Theology III

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

See, my reading of the New Testament is considerably different from yours. I think the New Testament is God's acknowledgment that the system of laws in the Old Testament, intended as a really specific guide to daily life towards God, had uneven success. So we're on to plan B. Plan B is, Jesus sacrifices himself to save everyone, and we streamline the guidelines. The new guidelines are in Mark 12:28-34. I don't have any difficulty reading older versions, and routinely use several Bibles in the house, in an effort to understand how people of all times and faiths saw certain points.

People who translate the Bible generally have agendas. As long as I'm compensating for that, anyway, I prefer language that's at least beautiful.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

See, my reading of the New Testament is considerably different from yours. I think the New Testament is God's acknowledgment that the system of laws in the Old Testament, intended as a really specific guide to daily life towards God, had uneven success.

Oh, on the contrary, the law was very successful indeed! Its purpose was to show us that we cannot achieve holiness on our own (Romans 3) and to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3); it is a shadow of good things to come (Hebrews 10).

People who translate the Bible generally have agendas.

No mind-reading claims, please!

As long as I'm compensating for that, anyway, I prefer language that's at least beautiful.

Fine, as long as you don't claim that a word that was used one way years ago and is now used differently originally meant the modern meaning.


Rats, the kids have been bugging me for the computer for some time now - gtg!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I'll claim what seems reasonable to me.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Oh, on the contrary, the law was very successful indeed! Its purpose was to show us that we cannot achieve holiness on our own (Romans 3) and to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3); it is a shadow of good things to come (Hebrews 10).

Hi sisterandcousinandaunt, I don't believe we've met

Sorry to jump in here so suddently, but I couldn't not respond to your comment about the Law. Rian's essentially right here (on the Christian standpoint. I'm not sure what Count would have to say ).

First, there are three kinds of law: ceremonial, civil, and moral. Now the purpose of the moral law, as instituted beginning with Moses and the Sinai covenant, was (1) pedagogical (it shows us how we cannot perfectly keep the law, and therefore are in need of redemption) and also (2) political (set up moral boundaries) and (3) something I'm forgetting at the moment!

The law did exactly what it was intended for in the OT. Contrary to common belief, people in the OT and NT (essentially those before Christ and those after), were all saved by grace . No one was ever saved by the Law itself.

What about the Law now? As Christ was the final atoning sacrifice, the ceremonial law (dealt with things like how to sacrifice, which is now unnecessary) is ended. As God's people are no longer confined to his original chosen ancient Israel, the civil laws (dealt with things like the legal system) also no longer apply (In a sense the ceremonial laws fall here, too). Finally, the moral laws are universal and timeless.

Jesus was never merely a "Plan B." He was the NT fulfillment of the covenant begun in the OT, and a fulfillment that was planned probably since forever-ago, but most certainly from the Fall.

Or that's what the Bible seems to indicate.

[Count Comfect]

As Mercutio guessed, from a Jewish standpoint, I raaaaaather disagree. But I believe that's generally accepted Christian doctrine there.

From a Jewish standpoint, the Law does not fail because we violate it any more than a US statute fails by being violated. As a Reform Jew, generally we take most of the more stringent laws (I'll be blunt here) and take them more as guidelines. For example, we no longer stone people. We do not fence off menstruating women. Etc. But we take the law, in general, and adapted to a modern society, as God's plan, something that is there even if we violate it, and still important even so.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I'll claim what seems reasonable to me.

Sounds like the right thing to do

And I'll claim that you have an agenda, just like those dratted Bible translators!

[Lief Erikson]

I agree with the vast majority of your post, Mertucio. Maybe with all of it- I'm not entirely sure what a certain part of your post is saying. There's just one bit of your post that I'd like to question some.

Originally Posted by Mercutio

What about the Law now? As Christ was the final atoning sacrifice, the ceremonial law (dealt with things like how to sacrifice, which is now unnecessary) is ended. As God's people are no longer confined to his original chosen ancient Israel, the civil laws (dealt with things like the legal system) also no longer apply (In a sense the ceremonial laws fall here, too). Finally, the moral laws are universal and timeless.

I think that the symbolic laws are no longer necessary, for we have the fulfillment of all the symbols. The prefiguration of Christ's Passion in the sacrifices, the separation from the world for God symbolized in circumcision, the separation of "unclean" people from the camp that symbolizes the separation of sin from the soul, and all the rest of the laws that are symbolic like that.

The symbolic parts of the law that were fulfilled in Christ are behind us. When we have the reality, the image is cast aside.

The moral and civil laws also were fulfilled in Christ, for if we have Christ inside us, we behave in a moral way and become perfected slowly over time, and since we behave in a moral way, we also fulfill in our actions the just requirements of the civil law. So all parts of the law are fulfilled in the believer in Christ.

Part of the reason for the law being established for Israel was so that the people would know what was right and behave in a good way before God. Part of the reason the law was given was so that people would do what was just. Remember King David's praise of the law and meditation on it, in Psalms . Very, very beautiful.

As Christians, the requirements of all parts of the law are all fulfilled in us, because Christ is in us. But on a social level, not everyone does God's will. So the aspects of God's law to Israel that are supposed to keep society orderly and doing what is right, and which punish destructive wrongdoing, should be still fully in place. The symbolic law is shed because the reality exists, but the Israeli civil law that prevents injustice and demands that right be done should still exist in society. Though as Jesus pointed out through his mercy toward the woman condemned for adultery, it has to be blended with mercy.

That's also why Martin Luther King Jr. opposed segregation in the civil law. It's because the civil law should be in accord with God's Law. And God demonstrated his justice in the Law of Moses. So I think that the non-symbolic aspects of the civil law that God revealed, the parts that deal with justice for society, should remain in place, though as Christ demonstrated, they should be blended with mercy.

So I don't see the civil law as wholly discarded. I think we're overall, and very possibly even completely, in agreement, though . I think I'm probably just fussing over word choice .

Though if we aren't, that's fine too.

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Jesus was never merely a "Plan B." He was the NT fulfillment of the covenant begun in the OT, and a fulfillment that was planned probably since forever-ago, but most certainly from the Fall.

Or that's what the Bible seems to indicate.

Definitely agreed.

[Mercutio]

I was about to go to sleep when I saw you were responding...so I promise to catch up soon (tomorrow, probably).

[Mercutio]

On a side note (I can't help myself!) for those following this, we do have two particular new covenant replacements for old ceremonial laws (I guess they were ceremonial?). In any event, baptism replaces circumcision and the Eucharist replaces Passover.


Ah, I'll respond in full.

Originally Posted by Lief

The moral and civil laws also were fulfilled in Christ, for if we have Christ inside us, we behave in a moral way and become perfected slowly over time, and since we behave in a moral way, we also fulfill in our actions the just requirements of the civil law. So all parts of the law are fulfilled in the believer in Christ.

I actually wouldn't really think of the moral law (embodied in the Ten Commandments and Jesus' Two Greatest) in terms of being fulfilled in Christ. I see what you mean though...Through him it is possible to abide by the moral law (or at least be closer to achieving it). I think this is just differences of diction

Part of the reason for the law being established for Israel was so that the people would know what was right and behave in a good way before God. Part of the reason the law was given was so that people would do what was just. Remember King David's praise of the law and meditation on it, in Psalms. Very, very beautiful.

That probably has something to do with my point 3, which I was forgetting! I'd agree.

So I don't see the civil law as wholly discarded. I think we're overall, and very possibly even completely, in agreement, though . I think I'm probably just fussing over word choice.

For civil law I was thinking more specific things like stoning an adulteress. I absolutely do believe that the motives behind the law should be promoted, however the actual civil laws in the OT were specifically written for ancient Israel, and could not really be applied broadly to the rest of the world in time and place.


I just found this online, and it seems to sum up some of our thoughts. It's from Tenth Presbyterian in Philadelphia, a very thoroughly orthodox church if I ever knew one. A reformed theology, naturally. You might differ on their remarks about the civil law.

Indeed, the Westminster Confession’s view is not that laws have been set aside, but that a transformation has taken place in light of Christ’s saving work. Israel has become the church. The ceremonial law has been fulfilled in Christ and is transformed into the sacraments that look back upon what those laws once looked forward to. The civil codes have lost their context now that salvation is in Christ, in a spiritual kingdom, and not in Israel, a temporal nation. They are transformed into the judicious application of church discipline. The moral law, however, reflecting God’s changeless character, remains unaltered, although in Christ we are no longer condemned by our sins against it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

On a side note (I can't help myself!) for those following this, we do have two particular new covenant replacements for old ceremonial laws (I guess they were ceremonial?). In any event, baptism replaces circumcision and the Eucharist replaces Passover.


Ah, I'll respond in full.

You're like me in this . Once I read an argument, I always have to respond fully and immediately, because my brain gets locked into it and I can't get any mental peace until I've replied .

Originally Posted by Mercutio

I actually wouldn't really think of the moral law (embodied in the Ten Commandments and Jesus' Two Greatest) in terms of being fulfilled in Christ. I see what you mean though...Through him it is possible to abide by the moral law (or at least be closer to achieving it). I think this is just differences of diction

I agree. I too think that this is just a difference in diction.

Originally Posted by Mercutio

For civil law I was thinking more specific things like stoning an adulteress. I absolutely do believe that the motives behind the law should be promoted, however the actual civil laws in the OT were specifically written for ancient Israel, and could not really be applied broadly to the rest of the world in time and place.

I understand this view, and my whole family except from me, as well as probably almost all the conservative (and liberal) communities of Christians in general in modern times believe this. I disagree, though. And throughout almost all Christian history, the vast majority of believers also disagreed with this perspective. That was back when there still were Christian nations and Christians needed a firm idea of what laws were right and just to put in place in their kingdoms. They pretty much took the Bible as their guide and went from there. A very sensible approach, in my opinion.

I think that if God in the Old Testament says stone an adulteress, then stoning an adulteress is just. And every nation should apply justice in its laws. So punishing an adulteress under law is still just now, just as it was then, because our God is not a changing God. And maintaining purity in modern nations is as important as it was in Israel. Ancient Israel was supposed to be a light to the nations, and part of that was through its laws and justice, in addition to its obedience to and relationship with the true God.

Jesus did not oppose the law or attempt to abolish it. He specifically said he didn't intend to abolish it. When the adulteress was brought forward, however, he showed mercy. This shows that Old Testament civil law, while just, should combined with mercy.

That's what the Puritans did in North America. They established the Old Testament law that if a son dishonors his father or mother, he can be put to death. However, even though that law was in place (they thought it just and God unchanging), they never used it. Occasionally, on very, very rare occasions, when a child (and I think he or she had to be over the age of sixteen) was physically or verbally extremely abusive to his or her parents, they would bring the child to court and the court might or might not authorize a lesser punishment, depending on whether or not they believed the child's actions or words were strongly provoked. But the Old Testament law that they put in place was never used, even though it was there in their law, because they also followed Christ's teaching of mercy.

Originally Posted by Mercutio

I just found this online, and it seems to sum up some of our thoughts. It's from Tenth Presbyterian in Philadelphia, a very thoroughly orthodox church if I ever knew one. A reformed theology, naturally. You might differ on their remarks about the civil law.

Yeah, I disagree with its comments on civil law. I respect its position, though, and I know that most conservative and liberal Christians see it this way. I know that they're sincere and I respect their views. I used to share them. But as I look at it now more carefully and critically, I don't think that it makes sense.

This view about civil law largely came on the scene after the Christian era ended. It only has really caught on in very recent times, in the post-Christian era, and in most of Christianity's past, it was not believed at all. I think that much of the reason for our believing it now is that we love our country and have grown up accepting our country's founding principles.

The separation of Old Testament law from government law really mainly began in the 18th century, when freedom of religion began to take off in Europe and America. Much of the separation of Old Testament law and government that exists now has its root in one of the basic laws of our country. We love our country and have grown up with laws such as freedom of religion and separation of church and state, and we have been deceived by modern culture into thinking that those laws have benefitted our civilization.

Because we accept those laws, we accept their natural implications, which are separation of God's Law from the law of the land. For the law of the land is made by the people, for the people, so if the people differ religiously from God's people, we must accept their religious differences and allow them to engage in what we see as being immoral practices, because their freedom to engage in those practices stems from their freedom of religion. Thus morality and law must become separate because religion and law have become separate. And when we hold to freedom of religion, because religion creates morality and immorality, we must gradually come to accept more and more separation of morality and state. That's why we hear so many people nowadays who talk about it being wrong to "legislate morality." That leaves us with immoral laws. And now, it has reached the point where we see the Law of God as completely failing to apply when it comes to the law of government. The Law of the People should not be the Law of God.

But why? It makes far more sense that if any law should govern a state, it should be God's Law, for God is just, unlike us humans, and he knows what is right, unlike us humans. So when he shows us how to run a state, it makes the most sense that we do as he suggests.

Partly because they followed the Biblical model of civil law in setting up their governments, Christianity dominated Europe for over a thousand years, and evil ideologies such as those that flourish and spread everywhere in modern times, along with a great variety of forms of immorality, did not take root. There were moral problems back then too, of course, and I think that God punished them for those faults just as he did ancient Israel. They thought they were being justly punished also, when they suffered disasters.

But many of the social problems back then were nowhere near on the level that they exist today. And many severe sins of modern times were nowhere near as bad, such as relationship break-up, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, pornography, the murder of children (which is now a genocide of abortions), and idolatry. Those sins have all been pursued and justified in the name of freedom of religion and separation of church and state. If church and state are separate, then morality and state are separate. If morality and state are separate, then immorality is the natural result. And that is what we have seen, a steep moral decline within the years during and since the Enlightenment.

Religion is the heartbeat the spurs people's actions. Every person is religious- it's just a question of whether they worship God or an idol. If a person worships an idol, that will naturally lead to immorality. And if we allow immorality, the natural result will be damage to that person and to society. God's Law prevented immorality and declared the nature of justice. When Christians established that law in their society, as well as following the Spirit who enabled them to better fulfill the requirements of the Law (because Christ fulfills the Law), their civilizations flourished for a thousand years. When the people separated church and state and offered freedom of religion, societies disintegrated throughout the West and immorality flourished.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I'll claim what seems reasonable to me.

Isn't that da code of the Car-jackers?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But many of the social problems back then were nowhere near on the level that they exist today.

Point of information sir! Death, war, famine and plague anyone? Infant mortality rates, life expectancy, quality of life?

What is your evidence for this assertion?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Isn't that da code of the Car-jackers?

It's a traditional POV for theologians.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Point of information sir! Death, war, famine and plague anyone? Infant mortality rates, life expectancy, quality of life?

What is your evidence for this assertion?

Why gay marriage and divorce of course! What attrocities!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

It's a traditional POV for theologians.

Ah, it's good to see that you think theologians are reasonable

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Why gay marriage and divorce of course! What attrocities!

The latter of which is quite interesting if you look at, say, British folk traditions, which include the ideas that a) simply saying "I divorce you" can divorce a couple and b) if a man tires of a wife, he can sell her, and the marriage transfers.

[Lief Erikson]

Gaffer, the issues you are referring to are mostly matters of economics and technology, so they don't really comment on the effectiveness of the laws I was referring to. By rescinding those laws, we've given ourselves social problems that didn't exist in the Medieval Ages, even though technology has somewhat rolled back problems that existed then.

But I think there are some important points you're overlooking.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

war,

60 years ago, all Europe was reduced to rubble, and now WMDs in the hands of fanatic terrorists are a grave concern to the international community. Furthermore, there have been statements by the UN that world water supplies are running low, and in a few decades, wars to control water resources may well begin.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

famine and plague anyone?

How about Global Warming, the ozone hole, the threat of WMDs, the poisoning of our water supplies and the destruction of our oceans in modern times? I believe that those worldwide catastrophies will produce far worse effects than those experienced in the Medieval Ages in Europe, even including the Black Death.

I also believe famine and plague are going to make a horrible and very widespread come-back in the West (we both know they're very, very prevalent in places outside of the West, so I won't go there). Diseases keep mutating nowadays into worse varieties (the avian flu virus is a current threat), and our bodies no longer have immunities to infectious diseases that are preserved by terrorists for use in biological and chemical weapons.

I personally am convinced that modern Western society will be completely and savagely ruined.

The people of the Medieval Ages tended to see their wars, famines and plagues as judgments from God for sin. I would also expect to see those in that era, seeing as Revelation predicts that Christ's rule would be with an "iron scepter." I expect that a fair portion of the time, folks in the Medieval Ages who saw their social woes in this way were right, and I see many of the massive modern devastations the same way.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Infant mortality rates,

Those were horribly tragic, as they are now, although many of those children may have gone straight to heaven.

But in modern times, leaving aside all the children who still die in or outside the womb from natural causes or diseases (and of these, there have been three in my family alone), there have been 1 billion abortions worldwide since about 1980, 1/7 of the world's population, and 40 million of those deaths were in the US alone.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

life expectancy,

This is an interesting point. The Apostle Paul said he desired death, for he felt it was far better to go on and be with Christ, but he said he remained in order to benefit others. Not everyone will be the same, of course, and life on Earth is a gift.

Huh. I'll have to think about this one more. You may be right, but then, maybe being closer to heaven wasn't so bad a thing. And you know how an aging population is bogging down Japan's economy. And the same is happening here and in China.

Also, people in the Medieval Ages led very active, busy lives, often starting work before dawn and going into the night. So even if they lived brief lives, going to heaven sooner, their lives might have been just as full as ours. And different in levels of appreciation, a point I'll get to soon.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

quality of life?

I visited impoverished folks and orphans in Mexico and helped build a house for one dirt-poor family. Among the people we met, I can't tell you how much joy we found in their lives in spite of the poverty they lived in. If they feel joyful and fulfilled, then they're better off than those who have far more wealth and yet lack that joy, and do not appreciate what they have.

Furthermore, I'd like to mention that poverty is relative. You might be living in poverty by Western standards and be doing a ton better than a poor person in Africa. Or you might be a poor person in Africa and yet be doing far better than did the poor of generations that came before, and so feel glad. Expectations are important in this.

Consider, for instance, how Western society in the Medieval Ages offered people serfdom. That was an improvement on the slavery offered by the Roman Empire.

It's not like someone from modern times is popping down into the Medieval lifestyle. For that person, it might be unbearably hard. But for them, they were used to it and had smaller expectations, and they would have only seen the past, like we do. We can't see into the future and say, "oh, in the next few centuries they'll have all those improvements! Oh, how horrible our condition is!" If you've come down in economic conditions, you feel the loss. If you can't see what the altnerative is, though, you don't feel your "hardship." And the lot of folk in the Medieval Ages was actually an improvement on the lot of past generations. So for them, what they would have experienced (from an economic standpoint) might not only have been natural, but actually pretty good.

Heck, a number of the super-rich might look on us rather "middle class" folks as living in unbearable conditions.

In Mexico, I saw children playing with sticks, having no toys or electronic gadgets, and nothing else to play with ever, and yet they were having a blast. They were honestly having a rolicking good time, and many of our youth group members had a grand time playing with them too, for the great pleasure of those children was infectious. Many of folks nowadays who have all the economical blessings and modern technology are completely self-absorbed and do not appreciate or fully enjoy anything they have.

I believe that quality of life is not enhanced by economics or technology. It's the person's spiritual condition that makes the person's quality of life great or small. Also, suffering can often enhance a person's spiritual condition, and one thing I did read about people in the Medieval Ages, according to historian William Durant, was that they bore suffering with great bravery. That, to me, is an indication of a strong and blessed spiritual condition. That spiritual condition is what gives real quality to life.

Widespread passion about religion and interaction with God is known to have been very powerful in that era. I believe that this lent a level of joy to life in Medieval society that doesn't exist so commonly in the modern era.

The quality to life that a relationship with God gives also is a general point that applies to plagues, famines, infant mortality rate, life expectancy and all the rest. Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven is inside the heart. The person who has God in his or her heart is filled with what the Bible calls the fruits of the Spirit, righteousness, peace, joy and love. Paul commented that he had joy in all his sufferings. He lived in joy, "content in all circumstances," because he was spiritually in heaven while on Earth. And so sufferings can turn into blessings and add to quality of life, rather than detracting from it, and quality of life, I think, depends on the human's spiritual condition.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, it's possible technology would continue to improve and solve problems under repressive theocrats, but I wouldn't say it was likely. And when it comes to medicine, I insist on casting my lot in with those damned souls who believe in evolution, because I think my chances of dealing with evolving viruses etc. are better with them.

I like the Rousseauian Mexico. Quaint. Too bad you're interfering in their perfect society with a lot of messy power tools and indoor plumbing. I'm sure the really spiritual folks were appalled.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Oh, on the contrary, the law was very successful indeed! Its purpose was to show us that we cannot achieve holiness on our own (Romans 3) and to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3); it is a shadow of good things to come (Hebrews 10).

But, Ri, sis said that it had uneven success, as a guide to daily life bringing us toward God. Surely you would agree with that?

No mind-reading claims, please!

Oh, of course they do, everyone has an agenda.

Originally Posted by sis

As long as I'm compensating for that, anyway, I prefer language that's at least beautiful.

I'm with you there, sis.

Originally Posted by Merc

On a side note (I can't help myself!) for those following this, we do have two particular new covenant replacements for old ceremonial laws (I guess they were ceremonial?). In any event, baptism replaces circumcision and the Eucharist replaces Passover.

Good on ya for noting that, Merc.

[The Gaffer]

Of course, the past doesn't have a monopoly on misery. Yes, we still have war. I believe one was started by an avowed baptist who lives in a white house off Pennsylvania Avenue.

Interesting that you invoke global warming, yet we don't see the same vigour applied to reducing carbon emissions as to abortion or divorce.

Disease: well, one third of the population was wiped out by the Black Death, so you would have to go some to beat that. But in general, disease was rampant in a way it just isn't nowadays in most of the world (they even have vaccines in Africa, you know). You may wish to ignore the benefits of the last 150 years or so of public health and sanitation, but it doesn't affect the fact that if you have a child it is far more likely to reach adulthood now than 200 years ago.

But that's OK because they go to heaven??

You seem to be saying that it is not about health, wealth or technology, but about spiritual health. I agree that matters, but am interested in how you define it.