No Gospel without Law, no Mercy without Wrath

To sum it all up, God's a vicious tyrant so we have to suck up to him.No thanks. I'm not pessimistic enough to believe it or so opposed ot Christianity that I'd promote it.

Hi Faith, How do you know this, the Bible certainly never mentions that they were given any law from Yahweh? But the time period that we are talking about is just after the Commandments were given to the Israelites, we have no mention of any witnessing to the Canaanites. How do we know this? The New Testament is a totally different collection of literature, we are talking about the Old Testament. Does the Old mention anyone receiving the law outside of the Israelites? If not, then IMO it’s pretty unjust to punish people for transgressing laws that they do not know exist. I do not see how we can view God as a just entity if He condemns people for breaking Laws that they have no knowledge of, seems pretty cruel to me. The Canaanites would hardly come into this category though would they? Yes, given to the Israelites, not to the Canaanites. Other cultures had their own laws, some very similar to a number of the Old Testament ones.I could see the point if the Canaanites were aware of God’s laws, but I don’t see any evidence that they were.Brian.

Technically, no. But if the judge doesn't mind what the defendant's doing, I really don't think he's gonna charge him with contempt. We deduce 'anger' when we see someone going overboard. Thus, regardless of whether or not God was angry, the perception of 'wrath' means that God was acting unjustly. If God created everything, he created that system. If God is perfect, that must be exactly what he wants. If God is imperfect, that could be other than what he wants; but it ain't my fault if God didn't set things up right.

The New Testament comments on the Old. The law is written on the hearts of all it says. It's all the same God. Besides that, all nations have their own laws and as I've said most of them contain similar principles to the Ten Commandments, showing that God's Law is known to all humanity. Hamurrabi's laws have similarities to the Israelites' for instance. That is evidence enough that people knew the Law of God. The existence of holy men of the time is also evidence that people knew God from such people. Certainly there were many more than Job and he sat in the gate of the city and was well known. We simply get to hear about him and not others. The great priest king Melchizedek lived in the land of Canaan in the time of Abraham. There was no dearth of knowledge of the ways of God.I'm giving the traditional Biblical view as far as I understand it. You are free to believe as you please, even believe that God is evil if you like. But in that case He wouldn't have bothered to send His Son to save us from the dire consequences of our violations of His Law. YOu don't need to believe that either or any of it.But for those who are interested in the traditional view, the point of the thread is that the idea of salvation makes no sense if we are not under condemnation for starters, and all the sufferings and calamities that people consider to be unjust acts of God demonstrate that we are definitely under condemnation and that we need a Savior. We would not be under condemnation except that there is a Law which we have violated. It makes sense of reality. It explains the human condition as nothing else can.But again, you are welcome to your own view.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-28-2005 09:00 AM

The point of the thread is that there is a rational explanation for all the calamities of life in human transgression of the Law of our Creator God, and that this is why we need the mercy of God, which is why Jesus came.But clearly you consider the judge the guilty party by definition and the defendant innocent, so have it your way. You don't have to buy any of it.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-28-2005 08:54 AM

I'm pretty sure that the legal system in Scotland is the same as that of Ireland and the United States in at least this regard: ignorance of the law is no defence in law. The law presumes that every human possesses an innate ability to differentiate between right and wrong. The (limited) codified law is merely an attempt to describe externally (in order to apply 'justice') the far wider-ranging law within - "that which is written on our hearts". Conscience in other words.Conscience tells us unerringly what we ought to do. Sometimes we follow it, sometimes we don't. When we don't, we break a law - and we know it. We can no more plead ignorance in front of God than we could in a earthly court.

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

Wow you innately know not to wear certain fibers ! that's amazing!The laws of the Pentateuch, if followed as designed would surely to the death of all and sundry!This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Aug-2005 09:31 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Aug-2005 09:32 AM

quote:

---

The thesis of this thread is that there is no conflict at all, that in fact you cannot have the God of the New Testament without the God of the Old, cannot have mercy without wrath, salvation without condemnation, gospel without law.

---

You can have mercy without wrath, salvation without condemnation, gospel without law.Mercy without Wrath Salvation without Condemnation Quite frankly the Gospel or good news really has nothing to do with the Jewish laws. The followers of Jesus all followed the Jewish laws even after his death, so not sure what you mean by "no Gospel without law".

quote:

---

It's merely hard for fallen nature to understand, and that's because fallen nature is at enmity with God and refuses to submit to His judgments, instead regarding its own fallen morality as superior to His.

---

The whole fallen nature "I'm not worthy" teaching is not part of the teachings of the OT or Jesus as depicted in the Book of Mark.If you consider the story of Adam and Eve to be true, then mankind knew what was good and what was evil. They didn't need god to tell them what was good and evil anymore. So giving them laws to pinpoint sin (missing the mark) was redundant.

quote:

---

They teach what is an offense to the very Law that runs this universe, and by which all human beings will ultimately be judged when we stand before Him.

---

IMO the laws of the universe are different than the civil laws given to the Hebrews. If I'm not mistaken it is very difficult for man to break the laws of the universe/nature.The God of the OT was very much a god of a specific group of people, not truly all peoples. Even Jesus supposedly only spoke to the Jews, not all peoples, that was a later teaching.If we understand the people of the time, then it isn't difficult to understand the difference in the OT God and the NT God. God is a reflection of the people.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

OK this is a sign that I haven't been clear enough about what I mean by the Law. It's not the 613 commandments the Jews feel obliged to obey, it's not the Talmudic understanding of the Law, it's not the many laws that have to do with specific observances by Israel, or the dietary laws or the laws of sacrifice. Also, some laws are hard to understand such as the law against the mixing of fibers.The Law I'm talking about is the one embodied in the Ten Commandments, which Jesus said can be boiled down to love of God and love of neighbor, which He spelled out in the Sermon on the Mount, but which are also spelled out particularly in the Pentateuch but in fact throughout the Bible.This is a law to be understood and obeyed in spirit and not in legalistic obsessional letter, as Jesus said. It is moral principles to be grasped and applied to different situations. Many laws in the OT are too hard to translate into modern terms, but sometimes a principle can be extracted that applies even if the specifics don't.The mixing of fibers appears to have been a Type, or a symbol, of purity in some way, a lesson about a spiritual principle given through a concrete physical requirement. But it's the principle that is the important thing. In this case it's hard to understand the principle on the face of it, but maybe I'll research it.There is also a sense in which the entire word of God, the whole Bible, IS the Law, and we are called to live by all of it.I'm talking about the MORAL Law, the law of right disposition and right action toward God and humanity. It can be boiled down this way but to understand exactly what God means by this takes studying the Bible. While the law is written on our hearts, what WE think love is may be something other than what the Law means by it. Treating sin lightly for instance is NOT love.Again, the Law is holy and good, as most of us recognize if we think about various of the Ten Commandments, and our constant violations of it the reason we need salvation. The Law was given to teach us what sin is, and why we are under condemnation. Not quite sure what you intend to be saying, but in the broadest sense that is true as we all have violated most of them, and in fact as the New Testament says, that was the whole reason God gave the Law, to show us just how thoroughly we are transgressors of it. And that is the point of the thread, that we are transgressors of the Law under its condemnation.

In my first post I seem to imply that the God of the Old Testament is a God of Law while in the New Testament He is a God of Mercy. While that distinction has some usefulness up to a point, it can be misleading. God saves by grace and faith in the Old Testament just as He does in the New. They are the same God and salvation has always been by grace and faith. "Abraham believed God and it was counted as righteousness to him." And Jesus also teaches the Law just as the Old Testament does.

Then I take it that we are required to observe the sabbath. I guess we don't have to observe the sabbath after all. Moral relativism is in. Strict constructionism applies only to the US Constitution, and not to the Bible.I guess it must all be a matter of personal convenience. If strict constructionism for the constitution supports the way we want to do things, go that way. If strict constructionism on the Bible is inconvenient, we can be more flexible.

Yes, it should be observed by all. I guess anything can be misunderstood.No, observing the Sabbath is not legalism, though HOW one observes it can become legalism, and saying that is not affirming moral relativism. {Edit: I'm a strict constructionist on all counts - it's all about Original Intent, for both God's Law and the Constitution. That's not obsessional legalism.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-28-2005 11:37 AM

So it's the Decalogue you want to discuss? Exodus 20:2-17, Exodus 34:12-26, or Deuteronomy 5:6-21?So we are saying cameras are evil? ("any graven image, or any likeness of any thing)But surely America must be evil as well (no god other than Yahweh is to be worshipped)Should I honour my father if he is a nonce?All of those seem very subjective things - how can one viewpoint of god based upon those subjective things be more valid than another?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Aug-2005 11:43 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Aug-2005 11:45 AM

How do you distinguish between dietary or ceremonial law and moral law?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I have always thought her position on moral law for all is correct.The Moral Law as described in the Bible is found in the story of Adam and Eve. The meaning of that story is not some Fall, but rather a great rise for humanity.Humans know good and evil. All humans. Not Jews, not Christians, everybody. That is the Moral Law, try to do good, not bad.The stories of the destruction of the Canaanites is most likely folklore. It's very doubtful that GOD would actually destroy some piddling little town.Religion is a creation of Man. The Bible is a creation of Man. But it's also a pretty good record of many things. We may not know if Sodom ever existed but we do know that the Laws in the OT existed. They were written and codified.The Bible is a record of a growing bureaucracy. Having a Moral Law that said "Try to do what's right" is never sufficient for a bureaucracy. It wasn't sufficient for the early Hebrews. Instead they promulgated law upon law, attributing all to God.The message of Jesus is that all of the bureaucracy is not needed. The Moral Law is "Love GOD and love others as you love yourself." It is a message that ALL of the laws are subjective and that it really is YOUR responsibility to try to do what's right.That is the Gospel. The Good News is that the codified Moral Laws are not what counts. Instead, it is what you actually do that will be judged, considering all of the circumstances of the event.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion