The Sixth Commandment and War

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the section that you quote, the 2LBC is speaking of the proper administration of the sacraments. In other words, proper ordination and calling is required to administer the sacraments. Again, I ask to see where the Scriptures command an unbeliever to neglect the sacraments.

Yes, I misread it. Thanks for pointing that out.

Are you saying, though, that unbelievers should participate in the Lord's Supper? Or baptism?

I can almost see that in part from the position of the paedobaptists on the board, at least with regards to unbelieving infants. But even they, I think, wouldn't say that an unbeliever of unbelieving parents should be baptized. Or would they? I'm not too familiar with their arguments, but I've never heard that argued.

Secondly, the Scriptures are firm that "anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." Is it possible for an unbeliever to fulfill this requirement?

I've pointed out that the right worship of God is a moral commandment of God. Thus, the sacraments cannot be used as an example of the category that you are attempting to describe.

Would you say, then, that baptism is a moral commandment of God?

Are you really arguing that a command to refrain from military service could not be a moral law of God?

I don't see how it possibly could be. Under the Old Covenant, God frequently commanded military service. If this were a moral command, then a command to refrain from military service in the New Covenant would be a contradiction with another moral command--something which cannot exist.

Therefore, it must belong in the category of non-universal commands like the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant.

Please, remember I'm not saying it actually does exist. I'm hypothesizing that if it does exist, this would need to be the case.
 
Are you saying, though, that unbelievers should participate in the Lord's Supper? Or baptism?

I'm saying that the Biblical command to an unbeliever is to repent and believe, then to worship God rightly (including the use of the sacraments).

I can almost see that in part from the position of the paedobaptists on the board, at least with regards to unbelieving infants. But even they, I think, wouldn't say that an unbeliever of unbelieving parents should be baptized. Or would they? I'm not too familiar with their arguments, but I've never heard that argued.
Yes, the child must have a believing parent.

Secondly, the Scriptures are firm that "anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." Is it possible for an unbeliever to fulfill this requirement?
No, it is not possible to fulfill this requirement in unbelief. The sin of unbelief results in even more sin (i.e., the neglect of the sacraments/right worship of God).

Would you say, then, that baptism is a moral commandment of God?
The moral commandment is to worship God in the manner which He prescribes (positive element). In this administration of the Covenant of Grace, that manner includes the New Covenant sacraments. In other words, an Israelite under the Old Covenant was not sinning because they neglected baptism. However, they would have sinned by neglecting the worship of God commanded in that administration of the Covenant of Grace.

A good example would be the change of the Sabbath. The moral basis is the principle that "a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God" and the positive element is the sanctifying of a particular day (the first in our age).


I don't see how it possibly could be. Under the Old Covenant, God frequently commanded military service. If this were a moral command, then a command to refrain from military service in the New Covenant would be a contradiction with another moral command--something which cannot exist.
I certainly agree.

Therefore, it must belong in the category of non-universal commands like the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant.

Please, remember I'm not saying it actually does exist. I'm hypothesizing that if it does exist, this would need to be the case.

So, "if it existed," it would have to be positive law. I don't think that ethics involving fatal violence can be classified as positive law. The Sixth Commandment clearly demonstrates that the taking of life is governed by God's moral law.
 
The moral commandment is to worship God in the manner which He prescribes (positive element). In this administration of the Covenant of Grace, that manner includes the New Covenant sacraments. In other words, an Israelite under the Old Covenant was not sinning because they neglected baptism. However, they would have sinned by neglecting the worship of God commanded in that administration of the Covenant of Grace.

A good example would be the change of the Sabbath. The moral basis is the principle that "a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God" and the positive element is the sanctifying of a particular day (the first in our age).

Okay, I think we might be passing each other in the night. When I said "moral law", I meant those laws which reflected God's unchanging character and were not revoked/changed with the change of covenants. However, I do see where you're coming from. I'll have to analyze your position further.

Therefore, it must belong in the category of non-universal commands like the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant.

Please, remember I'm not saying it actually does exist. I'm hypothesizing that if it does exist, this would need to be the case.

So, "if it existed," it would have to be positive law. I don't think that ethics involving fatal violence can be classified as positive law. The Sixth Commandment clearly demonstrates that the taking of life is governed by God's moral law.

While I'm not sure what you mean by "positive law", I think that I'm beginning to see where you're coming from. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. I appreciate it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top