The Law

[cheezerrox]

Recently on this board there have been a lot of debates about the place of the Law/Torah in the lives of believers under the New Covenant. Currently there's one going on in the "Clothing Laws" thread in the Questions for Christians forum, so I figured those who wish to continue it could continue here instead.

I would quote the last post in the previous discussion, but since those who argue that the Law hasn't been done away with are in the minority (I believe there's only two of us here), I'll quote the last post of Gman, and the last post in the thread.

For me I actually tend to see G-d's commandments broken down to more than just two, three, or even 613 commandments. In fact I would argue that the New Testament also has many commandments. I think the point here is which one's do we do? Obviously we can't do them all... Some are strictly for women, some are for priests, some are for lepers, some are agricultural, etc. So we simply do the ones that we can apply to us today..

Also about the other laws.. According to Ezekiel, the sacrifices will come back Ezekiel 43:19-27, including circumcision if you want to enter His sanctuary Ezekiel 44:9... So sometime in the near future, these laws may come back. I would be cautious to throw them under the bus for now.

I have said in my previous posts that as long as people are following the law without being legalistic about it, they are free in Christ to do so. It doesn't affect the work of the Cross and I thank God for that.
I am not sure, but I know Gman's post hints at not following the laws as sin. I am not sure what does he mean when he uses the word "laws" but I somehow find it easy to believe that he is in fact pointing towards the Law given to Moses and to not obey them is sinning; and so we have a problem. I have talked to Cheezrox about it and while I still think that the law was done with, at the core of it I actually do not blame him of legalization because he makes it clear that it is not a sin/salvation issue. And that he obeys the law because he loves to. Why he does what he does and is that contradictory, is another issue and one which I believe is not proper for anyone to judge other than God. And while I may muse over with him on the issue I do not think that following of the law is such a crucial problem and therefore I respect his opinion as I understand that there is indeed some margin that I must give since it is not a salvation issue.

But when it is hinted that not obeying the law is sin then I can not help but point out the obvious. In all of this people are crossing fine lines about, should the law be followed or must the law be followed? I believe there are people who say that we "should" follow it and as long as grace and salvation are not being legalized I am okay with this. When the "must" is applied and the negation of it is called sinning than I believe we are well within dangerous boundaries and this is worth contemplating on and the error being rectified.

I have seen a previous thread when Gman, locked the thread because of harsh words, and I admit they were on both sides but on a side note I do not buy the "anti-Semitic" lecture as is often given. I think people misuse the term to degrade and discredit opponents. I would be really disappointed if this thread ends up the same way, by both sides. I do not hate the Jews, nor Israel, but I am also not going to give them any more credit than I find due from scriptures and if that is going to be called as anti-Semitism in the long run than I am not sure what qualifies for such discrimination against people who question the Jewish tradition on religious, spiritual and intellectual grounds.

That being said, I feel we are all brothers on both side of the fences, so lets not muddy the waters with unneeded sarcasm and stereotyping and ad hominem attacks.

[Jac3510]

As I said to Rick in the other thread, in light of comments you two have made (I quoted them there), I would like you to be explicit on this: if you think the Law is still in effect, do those of us who choose not to live under it sin? For instance, am I sinning right now since I am wearing a shirt made of mixed fabrics?

[cheezerrox]

This is a good and a bit complicated of a question, Jac. And before I start, I do want to make explicit that I find Torah-observance COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to salvation, justification, and sanctification. That's all done by the Messiah's work, and anything we do or don't do cannot negate that. I've stated that a decent amount of times on this board at different places already, but I just want to make sure that's clear to everyone and no one doesn't see that.

Anyway, as far as if it's sin for you (or any of us) to wear clothing that mixes fabric, depends on the individual. I would say you are not sinning. And yet I still think the Torah is in effect. This may seem contradictory, but I don't think the issue is black and white. We all agree that in G-d's eyes, something can be sin for one person and yet not be for another (Romans 14). Not on things that Scripture is clear on, such as not committing adultery, not murdering, and not stealing, but on things like Paul addressed, or in this day and age, following the laws found in Torah that aren't reiterated explicitly in the New Testament.

You, and the rest of the members on this board, love G-d, love Christ, and walk accordingly each day. You're all honestly convinced that Torah has been done away with. And because of that, I would have to say that I don't believe G-d counts that as sin against you (on top of the fact that ALL OF OUR SINS were forgiven that day when Jesus died on the cross, as long as we have faith in Him).

[RickD]

Cheezerrox, what about obeying the 4th of the 10 commandments? That's the issue. If a Christian doesn't obey the sabbath command, is he sinning?

[cheezerrox]

Rick, I would have to say the same principle applies. If one isn't convicted, then I don't believe G-d considers it sin. Now, also as I said before, I don't believe this applies for things that're EXPLICITLY stated that everyone agrees on (such as adultery, murder, and stealing), but for things that there are honest disagreements on, then one's conscience rules. The Spirit will convict if it be in His will, and He's done this for many, and also not done it for many. Even if I believed there was no sound Biblical or theological basis for not keeping Shabbat (or the Law as a whole), I still cannot argue with the Spirit.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I am convinced that we should dedicate one day to the Lord, I am just not convinced that it is a Saturday or any other specific day.

I worship on a Sunday which I think the Lord is happy with.


Dan

[Jac3510]

Cheezerrox, I appreciate your tone and desire for flexibility, but I don't think the principle you are appealing to works. There are some things that are sins for some but not others, but they are matters of conscience. In other words, it is always a sin to violate conscience. So if I think it is a sin to eat meat, even though I am wrong, it is a sin for me to do so, because to do so would violate my conscience. But suppose it was REALLY a sin to eat meat. Then just because I was convinced it wasn't wouldn't make it okay.

In other words, the principle is that I cannot do something that violates my conscience because someone tells me it is okay--that's a sin. I cannot, however, do something that is in accordance with my conscience just because I am convinced it is okay.

A practical example is fornication. There are people--Christians--who absolutely are convinced that sex outside of marriage is wrong if you really love the person and want to marry them, indeed if you intend on marrying them. They're conscience is clean in the act. Does that mean it's okay for them to have sex outside of marriage? I would say no.

The conscience is a guide. It is not one that should be crossed. It is not, however, infallible, and it can lead you into sin.

If the Law is still in place, then violate it is sin. It really is that black and white. How do you think Moses would have responded if a Hebrew said to him, "No, it's okay for me to wear mixed threads, Moses. See, I know when the Messiah comes that the Law will still be in place, but I am really convinced that some of these laws won't really apply to me. I honestly believe that! So I'm not really sinning." He'd have been condemned for it, because he would be objectively breaking the law.

Breaking the Law is always sin--whether you break it out of ignorance or good intentions (Saul, remember, had good intentions, and yet his sin cost him his kingdom). If, then, the Law is still active, you should have the courage of your convictions to say I'm sinning in wearing this shirt. If you can't say that, you should ask yourself why not (that's the same advice, by the way, I give people who can't look non-Christians in the eye and tell them compassionately that if they have never trusted Christ and never do, then they will spend eternity in Hell).

edit:

BTW, you do realize that the whole problem with proto-gnosticism--the heresy John wrote so strongly against--was that it led its adherents into immorality? They SINCERELY believed what they were doing was justified. They're theology led them into moral evil, but they really and truly thought it was okay. So you say that things where there are honest disagreements on, the conscience rules. But what qualifies as an "honest disagreement"? Why do you get to decide that adultery is explicit but breaking the Sabbath isn't? Both are in the Ten Commandments. Again, I appreciate your tone, but you need to be more precise in your defense, but your principle appears very arbitrary and entirely subjective.

[cheezerrox]

I think you make a good point, and I agree with you, that the conscience is a guide, but is not infallible and can lead you to sin. I wasn't clear enough on this, I suppose. What I meant to say was that things that are not clear in Scripture are determined by conscience, but things which are clear override that. The reason why adultery is different than Shabbat is because it is explicitly condemned in the NT (Matthew 5:27-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Hebrews 13:4), whereas I cannot point you to a verse in the NT that says to keep Shabbat. And because many people have reasonable theologies on why the Law doesn't apply anymore, without attempts to distort Scripture and without trying to justify something they don't believe actually has anything to back it up, I believe it as different. And, as I said before, regardless, I can see Spirit-indwelled bretheren in the faith who aren't convicted to keep Torah, such as you and Rick, and I can't argue with Him.

You're mention of a Hebrew coming to Moses and trying to convince him that the law didn't apply to him, brings up a point that I've never really seen addressed before. Sin is defined as breaking the Law, or the Torah, according to both the Torah itself, and according to 1 John 3:4-5. And according to this same passage, it says that Jesus was sinless, in the same sense that He committed no acts of lawlessness, or anything contrary to the Law. One problem that I've always had with dispensationalism is that it says that G-d judges people differently over time, and gives them different standards. I saw someone say recently on this board, "Do you think that what G-d sees as sin changes over time?" in a conversation that didn't have to do with Torah observance, but I thought about it and it seems to be exactly what dispensationalism is saying.

But, although I would like to see your opinion on that, I don't mean to avoid the rest of your post. I do believe Torah is still active, and if that's true, then breaking it is sin. But, as I said before, even if I can't make logical sense of it, there are believers who are saved and who have the Holy Spirit, and simply aren't convicted. Between that, and the fact that I would never be so foolish to claim that I couldn't be mistaken about my convictions, I suppose you wouldn't be entirely off by saying I do not have the confidence to say that you're sinning by wearing that shirt. But, that doesn't mean that I don't believe the Law is supposed to be the standard we aim to live by.

[RickD]

Cheezerrox wrote:
What I meant to say was that things that are not clear in Scripture are determined by conscience, but things which are clear override that.

That is what some of us have been saying all along. If a Christian wants to follow the Sabbath, he can. If he doesn't want to follow the Sabbath law, he doesn't have to, as long as his conscience is clear about it. It's a matter of conscience between an individual believer and God.

The reason why adultery is different than Shabbat is because it is explicitly condemned in the NT (Matthew 5:27-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Hebrews 13:4), whereas I cannot point you to a verse in the NT that says to keep Shabbat.

And there's the rub. That a believer should obey all of the 10 commandments, is mentioned in the New Testament. All of the 10 except the 4th. Like you said, you can't point to a verse in the NT, that says to keep the Sabbath. Because there is no verse in the NT that tells us to keep the Sabbath.

[Jac3510]

I would say that what God views as a sin never changes. Dispensationalism doesn't teach that it does. It is not true that it used to be a sin to wear mixed fabrics and it is not today. It was and always will be a sin to break the Law, and thus if Moses were still alive and had not believed in Christ--that is, were he still a member of theocratic Israel--it would still be sinful for him to break the Torah and wear mixed fabrics.

There is no more theocratic Israel. That doesn't mean that there is no ethnic Israel or that the promises God made to the Jews through Abraham will not be fulfilled literally. It means that Law has no more authority over anyone today that US Law has over a Frenchman living in France. I already quoted Paul on this extensively. When Christ came, He inaugurated the New Covenant. Theocratic Israel was no longer under the Mosaic Covenant, but the New Covenant. The Law wasn't broken. It wasn't abolished. It was fulfilled. It was finished. It did it's job. The OT itself anticipates that in Jer. 31.

You cannot say that to break a law is not sinful. As you yourself note, both the OT and NT make breaking the law sin. If I break a law, then I'm a law-breaker. Period. It doesn't matter if I sincerely believe the law doesn't apply to me. It doesn't matter if I'm ignorant of it. What matters is the simple fact that I broke the law, and that I have therefore sinned. Remember that Moses made provision for those who broke the Law without knowing it. According to him, they still sinned, even though they had absolutely no conviction of the matter (how could they, when they were unaware of their sin!?!).

So to say that the Law is still active and that I am breaking, but that I'm somehow not sinning, that's just self-contradictory. That's not a mystery. That's not a paradox. That's a contradiction, and it proves something is wrong with your theology. I don't have that problem at all. As far as I can see, the NT is extremely clear that the Church is not under the Law. It is extremely clear that those who try to put the Church under the Law are in sin. Paul calls them anathema.

Listen to that, cheezerrox. Anathema--accursed! I don't doubt your sincerity. I don't doubt your love for the Law. David loved the Law! The Law is good! Heck, I love the Law! I don't doubt your honesty or your integrity. I don't impute to you any nefarious motives. But when you say that the Law is still active, you are Judaizing the Church--you are committing the Galatian heresy. Paul says bluntly that those lead by the Spirit are not under the Law. Are you lead by the Spirit, cheezerrox? If so, Paul says you are not under the Law. Do you tell Paul that he is wrong? Paul doesn't say that those who are legalistic in their interpretation are wrong. He doesn't say that those lead by the Spirit are not under a legalistic interpretation of the Law. He says those lead by the Spirit are not under it. And he calls it foolishness to try to be matured by the Law.

So I say yet again, if you want to observe it for cultural reasons, fine. If you like its symbolism, fine. Some Christians prefer to sing hymns and others prefer contemporary music. I don't care which one they do. I have a problem when the hymn singers tell the CCM singers that they are sinning; and I have a problem when the CCM singers to the hymn singers that they are sinning. Charity should rule here. Let each worship as he will. And if you want to worship by keeping the Sabbath and avoiding pork, I say more power to you. But do NOT say that you are doing so because you are under the Law. In doing so, you are telling Paul he is wrong. Or don't you remember what Christ said to Peter: "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy" (Acts 10:15)?

Is it a sin to disobey God? Yes, it is. You are calling unholy what God has cleansed, cheezerrox. You do it with the best of intentions, but you do it nonetheless. Look again at what Paul says in Galatians 2:3-5

• not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

Titus, a Christian Gentile, is not compelled to be circumcised! And here is is, in Jerusalem, with Peter and the other apostles. Tell me, if the Law was still in effect, wouldn't they have asked him to undergo circumcision? But Paul brags that they were not. Paul instead speaks of their liberty in Christ. And then he speaks of false brethren--look at that term, cheezerrox. False brethren. These are people who claim to be of Christ. What were they trying to do--put Paul back in bondage. Bondage to what? The Law! Notice immediately preceding the reference to circumcision. And Paul's response: not to yield even a bit, and that for the truth of the Gospel. For Paul, the denial of the power of the Law over people like Titus is part and parcel with the truth of the Gospel, cheezerrox.

Don't misunderstand me -- I'm not saying you are not saved. If you have trusted Christ for eternal life, you are as saved as anyone else, and that eternally so. But if you tell someone that they are still under the Law whether they know it or not, according to Paul that's a false gospel. It can't bring freedom. It brings bondage. The only people who can freely be "under the Law" are those who recognize that they aren't under it at all--those who recognize that at any point they could walk away and it not affect their relationship with God one iota. Those people can "keep" it, because they really aren't keeping a Law at all. They're practicing a ritual by which they worship God. Fine. Good. Go for that! But those people know that the person next to them eating pork and wearing mixed fabrics isn't sinning, because they aren't under the Law--because no one is under the Law.

I strongly encourage you to rethink your position, friend. It appears to entail a logical contradiction as noted above. It appears arbitrary and completely subjective (again, why do YOU get to decide that adultery is clearly condemned when the gnostics would have vehemently disagreed?). And it seems very much in danger of being explicitly labeled by Paul a false gospel. This is no trivial matter of whether or not there will be a literal thousand year reign of Christ. This has everything to do with what God expects of His children and the Gospel by which He saves and sanctifies us. Please tread very carefully. Read Galatians through in one sitting. Hear Paul's anger. Realize how seriously he took this. And then come to the freedom that Christ offers you. If in that freedom you want to practice what you see in the OT, fine, but practice it as a personal choice--not as an obligation (even if an obligation you want). The former is commendable. The latter is heretical.

[Gman]

Jac.. Christ said that he was going to restore ISRAEL...

Acts 1:6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

Are you going to oppose Him too????

[Danieltwotwenty]

Question: If I keep the Sabbath as a Sunday for worship and communion with God, am I not keeping the spirit of the law and not just sticking to the letter of the law? Is this still considered sinful because I am not following the letter of the law, but instead following the spirit of the law which I believe is to reserve time to commune and worship God?


Dan

[Jac3510]

Jac.. Christ said that he was going to restore ISRAEL...

Acts 1:6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

Are you going to oppose Him too????

Of course He will restore Israel. And He will reign from Israel. And the nations will come to worship in Jerusalem. Under your theology, there are no other nations, since everyone is just . . . Israel.

Question: If I keep the Sabbath as a Sunday for worship and communion with God, am I not keeping the spirit of the law and not just sticking to the letter of the law? Is this still considered sinful because I am not following the letter of the law, but instead following the spirit of the law which I believe is to reserve time to commune and worship God?

Why are you worried about the spirit or the letter of the Law at all? Paul didn't say that those who are lead by the Spirit are not under the letter of the Law because they're keeping its spirit. He said that those who are lead by the Spirit are not under the Law. Do we think Paul was telling the truth or not? I say that Paul was right. Those who are lead by the Spirit are NOT under the Law. Gman says that Paul is wrong, that those who are lead by the Spirit ARE under the Law.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Why are you worried about the spirit or the letter of the Law at all? Paul didn't say that those who are lead by the Spirit are not under the letter of the Law because they're keeping its spirit. He said that those who are lead by the Spirit are not under the Law. Do we think Paul was telling the truth or not? I say that Paul was right. Those who are lead by the Spirit are NOT under the Law. Gman says that Paul is wrong, that those who are lead by the Spirit ARE under the Law.

Not worried at all, I know I am not under the Law but I feel the Law still has a place as a guide for what is right and wrong and how to conduct our lives, in saying that, we should never be slaves to it.

[Jac3510]

It can be relevant as a moral guide without being kept. We should ask for the principle behind it and go from there. In the case of the Sabbath, the point is to rest--not only from physical labor, but to take time to glorify God and rest in His rest. It's a beautiful picture of faith, actually. That's why, for Christians, every day is a Sabbath. If you want to take a day of on Sunday and worship God, then fine. If you don't want to take any days off, fine, too. In any case, just make sure that you are always worshiping God and always resting in your faith.

I wouldn't say that's keeping the spirit of the Law. I'd say that's living in light of the spiritual truth upon which that particular law was based.