I don't think this answered my question or if it did, I don't get it.
You seem to think that the law was not done away with but rather replaced. Replaced with what?
What must one do to get saved and what must one do to remain that way?
During the previous dispensation it was, "Follow the Law of Moses."
You say that now its "Follow the Law of Christ." except that you don't seem to be able to clearly articulate what the Law of Christ even is. Further, Christ Himself said when asked, "What shall I do to be saved?", answered by listing off the Ten Commandments (i.e. the Law of Moses).
Matthew 19:6 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
In that same passage Jesus tells the guy to go sell everything he has and follow Him. Is that what you mean by the Law of Christ, the Law of Moses plus giving away all your earthly possessions?
I don't think that is what you mean so forgive my touch of sarcasm but, all kidding aside, I'd bet that if someone where to make such an argument, you'd have no way of refuting the idea that we should follow the Commandments plus X, Y & Z that Jesus added.
Have I misunderstood you?
--------------
Now, leaving that all aside, I think I've figured out really what has me frustrated with our conversation, or at least a big part of it anyway. It goes back to what I was saying at the beginning of this conversation.
This whole issue is about big picture sort of issues. Ideas that effect the whole theological system of the Christian faith. I keep coming at you from a top down, big picture perspective where these systemic ideas inform and clarify the details almost automatically and then your responses are from the opposite direction. Your paradigm, (and that of most Christians), starts with the details and resolves a big picture based on those details.
The problem with such a bottom up response to my top down arguments is that they are only valid arguments from your own paradigm, which is itself based on those details. Its a form of begging the question.
Its a fallacy that I can't really blame you for committing because you cannot see any other course of action - yet. But it is precisely the fact that any bottom up approach leads to unavoidable question begging that demonstrates that a top down approach is always superior, even if you get some of the details wrong.
Its the difference between trying to solve a 50,000 piece jigsaw puzzle with or without the box cover. It a lot easier when the details have an overall context within which they are understood. Without the box top, a puzzle piece might look like clouds or whipped cream or cotton or snow, etc but with the box top, you know
instantly that its actually the vapor trail off the back end of a booster rocket.
My whole argument boils down to this. The less interpretation that is needed, the better. The more you can just read the bible and let it say what it seems to say without parsing words or it causing theological conflicts, either real or imagined, the better. If a theological system could be found that resolves many diverse and seemingly unrelated theological conflicts in an eloquent manner (i.e. simple to understand and explain), that system would be objectively superior than any system that could not do so or that did the reverse.
Acts 9 Dispensationalism effortlessly resolves the following doctrinal issues....
- Where the need for Paul's ministry?
- Why the Twelve agreed with Paul to forgo the Great Commission and minister only to Israel?
- Why the Twelve (and the Holy Spirit) insisted, upon pain of death, that their followers sell all their possessions and their lands and turn in the proceeds to the Twelve?
- Can believer's lose their salvation?
- Should believers observe the Sabbaths and Feasts?
- Should believers only eat cosher foods? (Yep! There's LOTS of Christians that think you should!)?
- Are believers required to obey the Ten Commandments?
- Must we continually ask God for the forgiveness of our daily sins (The Lord's Prayer) or are we already forgiven?
- Will Christians go through all, part or none of the Tribulation?
- Is the Rapture really going to happen?
- Are believers required to get water baptized?
- Should believers speak in tongues and perform and/or witness physical miracles?
- Etc, etc, etc!
It resolves all of these issues and many more and does so without needed to have a PhD. in religious studies or even an education past about the 3rd grade.
I cannot comprehend what stronger argument for the veracity of a theological system could possibly be made!
Now, of course, whether the system actually does those things is, in your mind, still an open question and as I've said many times already, establishing these claims is a task well beyond what can be effectively done in a forum such as this. There are several books, many of which are several hundred pages long, dedicated to the task. I suppose I could just copy whole sections of these works and post them here but something tells me that the copyright holders would take offense at my doing so and you'd likely not read such a lengthy post anyway. I invite you to revisit
post 59 in which I posted a short excerpt from Bob Enyart's book, The Plot. In fact, I wish I could convince you to read that whole book!
Resting in Him,
Clete
. I want cut and paste them where and when useful? Thank you.