Date:   4/30/2004 12:07:55 PM ( 21 y ago)
Hits:   3,005
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=630832

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

This is an excerpt from a debate on the Ten Commandments from the discussion board at http://www.theologyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7457

I will call the legalist “Old Law” and me “New Law”
----------------------------------
Moderator’s opening post

Romans 3:20
because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:24
being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Romans 4:2
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

Romans 5:1
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Romans 5:9
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

Galatians 2:16
nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Galatians 2:17
"But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!

Galatians 3:11
Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

Galatians 3:24
Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

Galatians 5:4
You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
-----------------------------------------
Old Law
Galatians 2:16-17 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. but if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid." The law does not make you righteous, but the righteous can and should keep the law.
------------------------------
New Law
I'm afraid I must disagree with the comment to [name withheld] that something is forbidden unless it is expressly permitted. Also I disagree that "the righteous can and should keep the law", especially in the light of all those scriptures saying we're no longer under it.
-------------------------------
Old Law
I wasn't saying that everything not permitted is forbbiden. I'm saying that when a command as clear as a "Thou shalt not" is made, you have to show that that command was overturned or something.

Given that Jesus said "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" isn't it reasonable to say that fulfilling a law is different from abolishing it? And that handwriting of ordinances that was against us? I have it from a good source that that phrase is talking about the laws which we have broken, our sin. I'll come back with more on this subject.

Yes, the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. But do we say to high school graduates "Now you can do whatever you like as long as you love your country"?

Romans 3:31 "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." If you don't commit crime, then you're not under the law.

John 14:15 "If ye love me(Jesus), keep my commandments." You say that it's about the relationship, not rule. I agree. But when you are in the relationship, you had better keep the rule.

1 John 3:4-6 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgressiono f the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him."
----------------------------
New Law
Quote: I wasn't saying that everything not permitted is forbbiden. End quote

Gee, the statement "In order to refute the command 'Thou shalt not...' you need a verse saying 'Thou may...' sure sounds to me like you are in fact saying exactly that.

Quote: I'm saying that when a command as clear as a "Thou shalt not" is made, you have to show that that command was overturned or something. End quote

The verses I quoted do show that the command was overturned.

Quote: Given that Jesus said "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" isn't it reasonable to say that fulfilling a law is different from abolishing it? End quote

It's only different in method, not result.

Quote: And that handwriting of ordinances that was against us? I have it from a good source that that phrase is talking about the laws which we have broken, our sin. End quote

Regarding Col. 2:14 about the "handwriting of ordinances", notice the "therefore" in verse 16. Because of what was taken away in verse 14 we are not to be judged according to the observance of rules and regulations. This shows clearly that the "ordinances" refers to the Law, not sin. (In other words, it does not make sense to say, "Because your sin is taken away you no longer must observe the law").

Quote: John 14:15 "If ye love me(Jesus), keep my commandments." You say that it's about the relationship, not rule. I agree. But when you are in the relationship, you had better keep the rule. End quote

And what was Jesus command? To love.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that there is a vast difference between observing the Law because we must, and observing it because we love. Paul and James both drive home the point that real love/faith expresses itself in doing what is pleasing to the One who is loved. I have no problem with pleasing my Savior by obeying him. What I do have a problem with is people who try to put me under the "yoke of slavery" again by putting emphasis on the letter instead of the spirit. Gal. 2:19-3:14 makes it crystal clear that we are not under the old Law.

Now we must sharply define "the Law". The Ten Commandments don't exist in a vacuum; they are part of the entire Jewish law which included dietary restrictions and a host of other regulations. If you say the observance of the Ten C's are required of all believers, then so also must be the other regulations as well. These regulations include the offering of animal sacrifices, which the NT shows clearly were made obsolete after the Cross (see esp. the book of Hebrews). Now what do you do? Pick and choose which regulations to obey?

This is the quagmire into which we are drawn when legalism is emphasized. The Pharisees were notorious for their legalism and Jesus never had a kind word for them. If you love the Lord you will not need any list of rules.
------------------------------
Old Law
Thayer's Lexicon defines the Greek word for 'handwriting' in Colossions 2:14 as "spec. a note of hand, or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to be returned at an appointed time." So in today's terms it would be an I Owe yoU. So literally translated, the passage says that our debts are forgiven. And you have not yet demonstrated how Paul saying "Let no man therefore judge you ... etc." means that we don't have to keep the Law.

True, I don't think that we who follow Jesus are to keep certain parts of the Law. Whenever a command is overturned, that command no longer applies. The other commands still apply.
----------------------------------
New Law
I think "what we have here is a failure to communicate". I'm looking at the scriptures with a wide-angle lens and you're using a microscope. I don't agree with what I would term the Pharisaical approach, where a word is taken to mean anything it could possibly mean regardless of the context.

The verses and arguments I've already presented apparently haven't been convincing, so I doubt anything else I would say would make much difference. Anyway, you know where I stand.
-----------------------------------
Old Law
I was short on time in my last post, please let me more fully explain. When it comes to keeping Old Testament commandments, I believe that we should not keep the commandments that were changed or overturned. I believe that you confused this with me saying that I "didn't believe that everything not permitted was forbidden". When I said this, I meant that, for instance, when the Law says that we are not allowed to have an ox and a donkey plow together, we should not extend that to say that we can't have an ox and another animal plow together.

But that's a side issue apart from what I feel is your main concern:
you feel that I am ignoring context. I'll admit that it's possible, but I think that if we try again with a little less passion we can come together a try to plumb the depths of the knowledge that Scripture has to offer us. I think that we should focus on Colossions 2:14 and other passages which you say talk about the Law being anulled in some fashion.

Looking back on your first post in this thread, you said "What happens when a law is fulfilled? It is no longer in effect." This is the statement which we need to validate at this time. You qouted Col. 2:14 in support of this statement, but your quote read "canceled the written code, with its regulations." The KJV says "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances." And with a literal translation of 'handwriting' it reads "blotting out the IOU of ordinances."

Now, there's a difference between interpretation and translation. An IOU is a literal definition of the word for 'handwriting'. Your interpretation of the passage is another thing altogether. What I maintain is that we must have a literal translation of the Scripture before we go on to interpret it.

About the last paragraph of your post: "The verses and arguments I've already presented apparently haven't been convincing, so I doubt that anything else I would say would make much difference. Anyway, you know where I stand." Am I correct in assuming that you are open to the possibility that you're wrong?
-------------------------------
New Law
I'm afraid I just don't see the distinction you're making on only some parts of the OT law being overturned, but I agree that it is a side issue compared to finding out exactly what was overturned in Col. 2:14.
Regardless of translation, here is the main point I was trying to make about Col. 2:14, for which I referred to the KJV:

Quote: Regarding Col. 2:14 about the "handwriting of ordinances", notice the "therefore" in verse 16. Because of what was taken away in verse 14 we are not to be judged according to the observance of rules and regulations. This shows clearly that the "ordinances" refers to the Law, not sin. (In other words, it does not make sense to say, "Because your sin is taken away you no longer must observe the law"). End Quote

Perhaps my point was poorly worded, so let me try again. Verse 16 lists some of the things that no longer are in effect for us, and they are not 'sins' but laws, including observance of the Sabbath. The word 'therefore' refers back to the preceeding discussion, which as you pointed out is about sin, yet this removal of our sin is identified as the reason for the removal of the Law.
-------------------------------
Old Law
Thank you for continuing our conversation. I've had people walk out on me many times. The verse in question: Col. 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; "

I believe the key phrase in question is "Let no man therefore judge you in...". I would agree for now that the 'therefore' refers to verse 14. Could you clarify why this phrase means what you say? "Let no man command you to keep the Law" are not the same words as were written, so I would need some explanation as to why you say it means that.

Here is one of the verses you listed on your first post:

Ezekiel 11:19 "And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heaart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:"

Here's the next verse:

Ezekiel 11:20 "That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God."

 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.05 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=630832