Dedicated to Truth

Ruth · Veteran Member

Law -- Moral Law, Ceremonial laws, health laws etc.

Dedication · Senior Member

Thanks Ruth,
It's true the Protestant Reformers made the distinction between moral and ceremonial law, this is not something new to Sabbath keepers.

I've read part of the book "Only the Decalogue is Eternal" on the internet.

Luther saw the law as absolutely necessary to alert people to the magnitude and reality of sin. Being born in sin, surrounded by sin, people were blind to sin.   He also saw the law as alerting people to the deadly position they, as sinners were in, and that they needed a Savior.

Luther emphasized the first two "uses" of the law, and there are allusions to the third use in his writings.

What a lot of modern "New Covenant Theology" people don't seem to realize is that many of the Protestant Reformers taught THREE uses of the law.   Even though Luther did not emphasize it, Luther's friend, Melanchthon, did.

WHAT ARE THE THREE USES OF LAW ?

So what are these three uses of law which the Protestant Reformers taught.

1. First was to point out wrong actions and place at least an outward restraint upon sinners.
2. The second use of the law was to point out SIN which brings forth the wrath of God and renders eternal destruction for the sinner.   This leads the sinner to seek His Savior Who offers grace and salvation.

Now the Reformers were pretty much all agreed on these first two "uses".

A goodly number also included the THIRD use.

3. A person saved by grace (for no one is saved by his works) will see the law as God's will for their lives, and by faith walk according to its guidelines.

The third use of the law is an established doctrine both in Reformation Lutheranism and in Reformation Calvinism. One finds it clearly set out in the Lutheran Formula of Concord (Art. VI) and in Calvin's Institutes (II, vii, 12 ff.).

Dedication · Senior Member

"Only the Decalogue is Eternal"

Martin Luther's Complete

Antinomian Theses & Disputations

In these disputations we read:

The law is abrogated, hence it is not to be preached.

I respond: There is more in the consequence than in the premise. The premise speaks only about the ceremonial [law], not the moral, which was from the beginning and is born with us...

When Christ said: "The law and the prophets were until John," these words sounded as if the law was no longer to be taught after the appearance of Christ. Yet the meaning of these words is: If John, who pointed to the Lamb, had not come, man would be unable to render what the law requires and the prophets promised. This is the true meaning of this passage.

Here we see a distinction made between ceremonial and moral laws.

And he gives a good answer to Luke 16:16

which, when coupled with these verses we see is the true meaning.

Matt. 11:13   For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
11:14   And if you will receive it, this [that is John the Baptist] is Elias, which was for to come.

Luke 24:44   And he [Jesus] said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Dedication · Senior Member

The distinction between moral and ceremonial law is well recognized within the Christian community. Our next question concerns the fourth commandment.

According to the title given Luther's book "Only the decalogue is eternal" it would be only natural to conclude that the fourth commandment is eternal.

However, the fourth commandment is the one command of the decalogue that so many Christians defy and resist with incredible vigor!

Yet scripture plainly tells us,

1 Cor. 17:27 for thou blessest, O LORD, and it shall be blessed for ever.

God blessed the seventh day, He sanctified it, (set it apart for holy purpose), and gave us the example of resting upon it, at creation!

Romans 11:29 "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable"

God blessed and sanctified the day at creation, before sin entered the world. It is a gift from creation, created for mankind’s benefit (see Gen. 2:2-3 & Mark 2:27) thus it cannot be revoked.

But now some concede that the fourth command is perpetual, but then say it is not to be kept in a literal sense: they say it applies only in a mystical sense, as simply "resting in Christ" 7/24 and that we, under the new covenant are not to make any distinction of one day from another, but are to keep all time holy, doing everything in a spiritual manner.

But this is ignoring the repeated use of the word "seventh DAY" in both its initial creation and in the 4th command.   It is making the fourth commandment a spiritual summary of all commandments and destroying its unique purpose.

God has set aside a special day where He invites us into His presence in a special way unique from other days.

The Sabbath day was made HOLY! What does that mean?

When Moses was told to remove his shoes because it was holy ground, what did that mean? It meant that GOD WAS THERE in a very personal way. The ground itself was no different. BUT GOD WAS THERE and thus it was holy!

So with the Sabbath -- Jesus blessed a certain day of the week and made it holy. It could not be holy unless He was in it!   The Sabbath is one of His greatest gifts to mankind for He presents HIS PRESENCE.    This day is for intimate fellowship with our Creator not possible in the rush and business of daily life.

Unfortunately, for hundreds of years teachers of religion have hidden this simple truth in a cloud of falsehood.   The people have listened to their philosophical views and allowed the robbers to snatch Jesus' blessed day of rest from His burdened people.   Tradition triumphed over truth.   Satan fixes his yoke of busyness over God's people so they will not find that intimate, quality time with their Savior.

Dedication · Senior Member

BUT
the protestors say:
The fourth commandment was just ceremonial, not moral.

They will then quote a passage in scripture where the Sabbath is listed along with the ceremonial festivals.

What they fail to realize is that -- yes, the Sabbath is a holy convocation along with the ceremonial days, but sharing attributes with the ceremonial does not place it in the same category.

We know that just because both dog and man have similar characteristics evident in all mammals, does not place the man on the same level as the dog. Mankind was created in God's image, dogs were not.

Thus too -- the Sabbath shares characteristics with some of the ceremonies, but the Sabbath was blessed, and set apart (sanctified) and made holy at Creation, the ceremonial system was not.    The Sabbath was placed in the heart of the decalogue, the ceremonial was not.   Scripture accords the Sabbath a far greater position than the ceremonial.

THE SABBATH'S CONNECTION WITH MORALITY

Ezekiel 20:12   Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

In their attempts to relegate the Sabbath to the inferior category of ceremonial law, theologians say it is not "a principle of the natural law because it has no basis in the nature of things open to us," (Catechism of the Council of Trent)

But how valid is the concept of natural law when it comes to deciding between right and wrong? Natural law is culture conditioned and is quite often not in accord with the will of God.

Natural law is based on humanism -- situation ethics -- human values of what is right and wrong.   Natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior.

But the Sabbath has a purpose far above "natural law"
It is a Creation memorial -- turning us away from ourselves to the Creator.
It does not focus on our analitical skills, but turns us to our Creator to sanctify us and RECREATE us, to make us "new creatures" in Him.

Sanctification is sets us apart for holy living. (A morality with higher realities than "natural law")

And the Sabbath is a time of intimate fellowship with our Creator that we might know that HE IS the LORD that sanctifies us.

Ruth · Veteran Member

To be fair, we should mention that the NCT believes all old testament commands are abolished but they still have to keep new testament commands.

There are two problems with that approach.
1. The New Testament commands are a magnification of the ten commandments, (Which the old testament also gives) not a "new law".

2. They will reject anything in the New Testament that does not fit their idea (even the words of Jesus) under the pretext of "well they were still operating under the old covenant".

In this way they over ride texts like:

Matt. 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day:

Luke 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.

To the first verse the answer is usually -- "Jesus said they were to pray that prayer so they won't be stopped from traveling by the Jews who didn't allow anyone to travel on the Sabbath".
But their very answer shows the Christians must have been keeping the 7th day Sabbath for their is no record in scripture anywhere of the Christians defending themselves against the fury of the Jews for abandonment of the Seventh-day Sabbath. The big problem with the Jews, was the Christians neglect of imposing circumcision, not abandon of the Sabbath.

As to the second text, the answer given is usually: "the women were still operating under the old covenant." Yet, Jesus instituted the New Covenant at the Lord's Supper, didn't his followers know the "new rules"? And Luke, he was a Gentile who traveled with Paul on many of his journeys, why didn't he clarify the change? Why didn't he mention at this point that this was the "old covenant commandments" not the new?

Ruth · Veteran Member

My point is simply to say the distinction between moral and ceremonial laws makes a lot more sense than the distinction the NCT makes.

For example, the book of Hebrews emphases the change from an earthly priesthood, and earthly tabernacle, and earthly animal sacrifices to the better priesthood of Christ, Who entered the better heavenly sanctuary, with the better blood of His once and for all sacrifice.

Out of this context the NCT believers lift the text
"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Hebrews 7:12

You will find this text used over and over in an attempt to valid their idea that all the Old Testament commands and laws are now obsolete. Yet, the context of the text is clearly in the ceremonial department.

The surrounding verses show that the ceremonial laws governing the temple operation demanded that the high priest come from the tribe of Levi and that he be a descendant of Aaron. But Jesus came from the tribe of Judah and the laws did not permit a High Priest to come from that tribe, so yes, the ceremonial laws were no longer in force.

Eriel · Veteran Member

Exactly, Paul says, The ceremonial law is vanishing away in Hebrews.

However, while the ceremonial law is "vanishing away" the law of intercession is not. And this is Paul's primary meaning when he says, "a change in law".
That is, the intercession of Jesus in heaven maintains the law of intercession upon which the ceremonial laws were based.