Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Heavenly Pilgrim, Apr 30, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    This distinction was brought upon on another thread by DHK. Here are my questions to DHK and the list. First, what is the meaning of 'law' itself? Does 'law' have any noticable attributes that define it, or is it something that is subject to anyones whim of definition? If law has attributes, what might they be? Second, can anyone here define moral law and ceremonial law respectively? Who decides what is one or the other, and are either mandatory for a believer, or anyone else for that matter, to follow?
     
  2. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    This is part of an article by Ray Steadman on the subject. It is his teaching on the law in Leviticus 19

    http://www.pbc.org/files/messages/3566/0518.html



     
  3. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since the author of the article you quoted is not part of the discussion, are you saying you are in agreement to what he has stated in that article? I do not desire for this thread to become a discussion concerning ones writtings that is not a part of this discussion for obvious reasons. I want to know how DHK or others might respond to the OP. You and others on this list are all we can honestly question as to what they say they believe. Make sense?
     
  4. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about the first of the questions? What does it mean for something to be a 'law?' If we can settle in on a reasonable definition of what the word 'law' means, possibly then we can look into the so-called disinction between ceremonial law and moral law that DHK and others in the past have mentioned.
     
  5. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, see http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

    Please tell me which are moral and which are ceremonial. I dare you! I've been making this challenge for 15 years and no one has tried.
     
  6. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    And your dare no doubt will go unanswered. How many want to wade through 600 plus commands and categorize them all? That seems to be some tedious task. That falls under the category of a "trivial law."
     
  7. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would anyone have go to that absurd extreme DHK? Just start by defining the word 'law' by listing some of its attributes, and then define for us 'moral law' and what you say is properly 'ceremonial law.' No need to address every commandment given, because armed with those clear definitions and lists of attributes the distinctions should be fairly obvious, should they not?
     
    #7 Heavenly Pilgrim, May 1, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2010
  8. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    HP, I'm just interested to see how you attempt to prove that DHK is a Calvinist. :wavey:
     
  9. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: That has never been the focus of any of my endeavors. I have tried to show that the deterministic ends of the doctrines held by DHK and the logical ends of the necessitated Calvinistic system are one in the same in all reality.

    For instance, when DHK or anyone else concludes there are no conditions to salvation, there is but one logical conclusion. Something must be the cause of ones salvation, and if it is all of God, God necessitates the outcome. If God necessitates the outcome, that is precisely the same end as that of the deterministic fatalism known the world over by the name of Calvinism. Double predestination rules by logical implication regardless of rhetoric from DHK or any one else to the contrary that makes God the sole cause of salvation. If it is all of God, God determines all. If God determines all, God determines those that will be damned as well as those that will be saved.

    Now, back to the OP. :thumbsup: What can you offer the lists as to what ‘law’ entails and your definition of moral law and or ceremonial law?
     
  10. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    And this statement, repeatedly made by you, is actually a false accusation; for it is not true. It may be your opinion, but your two-cents worth opinion is not true. It is a false statement. I should start deleting false statements, shouldn't I?
    And that logical conclusion is:
    That it is true statement--that salvation is all of God--a free gift without any conditions. You have never given any example of a free gift that has conditions so you have not been able to refute the position.

     
  11. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: Utterly false. It is not that examples have not been given, for there have been several examples both from Scripture and gifts given such as pardons, from myself as well as others, yet you simply have summarily dismissed them all, for nothing trumps your firmly entrenched and unfounded presupposition that a free gift cannot have conditions attached. Unfounded presuppositions are indeed harder to breach than bars on a castle window. All you have done is beat on the pulpit and tell us a free gift cannot have conditions, yet without one scintilla of evidence other than your own rhetoric to illustrate, establish, or prove your position. That is the truth of the matter.

    Now, back to the OP.:thumbsup:
     
    #11 Heavenly Pilgrim, May 1, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2010
  12. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >How many want to wade through 600 plus commands and categorize them all?

    The ones who think that some of them have moral consequences for gentiles. Or is sinning by omission and ignorance OK?
     
  13. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Not to slay an innocent person (Ex. 20:13) (CCN32). See Life.
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    As Paul points out in Romans 3 and in Romans 7 - God's Law "defines sin". God's Law is among other things - a written transcript of God's perfect will.

    In Genesis 2 God told Adam and Eve the restriction that His Word - His Law - His perfect will placed on them - and they freely chose to disregard it. All mankind then fell under that condemnation because contrary to the myths of evolutionism we are all the children of Adam and Eve.

    In Romans 3 it is pointed out that by virtue of the Law of God all the world is "found guilty" condemned as sinners and in need of a Savior.

    Thus even today the Law of God is alive and active and still tells lost sinners that they are "in violation" of God's Law.

    For many (yes even a few baptists) this is where their understanding of God's Law ends.

    But in Romans 2, and Romans 6, and James 2, and 1Cor 7:19 and Rev 14 and Rev 12 and... God points out the role of the Law in the life of the saved saint - the believer.

    Now that is a point where many people want to stop reading the Bible - but they would be wise to "keep reading".

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The Moral law includes things like the Ten Commandments.

    It also includes things like Lev 19:18 "Love our neighbor as yourself".

    It includes things like Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart".

    It includes ANYTHING that God calls "an abomination" or "detestible".

    Thus in Lev 18 the gay agenda and child murder are specifically listed as abominations before God. They are sin. It is the Moral law.

    In Lev 17 we see the law as it relates to food - the prohibition against eating animals that have been strangled (abstaining from eating blood) - and Acts 15 council continues to uphold that as moral law.

    Peter affirms (in Acts 10 ) that his post-cross practice was to continue to uphold ALL of the moral law as it relates to food not just the Lev 17 portion.


    ======================================

    The ceremonial law speaks specifically to those annual feasts listed in Lev 23 that are based in animal sacrifice. In fact all of the Levitcal sections dealing with animal sacrifice are speaking about the ceremonial law.

    As Hebrews 10 states - the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ puts an end to the animal blood sacrifices and offerings.

    Thus it is ended.

    =============================

    The OT civil law of the OT - is specific to a Theocracy. It only applies in the context of a theocracy. (Since we don't live in one - those laws cannot be applied)

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: Of course you know where we disagree. I would believe the Bible teaches that all are under condemnation NOT due to Adams sin, but because all have sinned even if not in the same manner as Adam did.





    HP. Agreed.




    HP: I agree fully that the law of God indeed still play as role in the believers life. I do not believe that many things ‘law’ for the Jews pertain to us today.




    HP: Well stated. :thumbsup:
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    It is true that gentiles are not under the same obligation as Jews either OT or NT.

    In Eph 2 - the notion of "being a Jew" is identified with circumcision and the notion of not being a Jew is called in that chapter "uncircumcision" Ep 2:11.

    Thus in the Acts 15 debate - the Acts 15:1 debate context is the idea of some Christian Jews, that gentiles who accepted the one true God of the Bible - and yes that means they accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God - must ALSO become Jews "be circumcised" in order to be saved. In Acts 13 we see gentiles who chose to worship the one true God and who accept the bible as the infallible Word of God - are meeting with Jews week after week (in fact Sabbath after Sabbath) and so in Acts 15 the council observes in the case of both Jewish and Gentile believers that the Bible is preached "every Sabbath" - as it continued to argue that gentiles were not required to "Become Jewish Christians" in order to be saved.

    The council's conclusion points out that such was never the case - not in the OT and not in the NT.

    So what happens in Acts 16:1-3?? Paul immediately insists that Timothy be circumcised!!

    And then what do we see in Gal 2:3-4 - ?? Paul boasts that the gentile Titus refused to be circumcised!

    The NT authors did not teach that the Jewish Christians were to ignore their obligations as Jewish Christians - neither did they argue that Gentile Christians must become Jewish Christians.

    So as we see in 1Cor 7:19 "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing - but what matters is KEEPING the COMMANDMENTS of God"

    The obligation for us (gentile christians) is to accept the Bible (all 66 books) as the inspired infallible Word of God to be used for doctrine (2Tim 3:16-17) and to honor and obey God's Commandments.

    1 John 2:1 "I write these things to you that you SIN NOT but if anyone sins we have an advocate with the Father".

    John goes on in that SAME book to point out that SIN is defined by the Law of God 1John 3:4 "SIN IS transgression of the Law" KJV.

    In Romans 6 Paul is very clear that we are not to engage in sin under the transparent "excuse" that "we are not under law but under grace".

    So the 66 books of scripture are binding - and some of it includes obligations such as circumcision that do not apply to gentile Christians. A fact clearly spelled out in scripture as we see in Acts 15.


    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #17 BobRyan, May 2, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2010
  18. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: Ouch. I would like to say… I agree, BUT I am going to have to thinks carefully before I commit to “anything.” It is within the realm of possibilities that some things said to be an abomination during the school master training of the Jews may not in fact be an abomination to God for all times. I am NOT committing myself either way at this time. I need to study this VERY CAREFULLY. I will listen carefully to anything you have to offer on this subject. It would be a horrible thought to be committing (or failing to do) something today I might believe I have freedom to do or not do that in fact is still an abomination to God. I desire to always remain open to new light on this issue.



    HP: I fully agree on these issues.


    HP: I need time to reflect carefully on this one. I certainly do not know if in fact I have ever eaten something strangled. I do not believe so, but how could one be absolutely certain in today’s stores? I do not believe I have eaten blood, nor would if I knew if it was blood, but again I am not certain that it is a ‘moral’ issue. My gut tells me that it is not necessarily, but I do not have a good answer as to why I would believe it not to be at the moment. You have me thinking.



    HP: Again, I am thinking concerning this issue. I remain unconvinced at the moment that the food laws of Lev. 17 are indeed moral laws. As this thread progresses I hope all of us might have better answers for our beliefs, or develop beliefs where we might now lack.




    HP: I suppose the lingering question in my mind is, if it is ceremonial is it in fact ‘law?” I have to admit I have questions on this subject, and hope to resolve some of them as we go along. Again, my gut tells me if it can be set aside, or even ignored in some instances when it is required, it 'may be' a misnomer to call it 'law.' There is no doubt About the sacrificial system being abolished as you point out. In that we are in full agreement.
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The idea being that "God crossed some kind of limit" with 600 commands so toss out the 66-books of the Bible - and now we are down to just 27 books of scripture - the New Testament - where God is not as guilty of crossing over that 600 limit.

    So that would just leave us with the 1050 commands in the New Testament.
    http://www.puritan-books.com/books/pdf/new_testament_commands.pdf

    Oh no!! Now we have to through out the NT as well???

    Well that leaves us with one rock solid source -- "the traditions of man".

    Turns out there is "one or two" commands described in that source as well -- oh what to do!

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I said "anything that God calls an abomination or detestible"

    In Lev 18 the abominations and the detestible things listed there got the pagan nations that were in land of Caanan before Israel - exterminated or chased out of the land.

    In Isaiah 66 the detestible abomination of eating rats/mice is said to get the punishment of God's fiery end of world judgment.

    Agreed - it is something to be studied.

    But as for the Gal 3 school master - notice that Paul did not say "when Christ died on the cross the school master left" nor does he say "when Christ was born the school master left".

    Gal 3
    21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
    22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
    23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
    24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be [b]justified by faith.[/b]
    25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

    Paul says that when "FAITH comes" into the life of the individual - when a lost person becomes saved - then they are released from the school master role of the Law of God that condemns all lost sinners - declaring all to be in need of a Savior - driving all to seek salvation.

    Thus Paul is speaking of the still-applicable - still-authorotative, still condemning Law of God as it still points out sin - and still declares the lost to be in need of salvation. A role that does not cease UNTIL the lost are born again - until "faith comes" into their life - for real. It is very common to see some Christians dwell exclusively on the role of the Law of God toward the sinner - while completely ignoring the scritures speaking on the role of the law (that still to this day DEFINES sin) for the Saints.

    But Paul is equally as clear about the role of the law for the saved saint in Romans 6 Paul compares the pre-salvation role of the law to the post-salvation role (after FAITH has come).

    Romans 6


    1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
    2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
    3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
    4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

    5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
    6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so thatwe would no longer be slaves to sin;
    7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

    8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
    9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.


    10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
    11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
    12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
    13and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead,
    13 -and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.


    14For sin shall not be master over you[/b], for you are not under law but under grace.
    15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
    16Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
    17But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin[/b], you
    became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
    18and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
     
    #20 BobRyan, May 2, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...