Ok, but this is my last post until tomorrow, else you'll keep me up all night!
Definately enjoying this.
Well you don't pull any punches, do you? That's another solid question to ask, multi-faceted to answer:
Quote:
If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6)
Contradiction: Paul says obey the old law. Christ says we're free of the old law.
Paradox: We're free from the splitting-hairs old law where every breath we take was regulated, but Paul brings up the point that much of that law was built on solid principle, so we should still obey much of it because though we're not bound to every facet of it, the underlying morales are still the same. In fact, the fundamental morals of the old law were restablished in the New Testament to further drive home that point.
I hope I'm making since, this is one of those things I have it straight in my mind, but it's hard to put into words, ya know?
To state it another way: in the OT, you committed adultery, you got stoned. In the NT, you don't get stoned anymore, and in fact Jesus chased off a bunch of holier-than-thous from stoning a prostitute whom Jesus later befriened. Now, perfect example: we're free from that law in that we're not stoned for cheating on our spouses, but we still obey it because it's of sound morality.
The question is always: contradiction or paradox?
Quote:
then all of these biblical sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit
Very true, the Spirit has a major hand in helping us discern for those who are have a listening ear.
Quote:
We cannot then take even what Paul himself says as a new Law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that.
Paul wasn't stating new law, he was helping communicate the values, the morals that both the Law and the Spirit are involved in. If you can pick and choose any sexual moral, you can pick and choose any moral, and then hey! Muder's okay too!
Let's pick a sexual moral issue to use as an example. I'm talking completely from memory, so if any point you want me to prove it from Scripture, just say "show me" and I will. For time's sake at the moment, I'll keep it more in brief:
One man will marry one woman, else we have some adultery going on. That was established in the beginning of time (though countles people, some otherwise very righteous people, blew it to smitherings in the OT, which many confuse for meaning it made it right), and is still a fundamental teaching today. Now the Bible doesn't just say "that's bad, so I say it's a law and don't do it" and we follow blindly like many think we do. You'll find the Bible explain the why behind it all. Reading of Scripture reveals the principle that we see every day: when you cheapen that most special of one-on-one relationships by having multiple sex partners, it loses its power and specialness. God designed it as a way for two people to be special to each other above everyone else, so that's why it works that way, and that's why it's a "rule" so to speak.
Geez, I feel like I'm rambling. Admittedly, you ask a question that's extremely difficult to answer in one posting on a forum -- you could do an ENTIRE Bible study on this and spend a few weeks on this one question.
Let me try to simplify furhter: 1) God says don't do that, 2) Scripture says why, 3) we do what God says and don't "pick and choose", though 4) you're right that many do anyway.
Does that make any sense?