Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law

DHK, your absolutely unsupported philosophical approach to Scripture and its commandments and laws is clearly showing for all to see.

1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

 

HP: Who, besides DHK and posssibly his teacher, would even suggest that the ten commandments have no penalty attached???

Certainly the ten commandments are not merely advice, and carry a penalty for their willful violation. Heaven will not be inhabited by individuals that have proven they do not love God.

1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

DHK has asked for a statement by him that I believe is untrue. I have made mention of it before, but will post it again as asked. Here is a statement by DHK that is simply false as he states it. He is correct in that the ten commandments are indeed considered moral, but he is incorrect in stating that they are stated without penalty. Here is his quote:

 

HP: An excellent post over all. :thumbs:Civil law is not what is being discussed here. I would still maintain that if any violation of civil law has no penalty attached, in reality, it is no 'law' at all. To suggest that it is law would be a misnomer. It might be a civil suggestion, good advice, counsel, etc, but it is no 'law' at all.

What is amazing to me about DHK’s philosophy is that a violation of moral law may or may not have penalties attached. Take murder for instance. In one case (thou shalt not kill) he denotes it as “apoditic” while in another case of murder (Num. 35:16) he denotes it as “causuistic.” What, pray tell, are we to gain from that contradictory distinction??? What I see on the horizon is DHK is placing himself as the only judge jury and executioner able to distinguish with his superior abilities to discern these meaningless man made philosophical nuances of the law when and when not to attach a penalty to that which is clearly moral law.

Tell us DHK, when and when not murder is a violation of moral law and when or when not a penalty is attached for a violation of that moral law? By what standard and consistency do you come to your conclusions???

 

HP: Not all of God’s moral law is written on the hearts of all men according to Scripture. Paul said that he would not have know lust apart from the law saying thou shalt not covet. Ro 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

HP: What are you referring to? What commandment of the ten have you crossed out??

HP: Now you are changing the whole scope of this discussion from what is law and does it have a penalty, to the practices of heathen nations which have exactly nothing to do with this discussion period.

HP: Not according to the accounts of missionaries, at least about the stealing part. What one society views as stealing another does not. Have you ever watched the “Pineapple Story?”

As a side note, we might need to be reminded that infants and small children have no developed notions of either stealing or killing, therfore are simply not moral beings. All issues of morality are not written on the heart. Some points of morality must be developed by training.

HP: This discussion is not how some men or governments might twist or interpret the law and it’s penalties. This discussion is about defining law and examining if in fact what is denoted as ‘ceremonial law’ is in reality properly denoted as ‘law.”

 

Here is the rub. DHK uses the words, “apoditic” and “causuistic” ( ‘causuistic’ in reality not even in the dictionaries I have checked including but not limited to the Oxford English Dict. and Websters.) to make a distinction between laws with and laws without a penalty, when in reality the words used have nothing at all to do directly with penalties or the lack thereof concerning law. He is manufacturing a philosophical notion from borrowed terms that in actuality have nothing whatsoever to do with the point(s) of penalty of the law he is trying to make. What does something being a necessary truth or something being of absolute certainty have to do with ‘law not having a penalty attached??’

I say once again that the approach DHK is taking is nothing short of a philosophical approach to the law of God that is not founded on truth, reason, or the Scriptures.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: Not all of God’s moral law is written on the hearts of all men according to Scripture. Paul said that he would not have know lust apart from the law saying thou shalt not covet. Ro 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

HP: That feeling is mutual. You have a problem understanding Romans 7, but Romans 7 is not the focus of this discussion.

HP: I agree to a point, but everything inclusive in moral law has not been written on their hearts, hence the testimony from Paul I quoted. Was Paul a liar or mistaken, the very author of Romans??
Ro 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

HP: Again, that in no wise implies every element of moral law was written on their heart. Certainly there was ample testimony by conscience to condemn them, but that in no wise is suggestive that all moral law comes as a natural gift from God upon the heart and consciuence of every person. Paul makes that clear by his own testimony.

HP: You need to read the above quote by Paul again.
Quote:
HP: What are you referring to? What commandment of the ten have you crossed out??

HP: Quite to the contrary. If you notice it was not established when the commandments were given to the Jews. The Jews were told to ‘remember’ that which they knew full well had been in existence from the beginning for all people. God set aside that day and hallowed it long before the Jewish race ever existed and the law given in the form of the Decalogue.

HP: Because it was the practice of the Church from the cross to worship on the Lord’s day. I see not the actual day as the main focus, but one day in seven set aside as a holy day. I believe that worship on the Lord’s day sets us clearly apart from the Jewish system and rightfully so, to commemorate the type of the shadow they have for the most part failed to see and accept.
Quote:
HP: Now you are changing the whole scope of this discussion from what is law and does it have a penalty, to the practices of heathen nations which have exactly nothing to do with this discussion period.

HP: I would contend that not the moral law in total, but simply enough to find them guilty before God for violating that which they were given.

HP: That is simply false. Moral law is moral law and civil law is civil law. They both have clear stated or implied penalties if in fact they are law.


Quote:
HP: Not according to the accounts of missionaries, at least about the stealing part. What one society views as stealing another does not. Have you ever watched the “Pineapple Story?”

HP: My conscience is not your conscience, and the conscience of heathen vastly differs. Some act in a manner that we would consider stealing, and do not run away when they do it. Even if they did run, it is not necessarily a sign of immorality at all. My dog runs away at times and is not a moral being. Morality involves understanding the basic intrinsic value of a command, and acting, not in accordance to punishment or rewards, but rather in light of that intrinsic understanding of the command as to ‘why’ it is wrong’ again apart from punishments or rewards.

 

DHK, look up the word as you posted it, 'causuistic' and show us the definition of it according to a dictionary of your choice.

 

Quote:

This issue needs its own post as it is very important. The distinction DHK makes is, again, completely and utterly false. Moral law is moral law because of the attributes that are rightfully attributed to it. Civil law may or may not be moral law, but civil law is civil law NOT because it has penalties attached. Civil law may have penalties attached when no moral principle applies directly period. Seatbelt laws should be an effective illustration.

Of a truth, all laws, moral or civil, have penalties if in fact they are law. Penalties, in and of themselves are part of law, both moral and civil, but penalties or sanctions themselves do not make either moral or civil.

 

To get us back into the focus of the OP, let me ask this question. What makes moral law moral law? What attributes must law have to be classified as ‘moral?’

 

HP: All violations of God’s moral law are sin, and the penalty for sin is eternal separation from God.