what does it mean to die to the law? March 7, 2010
Posted by highofseventyfive in theology.Tags: death, hebrews, law, life, romans, sin
add a comment
Ok so sometimes Paul’s theology in Romans just blows me away. If you hover on a verse or two, and really ponder what it means, you start out confused, then move in to some sort of understanding of the point he’s trying to make. Then you read the next few verses and he outright explains what you just thought of in your head. Then you realize your thoughts aren’t new thoughts. They’ve been in the book all along. And you feel like you have nothing to contribute to the text anymore because the answer and the perspective just plopped itself there. I like this. Romans is such FULL complete thoughts.
Here goes some thoughts on the Law–looking at Romans 7, Hebrews 10, and a few others.
Today we talked about Romans 7. We tossed around this idea that we died to the Law, but we also talked about the law being dead. We know that Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matt 5:17) I think we meant to say that we are not under the law, or the law is “dead” to us. “But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” (vs 6) So then, what does it mean to die to the law?
“So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. ” (vs 4)
Okay, so we don’t belong to the law anymore. According to Leviticus 18:5, [Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD] the law is/was intended to be life-giving. Paul states this, “I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.” (vs 10)
Why does the law intend to bring life, but not live up? “Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.” (vs 13)
This I can dig. Without the law, we wouldn’t really understand how we totally don’t measure up to God’s standards. So I guess I can see how the law brings death because it makes the sin we sin utterly sinful.
The law is “only” the law (as in, not good enough to bring life in itself). Hebrew 10:1, says, “The Law of Moses is like a shadow of the good things to come. This shadow isn’t the good things themselves, because it cannot free people from sin by the sacrifices that are offered year after year.” (CEV)
wow okay and now look at Hebrews 7:18 “The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.”
“You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” Galatians 5:4-6
Galatians 3 is next up friends.
Its 1am and I have to be at work at 7a. haha. whoops. I will continue this study with Galatians 3
Seriously, Galatians 3 deserves a serious diving-into.
a richer kind of freedom August 5, 2009
Posted by highofseventyfive in theology.Tags: christanity, freedom, law, restriction, spirituality, the reason for God, timothy keller
add a comment
the reason for God
Christianity is supposedly a limit to personal growth and potential because it constrains our freedom to choose our own beliefs and practices.
This oversimplifies, however. Freedom cannot be defined in strictly negative terms, as the absence of confinement and constraint. In fact, in many cases, confinement and constraint is actually a means to liberation.
If you have musical aptitude, you may give yourself to practice, practice, practice the piano for years. This is a restriction, a limit on your freedom. There are many other things you won’t be able to do with the time you invest in practicing…What have you done? You’ve deliberately lost your freedom to engage in somethings in order to release yourself to a richer kind of freedom to accomplish other things.
Disciplines and constraints, then, liberate us only when they fit with the reality of our nature and capacities. A fish, because it absorbs oxygen from water rather than air, is only free if it is restricted and limited to water. If we put it out on the grass, its freedom to move and even live is not enhanced, but destroyed. The fish dies if we do not honor the reality of its nature.
In many areas of life, freedom is not so much the absence of restrictions as finding the right ones, the liberating restrictions. Those that fit with the reality of our nature and the world produce greater power and scope for our abilities and a deeper joy and fulfillment. …If we only grow intellectually, vocationally, and physically through judicious constraints–why would it not also be true for spiritual and moral growth? Instead of insisting on freedom to create spiritual reality, shouldn’t we be seeking to discover it and disciplining ourselves to live according to it?—- The Reason for God, page 45-46, Timothy Keller
——
so, freedom actually comes from restriction. kind of like the law. if we didn’t have speed limits, and laws against killing people and rape, and stealing, no one would be free to walk around outside. we’d be in our houses, locking up every item and sleeping with one eye open. no one would dare drive a car lest they put themselves in grave danger. they would be gripped by fear of EVERYTHING. but we have laws, and people obey them. so by giving up some freedoms, to act irrationally, follow every lust, passion, fit of anger and greed, in turn, we are free to LIVE.
so, “What have you done? You’ve deliberately lost your freedom to engage in somethings in order to release yourself to a richer kind of freedom to accomplish other things.”
I experience a richer kind of freedom, in Christ. Do you?
Who/What created morals? April 3, 2009
Posted by highofseventyfive in theology.Tags: evolution, God, law, morals, romans, selfishness, sin, waodani tribe
add a comment
i want to work something out on “paper” right now before i forget:
athiests and evolutionary scholars say that we are not born with morals that we get from God (because He doesn’t exist) They say that the origin of morals comes from evolution, our need to develop rules or whatever in order to further benefit our species and keep us from going extinct.
take the Waodani tribe in south america. they were extremely violent. everyone had someone in their family who was speared to death. they were killing themselves off, because they were so angry. they were quite literally down to a few remaining men, they would have killed themselves off.
is this evolution? does “we develop morals out of the best interest for the group?” explain this situation? or does this:
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.–r omans 1:28-32
i think it is fair to say that if we relied on evolution to keep us from killing each other, our selfishness has most certainly gotten in the way. in order to think of the safety and well being of others, you have to be able to put aside your own feelings and repress your own fulfillment. if i wanted to kill someone, i could. i would be sacrificing someone else’s life in order to fulfill mine. how does evolution reconcile morals and self-centeredness?
i don’t think it can. and what i think happened with the waodani tribe is this: their minds were clouded from listening to their moral compasses because of selfishness and lust. i think people who don’t know God can be very moral and have morals. because they are made in the image of God and have those natural longings for justice and love and nice things. when we have no reason to follow them though, is when we just do whatever we want. why should convince a guy not to kill someone? a worldly law? or a Godly law? obviously a worldy law hasn’t stopped people. its not reason enough to not kill.
we all have morals built into us, because we are made in the image of God. but when our sin and our selfishness cloud our desire to follow that ingrained set of morals, we kill and steal and do all sorts of awful things. GOD instilled those morals, practically for hte same reason evolutionists think we developed them: to survive.
think about it– God loves us. so he’s going to put some natural cravings for justice inside us so we don’t kill each other. duh. he wants the BEST for us. i think truly left up to our own devices we would be extinct because we also have sin nature. and unless we turn to God for fulfillment, we would follow our sin nature all the way, just like romans 1 says, and kill each other off.
thats my thought. i think it makes sense.
waodani tribe
