(part two)
Quote:
|
If we are committed to keeping the law we must keep the whole law.
|
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
(Jas 2:8-11)
1. From this we see the principle of the "unity of moral condition". Meaning, there is no such thing as a "mixed moral character" in an individual. A person is not "partially good and partially bad". A person is not "partially obedient and partially disobedient". A person is either obedient, or disobedient. The same is true in all human jurisprudence. If you do not murder, but you commit armed robbery, you are still a criminal. Same with the divine law: if you don't commit adultury, but you do commit murder, you are guilty of sin, you are a "transgressor of the law". The unity of moral condition is a idea that unfortunately many Christians do not understand, but desperately need to.
2. Notice that James, a new testament author, writing to Christians, tells them that if they keep a bunch of commandments, but break one of them, they are still classified as transgressors of the law. The two commandments he chose to illustrate his point are irrelevent, it could just as well be "if you do not commit adultery, but profane the Sabbath, you are become a transgressor of the law." The important thing to notice, however, is that he as a Christian tells Christians that if they transgress God's law they COMMIT SIN and are "transgressors of the law". He did not seem to have any idea such as some have, that God's law was repealed and some new set of laws were put in its place.
Quote:
Galatians 5:1-3
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
|
1. Liberty is not liberty to transgress the law. Since sin is transgression of the law, by claiming that you have Christian liberty are therefore free to transgress the Fourth Commandment, you are actually claiming that your Christian liberty gives you permission to sin. Standing fast in the liberty of Christ is standing fast in FREEDOM FROM SIN:
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
(Joh 8:34-36)
2. The issue in Galatia had to do with people demanding the (gentile) Galatians be circumcised, which is neither commanded nor recommended by either the law or the Gospel. Nobody is arguing for anyone to be physically circumcised here. Paul's argument is not against people who want to obey God, but against Judaizers trying to force circumcision upon gentiles as a condition of conversion to Christ.
Conclusion: Your response did not in fact prove your case, you did not prove there are two sets of legislation, one for the old covenant, and one for the new. Your reasoning logically leads to inconsistencies and contradictions (like the idea that as Christians we are free from moral obligation to obey God).
Do you not find it curious that so many people actually believe that obeying God is somehow unChristian? Makes you wonder which "Jesus" they have actually been listening to...