The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum About two laws

What is clear to me is:

1. You want people to read the long and convoluted article which you think is the correct teaching concerning the law of God, but are unwilling to read even one much shorter article to which you have free and easy access.

2. You have avoided answering my question(s) to provide a brief summary of what your view is, how it differences from what the Church has overwhelming agreed upon in the three-fold division of the law of God; civil, ceremonial and moral, and what implications your view has upon the Church and mankind.

3. You appear to have an unchecked arrogance to think that the author, yourself and perhaps a few others have only recently discovered the true understanding of the law of God and that no one else since the Reformation has been able to grasp it and have embraced error. It seems to me that with the wide variety of scholars, clergy and educated laity who disagree on other points of doctrine but who agree on the three-fold division of God's law has a whole lot more weight going for them than you and this author. And, last, but not least, I myself who may not ever make the "Who's Who" of biblical scholars but as one who has studied the Bible for many decades, having a grasp of the original languages, and one who has read extensively the writings of godly men who have gone before me, agree with the 'historic' view as being consistent with Scripture.

4. You unfortunately have no appreciation for the Church which Christ established, having nailed the bond to the tree and joined together Jew and Gentile to make one new man to which He sent His Holy Spirit as it's guardian and teacher. The visible Church makes no claim to being perfect nor infallible as does the RCC, OE or RO organizations but it has made its voice known through the medium of Confessions and catechisms for the purpose of guarding against heresy and educating the laity. Interesting enough, the overwhelming majority of churches which came out of the Protestant Reformation wrote confessions which agree on 99% of what the Bible teaches, despite their minor disagreements on other things, e.g., baptism and church polity. The onus, therefore, rests upon you and those who would disagree with those secondary sources of truth to prove where they err from Scripture, to which none have been able to do in over 500 years. Good luck to you.

5. Lastly, I suspect that your only purpose of joining this board was to promote this obscure view of the law. And if I am correct on that assumption, I must tell you that your methodology is quite poor. You certainly have made little effort to interact with those who have asked you questions about your view, which even to now you have refused to make clear. Your only response has been to "read the article". Perhaps even you don't have a firm comprehension of what this author wrote? That would certainly be one reasonable explanation why you haven't provided a summary and explanation of that article. Thus, if you insist that reading the article is the only response you have and refuse to read any article(s) referred to you, then methinks I will lock this thread.