This fulfillment opened the way for the coming of the new covenant as predicted by Ezekiel and Jeremiah . Christians now live beyond the rule of the old covenant Law by freely submitting themselves to the love of God, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the fellowship and power of the Holy Spirit. This law of the new covenant is much higher, far better and more glorious than the first. It requires a higher standard of behaviour, as Jesus said, but it also provides the resources and strength needed.

Those who would have us go back to Moses are dumbing down the Christian life with toxic doctrines that leads to a sink situation.

You write, this is not an agreement that I entered into. Well yes and no, Adam was acting as your federal head and this principle of federal headship is illustrated in Hebrews 7 by the fact that Levi payed tithes in Abraham.

I think that one problem to accepting this is the prevailing post-enlightenment idea of the individual &c. The point however is that mankind is a covenantal animal (to correct Aristotle) and God deals with mankind covenantally.

The last Adam is Jesus and “just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18, 19).

You speak of an alleged agreement between a historical or mythological character and a deity who has not seen fit to even make us all aware of His existence, let alone the terms of this agreement.

Even if it is true, this is not an agreement that I entered into, someone else did it on my behalf. Without my election. Before I was even born. Adam Lee’s essay, Sins of the father explores this in more detail.

This idea is not just or fair in any sense that we understand. I don’t know what else to say.

You show a great deal of humility in admitting you don’t know all the answers. Einstein said something like the important thing is to keep asking questions.

You wrote:

To state my objection more clearly: If you create a law which is impossible to keep, that you know people cannot keep and then punish them for not keeping it, that is unreasonable.

In Hosea 6:7 we read “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.” What I wish to take from this is that God established a covenant with Adam.

This covenant has a number of names, some call it the covenant of creation others the covenant of works and I prefer the latter. The content of this covenant amounts to the phrase “Do this and live”. The Sum of Saving Knowledge teaches:

God originally made everything from nothing, perfect. He made our first parents, Adam and Eve, the root of mankind, both upright and able to keep the law written in their hearts. This law they were naturally bound to obey upon penalty of death. God was not bound to reward their service, till he entered into a covenant or contract with them, and their posterity in them. He promised to give them eternal life, upon condition of perfect personal obedience. If they failed they would die. This is the covenant of works.

It continues:

Our first parents…broke the covenant of works, by eating the forbidden fruit. By this action, they, and their posterity, became not only liable to eternal death, but also lost all ability to please God. They became by nature enemies to God, and to all spiritual good, and were only inclined to do evil continually. This is our original sin, the bitter root of all our actual transgressions, in thought, word, and deed.

Now because we are, by nature, unable to keep the law owing to the sin of Adam which has corrupted the human race, Jesus entered into a covenant with the Father to keep the law on behalf of the elect.

The law at the first was not impossible to keep, for Adam was created posse non peccare et posse peccare that is “able not to sin and the able to sin” but the Fall removed our ability not to sin hence “I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5) and “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9).

I am convinced you have morals, do not worry! I also understand within yourself you have a standard for morality. I just question whether it is actually in fitting with your views on God.

With what you said about a person’s morality save them, every human being has failed to keep their own moral standards. If they kept their morals I think the Scripture says they could be saved. But the fact is, they haven’t kept it so they won’t be saved.

Some have speculated that God may save people who have realised they have sinned against God (according to their conscience) and asked him to somehow atone for their sin. This is rather like what happened in the OT. They trusted animal sacrifices but the sacrifices really pointed to Jesus.

I am not sure what I think on this matter, I haven’t studied it thoroughly enough to comment. It seems to me if God is going to send his Spirit to renew that person he might as well send the Gospel nowadays. I would hazard a guess that Richard (who has chatted with you here) has thought this through, so it might be worth giving him a shout.

The fact is that we need to be repentant. Our consciences testify we have failed. We need to petition God for a sacrifice. You and I have been told it is Jesus. Will we accept our failures and ask our need for him?

P.S. Sorry this comment hasn’t answered all your points. I don’t have much time to answer them so please forgive me!

Sorry for my absence in recent days. I know I haven’t responded to you all on your sites or on mine. An explanation is forthcoming.

First to Vanessa, since it will take me less time to respond to you than Eshu.

That is an excellent question. The law binds us because it is by it we are condemned. We cannot keep it. If we did it would free us, but we can’t be saved by works for we have already failed. When we are set free by grace that condemnation no longer binds us.

However, the commands are also liberating, in the sense that they take us from sin. When we are saved we are taken away from sin. Sin ruins our lives, and knowing the command of God can take us away from them. This is because now we have the Spirit and he can empower us to leave sin, and leaving sin is a beautiful thing. This is what Paul is talking of in Romans 8:9-11.

So if we are not saved the law is a curse, if we are saved it is a blessing.

Does that get to the heart of your question?

First let me apologise. My comment was made in haste and I probably didn’t explain myself clearly. I should have expected some misunderstanding.

Firstly what I am not saying is that morality is irrelevant. Please please please do not characterise atheists as having no morals, or no basis for deciding what is moral. There is plenty to read on this subject; if you’re interested I can point you in the right direction.

To state my objection more clearly: If you create a law which is impossible to keep, that you know people cannot keep and then punish them for not keeping it, that is unreasonable. You might as well just automatically punish everyone merely for existing. It seems like it was always God’s plan to condemn everyone. From the point of view of God and salvation, it seems these impossible rules he has set are irrelevant because we don’t stand a chance of keeping them.

From a secular, human point of view there is a very good reason to have laws and morality. Simply, it makes life better for all of us.

As I said above you are judged according to what you know.

That sounds more just… are you saying that those who have never encountered Christianity will be judged on whether they lived decent moral lives? Is it the case that those who are good and kind and do huge amounts to help those in need can be saved even if they haven’t encountered Christianity?

if there is a God and he is the source of everything good, surely it is right to point to him?

Of course, but that is a big “if”! Furthermore it would be right for him to point himself out to us. All of us.

Compare to how a human would base his/her choices. He would always choose something for his personal good.

I must be understanding you wrongly. You can’t mean this exactly. I’m sure you’re aware that people religious and not do many things not simply for their own good.

Incidentally, there’s no reason to assume that altruism or morality must have come from a higher power. Nor are they exclusive to humans. Every social animal (and all mammalian mothers) exhibit behaviour that is not purely self-interest. Morality has occurred (to varying degrees) by evolution. Note that this explains why we (i.e. all humans) do often behave morally, but not why we should.

Your still working on the basis that you’re judged according to an Abrahamic morality system. Remember you, as a Gentile, are judged by the law in your heart – your conscience.

That law isn’t irrelevant to you. It makes youl feel bad when you’ve been angry to someone. It makes you hate it when someone lies to you. It makes you gasp when you hear of murder or rape.

Admittedly you will have covered over some of the laws on your heart, but all in all they haven’t lost their relevance to you.

I agree that we do not know all the laws of the Abrahamic religions. As I said above you are judged according to what you know.

You call this choice morally irrelevant. Is it?

Let me tell you the basis of the law (note: I’m not saying this is clear to people’s hearts, but this is an extra revelation as to God’s purpose in the law on your heart).

It’s first aim is to point people to God. I know you’re not going to like that, but put it like this: if there is a God and he is the source of everything good, surely it is right to point to him? Otherwise it’s like seeing a hungry man and not pointing him to free food.

The second is love towards your neighbour. A selfish morality never works. If you just serve yourself then morality goes utterly to pot. However if you put others before yourself then more good and kindness is done.

(It’s worth saying as well that love for God defines love for neighbour. If it is clear God is the best, then loving your neighbour is giving them God.)

I don’t think these are irrelevant statements. And you know the law isn’t irrelevant. The very reason you didn’t steal your milk this morning is because of these laws. You do not consider them irrelevant (at least the last part). You may question parts but you don’t question the whole idea.

Compare to how a human would base his/her choices. He would always choose something for his personal good. Perhaps she would be driven by making herself popular, or physical gratification (food, drink, sex), or perhaps he would be driven by a fierce nationalism or whatever. All these things lead to some morally reprehensible action.

God’s law would not if you follow it correctly. I know what you’re going to say “Oh it would lead us to kill non-Christians”. No it wouldn’t. God is in charge of the judging. And anyway if we did follow God’s law there would be no need for anyone to be judged.

If we go according to any different morality system then we would still have problems when our desires collide (i.e. if I want that apple and you want that apple and we are told “do what you want” we will have conflict).

As for me say it is just, that was the point of the whole post. I apologise if that wasn’t clear. In summary:

- We know the law (as it is only the law which we know)
- It does keep us away from some evil (as I explained in this comment above)
- It will lead to a better world (when it is enforced on the last day)
- The law is fair because we knew it and broke it
- God is a fair person to make these rules (something I’ve expanded on in this comment)

There’s tonnes here, and I’m sure I haven’t explained it very well. Feel free to come back where you’re confused or you disagree.