Pages

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Reply to Les Puryear: Deleted from His Site

To Lesse (This post has been deleted from Puryear's Site)

16. On Feb 9th Bill asked you "Can someone provide a link to an aggregation of moral laws in the OT?" and you replied "I know of no such list. If you can't distinguish between ceremonial law, dietary law, and moral law, then you have a major problem interpreting scripture properly. All I know to tell you is to take a hermeneutics course."

When Jesus was asked which were the greatest commandments of the law, he quoted Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not the Ten Commandments. The moral law is interwoven throughout the ceremonial statutes and the judicial decrees. It was SIN to break any of them. One who completely ignores Matthew 5:19 has a major problem with Jesus' word to Hebrews before Calvary.

17. When asked "Which category of Law does the Sabbath law fall under?" you replied "In my opinion, Moral law."

You have actually changed the literal words of the Ten Commandments to fit your own theory. The literal Word commands Hebrews to rest on the seventh day of the week, which is Saturday and it approves of slave ownership. How can you call that moral for the Church?

18. You then said "Moral Law is defined as that which God says is right."

Which seminary textbook of hermeneutics did you get this definition from? According to Romans 1:19-20 and 2:14-16 all mankind has an inner light of conscience and nature which reveals what is right. Anything beyond that must be classified as special revelation. That is why the seventh-day Sabbath and 10% tithe must fall under special revelation. Man does not innately know which day of the week to worship and what percentage to give.

19. When asked "What justification do we find in scripture to separate and categorize types of Law?" you replied "By what is taught in the NT."

Hebrews 8:12 says that the Old Covenant (which means the entire Mosaic Law) "vanished." When the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 ALL English Law (both good and bad) ended as far as the US was concerned. The US then took that which was good and re-stated it in terms of our Constitution. Similar comparison can be seen between the Old and New Covenant.

20. You then said "The cross replaces the OT sacrificial system (read Hebrews)."

Again, Hebrews 8:12 says that the entire Old Covenant Law vanished. This is also seen clearly in 2nd Cor 3:1-10 where it has "no glory." Since the Law was an indivisible whole, if part of it ended, then all of it ended as a covenant. No Jew would sub-divide the law in order to discard part of it.

The sacrificial system only dealt with minor sins of ignorance, false testimony and minor theft. The judicial system punished violations of the first half of the Ten Commandments with death. You cannot abolish the sacrificial system without also abolishing the judgments and the rest of the Law.
……………………..posted thru 20…………………………..
21. When asked for a consistent working hermeneutic to use in bringing material from the Old into the New Covenant, you replied "The love of Christ and His Word. Also, the integrity to honestly seek to "rightly divide the truth."

That is an ambiguous answer which leaves it up to every believer to decide for himself what he wants to keep or reject. It only leads to confusion.

22. When asked "Specifically, what OT laws are being broken by Christians that lay them open to a charge of antinomianism?" you replied "Specifically, tithing, that is, the giving of a minimum of 10% to the church."

It sounds to me that you are defining "Law" as "Ten Commandments--minus Sabbath--plus tithing." Out of over 600 commands of the Law, you want to say 'antinomian' chiefly when it comes to tithing.

23. You call tithing a "minimum" as if everybody in the OT was required to begin his level of giving at 10%. That is wrong. Since holy tithes were always only food from inside Israel and, since traders and craftsmen in Israelite cities did not qualify as tithe-payers, then your use of "minimum" if false.

24. You added " However, these discussions over the past week have raised a much bigger issue than tithing." Agreed, but the real issue is the subject of your post " The Place of the OT Law in the Life of the Christian."

You added "To me, that issue is that people are saying that the Bible is no longer valid in the life of a Christian. The Bible is the OT & NT, not just the NT. Thus, the heart of this issue is the role of the Bible in the life of the believer."

No, the heart of this issue is the role of the Old Covenant Law in the heart of the believer and how do we as Christians "rightly divide" God's Word.

25. When asked "Why would tithing laws fall under moral law and not under ceremonial? Were not the tithes for the purpose of feeding the priests and upkeep of the temple? Both of which are now defunct?" you replied "The role of the priest have been replaced by the clergy. The role of the temple has been replaced by the church (the people and their place of worship).

This is Roman Catholic theology. It cannot be found in any Protestant seminary textbook. It ignores the NT doctrine of the priesthood of believers and the NT doctrine of the indwelling Holy Spirit in the temple of the believers. NT gospel workers more closely follow the OT pattern of the prophets who were either self-supporting or subsisted on freewill offerings. The early church did not even have its own buildings (no storehouses) for over 200 years after Calvary.

26. You added "Tithing is not defunct and nothing in the NT indicates that it is defunct."

See my points 1-15 in earlier posts. There is no church which obeys ANY of the tithing statute found in Numbers 18. It forbids Levitical tithe recipients from owning property and it commands ministers to KILL anybody else who dared enter the sanctuary to worship God directly. Why is this part of tithing ignored?

27. When Dave Woodbury presented a long list of difficult-to-explain scenarios from the law, you replied "I appreciate all of your comments, however, I think I will leave discussing the New Covenant Theology viewpoint to another post which is more specifically about their views."

Have you forgotten the name of your blog and your own opening comment? -- 'The Place of the OT Law in the Life of the Christian' throws open the door and invites discussions of New Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology of the Law. Then you said "I believe we need to continue this discussion because it appears that there is great misunderstanding about the place of OT Law in the life of a Christian."

28. Tim Guthrie said "Yet, the law is there to point us to Christ AND to show us God's standard."

I reply that "the Law WAS there to point us to Christ and to show us God's standard" but that all changed when shadow met reality. Jesus is the clear standard to replace the shadow.

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

John 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me.

Russell Earl Kelly

2 comments:

Wade Burleson said...

Sir, that is really, really good stuff.

Well done.

Byroniac said...

Dr. Kelly, your acronym for the SBC is brilliant and I wish I had thought of it. Selective Bible Censorship. LOL!