Is cessation an observation or theology?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
GWH said:
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),
Click to expand...
Your claim that Romans 1:20 “indicates the Golden Rule” is not text‑accurate; Paul is not describing an ethical maxim but the natural revelation of God’s eternal power and divine nature, which leaves humanity without excuse.
Romans 2:14–15 does not teach that the Golden Rule “predated the Decalogue,” but that Gentiles possess a moral consciousness reflecting God’s law, not a specific command identical to Matthew 7:12.
Confucius and Hammurabi are historically interesting, but they are not biblical parallels;
Confucius articulates a negative ethic, and
Hammurabi’s “eye for eye” is retributive justice, not the Golden Rule.
Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7:12 is not a universal human intuition but the summary of the Law and the Prophets, grounded in covenant revelation, not in ancient Near Eastern codes.
Your attempt to link Romans 1:20 to the Golden Rule, Confucius, and Hammurabi confuses categories:
Paul is speaking about knowledge of God, not ethical reciprocity;
Jesus is giving a covenantal summary, not a natural law principle; and
Hammurabi is giving civil penalties, not moral empathy.
The texts must be kept in their own theological lanes.
 
OMC said:
Your claim that Romans 1:20 “indicates the Golden Rule” is not text‑accurate; Paul is not describing an ethical maxim but the natural revelation of God’s eternal power and divine nature, which leaves humanity without excuse.
Romans 2:14–15 does not teach that the Golden Rule “predated the Decalogue,” but that Gentiles possess a moral consciousness reflecting God’s law, not a specific command identical to Matthew 7:12.
Confucius and Hammurabi are historically interesting, but they are not biblical parallels;
Confucius articulates a negative ethic, and
Hammurabi’s “eye for eye” is retributive justice, not the Golden Rule.
Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7:12 is not a universal human intuition but the summary of the Law and the Prophets, grounded in covenant revelation, not in ancient Near Eastern codes.
Your attempt to link Romans 1:20 to the Golden Rule, Confucius, and Hammurabi confuses categories:
Paul is speaking about knowledge of God, not ethical reciprocity;
Jesus is giving a covenantal summary, not a natural law principle; and
Hammurabi is giving civil penalties, not moral empathy.
The texts must be kept in their own theological lanes.
Click to expand...

I exercise logical harmonization of Scripture to understand that God's nature is love (1John 4:8, Rom. 5:5), which means/implies the law of love aka the Golden Rule. We need to go beyond exegesis to logical implication in order to understand the full import of Scripture.

Yes, humanity perceived morality before Moses as indicated by Hammurabi's Code and by Confucius, who expressed the Golden Rule in terms of "eye for eye" and negatively. The statement of Jesus affirmed both logic and law. We need to go beyond apparent difference to the application of both-and logic.

Perceiving truth in various lanes/categories is difficult/confusing for those unwilling to apply logic/right reasoning, instead demanding everything to be spelled out specifically instead of seeing synthesis.
 
GWH said:
I exercise logical harmonization of Scripture to understand that God's nature is love (1John 4:8, Rom. 5:5), which means/implies the law of love aka the Golden Rule. We need to go beyond exegesis to logical implication in order to understand the full import of Scripture.

Yes, humanity perceived morality before Moses as indicated by Hammurabi's Code and Confucius, who expressed the Golden Rule in terms of "eye for eye" and negatively. The statement of Jesus affirmed both logic and law. We need to go beyond difference to the application of both-and logic.

Perceiving truth in various lanes/categories is difficult/confusing for those unwilling to apply logic/right reasoning, instead demanding everything to be spelled out specifically.
Click to expand...
you’re treating “logical harmonization” as an authority over the text instead of a servant to the text;
Scripture never teaches that God’s nature as love (1 John 4:8) implies the Golden Rule as natural law, nor that moral perception in Hammurabi or Confucius establishes a universal ethic that Jesus merely “affirms.” Jesus does not build ethics from human logic; He grounds the Golden Rule in “the Law and the Prophets” (Matt 7:12), meaning it is covenant revelation, not philosophical inference. Likewise, your claim that we must “go beyond exegesis” is precisely backwards — exegesis is what guards us from importing human moral intuition into divine revelation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lamar
OMC said:
you’re treating “logical harmonization” as an authority over the text instead of a servant to the text;
Scripture never teaches that God’s nature as love (1 John 4:8) implies the Golden Rule as natural law, nor that moral perception in Hammurabi or Confucius establishes a universal ethic that Jesus merely “affirms.” Jesus does not build ethics from human logic; He grounds the Golden Rule in “the Law and the Prophets” (Matt 7:12), meaning it is covenant revelation, not philosophical inference. Likewise, your claim that we must “go beyond exegesis” is precisely backwards — exegesis is what guards us from importing human moral intuition into divine revelation.
Click to expand...

No, I treat/frame logical harmonization as a necessary gift for fully understanding the import of Scripture after translation and exegesis have been done. I signify such synthesis or "both-and" logicby using "/" between synonymous terms/concepts. Again in case you missed it: both exegesis and harmonization employ "human" logic.

Even "human moral intuition" is "divine revelation" to the extent that it accords with right reasoning per Rom. 2:14-15,
which general revelation was the only kind/category folks had before they encountered the OT and NT Scriptures.
 
Inquisitor said:
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?
Click to expand...
Are you and CS1 so clueless as to not understand the difference between natural and supernatural???
 
Lamar said:
even less to support the claims of physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit continuing today as it was during the New Testament.
Click to expand...

Now days God refuses to move among His people because He changed somewhere along the way?

He has the power but refuses to use it to help His faithful?

That's accusing the Lord of not following His own Word as in the Book of James as an example where He says if we have what someone in need has need of and we refuse to help them, then how is that walking in love.

Is God no longer walking in love towards His faithful or something in your view?


Aussie52 said:
I saw people and healing evangelists claim healings, when a few weeks later, the claims were very false.
Click to expand...

That just means what Jesus said is true in Mark 4 where the devil seeks to choke God's Word out of people.

James 1:23-25 - For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

People that lose their healing were under the impression the guy that prayed for them handles everything and they are not responsible for walking with the Lord themselves.

They need to be taught how to walk in faith for themselves.
 
GWH said:
No, I treat/frame logical harmonization as a necessary gift for fully understanding the import of Scripture after translation and exegesis have been done. I signify such synthesis or "both-and" logicby using "/" between synonymous terms/concepts. Again in case you missed it: both exegesis and harmonization employ "human" logic.

Even "human moral intuition" is "divine revelation" to the extent that it accords with right reasoning per Rom. 2:14-15,
which general revelation was the only kind/category folks had before they encountered the OT and NT Scriptures.
Click to expand...
You’re still smuggling human moral intuition into the category of divine revelation, and Romans 2:14–15 does not give you that permission. Why do you think you can?
 
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...
You seem to be steering a course towards the law and avoiding the recognition of the context in the letter to the Romans.

Paul is aiming the bulk of his letter at the Jews in Rome those under the law (Romans 2:17-24).

Paul tells the Jews who have the written law (morals) that faith and love is the law written on the heart.

Romans 13:10
Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law.

Here is AI backing up this simple lesson supported by the context of Romans.

Romans 1:20 and Romans 2:14–15 do not establish a moral list of rules; instead, Paul uses these arguments to show that
all humanity is guilty of sin to pave the way for his core message of justification by faith and love.

While these verses discuss how God's reality and moral law are naturally known to everyone, they serve as a theological
setup rather than a code of conduct.

The Direct Context of the Verses
To understand Paul's aim, it helps to look at how these verses function within his broader argument in the opening chapters of Romans:
    • Romans 1:20 (God’s Creation): Paul argues that God’s eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen through creation. The purpose of this statement is to establish that humanity is without excuse for turning away from God. It highlights a universal awareness of God, not a checklist of laws.
    • Romans 2:14–15 (The Law on the Heart): Paul explains that when Gentiles (who do not have the written Mosaic Law) instinctively do what the law requires, they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, backed by their consciences. Paul is not giving them a new list of rules; he is proving that even without the Torah, Gentiles have a moral compass and are accountable to God.

The Ultimate Goal: Faith and Love
Paul’s ultimate objective in the Epistle to the Romans is to show that no one can be saved by keeping a list of rules, because everyone fails to keep them perfectly.
    • The Equalizer: By using the arguments in chapters 1 and 2, Paul concludes in Romans 3:23 that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Both the pagan world (without the law) and the Jewish world (with the law) stand guilty.
    • The Shift to Faith: Because a list of rules cannot save anyone, Paul introduces the remedy in Romans 3:21–22: righteousness from God that comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
    • The Fulfillment in Love: Later in the letter, Paul explicitly ties the purpose of the law back to love. In Romans 13:8–10, he writes that "whoever loves others has fulfilled the law" and concludes that love is the fulfillment of the law.
Therefore, these verses establish universal human accountability, tearing down the idea that anyone can be justified by their own moral checklist, and pointing directly toward the necessity of faith and love.
 
Inquisitor said:
Here is AI backing up this simple lesson supported by the context of Romans.
Click to expand...

You just lost all credibility by using AI

Christians should be relying on the Holy Spirit to lead us in to all Truth as Jesus said.

AI is leading people in to darkness and error. Building on sand leads to separation from God.
 
GWH said:
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".
Click to expand...
How did you get that wrong?

The law spoke of loving your neighbor (Leviticus 19:18) a thousand years before Confucius.
 
ScooterJackson said:
You just lost all credibility by using AI

Christians should be relying on the Holy Spirit to lead us in to all Truth as Jesus said.

AI is leading people in to darkness and error. Building on sand leads to separation from God.
Click to expand...
AI does it way faster than I can.

The Holy Spirit is the source and the power.

What you may not understand is that the majority of the Christian world have been taught a false gospel.

A false gospel based on a set of rules and a sacrament list that are both powerless to invoke inward regeneration.

That do not directly engage with the Holy Spirit because they deny the very power of the Holy Spirit.

If you think I am going to sit here for hours repeating the context in Romans indefinitely, then think again.
 
Inquisitor said:
You seem to be steering a course towards the law and avoiding the recognition of the context in the letter to the Romans.

Paul is aiming the bulk of his letter at the Jews in Rome those under the law (Romans 2:17-24).

Paul tells the Jews who have the written law (morals) that faith and love is the law written on the heart.

Romans 13:10
Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law.

Here is AI backing up this simple lesson supported by the context of Romans.

Romans 1:20 and Romans 2:14–15 do not establish a moral list of rules; instead, Paul uses these arguments to show that
all humanity is guilty of sin to pave the way for his core message of justification by faith and love.

While these verses discuss how God's reality and moral law are naturally known to everyone, they serve as a theological
setup rather than a code of conduct.

The Direct Context of the Verses
To understand Paul's aim, it helps to look at how these verses function within his broader argument in the opening chapters of Romans:
    • Romans 1:20 (God’s Creation): Paul argues that God’s eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen through creation. The purpose of this statement is to establish that humanity is without excuse for turning away from God. It highlights a universal awareness of God, not a checklist of laws.
    • Romans 2:14–15 (The Law on the Heart): Paul explains that when Gentiles (who do not have the written Mosaic Law) instinctively do what the law requires, they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, backed by their consciences. Paul is not giving them a new list of rules; he is proving that even without the Torah, Gentiles have a moral compass and are accountable to God.

The Ultimate Goal: Faith and Love
Paul’s ultimate objective in the Epistle to the Romans is to show that no one can be saved by keeping a list of rules, because everyone fails to keep them perfectly.
    • The Equalizer: By using the arguments in chapters 1 and 2, Paul concludes in Romans 3:23 that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Both the pagan world (without the law) and the Jewish world (with the law) stand guilty.
    • The Shift to Faith: Because a list of rules cannot save anyone, Paul introduces the remedy in Romans 3:21–22: righteousness from God that comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
    • The Fulfillment in Love: Later in the letter, Paul explicitly ties the purpose of the law back to love. In Romans 13:8–10, he writes that "whoever loves others has fulfilled the law" and concludes that love is the fulfillment of the law.
Therefore, these verses establish universal human accountability, tearing down the idea that anyone can be justified by their own moral checklist, and pointing directly toward the necessity of faith and love.
Click to expand...
You’re missing Paul’s actual argument: Romans 1–2 is not Paul “steering toward the law,” nor is he redefining the law as “faith and love” for Jews in Rome; he is proving that both groups — Gentiles with only natural_revelation and Jews with the written_law — stand guilty before God, so that he can announce the righteousness of God apart from the law (Rom 3:21).
Romans 1:20 shows Gentiles know God’s power and deity;
Romans 2:14–15 shows they know the moral substance of God’s will through conscience;
Romans 2:17–24 shows Jews violate the very law they boast in; and
Romans 3:9–20 concludes all are under sin.
When Paul later says “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom 13:10), he is not redefining the law for Jews; he is showing what the Spirit produces in those already justified by faith (Rom 5:5; 8:4).
Romans 13 is sanctification, not Paul’s definition of the law in Romans 1–3.
Your AI summary collapses categories: Romans 1–2 establishes universal guilt; Romans 3 announces justification by faith; Romans 5–8 explains Spirit‑empowered obedience; Romans 13 shows that Spirit‑produced love fulfills the law’s moral intent. Paul is not replacing the law with love; he is showing that love is what the law always aimed at but fallen humanity could never produce apart from Christ.
 
OMC said:
You’re missing Paul’s actual argument: Romans 1–2 is not Paul “steering toward the law,” nor is he redefining the law as “faith and love” for Jews in Rome; he is proving that both groups — Gentiles with only natural_revelation and Jews with the written_law — stand guilty before God, so that he can announce the righteousness of God apart from the law (Rom 3:21).
Romans 1:20 shows Gentiles know God’s power and deity;
Romans 2:14–15 shows they know the moral substance of God’s will through conscience;
Romans 2:17–24 shows Jews violate the very law they boast in; and
Romans 3:9–20 concludes all are under sin.
When Paul later says “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom 13:10), he is not redefining the law for Jews; he is showing what the Spirit produces in those already justified by faith (Rom 5:5; 8:4).
Romans 13 is sanctification, not Paul’s definition of the law in Romans 1–3.
Your AI summary collapses categories: Romans 1–2 establishes universal guilt; Romans 3 announces justification by faith; Romans 5–8 explains Spirit‑empowered obedience; Romans 13 shows that Spirit‑produced love fulfills the law’s moral intent. Paul is not replacing the law with love; he is showing that love is what the law always aimed at but fallen humanity could never produce apart from Christ.
Click to expand...
Here is what I said.

Paul tells the Jews who have the written law (morals) that faith and love is the law written on the heart.

What do you think that means?
 
Inquisitor said:
Here is what I said.

Paul tells the Jews who have the written law (morals) that faith and love is the law written on the heart.

What do you think that means?
Click to expand...
When you say “faith and love is the law written on the heart,” you’re describing the result of justification, not the definition of the Mosaic law;
 
OMC said:
When you say “faith and love is the law written on the heart,” you’re describing the result of justification, not the definition of the Mosaic law;
Click to expand...
The Mosaic law is not of faith.

Galatians 3:10-14
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE
BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God
is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES
THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written,
“CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles,
so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

We do not need a definition of the law because Gentiles were never included in the covenant law (Exodus 24).

The Mosaic law condemned the Jews outright.
 
Inquisitor said:
The Mosaic law is not of faith.

Galatians 3:10-14
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE
BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God
is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES
THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written,
“CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles,
so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

We do not need a definition of the law because Gentiles were never included in the covenant law (Exodus 24).

The Mosaic law condemned the Jews outright.
Click to expand...
You’re conflating two different Pauline categories: the Mosaic law as covenant obligation and the moral will of God written on the heart, and Galatians 3 actually proves the distinction rather than erasing it — when Paul says “the law is not of faith” he is describing the Mosaic covenant’s operating principle (“do this and live”), not denying that the law’s moral content reflects God’s character; the Mosaic law condemned Israel because it demanded perfect obedience from a sinful people, but that does not mean Gentiles had no law, because Paul explicitly says Gentiles “do by nature the things of the law” and that the “work of the law” is written on their hearts (Rom 2:14–15), which is why they too stand guilty; so when you say “Gentiles were never included in the covenant law,” that is true in terms of Sinai covenant membership, but false in terms of moral accountability, because Paul’s entire argument in Romans 1–3 is that Jews are condemned by the written law and Gentiles are condemned by the internal law, and both need the righteousness of Christ apart from the law; therefore, “faith and love written on the heart” is not a definition of the Mosaic law but the Spirit’s fulfillment of the law’s moral intent in the justified believer — the law condemns, Christ redeems, the Spirit writes God’s will on the heart, and love becomes the fruit that the Mosaic covenant demanded but fallen humanity could never produce.
 
OMC said:
You’re conflating two different Pauline categories: the Mosaic law as covenant obligation and the moral will of God written on the heart, and Galatians 3 actually proves the distinction rather than erasing it — when Paul says “the law is not of faith” he is describing the Mosaic covenant’s operating principle (“do this and live”), not denying that the law’s moral content reflects God’s character; the Mosaic law condemned Israel because it demanded perfect obedience from a sinful people, but that does not mean Gentiles had no law, because Paul explicitly says Gentiles “do by nature the things of the law” and that the “work of the law” is written on their hearts (Rom 2:14–15), which is why they too stand guilty; so when you say “Gentiles were never included in the covenant law,” that is true in terms of Sinai covenant membership, but false in terms of moral accountability, because Paul’s entire argument in Romans 1–3 is that Jews are condemned by the written law and Gentiles are condemned by the internal law, and both need the righteousness of Christ apart from the law; therefore, “faith and love written on the heart” is not a definition of the Mosaic law but the Spirit’s fulfillment of the law’s moral intent in the justified believer — the law condemns, Christ redeems, the Spirit writes God’s will on the heart, and love becomes the fruit that the Mosaic covenant demanded but fallen humanity could never produce.
Click to expand...
There is only one contextual category and everything is summed up in that one category.

John 13:34-35
A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another. By this everyone
will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.

Romans 13:10
Love does no wrong to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (moral law).

1 John 2:7-10
Beloved, I am not writing to you a new commandment, but an old one, which you have had from the beginning.
This commandment is the message you have heard. Then again, I am also writing to you a new commandment,
which is true in Him and also in you. For the darkness is fading and the true light is already shining. If anyone
claims to be in the light but hates his brother, he is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother remains in
the light, and there is no cause of stumbling in him.

There as only ever one commandment from the very beginning of creation.

Why did Cain kill his brother?

Because Cain did not love his own brother!

Christian perfection is simply faith and that gift of divine love to the absolute maximum.

When the perfect returns and we are, face to face, with Him then love is all that remains.

Without love you remain dead in your sin.

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.

Context.
 
Inquisitor said:
There is only one contextual category and everything is summed up in that one category.

John 13:34-35
A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another. By this everyone
will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.

Romans 13:10
Love does no wrong to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (moral law).

1 John 2:7-10
Beloved, I am not writing to you a new commandment, but an old one, which you have had from the beginning.
This commandment is the message you have heard. Then again, I am also writing to you a new commandment,
which is true in Him and also in you. For the darkness is fading and the true light is already shining. If anyone
claims to be in the light but hates his brother, he is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother remains in
the light, and there is no cause of stumbling in him.

There as only ever one commandment from the very beginning of creation.

Why did Cain kill his brother?

Because Cain did not love his own brother!

Christian perfection is simply faith and that gift of divine love to the absolute maximum.

When the perfect returns and we are, face to face, with Him then love is all that remains.

Without love you remain dead in your sin.

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.

Context.
Click to expand...
The category you’re naming — love as the single moral center of all God’s commands — is absolutely biblical, but you’re collapsing two distinct Pauline layers: love as the goal of the law and love as the fruit of regeneration, and the difference matters because Scripture never teaches that “there was only ever one commandment” in the sense of a solitary precept, but that all commandments aim at one moral reality — love of God and neighbor — which is why Jesus calls it the greatest commandment (Matt 22:37–40).
Cain killed Abel because he lacked love, yes, but that does not mean the Mosaic law never existed or that God gave only one command; it means the moral essence behind every command has always been love.
Christian perfection is not “only love,” but love produced by the Spirit in those justified by faith (Rom 5:5; Gal 5:22), and when the perfect comes, faith becomes sight and hope is fulfilled, leaving love as the abiding virtue (1 Cor 13:13)
So the context is this: love is the telos of the law, the proof of regeneration, the evidence of life, and the shape of sanctification, but it is not the only command ever given — it is the summation of all God’s commands and the fruit of the Spirit’s work in the believer.
 
GWH said:
I exercise logical harmonization of Scripture to understand that God's nature is love (1John 4:8, Rom. 5:5), which means/implies the law of love aka the Golden Rule. We need to go beyond exegesis to logical implication in order to understand the full import of Scripture.

Yes, humanity perceived morality before Moses as indicated by Hammurabi's Code and by Confucius, who expressed the Golden Rule in terms of "eye for eye" and negatively. The statement of Jesus affirmed both logic and law. We need to go beyond apparent difference to the application of both-and logic.

Perceiving truth in various lanes/categories is difficult/confusing for those unwilling to apply logic/right reasoning, instead demanding everything to be spelled out specifically instead of seeing synthesis.
Click to expand...
GWH:
AKA, the Golden Rule????? If sacrificial loving as in modeling Jesus then the "Golden Rule" defunct. You must love those who oppose you. Those that demean you. Those who slap you on the face. Those that want you to be an intellectual lamb for theological slaughter, you must offer yourself. You must accept as sacrificial love if you are a Jesus follower of Jesus who lived in a world of hate for Him. You have to love those who would put you on a cross. The Christian model is very simple, "if you only love those who love you, what good does it matter?

If you can't love the heathens, idolator, sexual deviants, the poor, the sick, the imprisoned and people of other faiths who are just much a child of God as you, what good is the "love" you claim? The 21st century's achilles heal of Protestant Christianity is we love only a very limited subset of people raised in our church, adopting our 16th century theology and liturgy. Jesus willingly ate with sinners, but we will not dine with other Christian faiths with a different heritage than ours because being right is more important than being Christ followers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OMC
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back