The Law is no more!

Sonoftheday · #1 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 12:28 PM

I quite frequently hear it argued by dispensationalist that the Law is annulled. Despite all the biblical evidence to the contrary including the words of Christ, these people see the red letters as being the only part of the bible that matters anymore.

I have been looking for a list of sins that are clearly identified in the OT, yet are not in the new. I thought I had seen one before on the internet but if so I cannot find it now. I would to find it so I can ask an individual I have been talking with if he holds to the things on this list as being sins and if so why. Truth is he probably dont even hold to them as being sins for instance he sees nothing wrong with making images of God.

CaseyBessette · #2 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 12:43 PM

In some of Paul's letters he has long lists of sins to be avoided, and you can easily line up the sins with the Ten Commandments. Two example passages:

Rom. 1:28-31. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful . . .

And:

Col. 3:5, 8-9. Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. . . . 8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds . . .

If Paul can tell Christians that they ought not to do these things, then it seems obvious to me that the law is still binding on Christians. If someone says the law is not binding, then ask if it's okay to lie and murder . . . I think the answer's obvious!

Hope this helps!

puritan lad · #3 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 12:50 PM

A few sins listed in the OT which I would hope dispies would recognize as sins:

Selling your daughter as a prostitute.
Tripping Blind People.
Beastiality.

I'm sure there are more.

"The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." (Psalms 119:160)

Sonoftheday · #4 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 10:04 PM

This is funny.

There was a post on another site I talk/type on and it basically said; "Is it ok for a new covenant believer to paint a picture of Jesus, yes the second commandment can be used to say no, but the Law is no longer binding. Does the New testament ban painting a picture of Jesus?" The replies other than mine and one other guys was its perfectly ok to paint a picture of Jesus. Most said it is just legalism and phariseeism that says not to paint Jesus.

Because of that post I posted today this;

Quote:

I have been told that beastiality is wrong but have found no New Testament evidence saying it is. There are statements about sexual immorallity being sin, but that is a very broad phrase that you have to interperet to mean beastility is wrong. The New Testament clearly states that Homosexuality is wrong, Adultery is wrong, and even lust is wrong, but it does not mention beastiality to my knowledge. The only place I have found in the bible that says beastiality is wrong is in the Law but it is void/annulled and so it doesnt matter. Is it ok then for a believing New Covenant member to practice beastiality?

The reply I get is, Common you have to be joking, and is this supposed to be a serious question.

It amazes me that both of these questions are the exact same question only concerning different sins, and the typical christian answers are complete opposites.

North Jersey Baptist · #5 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonoftheday

I quite frequently hear it argued by dispensationalist that the Law is annulled. Despite all the biblical evidence to the contrary including the words of Christ, these people see the red letters as being the only part of the bible that matters anymore.

I have been looking for a list of sins that are clearly identified in the OT, yet are not in the new. I thought I had seen one before on the internet but if so I cannot find it now. I would to find it so I can ask an individual I have been talking with if he holds to the things on this list as being sins and if so why. Truth is he probably dont even hold to them as being sins for instance he sees nothing wrong with making images of God.

Bryan, I was a dispensationalist for years and I never held to that opinion. In fact most of the dispensationalists I knew didn't hold to that opinion. There was a acknowledgment of the difference between the ceremonial law and the moral law. Dispensationalists, such as John MacArthur, believe that God's moral law (i.e. the Decalogue) is still in force today. Perhaps you are referring to specific dispensationalists that you know. Dispensationalism is guilty of a lot of things, but let's be careful about painting them with too wide a brush.

JBaldwin · #6 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 10:19 PM

When I first said goodbye to dispensational thinking, I struggled with what to do about the law. It bothered me so much that I began to look into messianic judaism. I was so worried about keeping all the laws.

What finally helped me understand about the law was this: Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. He also said, that the law could be summed up in this, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself. On these things hang ALL the law and the prophets.

To the judaizer, obedience to the law has to with obeying every jot and tittle no matter what is going on in the heart. In other words, a judaizer doesn't care if he hates his brother in his heart, so long as he is nice to him whenever he sees him. Jesus said, if you hate your brother, you have murdered him. The point being, obedience to the law is about motivation. If you love God, you won't want to do the things that displease Him. If you love your neighbor, you won't do anything to hurt them.

This law of love is not an abolishment, but a law that is one step further. It does not obliterate the holiness of God, it requires more holiness of us, because now, instead of worrying so much about our actions, we are required to worry about our hearts. If we our hearts are right, we will live right. And we can't fix our hearts, only our Lord can do that. We give our wicked hearts to Him, and we let Him teach us how to love Him and love our neighbors. The natural outcome will be holiness.

Ivanhoe · #7 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 10:20 PM

I think his point is not that dispensationalism actually teaches that. They (for the most part) don't. His point--and Macarthur is in the minority on this one--is dispensationalism's theology allows for it.

This is a reductio. It is deliberately absurd. But the force of it depends on the conclusion being legitimately drawn from the premises.

CaseyBessette · #8 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 10:25 PM

I think the fundamental problem of those you're talking with on the other forum is that, since they (seem to) view the NT as a replacement for the OT (instead of the fulfillment/continuation of it, as Jesus said), they therefore consider God's law capable of changing on a whim. But God's law is an expression of his being and can't change regardless of the covenant he condescends to make with men. When Paul says that adultery is wrong, that is law. In another place he says Christian are "not under law"; but what he means there is that Christians are not under the law as a covenant of works. If you absolutize the statement that we are "not under law," then you make Paul contradict himself when he goes on to tell Christians what sins they ought not to be committing (which, again, is law)!

Sonoftheday · #9 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 11:20 PM

I didnt mean to suggest that Dispensationalists all hold this viewpoint, however I do know a vast many who do. MacArthur redefines dispensationalism whenever he calls himself one saying that by it he means that God has future plans for the ethnic Nation of Isreal. Whenever I think of Dispensationalism I often think of that branch which who break history(and the Bible) into 7 dispensations. Those who I most often deal with, both online and in RL, hold to this pattern to some degree or another. They teach that God related to man differently in every dispensation and the Law was only for those people between Sinai and Christ. They basically toss out everything in the bible except Genesis, the new testament, and strangly the book of Psalms which refers to the Law quite frequently. I have never been to a church that holds to anyform of Dispensational premillenialism that teaches more than 5% of the time out of the books other than the ones mentioned above, that might not be what dispensationalism teaches but it seems to be most often how its practiced.

Another false doctrine I quite frequently run across is that Law was kept for salvation. As long as someone tried to keep the law and made sacrifices for thier sins then they would go to heaven. As if the Old covenant was one of works unto salvation. Whenever people who believe this are presented with the 10 commandments as universal moral commands that we should still strive to uphold today they think you are telling them to work for thier salvation.

offtopic: I find it quite strange that MacArthur, a five point Calvinist, refuses to use the term Calvinism yet calls himself a dispensationalist, even though he is not fully a dispy.

ModernPuritan? · #10 (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puritan lad

A few sins listed in the OT which I would hope dispies would recognize as sins:

Selling your daughter as a prostitute.
Tripping Blind People.
Bestiality.

I'm sure there are more.

"The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." (Psalms 119:160)

course also, remember that a Dispi would want:
1) a judge who was impartial, neither favoring the rich or the poor
2) they would want to have a witness or two in court with them

Any time i meet a dispi. I don't get controversial with them, I simply want to get them to think.

I found that if i Go to this website(Its Jewish site, but its a list of laws from the Torah, so..)
Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

anyway, copy and paste, edit the ones out about the kosher eating, ceremonial washings, and priest hood. then ask them a few questions

they will be surprised at how much according to Jeremiah- the Law is written on their hearts!

they are fun folk, I love them, and they also encourage me to study scripture more, so thats a good thing.

ModernPuritan? · #11 (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 02:22 PM

The law of Christ = the Law of God
the law of God= the Law of God
the Law of the Spirit= the law of God

Im familiar with the folk who tend to toss out the OT also.. they tend to forget the "Do not add to, Nor subtract from" Scripture.

about Macarthur- Ive got not problem stating or believing that God has future plans for Israel. its specifically stated in Revelations that their are 12,000 from each tribe to = 144,000. Paul in Romans 12 i think, goes to great length to declare himself a Physical Israelite/Jew from the tribe of Benjamin What God has instore i dont know

but i know that many nations have sought to destroy the Jews- yet they remain
yet where are the Assyrians, amalekites, moabites, akkadians, hittities, etc?

greenbaggins · #12 (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 02:32 PM

It disturbs me no end to hear people talking this way. Usually it is a smokescreen to cover up a sin that they wish to perpetrate. They often appeal to Jesus. But Jesus is against that kind of interpretation. The Sermon on the Mount gives abundant proof of this. Did Jesus say, "You have heard it was said, 'Do not murder,' but I say to you that you should go hate your brother?" Did Jesus say, "You have heard it was said, 'Do not commit adultery,' but I say to you that you should fill your computer with ****?" The question then becomes this: should Jesus' words be taken as paradigmatic for how we should interpret ALL of the Ten Commandments? This is my position. And I believe it is also the position of the rest of the NT.

AV1611 · #13 (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puritan lad

"The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." (Psalms 119:160)

Surely you know that the Psalms were for Israel and do not apply to the Church age? You do suprise me!

KMK · #14 (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StaunchPresbyterian

In some of Paul's letters he has long lists of sins to be avoided, and you can easily line up the sins with the Ten Commandments. Two example passages:

Rom. 1:28-31. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful . . .

And:

Col. 3:5, 8-9. Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. . . . 8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds . . .

If Paul can tell Christians that they ought not to do these things, then it seems obvious to me that the law is still binding on Christians. If someone says the law is not binding, then ask if it's okay to lie and murder . . . I think the answer's obvious!

Hope this helps!

I would add Eph 6:2:

Quote:

Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise...

If the phrase 'first commandment with promise' does not refer to the 5th commandment and its place as the first and chief commandment of the second table, then what does it mean? And if it does refer to the 5th as the 5th out of 10 commandments, then Paul here confirms the NT relevance of the 10 as 10 in the order given at Sinai.

cih1355 · #15 (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StaunchPresbyterian

In some of Paul's letters he has long lists of sins to be avoided, and you can easily line up the sins with the Ten Commandments. Two example passages:

Rom. 1:28-31. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful . . .

And:

Col. 3:5, 8-9. Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. . . . 8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds . . .

If Paul can tell Christians that they ought not to do these things, then it seems obvious to me that the law is still binding on Christians. If someone says the law is not binding, then ask if it's okay to lie and murder . . . I think the answer's obvious!

Hope this helps!

I have heard some dispensationalists say that there is a new law in effect and that new law has some overlap with the OT law.

Sonoftheday · #16 (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 06:43 PM

The Edinburgh Inn

I am sure many of you here are familiar with this, but I have been listening to them today for the first time.

Volume 1 Lesson 02 and especially 03 are about the topic held on this thread and shows why the OT is so important. They were a great listen, plus the people talk kinda funny like us here in Oklahoma so thats comforting.

jpechin · #17 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 03:57 PM

Matt 5:17-19
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

These letters look red in my bible.

jwithnell · #18 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 05:01 PM

What I have found interesting, is that so many dispensationists who hold a law-is-dead perspective, turn around and create a very legalistic lifestyle -- women can't wear pants, you must go to church on Wednesday evenings, etc, etc.