Heb 12:2 “But you have come to mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.”
We have already come to the real Jerusalem.
She said, you just can’t get that in a 30 min church service. Got to go there and see the places. Ok, I get wanting to see the actual spots, I love history. I would love to see Galilee and walk the streets of Capernium, climb the mount of Olives and look over the city as the discipline did with Jesus. That would be neat.
But, no Paula, you actually do come into Zion when you worship, Christians are to focus on the fulfillment and substance of what those old shadows were pointing to. Not on the shadow itself.
Mine, too. My Dad actually gave me a copy of the Bitcoin Standard. Wasn’t interested, but he knew I was. Happy when my number goes up.
Hey nostr:nprofile1qqsqzr0se9y0ax44f5kt06jzplaq34tetzvpkm4x36p64flt9hflqkspz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7qg5waehxw309aex2mrp09skymr99ehhyee08vjl2q I have appreciated your thoughts. Thanks for being a good sparring partner. I’m gonna close out this thread, but you can have the last word. Truly, thanks for exchange.
I would have to say, yes, like you I have raped and murdered everyone I want to. At least today.
Although not a true text book atheist, I do think I was definitely in the camp of defining my own morality before I was confronted with something far greater. There was absolutely no basis for what I thought was right, just myself, and logically, that makes society itself untenable.
I appreciate the thought experiment, however. The motivation for doing what is right, avoiding what is wrong is important. But if I come to a different conclusion on what is right, could you tell me why your way is actually right?
And I think I have repeatedly identified that you have a strong moral code. You hate hypocrisy, want truth, and protect and provide for your family. All very good. But that’s just me saying it’s good or just you saying it’s good, a group of people can come along and just say it’s bad. It’s logically subjective…that’s the black hole.
Gotcha, my mistake. You mentioned Lot’s daughters, I was addressing one of those horrible scenarios where you can see how the city affected their reasoning. Those two girls raping their father came later. Earlier in the story, Lot offering them to be raped was not justified at all. It was wrong and terrible, and violates God’s law regarding how to treat your family. We know that by what the rest of the Bible says. He was a good man trying to live well in a bad place, and made a gross error under stress. Absolutely wrong. But that account paints him warts and all. Not rationalizing his actions, it was stupid and foolish to live there. And To marry your daughters into that culture. Abraham offered his wife to pharaoh, that was wrong. David killed his general to sleep with his wife. Wrong. These were good men but also sinners, warped, and in need of mercy and internal change just like us. We can see their repentance and admission of wrong, but only Christ is good. The way the NT paints it, 2 Pet 2:7 Lot was righteous and distressed by their lawless deeds in Sodom, but he was also responsible for what happened to his family. He is accountable and should have left sooner.
Semantic stop sign…it was not my intent to end constructive thought or reason. When a Christian starts with “God says”, means I am appealing to an external standard, one that exists outside the system you are measuring. That is my point of origin. In order to determine good or bad, you must have an objective standard by which you measure thought or action. You disagree with my starting point, but the argument itself is internally consistent.
I think your main goal is to identify hypocrisy. Understandable. If you can find hypocritical or inconsistent commands of God in the Bible, your point is proven. Which I think was your original point about ham on Easter. But how do you know hypocrisy is wrong? Is it really? where does that come from? The consistent answer I make is that you are made in the image of God. God does not approve of hypocrisy.
Morality being produced by democratic vote or what is pragmatic for that society has produced far more hypocrisy and evil as it changes with the those in power or with the weather. In some societies, child murder was acceptable for worship, even Israel engaged in it, but it is objectively always wrong.
On Satan….According to the Genesis account, Satan deceived the first parents, our representative head, and condemned all succeeding generations to death. Jesus calls him a murder from the beginning. So, no, Satan has far more blood…all that blood on his hands. Killing and causing suffering out of hatred for God and God’s Creation. God provides redemption in Christ. He is just and will punish evil, but provides a way back to Him which shows He is also merciful.
On Lot, Lot was righteous, but also a weak and fooling man to try to lead his family in a terrible environment. Bad call. So affected were his daughters by that city that they thought it was a good idea to get their father stone drunk and date rape him. Their actions produced some horrible enemy nations for Israel, the Moabites and Ammonites. Lot’s foolishness and his daughters’ gross perversion created generational problems. Descriptive not prescriptive. In fact, the story is a warning. Lot was a good man and tried to do good, but made some stupid choices and it really affected his family.
However, there is a note of God’s redemption even in this horrible sin, Ruth the Moabite became a wonderful example of the redemptive love of God. She was in the line of King David and even Christ Himself. God can use even gross sin for noble things.
I am sure you will reference a story I have no answer for, but that would be my failing. Not the Bible’s. I think it would be a far better use of your obviously sharp and introspectional mind to ask why you know hypocrisy is wrong or why you want to be a good father. Is it just what everybody thinks? Is it just what makes society run well?
Well, then who defines what running well looks like? It’s a never-ending subjective black hole.
I see what ya did there.
“Morally repugnant” shows that you have a sense of right and wrong, you know some things are unjust. This is good. You know harming the innocent is wrong. We may disagree on what some of those things are, but you know there is a right and wrong. And frankly, the way you talk about being a good father is something I greatly respect. I try to be, as well.
The Christian response is that God defines what is good. He is that definition. Our morality is subjective, existing within the system. He is objective, existing outside the system He creates. He has power of life and death, not us. He is the offended party, not us.
No, the point of the law is not to just to highlight failure, but it is a mirror to show you what you are really like inside. We are not just broken, we’re selfish and even murderous if pushed. Regarding His children, as the story goes… in the beginning He gave us one rule, and we broke it. He gives us another chance to just live together with a few rules and we end up filling the Earth with violence (Gen 3-8). He creates human government and more rules to stem that violence (Gen 9) and we still kill each other. Maybe we just need an exact system to show us what God requires, hence the 10 Commandments and the Mosaic Law. Add in 600 laws and a detailed case law system with penalties, and still we failed. It’s not the laws, it’s not the amount of laws. Romans 7 tells us the law is good, it’s not the fault of the law. It’s us. We are the problem. Throughout the history in the OT, we get highlighted portraits of those who got that lesson. People who were changed from the inside out. Abraham is one, even with all his problems, his faith was credited to him as being righteous. The New Testament builds on that foundational truth, in Romans 3 through 5, that faith is the only way, and it is then reflected in your actions, chapters 6 through 8.
That is what the coming of Christ shows us, he could do all of that. He lives out that life in us and through us, all the credit goes to Him. He is the standard, and it really does matter what you are like internally…not just on the surface. Who you are inside comes out in your actions. That’s what He meant when He said you will know a tree by its fruits. That’s why his harshest words were for the hypocrite teaches who were like whitewashed tombs, looked good on the outside, but inside had dead men’s bones.
I hope I’ve been clear, but I’m not the standard of righteousness. I am not what God requires. I’m not even close. Christ is. And if your experience with Christians has been one of prideful hypocrisy, or the creation of endless sets of rules to change what only God can change, shame on them.
They have forgotten what they are: Rebellious enemies of God who had unfathomable mercy extended to them. They have been forgiven much, they should live with more grace towards others.
I’ll have to say my favorite character is Grunkle Stan.
I like your questions, and I appreciate you letting me engage on your page. In my original response, I delineated some differences between moral civil and ceremonial law. Each having different purposes. All of which are fulfilled in the coming of Messiah, the Christ, but are applied differently because they have different reasons for being given. Much like the exact rules of the road in England should not apply to France, but the intent of being a safe driver and following the rules to keep those around you safe is universal in both countries. We call it general equity. The moral underpinnings are universal. Acts chapter 10 answers the question why you can eat pork. It’s not about the pork, it’s about the lesson on holiness God was giving to his people in the mosaic covenant, which has been fulfilled in Christ, which means he kept it on our behalf. Acts chapter 10 is about the good news going to Israel first and then to all people everywhere without racial distinction.
And, might I say Gravity Falls is one of the most underrated shows. Excellent choice on your handle.
That is one of my favorite CS Lewis quotes. And quite true.
The TLDR summary is that from the heart springs the hate that manifests in murder. Or the envy that manifests in theft. Bad actions start from the inside. So, the converse is absolutely Not true that if you meant well the action does not matter. A heart filled with love for others, even your enemies, manifests in objectively good action. In both mercy and justice. If it does not, there’s something wrong inside. And Gods law is how we evaluate those actions.
It’s a fair question, and if I understand you correctly, I think the underlying claim that you are making is that the Christian who claims his morality comes from the Bible but eats ham is inconsistency picking and choosing which ones to follow. This response is not to convert you (not my job) only to the address the claim. For the Christian, the key phrase is “to fulfill them” (the Law and the Prophets). The context of Matt 5-7 is saying this is what people who live in the Kingdom of God should be like. He is saying that you have been told the Law is external, that is, do these things, but it’s actually about the heart behind them. Like stealing, adultery, murder all come from the heart first. This is not new. It has always been that way, even Deut 10:16 talks about not just being circumcised in body, that is a Jew outside, but circumcised in heart, Jewish inside and loving God with all your heart. Deuteronomy 6:4 says the same thing. “Fulfilling the Law” raises it above the outward, restores the intent, and Matt 5-7 shows that we all fall short since our hearts are full of anger, lust, and envy. Jesus as the true Son, the fulfillment of everything Israel should be, keeps that Law meeting the intent which was to love God and love your neighbor (both of which also come from the Law). Those are “moral laws” which transcend time. The civil and ceremonial laws had a place in that OT era and now that Messiah has come, the need for the separateness that kept Israel together has fulfilled its purpose. Gentiles without the Law know murder is wrong. Israel with the Law also knew, but they had a mission to show the world who God is and what He requires. The ceremonial intent behind the not eating pork was to teach about holiness and purity, and to show by those many laws that you cannot possibly keep them all, God is holy and we are not. So, we need one who keeps the Law perfectly, from the heart and maintains the spirit of the law, which is love. Messiah shows that it wasn’t the ham that was the point, the point is that God is holy and you must look to the One who kept the Law for your sake and who paid the penalty you deserve. Acts 10 is a perfect example of eating nonkosher meats is really about bringing the good news to the Gentiles. The New Testament does not abrogate the OT Law but shows the intent that was always there, helps us see how far short we fall, and points us to the One who fulfilled it all. Christ, the Passover Lamb, was delivered to death and paid our penalty, and then raised from the dead showing that we too can have new life. In Christ, is how Christians can be consistent with how these OT laws should be applied.
Christ is Risen!
But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. Rom 4:24-25.
Full atonement, can it be? Hallelujah, what a Savior!
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s around, and it hits a mime…does anyone care? (hat tip, Gary Larsen)
If it’s recorded, post the link after!
> Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring [it] again to mind, O ye transgressors. Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken [it], I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed [it], I will also do it.
[Isa 46:8-11](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/isa/46/1/s_725001), KJV
> God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever himself pleaseth. **In his sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent, or uncertain.** He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.
[WCF 2.2](https://opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_02)
> Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
[WCF 3.2](https://opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_03)
GM
#CarpeDiem #CoramDeo #ContraMundum
Yes! He knows the future because He causes it.
I hear what you're saying, but let's not forget -- the "new covenant" is older than the "old covenant" (because the Abrahamic promises came before the Mosaic theocracy--see Galatians). 🫡😄
FWIW, just to keep things interesting, I'm a "[three covenant](https://www.upper-register.com/papers/two_adams.pdf)" guy.
Perhaps if you define old covenant as Mosaic only. But, yes those promises were made to Abraham’s Seed, meaning Christ, and all in Christ are joint heirs with Him of those promises. One people.
Here's an [interesting paper](https://meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/kline-on-multiperspectivalism/) I just came across, written by Kline, critiquing the theonomists (in his own institution), which puts covenant theology as the starting point for the discussion of millennial views in general, and theonomy in particular. It was written in response to a faculty forum, apparently(?) led by John Frame, on theonomy.
I am going to have to read that article again. Big words, and I have small brains. Interesting point here….
“But theonomists, like dispensationalists, without biblical warrant impose distinctions within the course of a given historical epoch of an institution, distinctions that result in changing norms of conduct. Thus, it is suggested among theonomists that a demographic shift in a State from an unbeliever to a believer dominant population signalizes a change of norms with respect to the supposed State function of suppressing false religions.”
We’ve often said that the theonomist and the dispensationalist make the same error from different directions. Essentially using the Old Testament to interpret the New. Which can happen if you hold to the “one covenant / two administrations” view from the WCF. If the Old is obsolete, and replaced with the New, you don’t drag the old forward. Yet, we have to agree that God’s Law is good as Paul declares in Rom 7. It just takes on a greater and fuller meaning in light of who Christ is and what He has done.
Dude, we need to have you on our podcast. Fireworks for sure. We’re a bunch of reformed-ish Baptists and love covenant theology, but, full disclosure, we tend to see eschatology through a Christ-centered lens rather than the lens of covenant. We split on the preterist and idealist readings of Revelation and I am the lone ammill in our little group.
https://www.ssbcokc.org/have-you-not-read/
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/have-you-not-read/id1603666136