Board index ‹ God

[Pensive]

The Mosaic Law has not been superseded, but the law of Christ has been superimposed on it.

See what I mean? You gave me a long, rambling, weird answer, starting off with A = !A. If you have two sets of laws, Law Group A and Law Group B, and Law Group B is superimposed on Law Group A, then you're following Law Group B, and you're not following Law Group A.

Therefore, Law Group A is superseded. How in the world can a new set of laws be enacted without superseding the old group?

It doesn't nearly need to be so complex, and the only reason why you feel compelled to make this more complex is because you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. You're trying to say, "The old law is still valid, but we don't have to follow it". If you don't have to follow a law, then it's not valid. A law is either valid or not. There is no middle ground, but that's where this nebulous, irrational "fulfilled" business comes in.

> So what are we to do with all of these laws? We have to approach them as revelation of God (which they still are), not as rules for society (which they once were) or means of salvation (which they never were).

Do you have to follow them or not? You don't have to follow them. Therefore, they are nullified. Thrown in the trash.

> Paul said we are no longer under the supervision of the law (Gal. 3.25) since it has been superseded (Ga. 4.1-7). But in Romans 3.31, Paul specifically says, "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."

I know what the "apostle" Paul said, and he thought he was important enough to nullify God's law by saying we weren't under it. It's irrelevant. And then he spoke out of the other side of his mouth and said that we "uphold" it. But what does that mean? If you don't have to follow it, and you're not under it, and it has nothing to do with your salvation, then "upholding" it is a worthless, futile gesture. Paul was clear that he though the law was garbage:

"What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:8-9

[jimwalton]

> You gave me a long, rambling, weird answer,

I was assuming you were a thinking person, which I still assume to be true. You can hopefully follow a train of thought that God's revelation is progressive: it builds on itself through the eras, being revealed a piece at a time, with each piece being allowed to play itself out. There's nothing illogical about that, just as I am giving you more information with each post exchange, or taking a college class where in each class and each textbook you get more information to fill out the picture.

> It doesn't nearly need to be so complex, and the only reason why you feel compelled to make this more complex is because you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

This is the fallacy of a false conclusion, and additionally attributing an inaccurate motive to me. I didn't make it complex at all. (1) God gave the law, which was meant to hold sway for a certain era of time; (2) God gave His Son, not to take the law away, but to supersede it; (3) The law is not abrogated, but plays itself out as fulfilled by Jesus. This is not rocket science.

> Do you have to follow them or not? You don't have to follow them. Therefore, they are nullified. Thrown in the trash.

Again, the wrong conclusion. We follow the person of Christ, who lived by the law. The law is still there (it never goes away), but I'm following Jesus. By looking at Jesus, the law is still in the foundation, but the guide for my life is so much more full. Again, this is not difficult theology.

Suppose you're a sociology major. The Soc 101 course you took as a freshman is still valid, but you don't use that textbook any more. After you've had junior and senior level Soc courses, your knowledge is much fuller and complete. It's not that Soc 101 is nullified or thrown in the trash. It's still valid; it's still worthy material. But it was just the foundation. You're on a different level now.

> I know what the "apostle" Paul said, and he thought he was important enough to nullify God's law by saying we weren't under it. It's irrelevant.

This is in direct contradiction to Paul's own words in the text I gave you, Romans 3.31. The law is anything but irrelevant. It's always relevant.

> Phil. 3.8-9

We're not in grade school anymore, but that doesn't mean what you learned there is worthless. Everything we learned there is still valid, but we're expected to think better than that now (1 Cor. 13.11). We need to think deeper than just superficial reading of the texts.

He hasn't thrown the Law in the trash. He never says the Law was garbage, but only that to think that righteousness comes from it is a garbage thought. Righteousness doesn't come from the Law. The law was given at a specific time for a specific purpose, and it was never given for our salvation. What the Law couldn't do, Jesus did (Rom. 8.3). We still recognize the place the Law has—it's not garbage. In comparison to knowing Jesus (the Law's fulfillment) and salvation that comes by grace, the Law is not the path to salvation. The Law can't justify, it can't renew the heart, and it couldn't give life. After it did its work, it was superseded by a more complete revelation: the person of Jesus.