You make some good points! You may want to examine that Carson quote and see if the Scriptures listed actually support the point attempting to be made. Are they about adultery and as in the Leviticus one do they even say that the witnesses must cast the first stones? (no) As for how did this grow out of the discussion? Lol, we've talked about everything from OJ Simpson to using bitter water to determine if someone has committed adultery. As for law keeping, the question is as I see it, did Christ keep the 613 Laws of the OT in order to earn righteousness so it could be imputed to us or was Christ always sufficiently righteous and did the Law testify of His righteousness? (It could find no fault in Him.) I don't hold to a covenant of works and therefore I don't hold to the position that His works under the Law earned our righteousness but rather that the Law declared His righteousness and that the righteousness imputed to us is His and not some secondary earned righteousness. The John 8 passage came up because the question is there (even Calvin saw it) that if the Law requires her death based upon the testimony of two witnesses why was the Law not enforced? No I do not hold to the New Perspective on Paul but I also know that Chad does not either. I have a very high respect for my brother Chad and hopefully that comes across in our discussion. And I believe that there is more that we agree upon then disagree. Harry Joseph Krygier <pasjk@...> wrote: Does all Scripture have to have a direct application to my personal living.? No. The purpose of this Scripture is to show contrast between Christ and the Mosaic Law, is it not? Under the Law of Christ, adultery is a sin that does not need the Covenant document to confirm one's guilt. Christ is the new lawgiver and the forgiver of all sin, regardless of any legal written code. Chad, you beat me to the Carson quote. But, how did this grow out of the active/passive debate. This debate is a raw issue for some. Did Christ keep, the law(and which law are the traditional Reformers referring to) FOR ME or did He keep the law to fulfill what was necessary to be the Redeemer and Justifier of those He will save by grace? For Covenant Theologians the active/passive combination must be adhered to because of their so-called Covenant of Works. But if one does not accept the Covenant of Works and the Westminister Confession etc., and a view on passive obedience in no way diminishes the importance of justification by faith alone (those who might subscribe to this view deny the New Perspective, they do not support it and acknowledge it as heresy), then where do we go concerning a NCT hermenutic? Joe K On Aug 28, 2005, at 3:15 PM, Jeff Scanlan wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chad Richard Bresson" > > To: > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 5:03 AM > Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Did Christ's active obedience to the law > earn us righteousness? > > >>> Katakrino which means "to judge worthy of punishment" according to >>> Strong's. >> >> Precisely. Which means Christ's words should be read this way: "Is >> there no one to judge you worthy of punishment? Neither do I judge >> you worthy of punishment." No judge (accuser). No judgement >> (accusation worthy of punishment). It's that simple. >> > > Could I just come in here and ask what meaning this has for us today? > Are we talking about how we punish criminals today or are we talking > about our status before God vis-a-vis our guilt re our sin? > > It would seem to me that we should be focussing on our standing in > relation to our Heavenly Father, not in relation to some criminal code > but maybe I have got it all wrong as to what you are arguing about. > > In any case you guys have put a lot of energy into this discussion and > I would like to take something away from it!! > > God bless, > Jeff > > > > > > > >> Chad Richard Bresson >> Xenia, OH >> http://breusswane.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "H Dorrington" >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 2:58 PM >> Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Did Christ's active obedience to the law >> earn us righteousness? >> >> >>> The order the text gives is straight forward. >>> She was caught in the very act. >>> She never denies her guilt >>> Punishment was mandated by the Law. >>> Her punishment was declared with the condition that someone without >>> sin cast the first stone. >>> Her guilt did not vanish because her sentence was commuted based >>> upon there being no one able to cast the first stone under the >>> conditions that were absent from the commands of Moses and the Law. >>> Active obedience to the Law would involve adding no more new >>> conditions. Do you say to an innocent person "Go and don't do it >>> again!"? >>> >>> You say: "The word condemn has nothing to do with punishment and >>> everything to do >>> with declaration of guilt." >>> Guilt and punishment go hand in hand according to both the Law and >>> the Greek. Her guilt was undeniable even by her. (Hence being caught >>> in the very act!) >>> >>> Neither or either depending on which translation you are using, a >>> conjunction, Greek Oude. >>> >>> The will of the Father takes precedence over submission or active >>> obedience to the Law. For God sent not his Son into the world to >>> condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> Chad Richard Bresson wrote: >>>> because there was no one innocent enough to render her punishment >>>> that the >>>> Law required under the new terms. >>> >>> That's not what the text says. That's not even what Christ said. >>> Christ >>> told her since there was no one to render her guilty (condemn) >>> neither would >>> he. The word condemn has nothing to do with punishment and >>> everything to do >>> with declaration of guilt. >>> >>> You are ignoring the words of Christ: "condemn" and "neither" >>> >>> Chad Richard Bresson >>> Xenia, OH >>> http://breusswane.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "H Dorrington" >>> To: >>> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 2:10 PM >>> Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Did Christ's active obedience to the law >>> earn us >>> righteousness? >>> >>> >>>> How can you say precisely? Does a not guilty person receive >>>> instructions >>>> about their destruction by stoning? Of course not! The guilt was >>>> established or there would have been no instruction regarding the >>>> stoning. >>>> She escaped her punishment not because she was not guilty but >>>> because >>>> there was no one innocent enough to render her punishment that the >>>> Law >>>> required under the new terms. Do you instruct a not guilty person >>>> to go >>>> and don't do it again? >>>> >>>> Harry >>>> >>>> Chad Richard Bresson >>> wrote: >>>>> A "not guilty" person never has instruction given about them that >>>>> involves >>>>> being put to death by stoning! >>>> >>>> Precisely. The accusations, which the law requires for stoning, were >>>> vacated the moment the accusers left. >>>> >>>> Chad Richard Bresson >>>> Xenia, OH >>>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________ >>> Do You Yahoo!? >>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>> http://mail.yahoo.com >>> -- >>> Read the Sound of Grace pages at >>> http://www.soundofgrace.com >>> >>> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: >>> soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... >>> >>> To view our online archive go to our web page at >>> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Read the Sound of Grace pages at >> http://www.soundofgrace.com >> >> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: >> soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... >> >> To view our online archive go to our web page at >> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace >> >> >> > > -- > Read the Sound of Grace pages at > http://www.soundofgrace.com > > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... > > To view our online archive go to our web page at > http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace > > > -- Read the Sound of Grace pages at http://www.soundofgrace.com To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... To view our online archive go to our web page at http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- Read the Sound of Grace pages at http://www.soundofgrace.com To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... To view our online archive go to our web page at http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace