# Evangelism/Witnessing: Love to God or Love to Neighbour?



## frog (Oct 2, 2022)

Recently I've been growing in my conviction that the 10 commandments are indeed binding and the summary of the moral law (the dominant theological views around me are not this). As I've been coming to this it's left me wondering about how telling others about Jesus, as laity, relates to the decalogue. The Westminster standards seem to divide the decalogue into the first four commandments, love to God and our obligations to Him, and the next six commandments, love to neighbour and our obligations to them. My question is, for the laity, does evangelism/witnessing/giving an answer for your hope relate to our love to God (obligation to Him) or love to neighbour (obligations to them)?


----------



## iainduguid (Oct 2, 2022)

Do I have to choose only one?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## frog (Oct 2, 2022)

I guess not! It just seemed like if the decalogue can be summarised and divided into obligation either towards God or toward neighbour, then all non-positive moral requirements can be situated within one of these two; connected to the first half or second half of the decalogue.

Feel free to justify it as being connected to both tables of the decalogue!


----------



## Jo_Was (Oct 3, 2022)

frog said:


> I guess not! It just seemed like if the decalogue can be summarised and divided into obligation either towards God or toward neighbour, then all non-positive moral requirements can be situated within one of these two; connected to the first half or second half of the decalogue.
> 
> Feel free to justify it as being connected to both tables of the decalogue!



It is that: a summary. Ultimately, when we love others, we love God. If we obey his commands in the second table, such reveals fruits of the first table. It is not an "either-or." It is a "yes, and..."

Helpful article with quotes around this topic from Calvin and Augustine: https://purelypresbyterian.com/2018/04/02/why-did-Christ-only-mention-the-second-table/comment-page-1/


----------



## frog (Oct 4, 2022)

Yes, perhaps using the phrase "love of God" and "love of neighbour" isn't quite clear enough. I mean the language of our *duty to God* and *duty to neighbour*, which the Westminster larger catechism Q98 seems to frame it as:


> Q98: Where is the moral law summarily comprehended?
> A98: The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God upon mount Sinai, and written by him in two tables of stone; and are recorded in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. *The four first commandments containing our duty to God*, and *the other six our duty to man*.





Jo_Was said:


> It is that: a summary. Ultimately, when we love others, we love God. If we obey his commands in the second table, such reveals fruits of the first table. It is not an "either-or." It is a "yes, and..."
> 
> Helpful article with quotes around this topic from Calvin and Augustine: https://purelypresbyterian.com/2018...only-mention-the-second-table/comment-page-1/


It seems that Calvin and Augustine still distinguish between our duty to God and our duty to neighbour, and would say that our love of neighbour is the fruit and evidence of our love for God? I may have misunderstood. But they still seem to maintain a distinction in duties to God and duties to man.


----------

