T V,
I’m sorry. Though I’m unclear just how, I deeply “frustrated” you! My own frustrated sense is that consternation over semantics such as “not under the Law” (or “literal”) keeps us from engaging the substance of our differing interpretations.
The term you quote is my interpretation that Mosaic Law (or even necessarily all of the Decalogue) is not morally **"binding", i.e. such that we should obey every rule in it. You concede that “no” Biblical texts separate Torah’s moral and ceremonial obligations, or even “the 10 and the rest.” But you then complain that I too distinguish some rules as more “moral” than others. That’s true, in that I argue some are not moral obligations at all. But I’m totally missing why you then say that “hangs” me, or puts me in Kelly’s position that they’re “ALL moral.” You explain that I’m “shifty” for saying, “we’re no longer under the Law” (which again for me = morally obliged to obey each Mosaic law). Need it be shifty to use the Bible’s own language, “you are no longer under the Law” (Gal. 5:18; Rom. 6:14; 7:7)?? Insisting that I state that we are bound to follow the Mosaic Law, when I believe it does not all apply, seems like misleading language to me.
Next, you say that we can agree that there’s a “hierarchy of morality.” (I haven’t said that, but if I had to prioritize, none of your long list would top it. I’d actually put the Gt. Commandent first.) Yet then you suggest that we both agree “we don’t have the right” to make a “hierarchy.” But I never proposed making one, only that we seek to distinguish which guidelines remain applicable at all.
You then conclude that it’s “WRONG” to ask (the moral question about) WHAT we should do Yes, I do indeed think God wants us to seek to discern what’s right. But you emphasize that the real night and day distinction is that Bobx3 (who thankfully sees what I don’t) serves “because I’m privileged to,” whereas Bobx1 does it because you “have to keep it.” WHY do you assume that**?** I see God’s way as what is truly good, a gracious and rich blessing, not something to avoid or evade. And in the thread, I’ve repeatedly specified the Sabbath principle as an esp. wonderful and healthy blessing. E.g. that I was glad Kelly benefitted from practicing it; yesterday I told Steve that Christians desperately need to recover it. What I did do was try to exegete the N.T. merits of Mosaic laws, but you label that a heart that seeks to evade and “feel no obligation.”
Yet what actually “sounds like” my biggest disagreement here is your implication that our ONLY question must be, “WHAT DO I GET TO DO?” It is true that I don’t see following Jesus as only focused on what we get to do (or what you suggest is what our heart already wants). I think, as with our Lord, sometimes we are also called to do things which our heart does not yet feel is a “COOL idea.” I.e. I don’t see embracing our gracious privilege mutually excludes the reality of moral obligation. With Kant, I think we still live under a moral imperative. Thus, I admit I think it is legitimate to raise the question of what our moral calling is. Yet I suspect that your contrary rhetoric doesn’t reflect your view.