/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>569129

Most of it does. The laws of Moses aren’t binding anymore, but only three books of the 39 (or more) book Old Testament are on that. And the moral laws of Moses do still apply, it’s just the ceremonial laws on circumcision, kosher food, and temple sacrifices that aren’t binding. The history books, wisdom books, prophetic books are completely true and right in the modern day, and the Books of Moses have laws that Christ superseded but the books do still mostly apply beyond those.

17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Everything in the Old Testament is binding, unless explicitly abrogated in the New Testament.

>>569173

So, it's like CSS?

>>569173

>abrogated

We aren't Muslims. Everything in the Old Testament is true.

The standard Christian opinion has generally been:

The Old Testament can be divided into moral law and ceremonial law.

The moral law is things the OT prohibited for moral reasons like murder, theft, kidnapping/rape, assault, lying/bearing false witness, adultery, fornication, sodomy, witchcraft, incest, bestiality, usury.

The ceremonial law is things like ritual handwashing, ceremonial uncleanliness from things like women having periods, food laws, holy days, mixed fabrics.

The moral law still stands. We don't necessarily need to punish everything the same way they did in the Old Testament but what they prohibited for moral reasons is still wrong.

The ceremonial law was fulfilled by Christ on the cross.

You will find Christians with other opinions but this is the mainstream opinion historically endorsed by both Protestants and Catholics.

>>569182

this

Also there is some overlap between the ceremonial law and the moral law

>>569181

Abrogate doesn't mean "make false", it means "do away with". An example of something abrogated is the proscription of wearing mixed garments.

>>569196

daily reminder that different isotopes of carbon exist

>>569204

98,98% of carbon is like that even if admin bans me

>>569196

Gnostic BEGONE

>>569188

>Muh Mixed Garments

Nope, bad example. It's a moral law, just look at the law right next to it: the law to love your neighbor, on of the two greatest commandments (Leviticus 19:17-18). Mixed garments are an all-too-frequently maligned and misunderstood law. The spirit of the law is essentially about keeping general order in society, keep certain things in the right place.

A better example would be any law against certain kinds of meats, as 1. Jesus explicitly says "all things have been made clean" (Acts 10:15), and 2. The laws against food was a type separating the clean Israelites against the unclean Gentile.

>>569188 (Checked

>>569182

Oh, and I forgot to mention this crucial point: the NT affirms the mixed fabrics law. You heard me right. The NT, specifically Paul, affirms that law.

Let's read 1 Corinthians 14:26-40:

"What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order." (Emphasis mine)

Gee, "Don't mix your gifts"? "Do mix men with female teachers/speakers"? "Don't mix the male speakers." "Do it one at a time"? What does that sound like?

>>569241

>Mixed garments are an all-too-frequently maligned and misunderstood law. The spirit of the law is essentially about keeping general order in society, keep certain things in the right place.

That isn't a moral law. If it were a moral law, it would mean it would be objectively, absolutely and universally sinful to wear mixed garments. I do agree that ceremonial laws reveal principles which ought to be followed, though.

>>569244

Never heard that point of view. Is this a common belief among Calvinists? Can you link me any articles taking that position?

Sorry about the late reply, I just finished this semester of school so now I got the time to funpost here.

>>569249

>If it were a moral law, it would mean it would be objectively, absolutely and universally sinful to wear mixed garments

First, You offer no proof that this passage is not moral law, except essentially, "if this is moral law, we'd have to follow it," and presumably that's bad for a reason you don't disclose. The difficulty of following the law is not a reason to not follow the law. God's purpose of a law determines what kind of law it is, and I showed that this law is for a moral purpose.

Second, God wasn't stupid when He gave Moses this law. Obviously, if a clothing designer and a fabric engineer and can determine the best mixture of fabrics for a particular purpose and carefully make the clothing in particular fashion then they are not breaking this law. They are trying to be orderly. In fact you can wear mono-fabric clothes and break this law if you're being a chaotic edge lord or your wearing clothing meant fot he opposite sex.

> I do agree that ceremonial laws reveal principles which ought to be followed, though.

Then what's the problem?

>>569262

>Is this a common belief among Calvinists

Most Calvinists that I have met don't think about the particulars of God's law. Those that study God's Law are divides sadly whether we should even follow the OT law in the first place.

>Can you link me anything

It's funny that Calvin himself holds a similar view that this law encourages purity:

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/deuteronomy/22.htm Go to verse 9-11

The big honcho of theonomy, R.J. Rushdoony, also holds a similar view:

https://chalcedon.edu/resources/books/deuteronomy-volume-v-of-commentaries-on-the-pentateuch Go to page 341 on the Scribd app.

>>569196

3x6=18 you moronic faggot.

The OT stands to the extent you ignore the leviticul preisthood and the customs/sacrifices thereof since Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, not the levites. See psalms 110:4

>The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek

The customs of the Old testament are a great way to see what pleases or displeases God. There are instances where things not related to the leviticul priesthood food customs such as no pig meat for example are excluded because of something Jesus said or a apostle said such as 1 corinthians 6:13.

>Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

Otherwise what is said in the OT stands as to better please God matthew 22:37

>Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

>>569140

This - the law exists to show what sin is.

>>569196

Didn't Gnosticism get thrown out like 1900 yrs ago

>>575868

>>569182

Well said, been looking for the right words

the OT stands, but the NT stands on top of it