debosky:
If we accept that the law is like a traffic light/speed camera it means even as Christians, we 'naturally' (not due to fear of punishment) comply with the lights and cameras no? That is only correct to an extent (I guess all analogies will fall short in some respect).

The difference is the bit highlighted red. you are seen to be complying with the rule. same thing you will do if there was no light/camera. the fact that a christian will not kill is not because the law says that shall not kill, but at the same time he is seen to have complied with the law that says "thou shall not kill".

debosky:
What I am trying to bring out here is that some of those laws don't even apply anymore -i.e. there is no punishment associated with a lack of compliance with some 'laws' e.g. tithing, wave offering, sacrifice, etc.

I agree with you. maybe i did not indicate this in my post, but my focus was mainly on the moral aspect of the law.

Let me also add one dimension.

One key thing about the promises and result of the "new covenant" is that the new man is born of the Spirit. Crucially, he is led of the Spirit --- if he submits of course.

A potential consequence of this is that an action that is truly led by the Spirit may even go against "the law" or conventional understandings of "the law"!

Examples
Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath
Is it "lawful" to heal/forgive on the Sabbath?
Rahab the harlot counted among the heroes of faith in the book of Hebrews etc

debosky:

Not necessarily, as there is always the tendency to get caught out when adhering to such 'laid-down' patterns and traditions. Even those who should/did know better are not immune - as an example, see Peter's casual 'slipping' into traditions once he was among his ethnic Jewish brethren.

I am not advocating vagueness either, rather a greater focus on the end-goal, and less on rule-compliance. Jesus did the same in many instances.

Forgive me, but I still fail to understand. You seem to be saying that these Laws are neither laid-down patterns nor vagueness. I wonder what else they could be. I see that you agree with Zikky that these Laws form a nature within us. I fully agree with that too. However, there is nothing vague about the nature of a thing. The nature of a thing dictates how it must behave. In other words, we can tell that a thing is going contrary to its nature when it disobeys some dictate of said nature, do you agree?

This means that it is possible to articulate with clear statements the Laws of a thing's Nature. If so, can you give me one example of the Laws of a Christian's Nature? I need it to see exactly what you intended to convey by your answer.

No, what I mean is that (for example) there are certain Laws which were good only for a certain time and have now been superseded by the 'real-deal'. For example, physical circumcision replaced by the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit.

Ok. The physical circumcision of one time has been replaced by the real deal of the circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit. But I do not quite remember physical circumcision being a Law of the Old Covenant. I remember it as an initiation into that Covenant. Only such as were physically circumcised were accepted as covered by that Covenant.

As such, it does not quite give a true picture of what the relationship is between the Laws found in the Old Covenant and these Laws that God spoke of in the passage of Hebrews that we are discussing.

What I am saying is that a misplaced focus on specifics may indeed cost one the destination, or unduly complicate the journey. Let me use an analogy - driving straight ahead is the correct approach when travelling on a straight road, but if that 'specific' is (mis)applied when the road turns 90 degrees to the left or curves, that will result in the person departing from the road.

I think that I understand. Generally I have considerable difficulty following detailed descriptions, I'd much rather be told the endgame and be left to figure out how to get there myself. However, how does one know that they're still on track for the goal if they have no yardstick, no landmark or milestone or "specifics" to measure against. After all, if the destination can only be reached by using specific routes, it cannot be reached by using others, not so?

Enigma: Let me also add one dimension.

One key thing about the promises and result of the "new covenant" is that the new man is born of the Spirit. Crucially, he is led of the Spirit --- if he submits of course.

A potential consequence of this is that an action that is truly led by the Spirit may even go against "the law" or conventional understandings of "the law"!

Examples
Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath
Is it "lawful" to heal/forgive on the Sabbath?
Rahab the harlot counted among the heroes of faith in the book of Hebrews etc

@ the bolded is why i get amazed and sad when i hear folks say Jesus Christ came to show us how to keep the law of Moses. It makes a nonsense of Grace. How on earth do you think you can keep the law?

Lev chapters 12 & 15 tells you how the law can prevent a child of God from fellowship simply because of Childbirth, menstruation or seminal fluid discharge. How do you reconcile this with forsake not the assembling of yourselves together?

I am happy to have the liberty of Spirit and be free from the bondage of the law. Thank God for the cross of Christ. It made all the difference

Goshen360:

Simply, God is not repeating the laws given to Moses on tablets of stones into our hearts but the laws he was talking about is LAWS OF THE SPIRIT of life....IN CHRIST. That's why I teach, we are not under the laws of Moses BUT DOESN'T MEAN WE ARE LAWLESS, WE UNDER THE LAW OF THE SPIRIT.

I beg your indulgence, but could you give me some example or instance of these Laws of the Spirit of Life in Christ? That is actually what I hoped to get from your answer to my question.

Ihedinobi:
..... I'd much rather be told the endgame and be left to figure out how to get there myself. ....

I quite like this statement.

Compare with two important things from the New Testament.

1. Jesus said the "endgame" (well, in a sense ) is: love God with all your heart and love your neighbour

2. The apostle John said, you have the Holy Spirit and you don't need anyone to teach you.

Does it fit with being allowed to figure out the endgame by oneself --- except the figuring out is with the help of the Holy Spirit?

Zikkyy:

My view:

The law written on our heart is not a list of dos and don'ts (e.g. the law of Moses), it is a nature. It is what we have become (as true Christians). What is written on our heart is not the list (of dos and don'ts) but the source of that list itself. It is more complete (it cannot be quantified) because they is always a natural reaction to every situation. When you live by a list, you will need to do some scanning to identify the specific part of the law you be contravening (or required) for any situation So, by saying the law of moses is abolished one is not saying the Christian is now lawless, he has taken up a nature from which the law was sourced.

The law (of moses) is like the traffic light at the junction (with camera and traffic police to ensure compliance and sanction offenders), it is there to ensure order and protection of lives and properties (for those that ordinarily will not stop or care about other road users). The man that is by nature disciplined and have respect/concern for life will by nature approach the junction with care/caution (with or without the traffic light/police). This was why Paul stated that the law is good (for maintaining law & order) and is meant for criminals (law breakers), but it is not for the righteous. Any man that respond to an external requirement (i.e. the law of moses) does so based on the belief that he will be sanctioned for non-compliance (or may not reap the benefit resulting from compliance).

Per the bolded, if indeed it is the source of that list as you say then the list does not contradict it, does it?

Again, it is true that when you live by a list you continue to examine it to see if you are contravening it in some way. But that only seems to agree with Paul's instruction that we examine ourselves to see if we're in the Faith. There must be some moral yardstick to measure ourselves against to be able to tell when we're in the Faith and when we're not, not so? And it cannot be vague or else its purpose is only defeated, don't you agree?

Now I totally, unreservedly agree that a man who naturally does right needs nothing external to check and correct him. But do you not agree with the Scriptures that we're still developing the Nature of Christ Jesus the Righteous? The Nature is still being formed out of the ruins of our old wicked nature or do the Scriptures not say so, my brother?

If it is true that we are still undergoing transformation, do we not still have some of that perfection outside of us? Do we not then need to continue to check ourselves against a yardstick in order to adjust? Is there not still unrighteousness enough in us to warrant the application of a law for correction? Or else, why are we told that we are to desire the sincere milk of the Word? Or that we ought to graduate in the Word of God?

debosky: I agree for the most part with Zikky, but I'll offer another perspective.

If we accept that the law is like a traffic light/speed camera it means even as Christians, we 'naturally' (not due to fear of punishment) comply with the lights and cameras no? That is only correct to an extent (I guess all analogies will fall short in some respect).

What I am trying to bring out here is that some of those laws don't even apply anymore -i.e. there is no punishment associated with a lack of compliance with some 'laws' e.g. tithing, wave offering, sacrifice, etc.

Let me attempt a different analogy. Both covenants are a form of 'Shelter' - one temporary and one permanent.

In a temporary shelter, let's say it's a tent. In this tent, there is a law that you can't nail things to the wall (the walls are made of cloth - so if you put a nail in, water will get in and you'll get wet) you can't cook inside (if you do, the tent may catch fire and you'll burn it down). Get the drift?

Now in the permanent shelter - a solid, well constructed house with solid walls, gas cooker with extractor hood, etc. Now if in this house you decide to put nails on the wall to put up pictures, there's no consequence - the wall is designed for it - no leakages. If you decide to cook in the house, the gas cooker and extractor hood are designed for it - no consequence!

But what applies to both forms of shelter? You maintain it in a way that it continues to serve it's purpose - you can draw analogies e.g. you need to keep your tent clean and also keep your house clean, but in the tent you can only use a broom and pan, but in the house you can use a vacuum cleaner.

I hope I've been able to express my thoughts with some clarity here - you can look to the old and identify principles in common with the new, but you don't try to move back into your tent - live in the house that is Jesus, and best of all he is right in the house with us showing us how we should live.

I agree essentially with you. However, the fact that you couldn't cook inside the shelter did not eliminate the necessity to cook at all nor did the inadvisability of putting up nails in the tent to hang things up eliminate the need ti hang things up. You still do these things regardless which type of shelter you're in.

None of those laws that applied in the old are useless now. Their mode of application may have largely changed but they're all there. There is no shadow unless there is some real object that casts it, you know.

Enigma: Let me also add one dimension.

One key thing about the promises and result of the "new covenant" is that the new man is born of the Spirit. Crucially, he is led of the Spirit --- if he submits of course.

A potential consequence of this is that an action that is truly led by the Spirit may even go against "the law" or conventional understandings of "the law"!

Examples
Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath
Is it "lawful" to heal/forgive on the Sabbath?
Rahab the harlot counted among the heroes of faith in the book of Hebrews etc

Indeed!

Candour:

@ the bolded is why i get amazed and sad when i hear folks say Jesus Christ came to show us how to keep the law of Moses. It makes a nonsense of Grace. How on earth do you think you can keep the law?

Lev chapters 12 & 15 tells you how the law can prevent a child of God from fellowship simply because of Childbirth, menstruation or seminal fluid discharge. How do you reconcile this with forsake not the assembling of yourselves together?

I am happy to have the liberty of Spirit and be free from the bondage of the law. Thank God for the cross of Christ. It made all the difference

My dear brother, there is a substantial difference between what the Law itself said and the conventional understandings of the Law.

Ihedinobi:

My dear brother, there is a substantial difference between what the Law itself said and the conventional understandings of the Law.

dear bro, I do not really get what you mean

the example of prohibition of Isrealites from the gathering because of bodily discharges was expressly given as laws by Moses in Leviticus and it was in agreement with the concept of HOLINESS in the Mosaic law.

I hope my explanation is in line with your query but if not, pls kindly let me know so i can attend to it properly

God bless you real good

Enigma:

I quite like this statement.

Compare with two important things from the New Testament.

1. Jesus said the "endgame" (well, in a sense ) is: love God with all your heart and love your neighbour

2. The apostle John said, you have the Holy Spirit and you don't need anyone to teach you.

Does it fit with being allowed to figure out the endgame by oneself --- except the figuring out is with the help of the Holy Spirit?

I was actually describing a personality trait of mine. But it does fit indeed. However, I think that the danger in that position is the tendency to forget that Christians are together one organism, we do not exist independent of one another. We badly need one another to reach the full maturity of the One New Man.

For this reason, while we must be fully persuaded of all things in our own selves, we must be sure to be open to correctuon and advice from one another. Plus, it is not merely some favorite doctrine of any class or stratum of believers that there are those among us to whom God has committed the responsibility for others. I know that all of us are responsible for every other person in those things where God has taught us lessons in Christ but there are such as are particularly tasked with the spiritual welfare of their brethren. In Peter's words, they are "[given] to the ministry of the Word and to prayer".

Of course, they may do other things beside watch for their brethren, but this is their main duty.

Enigma: Let me also add one dimension.

One key thing about the promises and result of the "new covenant" is that the new man is born of the Spirit. Crucially, he is led of the Spirit --- if he submits of course.

A potential consequence of this is that an action that is truly led by the Spirit may even go against "the law" or conventional understandings of "the law"!

Examples
Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath
Is it "lawful" to heal/forgive on the Sabbath?
Rahab the harlot counted among the heroes of faith in the book of Hebrews etc

A new level of grace ?

Candour:

dear bro, I do not really get what you mean

the example of prohibition of Isrealites from the gathering because of bodily discharges was expressly given as laws by Moses in Leviticus and it was in agreement with the concept of HOLINESS in the Mosaic law.

I hope my explanation is in line with your query but if not, pls kindly let me know so i can attend to it properly

God bless you real good

Like Paul once said too, was God interested in animal eating habits and natural bodily discharges or was He interested in the hearts of the men and women He created?

Ihedinobi:



I was actually describing a personality trait of mine. But it does fit indeed. However, I think that the danger in that position is the tendency to forget that Christians are together one organism, we do not exist independent of one another. We badly need one another to reach the full maturity of the One New Man.

For this reason, while we must be fully persuaded of all things in our own selves, we must be sure to be open to correctuon and advice from one another. Plus, it is not merely some favorite doctrine of any class or stratum of believers that there are those among us to whom God has committed the responsibility for others. I know that all of us are responsible for every other person in those things where God has taught us lessons in Christ but there are such as are particularly tasked with the spiritual welfare of their brethren. In Peter's words, they are "[given] to the ministry of the Word and to prayer".

Of course, they may do other things beside watch for their brethren, but this is their main duty.

Maybe I picked the sentence because it is also "my own way" too. lol

Yes, I agree about the danger you have highlighted --- which may even end up in unjustifiable rebelliousness.

But consider my inbuilt caveat ---- that the person acting that way truly submits to the Holy Spirit.

True submission to the Holy Spirit will lead one also to recognise that one's individual place is to be viewed in light of the corporate whole; in light of the one Church.

And we should also bear in mind that the Holy Spirit speaks and reveals His leading in various ways. If you ask me, this kind of discussion, when done in the spirit of brotherliness and seeking to help each other understand, is in fact one of the ways the Holy Spirit speaks to each one of us.

Ihedinobi: Forgive me, but I still fail to understand. You seem to be saying that these Laws are neither laid-down patterns nor vagueness. I wonder what else they could be.

I said not necessarily which means that, in some cases, they might be laid-down patterns, but in others they might not.

I see that you agree with Zikky that these Laws form a nature within us. I fully agree with that too. However, there is nothing vague about the nature of a thing. The nature of a thing dictates how it must behave. In other words, we can tell that a thing is going contrary to its nature when it disobeys some dictate of said nature, do you agree?

Yes, but in a more nuanced way with the focus of the end-goal and not merely a matter of following ‘dictates’.

Take for example Paul’s teaching on eating meat sacrificed to idols - the focus is not on a dictate to ‘eat the meat’ or ‘don’t eat the meat’, rather it’s on the end goal: ‘make sure your eating doesn’t cause a brother to fall’.

The test of going contrary to its nature is not in abiding with (apparent understanding of) dictates, but the end goal - see Enigma’s example on the ‘lawful’ healing on the Sabbath.

This means that it is possible to articulate with clear statements the Laws of a thing's Nature. If so, can you give me one example of the Laws of a Christian's Nature? I need it to see exactly what you intended to convey by your answer.

By all means - the fruit of the Spirit.

Ok. The physical circumcision of one time has been replaced by the real deal of the circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit. But I do not quite remember physical circumcision being a Law of the Old Covenant. I remember it as an initiation into that Covenant. Only such as were physically circumcised were accepted as covered by that Covenant.

You are hair-splitting here and engaging in semantics - if circumcision is a pre-requisite/requirement to enter into the Covenant, then it is in essence a Law of the Old Covenant.

In any case, it was stated as law: Leviticux 12: 1-3 2 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.

As such, it does not quite give a true picture of what the relationship is between the Laws found in the Old Covenant and these Laws that God spoke of in the passage of Hebrews that we are discussing.

Of course it does, simply because it (physical circumcision) was required previously, but is no longer required now. It has been replaced.

I think that I understand. Generally I have considerable difficulty following detailed descriptions, I'd much rather be told the endgame and be left to figure out how to get there myself. However, how does one know that they're still on track for the goal if they have no yardstick, no landmark or milestone or "specifics" to measure against. After all, if the destination can only be reached by using specific routes, it cannot be reached by using others, not so?

Avoiding a misplaced focus on specifics (which is what I previously said) is not the same as abandoning specifics altogether. The NT is full of examples of specifics by which a Christian can measure himself against.

Ihedinobi:
..... However, there is nothing vague about the nature of a thing. The nature of a thing dictates how it must behave. In other words, we can tell that a thing is going contrary to its nature when it disobeys some dictate of said nature, do you agree?

This means that it is possible to articulate with clear statements the Laws of a thing's Nature. If so, can you give me one example of the Laws of a Christian's Nature? I need it to see exactly what you intended to convey by your answer.

I will not say love is vague.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV)
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Ihedinobi: I agree essentially with you. However, the fact that you couldn't cook inside the shelter did not eliminate the necessity to cook at all nor did the inadvisability of putting up nails in the tent to hang things up eliminate the need ti hang things up. You still do these things regardless which type of shelter you're in.

Correct! But if I place my focus on ‘do not nail, do not cook inside’ then I miss the intent and apply a ‘law’ which is no longer applicable.

None of those laws that applied in the old are useless now. Their mode of application may have largely changed but they're all there. There is no shadow unless there is some real object that casts it, you know.

The entire system was the shadow, not the specific contents. Some laws were specific to the particular conditions existing in past times and not applicable now.

Guys, permit me a little levity here --- just for a brief moment. I have read Zikky's traffic light analogy again and it brings this up in my mind.

In Britain --- traffic lights are to be obeyed.

In France traffic lights are mere suggestions

In Italy (and Lagos?) traffic lights are merely [Christmas] decorations!

I'll get me coat!

Ihedinobi:

Like Paul once said too, was God interested in animal eating habits and natural bodily discharges or was He interested in the hearts of the men and women He created?

my exact sentiments brother.

God is interested in our hearts than a literal obedience to the laws because if the heart is right, The life and Living will be right too.

Enigma: Guys, permit me a little levity here --- just for a brief moment. I have read Zikky's traffic light analogy again and it brings this up in my mind.

In Britain --- traffic lights are to be obeyed.

In France traffic lights are mere suggestions

In Italy (and Lagos?) traffic lights are merely [Christmas] decorations!

I'll get me coat!

But in all places, the end-goal is to get home. . . . alive preferably.

Ihedinobi:
Per the bolded, if indeed it is the source of that list as you say then the list does not contradict it, does it?

I agree the list does not contradict it source, but consider the fact that the list will not change what or who i am. i.e. it can make me do things the issuer wants but it will not change me. Again that was why Paul said the law is good and applicable to criminals (those without the heart to do good but are made to comply due to possible sanctions). Just like the traffic light will not change the nature of road users; when there is no light, camera or traffic policeman, the average road user will not comply with the rules.

To change, i need to look away from the list and go to the very source of that list.

Enigma:

Maybe I picked the sentence because it is also "my own way" too. lol

Yes, I agree about the danger you have highlighted --- which may even end up in unjustifiable rebelliousness.

But consider my inbuilt caveat ---- that the person acting that way truly submits to the Holy Spirit.

True submission to the Holy Spirit will lead one also to recognise that one's individual place is to be viewed in light of the corporate whole; in light of the one Church.

And we should also bear in mind that the Holy Spirit speaks and reveals His leading in various ways. If you ask me, this kind of discussion, when done in the spirit of brotherliness and seeking to help each other understand, is in fact one of the ways the Holy Spirit speaks to each one of us.

Exactly.

Ihedinobi:
Again, it is true that when you live by a list you continue to examine it to see if you are contravening it in some way. But that only seems to agree with Paul's instruction that we examine ourselves to see if we're in the Faith. There must be some moral yardstick to measure ourselves against to be able to tell when we're in the Faith and when we're not, not so? And it cannot be vague or else its purpose is only defeated, don't you agree?

don't usually talk about myself, but let me share an experience.

There was this day (a very long time ago) i found myself intervening in a fight between a friend and a third party. The other guy was chasing my friend with a piece of wood with the intention of 'planking' my friend (Rivers SHA style ). I got in the way in an attempt to stop the other guy from committing murder, i got 'planked' instead (cracked a bone). The wood fell in the process and i picked it up. The other guy decided it was time to retreat unfortunately it was at a corner, with no-where to run. I was in pain and contemplating the next line of action. Would hitting back ease my pain? Looking at the guy's face (he already surrendered himself for some 'planking' ), i decided it was not the best thing to do (i know some posters will dis-agree ), but i found myself advising him instead. Now did i consider any listing/law in making that decision? No i did not. It all comes down to who i am (my nature), and it just wasn't me to hit back in such a situation.

@debosky, I think that I understand you now. You think that these Laws that God promised to write on our hearts are specific and somewhat vague. The latter is what you mean when you say "nuanced", am I right?

Now I believe without any reservation that God does not change. Times, seasons and variations of eras do not affect Him. If He wanted or demanded anything yesterday, it is still what He wants and demands today and will want and demand tomorrow. So these Laws that He says He will write must be the same as He has always laid upon man. I think you'll agree with that. Or else you would be advocating that He changed His mind about what He wanted from man at some point.

If it is the same Laws that He had for us yesterday then they must have been in the Old Covenant as well. I think we both agree on that. You yourself said that there are principles in the Old Covenant. Well, I hold that those principles are the True Laws of God. I have no doubt that God had no laws but those regardless what dispensation or context we're studying.

Thus while the Old Covenant has been abolished, these Laws have remained unchanged. For this reason, the Old Covenant must not be neglected for study. Behind every shadow is some object that gives it existence. In the Old Covenant, the New is hidden.

As for the circumcision, I assure you it was no Law and I was splitting no hair. The circumcision of Moses corresponds to the water baptism of today. There's a difference between initiation and code of conduct, I believe you'll agree.

As for the question of specifics, particular behaviors betray the nature of the actor. And a conscious creature studies its nature in order to conform to it. This is why there is the principle of generation and genealogy amd why the Scriptures say that we are changed as we behold Christ.

Paul said laws(Heb. 10:15-16). in contrast to Jeremiah who said law(Jer. 31:33). .If we agree the law is the nature of the Christ-life. what are the laws Paul is talking about here?

Ihedinobi: @debosky, I think that I understand you now. You think that these Laws that God promised to write on our hearts are specific and somewhat vague. The latter is what you mean when you say "nuanced", am I right?

Now I believe without any reservation that God does not change. Times, seasons and variations of eras do not affect Him. If He wanted or demanded anything yesterday, it is still what He wants and demands today and will want and demand tomorrow. So these Laws that He says He will write must be the same as He has always laid upon man. I think you'll agree with that. Or else you would be advocating that He changed His mind about what He wanted from man at some point.

If it is the same Laws that He had for us yesterday then they must have been in the Old Covenant as well. I think we both agree on that. You yourself said that there are principles in the Old Covenant. Well, I hold that those principles are the True Laws of God. I have no doubt that God had no laws but those regardless what dispensation or context we're studying.

Thus while the Old Covenant has been abolished, these Laws have remained unchanged. For this reason, the Old Covenant must not be neglected for study. Behind every shadow is some object that gives it existence. In the Old Covenant, the New is hidden.

As for the circumcision, I assure you it was no Law and I was splitting no hair. The circumcision of Moses corresponds to the water baptism of today. There's a difference between initiation and code of conduct, I believe you'll agree.

As for the question of specifics, particular behaviors betray the nature of the actor. And a conscious creature studies its nature in order to conform to it. This is why there is the principle of generation and genealogy amd why the Scriptures say that we are changed as we behold Christ.

@Ihedinobi, i know you addresed the above to debosky but i decided to chip in as i believe it's in a way related to the point you raised to me.

i want to believe when you make mention of Laws in the old testament, you're not restricting it to just the 10 commandments on tables of stone? If you are, then you'll be right to say circumcision is not there just as Tithe, laws of bodily discharge etc do not also feature. If however, you are talking about all the laws(613 of them) by which the theocracy of Isreal operated, then i'm afraid you'll be wrong to say circumcision is not included. read Joshua chapter 5 to see how it was fully incorporated.Then also remember it was the main distinguishing feature between Jews and gentiles.

When John came baptising, people were still being circumcised. Even Paul had to shave his head and circumcise timothy just to keep the judaizers quiet and this was more than 10 years after Peter's preaching on the day of pentecost when over 3000 were baptised as believers.So i'll disagree that circumcision corresponds to the baptism of today.

i'm open to more enlightenment on the issue pls

@Zikkyy, I get you too now, I think. We both agree that there are laws. If there is any real difference, it is that you insist that they're instinctive and not learned.

Well, all the correction I've got there is that even spiritually, children must grow. We learn the Lord Christ and become like Him with each new sighting. It takes some conscious work too. When you decided not to "plank" that niggie, it was a result of history you had consciously built with God. That is how it is, we consciously form habits that become reflexive responses in the future.

Aftwr we have become believers, we study the whole Bible because in the Old Covenant, the Nature of the Lord Christ - the same Nature that we have received by spiritual birth - is revealed. We learn to form habits that become automatic responses for us in the future. We are not merely trying to be mechanical professors of the Faith, we're simply learning to open up paths for our Nature to come through and interact productively with the affairs of Life.

So, borrowing your analogy, we learn traffic rules, signs and lights not merely to try and impress anyone with our good road behavior but so that even without them we can find our way safely home all the time.

The Laws in the Old Covenant are the same Laws that have been written on our hearts. But not quite in the same form, we all know. Moses was not speaking contrary to Christ when he said to give as good as you get and no better, for instance, nor was Christ calling Moses an impostor and a liar for saying so. Rather our Lord was saying that there was no more need to do so because a Judge had been appointed from among men whose sole right it was to right wrongs. That Judge was only in view in Moses's time. Today, He's here and a specific Day has been set for His judgment of all things.

We have the Nature of Christ, yes, my brother, but we still have that of Adam too. As we learn the Word and consciously respond to it, Adam will suffer the Curse of the Law and continue to be put to death in us and Christ will continue to increase and will one day fill our entire being making us perfect men in deed.

Enigma: Guys, permit me a little levity here --- just for a brief moment. I have read Zikky's traffic light analogy again and it brings this up in my mind.

In Britain --- traffic lights are to be obeyed.

In France traffic lights are mere suggestions

In Italy (and Lagos?) traffic lights are merely [Christmas] decorations!

I'll get me coat!

Lol

Ihedinobi: @debosky, I think that I understand you now. You think that these Laws that God promised to write on our hearts are specific and somewhat vague. The latter is what you mean when you say "nuanced", am I right?

You're close - what I meant is that they are not prescriptive in the same manner as the OT rules were. Like in the to eat or not to eat conundrum, what you get is not a specific law saying eat/don't eat (as they had in the OT), what you get is value your brother above all, and act with that goal in mind.

Now I believe without any reservation that God does not change. Times, seasons and variations of eras do not affect Him. If He wanted or demanded anything yesterday, it is still what He wants and demands today and will want and demand tomorrow. So these Laws that He says He will write must be the same as He has always laid upon man. I think you'll agree with that. Or else you would be advocating that He changed His mind about what He wanted from man at some point.

We could have along conversation about this particular subject, but what I'll say is this: God did not change his mind, but he has changed his approach. We were previously not children of God but now we can boldly approach the throne of Grace - the change is unmistakable.

If it is the same Laws that He had for us yesterday then they must have been in the Old Covenant as well. I think we both agree on that. You yourself said that there are principles in the Old Covenant. Well, I hold that those principles are the True Laws of God. I have no doubt that God had no laws but those regardless what dispensation or context we're studying.

God had one end-goal in mind - that is Jesus - and the Old Covenant played its role for that period. It was only a shadow, so even at its best, can only give an image. Now we have Christ so we look to him. Even in studying the Old, we do that in Him.

Thus while the Old Covenant has been abolished, these Laws have remained unchanged. For this reason, the Old Covenant must not be neglected for study. Behind every shadow is some object that gives it existence. In the Old Covenant, the New is hidden.

I also agree - study is valid, but must be done in the light of the New Covenant to understand the purpose/intent/True Law behind the Old. Failure to do so will mean leaving the substance and clinging to the shadow.

As for the circumcision, I assure you it was no Law and I was splitting no hair. The circumcision of Moses corresponds to the water baptism of today. There's a difference between initiation and code of conduct, I believe you'll agree.

We'll agree to disagree - circumcision was a law as it was mandated in Leviticus, but not a 'True Law' or principle as we've said above.

As for the question of specifics, particular behaviors betray the nature of the actor. And a conscious creature studies its nature in order to conform to it. This is why there is the principle of generation and genealogy amd why the Scriptures say that we are changed as we behold Christ.

I agree. Jesus fulfilled the will of the Father and portrayed his very nature throughout his time on earth, but many who observed his actions felt his behaviour (eating with sinners, breaking the sabbath, etc.) contravened what God wanted. It is this perception we must be wary of when we to 'determine' if someone's behaviour matches God's nature.

Ihedinobi:
The Laws in the Old Covenant are the same Laws that have been written on our hearts. But not quite in the same form, we all know.

If you are referring to the moral aspect of the mosaic law i would agree with you.

I think where we differ is my view that the law has not been (completely) written on the heart of one that continues to refer to the external/physical law for guidance. it is in process (at best).