This Post is Part of Series of Post called Dissecting the Anatomy of God.
Quick View: Table of Contents,
This all together is a confusing topic to tackle, and somewhat difficult to explain or gather because of the way people/believers interpret the law and the bible. So in talking about God’s law we will actually be talking more about his covenant.
What is a Covenant? It is promise or oath before and with God that sets forth his law and promise. Each Covenant is consider a law or a promise, and in each covenant God has a unique set of rules and laws. This question also borders along the topic of covenant theology.
In laymen terms, God’s Covenant is broken into two sections. The Old Covenant (Old Testament) and the New Covenant (New Testament). Sometimes also known as the Covenant of Works (O.T.) and the Covenant of Grace (N.T.). However biblically and theologically speaking there is more like 5 covenants. The Biblical story goes as such; that God sent his son Jesus into the world to die for all sins, such that he could establish a new covenant for all eternity, because all of the previous covenants before hand lacked the full capability to forgive sins, get man back into right fellowship with God and save man from damnation.
So the question is, if God’s convental law is perfect, why would he need more than one? If God’s law is Perfect, why made make 5 subsets of his law and call them covenants?
God’s Law and Covenants is still and forever Perfect, and all imperfections are a reflection of a sinful and fallible man who lacks the capacity to comprehend and follow them.
The natural question to this scripture is; If God’s Old Testament covenant law was so perfect, why the need for a new law and a new covenant? This in itself is a very reasonable position because the scripture itself says, “The Law of the Lord is perfect” (Ps. 19:7). Thus in inferring from scripture it is natural to assume that not only is God’s law perfect, but so is his covenants. (A covenant being his promise with given laws, ordinances, commandments, and promise.)
Why then if God’s law was Perfect, why would there be any need for a New Law or New Covenant?
“My word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.” (Isiah 55:11)
In evaluating the answer of why a new covenant we learn that the simple answer is that the new covenant is set forth by God to serve a new purpose. Which is too bring Man closer to God. The reason for establishing a new covenant is for the benefit and mercy of mankind. So, Yes, The Law and the covenant of God is still perfect. It’s that sinful man and people are not. Biblically and theologically speaking the reasoning & answer is very simple.
- God is a perfect being who made the perfect law.
- Man is not perfect and deeply flawed and fallible.
- Thus in speaking the fault is not in the law, but the fallible and sinful man.
Psalm 18:30…As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him
The whole convental law is perfect, because all ordinances and commandments by God are Good. The flaw was in the people for the law cannot save because the heart of man is deceitfully wicked above all else and seeks only his own gain. All of the old testament helped us to recognize where we stand with God and what we needed to do to get right with God. And that is why it was perfect. “It is the whole law and covenant, this is considered perfect.” (Bible.Ca)
The Bible confirms over and over again that the law and his covenant are and is perfect. So according to Christianity there is no flaw in God’s law because it is and remains perfect. The only reason why there are multiple laws and covenants is because when the Priesthood changes, so does the law.
God’s perfect Law could not declare the sinner righteous; it could only condemn and execute him (Romans 3:20; 2 Corinthians 3:7-9). God gave His perfect Law to demonstrate to sinners that we cannot stand before Him on the basis of our own merit…on law ground. Law can only condemn the law breaker; it cannot save him. The sinner must not seek his salvation on the grounds of law keeping, for, even if he kept the entire law and committed just one infraction, the Law would justly demand his doom (James 2:10). No, the sinner can only approach God on the grounds of God’s Grace. “The Law is good, if a man use it lawfully” (1 Timothy 1:8). (Grace Believer)
James 1:25… But whosoever looks intently into the perfect law of liberty[freedom]…
| This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. |
” | |
| —Hebrews 8:10, NIV | ||
The New Testament Covenant of Grace is perfect in faith, because it accomplishes what the old covenant could not do; not just simply atone for sins, but universally atone for sins. The new covenant of grace fills in that it brings man and God together which the old covenant did not do. The law is perfect in matters of faith, grace, and salvation. It rids salvation of the works based atonement which was impossible for man to ultimately accomplish. It did away with the legalism to make way for Christ and the Holy Spirit.
For there is a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace. For there is a Covenant that gives us law, and another that gives us liberty. That there is a written law and law of the heart. That the written law is one perfect part of a whole. That is completes the law of faith, liberty, and spirituality. In that the law of the heart, mind, and spirit is the New Covenant prepared to us by Holy Spirit, brought forth by Jesus the Christ. That liberty is in the grace and mercy of God, Not in the liberal freedom to obey or not obey the commandments. For the whole law is perfect. Let’s not forget that even though one aspect of the law is physical, it also carries with it a spiritual nature. And that Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
There is a law that liberates us and there is a law that binds us. Jesus has set us free from the law of sin death.”- Anonymous
No, God’s Law and Covenant is deeply fallacious and flawed. A Perfect Law/Covenant would never need improvement or changing of priesthood.
Hebrews 7:11… If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?
If God’s Law is so perfect, why would there ever be a need to change or revise it? One could make the statement that God’s Law and covenant are relatively perfect; not absolutely perfect. Even in Hebrews 7:11 the bible implies that the old covenant lack the capacity for true perfection. Thus had it been absolutely perfect, we would not have a second or a third or a fourth covenant. Had the first covenant been absolutely perfect, there would be no need for a second covenant. However one could infer, that the law/covenant was not absolutely perfect because it never took into account the human (sin) factor. Yet, how could a perfect law not take into consideration the human sin factor? If it does not take that into account, could one say that it was a crappy law? and a crappy covenant? Would they be wrong in saying that? It doesn’t take too much common sense to take into consideration the behavioral psychological factor OR how it will impact and affect people’s behavior.
‘It was perfect, but man is not perfect, so the old law had to be done away with’…So that’s why we have the new law. But what assurance do we have that the new law won’t be done away with because even thought the law is perfect, man is still NOT perfect. What is the point of a perfect law if at any point it can made imperfect, inadequate or invalid by an imperfect mortal. Is it still perfect then? If no perfect law is useful, cause of an imperfect mortal, what’s the point of the law? What purpose does it serve? Why not scrap the whole thing all together?
The Law does not make man perfect
- Heb. 7:19 – “law made nothing perfect“
- Heb. 9:9 – “sacrifices cannot make worshiper perfect”
- Heb. 10:1 – “the law can never make perfect”
Well the apologist claims that the Old Covenant was perfect, but that it was man could not be made perfect, because no man could follow the whole law and covenant. The law could not atone for all sins eternally. The law could not make the sinful man right nor clean…Well, DUH. You don’t need a law degree to figure that out. No law ever, in the history of mankind, has fixed all problems or made man perfect. Only a fool would think that a law could make a man perfect.
So let me get this straight; It is a perfect law that made nothing perfect. So if a God-given law, never serves its purpose how can we still call it perfect? What is the purpose of a law/covenant if nobody can obey it? According to the apologetic answers, it was so that way we can know we are all sinners. Why not just tell us that from the beginning, instead of going through four old testament covenants, just so we can learn a very basic lesson. Does not seem very efficient to me?
The most fundamental theological problem to the apologetic answer of why God would create a perfect law that could not be absolutely fulfilled by a fallible man is the New Testament scriptures themselves:
Hebrews 7:19…The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
Hebrews 8:6-7… But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Here is my problem, with overall christian apologetic response to this topic. THE RESPONSE ANSWER IS FUNCTIONALLY WEAK, AND DOES NOT LOGICALLY SOLIDIFY THE ANSWER. It seems like the apologetics answer dances around the answer, come close to answering, but never puts the nail on the coffin and closes the issue. Here some still unanswered questions:
- If the law was already perfect in OT, how can you improve upon something that is already perfect?
- Which Covenant is now absolutely perfect? All the Covenants or just the New Testament Covenant of Grace?
- So which law is perfect? Laws of Faith, Biblical Law, 10 Commandments, Old Testament Law, or New Testament Law?
- How can a law be weak and useless and perfect at the same-time?
- If there is a law that no man can follow, is it still perfect?
- If I give my two-year old a rule/law he can’t follow, is there something wrong with me or my son?
The scriptures themselves propose a difficulty in calling the old testament law inferior, weak and useless. Lacking in substance and quality. So how can I still call all of God’s Law and Covenant Perfect when the Bible doesn’t even do that consistently?
The BitterSweet End 
A: Progressive revelation. People grow, mature, gain knowledge. Sensible people don’t think people stay the same. God is sensible.
Then I think the question is from here…Is God Immutable?
Fair question Marcus.
I am not much of a fan of all the things people say about God – like immutable. What would we know, after all?
It’s not a BIblical term, but I think the logic is that God always does what is best by definition, so he doesn’t ever need to change. But we are not the same, so he has to adjust to us, otherwise he wouldn’t be behaving as well as a good parent or teacher.
and this what you are mentioning is what I bring up on the last post series.
After reading this I began to wonder how were OC saints saved and empowered to live holy lives?
Or, more specifically, what was different about the OC saint and the NC saint? Did the OC saint have all the same spiritual resources as the NC saint?
In my understanding, there are more.Not limited to 5 only as being stated above.
The revelation of Torah (to Moses), Psalm (David) and Gospel (Jesus), before that, there are a book to Abraham that we called Ibrahim’s Suhuf (Scroll of Abraham), before that there are Henokh (Idris), Adam and etc.
The old covenant are being reveal based on race’s basis. Gospel to Jewish descendant and etc. There are others book that being reveal to other race where are the book’s name and prophet’s name are unknown. Example: China, Greece, Rome, Aztec, Maya, etc.
I believe this world are not limited to Jewish and Arab descendant. Right?
Is it “Old Testament” are an old law or separated from NT?
I can kill the argument with just “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17).
There are slight variations of covenant theology, and dispensationalism. But this seemed to be the most commonly held one.
Rodriguez,
I don’t know about covenant theology and dispensation. Cannot comment much, but the main idea are similar to Islamic thought; i.e “ijtihad”, “believe in old covenant being reveal by God”.
BUT, when I read the explanation, it almost rubbish. I need to agree with Nate : “Just building more junk on top of what came before.”
This idea are similar to “Trinity” idea.
Main idea – God is one. Explanation – 3 god in one god.
Main idea and the explanation are totally incoherent and unclear.
Matthew 5:!7 kills the Ten Commandments. To fulfill is to complete. A law that is completed is no longer valid or binding. New Law replaces Old Law, PERIOD!
I have this gut feeling ewell that you did not read the post article… So I’ll repeat some of my key points.
God created a law that he called perfect, but at the same time useless and week. Hebrews 7:19. Then you say this useless and week law is made complete by matthew 5:17. So jesus fulfilled the law, by not actually doing what the law requires, but by dying which is something everybody eventually does.
Does that even make any sense?
THE RESPONSE APOLOGETIC ANSWER I ALWAYS GET FOR THIS TOPIC IS ALWAYS FUNCTIONALLY WEAK, AND DOES NOT LOGICALLY SOLIDIFY THE ANSWER.
Here some still unanswered questions:
If the law was already perfect in OT, how can you improve upon something that is already perfect?
Which Covenant is now absolutely perfect? All the Covenants or just the New Testament Covenant of Grace?
How can a law be weak and useless and perfect at the same-time?
If there is a law that no man can follow, is it still perfect?
If I give my two-year old a rule/law he can’t follow, is there something wrong with me or my son?
What has interested me is that we’re only told what was wrong with the prior covenant when the new one is brought in. While that’s sometimes a valid way of doing things, it also looks suspiciously like people changing the rules when it’s convenient for them; in other words, not something divinely planned at all. Just building more junk on top of what came before.
Nate,
Interesting view, can you explain further about “we’re only told what was wrong with the prior covenant when the new one is brought in.”
Hi hifzan,
Only that I can’t think of many (or any) instances where one of the covenants was given, but with the caveat that it was temporary. It was usually the folks who came after (like in Galatians and Hebrews) that spent so much time explaining why the old ways weren’t quite good enough any more — not quite what God really meant.
That’s not, in and of itself, a reason to suppose it’s all fantasy. But it does match how things would look if none of it was divinely inspired and was just added to by different people as time went on. You know, adjusting things to fit their time and circumstances, in the same way that all religions spawn splinter groups over time. Just look at all the denominations of Christianity that have formed over 2000 years. These things tend to evolve naturally.
Maybe all these different covenants (or dispensations) were part of God’s plan, or maybe they were just the natural byproduct of human behavior. Hard to say…
Hey Nate, did you ever tell your kids there was a Santa Claus?? Most parents did, though you may well not have because of your religion at the time. But if someone did (as we did), would it make sense to tell them about Santa Claus ands then in the same breath say that it’s not really true and when they get older you’ll tell them??
I would say that makes way less sense. And same in this case. If we were ready to know the new, we didn’t need the old. That’s what progress and learning and maturing are all about.
Unklee – Absolute Nonsense.
An omniscient deity responsible for our creation could quite easily have ensured all we needed to know was contained within our genetic code.
Humans can do similar things with plant seed these days, surely the powers of a Creator could match this feat?
You are attaching human values/thought process to a deity. This is what the likes of you, Unklee, would do. And to you progressive revelation seems the most sensible thing to do.
This is because you haven’t seriously considered other options.
Genetic encoding would certainly not have been an option for the Church Fathers or O.T prophets to consider
In fact, at the time you became a Christian and became inculcated with this line of doctrinal reasoning, genetics was in its infancy and I doubt you were aware of it.
Which brings us to the uncomfortable position concerning who created whom, does it not?
I agree with Ark here, though I think your analogy is good, unkleE.
Even if God hadn’t used something like the genetic code and wanted to stick with a written word, what’s so complicated about the NT that those rules couldn’t have been taught right away? Humanity had only gotten into its primitive state because God didn’t step in earlier to help them out of it. So if they had to be brought up progressively over centuries, it’s only because God didn’t tell them anything right away. Reminds me of that Christopher Hitchens quote:
Even if we look back to the time of Adam, or Noah, or Abraham as when God finally intervened, there’s still at least 90,000 years of nothing. The whole thing’s just kind of hard to swallow.
Nate, as you said elsewhere, we aren’t going to agree, so I’ll just briefly outline a response
1. The sorts of objections Marcus and you raise here are very weak when compared to the difficulty of atheism explaining all those matters I raised elsewhere. I know you said there were satisfactory answers, but I haven’t seen them. I feel you are “straining at gnats and swallowing camels”.
2. I feel your question “what’s so complicated about the NT that those rules couldn’t have been taught right away? “ misunderstands what God is on about. God’s not about imparting information to a robotically programmed being, but creating autonomous life that is responsible for its own choices. As such, he leaves us much freer than your question assumes.
3. You don’t know how God intervened in the human race, you are just judging externally (and so was Hitchens). God interacts with people all the time (e.g. there is good evidence that he reveals himself to Muslims in the present day). So it seems likely that he revealed himself all through that time, in appropriate ways. Again, I think you are expecting that people needed to be explicit evangelical christians to be saved, but that isn’t the Bible’s teaching. I expect to see people from 50,000 years ago in heaven.
I can’t help feeling all of these objections are pretty value-less, just as you think my things that atheism can’t explain don’t have value. Could it be that we choose according to what we want or feel, and find objections and arguments to justify that choice?
Best wishes.
No, I really don’t think so. If that were the case, I’d still be a fundamentalist Christian. I simply don’t find your objections to atheism all the problematic. There are some points you raise that I don’t have answers to, but they aren’t big problems for me — they’re issues that I’m okay with saying “I don’t know” about, just as you’re okay with saying you don’t know why the OT portrays God as such a monster in some places.
No, that’s not my expectation at all. I know that during the Law of Moses, Jews would have been judged according to it, even though the NT teaches that the actual payment for those sins wasn’t given until Jesus’ death. I also know that Paul, in several places, says that those who were ignorant of God were judged on more of a moral basis (some Gentiles “became the law” when they lived it without knowing it, etc). And under the “Patriarchal Period,” God supposedly talked to heads of families, regardless of their ethnicity. So I do understand what the entirety of the Bible teaches on salvation… I just don’t think it’s truly inspired. And I still think Hitchens makes a valuable point that its puzzling why God would have needed to wait so long to “progressively reveal” his ultimate plan. Human history is extremely long; much longer than what the Bible alludes to.
I recognize that’s not a proof in and of itself, I just think it’s interesting to consider.
Thanks
Nate, reminds me of an old poster where there are two bull elks or moose, or whatever, locking antlers, and one is saying to the other:
Let’s call it a draw and save our energy of another topic. Thanks for the courteous discussion. Best wishes.
Sounds like a perfect illustration. 😉 Thanks to you too!
Nate, I must re-enter this conversation, and take up your Christopher Hitchens quote.
This is a very emotive quote, as Hitchens was famous for. But I wonder if he checked a few facts? And I wonder if you did before you quoted him?
You see, he has quoted years, but the important thing is people. Now I happen to have been doing a little research on this matter, and decided to work out the numbers of people involved. So I looked up a number of sites that gave estimates for the numbers of people in the world for about 30 different time intervals since 100,000 BCE, and the average life expectancy, and I put all this information into a spreadsheet. (Right now my adult children are smirking at each other, because they know that dad will draw a graph at the drop of a hat.)
These figures allow a calculation (obviously very approximate) of the number of people who died during each time interval up until 2011, and of course we have to add in the number of people still alive in 2011. And here’s the interesting results (if I have constructed my little model properly):
1. The people alive today comprise 16% of the total who have ever lived.
2. Less than a quarter of the total number of people lived before Jesus (23%).
3. Only 10% lived before 2000 BCE, which might be seen as approximately the time of Abraham.
So when we consider the numbers, the impression left by Hitchens’ prose is over-statement. Yes, there were people who had no opportunity to hear of Jesus, just as there have been since Jesus lived. Inclusivist christians such as I am (and many christians I know, and also including CS Lewis and Billy Graham) have always believed God would deal with them mercifully and justly, as you have mentioned, so the extra 10% Hitchens is talking about is not a major issue, and they would presumably be treated the same way.
Just another example of allowing emotional prose to sway one’s judgment when a little research can reveal a more accurate picture. Best wishes.
Thanks for posting that information — I find it very interesting. And I think you make a good point about it that should be considered. So my next question isn’t meant to be argumentative so much as speculative.
It seems to me that if God had to rely on progressive revelation, then starting it earlier would have gotten us to the finish line faster. The fact that fewer people were in existence should have meant that it would have required less time and effort to correct their misconceptions, false beliefs, etc. And even though there were relatively few people living during those time periods, it seems that God should still have been motivated to do as much for them as possible, since he’s concerned with each of us as individuals. He counts and sparrows and knows each hair on our heads, etc.
It’s also interesting that no other evidence from other parts of the world has ever been uncovered that shows an independent knowledge of Yahweh/Jehovah. The knowledge of that particular god started with a specific ethnic group, which is exactly what’s happened with all other gods.
Hi Nate, there are some good questions there, and I will get to them as soon as I can. But before I do, I’d better add a little to what I wrote last comment. After developing my “model” and commenting here, I came across a similar estimate reportedly done by the Population Reference Bureau – obviously a group much more expert than I am – but presented in a non-PRB source.
To my chagrin, their figures are way different to mine, with a total number of people who ever lived more than double my estimate. However the estimate of the percentage of people before Abraham isn’t so far from mine. They admit a problem with their figures, in that they assume a straight line between 8000 BCE and 1 CE, a crucial time for this calculation. They do this because that is all the data they apparently had, but it makes an enormous difference.
So I am trying to verify the figures from PRB sources and reproduce them in a way that allows the pre-Abraham figure to be estimated properly, before I go any further – there is no point in discussing this if I have presented inaccurate figures. So I’ll get back to you when I can. Thanks.
Nate,
I have now resolved the problem. The PRB used a prehistoric life expectancy of about 10-12 years only – which is way lower than every other estimate I have seen. Most say round about 30 years, some say around 20. That, together with the coarseness of having one time interval span 8000 BCE to 1 CE, a time when the population started to climb significantly, introduces what seem to me to be significant inaccuracies. So I’m sticking with the figures I found (though I will write to PRB). Nevertheless, their figures (which have to be interpolated) lead to 10-15% pre-Abraham figure, same as mine. You can see my full explanation at How many early humans?
“It seems to me that if God had to rely on progressive revelation, then starting it earlier would have gotten us to the finish line faster. ….. it seems that God should still have been motivated to do as much for them as possible”
We don’t know if God revealed himself to them in appropriate ways, after all they left no writings! (One reason why the Bible couldn’t be started back then.) But I think he did reveal himself, though in a different way to later, but appropriate at the times.
“It’s also interesting that no other evidence from other parts of the world has ever been uncovered that shows an independent knowledge of Yahweh/Jehovah.”
It depends what you mean. If you are talking about what looks to many people like a Hebrew tribal God, then of course not – that was an incomplete revelation. But if you are talking about the God of Jesus, and of the classic philosophical “proofs”, then I think most peoples received some revelation, appropriate to them, and not always accepted. In fact ex-missionary Don Richardson has researched this, and found echoes of God in many, many cultures around the world, and written it up in Eternity in their hearts.
I think evangelical christians often have too small a view of God, and ex-believers often continue with the same. God is the God of the whole universe, or he’s not God at all; the God of every people and he loves them all. He wouldn’t leave them without hope. Of course we can’t know all the details – we only know what we need to know ourselves – but we can get some hints.
That’s how I see it.
Pingback: Is the concept of a Perfect God Illogical? | The BitterSweet End
If the law was already perfect in OT, how can you improve upon something that is already perfect?
– The Law itself is perfect. However, for us sinners, it does not makes us perfect. So it can be improved upon.
Which Covenant is now absolutely perfect? All the Covenants or just the New Testament Covenant of Grace?
– Though it was introduced to men as separate Covenants, through Jesus it becomes one perfect covenant. (Matt 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them)
So which law is perfect? Laws of Faith, Biblical Law, 10 Commandments, Old Testament Law, or New Testament Law?
– As above, Jesus fulfilled the Law. Through Jesus and His Gospel, it is perfect. All laws you mentioned is just part of the Law Jesus fulfilled.
How can a law be weak and useless and perfect at the same-time?
– To us sinners, the OT law is ‘weak and useless’, but the law itself is perfect.
If there is a law that no man can follow, is it still perfect?
– yes. We are just too human-centric, if we don’t understand that.
If I give my two-year old a rule/law he can’t follow, is there something wrong with me or my son?
– If you help him by giving something whether it be a tool, or knowledge (Jesus and His Gospel) to follow the rule/law, no one is at fault.
hello yuniverse,
How can you improve upon a perfect law??????
You Can’t
If you could improve upon anything, then it would not need perfect. That is the definition of perfect. There is nothing perfect about a law that does not function properly. Let me ask you a question…Did the old testament law fall short in its goal? If Yes, then it is not perfect and fell short of its goal. If No, then why the need for a second covenant, there should be no need for a second covenant if the first accomplished its perfect goal.
Do understand that when a law fails to live up to its purpose in functionality, people called that a failure. They don’t call it perfect.
If there is a law that no man can follow, is it still perfect?
– yes. We are just too human-centric, if we don’t understand that.
WHY???? How can there be a law that fails in functionality, but still is perfect. If a law fails in functionality just once, it is no longer perfect.
Hello, M. Rodriguez
“is it still perfect?”
you’re trying to see from human’s perspective.
It’s akin to thinking that the sun goes around the earth when infact it is the earth that’s going around the sun.
Is it perfect for who? Is it perfect to whose standards? Does everything (including God) exist for our benefit?
The law is perfect, but because of OUR imperfection caused by OUR sins, the law is not perfect FOR US.
But the Law itself is perfect. Word of God is perfect. It does not contain anything other than the Truth.
Now, God is gracious and loves us and has made a Way for us to be saved through His Son, Jesus Christ.
The law (OT) is fulfilled and made perfect(even for us) by the Jesus Christ.
Ill repeat my question….
If a law fails in functionality is it a good law?
If a father makes a law for his two year old knowing full well, that the child cannot and will never be able to fulfull the fathers law, is that father justified?
These are common sense questions that should be answered with the same level of common sense that we make all our decisions.
Sorry for interrupt.
Yuniverse,
I would like to quote from two verse in Bible.
whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it–not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it–they will be blessed in what they do. (James 1:25)
and
The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. (Psalm 19:7)
The verse above provide a goals of perfect law : (1) freedom; (2) refreshing the soul. To quote from Matt 5:17 is misleading and misquote because Matt 5:17 describe the origin of law that Jesus’s preach.
Rodriguez,
“If a law fails in functionality is it a good law?”
If you are talking about Ten Commandment, that was a very basic law. Even, if you take out the four top Ten’s Commandment (because you are an atheist). The law have providing a very basic fundamental issue of human law. If this law also failed, even secular law is failed.
If a father makes a law for his two year old knowing full well, that the child cannot and will never be able to fulfull the fathers law, is that father justified?
The question will not be questioned if Christian does not treat their God as father-son relationship. Because of this complexity of relationship between sugar daddy and his son have made theology so complicated.
welcome Hifzan,
Actually those last two questions, I was asking them generally. and based on yuniverse answer, I would apply his answer to Christianity to see if the same level of common sense and consistency that he uses in every other area of his life, does he also use towards his religion.
oh as for the functionality response…if a law fails in functionality, then it is a injust and non-functioning law. and this is true even looking for secular and religious laws. Just google american prohibition in the 1920’s, that is a perfect example of a non-functioning law.
I thank as male and woman is more disobedance God made a law to convicted you of sins, so you can’t say there was no law out there