This will be a discussion on Matt. 5:17-48.
This is where Jesus lays down the law. Normally we think of Jesus as the savior, the forgiver, the scolder of the self-righteous - but here, he plainly commands that we "be perfect". Is that something we can choose to do?
Take, for instance, the rule against anger. Not only is it wrong to actually murder someone, it's wrong to want to. It's wrong to feel anger. Another one - lust. Can I help it if my eye catches someone beautiful, and I look? Certainly not.
Often, we can't help but feel hostility towards others, or lust for those who we have no love for. More often, we can't just up-and-stop feeling these things. Sure, most of us can resist actually doing them. But wanting to?
So the question for discussion, then, is "How do we deal with the impossible standards Jesus sets for us?"
The Sins of the Sermon on the Mount
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
Our infatuation with pleasure (for which I myself am guilty) - be it for sex or entertainment or commodities or anything else - causes cultural destruction worldwide. The reactions are often hopeless, and sometimes murderously angry. Why 3rd-world countries despise Western culture, to the extent that they would resort to murderous rage, is beyond my understanding. But the fact remains that they do. We can't chalk it up to irrationality and fanaticism and call it a day. We have to deal with it.[1]
At the end of this post is evidence of how we are often guilty and deserving of blame, without even knowing it, and yes, sometimes without having any say in the matter. That we feel powerless to solve the problem is moot. Our best intentions are moot. Our ignorance does not absolve us of wrongdoing. The problem of sin is exactly as Jesus described it: Very very real, even when it seems trivial, even when it is beyond our immediate willpower to overcome. Anger equates to murder. Lust equates to adultery. We deserve punishment. And many people in the world are beyond willing to give it to us.
If we are ever to move forward, getting angry and defensive about it is not going to solve anything. We must take solace in this one recourse: the guilt we are faced with - the insurmountable guilt that is beyond us to overcome - has been put on Jesus, according to the Christian worldview. God has seen that we cannot do what we have been asked to do ("be perfect, as your father in heaven is perfect" at the end of the passage in question). He recognizes that we can't just will ourselves to perfection. Since the sins do matter (as evidenced by the worldwide rage against the "trivial" problems of Western culture), something must be done. There must be a requirement. Things cannot go on as they are. But, since God recognized that we cannot meet his requirement, he offers us a choice we can make. Faith. By putting our trust in God, these evils really can be overcome ("with God, all things are possible") - not by the meager understanding of humans who do not even realize their own faults - but by the living Spirit of God himself. We have a choice to make - put our faith in Christ and his transformative power, or put our faith in ourselves and be perfect some other way. I don't see the latter happening. If others think they are perfect, I challenge them to resolve the conflicts depicted below.
God's forgiveness removes a weighty burden of guilt, and at the same time empowers us to real transformation. When personal growth is driven by guilt, it is wrongly-motivated and the results are terrible. When transformation is driven by God himself, the process benefits from perfect omniscience - a perfect understanding of the complexities involved. With God at the helm, heaven can be realized [3]. With Man at the helm, all bets are off.
I think the point of this passage in Matthew is to make us appreciate God's grace and mercy, which is bestowed later on in the Gospels. If we think we're not that bad, we don't appreciate what God has done. As for what to do about our guilt, my answer is the same as those of others', above. Have faith. This sentiment is summarized at the end of Luke. [2]
------------------------------------
[1]
The following is an excerpt from a section titled "Oblivious Domination" in the following book (found on Amazon - you can view this portion from the internet by clicking "Look inside" at the top left):
Meic Pearse. Why the Rest Hates the West. IVP Books; 1st Printing edition (June 13, 2004). pp 34-36. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Rest-Hates-We ... s+the+west
[2]
Luke 24:47-49
As a side note, in response to the reference to disunity among denominations of Christianity: that is another discussion entirely. However, I have interfaced with a broad variety of Christians of many denominations, both Protestant and Catholic, and I believe that this message of forgiveness despite overwhelming guilt is a unifying point.
[3]
ref:Every Now and Then
At the end of this post is evidence of how we are often guilty and deserving of blame, without even knowing it, and yes, sometimes without having any say in the matter. That we feel powerless to solve the problem is moot. Our best intentions are moot. Our ignorance does not absolve us of wrongdoing. The problem of sin is exactly as Jesus described it: Very very real, even when it seems trivial, even when it is beyond our immediate willpower to overcome. Anger equates to murder. Lust equates to adultery. We deserve punishment. And many people in the world are beyond willing to give it to us.
If we are ever to move forward, getting angry and defensive about it is not going to solve anything. We must take solace in this one recourse: the guilt we are faced with - the insurmountable guilt that is beyond us to overcome - has been put on Jesus, according to the Christian worldview. God has seen that we cannot do what we have been asked to do ("be perfect, as your father in heaven is perfect" at the end of the passage in question). He recognizes that we can't just will ourselves to perfection. Since the sins do matter (as evidenced by the worldwide rage against the "trivial" problems of Western culture), something must be done. There must be a requirement. Things cannot go on as they are. But, since God recognized that we cannot meet his requirement, he offers us a choice we can make. Faith. By putting our trust in God, these evils really can be overcome ("with God, all things are possible") - not by the meager understanding of humans who do not even realize their own faults - but by the living Spirit of God himself. We have a choice to make - put our faith in Christ and his transformative power, or put our faith in ourselves and be perfect some other way. I don't see the latter happening. If others think they are perfect, I challenge them to resolve the conflicts depicted below.
God's forgiveness removes a weighty burden of guilt, and at the same time empowers us to real transformation. When personal growth is driven by guilt, it is wrongly-motivated and the results are terrible. When transformation is driven by God himself, the process benefits from perfect omniscience - a perfect understanding of the complexities involved. With God at the helm, heaven can be realized [3]. With Man at the helm, all bets are off.
I think the point of this passage in Matthew is to make us appreciate God's grace and mercy, which is bestowed later on in the Gospels. If we think we're not that bad, we don't appreciate what God has done. As for what to do about our guilt, my answer is the same as those of others', above. Have faith. This sentiment is summarized at the end of Luke. [2]
------------------------------------
[1]
The following is an excerpt from a section titled "Oblivious Domination" in the following book (found on Amazon - you can view this portion from the internet by clicking "Look inside" at the top left):
Meic Pearse. Why the Rest Hates the West. IVP Books; 1st Printing edition (June 13, 2004). pp 34-36. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Rest-Hates-We ... s+the+west
The truth is that Westerners are perceived by non-Westerners... as rich, technologically sophisticated, economically and politically dominant, morally contemptible barbarians.... Why barbarians? For despising tradition, the ancestors and the dead. For despising religion.... For the shallowness and triviality of their culture. For their sexual shamelessness. For their loose adherence to family.... For their absence of any sense of honor....
As one Iranian leader of Ansare Hezbollah put it, "When you see some people here dressed in American-style clothes, you are seeing the bullets of the West."
...
Very many, especially Third World, people have the sensation that everything they hold dear and sacred is being rolled over by an economic and cultural juggernaut that doesn't even know it's doing it... and wouldn't understand why what it's destroying is important or of value.
...
And the worst of it is that Westerners themselves are hardly aware of what they are doing.... Supporters of tradition in the non-West have the sensation that they are being rolled over by a juggernaut that does not even know they exist.
[2]
Luke 24:47-49
As a side note, in response to the reference to disunity among denominations of Christianity: that is another discussion entirely. However, I have interfaced with a broad variety of Christians of many denominations, both Protestant and Catholic, and I believe that this message of forgiveness despite overwhelming guilt is a unifying point.
[3]
ref:Every Now and Then
-
Ancient Paths
- Student
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:55 pm
Re: The Sins of the Sermon on the Mount
Post #12[Replying to post 1 by Wissing]
Hi Wissing, I hope my response is relevant to your query.
First, I want to establish where I'm coming from regarding the Law of God before I get into the question at hand. I believe that the whole Law of God, all 613 of them found in the books of Moses, remain relevant for those walking in covenant with YHVH. Legalism, with which I am often charged, is not the keeping of God's Law, it is the keeping of God's law as a means of earning salvation. I keep God's Law as a result of salvation, not to earn it. In fact, one of the key NT passages supporting my view of the Law is the first three verses of the portion you're focusing on. That said,...
John wrote the following regarding keeping God's Law:
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. -1Jn. 5:3
He did not think up this concept on his own.
...if you obey the Lord your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?" But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. -Dt. 30:10-14
In a Jewish or Hebrew context, mention of "the Law" or "the commandments" is necessarily a reference to the exact same thing--no more, no less--than it meant before Jesus arrived on the scene: God's 613 laws handed down via Moses. The church has sidestepped this apparent contradiction by dismissing NT mentions of law or commandments as something other than this. As a result, there appears to be no consistent standard for Christian living. This is more background for my point, which is that it may come down to the meaning of one word: keep.
Throughout the NT we encounter various forms of the phrase, to keep the commandments or to keep the Law. Keep in English implies flawless doing or performing of something, but not so in the Greek, and especially in the Hebrew, which is what we need to be looking at to properly understand it since it is a concept that comes straight out of the OT and the whole Bible's foundation, the Law.
In the Greek scriptures, there are three words used in these phrases about keeping the Law: poieo, teleo, and phylasso. Poieo means to commit to or to make [one] do [something], which is akin to our modern English understanding of keep. It appears in two places, one of which is:
And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep [poieo] the whole Law. -Gal. 5:3
In this case, using poieo makes perfect sense as Paul is speaking of a commitment or obligation to do the whole Law perfectly all of one's days. He is not saying that circumcision is bad, but that circumcision as part of keeping the Law because one believes that that is what gains one access to the faith and ultimately to salvation is error.
Teleo and phylasso are the two words used by far the most frequently when referring to keeping the commandments, and their meanings are very nearly identical: to guard, or to attend to carefully.
The Hebrew word used for keep is shamar and has the same meaning as that of teleo and phylasso.
So, instead of understanding "keep the law" as a do-or-die, pass-or-fail proposition, it is about keeping the commandments before us and paying attention to them for the purpose of doing them to the best of our ability. The best of our ability, however, does not remain static; it is to be a continual process of improvement. We see this in the Council of Jerusalem's decision regarding gentile converts to the faith in Acts 15.
{19} Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, {20} but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. {21} For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath. -Acts 15:19-21
One of the church's attempts to dismiss the idea that "Law" or "commandments" in the NT refers to the same thing it referred to in the OT is verse 20, claiming that gentiles must observe only these four commandments. The two problems with that understanding are (1) once one becomes a believer, one is no longer a gentile but an Israelite and (2) the following verse, which often goes in one ear and out the other. The point here is that gentile converts to the faith had to demonstrate their sincerity by obeying the four laws listed in verse 20, but they would learn more of the Law ("Moses" in verse 21) by attending synagogues (note, not churches).
Every believer is, ideally, in the process of improving, becoming more like Christ, who did flawlessly obey the whole Law. Overcoming lust is a process. Overcoming anger is a process. And maybe anger isn't what God has someone working on during a particular season in his/her life, but something else. We don't have to work on these laws by ourselves, though. God didn't send the Helper to help us break his laws; that's easy.
So while Divine Insight is correct in saying that Christ doesn't expect or desire us to beat ourselves up over our mess-ups, he does call us to be more conformed to his image. So, for example, when you can look at a scantily clad curvacious bombshell with face paint and a come-hither look in her painted eyes and view her as just another of God's creation, you've arrived...in the area of lust. Remember, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. It's a process and requires some effort on our parts.
Peace.
Hi Wissing, I hope my response is relevant to your query.
First, I want to establish where I'm coming from regarding the Law of God before I get into the question at hand. I believe that the whole Law of God, all 613 of them found in the books of Moses, remain relevant for those walking in covenant with YHVH. Legalism, with which I am often charged, is not the keeping of God's Law, it is the keeping of God's law as a means of earning salvation. I keep God's Law as a result of salvation, not to earn it. In fact, one of the key NT passages supporting my view of the Law is the first three verses of the portion you're focusing on. That said,...
John wrote the following regarding keeping God's Law:
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. -1Jn. 5:3
He did not think up this concept on his own.
...if you obey the Lord your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?" But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. -Dt. 30:10-14
In a Jewish or Hebrew context, mention of "the Law" or "the commandments" is necessarily a reference to the exact same thing--no more, no less--than it meant before Jesus arrived on the scene: God's 613 laws handed down via Moses. The church has sidestepped this apparent contradiction by dismissing NT mentions of law or commandments as something other than this. As a result, there appears to be no consistent standard for Christian living. This is more background for my point, which is that it may come down to the meaning of one word: keep.
Throughout the NT we encounter various forms of the phrase, to keep the commandments or to keep the Law. Keep in English implies flawless doing or performing of something, but not so in the Greek, and especially in the Hebrew, which is what we need to be looking at to properly understand it since it is a concept that comes straight out of the OT and the whole Bible's foundation, the Law.
In the Greek scriptures, there are three words used in these phrases about keeping the Law: poieo, teleo, and phylasso. Poieo means to commit to or to make [one] do [something], which is akin to our modern English understanding of keep. It appears in two places, one of which is:
And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep [poieo] the whole Law. -Gal. 5:3
In this case, using poieo makes perfect sense as Paul is speaking of a commitment or obligation to do the whole Law perfectly all of one's days. He is not saying that circumcision is bad, but that circumcision as part of keeping the Law because one believes that that is what gains one access to the faith and ultimately to salvation is error.
Teleo and phylasso are the two words used by far the most frequently when referring to keeping the commandments, and their meanings are very nearly identical: to guard, or to attend to carefully.
The Hebrew word used for keep is shamar and has the same meaning as that of teleo and phylasso.
So, instead of understanding "keep the law" as a do-or-die, pass-or-fail proposition, it is about keeping the commandments before us and paying attention to them for the purpose of doing them to the best of our ability. The best of our ability, however, does not remain static; it is to be a continual process of improvement. We see this in the Council of Jerusalem's decision regarding gentile converts to the faith in Acts 15.
{19} Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, {20} but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. {21} For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath. -Acts 15:19-21
One of the church's attempts to dismiss the idea that "Law" or "commandments" in the NT refers to the same thing it referred to in the OT is verse 20, claiming that gentiles must observe only these four commandments. The two problems with that understanding are (1) once one becomes a believer, one is no longer a gentile but an Israelite and (2) the following verse, which often goes in one ear and out the other. The point here is that gentile converts to the faith had to demonstrate their sincerity by obeying the four laws listed in verse 20, but they would learn more of the Law ("Moses" in verse 21) by attending synagogues (note, not churches).
Every believer is, ideally, in the process of improving, becoming more like Christ, who did flawlessly obey the whole Law. Overcoming lust is a process. Overcoming anger is a process. And maybe anger isn't what God has someone working on during a particular season in his/her life, but something else. We don't have to work on these laws by ourselves, though. God didn't send the Helper to help us break his laws; that's easy.
So while Divine Insight is correct in saying that Christ doesn't expect or desire us to beat ourselves up over our mess-ups, he does call us to be more conformed to his image. So, for example, when you can look at a scantily clad curvacious bombshell with face paint and a come-hither look in her painted eyes and view her as just another of God's creation, you've arrived...in the area of lust. Remember, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. It's a process and requires some effort on our parts.
Peace.
Post #13
Ancient Paths, thanks for the response, and the time it took you to look up the scripture to support it. I come from a very "faith alone" background. Recently, I've come to better-appreciate the view of "faith and works". Here's the dichotomy:
Reading the old testament, it's hard to walk away thinking morality is trivial or meaningless. Really, the covenant hasn't changed in substance between the new and the old*, only in application. It was always about faith, and it was always about obedience. God promised that he would deliver the Jews into the land of milk and honey IF they were faithful and obedient. Faithful, as in "don't strike that rock twice at Meriba", and obedient as in "do no work on the sabbath". The way faith and obedience are described, they are always together. It's almost like faith and obedience are synonymous. Jesus' message is no different. It's not just "believe", it's "believe and repent".
On the other hand, the new covenant is for gentiles. You don't change hearts and minds with a list of rules. Faith is the starting point, and we grow from there. This is why the apostles, in Acts 15, didn't stress the rules in their letters - just a small, manageable list to start with. Modern churches do this too - when pressed, they will say "you don't want to err on the side of licentiousness", but 9 times out of 10 they will tell you you're saved by faith alone, and just not really talk about the rules. Many don't even bother with the question of what to do after you're saved.
When I was young, I was taught "if you believe in Jesus, you will go to heaven". Period. That's all that was said, but I naturally wanted to improve and be ethical. So "faith alone" did produce faith and works - that teaching bore fruit. However, there came a point where I became very depressed and despondent, and had no goal in life, and slipped into sin. I knew it was wrong, and I didn't want to sin, but deep down I believed that it didn't really matter, because I would go to heaven anyway. I didn't really think God actually demanded repentance anymore - that's all just old testament law that has been wiped away.
Long story short, I'm no longer depressed and I don't look at porn anymore. Here's why:
-reading your Bible regularly is not legalism
-praying regularly is not legalism
-continuous self-improvement is not legalism
-going to church regularly is not legalism
-total depravity is debilitating
-intentionality is not works-righteousness
-root causes (like what environment I put myself in) can be helped, even if immediate causes (like feeling lust) can't
There are methods God uses to grant us purpose, to mobilize us, to change us. Faith is a prerequisite, but once an action is done by faith, it is no longer legalism.
Should the churches that emphasize "faith alone" stop doing that? No. When a person doesn't see any way of improving oneself, they can't be told they have to improve anyway. It feels oppressive. The process has to start somewhere. These churches remind us of one very important fact: the Christian continuous improvement is not results-oriented. The works are by faith, and the teaching of "faith alone" does produce the fruit of righteousness. Faith without works may be dead, but works without faith are a breeding ground for self-righteousness.
This may segue into another discussion (as I see you've started one), but I think the book of Hebrews is relevant. Hebrews 8:10-13 says:
So the old law is one source of knowing God's commands, but we must rely on the Holy Spirit to help us figure out what to do in a given situation. There are new problems we face every day.
-------------------------------
*Most of the time, Jesus upheld the old law, but emphasized certain points more than others (love over sacrifice). However, Jesus did actually overturn some laws: food restrictions (it's not what goes into the body that defiles, but what comes out). He also changed the punishment for transgressions (let he who is without sin cast the first stone).
Reading the old testament, it's hard to walk away thinking morality is trivial or meaningless. Really, the covenant hasn't changed in substance between the new and the old*, only in application. It was always about faith, and it was always about obedience. God promised that he would deliver the Jews into the land of milk and honey IF they were faithful and obedient. Faithful, as in "don't strike that rock twice at Meriba", and obedient as in "do no work on the sabbath". The way faith and obedience are described, they are always together. It's almost like faith and obedience are synonymous. Jesus' message is no different. It's not just "believe", it's "believe and repent".
On the other hand, the new covenant is for gentiles. You don't change hearts and minds with a list of rules. Faith is the starting point, and we grow from there. This is why the apostles, in Acts 15, didn't stress the rules in their letters - just a small, manageable list to start with. Modern churches do this too - when pressed, they will say "you don't want to err on the side of licentiousness", but 9 times out of 10 they will tell you you're saved by faith alone, and just not really talk about the rules. Many don't even bother with the question of what to do after you're saved.
When I was young, I was taught "if you believe in Jesus, you will go to heaven". Period. That's all that was said, but I naturally wanted to improve and be ethical. So "faith alone" did produce faith and works - that teaching bore fruit. However, there came a point where I became very depressed and despondent, and had no goal in life, and slipped into sin. I knew it was wrong, and I didn't want to sin, but deep down I believed that it didn't really matter, because I would go to heaven anyway. I didn't really think God actually demanded repentance anymore - that's all just old testament law that has been wiped away.
Long story short, I'm no longer depressed and I don't look at porn anymore. Here's why:
-reading your Bible regularly is not legalism
-praying regularly is not legalism
-continuous self-improvement is not legalism
-going to church regularly is not legalism
-total depravity is debilitating
-intentionality is not works-righteousness
-root causes (like what environment I put myself in) can be helped, even if immediate causes (like feeling lust) can't
There are methods God uses to grant us purpose, to mobilize us, to change us. Faith is a prerequisite, but once an action is done by faith, it is no longer legalism.
Should the churches that emphasize "faith alone" stop doing that? No. When a person doesn't see any way of improving oneself, they can't be told they have to improve anyway. It feels oppressive. The process has to start somewhere. These churches remind us of one very important fact: the Christian continuous improvement is not results-oriented. The works are by faith, and the teaching of "faith alone" does produce the fruit of righteousness. Faith without works may be dead, but works without faith are a breeding ground for self-righteousness.
This may segue into another discussion (as I see you've started one), but I think the book of Hebrews is relevant. Hebrews 8:10-13 says:
Jesus did not abolish the law, but he did fulfill it. The above passage may grant us insight into what he means by "fulfill". He's improving upon the old, not eliminating it. When a new Windows version comes out, the old model is obsolete. But the new is built on the old, so the old tells us something about the new. If anything, the new covenant is a more stringent standard than the old. Instead of the laws being written in a book, where we can be sure that we've crossed everything off the list, now they're written on our hearts. The Holy Spirit provides updates constantly. The law is now living, instead of written.'This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts... I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.'
In speaking of 'a new covenant,' he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear.
So the old law is one source of knowing God's commands, but we must rely on the Holy Spirit to help us figure out what to do in a given situation. There are new problems we face every day.
-------------------------------
*Most of the time, Jesus upheld the old law, but emphasized certain points more than others (love over sacrifice). However, Jesus did actually overturn some laws: food restrictions (it's not what goes into the body that defiles, but what comes out). He also changed the punishment for transgressions (let he who is without sin cast the first stone).
-
Ancient Paths
- Student
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:55 pm
Post #14
Me, too.Wissing wrote: Recently, I've come to better-appreciate the view of "faith and works".
This is precisely the message of James regarding faith being dead if not accompanied by works, not because works have anything to do with getting saved, but because they are the evidence that one's salvation is genuine.Wissing wrote: The way faith and obedience are described, they are always together. It's almost like faith and obedience are synonymous. Jesus' message is no different. It's not just "believe", it's "believe and repent".
I will differ with you on this point and say that new covenant is not for gentiles but for Israel and Israel only.Wissing wrote: On the other hand, the new covenant is for gentiles.
I think you may be contradicting yourself here. The list of four laws, which are taken from those in the five books of Moses, are not the only ones that a gentile convert to the faith is to keep. You may be alluding to this, however, with your phrase "to start with," which I very rarely see a fellow believer acknowledge. The reason I say this is because in the following verse, verse 21, the four laws listed in verse 20 are obviously a starting point... "after all, Moses [a reference to the whole Law of God] is preached in synagogues..." In other words, gentiles coming into the faith, who know nothing about God's Law, are to start off with these four laws because they will grow in their knowledge, understanding, and obedience to the rest as they grow in Christ by attending synagogue and fellowshiping with other, more mature, believers.Wissing wrote: This is why the apostles, in Acts 15, didn't stress the rules in their letters - just a small, manageable list to start with.
I agree completely. I would say that obedience to God's Law done in order to earn salvation is legalism; obedience to God's Law as a result of salvation--i.e., as a love response to salvation--is not legalism but righteous living that brings blessing.Wissing wrote: Faith is a prerequisite, but once an action is done by faith, it is no longer legalism.
Here I disagree because those churches that jettison God's Law and adopt a "grace only" stance (1) tend to encourage licentious living because there isn't really a standard and (2) those churches never grow beyond the idea that salvation through grace is all that matters, so neither do those who are coming to faith through those churches. You appear to be a rare example of breaking out of that mode, however.Wissing wrote: Should the churches that emphasize "faith alone" stop doing that? No. When a person doesn't see any way of improving oneself, they can't be told they have to improve anyway. It feels oppressive. The process has to start somewhere.
If I may, the Greek word translated at Mt. 5:17 as fulfill is a poor and misleading translation, one that I believe to be deliberate in order to support this very doctrine that God is now wishy-washy about his Law. The Greek word is pleroo, which does not mean fulfill as we understand the word. It means fill to the full, or complete. This begins to make more sense as we learn more about God's covenants, each new one retaining all of the content from previous covenants and adding new content. If he had fulfilled the Law in the sense that most of Christendom today believes this verse to mean, then the verse itself is nonsensical: I did not come to abolish the Law but to make it irrelevant [by my doing it perfectly]. If there's any question about this, the next two verses should confirm this.Wissing wrote: Jesus did not abolish the law, but he did fulfill it.
I used to say this, too, but I have since changed my tune on this. I don't see that Jesus raised the bar regarding the Law. I rather see that he restored the bar to what it should have been as practiced by the Israelites. The idea that the Law should be on our hearts was not new with the new covenant.Wissing wrote: If anything, the new covenant is a more stringent standard than the old. Instead of the laws being written in a book, where we can be sure that we've crossed everything off the list, now they're written on our hearts.
These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. -Dt. 6:6
That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. -Ecc. 1:9Wissing wrote: So the old law is one source of knowing God's commands, but we must rely on the Holy Spirit to help us figure out what to do in a given situation. There are new problems we face every day.
I would argue that Jesus did nothing of the sort. Each of these topics is a hefty subject on its own, but if you're interested, how about we start with the idea that Jesus abolished the dietary laws? What makes you think that Jesus did away with them? To discuss this or not is up to you, and maybe it requires a new thread. I'm new here so I'm still trying to get the hang of protocol.Wissing wrote: Jesus did actually overturn some laws: food restrictions (it's not what goes into the body that defiles, but what comes out). He also changed the punishment for transgressions (let he who is without sin cast the first stone).
Peace.
