Christian Laws

I assumed he was referring to the divine origin of the Bible. Divine means proceeding directly from God.If that assumption is incorrect, then clarify divine origin of what?

That is vague to me and confusing. You speak of what "we" are acountable to and "we" cannot be expected to be held accountible to a summary. Yet directions specifically to Paul's Christian audience is not the "we" of the whole world formed into a political theocracy governed by Pauline epistles.If a person has not received Christ as the Lord and Savior, their first obligation to God is to repent and become believers in Christ as their Lord and Savior.John spoke of those who were never a part of the brotherhood who made it clear that they stood apart from them:"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us they would have remained with us; but they went out that they might be manifested that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:19)Now these people went out from the "we" of the Christian brotherhood to make it manifested that they were not of that Christian "we" but stood aloof from them.Maybe you are like this. Maybe you want to use the talk of we but in reality you are not one in the Christian brotherhood. So then you are complaining about how can "we" do this and how can "we" do that when you may have no intention of casting your lot among the disciples of Jesus.The judgment seat of Christ is for the disciples of Christ. No unbeliever in Christ will appear there. And if one does appear there she or he knows that they are eternally redeemed. But they still have obligation to stand examined before the judgment seat of Christ for the believers in Christ.Those have stood apart from the disciples that it may be manifested that they are not of the disciples have no need to speak of the obligation that "we" have in that judgment. The obligation of those people is firstly to become saved by receiving Christ as Lord.The unbeliever is not expected to have the teaching of the anointing or the leading of the Holy Spirit until they receive the Holy Spirit. When they receive the Holy Spirit they their consciences will bear witness within them to and what of any summary they are convicted concerning responsibility to. And this is a skill sharpened and developed with spiritual growth and maturity.If you are an unbeliever and you ask "How are WE suppose to follow Jesus" when you regard Him as dead or not the Son of God, you are just talking foolishly. For this person the first step is to become a genuine member of the Christian we and repent to receive Christ as the resurrected Lord and Savior.But if you reject to receive Christ as Lord, it doesn't matter about any Pauline summary directed towards Christians. You will perish because of your rejection of the Savior and His salvation.The "Christian Law" for the unbeliever is to become a believer and confess Christ as their Lord and be baptized to show the world that you are now one of the "we" of those who belong to Jesus.

quote:

---

The "Christian Law" for the unbeliever is to become a believer and confess Christ as their Lord and be baptized to show the world that you are now one of the "we" of those who belong to Jesus.

---

This isn't about what the nonbelievers or nonreligious are held accountable to. It is about what Christians are held accountable to.
You've already given your 10 cents worth. Abiding, got it.

I gave some details and you didn't like them. This is very detailed.As I said before, "worthy of death" is pretty bad. Being "worthy of death" is like driving with the red light on in your car. You can ignore it for a while, but eventually the warning will be 'carried out' and something bad will happen to your car."Worthy of death" is entirely in line with the warning meaasges of the Bible. Rom 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death..." And Ezek. 18:4 says, "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." In the garden of Eden the warning was death and at the end of the Bible, the ultimate punishment is called "the second death."God is longsuffering, not willing that any perish. Ezek 33:11 says, "Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" Therefore He delays carrying out His final judgment.Law and judgment go together.And He does carry out judgment in our conscience now. I don't know if you think that relates to "Christian laws", but I think it does.I believe what makes the things mentioned legally binding on man is God. I believe that, as man's creator, He has the right to apply whatever requirements suit Him.I'd like to add that, just bacause Christians claim to be justified does not mean that we are not morally accountable.P.S. Sorry I missed the reply button before.Edited by Richh, : No reason given.

Do you understand the difference between the judgment seat of Christ and the judgment of the great white throne?If you did you would have no problem understanding the obligation of the Christians.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Where to start. Paul sets up his arguments. Sentences don't make the point by themselves. In Chapter 1, Paul is writing to Gentiles. The point of the argument is made in Chapter 2. The law supposedly referred to the Mosaic Law. Paul is not proclaiming anything different than what the Jews already followed concerning right behavior.

quote:

---

I'd like to add that, just bacause Christians claim to be justified does not mean that we are not morally accountable.

---

So to what laws are Christians held morally accountable?
Where are the laws that backup the characteristics Paul listed?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I realize that perhaps you wish to be rid of me having now gotten my little contribution. But I can assure you that when it comes to the subject of the Christians responsibility at the judgement seat of Christ, we haven't even gotten started yet.But as long as you get the help, whether from me or from someone else, that's fine.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I've been away and then tied up for a while, so I didn't get to respond to your post. But I have some free time today.Yes, I'm sure Paul was refering to the laws of God revealed to Moses when he mentioned the law in Rom. 2:12.I think it is possible to trace many of the 'evils' listed by Paul directly to the ten commandments. For example, I believe the temptation to bear false witness is often driven by such motives as malice, envy and malignity. I could continue if you'd like, but I think you could do it too.Maybe it is easier to list laws do not seem to be applicable to Christians today. For example, there is a commandment about not building an altar of hewn stones. I don't know of any, let alone Christians, who seek to apply Exodus 20:24-25 literally today.But I have heard some helpful 'applications' of these verses (see the quote below), so I think they can be applied, in a spiritual sense, today.My wife and I have both had the experience of being uneasy in conscience when given the incorrect change (in our favor), of feeling the necessity to return and give back the excess, and afterward, feeling much happier and relieved in conscience. This is surely an application of 'thou shalt not steal'.I would like say something by 'accountable' too. Accountable is a scary thing. The following is a quotation of Exodus 20:24-25 and footnotes on it from the Recovery Version of the Bible pubilished by Living Stream Ministry. Edited by Richh, : No reason given.Edited by Richh, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I think it is possible to trace many of the 'evils' listed by Paul directly to the ten commandments. For example, I believe the temptation to bear false witness is often driven by such motives as malice, envy and malignity. I could continue if you'd like, but I think you could do it too.

---

The point is to know where you find the laws that backup the characteristics Paul listed. So yes, please continue.So we have do not bear false witness and do not steal.

quote:

---

Maybe it is easier to list laws do not seem to be applicable to Christians today. For example, there is a commandment about not building an altar of hewn stones. I don't know of any, let alone Christians, who seek to apply Exodus 20:24-25 literally today.

---

The footnote made up a reason, but it still doesn't really explain why some of the Mosaic or Jewish Laws (not just the one you listed) applicable today and others aren't?Since the Jewish followers of Jesus continued to follow Jewish law, the most reasonable answer is that Greeks weren't ever required to follow Jewish law since the Jews were no longer a reigning nation.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Rich didn't Paul say that it was "the commandments in ordinances" that were abolished in His flesh on the cross ? I think we would have to distinguish the moral laws from the commandments in ordinances. " ... having abolished in His flesh the law of commandments in ordinances, that He might created the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace." (Eph. 2:15)He is talking about ordinances which separated the Jews from the Gentiles. So I think ritualistic ordinance is what he has in mind and not mostly moral commandments.You shall not kill is moral. Keep the sabbath is an ordinance, or ritualistic commandment.The ordinance concerning eating this or that clean food Jesus nullified by teaching it was what proceeds out of the heart which defiles a man. The eating of specific foods were ordinances which separated the Jews from the nations. Jesus taught in Matthew to pay attention to that which defiles a man from issuing out of the heart.Yet the moral command of not killing He uplifted saying not even to be angry without a cause to your brother.This is the general thrust of Matthew, to uplift the moral side of the law and down play the ritualistic side. However some exceptions do apply where Christ did instruct someone to pay attention to the priest's instructions. For instance for the cleansed leper.Here is the ritualistic side of the law being as someone's instruction from Jesus. But if you look carefully the lesson was a deeper one than just religious adherance to custom. It had a moral emphasis in it which He emphasized.For example, if you have are offering a gift at the altar (clearly ritualistic) and you remember that someone has something against you, you are to go and first be reconciled to that one. Then having made peace you are to continue the ordinance.So I think each case of Christ speaking of the moral side or the ritualistic side of the law needs to be examined carefully in its own right.

To continue discussing Rom 1:29-32, I think unrighteousness, wickedness include things like stealing, bearing false witness, adultery, murder.Disobedience to parents is a violation of the 5th commandment.Hateful to God violates the first 3 commandments and the 'first commandment' mentioned by Jesus, Deut. 6:5 'And you shall love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.''Merciless, affectionless' violates the 'second commandment' mentioned by Jesus, Lev. 19:18b '...but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am Jehovah.'Many things on the list in Romans violates this, being things that contemplate evil against 'your neighbor'. Insolence and arrogance also fall into this category.Murder violates the 6th commandment. Covetousness is a violation of the 10th commandment.I say more on the second half of you post later.

Regarding the second part of your post about the Greeks following the Jewish law, I’m not sure whether you mean the ‘national’ law of the Jews or the Mosaic Law, the religious law of the Jews. I will assume the later. I thought of several instances of what you say: 1) circumcision, 2) animal, or I will call them ‘typical’, sacrifices and 3) dietary ordinances. I will take the first one in this post.There was a sharp contention in the early church about circumcision of Gentile converts. The contention was regarding the relationship of the Gentiles to the Mosaic Law and, perhaps, the necessity of the Gentiles becoming Jews (being circumcised) in order to receive salvation. Acts and Galatians mention this incident. Galatians deals extensively with Paul’s warning to the Galatians not to turn the Jewish legal system signified by receiving circumcision as it was attended by the principle of justification by works of law. The conclusion of the issue was that circumcision was not enjoined on the Gentiles. The conclusion was not based on whether or not the Jews were a reigning nation. I'm not sure if there is a definitive answer about circumcision of Jewish followers of Jesus as Paul circumcised Timothy.Paul does give a spiritual application of circumcision - applicable to all Christians. By the way, if I understand it right, I say peshat too (most of the time).

I thought the New Testament shows Paul in transition. I think he may have wanted to placate the priests who had turned to the Christian faith. So he went out of his way to appease their suspicions. For many rumors were going about about Paul, that he was anti- Moses and anti- Jewish religion.The enfluence of James was in Jerusalem was at one time heavy on him. But it seems after things blew up in his face he wrote his strongest epistles saying that the old covenant was truly over.This New Testament does show early Christians like James and Peter and Paul in transition. I think it is realitic in that regard.

I was looking at a few comentators on the verses you mentioned and all of them understand 'the law of commandments in ordinances' to refer to the entire law of Moses. It is hard to make the word 'ordinances' stand for only the non-moral laws, like the dietary laws and the law of circumcision, etc., especially when modified by 'the law of commandments in'.There is another possible solution to this seeming contradiction in the Bible besides the one mentioned by you which is noted in a footnote in the Recovery Version on Eph. 2:15. The contradiction being a) Jesus came to fulfill the law and not one tittle of the law will fall away until all is fulfilled and yet b) Paul says that He abolished the law of commandments in ordinances.The other possible solution is to construe 'abolish' as 'made of no effect'. This is an acceptable translation and can be seen in the word 'annulled' in Rom 6:6 'Knowing this, that our old man has been crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no longer serve sin as slaves;'We know that the best we can hope for now is for 'body of sin' to be made of no effect. We know it is not abolished because it is still there and can easily affect us.Paul describes in Romans 7 how the law becomes 'of no effect' to the woman - the husband dies and he reiterates the same thought in Gal 2:19 'For I through law have died to law that I might live to God.'How does this strike you?

It strikes me as helpful. But I have been so long away from this topic review would be necessary for me to pick up where we left off.I have been reading something about the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 33.Good to see you here again. Let me read over your post one more time.