Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law

Please explain. Give me an example. Well, I will give you an example and you tell me how philosophy is in it.

I believe the word of God (bible) is perfect truth. So I go to it to see how this world began. I read in Genesis how God created this world in six days and all the details therein. So now I believe and hold the position that God created this world in six days and created all the living things just as He said so in Genesis.

Now what part of my new found position is founded on "philosophy"? Would it be the belief in God, or the belief in the word of God? Just how are you applying philosophy to all of us being effected by it in our beliefs?

 

You philosophize more than anyone that I have seen on this board, and are very confused as a result of it. I stick to the Scriptures, and if you have noted stay away from the ECF. My approach is sola scriptura. It is theology, not philosophy. My approach is theological, not philosophical. Are you a student of the philosophy of your books, or of the theology of the Bible? It seems that you allow your philosophy to guide you rather than theology.
Philosophy is simply a vain man's attempt in seeking wisdom.

I approach Scripture from a Biblical point of view, entirely apart from some vain man's philosophy.

You have philosophy. I have theology. I will be satisfied with "the study of God," theology. Philosophy "love of wisdom" is humanistic and has nothing to do with the Bible. It is vain. It is what Hindu gurus seek after, for example.

Mr. Merrill, which I quoted from stated facts, not philosophy.
By your reasoning you would categorize the "trinity" as philosophy because the word is not found in the Bible. You would have to go to a dictionary or reference work to find it (like Merrill), and therefore call it philosophy. Thus you would end up denying the trinity (or at least arguing against it).
I use reference works as a guide. He gave me definitions, not philosophy. I hope you can see the difference.

 

Read my post again HP. I am asking you a question about philosophy, apart from you and DHK's argument over causistic.

You said ALL theological positions are derived from philosophy. I gave you a sample and asked you to show me how philosophy played a part in my position taken.

 

There is no philosophy there. It is a stated fact.
All laws can be categorized into two different groups: one with penalties and one without penalties. That is not a philosophy. It is an observation.
When that observation was made a label was given to each set of laws: labels that you were unfamiliar with and therefore fussed and fumed about ever since post #77. Which post are we on now? That has nothing to do with philosophy. It is fact.

 

In the model where there is respect for "priesthood of all believers" the idea is that D.L Moody "gets to have" that opinion even if it differs with DHK.

I am simply pointing out that Moody's position on the defintion not only of the "Commandments of God" but also his affirmation of the continued authority of God's Ten Commandments - is far more consistent with what we find in scripture - and what I have been saying - than some other things we see on this board from time to time.

Not everyone will agree with Moody of course - but based on the responses to the D.L Moody thread that I posted - I see some people here do respect his views.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Moody was an evangelist. There were and are hundreds of evangelists.
There are hundreds of theologians (both good and bad).
There are hundreds of cult leaders, as well as leaders of world religions.

I don't understand your fixation on Moody. What difference in the light of eternity will his views make on this board and in this discussion? Why him?
You have just stated that you believe in the Priesthood of the believer. Do you? If you do, you would act as a priest before God and go to God's revelation (the Bible) for truth.
Instead you are acting as a priest before Moody, and going before Moody for the truth of Moody. So what do you believe? The priesthood of the believer? Or, a priest before Moody??
What is your fixation on Moody, and why?
Or, are you suddenly unable to think on your own?

 

Probably not. You have probably taken something out of context.
First define terms. What do you mean by "moral".
"Moral" simply means "relating to principles of right and wrong behavior"
"Thou shalt not steal" is moral law.
"If you steal you shall have your hand cut off." (law in Saudi Arabia)
--It is still moral--dealing with right and wrong. But it is not the "moral law" that God implanted on all mankind's hearts.
Just because it has a penalty to it does not suddenly make it "amoral."

 

It is your fixation HP, not mine. I made only one quote from him. Only once. After that I referenced other works, and gave links to them. Short memory, eh??

 

No, no deletions.

 

My point is this.
God's moral law is stated in the Ten Commandments without penalty
They are immutable truths, or laws that are written in the hearts of every man, according to Romans 2:14,15. It is generally what is referred to as God's moral law.
When man takes that law and begins to expand upon it, it does not take away any of its morality. Morals deal with right and wrong. But man adds penalties according to his societal mores. The Hebrews (directed by laws given straight from God through Moses) were told that for stealing they had to restore four times the amount taken.
That is not the penalty for stealing in our nation. Our laws are different.
They vary according to the theft or crime. Theft may require: recompense, community service, jail time, or some other judgment that a judge may impose. It is not as set in stone as the Hebrew law was. But that is civil law. The law, dealing with right and wrong, is still moral, but now it is civil as well.

Laws such as: Love your neighbor as yourself is moral and is always apodictic. There is never a penalty attached to it. There is no civil law about not loving your neighbor as yourself, and if you don't the police are not going to punish you for it. It cannot become a casuistic law. But it still is moral. Why? Because it is always right to love your neighbor. It still deals with right and wrong.