dseusy wrote:Choosing to love God and your neighbor and following your conscience are things you should do. When you state that you are not failing morally, we may want to clarify this a bit... in the context of our conversation, morals are God's commands. I feel this is important to clarify because of love. God is love and His commands all spring from love, from Him. Love never fails, rejoices with the truth, and does not act improperly (it is strong, knowledgeable, and mature). If we reduce God's commands or His love to a human level, aren't we compromising? Love never fails. Love the Lord your God and your neighbor as HE loves them. This is the command. There are no mulligans, exceptions, or immunities under law.
"for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified." Romans 2:13
If we fail to do, we are condemned under law. God's law is just. A failure to love is not fulfilling the law, regardless of the reason (weakness, or immaturity). To be carnally minded results in hostility toward God (Romans 8).
Love is an act of the will. Our wills have the capability to aim for an ultimate goal or end. Every subordinate act of the will is governed by this ultimate intention or motive. Love is when the ultimate intention of the will is the highest possible well-being of God and His kingdom. This is also called benevolence, which means good will (
bene(ficial) +
vol(untary)). The well-being (or happiness) of God and His kingdom is intrinsically valuable and should therefore be willed for its own sake. A loving heart or will is the good tree that cannot bear bad fruit. If our ultimate intention is truly the happiness of God and neighbor, then it would be impossible for us to knowingly sin by commission or omission against God or neighbor.
For a more thorough explanation of moral obligation, moral law, love, benevolence you could read Finney's
Systematic Theology (pdf with bookmarks) - specifically the lectures on moral government and moral obligation. Finney is challenging but I think you could understand it and really benefit from it. I read it a few years ago. It would keep me up all night sometimes because it was answering so many questions I had about sin and law.
I agree there is a difference between the Law of Moses and some of God's other laws. In the Old Testament it was required to eat no unclean animal. In the New Testament God showed Peter that this had changed. However, Jesus expanded the Law of Moses, or heightened it before He died to fulfill it.
The big picture of obedience to God is belief. You believe that God exists and you believe He gave us commands. Keep the commands as they are written without changing the requirement.
Concerning what law the apostles refer to: study the word law in the original language and its context. They speak of Jewish law when it states it so, not as though the appearance of temporal law universally labels all applicable law as the Law of Moses. Perhaps we should start a different discussion with this focus.
I don't get it. Are you talking like a Judaizer here? I don't need to abstain from pork or whatever.
If Jesus didn't fulfill my obligation under law, why does Paul state:
"More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith" Philippians 3:8-9
You quoted this earlier:
not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith" Philippians 3:8-9
Not being legalistically righteous through the law in spite of being an enemy of God, but being truly righteous having been convinced by the truth and being forgiven of past sins.
Or not being legalistically righteous through the law in spite of having sinned before, but being truly righteous having repented and having been forgiven.
Or not being automatically righteous because I am a Jew and follow the Jews laws, but believing Jesus about the righteousness of love and conforming my heart to this way.
The only problems that surround the law are faithless legalism, Jewish elitism, and trying to be forgiven through present obedience. I'm pretty sure most if not all my interpretations of such passages follow one or more of those concepts. There are some passages where I am not sure which one exactly it is about. But there are no passages where I interpret them to teach lawlessness.
"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" Titus 3:5
This should be easy to understand since you understand what I was saying about our past sins and guilt. Only God's grace can remove our past guilt. Nothing can remove present guilt because it is from present sin.
I get the righteousness that comes from God because Jesus fulfilled my obligation under law. "Having" is present tense in Philippians. I still have it. I will till I die, through faith, by grace.
If we don't repent of sin we will definitely go to hell like we deserve. We can be forgiven if we sin but only if we repent. Please do read Smock's "
Walking in the Spirit" commentary on Romans 6,7,8.
Which New Testament commands are not part of the "law of Christ" or "law of love" as you understand it?
Huh? The law of Christ is love. It is the OT Jewish rituals and such that are no longer binding. As far as I know this has always been the belief of the mainstream churches throughout the world. Not that that makes it correct automatically, but are you not familiar with it?
"out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them" (Gen 2:19)
