#1 || 09·02·11··09:31 || Daniel

I deny that the laws of Moses (including the ten commandments) are binding upon the Christian - in whole or in part.

But Let me s'plain...

When Cain slew Abel, he did not break a codified expression of what it means to transgress God's rule. He simply did something that was contrary to what God required of him. Sin was in the world, Paul tells us, before there was a codified law.

The law came, not to supplant God's rule, but to keep the place of God's rule until Christ came. When Christ came, the codified law of Moses, which was while it certainly included moral, unchanging directives (thou shalt not kill, covet, steal, lie, etc.), was done away with entirely, and that for which the law had been keeping place - came and abolished it. Like a tutor, it served a purpose, but when Christ came, its purpose ended.

Now, that is not to say that I think we can do anything we want, I don't, but it is to say that we were once under the rule of the codified law, but are now under the rule of the Law-Giver Himself, and those things which have eternally been abominable remain so - sin is still sin, but now that the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile has been torn down, now that the veil separating man from the Holy of Holies is rent assunder - some of restrictions codified in the Mosaic law, are simply no longer valid.

I suppose, "practically speaking", one might see no difference between that and saying that part of the law is still in effect, and part has been abolished - but I think that is a very dangerous and misleading principle to teach, because instead of turning one's heart to the law giver, it keeps one focused on the law, and thereby on works.

I am antinomian then, in that I am against the law as my rule, but I am Christ-o-nomian, in that I am now under the Law-Giver.

If that makes any sense.

#2 || 09·02·11··09:50 || David

I agree. However, I believe that the law still serves the purpose of instructor. It's meaningless to say we are now under the rule of the law-giver himself if we have no written revelation of what the rule demands.

#3 || 09·02·11··10:27 || Daniel

I think where the Mosaic law codifies moral commands, it unequivocably identifies God's intention for us, and in that I think we are agreed - it stands as good and sound instruction to those who use the law lawfully.

Yet I know preachers and teachers who will argue that only part of the Mosaic Law was abolished by Christ, and so they draw their own list of "still in effect" laws - usually "tithing" is on the short list, if you know what I mean. ;)

#4 || 09·02·11··13:28 || Sprite

I enjoy a point that Gordan Fee and Douglas Stuart bring up in "How to read the Bible for all it's worth." They point to the fact that, yes, we are under a new covenant and the law does not apply to us. However, Jesus, the bringer of the new covenant, rehashes the 10 commandments, as well as the greatest commandments and many others as important during his ministry on earth. So, even though following them is not the reason for our salvation, I would consider them a part of the new covenant. As James says, "I will show you my faith by what I do" and that even demons believe there is only one God, and tremble. Is just believing then enough to secure our place in the new covenant? It is if that belief then results in the action of following Jesus' commands (as much as a human can anyway), because then it is shown to be true faith.

Thoughts on Stuart/Fee/my thoughts?

#5 || 09·02·12··06:36 || Daniel

Sprite - we are saved by faith, and not by faith plus works, but the faith that saves will drive the genuine believer to work, not to earn or maintain his or her salvation, but to satisfy the driving influence of the Holy Spirit in his or her life. Jesus gave new commandments, but did not tie them to the new covenant, as God tied the Ten Commandments to the Mosaic covenant - do these and live, fail to do them and die etc. In the new covenant we do not keep Christ's commands in order to keep the covenant, for Christ kept the commandments of God and thereby keeps the covenant for us - that is why it is a new and better covenant. Notwithstanding, this is not a license to sin - for any genuine believer who tries to take such license will quickly be chastened by God as a legitimate child of His. I haven't read Stuart/Fee, but if they regard the sayings of Christ as new commandments on (covenantal) par with the Mosaic commandments, then I think they will wind up teaching a veiled works righteousness couched in the language of grace (grace being the spoonful of sugar that helps it go down). If they merely mean that we in the new covenant are not without commandments - then they are only stating what is obvious. It is not that we are without law, it is that we are not under its dominion.

The law of Moses was a reflection of God's rule - a manifestation of it really. God's rule continues, and those who are God's surrender to His rule. In the OT they did so in accord with a codified law, but in the NT we do so in direct submission to the Law Giver Himself.

That's how I see it.