Talk:Law of Christ

Royal Law; Affirmation of Law in NT; The Law of Liberty
Related to the concept of the Law of Christ and New Testament law, James 2:8-2 uses the phrases of "Royal Law" and "Law of Liberty". It also strongly implies an affirmation of at least two of the Ten Commandments and affirms the law as the standard for defining transgression and sin. The Law of Liberty is declared to be a standard for universal judgment.

James 2:8-12 "If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law, according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not commit murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act, as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty."

12:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itohacs (talk • contribs)

It is not true that James is endorsing the whole Law of Moses. His argument, in fact, is the opposite. With Paul, he is noting that if you want to be justified by the Law, you have to keep every detail of it, which is not humanly possible. Leviticus 19:18 is the "Law of Liberty" in the sense that in Christ we are free to love others as ourselves without regard to whether the actions taken under this "law" are allowed by the rest of the Law of Moses (e.g., Jesus doing works of healing on the Sabbath). See Acts 15, where James (the same one who wrote the letter, according to tradition) is persuaded that new Christians are not to be "troubled" by any requirement to keep the Mosaic Law. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You have a common misunderstanding of the Council of Jerusalem. It did not decree that gentiles have no requirement to keep the Mosaic Law, it simply decreed that a minimal subset applied to gentile converts. This decree is similar to the Jewish concept of Noahide Law, which should not be surprising since the Early Christians in Jerusalem were Jewish Christians.75.15.196.107 (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether that's a "misunderstanding" of the Council of Jerusalem is debatable. I think what I wrote above is correct.

First, the Noahide Law, strictly speaking, is not part of the Mosaic Law, since it came many generations earlier. The Mosaic Law is part of the Sinai Covenant, which was given to the original people of Israel, but not to gentiles. So James telling the gentile Christians to keep something akin to the Noahide Law is not tantamount to telling them to keep part of the Law of Moses.

Second, what James lists is not the Noahide law. According to Genesis 9:1-7, Noah was commanded (1) to be fruitful and multiply, (2) not to eat meat with the blood still in it, and (3) not to murder. Rabbinic tradition adds four more commandments not found in the Bible itself and reinterprets (1) as a prohibition of sexual immorality in general. James' conclusion is only that gentile believers should be told to abstain from (1) things polluted by idols, (2) fornication, (3) strangled things, and (4) blood. The absence of murder indicates that James considers this to be a list of practices Christians should observe above and beyond universal ethical principles-- i.e., religious rules, or a Christian holiness code.

Third, James does not appear to imply that these restrictions are immutable commands from God but his own recommendations. Note that he says, "I have decided,..." not "Thus says the Lord:..." The fact that these are recommendations and not absolute commands is made clear in 1 Corinthians 8, where Paul deals with the idol-meat controversy. Apparently, some Christians in Corinth were objecting that eating meat offered to idols can't really hurt them, because idols don't really exist. Paul grants the truth of that objection, but argues for abstaining from idol-meat on other grounds, namely that other members of the Christian community might be misled if they see the eating of idol-meat as an acceptance of idolatry. In other words, for Paul the decisive factor on the question of idol-meat is the Law of Love, not any requirement to keep a list of religious rules or holiness code. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can document your claims with Reliable sources, you should add it to Council of Jerusalem: Interpretation. 75.15.206.151 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to. However, my research in this area is not of the formal, academic type. It's not original research, but I haven't kept careful track of my sources. I make the case based on the text of the Bible itself, but I'm sure that woudn't fly with stricter Wikipedians. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Supersessionists and Dispensationalists"?
The introductory paragraph currently contains this sentence: "Supersessionists and Dispensationalists believe this replaces or completes the previous Law of Moses of the Hebrew Bible." Is there any major Christian group that denies that the Law of Christ (whatever it is) does that? If not, why confuse the issue by naming those groups? Those two polysyllabic terms seem unnecessarily technical for a general audience, especially since they make a distinction that pertains mainly to evangelical protestantism and are not particularly relevant in discussing Christianity in general. Would there be any objections to changing that sentence to read, "Most Christians...."? --Ruckabumpkus (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Most Christians" is vague. It could be challenged with Template:who?. Why dumb down wikipedia? Supersessionists and Dispensationalists are the groups that make this claim, that this turns out to be most Christians is largely irrelevant. 75.15.196.107 (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, for information, "a Christian group" that disputes this claim is Dual-covenant theology. 75.15.196.107 (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. That's what I was wondering. As for "dumbing down" Wikipedia, the other ditch to avoid is making the articles so technical that they're useful only to those who are conversant in the jargon of the topic-- folks who won't look to Wikipedia for information anyway. I recently tried to use Wikipedia to understand a medical term and had to go four-deep into hyperlinks to make sense of it. It was less than helpful. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

New Layout
Today I did a major edit to this article by presenting it in a new layout. The law of Christ is now treated under different sections as it appears in the bible in I expanded on the law of Christ as it appears in the Pauline Epistles, by including some quotes as it appears in the epistle to the Romans. There are much more references to the law of Christ in the Pauline epistles, Epistle of James and the Gospel that need to be included in this article in the future. Alan347 (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the book of Acts
 * Pauline Epistles
 * Epistle of James
 * Gospel


 * It would have been good if you had discussed this before doing it. You radically changed the article by interpreting the phrase "law of Christ" much more expansively than the article did before. This was an article about a relatively minor topic, a phrase that occurs exactly once in the Bible, and you appear to be making it into a general treatise about the role of divine law in Christian doctrine. Such an article might be appropriate, but it should not go under the title of "Law of Christ." Furthermore, what you have written reflects a particular doctrinal stance that is not accepted by all Christians and therefore fails to meet Wikipedia's NPOV standard. If there are no objections, I plan to revert the article to what it was before you began editing. If there is no Wikipedia article that already covers divine law in Christian doctrine, you are free to create one. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hearing no objections, I did it. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The law of Christ is not a minor topic but a very broad one. The law of Christ is Christ himself in his person. All Christians accept that. That is why Christians follow Christ himself. One who does not really harken to the inner voice with the heart of a child does not follow the light and the impulse of the Holy Spirit. Such a person carries out the law only as a serf under the rule of sin whereby inevitably the will of man begins to choose what is opposed to the law. It is through the grace of Christ exalted in glory, the gift of the third person of God the Holy Spirit that dominion of sin is broken and the law of Christ brought to effect. So that then man fulfilfs the law of Christ, and this he does not as though he is under the law, but as a free man.Alan347 (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the topic of divine law in Christian doctrine is a broad topic and deserving of a bigger article than this one. What I disagree with is your view that "the law of Christ" is an appropriate umbrella term for that topic. To say that it is is to make an interpretive move that many Christians (me, for instance) would disagree with. Please consider the existing "See also" links and/or create a new one for a place to put your contributions. Furthermore, the content you/ve put in the article reflects a doctrinal slant, a POV that's inappropriate for Wikipedia. What you've written looks more like a theological treatise than an encyclopedia article. I happen to agree with some of your doctrinal slant, but that's not the point. Doctrinal slant is POV. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The law of Christ is an appropriate term for the topic of divine law in Christian doctrine because in Christian doctrine, the law of Christ is Christ himself in his person. Alan347 (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That is, as you understand Christian doctrine. I'm fairly well versed in Christian doctrine, and the formulation, "the law of Christ is Christ himself in his person" is not one I'm familiar with. It sounds like an assertion I would mostly agree with, but I'd want to have some conversation about it. In my tradition (informed by Brother Martin of Erfurt), we'd be more likely to speak of the "reign of Christ." In my opinion, law is the wrong lens for interpreting the message of Jesus Christ. He brings no new law, but replaces the Law with his reign of grace, mercy and love. Now, if you want to add a section that says something like, "In {name-of-demonination} teaching, the law of Christ is understood to refer more broadly to {description-of-concept} {reference}," followed by some elaboration on that, I would have no objection.


 * But the other issue is the tone of the text you were putting in the article. As I stated above, it was sounding more like a theological treatise than an encyclopedia article. You were asserting your understanding of the law of Christ as if you were expounding a doctrine and arguing the case for it rather than objectively stating what the doctrine is and according to whom. (See also WP:OR) Ruckabumpkus (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The law of Christ is Christ himself in his person because Christ fulfilled the law and thus showed that it is he himself. No other person can fulfill the law except Jesus because no other person is the law. We now live in grace given to us because of Jesus' gift exalted in glory that is the Holy Spirit. But you see, the law of Christ, is Christ himself in his person. Alan347 (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and I don't necessarily disagree (though I would phrase things differently). My point is that that's not the way to say it in an encyclopedia article. Because it's a doctrinal interpretation and not objectively verifiable, you can't just state it as a fact like that. We need you to spell out, according to whom, and give a reference. Is it official Catholic teaching? Then say, "According to Catholic doctrine,...." and tell us where we might look it up for ourselves. Is it the opinion of a prominent academic theologian or two? Then say "According to [name(s)],...." and include what books or journal articles we would find it in. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, one reason I'm skeptical of your assertion that "the law of Christ is Christ himself," is that it doesn't make sense in the context of the one place in the Bible where the phrase occurs, Galatians 6:2. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't limit the law of Christ to the context of the one place in the Bible where the phrase occurs but we need to understand the law of Christ in the context of the many place in which it is referred to in the Bible. Let's take as case in point Romans 8 that speaks about the law of the Spirit which gives life in Christ Jesus. Bernard Haring's 3 volume work The Law of Christ explains the law of Christ as being Christ himself. What is the law ? does it exist apart from God? Of course not! The law is such and not otherwise because God is such and not otherwise. How could the law exist apart from God!?


 * I'm not limiting it to that. But the fact is, the idea that "the law of Christ is Christ himself" does not help explain what Paul means by "the law of Christ" in Galatians 6:2 but only makes it more confusing. Whether Paul means other phrases, such as "the law of the Spirit," as synonymous with "the law of Christ" is another question for discussion. If he does, and if he means "the law of Christ" to refer to "Christ himself," then one has to wonder why Paul didn't say "Christ himself" instead of "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ" in Romans 8:2.


 * As for Bernhard Häring, his writings are hardly definitive. His views represent a dissident strand of Catholic theology. Now that I know where your thesis comes from, I would say that it would indeed be appropriate to add a section to the Law of Christ article summarizing Häring's views, as long as you're careful not to imply that his views are normative in Christian theology (just as I would not presume to imply that Brother Martin of Erfurt's opinions are normative outside of the tradition I'm a part of). For myself, I continue to believe that law is not the right lens for understanding Jesus. See Galatians 3:23-26 (in context, of course). Ruckabumpkus (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Haring unfortunately did a grave error towards the end of his life. How dare he say that the use of contraceptives is right when the Pope said it is not? Haring's arguments in that matter are outright stupid. As regards the Law of Christ though, I quite agree with Haring and perhaps it would be my thesis for my Masters in 3 more years when I finish my B.A theology. If God Wants! Alan347 (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, though, that his views on contraception flow naturally from his opinions about Christian ethics. That said, a summary of Häring's views would be a good addition to the article, and I encourage you to contribute one. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No they don't. I've read his The law of Christ and Free and Faithful in Christ and they are way too beautiful for such a horrendous idea of using contrecptives! Haring was talking about Morality as a response to God's call in our lives. Even Luther was very right in moving for the re-establishment of the Bible that was apparently being lost in 17th Century Catholicism. Today there are even talks of making Luther a Catholic (universal) saint! That will happen whenever communion is re-established under the one universal Catholic Church with the incorporation of Luther's objections ! Allelulia. Alan347 (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take your word for that, since you've studied Häring's ideas more extensively than I have. One could say the same (and the Lutheran World Federation officially has) about Luther's anti-semitic writings in his later years when he had become a grumpy old man afflicted with constant pain from kidney stones. Whether contraception is "horrendous" is another thing Christians of good will disagree about. As for re-establishing communion, the way will be open for conversation about that when Rome agrees that the papacy is a human invention and not divinely instituted. Back to the topic at hand.... I invite you to add a section to this article that summarizes Häring's views on the law of Christ. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You see when married couples use contraceptives they are dictating to God the way they want their family to be run in an un-natural way. As regards to the Papal institution, it is biblical, established by Jesus and Historical. Luther was a sincere man that is why he did what he did. We refer to Luther as a reformer because even though what he did caused a separation, it influenced a reformation within the Church.

Bernard Haring's argument is like this: The law of Christ is Christ himself in his person because Jesus was able to fulfill the law and provide us with the effect of this fulfillment.Alan347 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand the rationale behind Rome's prohibition of contraception (and find it most unpersuasive), but that's off the topic of this page (as are the historical orgins of the papacy, and whether Luther separated himself from Rome or was excommunicated in a political power play after making a cogent argument why his views should be accepted within the Church catholic). I would love to dialog with you about such topics, as well as why I think interpreting Jesus in terms of law is misguided (hint: the legalistic Pharisees completely misunderstood him, and see Mark 2:21-22), but in another forum.


 * Here's the main point I'm trying to get across on the topic of how to improve Wikipedia's article on the Law of Christ (which is what this page is about): It would be perfectly fine to include some words like, "The Catholic theologian, Bernhard Häring, argues that the law of Christ is Christ himself in his person, because Jesus was able to fulfill the law and provide us with the effect of this fulfillment," followed by an elaboration of that argument, with appropriate footnotes. What's not okay is to simply assert something like, "The law of Christ is Christ himself in his person because Jesus was able to fulfill the law and provide us with the effect of this fulfillment," with merely a footnote pointing to Häring's book. Because it's a matter of opinion, it's important to clarify both (1) that it is an opinion, and (2) whose opinion it is. Otherwise we run afoul of Wikipedia's NPOV standard. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes something like that about how Haring writes about the law of Christ looks fine. I hope that you agree with me that the use of contraceptives is wrong. The arguments presented may be way to philosophical but after all this is biblical. You cannot make out of a gift a possession can you ? Alan347 (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I look forward to seeing your contribution along those lines. (Regarding contraception, no, I don't agree with you that it's necessarily wrong. In my opinion, that judgment looks a lot like the Pharisees' condemning Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. You may read the discussion in the first section above for some of my thinking on the topic of Christian law.) Ruckabumpkus (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, there is an article on the topic of Christian law, it's called Biblical law in Christianity. 75.15.204.56 (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Bernard Häring's thesis
Alan347, I see you added the sentence we discussed above. Thanks. It would still be appropriate, if you're willing to do it, to add a whole new section fleshing out Häring's thesis. (Or maybe you're still working on that.) I'm not sure what "The law of Christ is Christ himself in his person" means. In particular, I suspect Häring, a native German speaker, uses the word law in a sense slightly different from its usual meaning in English. My German is not nearly good enough to figure that out, but I wonder if the range of meaning of law as he uses the word includes what we would call reign, authority or dominion. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The way Haring uses the word law is as it is used in Romans 8. While when confronted with the law, on one hand we perceive that we lack perfection because we see our shortcomings, 'condemnation will never come to those who are in Christ Jesus, because the law of the Spirit which gives life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.' Also we can refer to the famous Galatians 3: 'You stupid people in Galatia! After you have had a clear picture of Jesus Christ crucified (The law of Christ), right in front of your eyes, who has put a spell on you? (the spell of the law of sin and of death). The Old covenant law was a law of sin and of death while the New covenant law is essentially a law of grace, of 'the inner impulse of the Holy Spirit'. The approach I take when studying The law of Christ is comprehensive because it is a leitmotif in New Testament. Alan347 (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That differs from the way I understand Paul to be using the word law (νομος) in Romans and his other epistles. The usual meaning of the word, in both Greek and English, implies something like a codified list of rules, statutes and ordinances, such as we find in Deuteronomy. As a Jewish technical term, it translates torah, which also has the connotation of "instruction" or "teaching," and refers in particular to the text of the Pentateuch. I'm not aware of the phrase, "law of grace" being used anywhere in the Bible; in fact, it sounds like an oxymoron to me. See Romans 6:14, where Paul asserts that believers are "not under law but under grace." As I read the New Testament, I do not find the law of Christ to be anything close to a "leitnotif," unless you're defining law expansively.


 * And I'm still confused about what "The law of Christ is Christ himself in his person" means. I understand each of the words, and the sentence parses as standard English, but it's not making sense to me, unless it amounts to a redefinition of the word law, which I don't think any of the New Testament writers were doing. It sounds as nonsensical as, for instance, "The song of the minstrel is his dog." On the other hand, I do find in John's Gospel a couple of related concepts. John 1:1ff teaches that Word of God is Christ himself, and John 14:6 that the Way of Christ is Christ himself. Is that what Häring is getting at? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. That's it! Alan347 (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, that helps. Are you saying that Häring construes law of Christ as synonymous with word of God or way of Christ? If so, I understand the concept better but still wouldn't agree. I think it's important to distinguish law and gospel. They are not synonyms, and we misunderstand the whole concept of the Word of God if we don't see it as including both. (BTW, the word gospel often provides an occasion for confusion between Catholics and Lutherans. Catholics typically understand gospel as referring to the overall story of Jesus, while Lutherans hear it more specifically as denoting the message of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.) But you don't have to persuade me that Häring is right. For the purposes of this article, it is sufficient to explain his thesis coherently. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The law of Christ is Christ himself
Hi Ruckabumpkus and all. As a continuation with that discussion, I wanted to look at it from another perspective. By focusing on


 * 1 Cor 15, 45: "The first man Adam became a living being, the last man Adam, a life-giving spirit."

We can understand this in this way: To the eyes of God (from the perspective of eternity) man is not the first man, Adam, who became a living being without some finalizing reference to the second Adam, who was life-giving Spirit (confer Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale, 12)

In the Garden of Eden, man had the opportunity to choose the tree of life. We know that it is Jesus who is the way, the truth and the life - from an eternal perspective which includes the temporal). This means that he already was the way, the truth and the life way back in the Garden of Eden (from a temporal perspective). Since Adam did not choose Jesus then, Jesus came here to take that decision upon himself so that sin was swallowed up by God. Again, this must be seen from the temporal perspective. From the eternal perspective, God already knew what man would do and so devised time so as to have its fullness with the incarnation which was orientated towards his death and resurrection (confer Galatians 4, 4 and John 7, 8).

Alan347 (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said when I previously removed this section, talk pages are not for analysis of the subject. We report published analyses, not our own. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note my references to the already published analyses (2nd paragraph: The Bible) (3rd paragraph: Mysterium Paschale). I only explained it further in the 4th paragraph with the intention to direct attention to a particular stance towards which the article can be directed. This is encouraged in user talk pages. If this stance reaches consensus, we can then research it out and quote from the relevant already published sources (there are plenty !). Please allow for user interaction. Alan347 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Bible is a WP:PRIMARY source, not an "already published analysis".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, it still allows for consideration for a primary source remains at source, a source. Alan347 (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to flesh out Häring's thesis with further explanation of what he means by it (footnoting his writings), that could be a helpful addition to the article. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

So if we understand that man is not man without reference to Christ, we can also understand Douglas J. Moo's point that the law of Christ is a continuation from the Mosaic law for 'Jesus has not come to abolish the law but to perfect it'. God was already instructing man to conform to Christ in the Old Testament. But it is Christ in his person who is the law. From the eyes of eternity (non-temporal), Adam is not the first Adam, without reference to Christ who came in the fullness of time to give out the life-giving Spirit. On Holy Saturday, Jesus' life received its orientation. Continuing its course, it led him to the passivity of Hades, the place of the dead, where in the sin-solidarity with man he had taken upon himself, he met all those who had died up till then who where expecting salvation from him. 'The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.' On Easter he arose back into the visible realm of existence, giving the life-giving spirit: 'peace be with you'. He ascended into heaven and at Pentecost gave out the empowering of the Holy Spirit. Time is ordered to the Jesus-event. Alan347 (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I disagree with Moo's point (though it's fine to have it mentioned in the article). It seems fairly clear to me that whatever "the Law of Christ" is, it's something discontinuous from the Law of Moses. As I've stated elsewhere, I think the category of law is a misleading framework for understanding Jesus Christ. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article: ? The problem with your theory is that if you actually read the New Testament as a whole, instead of just selected verses, there are lots of references back to Old Testament law. Another article you may want to read is Antinomianism. 75.15.204.56 (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that I haven't exactly laid out my "theory," I find it curious that you have identified "the problem" with it. I am, in fact, in the habit of reading the whole New Testament in context of the whole Old Testament. You are correct that there are "lots of references back to Old Testament law," but Jesus and the apostles do not give anything like a clear-cut endorsement of the Law of Moses, or any subset of it, as being essential to Christian practice or discipleship, except insofar as it reflects the law of love. One would search the New Testament in vain for any definitive list of rules or statutes or ordinances or decrees, the keeping of which makes one a Christian, or the violation of which makes one not a Christian. Christianity is not about law-following, but about Christ-following. If this is antinomianism, and I don't think it is, then the Apostle Paul was an antinomian. Read Galatians. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's all a big debate. You can read mostly about it in Biblical law in Christianity. There is an article called Abrogation of Old Covenant laws, perhaps you'd like to contribute to it. I think a lot of Christians have your viewpoint, but it is difficult to find Reliable sources that state it for use in wikipedia. You might also want to check out Gundry's Five Views on Law and Gospel. 75.15.204.56 (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Maintaining the Christocentricty in The law of Christ
The less we get lost in discussions about individual sayings and norms, the more we turn our attention, in faith, to Jesus. He is not only the presupposition but the centre of the New Testament. Thus the real history of Jesus is "always happening afresh; it is now the history of the exalted Lord, but it does not cease to be the earthly history it once was, in which the call and claim of the Gospel are encountered." (Bernhard Haring, Free and Faithful in Christ, Vol. I, pg. 25; Ernst Käsemann, The Problem of the Historical Jesus in Essays on the New Testament Themes); Karl Barth Alan347 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. I mean, I think I agree with the above statement, but what point are you making about how to improve the article? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it relate to the premise that the Law of Christ is Christ himself ? Alan347 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How? If Käsemann, Barth, et al., have insightful opinions about the law of Christ, please feel free to cite them in the article. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise it's Original Research and should be deleted from the article, as I just did. Reliable sources only please, and of course they have to be about the "Law of Christ" as that is what this article is about, they can't be some sort of original synthesis. Sorry, nothing personal, these are just wikipedia policies. 75.15.204.56 (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Also mentioned in another epistle from Paul
I Corinthians 9:21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.--174.45.204.216 (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

But the text doesn't have "under Christ's law", it has "under the law to Christ". Which may or may not be equivalent, ennomos may just have the meaning of "being under legal obligation to" without postulating that there is actually a separate law specific to the person you are "law-bound" to. --dab (𒁳) 12:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Law of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100827013625/http://www.djmoo.com/articles/fulfillmentoflaw.pdf to http://www.djmoo.com/articles/fulfillmentoflaw.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)