Is cessation an observation or theology?

OMC said:

Make no mistake, I take the emotional component very seriously and have the utmost respect. All I’m saying is that, for me, the question is never, “Does this feel reverent?” but always, “Does this align with the Word?” That’s simply how the scripture reads, and I have to follow it.

Click to expand...

Alignment is an interesting concept. Even alignment-adjacent is challenging. It assumes there is a coherent, consistent and navigable framework for that alignment stretching from 800 BC Canaan to 100 AD Rome. That unique alignment must align stories, wars, history, songs, poems, allegories and erodica. It tracks the evolution of El into YHWH. That alignment can only be achieved by prioritizing certain scriptural themes and deprioritizing others. New Testament frameworks of social behavior do no track with the Hebrew Bible framework for social behavior so how do they "align?"

As an example, most denominations vastly prioritize John 3:16 over the entire chapter of Matthew 25 or the "problem" of 1st Corinthians that says what you claim of faith, lacking actual demonstrable love, is worthless. We prioritize the creation story of Genesis 1 over the creation story of Genesis 2. And we prioritize all scripture that allows us to occasionally sit in pews for 55 minutes as being "faithful." We prioritize all scripture that comes packed for us from our 16th - 19th century founders justifying our sect's uniqueness and enabling the faith that we alone are the true Christians.

Perhaps a more useful function for the term alignment is the question of how aligned are our day to day lives, priorities, finances, entertainment and reputation aligned with the image of Jesus the Christ and with the will of Jesus and the example of Jesus and the mission of Jesus. If we are fully aligned here, what does it matter how we are aligned with our sects perspectives?

biblestudent78 said:

Alignment is an interesting concept. Even alignment-adjacent is challenging. It assumes there is a coherent, consistent and navigable framework for that alignment stretching from 800 BC Canaan to 100 AD Rome. That unique alignment must align stories, wars, history, songs, poems, allegories and erodica. It tracks the evolution of El into YHWH. That alignment can only be achieved by prioritizing certain scriptural themes and deprioritizing others. New Testament frameworks of social behavior do no track with the Hebrew Bible framework for social behavior so how do they "align?"

Click to expand...

The connection between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament isn’t about imposing one sociological model on both 800 BC Canaan and 100 AD Rome, or pretending Israel’s covenant structures, purity laws, and national identity stayed unchanged.
It’s about seeing that the Bible’s unity is rooted in covenant, not culture.

The link isn’t identical social ethics but the unfolding of a single redemptive story:
God forms a people (Torah),
disciplines them (Prophets),
preserves a remnant (Exile),
fulfills the covenant in Christ (Gospels),
and then extends the covenant community beyond ethnic Israel (Epistles).

Changes in language about El‑YHWH, literary styles, and social norms don’t break the connection because it’s grounded in God’s covenantal self-revelation, not consistent human behavior.
The New Testament doesn’t just follow Israel’s social framework; it transforms it—
shifting from national to global covenant,
from temple to Christ,
from ethnic to Spirit boundaries,
from land to kingdom,
from circumcision to baptism,
from purity codes to holiness ethics.
Alignment isn’t sameness; it’s a trajectory—
Torah points to Christ, Prophets interpret failure and hope,
Writings show covenant life, and the New Testament reveals the goal the whole story was moving toward.

OMC said:

The connection between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament isn’t about imposing one sociological model on both 800 BC Canaan and 100 AD Rome, or pretending Israel’s covenant structures, purity laws, and national identity stayed unchanged.
It’s about seeing that the Bible’s unity is rooted in covenant, not culture.

The link isn’t identical social ethics but the unfolding of a single redemptive story:
God forms a people (Torah),
disciplines them (Prophets),
preserves a remnant (Exile),
fulfills the covenant in Christ (Gospels),
and then extends the covenant community beyond ethnic Israel (Epistles).

Changes in language about El‑YHWH, literary styles, and social norms don’t break the connection because it’s grounded in God’s covenantal self-revelation, not consistent human behavior.
The New Testament doesn’t just follow Israel’s social framework; it transforms it—
shifting from national to global covenant,
from temple to Christ,
from ethnic to Spirit boundaries,
from land to kingdom,
from circumcision to baptism,
from purity codes to holiness ethics.
Alignment isn’t sameness; it’s a trajectory—
Torah points to Christ, Prophets interpret failure and hope,
Writings show covenant life, and the New Testament reveals the goal the whole story was moving toward.

Click to expand...

OMC:
My response was to your use of the word "alignment." The list you provided, while coherent, is not an alignment with anything but your narrative. I can better understand attempting to align with a narrative, which you provided, than with the scriptures as suggested because they are themselves just narrative. They are a framework taught with a priority of logic, coherence, narrative appeal and theological consistency with a group think. It's is equivalent to reading over 60 books from scores of authors writing about their times and travails and distilling their lived reality into a tidy outline easily tough and easily understood. IMHO, it seems designed for the syllabus on biblical mediated eschatology for the uneducated.

The narrative framework you provided is more or less one that has been in some form of debate from the beginning. I don't understand your perspective that the scriptures do not impose a sociological model or that social behavior is irrelevant . If a kid curses his parent he is put to death...social behavior. A man can have all the wives he can afford and have all the sex he wants outside his marriage but if a women does she is put to death...sociological. You can keep as many foreign slaves as you want and if you beat them to death but he or she lives a day, you are good. If you get a Hebrew man in debt slavery, he must go free in 7 yrs ir on a Jubilee year whichever comes first. But the Hebrew woman in your debt slavery can never to free. Sociological. Working on the Sabbath is a death sentence but Christians work on the Sabbath all the time. Sociological..The entire chapter of Matthew 25 has nothing to do with elaborate work diagrams of theological beauty. It frames "salvation" not as platform of theological elegance, but it firmly establishes the priority of social behavior.

Compliance with the will of God is not theological but social. It was never about the perfection of one's theology but of one's life to the will of God. Believing "right" and living "wrong" was never a thing.

My point is that the entire Hebrew Bible and the New Testament is ALL about creating a just society led by the behavior of God's people and with the support of the Holy Spirit. "If you say you love God but hate your neighbor, you are a liar." Social behavior counts. The gateway to God is not through theology but through a committed loving, obedient and dedicated life. That is the repeated reality from Genesis to Revelation.

biblestudent78 said:

My point is that the entire Hebrew Bible and the New Testament is ALL about creating a just society led by the behavior of God's people and with the support of the Holy Spirit. "If you say you love God but hate your neighbor, you are a liar." Social behavior counts. The gateway to God is not through theology but through a committed loving, obedient and dedicated life. That is the repeated reality from Genesis to Revelation

Click to expand...

Your instinct is right about the Bible’s relentless insistence that love, justice, and obedience are non‑negotiable, but the claim that “the gateway to God is not theology but behavior” needs correction: Scripture presents covenantal revelation as the foundation, and obedient love as the necessary fruit. From Genesis to Revelation, God never grants access to Himself through human virtue; He grants access through His self‑disclosure, His covenant, His promises, and ultimately Christ’s blood. Yet that access is authenticated only by a life shaped by justice, mercy, and holiness. The prophets condemn Israel not for bad theology but for divorcing theology from social righteousness; Jesus condemns the Pharisees not for studying Scripture but for weaponizing it while neglecting “the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” John’s statement—“If you say you love God but hate your brother, you are a liar”—is not a denial of doctrine but a declaration that doctrine without love is false doctrine. The Spirit does not replace revelation with ethics; He writes revelation into ethics. The Bible’s through‑line is this: God reveals Himself, God forms a people, God commands them to embody His character, and God judges them when their social life contradicts their confession. So yes, social behavior counts—decisively—but only as the lived expression of the God‑given truth that precedes it.

OMC said:

Your instinct is right about the Bible’s relentless insistence that love, justice, and obedience are non‑negotiable, but the claim that “the gateway to God is not theology but behavior” needs correction: Scripture presents covenantal revelation as the foundation, and obedient love as the necessary fruit. From Genesis to Revelation, God never grants access to Himself through human virtue; He grants access through His self‑disclosure, His covenant, His promises, and ultimately Christ’s blood. Yet that access is authenticated only by a life shaped by justice, mercy, and holiness. The prophets condemn Israel not for bad theology but for divorcing theology from social righteousness; Jesus condemns the Pharisees not for studying Scripture but for weaponizing it while neglecting “the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” John’s statement—“If you say you love God but hate your brother, you are a liar”—is not a denial of doctrine but a declaration that doctrine without love is false doctrine. The Spirit does not replace revelation with ethics; He writes revelation into ethics. The Bible’s through‑line is this: God reveals Himself, God forms a people, God commands them to embody His character, and God judges them when their social life contradicts their confession. So yes, social behavior counts—decisively—but only as the lived expression of the God‑given truth that precedes it.

Click to expand...

IMHO, your expression of spiritual reality is much improved in this piece. I really like it. One reason I like it is that it contains the seeds for the reunification of all believers. Few quibble about what the spirit filled life God has through Jesus called us to. The problem is always the same. We must surrender our will. That is a bridge too far when we can just argue endlessly about theological interpretations and are thus justified in living any dang way we choose because we "believe right."

The application of God's will is seldom in doubt and with little debate whereas the endless theories of the correct "theology," which is alway defined by intellectual abstractions, has been an endless battle.

It is amazing how clear the Gospel and the Word and Will of God is because it provides both abundant living and harmony with our God and our neighbor. The unspoken truth of the New Testament is that one cannot be faithful without living faithfully. It is not the same thing as being faithful to a unique brand of Theological dogma.

biblestudent78 said:

IMHO, your expression of spiritual reality is much improved in this piece. I really like it. One reason I like it is that it contains the seeds for the reunification of all believers. Few quibble about what the spirit filled life God has through Jesus called us to. The problem is always the same. We must surrender our will. That is a bridge too far when we can just argue endlessly about theological interpretations and are thus justified in living any dang way we choose because we "believe right."

The application of God's will is seldom in doubt and with little debate whereas the endless theories of the correct "theology," which is alway defined by intellectual abstractions, has been an endless battle.

It is amazing how clear the Gospel and the Word and Will of God is because it provides both abundant living and harmony with our God and our neighbor. The unspoken truth of the New Testament is that one cannot be faithful without living faithfully. It is not the same thing as being faithful to a unique brand of Theological dogma

Click to expand...

The New Testament never treats correct theology as a substitute for surrendered obedience.
The fracture comes when people use doctrine to avoid dying to self.
The Spirit‑formed life is universally agreed upon: love, holiness, mercy, justice, forgiveness.
The debates erupt only when believers try to protect their will instead of yielding it.
Scripture’s witness is simple: faithfulness is impossible without faithful living, and any “right belief” that excuses disobedience is already false.

biblestudent78 said:

My point is that the entire Hebrew Bible and the New Testament is ALL about creating a just society led by the behavior of God's people and with the support of the Holy Spirit. "If you say you love God but hate your neighbor, you are a liar." Social behavior counts.
edicated life. That is the repeated reality from Genesis to Revelation.

Click to expand...

That was a very good narration of the difference between the O.T and the N.T.

As far as I understand the N.T we are focused more on the church than we are on the world (society).

1 Corinthians 5:12-13
For what business of mine is it to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside,
God judges.

Paul was not a moral reformer but an evangelist.

How the world behaves (society) is not the concern of the church and never was our concern.

biblestudent78 said:

"If you say you love God but hate your neighbor, you are a liar."

Click to expand...

That is a powerful statement you made.

1 John 3:13-14
Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.

A sure fire way of knowing whether you are a real Christian is in that fruit of the Holy Spirit.

If you do, in fact, love your enemies the people you just don't like you are doing something. That is absent during Christian
history and we see that in Augustine and Calvin. Both stated that heretics should be punished and they meant that.

The Christian world was strongly modelled on both Augustine's theology and Calvin's theology also.

The modern traditional church has been infected with their abhorrent theology, political views, social reforms, etc.

None of this was ever our business.

We are led by the Holy Spirit from start to finish.

That is why 1 Corinthians is such a difficult letter for most Christians to navigate.

We are not of this world!

Lamar said:

Is that a joke?

Click to expand...

Definitely not a joke.

Natural law?

Here is an example of the Christian historical explanation of "natural law" according to Thomas Aquinas.

Written in the 13th century.

Here is how Aquinas explained natural law in detail:

1. The Four Types of Law
Aquinas did not view natural law in isolation. He placed it within a grand hierarchy of four distinct types of law:

• Eternal Law: God’s rational purpose and blueprint for the entire universe. It is the ultimate foundation of all reality, existing eternally in the mind of God.
• Natural Law: The participation of rational creatures in the eternal law. Because humans have reason, they can freely understand and align themselves with God's eternal design.
• Human Law: The specific, practical laws created by human societies (like traffic laws or tax codes). Aquinas argued that human laws are only valid if they align with natural law.
• Divine Law: The moral truths directly revealed by God in Scripture (like the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus), which guide humans toward their ultimate supernatural destiny (salvation).

Thomas Aquinas wrote the foundational text on natural law.

Do you agree that natural law which society innately possesses is the literal ten commandments (Exodus 20)?

Lamar said:

Thomas Aquinas and the Ten Commandments?

Click to expand...

You may have an understanding of natural law but that was derived primarily from Thomas Aquinas.

His work the Summa Theologiae is regarded as a masterpiece.

Protestant Scholasticism (17th Century): By the 17th century, Protestant orthodoxy in Lutheran and Reformed universities (such as Leiden) routinely assigned the Summa Theologiae as a brilliant exercise in theological distinction. These later Protestant scholars adopted Thomas's rigorous methods, metaphysical categories, and orthodox formulations on proper theology (such as the doctrine of God and the Trinity), while explicitly rejecting his Roman Catholic ecclesiology and sacramental system. (AI)

Is your view of natural law based on the ideology of Thomas Aquinas?

Inquisitor said:

Is your view of natural law based on the ideology of Thomas Aquinas?

Click to expand...

No—my view of natural law is not based on Thomas Aquinas’s ideology.

Aquinas built a philosophical system using Aristotle, reason, and medieval metaphysics.

Scripture grounds natural law in something far simpler and more direct: God’s moral character revealed through creation and conscience (Romans 1:20; Romans 2:14–15).

Paul never appeals to Aristotelian categories, “participation metaphysics,” or Thomistic reasoning; he appeals to what humans already know because God has made it plain.

Aquinas’s version is a philosophical expansion; Paul’s version is a biblical observation.
So while Aquinas talks about natural law, the biblical doctrine stands on its own and does not require his framework

Inquisitor said:

That was a very good narration of the difference between the O.T and the N.T.

As far as I understand the N.T we are focused more on the church than we are on the world (society).

1 Corinthians 5:12-13
For what business of mine is it to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside,
God judges.

Paul was not a moral reformer but an evangelist.

How the world behaves (society) is not the concern of the church and never was our concern.

That is a powerful statement you made.

1 John 3:13-14
Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.

A sure fire way of knowing whether you are a real Christian is in that fruit of the Holy Spirit.

If you do, in fact, love your enemies the people you just don't like you are doing something. That is absent during Christian
history and we see that in Augustine and Calvin. Both stated that heretics should be punished and they meant that.

The Christian world was strongly modelled on both Augustine's theology and Calvin's theology also.

The modern traditional church has been infected with their abhorrent theology, political views, social reforms, etc.

None of this was ever our business.

We are led by the Holy Spirit from start to finish.

That is why 1 Corinthians is such a difficult letter for most Christians to navigate.

We are not of this world!

Click to expand...

Inquisitor:
An interesting perspective - "In the New Testament we are more focused on the Church than the world." That may be the reality on the ground but is it the reality required by Christ Jesus? Let's remember leaving the 99 safe sheep to find the lost one. Lets remember the return of the prodigal son and the very church-like attitude of the older brother. Perhaps there is a very strong movement to build mega-churches where holiness is attendance. However, even mega-churches are losing members are record rates as are all the standard Churches. When thousands of Christians from other historic dogmas all claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit but come to wildly different understandings of where the Holy Spirit is leading them, how do we decipher which one(s) are in fact led by the Holy Spirit? The claim is that the Holy Spirit led to the Catholic/Protestant wars that killed millions. All are claimants of the Holy Spirit as "proof" they are the righteous ones.

If your understanding that the Holy Spirit has the major mission of picking one Christian sect over another, you might want to reexamine that concept because as much as it plays for your sect it plays for other competing sects.

IMHO, the Holy Spirit was and is here to guide us in righteous understanding of how to live like Jesus, love like Jesus, heal like Jesus and comfort us in our hours of need. IMHO, the Holy Spirit is not a secret handshake of those claiming unique insights into God's "true" theology. The Holy Spirit is our guide to hoiy, sacrificial, loving and committed lives where He can refresh us daily in our mission to do God's will, live God's will and be a bright light high on a hill attracting all to Jesus, but not necessarily to "Our Church" of our "God ordained theology."

Inquisitor said:

Definitely not a joke.

Natural law?

Here is an example of the Christian historical explanation of "natural law" according to Thomas Aquinas.

Written in the 13th century.

Here is how Aquinas explained natural law in detail:

1. The Four Types of Law
Aquinas did not view natural law in isolation. He placed it within a grand hierarchy of four distinct types of law:

• Eternal Law: God’s rational purpose and blueprint for the entire universe. It is the ultimate foundation of all reality, existing eternally in the mind of God.
• Natural Law: The participation of rational creatures in the eternal law. Because humans have reason, they can freely understand and align themselves with God's eternal design.
• Human Law: The specific, practical laws created by human societies (like traffic laws or tax codes). Aquinas argued that human laws are only valid if they align with natural law.
• Divine Law: The moral truths directly revealed by God in Scripture (like the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus), which guide humans toward their ultimate supernatural destiny (salvation).

Thomas Aquinas wrote the foundational text on natural law.

Do you agree that natural law which society innately possesses is the literal ten commandments (Exodus 20)?

Click to expand...

Law doesn't mean Control of GOD and HIS Spirit where the Church is empowered. Gifts from God are supernatural. Because it is God working through the Church.

OMC said:

No—my view of natural law is not based on Thomas Aquinas’s ideology.

Aquinas built a philosophical system using Aristotle, reason, and medieval metaphysics.

Scripture grounds natural law in something far simpler and more direct: God’s moral character revealed through creation and conscience (Romans 1:20; Romans 2:14–15).

Paul never appeals to Aristotelian categories, “participation metaphysics,” or Thomistic reasoning; he appeals to what humans already know because God has made it plain.

Aquinas’s version is a philosophical expansion; Paul’s version is a biblical observation.
So while Aquinas talks about natural law, the biblical doctrine stands on its own and does not require his framework

Click to expand...

I read your reference (Romans 1:20) and I could not see any direct correlation with the law and the ten commandments?

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly
perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

His invisible attributes and His eternal power are witnessed directly by the scale and depth of the universe.

Yet I do not see an argument for a list of moral commandments in that perception of the Creator.

Here are the authentic attributes that God exhibits and fully on display in Jesus Christ.

Galatians 5:22-23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against
such things there is no law.

God's invisible attributes like grace, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness. Are not visible
in the created order but His power and Majesty are on full display.

Someone needs to present a solid case for the law.

OMC said:

Scripture grounds natural law in something far simpler and more direct: God’s moral character revealed through creation and conscience (Romans 1:20; Romans 2:14–15).

Click to expand...

Not sure how you support your case using those two references?

You used the word "moral" but love is the foundation for any morality you may express.

Agape love moves far beyond these primitive moral values.

God is love and that love is eternal and beyond our comprehension.

CS1 said:

Law doesn't mean Control of GOD and HIS Spirit where the Church is empowered. Gifts from God are supernatural. Because it is God working through the Church.

Click to expand...

Who is talking about controlling God?

Inquisitor said:

Who is talking about controlling God?

Click to expand...

it is an observation Not you personally

Inquisitor said:

I read your reference (Romans 1:20) and I could not see any direct correlation with the law and the ten commandments?

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly
perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

His invisible attributes and His eternal power are witnessed directly by the scale and depth of the universe.

Yet I do not see an argument for a list of moral commandments in that perception of the Creator.

Here are the authentic attributes that God exhibits and fully on display in Jesus Christ.

Galatians 5:22-23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against
such things there is no law.

God's invisible attributes like grace, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness. Are not visible
in the created order but His power and Majesty are on full display.

Someone needs to present a solid case for the law.

Click to expand...

Romans 1:20 is not Paul giving the Ten Commandments; it is Paul establishing the foundation of natural revelation—what all humans know about God simply by existing in His world—and that foundation becomes the backdrop for Romans 2:14–15, where Paul does speak of “the work of the law written on their hearts.”
Romans 1:20 says creation reveals God’s eternal power and divine nature;
Romans 2:15 says conscience reveals God’s moral requirements. Put together, they show that humanity possesses a real, though limited, awareness of God’s moral will apart from Scripture.
But Paul never claims that natural revelation communicates the Decalogue in detail; he claims it communicates the moral substance behind the Decalogue—God’s holiness, justice, and moral order—enough to render all people “without excuse.”
In other words, Romans 1:20 is not about the Ten Commandments; it is about the God who gave the Ten Commandments, whose moral character is reflected in creation and conscience.

OMC said:

Romans 1:20 is not Paul giving the Ten Commandments; it is Paul establishing the foundation of natural revelation—what all humans know about God simply by existing in His world—and that foundation becomes the backdrop for Romans 2:14–15, where Paul does speak of “the work of the law written on their hearts.”
Romans 1:20 says creation reveals God’s eternal power and divine nature;
Romans 2:15 says conscience reveals God’s moral requirements. Put together, they show that humanity possesses a real, though limited, awareness of God’s moral will apart from Scripture.
But Paul never claims that natural revelation communicates the Decalogue in detail; he claims it communicates the moral substance behind the Decalogue—God’s holiness, justice, and moral order—enough to render all people “without excuse.”
In other words, Romans 1:20 is not about the Ten Commandments; it is about the God who gave the Ten Commandments, whose moral character is reflected in creation and conscience.

Click to expand...

Yes, the law indicated by Rom. 1:20 is probably the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12),
which predated the Decalogue (cf. Rom. 2:14-15), although Confucius (d. 479 BC)
stated it as a negative command: "What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others".

The Code of Hammurabi (d. circa 1750 BC) stated it in terms of the "eye for eye" law (Matt. 5:38, Exo. 21:23-25),