Da rules

[JacksLadder]

Why are some issues directly followed such as the OT's ban on homosexuality while other things such as using birth control is allowed(which is anti literial biblical) and stoning is not allowed?
Of course it is all predetermined anyways......

 

[Anoetos]

Why are some issues directly followed such as the OT's ban on homosexuality while other things such as using birth control is allowed(which is anti literial biblical) and stoning is not allowed?
Of course it is all predetermined anyways......

The Bible is consistent on the subject of Homosexuality in both the old and the new testament.

A good number of Reformed Christians agree that birth control ought not to be used but I am not sure that an ironclad case can b e made from Scripture against it.

Stoning is just a way of executing people.

Behind all this though I think we have the issue of what the nature of the Law is for the Church.

A rule of thumb is that if it is repeated and underlined in the New Testament (Murder, Homsexuality, Adultery, Fornication are sinful) then it is clearly binding on the church.

A further distinction is made between moral, civil and ceremonial Law.

Moral Law is unchanging, we can see that because nearly every instance of moral prescription is uniform throughout Scripture.

Not so with ceremonial and civil Law. We no longer sacrifice animals and we no longer apply civil penalties for transgression of the Mosaic Law (though some Reformed folks would like to say that we should). In each case an argument can be made for the abrogation of these aspects of the Mosaic legislation, this abrogation being either total (as in the case of ceremonial prescriptions) or endlessly argued about and ultimately evaluated on a case by case basis when it comes to civil requirements.

There are differing opinions, my own is that liberty should be the guiding principle, we have been set free by Christ from the penalty of the Law. The moral law is still binding only in the sense that it pictures that law "written on our hearts" (Rom. 2:15) that Paul speaks of.

In any case, there is now no condemnation for us (Rom. 8:1)

 

[xapis]

Why are some issues directly followed such as the OT's ban on homosexuality while other things such as using birth control is allowed(which is anti literial biblical) and stoning is not allowed?

Homosexuality (as well as other forms of sexual immorality) is expressly forbidden in the NT as well as the OT. There should be no quarrel on this for the Scriptures make this quite clear.

Certain forms of birth control are allowable under the auspices of Christian liberty. But it must be emphasized that any form of birth control that can cause spontaneous abortion is strictly forbidden under the sixth Commandment.

It is important to distinguish that while the ceremonial and civil laws were abrogated in the New Testament due to the finished work of Christ, the moral law as summarized by the Ten Commandments still stands and by it we are all still bound.

The death penalty (you mention stoning in particular) should still be upheld in the case of murder because this is a principle of the common grace covenant (Noahic, cf. Gen. 8:20–9:17) that precedes the Mosaic law (we are concerned here with its civil aspects now abrogated) instituted by God after the Exodus. This covenant spans from the fall of mankind to the Parousia because God is bound to keep His promises.

 

[JacksLadder]

Homosexuality (as well as other forms of sexual immorality) is expressly forbidden in the NT as well as the OT. There should be no quarrel on this for the Scriptures make this quite clear.

Certain forms of birth control are allowable under the auspices of Christian liberty. But it must be emphasized that any form of birth control that can cause spontaneous abortion is strictly forbidden under the sixth Commandment.

It is important to distinguish that while the ceremonial and civil laws were abrogated in the New Testament due to the finished work of Christ, the moral law as summarized by the Ten Commandments still stands and by it we are all still bound.

The death penalty (you mention stoning in particular) should still be upheld in the case of murder because this is a principle of the common grace covenant (Noahic, cf. Gen. 8:20–9:17) that precedes the Mosaic law (we are concerned here with its civil aspects now abrogated) instituted by God after the Exodus. This covenant spans from the fall of mankind to the Parousia because God is bound to keep His promises.

So would you say then that the death penalty should be used for a cheating spouse as in the OT? Or do you have a different interpretation since Christ said not to stone the cheating woman and to have compassion for her? Also where dose it show the old laws all being abolished?

 

[JacksLadder]

Also how dose the whole "elect" thing work with moral laws without free will?

 

[ReformedChapin]

Also how dose the whole "elect" thing work with moral laws without free will?

We cannot fulfill all of the moral laws. Only through God's grace does he enable us to do good works.

 

[Anoetos]

So would you say then that the death penalty should be used for a cheating spouse as in the OT? Or do you have a different interpretation since Christ said not to stone the cheating woman and to have compassion for her? Also where dose it show the old laws all being abolished?

Well, the letters of Paul are an excellent place to see that the Law occupies a different place in the New Covenant than it did in the old. He has much to say about it's reach, effect and even it's role especially in the lives of Gentiles.

The ordinance for stoning adulterous wives came from a time when there was no effective disconnect between what we would probably call the church and the state. For ancient Israel they were combined.

The argument today is whether, in Christ, they should or even can be. I argue that the New Covenant is a completely "new thing", it mirrors the old covenantally, but it's application is such that now there are "two cities", that of God and that of the world. This makes such prescriptions for the execution of unfaithful wives, witches, homosexuals, etc. expressions of a civil law abrogated by the coming of Christ and the establishment of the church as His Body and presence in the world (but not of it).

Again, many Reformed persons disagree and believe that the civil administration should also come under the Mosaic Law so that things like this ought still to be done.

I don't want to sidetrack this conversation into a debate on theonomy but I will say that the view which would have these things still done remains a distinct minority and is, in my opinion and that of a good many Calvinists, seriously defective.

 

[Anoetos]

Also how dose the whole "elect" thing work with moral laws without free will?

Again Paul who tells us that we cannot please God without faith and that faith is itself a gift of God.

Similarly, he is very clear in Romans that the law was given to reveal sin, and that no one is able to keep it sufficiently to save them, so obedience to the Law becomes, for the Christian, a matter of doing the things "He has prepared beforehand for us to do".

The unregenerate man is at enmity with God. This is not a neutral expression. He doesn't just dislike God, He hates Him and wants to be God in His place. He is unable to please God because he has no faith and even those "good deeds" he does, those "acts of civil righteousness" (loving his children, paying his taxes, helping little old ladies across the street) are as "filthy rags"; i.e. they count as sinful because they are done without faith and even doing them testifies that the very law this person rejects and spits on is good and holy.

Anyhow, getting back to "election", the only possibility of a sinner coming to the place where his works are God-pleasing and done for the right reasons is if God elects, calls, justifies and saves him.

 

[hedrick]

The problem is that in the OT we have a mix of basic moral principles, the law of the nation of Israel, and rules that were associated with God's covenant with Israel. The first apply to everyone. The others do not. Specific procedures for dealing with offenses are part of the law of Israel. Specific religious ceremonies are typically part of the covenant. Most Christians aren't Jews, so circumcision, for example, doesn't apply to us.

This became an issue for early Christians, when non-Jews started joining. Acts 15 describes a meeting where this was discussed. There was an agreement that non-Jews were bound by a few basic moral principles, but not the whole Law.

Christians typically look to the New Testament. If Jesus or Paul reinforce a law, particularly when dealing with a non-Jewish audience, it's more likely to apply generally. If not, we look at Acts 15 and try to see how that principle shown there would apply to it.

Even Paul's letters have a problem, which is that they were letters addressed to specific people. It's not clear that he was thinking of them as being applied without change 2000 years later. Thus, for example, the fact that he accepted slavery doesn't mean that after 2000 years of experience of its bad effects we need to accept it. Particularly since slavery in the US South may have been a somewhat different institution than what he was used to.

Most Christians believe that the prohibition of homosexuality meets the tests for being a basic moral principle, as it looks more like a moral principle than a ceremony or a municipal law, and it is reinforced by Paul. A few Christians believe that it is one of the things, like slavery, where Paul was making a judgement that does not apply to our situation.

Both Jesus and Paul, in their own way, were critical of the Law. Jesus emphasized the spirit of the law over the letter, often strengthening it, but sometimes not (e.g. the Sabbath laws). The NT gives the impression that he was killed at least partly because the leaders thought he was teaching against the law. Paul strongly attacked Christians who told other Christians that they had to obey that whole of the Jewish law. While he didn't give quite the analysis of Acts 15, he did reinforce basic moral principles, so I think he would certainly have agreed that there was a moral law that is still binding.

Note that Jesus was presented with a woman taken in adultery, and prevented her from being stoned. There were specific circumstances (such as the fact that the man wasn't also being prosecuted), but it's not unreasonable to conclude that he was opposed to stoning for sexual offenses.

 

[xapis]

So would you say then that the death penalty should be used for a cheating spouse as in the OT? Or do you have a different interpretation since Christ said not to stone the cheating woman and to have compassion for her? Also where dose it show the old laws all being abolished?

I would highly recommend you ask these questions of a Reformed pastor. Pastors should be much better trained to help you with your questions, friend. In the meantime, you should start by reading through some of the Reformed confessions. My denomination, the OPC, adheres to the Westminster Standards.

The questions you're asking here are largely answered in ch. 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XIX.html

Also how dose the whole "elect" thing work with moral laws without free will?

It is not correct to say that man is without free will. See WCF, ch. 9, Of Free Will: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_IX.html

Man acts freely according to his nature and his abilities. Remember, Calvinism does not equal fatalism. This is a common misconception, especially among those newly embracing the Reformed faith and those outside it. If I may, I would also like to recommend you pick up a copy of a book entitled The Christian View of Man by J. Gresham Machen. Read that book. It is a message for laymen, very orthodox and easy to understand.

Grace and peace to you...

 

[JacksLadder]

O.k. ; ) Thank you all for the replies and information. I am meeting with a Reformed pastor later this week so he can answer some questions for me in depth.

 

[Anoetos]

i wanna apologize for posting in here...it was a bit of an experiment for me...I come from a Reformed back ground and continue to have a lot of warm feelings for that tradition. Sometimes the responses just roll out...

The advice to see a Reformed pastor and hash these things out in person is excellent.