea since this concept has been twisted so many ways, and the word 'Law' so overloaded, that it seems to have lost any meaning for me. Am I "saved" because I don't embezzle? Yes, in part. I am saved from that particular criminal act, but that doesn't mean that I don't still have many many other areas on my life still in need of God's saving instruction. I don't see "saved" as "get-into-heaven" status, but more as a freedom from shooting myself in the foot all the time as a result of God's patient teaching.

So at the end of the day, it drives me crazy when someone justifies doing something that seems objectively wrong to me, on the basis of them not being under the law and being "Free in Christ". To which I think, "Fine. Go ahead and shoot yourself in the foot and see how it goes."

What do you think about this?

Best wishes,

KT

 

[KevinT]

... and people say that "The Lord's Day", is the Sabbath, Saturday or Sunday as a distraction or denial.

I'm not following your point here. Can you elaborate?

 

[KevinT]

There is the plan of salvation/redemption and the putting away of Satan and evil, which was revealed progressively by prophets, and the plan involves the entrapment of Satan. Predestination does not describe foreknowledge.

OK. I agree with you 100% here.

 

[Fervent]

I hear what you are saying, and I agree that this is what Paul teaches. More on this below.


First of all, I think God works differently at different times. There have been times, for example when God was having Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt, where there was very frequent instruction given. Other times, not so much. For example (1 Sam 3): Meanwhile, the boy Samuel served the LORD by assisting Eli. Now in those days messages from the LORD were very rare, and visions were quite uncommon.

In Paul's time, the Holy Spirit seems to have been very active. It is recorded that Paul would lay hands on believers and the Holy Spirit would come on them. And he appears to have raised the dead back to life, when Eutychus fell out of the window. Isaiah promised (Isa 30:21) that in the future, "Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, 'This is the way; walk in it.'" So it seems to me that Paul was operating in just such a time. He was following God's will, and the power of God was with him and guiding him.

Against this situation, whereby Paul has access to a real-time guidance system (the Holy Spirit) that instructed him how best to move forward, the concept of going back to old-fashioned rules such as "don't eat something you find dead in the forest" must have seemed so restricting and unnecessary. Every rule has good and bad aspects. For example, we tell our children to stay out of the street because we don't want them to be hit by a car. But if the house were on fire, then it might be the appropriate time to flee into the street. But any rule that contains all the possible exceptions and provisions becomes unwieldy and unusable. So I agree you that Paul was against a two-tier system of converted Gentiles vs circumcised Jews, but I also think there was more going on.

In the world today, I am not aware of anyone operating with the power of Paul, or evidence of the action of the Holy Spirit as was the case in the time of Christ and immediately afterwards. I occasionally hear other Christians say the Lord (Holy Spirit) told them this or that, as if they picked up the phone and got a message just for them. And in the 1980's, Oral Roberts claimed that God told him He was going to call Oral home, and he would die, unless $8 million dollars was raised. It is possible that this is true, but it seems more likely the consequence of an overactive imagination. So it seems to me that we are back into a times of Samuel's youth where the messages from the Lord are rare.

So what should we do when we don't have new instructions from God? I think that we should follow the last guidance we were given. And this is where the problem of rules comes in. Consider this text:

1 Cor 5: It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this.​

Paul is criticizing a Gentile man for a particular action that was prohibited in Jewish law. Lev 18:8 says "Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father." But in addition to being against the Mosaic law, it was also understood to be a bad practice, such that "even the pagans do not tolerate" such actions. So what to do in this situation? Note that in addition to criticizing the man, he is also chastising the other church members because they had failed to act. In fact the entire text is written to them, not the immoral man.

So on the one hand, in Paul's system of following the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not relying on unwieldy written regulations, we have a principle whereby an individual is supposed to following God and being "free from the law." On the other hand, we have counsel that when we see others doing something wrong, we are subject to censure if we don't address the problem. If I was in that church at that time, then I would have been personally responsible to call out the bad behavior. As Jesus said (Mat 18):

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."​

So let's bring this to today. Imagine a church where a member has been found to embezzling money. It is wrong, and it is the responsibility of the fellow believers to confront the person and encourage them to do right. They should pray to God for wisdom of how best to address the situation. But at the end of the day, if they turn away and consider this to be someone else's problem, then it is just like the Corinthian church failing to address the sexual immorality there.

So there IS a role for written rules. It helps make clear what is right and wrong. Gal 3:24 says Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. The goal is for the church member to not steal, and to be "saved" from a life of criminal behavior. The role of the others in the church is to confront the error. And it is the role of God and the Holy Spirit to enable the person to change, when they ask for help. But how will the person be motivated to ask for help unless their error is plainly brought before their eyes?

So are there rules and regulations whereby we can (and actively commanded to) judge others? Yes. Does that mean we are "under the law"? I have no idea since this concept has been twisted so many ways, and the word 'Law' so overloaded, that it seems to have lost any meaning for me. Am I "saved" because I don't embezzle? Yes, in part. I am saved from that particular criminal act, but that doesn't mean that I don't still have many many other areas on my life still in need of God's saving instruction. I don't see "saved" as "get-into-heaven" status, but more as a freedom from shooting myself in the foot all the time as a result of God's patient teaching.

So at the end of the day, it drives me crazy when someone justifies doing something that seems objectively wrong to me, on the basis of them not being under the law and being "Free in Christ". To which I think, "Fine. Go ahead and shoot yourself in the foot and see how it goes."

What do you think about this?

Best wishes,

KT

I don't have time for a full response right now, but I'll try to expand later. The main issue I have with what you are saying is Paul's opposition to returning to the law wasn't because there was a special dispensation of supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit but because a return to the law is effectively a denial of the work of Christ. It is saying that the Messiah is of no effect, that we still must rely on the school master that was to lead us to the Messiah rather than look to the Messiah Himself. The guidance for Christians is not found in a set of rules that tell us "do this" or "don't do that," "don't eat" or "don't touch" but in the person of Christ.

 

[KevinT]

I don't have time for a full response right now, but I'll try to expand later. The main issue I have with what you are saying is Paul's opposition to returning to the law wasn't because there was a special dispensation of supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit but because a return to the law is effectively a denial of the work of Christ. It is saying that the Messiah is of no effect, that we still must rely on the school master that was to lead us to the Messiah rather than look to the Messiah Himself.

I guess our disagreement may have to do with the "work of Christ" in regards to our salvation. I have reviewed various theories of salvation here: wikipedia theories of salavation.

• If one holds a view that the mission of Christ was to pay off a debt of sin owed to the Father, along the lines of Penal Substitution theory or Satisfaction theory or Government theory, then one might argue that there really isn't any role for us to play in all this. The powers at play are "above our pay grade," and we should just sit back and be happy that Christ is on our side.
• But if one takes a view more like Moral Influence theory, where the battle against sin is to be fought in the hearts of men, not in a heavenly courtroom with the conflict being between the Father and the Son, then doing our best to love our brothers is not a denial of the work of Jesus, but rather a result of it. Jesus said, "If you love me keep my commandments." and "Take my yolk upon you, for my burden is easy..."

The guidance for Christians is not found in a set of rules that tell us "do this" or "don't do that," "don't eat" or "don't touch" but in the person of Christ.

I think I have to disagree. When it comes to a hot stove, "don't touch" is exactly what a child needs to learn. When it comes to stealing, "don't do that" is exactly what I need to be taught. When it comes to unhealthy food, eating it kills untold numbers of people each year through heart attacks etc. Am I someone a more wonderful person in the eyes of heaven when I don't mistreat my neighbor? No, but probably makes the work of God's angels holding back the winds of strife much easier. To say that I don't need to worry about the little details, like touching a hot stove, because I am trusting "in the person of Christ" makes no sense to me.

I know you said you didn't have time for a full response, so I'll look forward to your feedback.

Best wishes
Kevin

 

[Fervent]

I guess our disagreement may have to do with the "work of Christ" in regards to our salvation. I have reviewed various theories of salvation here: wikipedia theories of salavation.

• If one holds a view that the mission of Christ was to pay off a debt of sin owed to the Father, along the lines of Penal Substitution theory or Satisfaction theory or Government theory, then one might argue that there really isn't any role for us to play in all this. The powers at play are "above our pay grade," and we should just sit back and be happy that Christ is on our side.
• But if one takes a view more like Moral Influence theory, where the battle against sin is to be fought in the hearts of men, not in a heavenly courtroom with the conflict being between the Father and the Son, then doing our best to love our brothers is not a denial of the work of Jesus, but rather a result of it. Jesus said, "If you love me keep my commandments." and "Take my yolk upon you, for my burden is easy..."

I'm not working on a definition of atonement in what I'm saying, simply paraphrasing Paul's argument in Galatians, keying in on verses like Galatians 5:4. As for leaning into moral influence theory, there's far too much Biblical data that requires some form of objective justification for any kind of subjective theory to complete.

I think I have to disagree. When it comes to a hot stove, "don't touch" is exactly what a child needs to learn. When it comes to stealing, "don't do that" is exactly what I need to be taught. When it comes to unhealthy food, eating it kills untold numbers of people each year through heart attacks etc. Am I someone a more wonderful person in the eyes of heaven when I don't mistreat my neighbor? No, but probably makes the work of God's angels holding back the winds of strife much easier. To say that I don't need to worry about the little details, like touching a hot stove, because I am trusting "in the person of Christ" makes no sense to me.

I know you said you didn't have time for a full response, so I'll look forward to your feedback.

Best wishes
Kevin

It's not that the details don't matter, but that we have a pattern to shape our lives around in Jesus. Through the narratives of the gospels, the movement of the early church, and the apostolic literature we are able to move beyond an inflexible set of rules into a true ethical framework centered on the character of God. In philosophical terms, we're able to construct a virtue ethic rather than a deontological one with Christ as the model of virtuous conduct. Again, I'm simply borrowing this from Paul, this time his argument in Colossians 2.