The Sixth Commandment and War

Status
Not open for further replies.
Don,

Are you a pacifist?

I am a Rom 12:18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. 20 Therefore
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. NKJV

What does that make me?

From an earlier post referring to an even earlier post

Matt 5:48 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. NKJV

So I suggest you go to God and ask the Spirit to guide you and give you the desires that make you more like Christ and to tell you what to do in those spontaneous moments. I also pray I will not have to be in a situation where I would have to decide. That is what I do.

As for my conscience so far on the issue it was posted above earlier. But I wouldn't go by me, I am prone to meekly change as God convicts me from His word.
 
One quick comment--

If it's wrong for you to do something, is it right to do it on the behalf of someone else?

Note that I'm not fully convinced either way insofar as the self defense issue goes. I can see where both sides comes from, but I'm still analyzing both positions.

Excellent question. Let me add a further extrapolation on to it.

If its wrong for you to do something, is it OK to let someone else do it for you or fund someone else who is doing it for you?

Which is another reason, I think, why the position that Christians should not be soldiers/engage in warfare/take part in government depends upon the command being a covenant-specific command as commented above. I'm not yet completely convinced that this is the case.
 
how about Luke 9:60

60 Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God."
NKJV
 
I think the idea is that there are commands that are only for Christians, and this is certainly the case--take the sacraments for example. Israel likewise had a set of commands that were only for those under the Old Covenant--the ceremonial laws.

Where do you get the idea that anyone is exempted from the First and Second Commandments?
 
I think the idea is that there are commands that are only for Christians, and this is certainly the case--take the sacraments for example. Israel likewise had a set of commands that were only for those under the Old Covenant--the ceremonial laws.

Where do you get the idea that anyone is exempted from the First and Second Commandments?

I don't think that's what I was saying. Can you explain, please?
 
I think the idea is that there are commands that are only for Christians, and this is certainly the case--take the sacraments for example. Israel likewise had a set of commands that were only for those under the Old Covenant--the ceremonial laws.

Where do you get the idea that anyone is exempted from the First and Second Commandments?

I don't think that's what I was saying. Can you explain, please?

The First and Second Commandments teach that everyone has the obligation to worship the true God in the manner that He prescribes (see Q&A's 94-96 of the Heidelberg Catechism). Hence, unbelievers cannot be excused for their failure to receive the sacraments in true faith without denying the demands of the First and Second Commandments upon them.
 
Where do you get the idea that anyone is exempted from the First and Second Commandments?

I don't think that's what I was saying. Can you explain, please?

The First and Second Commandments teach that everyone has the obligation to worship the true God in the manner that He prescribes (see Q&A's 94-96 of the Heidelberg Catechism). Hence, unbelievers cannot be excused for their failure to receive the sacraments in true faith without denying the demands of the First and Second Commandments upon them.

And yet unbelievers are categorically forbidden from receiving the Lord's Supper as long as they remain unbelieving, are they not?

I may be wrong--that's why I'm discussing this, because I'm trying to see it from all angles--but I think that the Lord's Supper is a gift to believers to strengthen their faith. Likewise, being able to depend solely on God for protection would be a gift only available to believers.

Thoughts?
 
I don't think that's what I was saying. Can you explain, please?

The First and Second Commandments teach that everyone has the obligation to worship the true God in the manner that He prescribes (see Q&A's 94-96 of the Heidelberg Catechism). Hence, unbelievers cannot be excused for their failure to receive the sacraments in true faith without denying the demands of the First and Second Commandments upon them.

And yet unbelievers are categorically forbidden from receiving the Lord's Supper as long as they remain unbelieving, are they not?

I may be wrong--that's why I'm discussing this, because I'm trying to see it from all angles--but I think that the Lord's Supper is a gift to believers to strengthen their faith. Likewise, being able to depend solely on God for protection would be a gift only available to believers.

Thoughts?

Yes, unbelievers are forbidden from receiving the Lord's Supper, due to their sinful unbelief.

As the Westminster Confession states,
The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.
(WCF XIX, v)
 
The First and Second Commandments teach that everyone has the obligation to worship the true God in the manner that He prescribes (see Q&A's 94-96 of the Heidelberg Catechism). Hence, unbelievers cannot be excused for their failure to receive the sacraments in true faith without denying the demands of the First and Second Commandments upon them.

And yet unbelievers are categorically forbidden from receiving the Lord's Supper as long as they remain unbelieving, are they not?

I may be wrong--that's why I'm discussing this, because I'm trying to see it from all angles--but I think that the Lord's Supper is a gift to believers to strengthen their faith. Likewise, being able to depend solely on God for protection would be a gift only available to believers.

Thoughts?

Yes, unbelievers are forbidden from receiving the Lord's Supper, due to their sinful unbelief.

As the Westminster Confession states,
The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.
(WCF XIX, v)

Right. And my point was, if nonresistance is biblical, it cannot be a moral law. It must be rather one of the benefits of the New Covenant, similar to the other sacraments.

Like I said, I'm not convinced that this is the case. I'm still trying to systematize it to see if it will stand up to logical analysis.
 
Right. And my point was, if nonresistance is biblical, it cannot be a moral law. It must be rather one of the benefits of the New Covenant, similar to the other sacraments.

Like I said, I'm not convinced that this is the case. I'm still trying to systematize it to see if it will stand up to logical analysis.

I've been trying to point out that the use of the sacraments is a moral obligation upon all men, due to the First and Second Commandments. If nonresistance is of a similar category to the use of the sacraments, then it is a moral obligation upon all men.
 
Right. And my point was, if nonresistance is biblical, it cannot be a moral law. It must be rather one of the benefits of the New Covenant, similar to the other sacraments.

Like I said, I'm not convinced that this is the case. I'm still trying to systematize it to see if it will stand up to logical analysis.

I've been trying to point out that the use of the sacraments is a moral obligation upon all men, due to the First and Second Commandments. If nonresistance is of a similar category to the use of the sacraments, then it is a moral obligation upon all men.

The sacraments are a moral obligation only for the believer. The unbeliever is not required and in fact forbidden from partaking in them. They are a blessing reserved for the elect, not the reprobate.

You would agree that the reprobate should not take part in communion, would you not?
 
The sacraments are a moral obligation only for the believer. The unbeliever is not required and in fact forbidden from partaking in them. They are a blessing reserved for the elect, not the reprobate.

You would agree that the reprobate should not take part in communion, would you not?

I agree that the Lord's Supper is to be guarded from unbelievers; that is not the issue here.

The moral law of God, as summarized in the Ten Commandments, demands that all men worship God in the manner that He has prescribed (see above post for Heidelberg Catechism references). As the Westminster Confession summarizes the Bible's teaching,

The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the hearth, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.
(WCF XXI, i)

The sacraments are a part of this right worship of God which is demanded of all men:

The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as, also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God
(WCF XXI, v)

As I stated before, the unbeliever is not excused from partaking of the sacraments, but is rather under condemnation for his unbelief.
 
The sacraments are a moral obligation only for the believer. The unbeliever is not required and in fact forbidden from partaking in them. They are a blessing reserved for the elect, not the reprobate.

You would agree that the reprobate should not take part in communion, would you not?

I agree that the Lord's Supper is to be guarded from unbelievers; that is not the issue here.

I think it is. If God commands both that the unbeliever is not to partake of communion, and then in the next breath condemns him for not partaking, then we would have two of His commands contradicting each other. I don't believe that this is ever the case.

If, on the other hand, the Lord's Supper is exclusively for the believer, then the unbeliever's condemnation stems not from the fact that he did not partake in communion, but rather from the fact that he did not believe. Nowhere in Scripture, to my knowledge, is an unbeliever condemned for not partaking in the sacraments--rather, they are always condemned for not believing, which is the requirement for partaking in the sacraments.
 
Don,

Are you a pacifist?

I am a Rom 12:18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. 20 Therefore
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. NKJV

What does that make me?

From an earlier post referring to an even earlier post

Matt 5:48 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. NKJV

So I suggest you go to God and ask the Spirit to guide you and give you the desires that make you more like Christ and to tell you what to do in those spontaneous moments. I also pray I will not have to be in a situation where I would have to decide. That is what I do.

As for my conscience so far on the issue it was posted above earlier. But I wouldn't go by me, I am prone to meekly change as God convicts me from His word.

Your habit of quoting Scripture and just letting it speak for itself is not all that helpful. People will have differing views on what a particular passage means. Give us your interpretation of the passage.

I'm sorry, and I may get in trouble for this, but you come off as as quite condescending to those who engage you. I would chill out a bit. You haven't been perfected yet.
 
I agree that the Lord's Supper is to be guarded from unbelievers; that is not the issue here.

I think it is. If God commands both that the unbeliever is not to partake of communion, and then in the next breath condemns him for not partaking, then we would have two of His commands contradicting each other. I don't believe that this is ever the case.

If, on the other hand, the Lord's Supper is exclusively for the believer, then the unbeliever's condemnation stems not from the fact that he did not partake in communion, but rather from the fact that he did not believe. Nowhere in Scripture, to my knowledge, is an unbeliever condemned for not partaking in the sacraments--rather, they are always condemned for not believing, which is the requirement for partaking in the sacraments.

I really shouldn't have to defend the Reformed doctrine of the Law of God on a confessionally Reformed discussion board. You should read the Westminster Larger Catechism's discussion of the Duty of Man very carefully.

Read Matthew 22:1-14 and consider whether God looks kindly upon the rejection of His covenant meal. God rightly condemns the neglect of the sacraments while commanding the exclusion of unbelievers from the covenant people. The root of the unbeliever's sin is his unbelief, which leads to the violation of all God's commandments...

The Decalogue is a summary of God's moral law which all mankind is obliged to keep. The sacraments are part of the right religious worship of God which is required in the First and Second Commandments.

Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?
A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his Word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintainance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God; and vowing unto him; as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them, all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hind ering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.
(Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 108-109)
 
Don,

Are you a pacifist?

I am a Rom 12:18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. 20 Therefore
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. NKJV

What does that make me?

From an earlier post referring to an even earlier post

Matt 5:48 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. NKJV

So I suggest you go to God and ask the Spirit to guide you and give you the desires that make you more like Christ and to tell you what to do in those spontaneous moments. I also pray I will not have to be in a situation where I would have to decide. That is what I do.

As for my conscience so far on the issue it was posted above earlier. But I wouldn't go by me, I am prone to meekly change as God convicts me from His word.

Your habit of quoting Scripture and just letting it speak for itself is not all that helpful. People will have differing views on what a particular passage means. Give us your interpretation of the passage.

I'm sorry, and I may get in trouble for this, but you come off as as quite condescending to those who engage you. I would chill out a bit. You haven't been perfected yet.

Jon,

The problem with answering your question with a straight "yes" or "no" is that, like the Scriptures quoted, "pacifist" has different meanings to different people. Folks from my background differentiate between "pacifism" and "nonresistance", while others lump the two together.

I think that while PeaceMaker isn't being as clear as he could be, I don't see that he's being condescending.

-----Added 4/8/2009 at 12:15:18 EST-----

I agree that the Lord's Supper is to be guarded from unbelievers; that is not the issue here.

I think it is. If God commands both that the unbeliever is not to partake of communion, and then in the next breath condemns him for not partaking, then we would have two of His commands contradicting each other. I don't believe that this is ever the case.

If, on the other hand, the Lord's Supper is exclusively for the believer, then the unbeliever's condemnation stems not from the fact that he did not partake in communion, but rather from the fact that he did not believe. Nowhere in Scripture, to my knowledge, is an unbeliever condemned for not partaking in the sacraments--rather, they are always condemned for not believing, which is the requirement for partaking in the sacraments.

I really shouldn't have to defend the Reformed doctrine of the Law of God on a confessionally Reformed discussion board. You should read the Westminster Larger Catechism's discussion of the Duty of Man very carefully.

Read Matthew 22:1-14 and consider whether God looks kindly upon the rejection of His covenant meal. God rightly condemns the neglect of the sacraments while commanding the exclusion of unbelievers from the covenant people. The root of the unbeliever's sin is his unbelief, which leads to the violation of all God's commandments...

The Decalogue is a summary of God's moral law which all mankind is obliged to keep. The sacraments are part of the right religious worship of God which is required in the First and Second Commandments.

Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?
A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his Word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintainance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God; and vowing unto him; as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them, all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hind ering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.
(Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 108-109)

Bryan,

I'm not sure this is the correct interpretation of what the Westminster divines' intent. If so, why does it seem to imply a contradiction in God's commands?
 
Don,

Are you a pacifist?

I am a Rom 12:18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. 20 Therefore
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. NKJV

What does that make me?

Your habit of quoting Scripture and just letting it speak for itself is not all that helpful. People will have differing views on what a particular passage means. Give us your interpretation of the passage.

I'm sorry, and I may get in trouble for this, but you come off as as quite condescending to those who engage you. I would chill out a bit. You haven't been perfected yet.

I do not feel I fit into someone else's description or category that may mean different things to different people, like pacifist. What is that? Do they just not go to war and defend themselves? Do they not defend themselves only defend others. Do they submit to their govt if drafted and go to war but don't defend themselves personally. Do they always do the same thing?

So by the same argument you say the scripture I sited is unclear I say your label of me would be more unclear.

So you can judge me, if you feel that is not sinful, to condescending. That is not at ll my intent.
My intent is to follow the scriptures, all of them in concert. In many areas I do not feel there is a hard fast rule but we walk by faith. Sometimes we may do one thing and sometimes another. I may even be convinced I should do it one way but once n the situation become a bit smarter than the hypothetical was and so act differently as hopefully the Spirit guides and overrules my incorrect thinking.
When I was young in the faith I wanted a rule for everything so I could feel like I was doing well. I learned this was Pharisaical. Now I seek to know, love and have the word rooted and growing in me and sanctify me and walk by the Spirit where their is no clear explicit rule and walk in the liberty we have been given in Christ.
This walking by faith is more challenging than having a rule. But it causes us to stay close to the Lord and walk by the Spirit not by sight.

So I told you I had already posted my conscience at this time in the previous posts. It is important to read things in context and I don't know why you should be able to demand of me to fully write out or search for something again because you are not interested enough to go read it? Does this seem Christian to you?

So I simply leave it to you to decide to label me. I will not label myself.
I seek to be obedient to the pertinent scriptures.
 
Bryan,

I'm not sure this is the correct interpretation of what the Westminster divines' intent. If so, why does it seem to imply a contradiction in God's commands?

The Westminster Standards seem pretty clear on this matter to me. I haven't really done much more than quote them. Please let me know what is unclear.

It does not seem to imply a contradiction in God's commands. The fault lies squarely upon the unbeliever for his unbelief.
 
I really shouldn't have to defend the Reformed doctrine of the Law of God on a confessionally Reformed discussion board. You should read the Westminster Larger Catechism's discussion of the Duty of Man very carefully.

What you may no be considering is that the writings you site are from a NT perspective.

Consider that the OT believers did not take the Supper or Baptize infants, so did they violate the commands?

Did all the other nations take the Supper?

The sacraments that now are obligatory on believers who have been accepted by the Elders.

So if you wanted to say all people are obligated to obey the moral law and all its implications, and loosely say including whatever prescribed sacraments and means of worship were applicable at that time. You could but it seems a non essential. We could just as well say they are obligated to care for widows and orphans, be kind, give to the poor, read the scriptures, sing psalms, etc. The point is these are all included in the moral law. Just hand them the LArger catechism on the moral law and say you are responsible to do all of this. The sacraments no more than the others right?
 
Bryan,

I'm not sure this is the correct interpretation of what the Westminster divines' intent. If so, why does it seem to imply a contradiction in God's commands?

The Westminster Standards seem pretty clear on this matter to me. I haven't really done much more than quote them. Please let me know what is unclear.

It does not seem to imply a contradiction in God's commands. The fault lies squarely upon the unbeliever for his unbelief.

Well, let me see.

God commands all men to believe.

He commands those who believe to "do this in remembrance of me."

He commands those who do not believe to not participate in communion or risk bringing more damnation upon themselves.

Insofar as all men are commanded to repent and believe, all men are commanded indirectly to participate in communion.

HOWEVER. All men are not commanded directly to participate in communion. It is recognized that some people do not believe, and therefore are unworthy to participate. These people are commanded not to participate.

If, as you suggest the Westminster Assembly taught, these people were commanded to both participate and not participate, is there not a contradiction?

Whereas if they are commanded to believe, and those who believe are commanded to partake, there is no contradiction.

Do you see where I'm coming from?
 
The Decalogue is a summary of God's moral law

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

II. This law, after his Fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.
(WCF XIX, i-ii)

which all mankind is obliged to keep.

V. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.
(WCF XIX, v)

The sacraments are part of the right religious worship of God

V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as, also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God
(WCF XXI, v)

which is required in the First and Second Commandments.

Q. 46. What is required in the first commandment?
A. The first commandment requireth us to know and acknowledge God to be the only true God, and our God; and to worship and glorify him accordingly.

Q. 50. What is required in the second commandment?
A. The second commandment requireth the receiving, observing, and keeping pure And entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in his Word.
(Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q&A's 46 & 50)
 
They are already violating the moral law. Why do we need to be specific?

What God tells us is to tell them the moral law in summary and to repent and believe not make them lawyers before they repent?

I do not understand the use of this??
 
He commands those who do not believe to not participate in communion or risk bringing more damnation upon themselves.

I'm not aware of a command directed to unbelievers to refrain from partaking of the Lord's Supper. The directive of 1 Corinthians 11 is to examine oneself in order to properly eat and drink of the Supper. The call is to right partaking, not neglect of the sacrament.

-----Added 4/8/2009 at 12:53:59 EST-----

They are already violating the moral law. Why do we need to be specific?

What God tells us is to tell them the moral law in summary and to repent and believe not make them lawyers before they repent?

I do not understand the use of this??

I am contesting the idea that there is a category of God's moral law which unbelievers are excused from.
 
I am contesting the idea that there is a category of God's moral law which unbelievers are excused from.

I understand you question, I am asking why it matters?

Gal 3:22-23
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
NKJV
This is good enough
 
I am contesting the idea that there is a category of God's moral law which unbelievers are excused from.

I understand you question, I am asking why it matters?

Gal 3:22-23
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
NKJV
This is good enough

The notion has been proposed that Christians are commanded to refrain from military service while it may yet be morally right for unbelievers to serve in a nation's military. This cannot be, for God's moral law makes universal demands of all men, as I am arguing.
 
He commands those who do not believe to not participate in communion or risk bringing more damnation upon themselves.

I'm not aware of a command directed to unbelievers to refrain from partaking of the Lord's Supper. The directive of 1 Corinthians 11 is to examine oneself in order to properly eat and drink of the Supper. The call is to right partaking, not neglect of the sacrament.

From Chapter 28 of the 1689 LBC:

Paragraph 2. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.
[italics mine]

They are already violating the moral law. Why do we need to be specific?

What God tells us is to tell them the moral law in summary and to repent and believe not make them lawyers before they repent?

I do not understand the use of this??

I am contesting the idea that there is a category of God's moral law which unbelievers are excused from.

Well then I think I'm a little confused. What I was trying to say is that this wasn't part of the universal moral law, but part of the New Covenant--just as the ceremonial laws were with the Old Covenant.

-----Added 4/8/2009 at 01:07:02 EST-----

I am contesting the idea that there is a category of God's moral law which unbelievers are excused from.

I understand you question, I am asking why it matters?

Gal 3:22-23
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
NKJV
This is good enough

The notion has been proposed that Christians are commanded to refrain from military service while it may yet be morally right for unbelievers to serve in a nation's military. This cannot be, for God's moral law makes universal demands of all men, as I am arguing.

I know, I saw that much already. Therefore, I argue that it is not part of the moral law, because it isn't commanded of all men.

EDIT: Though there were a few other reasons than that as well. For one, God explicitly commanded military service in the Old Testament--which he would not have done if it were in contradiction to His nature.
 
The notion has been proposed that Christians are commanded to refrain from military service while it may yet be morally right for unbelievers to serve in a nation's military. This cannot be, for God's moral law makes universal demands of all men, as I am arguing.

Aaah now I am tracking with you.

Hmmm... Was it proposed God commanded Christians to refrain from military service?

I didn't see that. But I am sure some people believe this.

I am not aware of a command of God for non-Christians to go to war or join the military though.

So since neither are commanded to go to war I see no problem except for those who misunderstand the scripture.
 
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.

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.

Are you really arguing that a command to refrain from military service could not be a moral law of God?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top