Well exactly. It’s not clear cut. I would suggest, however, that the “diet rules” that were maintained were more about the rejection of idolatry than about dietary distinction (i.e., as in the terms of the Mosaic Covenant).
1 Like
I already did. The two greatest commandments. That’s not too long, is it?
Um, I would suggest, to start with, by following the Ten Commandments. Do you need help with understanding how to not steal?
Enforcement looks like family discipline. Matthew 18:15 should be in your Bible, unless it’s like Thomas Jefferson’s.
I’m answering you. Explicitly.
If someone committed a serious sin (à la some Catholic priests), would you just tell them, "That’s not Christlike?”
Have I mentioned the Ten Commandments? I could condense it down to two, if you would like.
If it’s just those two, absolutely!
Hmmm…are you starting to get snarky?
If you follow the 10 Commandments (not something the New Testament says to do anywhere), does that effect the intention of the Law (e.g., look at Romans 7)?
What do you do with Paul saying that the Law has a temporary role and is no longer needed? What do you do with Hebrews saying that the Old Covenant is obsolete (and remember that “Old Testament law” is precisely the terms of that covenant)?
That’s nice. I didn’t ask you to answer anything explicitly or implicitly. But yeah, “That’s not Christlike” is a great way to start a conversation…
Seems you’re posting out of order…see above. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that the 10 Commandments are “the part of the Law that’s not temporary or obsolete.”
I’m wondering at this point if you have anything to add to your argument that is not simply a reiteration of your premise. I’ve offered some pretty specific verses from the New Testament that state explicitly that “the Law” or “a list of laws” is not what is to govern our behaviour. You keep specifying that we are to follow (certain) laws. Based on what? And for what result (other than, say, to “maintain order”)? Is it possible to maintain order without a “list of rules”? Yes, if everybody is loving God and one another. Can you effect order with rules and without love? Yes, but it won’t generate love.
Seems to me honing in on that love behaviour would get the job done and rules would not be necessary? If we did it right?
I’m getting weary of your not getting it. Moral laws are laws of love. Laws of love are moral laws. None have been rescinded.
No, we did not (get it right). How do you know if a brother sins against you? If he steals something from you, he has, right? There is an explicit rule that covers that. Families have family rules. We belong to the family.
A family where the rules are inscribed on their hearts and they obey their hearts perfectly, external rules are not necessary. Not in this life.
(Does adultery and theft happen in churches and in parachurch organizations? Yeah, it does.)
How do we know what love is? It is not just warm fuzzies in our hearts and a vague ‘Christlikeness’. There are objective things that are Christlike that we can look at in ourselves and test ourselves against, and there are objective things we can expect from our Christian siblings, as well, e.g., not stealing, not owning and beating slaves and not committing adultery.
refrresh my memory, please.
I think you misread my post. I did not claim that “we got it right.” I asked if rules would be necessary if we got it right…
So the “new covenant” prophesied by Jeremiah was not the covenant inaugurated by Jesus?
Is, as Yoda says, there another?
Objective measures of love and Christlikeness does not necessitate rules. I stated this before. The “fruit of the Spirit” are measures against which to test ourselves, but Paul does not “command us to be loving, joyful, peaceful,” etc.
I would agree that “not stealing” is a great measure, but there is a difference between not stealing to obey a rule and not stealing because God’s Spirit reigns in your life.
Again, you can obey the law (or…the Law) without fulfilling the intention of the law.
1 Like
You also can’t fulfill the intention of the law without obeying the law as well. Tell us again how you deal with the usher who is stealing.
It obeys the laws of formatting if you go back and look at it by clicking the up arrow – the ∨ arrow works, too, but then you miss the subsequent conversation:
P.S.: Mercy trumps law, but it does not make the law evaporate.
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
His commandments are not burdensome if our hearts are loving. Remember the suitor and the laws of [romantic] love? It is you who are imagining that the commandments are burdensome.
The usher is not being loving – he is not loving God, nor is he loving the children of God. Why?
He is not carrying out God’s commandments. He is not keeping God’s commandments.
I just came across Thomas Schreiner’s (New Testament prof at SBTS) article on this topic. It directly addresses Stanley’s argument. I happen to agree completely with Schreiner’s reasoning and conclusion. In any case, I think it is worthwhile for anyone interested in this subject.
1 Like
You can’t obey the intention of the law by striving to obey the law. That’s Galatians and Romans. A little bit of Colossians too, for that matter.
We weren’t talking about striving to obey the law. Was the suitor with the bouquet striving to obey the law? I don’t think so.
So…we have the law. We don’t strive to obey it.
What is its purpose?
1 Like
If I find myself stealing or being covetous, I can know that I am neither loving God nor man.
So it is a measure, not a “command to be obeyed”?