cubanito said:
As to the original topic, there are 3 general systems to answering the question of what to do with the OT laws that I understand:
1- Authoritarian: either a bunch of people wearing weird hats tell you what to do (Roman "catholic" and the "Orthodox" crowd OR you make it up as you feel like it.
2- Covenant theology which divides the OT laws into ceremonial, civil and moral. It has NO rational way to do that, it is thoroughly non-Biblical, but hey, it's what Presbytereans like me are supposed to idolize.
3- Dispensationalism/New Covenant Theology which throws away EVERYTHING in the OT and only enforceds that in the New Testament. The Jerusalem council asked that people not eat blood or things strangled ONLY SO AS NOT TO UPSET JEWISH BELIEVERS, and cause even more persecution needlesly. Read Galatians and it is quite clear.
JR
Thank you for getting us back on topic.
My original post was something to the effect that there are extremes of translating the law everywhere from Judaism (Only the OT) to Red Letter Law (only Jesus' words are relevant to the MODERN Christian) . While it would take forever to describe every different degree of interpretation, it is possible to take scripture and apply them to the more popular.
I stated that unfortunately many IBF do practice a form of Authoritarianism (although I didn't use any technical terms) by teaching what their favorite Bible college or pastor taught or mixing their favorite pastors opinions to create their own standards.
I continued that I believe though many take an Covenant approach and study rigorously to divide the scriptures but as they are human, many Pastors will divide things differently.
I believe I then stated that the ripping of the temple veil showed that ceremonial law had past, and that the teaching of the early church was a good place to start for dividing moral and civil law.
I believe I then commented that it seems to me like many "Gracers" take an dispensational approach by throwing out the OT and only following laws restated in the NT.
And then somehow a bunny trail emerged on the Definition of sanctification and whether death came before the law . Although on the question of death I must apologize to Praise as I was not specific as to the definition of Law. I did not mean the Mosaic law but rather the Word of God (specifically were He told Adam not to eat of the fruit).
Going back to the teachings of the early church as a starting place for distinguishing moral law from civil law -
The meat arguments you mentioned are a great yet confusing example. Confusing as their were two issues of meat in the early church. Jewish laws of unclean meats (or civil law), and sacrificing of meats before false gods. Many of the temples sold meat after it had been offered to their god at a discount as the people believed the gods had ate the nutrition and left the meat. Some Christians knowing the meat was healthy took advantage of the bargain.
Can you explain more specifically were in Galatians it talks about meets and that it is talking about the civil law and not the discount hunters?
