“But… I’m Not an Old Covenant Jew!”

/home/wpcom/public_html/wp-content/blogs.dir/7ea/58425775/files/2014/12/img_14681.png

One of the best ice-breaking methods to start a conversation when evangelizing is to ask…

“Are you a good person?”

This allows the evangelist to guide the hearer into facing who they really are… a sinner.

In most cases, the person being evangelized answers, “Yeah, I’m a good person!” But then, the unbeliever offers some sort of justification for saying so. The evangelist usually then offers the person being evangelized the opportunity to take a test, to actually find out if they are a good person or not. They do this by asking the unbeliever a series of questions, such as:

Have you ever told a lie?
Have you ever stolen anything?
Have you ever looked upon another person with lust?

…And, so on. The responses given are almost always answered in the affirmative.

The next step is to then ask them what they would call someone who lies, steals, lusts, etc. Again, the answers are typically pretty standard: “a liar”, “a thief”, “an adulterer”, etc. The point of this line of questioning, again, is to expose the hearer’s true self to them, in order to show them that they are in fact NOT a “good” person.

After a little self evaluation, the unbeliever usually agrees that they are in fact a liar, a thief, or an adulterer, etc., to some degree.

All good stuff, and very important.

It is then usually explained to the one being evangelized, that it is the Ten Commandments from which these questions originate.

(The questions above, for example, are based on three of the Ten Commandments: #9 lying, #8 stealing, and #7 adultery.)

Then, the one being evangelized is also typically told that the Ten Commandments is God’s standard for judgement, and they are then warned that a judgement day is coming at some point in the future, either when they die, or when Christ returns, whichever comes first. The Gospel is given, and the hearer is then urged to repent and to also put their trust in Christ. It’s fairly straightforward, and remarkably effective. This is evangelism 101.

Those who are evangelized this way are usually, at the very least, given pause. Meaning, they walk away with something to consider, which they may have never even considered before… their salvation. Which, is more important than anything else, frankly; coming to terms with one’s “salvific” reality.

So, I have a question. How would you answer this rebuttal from an unbeliever?

“But… I’m not an Old Covenant Jew!”

Now, this may not seem that significant on face value, but it actually nullifies the justification of the standard used in the test demonstrated above… the Decalogue.

Why?

Because, the Ten Commandments were given to Old Covenant Jews… EXCLUSIVELY.

The Ten Commandments were not given directly to anyone alive today. They were given to a specific group of people, at a specific time and place in history, for a specific purpose, as the stipulations for a specific covenant, through a specifically appointed man, Moses (Acts 7:36-38). In other words, the people we (Christians) evangelize are not subject to the requirements of a covenant that they are not a part of. To offer questions from that standpoint is therefore, not appropriate. It’s like informing someone in New York, that they are doing something wrong according to California Law.

It’s a category error.

Now… let’s make something perfectly clear. There is NOTHING wrong with using these questions when evangelizing. In fact, they are as helpful as ever, and I would recommend using them when witnessing. What is questionable here, however, is the grounding for said line of questioning. To challenge a non-Old Covenant Jew with the requirements of Old Covenant Law, would be inappropriate, no?

So, what is the proper grounding?

Christ Jesus

We know that Romans 2:15-16 (ESV), which refers to everyone, declares this…

“They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”

So then, why not instead ground the questions in Christ Himself?

Here’s what I’m getting at…

After breaking the ice by asking the unbeliever whether or not they are a good person, we should then immediately inform them that God judges us by Christ Jesus. Yes, ask them if they had ever told a lie, or stole, or looked upon another person with lust, etc. But then, explain to them that Christ is not a liar, Christ is not a thief, Christ is not an adulterer, and so on. Explain that He is the standard by which God judges all people, so repent (change your mind in regards to who you are) in light of how you compare to Him, and also trust in Him to do the heavy lifting that you cannot do which God requires. It is by Christ which we are all evaluated. Christ, God Himself, is the standard which determines whether a person is good or not.

May our evangelistic methods be grounded in Christ…

Acts 17:30-31 (ESV)
“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent, because He has fixed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by a Man whom He has appointed; and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Just something to consider.

Godspeed, to the brethren!

To read more from theidolbabbler click here.

21 Comments
  1. Profile photo of Jason Mullett
    Jason Mullett 1 month ago

    Please explain why God held the nations outside of Israel accountable for the sexual relation laws in Leviticus 18? Was God committing the category error noted above?
    Leviticus 18:24 “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, 25 and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you 27 (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), 28 lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.

  2. Profile photo of theidolbabbler.com Author
    theidolbabbler.com 1 month ago

    The same reason any person is accountable to God… we all violate who He is…

    Matthew 22:34-40 (HCSB)
    “When the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they came together. And one of them, an expert in the law, asked a question to test Him: “Teacher, which command in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “ Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important command. The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands.””

    Since the law and the prophets depend upon love (which God is, 1 John 4:8), any violation of any law ever given by God is a violation of love, or who He is. When love is transgressed, one then becomes “unclean.” God warned the Israelites to not lead unclean (unloving) lives, which are in antithesis to who He is, as “the nations” did. No category errors are ever violated in requiring the image bearers of Himself to “proactively bear His image properly”… or love. In other words, it is unloving to participate in the abominations described.

    • Profile photo of Jason Mullett
      Jason Mullett 1 month ago

      Doesn’t your assertion above completely undermine the thesis of the entire article that it is a category error to use the 10 commandments in evangelism? I quote “Because, the Ten Commandments were given to Old Covenant Jews… EXCLUSIVELY.” While I absolutely affirm the moral law of God, reflected in the 10 commandments, is based upon the character and nature of God and all created in the “imago dei” are therefore obligated to submit to it and will be judged by God for it. I also affirm the entire moral law can be summarized as love God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and love neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), that is what Jesus said, however your conclusion “the Ten Commandments were given to Old Covenant Jews… EXCLUSIVELY” is a non-sequitur.

  3. Profile photo of theidolbabbler.com Author
    theidolbabbler.com 1 month ago

    The “thesis of the entire article” is to encourage the grounding of any questions (which are asked of the one being evangelized) in Christ, instead of grounding them in the statutes of a covenant that they are not of. Also, you seem to be suggesting that the nations in view (in Lev 18) were given what the Israelites through Moses were given. I don’t see that in the text. (Unless I’m misunderstanding you.)

    • Profile photo of Jason Mullett
      Jason Mullett 1 month ago

      First, the moral law of God, based upon His nature and character, does not change between covenants, because God is unchanging. God’s moral law revealed in any covenant with man is unchanging and consistent between all covenants, therefore when God reveals His moral obligations for man in a covenant that has passed away (Heb 8:13) it does not follow that His moral law in that covenant has also passed away. The fault of the old covenant (Heb 8:7) was not the moral law but the covenant’s inability to perfect anyone with whom it was made (Heb 10:1). Jesus established a better covenant, based on better promises (Heb 8:6) that actually perfects those in it (Heb 10:14). It then follows it is valid to use the moral law of God revealed in any covenant to show men their sin against a Holy God. The Apostle’s and Jesus appealed to the moral law in the OT and held men accountable to it (Mar 10:18-19, Lu 16:16-17, Eph 6:1, Rom 7:7-12, Rom 13:8, 1 Cor 14:30, 1 Cor 14:34). In answer to your second question…. The nations were not given the same special revelation that God gave the Israelites in Lev 18. Special revelation is a gracious gift of God and He gives it to whom He pleases. The nations however did have God’s moral law given to them by fruition of the light of nature (Rom 2:12-15) and they knew in their heart of hearts that to do what was revealed by God specially to the Jews in Lev 18 was a sin. Therefore it is valid to use God’s special revelation of His moral law to bring to light the works of the law God has already written on their hearts. There is no inconsistency in what God has written on the heart and special revelation. The inconsistency comes from the noetic effect of sin and man’s willful rejection of what God has revealed. God is not obligated to reveal specially what He has already revealed generally. Read the first two chapters of Romans.

  4. Profile photo of theidolbabbler.com Author
    theidolbabbler.com 1 month ago

    I guess I’m confused as to what you mean exactly by the term “moral law.” Can you unpack that more? One of the verses that you cited was…

    Romans 13:8 (HCSB)
    “Do not owe anyone anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.”

    Are you saying that the “moral law” = that which fulfills the law (love)?

    On another note, I’m glad that we seem to agree that the nations did not have what the Israelites had in terms of Revelation.

  5. RandomTheology 1 month ago

    God established a covenant and theocratic government exclusively with Israel. He chose them over all the nations to enter in a covenant. This covenant and theocratic government was binding to only Israel and those within the nation of Israel. Thus, for example, if one was in the land of Israel, he or she was obligated to comply with the rules of the land. If, however, one was not an Israelite or was simply outside the land of Israel, he or she was outside the covenant or jurisdiction of the theocratic government. So there is a clear distinction that must be kept. The Old Testament laws were obligatory: to a particular covenant people, namely Israel, and in a particular land—the land of Israel. Second, there is no division in the OT explicitly or implicitly between the Law of God (e.g. moral, civil and ceremonial). Hence, the whole Mosaic Law is a simple indivisible unit thus without parts; but nevertheless, we may make artificial obligatory distinctions. There is epistemic divisions but no ontic divisions. All OT laws were given by God either directly or indirectly (e.g. spoken/written by God or through men) as imperatives–thus moral in nature.

    There are two types of laws God has legislated: Covenantal (relative to a covenant, people, place and time) and Trans-covenantal (objectively binding independent of any covenant, people, place and time). The former is particular; the latter is general. The way this is cashed out is that sin can refer to a description or a prescription; but for any formal connotation, it refers to any violation of God’s commands in state, disposition, (i.e. internal/intrinsic) and/or act (i.e. external/extrinsic).

    God legislates the law as an expression of his character, will and nature. God is not bound by any laws, since a law entails a lawgiver; rather, He is goodness itself. However, God can issue commands to be bound to them ( i.e. Covenants, promises). Kant provided a helpful distinction between following a rule and acting in accordance to a rule. We are obligated to follow God’s laws. God naturally is morally perfect and good thus acts in accordance to the issued laws.

  6. Profile photo of Jason Mullett
    Jason Mullett 1 month ago

    Paul in Rom 13:8 is saying the same thing that Jesus did in Matt 22:37-40 that obedience to loving God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and loving neighbor (Leviticus 19:18) is to fulfill the entire Law. This includes all the Laws outlined below that are obligations for a people during their time. If one is to truly love God and neighbor that person will actually fulfill and do what God requires of them to both neighbor and Himself.

    The Moral Law:
    Those unchangeable precepts which God has revealed that are grounded and based upon His very character which are obligations of behavior that are binding to all men of all time. The moral law has been revealed in both special and general revelation. In general revelation to all men and special revelation to some men.

    Temporary Revealed Law:
    Those changeable precepts which God has revealed that are not grounded in His nature but on His creative decree for a special purpose at a particular time which are obligations for a particular group of people or a person for that particular time. These laws are revealed only by special and not general revelation. (i.e. Go from your country to the land I will show you, Do not curse Israel, Go to Nineveh, Sacrifice your son)

    The Ceremonial Law:
    Those changeable precepts which God has revealed that are not grounded in His nature but on His creative decree for a special purpose at a particular time which are obligations for a particular group of people for that particular time. In the Mosaic Covenant these laws governed the sacrificial system which was a type and shadow of things to come, fulfilled in Christ. These laws are revealed only by special and not general revelation. (i.e. Sacrifice a Lamb, Day of Atonement, Baptism, Lord’s Supper, Shellfish forbidden)

    The Civil Law:
    Those changeable precepts which God has revealed that are not grounded in His nature but on His creative decree which are intended for a particular nation in a particular time on how they are obligated to execute justice and order. These laws are revealed only by special and not general revelation. (i.e. Stoning for adultery, lex talionis)

  7. Profile photo of theidolbabbler.com Author
    theidolbabbler.com 1 month ago

    Jason, It just seems very straightforward as to what all men are culpable for…

    Micah 6:8 (HCSB)
    “Mankind, He has told you what is good
    and what it is the Lord requires of you:
    to act justly,
    to love faithfulness,
    and to walk humbly with your God.”

    Also, the “moral law” approach seems to make assumptions that are just not there, as Random Theology put it, “we may make artificial obligatory distinctions.”

    The only way to fulfill any law is to demonstrate love, which is what Micah warns mankind about. Can anyone outside of Christ do such? As we both know, the answer to that is “no.” However, when one is in Christ, one then has the ability to live according to the Spirit, because of what Christ has done (I know you know this)…

    Romans 8:3-9 (HCSB)
    “What the law could not do since it was limited by the flesh, God did. He condemned sin in the flesh by sending His own Son in flesh like ours under sin’s domain, and as a sin offering, in order that the law’s requirement would be accomplished in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh think about the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, about the things of the Spirit. For the mind-set of the flesh is death, but the mind-set of the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind-set of the flesh is hostile to God because it does not submit itself to God’s law, for it is unable to do so. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God lives in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”

    If “moral law” means, as you put it…

    “Those unchangeable precepts which God has revealed that are grounded and based upon His very character which are obligations of behavior that are binding to all men of all time.”

    …then it can’t refer to that which God gave through Moses, because such was only binding upon those to whom it was specifically given, and not all of mankind…

    Psalms 147:19-20 (HCSB)
    “He declares His word to Jacob,
    His statutes and judgments to Israel.
    He has not done this for any nation;
    they do not know His judgments.
    Hallelujah!”

    But again, as Micah warned mankind…

    Micah 6:8 (HCSB)
    “Mankind, He has told you what is good
    and what it is the Lord requires of you:
    to act justly,
    to love faithfulness,
    and to walk humbly with your God.”

    Here’s a great test for the unbeliever. If the things listed here are lacking in how they live, then they ought to repent and trust in the only One who could ever love, Christ Jesus…

    1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (HCSB)
    “Love is patient, love is kind.
    Love does not envy,
    is not boastful, is not conceited,
    does not act improperly,
    is not selfish, is not provoked,
    and does not keep a record of wrongs.
    Love finds no joy in unrighteousness
    but rejoices in the truth.
    It bears all things, believes all things,
    hopes all things, endures all things.”

  8. Profile photo of Jason Mullett
    Jason Mullett 1 month ago

    The definitions given are not arbitrary and artificial. Can you demonstrate that the definitions that I give are wrong? Do you define things like regeneration, propitiation, sanctification, atonement, justification? Definitions are determined by their usage in their context. If you do not use the definitions and distinctions I have provided for the Law then you make mince meat of what Paul says in Romans or the writer of Hebrews says or many places in the OT where God distinguishes that He desires obedience more than sacrifice, etc. I have yet to hear a valid argument why these distinctions and definitions are wrong, all I hear is that you just don’t like them. I understand because to accept the definitions is to destroy NCT.

    You said…. “If “moral law” means, as you put it… “Those unchangeable precepts which God has revealed that are grounded and based upon His very character which are obligations of behavior that are binding to all men of all time.” …then it can’t refer to that which God gave through Moses, because such was only binding upon those to whom it was specifically given, and not all of mankind…”

    I already responded to this much earlier in the thread, so I will just paste this into the comment again. You have not addressed this yet and so I therefore have to conclude you do not have an answer.

    My previous comment:
    The moral law of God, based upon His nature and character, does not change between covenants, because God is unchanging. God’s moral law revealed in any covenant with man is unchanging and consistent between all covenants, therefore when God reveals His moral obligations for man in a covenant that has passed away (Heb 8:13) it does not follow that His moral law in that covenant has also passed away. The fault of the old covenant (Heb 8:7) was not the moral law but the covenant’s inability to perfect anyone with whom it was made (Heb 10:1). Jesus established a better covenant, based on better promises (Heb 8:6) that actually perfects those in it (Heb 10:14). It then follows it is valid to use the moral law of God revealed in any covenant to show men their sin against a Holy God. The Apostle’s and Jesus appealed to the moral law in the OT and held men accountable to it (Mar 10:18-19, Lu 16:16-17, Eph 6:1, Rom 7:7-12, Rom 13:8, 1 Cor 14:30, 1 Cor 14:34).

    The rest of your arguments (Psalms 147:19-20, Micah 6:8, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7) above are really irrelevant to this discussion as I affirm what you say about them. You would have to demonstrate how my position is inconsistent with an affirmation of that.

    Paul’s statement in Romans 8:3 “What the law could not do since it was limited by the flesh” affirms what I have been saying. The problem is not God’s moral law but our inability to keep it. The problem is that in addition to rejecting the old covenant as a way to righteousness, which you rightly do, you also eliminate along with it the moral law that is binding and eternal.

  9. Profile photo of theidolbabbler.com Author
    theidolbabbler.com 1 month ago

    That’s what I was hoping you would unpack more because I’m having trouble following your train of thought. Maybe, we are just talking past each other. Blessings…

    • Profile photo of Jason Mullett
      Jason Mullett 1 month ago

      If we are speaking past each other then I would like if we could clear that up. Is there anything in particular that you are saying that you do not believe I am understanding? What about my train of thought seems unclear to you?

      You doing anything tomorrow evening? Do you want to jump in on my podcast tomorrow evening and maybe we can have a dialogue to get on the same page. I think this might be helpful for others also. Late notice but my program tomorrow is just a smoregus board of topics anyway so we could do a dialogue about this also.

  10. Profile photo of Jason Mullett
    Jason Mullett 1 month ago

    I would also like to flesh out a statement that you made earlier that I think may be the grounding presuppositional problem you have. You said “then it can’t refer to that which God gave through Moses, because such was only binding upon those to whom it was specifically given, and not all of mankind”

    Why do you assume that God cannot reveal his unchangeable moral law in a temporary covenant? What is the reason for this assumption? I don’t understand the objection.

  11. Profile photo of theidolbabbler.com Author
    theidolbabbler.com 1 month ago

    Tomorrow might be tough, but thank you. I’m flattered that you asked…

    I would like to get on the same page, because based upon your blog that you posted yesterday, there’s nothing there which gives me pause.

    “What about my train of thought seems unclear to you?”

    I’m just still not clear on what you mean by “moral law.” Is this something that we ought to refer to which is outside of God Himself?

    “Why do you assume that God cannot reveal his unchangeable moral law in a temporary covenant? What is the reason for this assumption? I don’t understand the objection.”

    We agree that whatever law God has given throughout the timeline of history reveals something about who He is. What I’m balking at is the assumption that the statutes of a particular covenant are binding upon those outside of said covenant.

    Maybe, this would help to explain my current position (which could change, it’s happened before, LOL)…

    My wife and I are in a covenant together. A statute of this covenant is that we both ought to continually recognize that the covenant binds us as long as we are both alive. However, this statute has no bearing upon anyone else, because no one else is a part of our covenant. In other words, no one else is a part of the jurisdiction of the covenant that my wife and I are a part of.

    Likewise, it is not binding on all men that stealing is wrong, just because stealing was a statute of the covenant that God had with the Israelites. In other words, it doesn’t make sense to me that I could say to someone that they ought not to steal, just because stealing was wrong within the Mosaic paradigm. Instead, I would appeal to that which is the standard by which all morality or ethic is based upon… Christ Jesus. In other words, stealing is wrong because Christ is not a thief.

    Hebrews 1:1-3a (HCSB)
    “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature…”

  12. Profile photo of Jason Mullett
    Jason Mullett 1 month ago

    In answer to your first question… “I’m just still not clear on what you mean by “moral law.” Is this something that we ought to refer to which is outside of God Himself?”

    No, the moral law is not external to Himself, it is the self revelation of God’s very nature and character. We as image bearers of God are obliged to emulate it. God says “thou shalt not commit adultery” because He is not a covenant breaker. God may and does reveal His moral law by special revelation in covenants with man. Even if that covenant is only with a particular man or group of men, if the revelation given is of a moral precept than it is just as binding upon those outside the covenant as those in it (see Leviticus 18:24-28).

    I am unsure how you are still not clear by what I mean by moral law. I have been using the definition below repeatedly and I have laid out the definitions of the other temporary precepts that God reveals to show the contrast and distinctions. Not sure what is unclear about it.

    The Moral Law:
    Those unchangeable precepts which God has revealed that are grounded and based upon His very character which are obligations of behavior that are binding to all men of all time. The moral law has been revealed in both special and general revelation. In general revelation to all men and special revelation to some men.

    You said “What I’m balking at is the assumption that the statutes of a particular covenant are binding upon those outside of said covenant.” This is once again a revelation of your presupposition. You seem to keep assuming that God cannot reveal his unchangeable moral law binding on all men in a temporary covenant with a particular group of men. Why this presupposition? Please provide a valid justification.

    You did make an attempt to compare God’s covenant with Israel to your own marriage covenant, however this is a massive category error. God is not like us (Ps 50:21). You do not have a connection to all other wives/women in the way that God does by fruition of being man’s Creator. All men are in the image of God and are obligated to emulate their Creator.

    Jesus and the Apostles did not hold to the presupposition that you have. They appealed to the moral law in the OT and held men accountable to it (Mar 10:18-19, Lu 16:16-17, Eph 6:1, Rom 7:7-12, Rom 13:8, 1 Cor 14:21, 1 Cor 14:34).

    When Paul referenced the Law in Rom 7:7-12, Eph 6:1, Cor 14:21, 1 Cor 14:34 why couldn’t the Romans, Ephesians and Corinthians reply to Paul, “Paul that’s the Old Covenant Law, you can’t apply that to us”? Seems to me, Paul did not hold to your presupposition.

    Just some thoughts, abandon your presupposition and it all falls into place.

  13. Profile photo of theidolbabbler.com Author
    theidolbabbler.com 1 month ago

    Just a suggestion: Wouldn’t it be better to have any scripture references written out for anyone reading along?

    “No, the moral law is not external to Himself, it is the self revelation of God’s very nature and character.”

    If the “moral law” is not external to Himself, then God is the “moral law” just as He is love. Is that what you are saying?

    Until I’m clear on what you are talking about, I can’t really respond to the rest of what you wrote, sorry.

    • Profile photo of Jason Mullett
      Jason Mullett 1 month ago

      Hmmm interesting that you won’t respond to my question. When it comes to the Scriptures there is no need to lengthen the post by copying the full text in. The reference is sufficient for anyone to review. You are welcome to post the way you like and I will post the way I like.

      Now when it comes to your question I am not sure why it is even relevant and I have sufficiently answered it before but I will do it again. The Moral Law is not external to God in the sense that there is a Law outside of God that governs His behaviour. The Moral Law is a reflection of God’s own behavior and character communicated to man in both general and special revelation. In this sense it is intrinsic “internal” to himself. The revelation of the Moral Law is however external to himself, so in that sense it is external, but it is only external by virtue of His self-revelation of it to men.

      Now I hope you will answer my previous question. “You seem to keep assuming that God cannot reveal his unchangeable moral law binding on all men in a temporary covenant with a particular group of men. Why this presupposition? Please provide a valid justification.”

  14. Profile photo of theidolbabbler.com Author
    theidolbabbler.com 1 month ago

    Your question assumes the existence of something which I’m having trouble seeing the existence of.

    “The Moral Law is not external to God in the sense that there is a Law outside of God that governs His behaviour. The Moral Law is a reflection of God’s own behavior and character communicated to man in both general and special revelation. In this sense it is intrinsic “internal” to himself. The revelation of the Moral Law is however external to himself, so in that sense it is external, but it is only external by virtue of His self-revelation of it to men.”

    This is incoherent to me. It’s “not external,” yet it “is however external.” I’m just not following, sorry.

    Why not just look to Christ?

  15. TheKraken 1 month ago

    “You seem to keep assuming that God cannot reveal his unchangeable moral law binding on all men in a temporary covenant with a particular group of men. Why this presupposition? Please provide a valid justification.”

    This is presupposing he did, when the bible speaks clearly to the contrary when it comes to the Mosaic. It was temporary and served a purpose, both in Romans and Galatians it gives reasons the Mosaic Law came in. And in Galatians it even states when it was to leave.

  16. Profile photo of Justin Gardner
    Justin Gardner 1 month ago

    “You seem to keep assuming that God cannot reveal his unchangeable moral law binding on all men in a temporary covenant with a particular group of men. Why this presupposition? Please provide a valid justification.”

    Presupposes that God did, but he did not. Scripture puts it plainly in Matthew 5 that Christ’s law is a higher law and different. Hebrews makes it clear it’s based off better promises than the Mosaic, which it cannot logically be the same covenant at that point. Galatians and Romans states the law had a purpose and Galatians 3 states that purpose has been served and as Hebrews states it passed away.

    The burden of proof is on CT to prove that the 10 are an unchanging moral law as it’s a positive assertion not grounded from explicit texts, but is said to be inferred. Well, many deny that inference because it’s quite arbitrary.

  17. Profile photo of theidolbabbler.com Author
    theidolbabbler.com 4 days ago

    After listing to CFTP Episode #50, I must admit that I had mistakenly assumed that Jason’s personal definition of “the moral law” included the Ten Commandments (10c’s). During the episode, both Dustin Segers and Paul Kaiser had explained that since “the moral law” historically means the 10c’s, they then always assume that the 10c’s are what is in view when they hear “the moral law.” I must admit that in this conversation as well, I did the same. It is why I said that Jason’s definition was “incoherent.” In other words, just as with Dustin and Paul, the phrase “the moral law” is confusing to me as well. However, after hearing the podcast (gaining a better understanding as to what Jason means when he says “the moral law), I can now also join Dustin and Paul in saying, “Amen!”

    Like Dustin and Paul, though, I also believe that it would be helpful if ”the moral law” is no longer said, but instead say ”transcovenantal moral law” or ”absolute law.” The historical term ”moral law” (as mentioned above) carries a certain weight/meaning or connotation, so when it is used in conversations such as these, it can make things confusing or ”incoherent” to ears such as mine and many others. Anyway, that’s why I described Jason’s definition as “incoherent.” My apologies to you Jason…

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

CONTACT US

Questions, comments, encouragements & condemnations welcome.

Sending

©2017 Bible Thumping Wingnut Network | A Ministry of Striving For Eternity

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account