(by Lisa Robinson)
I was listening to a radio broadcast the other day and the preacher was giving a lesson on the Decalogue. He provided a description of God’s law that broken down into three categories – Ceremonial, Civil and Moral. When Christ fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17), it did not mean an abrogation but continuance of the law. The moral law, as codified in the Decalogue, remains in effect and therefore binding upon Christians. (note this is a correction to what was initially stated) This of course is the Reformed position in a nutshell, influenced by Calvin and disseminated throughout evangelicalism.
The alternate position, which I adhere to (no, I’m not going to use the D word), is that there is no separation of the Law and when Christ fulfilled the law, he fulfilled all of it. The moral obligations are instituted under the teachings of Christ, otherwise known as the law of Christ and obligated through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Christ revealed God to humanity so there is no discontinuity in God’s law. Since the Spirit was also involved in the apostolic witness to the testimony of Christ and that testimony enscripturated, the Word and the Spirit provide the mechanism for which God’s law is revealed and codified. This is what is binding on the Christian. It is of no coincidence that 9 out of the 10 commandments are mirrored in the New Testament since it all comes from the same source.
So while I do not believe that the Ten Commandments are binding on the Christian, I was willing to concede that we essentially end up at the same place – God has imposed a moral law we are to abide by, that there is an objective standard by which we live. That was until this preacher said something that I have increasingly heard as a defense of their position – the reason the Decalogue is binding on the Christian is to prevent relativism.
This is not new. I have heard this before. Basically, he is denying that an alternate explanation to the implementation and adherence to God’s law and insisting that if one does not believe the Decalogue is binding on Christians, they are giving way to subjective truth. In short, they are compromising God’s truth…and they are wrong. I have heard this same argument used with a variety of competing evangelical positions. This is truth and must be believed or else you are sliding the slippery slope of relativism.
While I do understand that two competing truths cannot co-exist, does that mean a charge of relativism is warranted? I would say not necessarily. All truth is relative from our perspective because of human limitations and understanding. But what is necessary to determine is how compatible our truth is to the objective standard proclaimed through the the prophetic and apostolic message proclaimed in the Bible, preserved through the annuls of Church history. Throughout this history, there have been many doctrinal deviations but that does not mean that those deviations have resulted in or are caused by relativism.
What I fear is that relativism becomes a patsy for disagreement with our truth, based on objective standards derived by employing what we believe to be a sound hermeneutic. By throwing up the relativism flag, we insist that the alternate position is necessarily compromising truth, which by implication insists that ours is the only correct one. Might I suggest that this is arrogant and does not concede a possible error in understanding on our part. Moreover, it influences a form of dogmatism that will not consider altering explanations that contradict our own. For those who really fear deviating from God’s objective truth, this can become an arsenal to castigate sincere brothers and sisters in Christ as compromising truth.
When we proclaim something to be relative it is relative to the objective rule of faith provided through the prophetic and apostolic testimony to God’s revelation. We can certainly recognize that there is a body of truth that is consistent to this objective standard, but deviations don’t necessarily undermine it.
So I would appeal to constraint of using relativism as a patsy as it can possibly do a disservice to Christian harmony and our quest for truth.
14 replies to "The Patsy Called Relativism"
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TylerFlipboard, John Calvin Hall. John Calvin Hall said: The Patsy Called Relativism: (by Lisa Robinson) I was listening to a radio broadcast the other day and the preac… http://bit.ly/dGfxbf […]
Lisa; It’s my belief the 10 commandments are tied up with and in Love.
The OT has proven that you cannot command love… yet we are able to love both God and others because he first loved us.
Where ever love is; there is no law.
Craig,
I have a question here though. You say wherever love is there is no law.
But I have certainly seen or heard about a lot of things done in the name of love that are totally contrary to what the Bible speaks of. These folks probably weren’t believers though.
Do you think this always works differently for believers or can they too convince themselves that something is right because they “love” somone or something? Adultery or fornication among believers, which happens a lot these days it seems, could be a prime example of what I am talking about here.
God’s Law = = God’s Love
“It is of no coincidence that 9 out of the 10 commandments are mirrored in the New Testament since it all comes from the same source.”
Which one is not mentioned? This is bugging me now….
Sabbath
Craig Bennett wrote:
The commandments came after God showed His love to Israel (and any Egyptians who joined them) by rescuing them from Egypt and doing many signs and wonders. Given that God commanded love and Jesus said that the first commandment was to love God, then to say you cannot command love seems to counter what God has actually done.
True love has conditions attached. Unconditional love (displayed by not commanding anything, and therefore not needing to discipline or punish for violating commandments) can be very destructive. Commandments and discipline when done in love trains children until they are mature people.
Interestingly, the law of Christ exceeds the external portion of the 10 commandments. Just read Matt 5 and this will become obvious.
Actually, the Sabbath is also mirrored in the NT. See Heb 4:10-11:
“For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.”
Why not see the Ten Commandments as a marriage proposal which is what they would be seen as at the time? The people of God were to be marked out by their holiness, just as the people of Christ are.
Guys, the point of the post was not to debate the Ten Commandments but to point out how quickly we resort to the charge of relativism.
Also, I am going to have make a correction in my first paragraph to denote that the Reformed position believes that Christ fulfilled all the law. Stay tuned.
I guess some of us old timers who have been called ‘fundies’ in the bad sense, because we do go with what the Bible teaches have kinda bristled at the new definition of that term as well, as a patsy.
What I think is that we have to avoid extremes of either camp.
“While I do understand that two competing truths cannot co-exist, does that mean a charge of relativism is warranted? I would say not necessarily. All truth is relative from our perspective because of human limitations and understanding”
You deny that the charge of relativism is warranted, and then immediately proceed to affirm that all truth is relative. Kinda confirms the guy’s point.
While the Bible doesn’t give explicitly the three- fold separation of law that the reformers, there is a scriptural distinction between “the righteousness of the law” and the specific covenantal framework. While there has been a change in covenant, the moral law has been rolled over into the New Testament.
Dallas, I do believe this teacher was distinguishing law vs. no law. Someone pointed out to me that the opposite of law is not relativism but antinomianism. Unfortunately, I think the charge of antinomianism is unwarranted concerning the Dispensational view. The abolition of the Mosaic law does not mean there is no moral law in the NT. Xulon over at Theologica did a pretty good job of explaining this here, which also contains a link to previous post on the subject.
It is true that antimonianism is the opposite of law rather than relativism per se, but relativism in practice is often a slippery slope into antinomianism.
I would agree that the covenantal framework of Moses has been abolished, but that it’s moral principles are rolled over into the New Covenant. Jer 31:33 speaks of this.Hebrews 8:8-10 confirms that this is a reference to the NT. It is written that God will make a covenant where He writes His laws on people’s hearts and minds. Which law is He referring to? The moral principles of the OT law would be included here, or as Paul put it, “The righteousness of the Law”
@#2,3,4
Love = Law? No, not quite.
God’s love overpowers God’s law. God’s provision of ‘Law’ is just a small part of the creative work of God’s love.
The ‘law’ here refers usually to the Mosaic Law. However, there is an overarching word – ‘torah’ (not as a synonym of the Pentateuch), which, in its basic sense, God’s teaching and guiding for our life. Christ is the fulfillment of God’s Law and the embodiment of God’s Torah.
BTW, the Ten Commandments (‘Words’) was gift to the Israelite and most of us, Gentiles, has no part of it. The teaching it contains is resident in Christ’s Law of love.
@ # 13 – The Bible does NOT tell us that the Mosaic Covenant with its Law has been ever ABOLISHED. No, it is made COMPLETE (> fulfilled) in Christ. The N.T. is not just a ‘new’ but the renewed Covenant, not the Replacement of all the Old Covenants (God gave to Noah, Abraham and Moses).
It’s all about ‘RELATEDNESS’, not ‘being relative (in value, significance, etc., as if one is better and relevant than the other – sort of politically correct-incorrect usage). This is actually true even in ‘relativity’ in the Einstein’s theories (how the measurement and observation is related between the observer and the observed).