YES or NO: Do The 10 Commandments Still Apply To Us Today? [Archive]

DesertScroll

18th October 2007, 09:28 AM

YES or NO: Do The 10 Commandments Still Apply To Us Today?

Please feel free to explain your answer as much as you wish.

Here is a bit of Scripture to help get the discussion started.

Matthew 5:17-19

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Yes and no.

The law is good and has a purpose.

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promises had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator. Gal 3:19
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father and mother, for murders, fornicators, sodomites, slavetraders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. 1 Tim 8-11

That purpose, for those under the law (both the one given and the natural law) is to condemn. And in this condemnation points to the need of something greater, Christ.

For "no human being will be justified in his sight" by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. Rom 3:20

All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. Rom 2:12

So, because the law (both given and natural) cannot save, but only condemn (and both are good at that and serve a purpose) we as Christians live under Christ and not the law.

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.... and that you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. Rom 6: 14 and 18

We are commanded by Christ to obey him.

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. John 14:15 (see also Matt 22:37-40 for loving God with heart and mind and one's neighbor as himself)

Living in Christ is freedom in that one does not follow rules for the sake of the rule, nor precepts for the sake of the precepts (a system in which one can technically keep the commands, but fail in the spirit or the reason why the law was given (see Matt 12:12 and Mark 2:27).
But it is also more strict in that one must pay attention to the reasons why a law is given and not just to the letter (lawyers are not needed in Christ's commandments).

Now there is no way one can live up to the commands of Jesus, and we will fail if we try on our own. Which is why we live in and by the Spirit.

Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Phil 2:12,13

Which if it is God doing the work, with us not trying to do things by our own will, we have nothing to boast about but Christ himself.

He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, in order that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord." 1 Cor 1:30,31 (see also Eph 2:8,9)

So no we do not follow the ten commandments. But yes, in that we follow Christ and his commandments under grace by allowing the Spirit to work in us. And the ten commandments are found there within as they are not contrary to Christ's commandments. As the verse you posted points out, he did not abolish the law, he fulfills it.
And of course one way to test spirits is to see if they are telling someone to disobey God's commands. If a spirit tells one that the ten commandments are useless or something that contradicts God's words, you know it is a false spirit.

annie1speed

22nd October 2007, 06:44 PM

The ten commandments form our basic moral code, but they are not the set of laws of God by which we should abide today.

Should we allow them to be posted in public places like schools and courthouses? Sure - because they serve to remind us of that moral code.

Or .... we could post the two GREAT commandments which Jesus summed up simply as #1 Love God and #2 Love one another.

DeaconDean

23rd October 2007, 03:48 AM

As the Apostle Paul taught:

"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." -Gal. 3:22-25 (KJV)

Paul explains in Romans 7 that the law was given to define what was and wasn't sin.

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." -Rom. 7:7 (KJV)

All the law did was define what was and what wasn't sin, and to direct us to Christ. But once we come to faith in Jesus Christ:

"for ye are not under the law, but under grace." -Rom. 6:14 (KJV)

And besides, Jesus showed us that all of the law could be fulfilled in us by just following two commandments:

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." -Mt. 22:37-40 (KJV)

And sadly, we can't even do this.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Albion

23rd October 2007, 09:59 AM

Although he gave a New Commandment, Jesus retained the Ten Commandments. The answer, therefore, appears to be "yes."

Does your question contemplate the way in which we still observe them?

DerSchweik

27th October 2007, 10:29 PM

DeaconDean

27th October 2007, 11:05 PM

Without "going theological" and going hypothetical instead - if they are NOT applicable, which ones no longer apply? Which ones are Christians free to ignore?

Can we have other gods before Him? NO
Can we make idols for ourselves and worship/serve them? NO
Can we take the name of God in vain? NO
Can we ignore the Sabbath? Um, topic for theological discussion ("Is there a NT Sabbath?")
Can we dishonor our parents? NO
Can we murder? NO
Can we commit adultery? NO
Can we steal? NO
Can we bear false witness? NO
Can we covet? NOThe Sabbath, I realize is a complex, technical issue.

But there is no debate, there can be no debate on the other 9 whatsoever, can there? And I would even argue for a "NT Sabbath" - but that is another topic.

So, my answer would be, "Yes, they do apply."

In His Love,

Let me ask you a question.

To whom were the Ten Commandments and the Law given?

The Hebrews. of whom God said:

" I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." -Ex. 20:2-3 (KJV)

God was, the God of the Hebrews. Who had brought whom out of bondage?

The Hebrews.

There was no provision in the commandments, no provision in the Law for the Egyptians.

In fact, there was no provision for any Gentile.

Naahman the leper, when cured, carried away sand, dirt, in order to worship the Hebrew God on.

Ruth converted to Judahism.

The law, and in fact, the commandments were about nothing but separation.

In the temple, the Gentiles were separated from the Hebrews. The women were even further separated.

Jesus tore down the middle wall of separation.

The old law, even though it was "holy, just, and good," had its flaws:

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." -Heb. 8:7 (KJV)

The one thing the commandments and the law could not do was to make one righteous. That only comes through Jesus Christ.

"I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." -Gal. 2:21 (KJV)

Even when Jesus said:

"1Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." -Mt. 5:19 (KJV)

He was preaching to the Jews. And before the New Covenant was established.

Even when Jesus replied to the lawyer, He said:

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." -Mt. 22:36-40 (KJV)

He was answering a Jew.

We are under grace, not the law, neither the commandments. Paul puts it very plain:

"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." -Rom. 6:14-18 (KJV)

I don't know why people still insist on placing man back under the law in all its forms.

We have been made free from the law and the commandments through Jesus Christ.

If you serve the Law, then:

"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." -Gal. 5:4 (KJV)

We are under grace, the grace God gives.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Vambram

28th October 2007, 12:45 AM

:amen: A most excellent post, DeaconDean. :amen: :thumbsup:

DerSchweik

28th October 2007, 01:19 AM

Let me ask you a question.

To whom were the Ten Commandments and the Law given?

The Hebrews. of whom God said:

" I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." -Ex. 20:2-3 (KJV)

God was, the God of the Hebrews. Who had brought whom out of bondage?

The Hebrews.

There was no provision in the commandments, no provision in the Law for the Egyptians.

In fact, there was no provision for any Gentile.

Naahman the leper, when cured, carried away sand, dirt, in order to worship the Hebrew God on.

Ruth converted to Judahism.

The law, and in fact, the commandments were about nothing but separation.

In the temple, the Gentiles were separated from the Hebrews. The women were even further separated.

Jesus tore down the middle wall of separation.

The old law, even though it was "holy, just, and good," had its flaws:

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." -Heb. 8:7 (KJV)

The one thing the commandments and the law could not do was to make one righteous. That only comes through Jesus Christ.

"I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." -Gal. 2:21 (KJV)

Even when Jesus said:

"1Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." -Mt. 5:19 (KJV)

He was preaching to the Jews. And before the New Covenant was established.

Even when Jesus replied to the lawyer, He said:

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." -Mt. 22:36-40 (KJV)

He was answering a Jew.

We are under grace, not the law, neither the commandments. Paul puts it very plain:

"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." -Rom. 6:14-18 (KJV)

I don't know why people still insist on placing man back under the law in all its forms.

We have been made free from the law and the commandments through Jesus Christ.

If you serve the Law, then:

"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." -Gal. 5:4 (KJV)

We are under grace, the grace God gives.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Goodness... I truly didn't intend to stir up such a response.

Dean, what you say is true, but, this isn't a question of Law or grace. That is entirely not the point here - at least not mine.

The point, as stated, is simply - "Do the 10 Commandments still apply to us today?" Meaning: Are they important or irrelevant; with respect to our behavior, not our salvation. That was the point, as I understood it, and as I addressed it.

Grace is awesome! I affirm that we are NOT SAVED by keeping the Law, but by His grace, and His grace alone! HOWEVER - and this was/is my point - does God's grace toward us permit us as Christians to behave in such a way as to:

Have other gods before Him? NO
Make idols for ourselves and worship/serve them? NO
Take the name of God in vain? NO
Ignore the Sabbath? I don't know. Of the ten, this is a "legally" sticky one.
Dishonor our parents? NO
Commit murder? NO
Commit adultery? NO
Steal? NO
Bear false witness? NO
Covet? NOSurely grace does not say "YES" to any of the above does it? --- I'm being rhetorical; I think we both agree - of course it doesn't. "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be!"

And just so I am clear - KEEPING all of the above, believing that in so doing we will be saved, is in no way salvific - case in point: the rich young ruler.

But BREAKING any or all the above, believing we are immune to them, is in no way keeping with His grace either. Therefore, they still apply, as respects our behavior and conduct as Christians.

That was my point.

God bless you as well brother.

DeaconDean

28th October 2007, 03:48 AM

Goodness... I truly didn't intend to stir up such a response.

Dean, what you say is true, but, this isn't a question of Law or grace. That is entirely not the point here - at least not mine.

The point, as stated, is simply - "Do the 10 Commandments still apply to us today?" Meaning: Are they important or irrelevant; with respect to our behavior, not our salvation. That was the point, as I understood it, and as I addressed it.

Grace is awesome! I affirm that we are NOT SAVED by keeping the Law, but by His grace, and His grace alone! HOWEVER - and this was/is my point - does God's grace toward us permit us as Christians to behave in such a way as to:

Have other gods before Him? NO
Make idols for ourselves and worship/serve them? NO
Take the name of God in vain? NO
Ignore the Sabbath? I don't know. Of the ten, this is a "legally" sticky one.
Dishonor our parents? NO
Commit murder? NO
Commit adultery? NO
Steal? NO
Bear false witness? NO
Covet? NOSurely grace does not say "YES" to any of the above does it? --- I'm being rhetorical; I think we both agree - of course it doesn't. "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be!"

And just so I am clear - KEEPING all of the above, believing that in so doing we will be saved, is in no way salvific - case in point: the rich young ruler.

But BREAKING any or all the above, believing we are immune to them, is in no way keeping with His grace either. Therefore, they still apply, as respects our behavior and conduct as Christians.

That was my point.

God bless you as well brother.

No, we'll still differ.

As I stated before, were the Ten commandments given to the Egyptians? No. Were the Ten Commandments given to the Syrians? No. Were the Ten commandments given to the Cannanites? No. They were given to The Hebrews and them only.

Where are the Ten Commandments contained?

In the first five books of the OT, the Torah. And to whom were the Torah given to? The Hebrews.

Peter sat in the first church counsel in Jerusalem and made this statement:

"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." -Acts 15:5-11 (KJV)

Here is a blunt saying by Peter that we are under the age of grace and not under the law. (And whenever I use the term law, it includes the Ten Commandments for they are included in the Law.)

Now you say the Ten Commandments apply to us today nd then you go on to say that your not so sure about the sabbath. Well, why not?

If nine of them apply and one doesn't, then your as guilty as others:

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." -Jas. 2:10 (KJV)

All the law can do, yes, even the Ten Commandmants, is define what is and isn't sin. And show how we can't fulfill it, and to point us to the One who did.

Jesus said:

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." -Jn. 8:32 (KJV)

Did Jesus free us from the Law only to tell us that we're back under it?

Well according to some, yes.

But according to Hebrews 8, that is done away with:

"Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount." -Heb. 8:1-5 (KJV)

The whole priesthood was nothing but a "foreshadow" of the reality that Christ now serves.

"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." -Heb. 8:6 (KJV)

Why? Because Christ mediates a better covenant.

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." -Heb. 8:7-13 (KJV)

The old is gone, (i.e., the Law and the commandments):

"...for ye are not under the law, but under grace." -Rom. 6:14 (KJV)

And no matter how you say it, if you teach you are saved by grace, but you must observe some aspect of the Law, i.e., the Ten Commandments, then that is nothing more than "legalism."

Yes the Law and the Ten commandments do apply, but only up unto the point of salvation. After that, no.

Now my friend, either you do all the Ten Commandments, sabbath worship only included, or don't do them at all.

Remember what James said:

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." -Jas. 2:10 (KJV)

Either you keep all of the 10 Commandments and fulfill all of the law:

"For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." -Gal. 5:3 (KJV)

Because:

"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." -Gal. 5:4 (KJV)

Or you follow as Paul taught:

"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." -Gal. 3:23-25 (KJV)

If you want to believe that not only are you saved by grace, but yet still under the law, inasmuchas we still have to observe the 10 commandments, then your doing the same thing Paul fault against. Trying to tell me that "legalism" is justified.

I have come to know the truth, and the truth has set me free:

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." -Jn. 8:32 (KJV)

Free from what? Free from the bondage of sin, free from the law, I'm free, free, free.

God Bless

Till all are one.

VYarlo

28th October 2007, 03:54 AM

Can any of you tell me ONE THING that is wrong about the ten commandments? There is nothing wrong with them. They were commanded. They are commandments. We are to fear God and obey his commandments. What, do you think God wants you, suddenly because its "new testament time", that he would want you to covet? or kill? or steal? no. and we are still not to have graven images and idols. After one of the apostles preached in the book of acts, numerous people in town burned and melted down all their idols. Only wolves in sheep's clothing would say that we need not obey the commandments.

VYarlo

28th October 2007, 03:57 AM

John14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Mat5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

VYarlo

28th October 2007, 03:58 AM

> Ignore the Sabbath? I don't know. Of the ten, this is a "legally" sticky one.

what--- so, you see 9 others and say "NO", all written on the same tablet... but ... you can't figure out this one??? its NO also.

VYarlo

28th October 2007, 04:01 AM

> We have been made free from the law and the commandments through Jesus Christ.

Gee, someone oughta tell that to JESUS.

We have been made free from the curse of the law. The law is still good, and godly Christians will bear good fruit and do lawful acts and not live in lawlessness.

DerSchweik

28th October 2007, 04:07 AM

No, we'll still differ.

Ok. God bless...

DeaconDean

28th October 2007, 04:22 AM

In fact, didn't Paul teach us that even the 10 commandments which are included in the law, were they not:

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;' -Col. 2:14 (KJV)

They were nailed to the cross with Jesus. They died with Jesus.

And when they died with Jesus, God started writting them on our hearts. We serve God not because the law or the Ten Commandments say so, we do it not only because its the right thing to do. But because we want to!

But since I'm so wrong, I'll just bow out.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Vambram

28th October 2007, 07:22 AM

DeaconDean

29th October 2007, 12:24 AM

Yes or No, do the 10 commandments still apply to us today?

I have argued again and again, that the Law, all 613 precepts, do not apply to us. Using Romans 6:14 as my base, let's dive in and see what do the scriptures say, not me, but what do God's word say about this.

"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." -Rom. 6:14 (KJV)

The first thing we need to do, is look at one Greek word, and the word we shall concern ourselves with here is the Greek word "gar" - gar. Strongs number 1063, and it is defined as:

"a casual participle or conjunction, for; it is, however, frequently used with an ellipsis of the clause to which it has reference, and its force must then be variously expressed; it is sometimes epexegetic, or introductory of an intimated detail of circumstances, now, then, to wit"

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, gar, p. 76.

So, our word "gar" (for) is a conjuction which connects verse 13 with verse 14. However, in verse 14, the second "gar" (for) is epexegetic because it introduces and new set of circumstances. Donald G. Barnhouse comments:

"The first announces a change of sovereigns. The second announces the resulting change in condition...Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are not under law, but this does not mean we are lawless; far from it. But just as the Black person in the 1860's could never rise so long as he was living under slavery, so the Christian can rise to no spiritual heights so long as he is living under legalism."

Donald G. Barnhouse, Romans, Vol. III, Eerdmans Pub., Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1961, God's Freedom, Yeilded Lives, p. 131.

The word "law" has at least five different meanings in Romans. The first is its widest meaning in that it means the whole legal principle - the law as applied to every man, both Jew and Gentile. The second is used primarily with the definate article and refers to the Law as given to Moses. The third is the law which references all the law except the 10 commandments (i.e., Sacrifical, ritual, ceremonal, etc.). And the fourth and fifth refer to the law as it applies to the believer. Again, to quote Barnhouse:

"Beyond question, the usage in our text is the first one. There is not the slightest reference to the Law of Moses, for this is not addressed to the Jews, but Gentiles, who were distinctly excluded (emphasis mine) from the benefits presented to Israel alone. We Gentiles, who never had the Law of Moses, are saved through grace alone, even as they. We are not under the principle of the Law, but under grace."

Ibid, p. 132.

Here, I must add scriptures:

"And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him." -Heb. 7:7-10 (KJV)

Since God set aside the foundation of this divinely given religion, He also replaced the legal structure of that religion by a new set of principles. To illustrate, when our constitution is amended, the old law is set aside, it is changed, and a new constitution is issued. And that is the principle set forth in Heb. 7:12:

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

To paraphrase, when there is a change in presidency, there is necessarily a change in the constitution as well.

We Gentiles, never were under the Law of Moses and were therefore in total dispair until God established a new conststution, a new covenant, a new birth. He saw to it the temple was overthrown, the priesthood destroyed, blood sacrifices abolished, and the door flung open for all members of the human race. Sin shall not have dominion over the children of this new covenant, for we are not sworn to obey a set of rules; we are set free from all rules in order to be possessed by the Lord Jesus Christ, who gives us freely what we could not acquire by ourselves.

The doctrine of pure grace stirs up much animosity. Man refuses to admit his spiritual bankruptcy, and this is an admission which must precede the understanding of grace. it was a tragic day when the Reformation churches wrote the 10 Commandments into their creeds and catechisms and sought to bring Gentile believers into bondage to Jewish Law, which was never intended either for the Gentile nations, or for the church.

Here, in Rom. 6:14, the words "under the law," are "upo nomon." Which mean: "upo - under, subjection to; nomon - a law, a rule, standard."

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, nomon, p. 284, upo, p. 420.

A similar set of circumstances is applied when paul wrote to the Christians at Corinth:

"To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law." -1 Cor. 9:21 (KJV)

Paul never presented the demands of the Mosaic Law, since Gentiles were not under the Law, and certainly could not produce the righteousness demanded by it; even the Jews could not furnish righteousness under the Law. Paul, therefore, acted toward the heathen as though the law of Moses did not exist.

Here, I shall close and quote Barnhouse one final time:

"We are not under the law. What confusion has arisen because Christians have read the Bible and put themselves in the place of Israel as being under a law-relationship with God. The law was never given to the Egyptians, it was given to Israel. It was not given to the Canaanites, it was given to Israel. It was not given to the Romans, it was given to Israel. It was not given to the Greeks, it was given to Israel...The law wasn't given to the Americans, it was given to Israel. The law was not given to believers in Christ, it ws given to Israel. When we comprehend this fact we shall be free from the bondage which comes from living under a cloud of commandments, (emphasis mine) and enter into the freedom - the glorious liberty - of the children of God."

Donald G. Barnhouse, Romans, Vol. III, Eerdmans Pub., Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1961, God's Freedom, Not Law but Grace, p. 139.

Those of us who preach this truth are frequently accused of preaching lawlessness, but this is a lie straight from the devil. Freedom from the law is not lawlessness, but holiness under grace! The Gentiles have a moral responsibility to God, but they are under no set of rules, and neither are those who have believed in Jesus Christ and His atoning work. Free from legalism, they are free to live the life of grace.

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean

29th October 2007, 12:28 AM

Can any of you tell me ONE THING that is wrong about the ten commandments? There is nothing wrong with them.

Paul said:

"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.' -Rom. 7:12 (KJV)

But it was not perfect, and it had several fatal flaws, or faults, if you will. We read:

"For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:" -Heb. 8:8 (KJV)

And, the law, 10 commandments included, could not impute the righteousness of God to men:

"I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." -Gal. 2:21 (KJV)

Another fault of the 10 Commandments was:

"Thou shalt not commit adultery." -Ex. 20:14 (KJV)

Yet Jesus, God in the flesh, said:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." -Mt. 5:27-28 (KJV)

The Old Testament commandment only addressed the actual act. Whereas in the NT, Jesus addresses the intent!

Now, having said that, I'm outta here.

http://bestsmileys.com/computer1/1.gif

God Bless

Till all are one.

DerSchweik

29th October 2007, 11:44 AM

Paul said:

"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.' -Rom. 7:12 (KJV)

But it was not perfect, and it had several fatal flaws, or faults, if you will. We read:

"For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:" -Heb. 8:8 (KJV)

And, the law, 10 commandments included, could not impute the righteousness of God to men:

"I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." -Gal. 2:21 (KJV)

Deacon - I AGREE WITH YOU ON ALL THE ABOVE!!!

Another fault of the 10 Commandments was:

"Thou shalt not commit adultery." -Ex. 20:14 (KJV)

Yet Jesus, God in the flesh, said:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." -Mt. 5:27-28 (KJV)

The Old Testament commandment only addressed the actual act. Whereas in the NT, Jesus addresses the intent!

Deacon - I AGREE WITH YOU ON ALL THE ABOVE!!! - Please see my comments below.

Now, having said that, I'm outta here.

http://bestsmileys.com/computer1/1.gif

However, I think the above is inappropriate and unnecessary.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Deacon,

In the interest of trying to maintain peace and some decorum here, let me try to clarify - because I fear I have inadvertently loosed some sort of gross misunderstanding here.

I stated that I AGREE with your basic premise
Dean, what you say is true, but, this isn't a question of Law or grace. That is entirely not the point here - at least not mine.

My point was simply in reference to the relevancy of the 10 commandments as respecting our behaviour today.
Are they important or irrelevant; with respect to our behavior, not our salvation.
And I tried to affirm the premise regarding salvation as being by His grace, NOT our keeping of ANY law:
Grace is awesome! I affirm that we are NOT SAVED by keeping the Law, but by His grace, and His grace alone!
This was, and still is, my point - and perhaps it is best to rephrase it with a rhetorical question, picking just one of the Ten Commandments by way of illustration:

"Do you think it is ok for a Christian to (for example) commit adultery?"

If the answer to that is "YES," then we are definitely in disagreement - but I don't think the answer is yes, is it?
If the answer to that is "NO!" then that is my point, as simple as I can make it.These commandments are still relevant to our behavior today inasmuch as it would BE WRONG for a Christian to commit adultery, murder, steal, take the Lord's name in vain, covet, etc. etc. Jesus made the matter even more stringent by - as you rightly pointed out - going so far as to say our behavior begins with the HEART (i.e. - INTENT, as you said).

THAT IS ALL I WAS TRYING TO SAY - that in this sense, and in this sense alone, these commandments are still relevant.

In everything I have read, I see there being no basic disagreement - so the intensity of the response baffles and concerns me.

If I have offended you (or anyone else for that matter) in what I wrote, please forgive me - that was not my intent whatsoever. And please feel free to PM me if you want to discuss it further with me privately - but I think the tenor of the discussion has gotten to the point that I think it prudent we remove ourselves from any further public discussion on this specific topic until whatever the underlying issue is is resolved.

In His grace and love,

Albion

29th October 2007, 01:03 PM

Does the Bible "apply to us today?"

I'd say yes.

What does it say to us?

John14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Mat5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

As was pointed out before, it is the consequence of not living up to the Law that we have been set free from, not the Law itself.

Loveaboveall

30th October 2007, 12:27 PM

Paul said:

"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.' -Rom. 7:12 (KJV)

But it was not perfect, and it had several fatal flaws, or faults, if you will. We read:

There is a bit of a problem with your logic here, I blieve... How can something that is holy be imperfect? How can something that is just be imperfect? David says in Ps 19:7 "The law of the LORD perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD sure, making wise the simple."

Who are we to believe?

"[I]For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:" -Heb. 8:8 (KJV)

Are we to take this verse as saying that the 10 commandments had fault in them? Good reasoning would conclude that it is not speaking of the 10 commandments, for if it were, would God not be unjust? The 10 commandments defined sin, if a person breaks a commandment repentance and confession must be made... If there was/is a fault in them then how could God rightly judge a person by them?

Read the verse before and after along with vs 8 and it will be clear that it is not the 10 commandments but the PEOPLE that God found fault in...

Heb 8:7-9 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

The covenant/promise made by the people was what was at fault because they broke it... That is what made the first covenant faulty, not God's promise or His law...

And, the law, 10 commandments included, could not impute the righteousness of God to men:

"I do not frustrate the grace of God: for [I]if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." -Gal. 2:21 (KJV)

You are absolutely right on this point! The law could not/can not make us perfect/righteous. Any good deed we do makes no difference in our righteousness, it comes completely as a gift of grace from God. Most people get confused with this idea, though. They think if there is nothing they can do to make them righteous then there must not be anything they can do to make them UNrighteous. But is this true? Paul is clear that we still can sin. And sin is unrighteousness, right? If this is true then we can choose to do unrighteousness which can affect our salvation. No, we cannot earn our way to heaven with good works, but we sure can lose our way to heaven with doing evil!

Another fault of the 10 Commandments was:

"Thou shalt not commit adultery." -Ex. 20:14 (KJV)

Yet Jesus, God in the flesh, said:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." -Mt. 5:27-28 (KJV)

The Old Testament commandment only addressed the actual act. Whereas in the NT, Jesus addresses the intent!

Ahh... now you are getting to the crux of the topic! There is a difference between obedience our of love and obedience out of a selfish desire to be saved or be viewed as righteous... One is pleasing to God the other is viewed as sinful, even though there is no fault in the act it is the intent of the person in doing the act... Jesus brought out this very important point... Was He saying that the law to not commit adultery was faulty? or was He bringing out the idea that it is the Spirit of the law, the intention of why one is to keep it that is important?

Loveaboveall

30th October 2007, 12:30 PM

Speaking of the phrase "under the law"....

Who put the Jews "under the law"? Was it God at Sinai, or was it their religious leaders who added many "extra" laws to make sure the people didn't break the law, thus turning their hearts to legalism. Meaning, the people did not obey out of love but out of a fear of retribution.

PROPHECYKID

31st October 2007, 07:27 PM

The 10 commandments still exist for us today. In Moses day he wrote a law which instructed the people as to what their actions should be after they sin. The law told them what they needed to do to be forgiven and to be justified and redeemed in God's sight. This Law included things like offering sacrifices, confession to priests and so on. This was Moses' Law.
Deu 31:24 And it happened when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this Law in a book, until they were finished,
Deu 31:25 Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, saying,
Deu 31:26 Take this book of the Law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God, so that it may be there for a witness against you.
Remember what is bolded it is important.
His law was placed on the side of the ark. Where was God's Law placed?
Deu 10:4 And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me.
Deu 10:5 And I turned and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the LORD commanded me.
The 10 commandments were given to Moses as a reminder. Sin does not exist outside the law.
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Let it not be said! But I did not know sin except through the law. For also I did not know lust except the law said, You shall not lust.
Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, worked in me all kinds of lust. For apart from law sin was dead.
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once. But when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

Paul is saying that without the law there is no sin but once their is the law the sin is present. The reason he died id because of the wages of sin. The commandments births sin and sin results in death but that is where grace now comes in. Grace frees us from the penalty of sin. The law is like a mirror. When we look at it it shows us our faults but it also shows us our need for a Saviour. God's ten commandments were never meant to save anybody.
You are on a beach and a sign says do not go in the water yet, the waves are too dangerous. You go in anyway and you find yourself drowning. Who saved you, the lifeguard of course. The sign is like the law and the lifeguard is Jesus.
1 thing i have to explain as well is this text.

Mat 22:37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the great and first commandment.
Mat 22:39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hangeth the whole law, and the prophets.
Looking at the ten commandments can't you see that the first four is love for God and the last six is ove for man. Notice verse 40 says on these hangs all the law and the prophets. In other words these 2 commandments contain all the old ones.
I now have to explain further Moses law and the old and new covenants in respect to the law. I'll let the bible do most of the talking.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, they can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh.
Heb 10:2 Else would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more conscience of sins?
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year.
Heb 10:4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, But a body didst thou prepare for me;
Heb 10:6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure:
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me) To do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law),

These sacrifices were offered according to the law. Which Law. Does the 10 commandments talk about offering sacrifices. It must be Moses Law.

Heb 9:19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses unto all the people according to the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book (moses wrote his law in a book) itself, and all the people,
Heb 9:20 saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded to you–ward.
Heb 9:21 Moreover the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry he sprinkled in like manner with the blood.
Heb 9:22 And according to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.
Moses Law was a huge part of the first covenant but when jesus died he abolished that Law because:
Heb 9:11 But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation,
Heb 9:12 nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

When Jesus died on the cross he became our high priest and through his eternal sacrifice we do not have to kill a lamb everytime we sin because his blood was shed once and for all for us. Jesus abolished Moses' Law.
Remember what was bolded now the following text could be easily understood.
Col 2:14 blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.
Col 2:15 having put off from himself the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day:
Col 2:17 which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s.

What law is therefore being spoken of here? Moses law - the handwriting of ordinances. Everything listed in verse 16 was related to his law. But mind you Moses law included special sabbath days apart from the weekly sabbath. My evidence is taken from Lev 23. In that chapter you will find examples of meat offerings, drink offerings, other sabbath days. the chapter is long and my post is already too long.
Finally the 10 commandments are a identifying mark for God's true people.
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was enraged over the woman, and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints. Here are the ones who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they who do His commandments, that their authority will be over the Tree of Life, and they may enter in by the gates into the city.
1Jo 2:3 And by this we know that we have known Him, if we keep His commandments.
1Jo 2:4 He who says, I have known Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
I hope this helps

PROPHECYKID

31st October 2007, 07:42 PM

We are under the condemnation of the Law when we sin. After god gives us grace we are not under the condemnation of the law but under grace. Does that mean that we are free to brake the law. NO!!!!. Look at this example.
You are driving at 65 mph one day. You are late for a meeting. The LAW of the land states that your should not be driving more than 50 on that road per say. The police officer stops you. You explain your story. At that point you are under the condemnation of the law of the land. You are required to pay the wage of your offense. However the police officer decides based on your story to let you go free. You are now under grace not under the law. Does that mean that you can continue driving above 50 mph. NO.

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under Law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under Law, but under grace? Let it not be!

Paul says that because we are under grace it doesnt mean that we are free to sin. What does the bible say sin is? What does paul say is the Knowledge of sin?
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Rom 3:20 because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin.
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:

The law saves no man but it gives the knowledge of sin. When we break the law we are supposed to pay the wages of sin but God's grace saves us from sin's penalty

PROPHECYKID

31st October 2007, 07:49 PM

Commenting on the "Faulty commandment".
Mat 5:17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill.

Definition of fulfill (verb)
forms: fulfilled; fulfilled; fulfilling
to realize; to make a reality; to accomplish; to complete; to execute
http://www.english-test.net/toeic/vocabulary/words/106/toeic-definitions.php#fulfill

Jesus made the law better realized, better established and more understood. The commandments were not faulty. The people were not keeping the sabbath properly so he executed it to show them how it should be done.

Christian Soldier

31st October 2007, 08:51 PM

DeaconDean

4th November 2007, 05:38 AM

The Ten Commandments still apply to all people today, both Jew and Gentile.

I know several orthodox Rabbis, and every one has told me that the Ten Commandments were meant for ALL men, Jew and Gentile, since Moses first brought down the tablets from Sinai.

The hundreds of Jewish-specific laws that orthodox Jews observe, did not then and do not now apply to Gentiles.

Let me quote something from the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:

The use of nomoV in Paul is not wholly uniform, for he can sometimes employ the term when he does not have the OT Laws in view. Nevertheless, he does not start with a general sense which is then predominately used for the Mosaic law. His starting point is the traditional use of nomoV for the specific OT Law. Hence, it is self-evident what nomoV means, and usually no more precise definition is given. As in Rabbic, usage, the gist of the nomoV can be stated in the Decalogue, which is thus to some degree the Law in a specific sense (Rom. 13:8 ff.; 2:20 ff.; 7:7). In Paul, however, no basic distinction is made between the Decalogue and the rest of the legal material in the OT...As concerns the material understanding of the Law in Paul, the cross of Jesus is decisive.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Geoffery W. Bromely, Translator, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1964, nomoV, p. 1069-1071

The Apostolic Council in Acts 15, agreed that the "Law" was not binding upon Gentiles. This was the way Paul preached also:

"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;" -1 Cor. 9:20 (KJV)

However, when he preached to the Gentiles:

"To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law." -1 Cor. 9:21 (KJV)

The "Law" is not specifically binding upon Gentiles.

From the Theological Dictionary we read again:

According to Gal. 2, the data relavent to the council are as follows:

First, agreement between Paul's Gospel and that preached by the primitive communtiy is confirmed, and not just established. Gal. 2:2: aneqemhn autoiV to euaggelion o khrussw en toiV eqnesin" (I put before them the gospel which I proclaim in the nations), v. 6: emoi gar oi dokounteV ouden prosaneqento" (to me, for those confered nothing).
The second point is equally certain, namely, that practical questions over and above the unanimity of principle were not so fully cleared up as to make possible the dispute at Antioch as Paul describes in Gal. 2. To understand this passage it should be noted that neither directly nor indrectly does Paul have any word of censure for those who come from James, nor does he doubt their authorisation by James (though Gal 2:4: pareisaktouV yeudadelfouV" The concrete question is whether and how far those born Jews may live together in fellowship with Gentile Christians who do not keep the "Law" In particular, can they have fellowship with them at table and in the Lord's Supper? For if they do, they necessarily surrender essential parts of the strict observance of the "Law." The measure of clairity reached thus far was simply that purely Gentile Christian churches were free from the "Law" with concent of the primitive community,Ibid, p. 1065-1066

The "law' is not binding upon the Gentile churches, this was the ruling of the Apostolic Council in Acts 15, and that is the rule today.

So I don't know how anybody else in this area feels, but you cannot make an argument for me to convince me that we need to go back under the Law because Jesus sacrifice wasn't all sufficent.

This is the same thing Paul fought in AD 56 in Galatia, and this is the same thing we're fighting here, today, 11/04/07.

Judaism!

Even Jesus criticizes the "Law"

Again, I will quote from the Theological Dictionary:

2. Jesus' Negation of the Law
The essential nad basic negation of the Law in Jesus consists in the fact that He deposes it from its position of medation. What finally separates man from God is not transgression or negation of the Law (Mt. 21:28 ff.). According to v. 31b, the refference here is not to the cleaveage between word and act but to the difference bewteen actual refusal of the Law and the new event of conversion and doing the will of God. It is not denied that infringment of the Law separates from God. But the point is that this situation can be remedied. This is the meaning of the statement: oi telwnai kai ai pornai proagousin umaV eiV thn basileian tou qeou. The point is even clearer in the parables of Luke 15. These are to be understood in light of 15:1 f. The publicans and sinners are with Jesus, and He extends them His fellowship even to the point of eating with them. This means that the lost sheep, and the lost coin are found, that the prodigal son comes home again (vv.3 ff.; 8 ff.; 11ff.). In v. 25, it is then shown by way of contrast that the elder brother who stayed at home did not profit by staying at home. It is not his relation to the Law, whether in constant fulfillment which is not disputed or in a flagrant transgression which is not condoned, that the righteous or the sinner finds his definitive relation to God. if the sinner is received into pardoning fellowship with Jesus, he is at home in the Father's house, and this puts to the man who is legally righteous the challenge whether he is building on his obedience to the commandment as hard-earned merit ~ this seems to be suggested by his grumbling at the reception of the prodigal ~ or whether he regards his preseverance in obedience as a joyous being at home in the Father's house. This means, however, that in both cases the Law is deposed from its position of mediation. The relation to the word and deed of Jesus now decides the relation to God. in essence, the same point is made in the sayings of Mt. 10:32 ff. Confession or denial of Jesus now decides the eternal destiny of man. Similarily, the parables of Mk. 2 are possible only if the Law no longer plays a decisive role between God and man, and conduct either in accordance with or opposition to the Law no longer justifies or condemns man definitely before God. The blessing of the children in Mk. 10:13 ff., the beautides in Mt. 5:3 ff., and the saying in Mt. 11:28 ff. all point in the same direction. Jesus pronounces these words precisely to those who are so burdened under the Law that they no longer have any anapausiV. on the publican who falls down in repentance before God and counts on His grace alone, the sentence is passed: "katebh outoV dedikaiwmenoV eiV ton oikon autou par ekeinon:" ~ rather than on the man who can boast of his observance of the Law (cf. Lk. 17:7 ff.) The scribes and Pharisees close the kingdom of god (Mt. 23:13) because they will allow men to enter only bt fulfillment of the Law which they themselves administer. Jesus, then, bases the relation of men to God on their relation to Himself and to the Lordship of God which comes in Him. His specific invitation as the One who pardons is to sinners. This means that He negates the Law in so far as it stands as a mediator between God and man. He firmly negates the righteousness of the Law. The Law is forced out of its key position by the person of Jesus Himself.

Ibid, p. 1060-1061[/quote]

As stated before, the Apostolic Council said:

"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. -Acts 15:7-11 (KJV)

It is faith that saves, not the "Law." And as stated up front, Paul makes no difference between the Decalogue and the whole Law.

Paul plainly said:

"for ye are not under the law, but under grace." -Rom. 6:14 (KJV)

Again: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. And I'll repeat it again: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

The "Law" was given to the Hebrews at Mt. Sinai. Not the Gentiles.

Now if you wish to insist that the "Law" even the 10 commandments are still binding, then your no better than the "Judaizers" of Paul's day. Trying to put a yoke upon our necks that the Hebrews themselves couldn't bear.

Read Galatians you Gentile Christains!

One more time I quote:

The true effect of the Law was to nail man to his sin. As a prison holds the prisioner, as a paidagwgoV keeps the boy under his authority, so man is shut up by the Law under sin. This is according to the verdict of scripture, which means according to the will of God, Gal. 3:22 ff. Rigtly understood, then, the Law prevents any attempt on mans part to secure righteousness before God in any other way than faith in Jesus Christ and by the pardoning grace of God, i.e., in any other way than that promised to Abraham. For the Law nails man to his sin. According to paul, this is the real connection between the Law and Christ by giving insight into the need for redemption. The Law has this effect only because it binds man with divine autghority. Awareness of human inperfection can be creted by any demand. but the situation of him who is justly condemned by God can be produced only by the good will of God, whether man rejects it or acknowledges it and seeks to fulfill it, (Rom. 7:7 ff.). But outside the death of Christ and death with Christ man is still: en kosmw and hence delievered up to the Law, Col. 2:20.

Ibid, p. 1074-1075

"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." -Gal. 3:23-26 (KJV)

We are not under the law, but grace.

Read Galatians Christians!

God Bless

Till all are one.

Albion

4th November 2007, 12:43 PM

So I don't know how anybody else in this area feels, but you cannot make an argument for me to convince me that we need to go back under the Law because Jesus sacrifice wasn't all sufficent.

It looks like little more than you misunderstanding the issue. It is not "go back under the Law" and certainly not in place of Grace. It's only whether or not we are expected to follow the Commandments. Yes, that is what the NT instructs us.

Since the Bible describes the Commandments as still to be followed, Salvation aside, the question of whether or not they "apply to us" today is answered.

"Under the Law?" No.

"Apply to us?" (the question asked by the OP) Yes.

cubanito

4th November 2007, 02:41 PM

no

...not a jot shall pass away UNTIL it be fulfilled...

We are under a new landlord, who by His suffering paid off the previous landlord, His Father.

Through His Apostles, the Son renewed 9/10 of the commandments, but one He explicitly abolished as a Law: the Sabbath,

we are under New Management, and putting new wine in old wineskins aint sensible.

JR

PROPHECYKID

4th November 2007, 06:17 PM

It looks like little more than you misunderstanding the issue. It is not "go back under the Law" and certainly not in place of Grace. It's only whether or not we are expected to follow the Commandments. Yes, that is what the NT instructs us.

Since the Bible describes the Commandments as still to be followed, Salvation aside, the question of whether or not they "apply to us" today is answered.

"Under the Law?" No.

"Apply to us?" (the question asked by the OP) Yes.
Just to add
If you live under the law you cannot get to heaven you must live under grace because grace through faith is how we are saved. What is living under the law anyway? It means to be living under the condemnation of the law. The law condemns us as sinners and we therefore must pay the wages of sin. But wait, here comes God grace to save us. We now are free from the wages of sin. Let me try to explain better. You cant live both under the law and under grace. Living under the law does not mean obeying the law but it means living under the condemnation of the law. Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace.
If you are under the law sin will have dominion over you. Is the bible saying that if you obey the law, sin will have dominion over you. NO! If you live under the law you live under the condemnation of the law which comdemn us as sinners and causes us to have to pay the wages of sin. If we live under grace however, although the law still condemns us as sinners we do not have to pay the wages of sin because God's grace covers us. That is why Paul says that because we are under grace and not under the law it does not mean that we should sin. Paul also says that he knew sin through the law and by the law is the knowledge of sin. John says that sin is the transgression of the law in John 2:3,4. Therefore Paul is saying that because we are under grace and not under the law it does not mean that we should break the law.

PROPHECYKID

4th November 2007, 06:21 PM

Albion

4th November 2007, 06:40 PM

Where do the apostles renew 9 of the 10 commandments and how was the Sabbath abolished.

My question also. I see nowhere in scripture or in anything the Apostles did that amounts to setting aside the Sabbath.

PROPHECYKID

4th November 2007, 06:59 PM

What i see is the apostes keeping the Sabbath on a regular bases.

DeaconDean

5th November 2007, 12:58 AM

Before Moses received the Law from God on Mt. Sinai, there were "offically" only two "Laws" ever given by God.

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." -Gen. 2:16-17 (KJV)

Well, what can I say, Adam disobeyed that one.

The other is:

"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised...and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." -Gen. 17:10, 13 (KJV)

Up until the giving of the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai, these were the only two "Laws" that came directly from God, per se.

The 613 "Laws" in the OT start with Ex. 20, and the Ten Commandments.

Jesus said:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." -Mt. 22:27-40 (KJV)

Jesus took all 613 "Laws" and boiled them down to 2, and we can't even do these. And you want us to follow these two plus eight more?!?

Geez, gimme a break.

Read Galatians.

Read Romans 6:14.

And one last thought, W. Gutbrod points out:

To be sure, sin is already there before man comes into contact with the Law (Rom. 5:13; 7:9). But it comes to life through the Law: elqoushV de thV entolhV h amartia anezhsen, (Rom. 7:9). Through the commandment sin kindles desire, (but when the commandment came, sin revived, Rom. 7:8)...Hence the Law makes sin into a deadly force, 1 Cor. 15:56; Rom. 7:9 f. For it works wrath, Rom. 4:15.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Geoffery W. Bromely, Translator, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1964, nomoV, p. 1074

Wherefore, whenever thou who believest in Jesus, dost hear the law in its thundering and lightning fits, as if it would burn up heaven and earth, then say thou, I am freed from this law, these thunderings have nothing to do with my soul; nay, even, this law, while it thus thunders and roars, it doth both allow and approve of my righteousness. I know that Hagar would sometimes be domineering and high, even in Sarah's house, and against her, but this she is not to be suffered to do, nay, though Sarah herself be barren, wherefore serve it also as Sarah served her, and expel her out from thy house. (Gen. xvi. 1-5.) My meaning is, when this law with its thundering threatenings doth attempt to lay hold on thy conscience, shut it out with a promise of grace; cry, The inn is took up [sic] already, the Lord Jesus is here entertained, and here is no room for the law .... I being now made upright without it [the law], and that too with that righteousness which this law speaks well of and approveth; I may not, will not, cannot, dare not, make it my savior and judge, nor suffer it to set up its government in my conscience; for by so doing I fall from grace, and Christ Jesus doth profit me nothing. (Gal. v. ii)

http://www.grace-for-today.com/88.htm

God Bless

Till all are one.

PROPHECYKID

5th November 2007, 08:07 AM

""Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." -Mt. 22:27-40 (KJV)

Jesus took all 613 "Laws" and boiled them down to 2, and we can't even do these. And you want us to follow these two plus eight more?!?

Geez, gimme a break."

It seems like some people don't read the bible as a whole. On these two law hangs/bears/contains the Law and the prophets. One of these Two laws is repeated in James but he still admonished us to keep the commandments saying that faith without works is dead.

Jam 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Jam 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Jam 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Jam 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
Jam 2:13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
Jam 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Paul says in Romans that the last six commandments are understood by the saying"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". As long as you have love for your neighbour you will not steal from him, kill him and so on. It is not 2 + 8 wherever 8 comes from it is 10 summed up by the saying of 2. The first 4 commandments shows Love to God and the last 6 shows love to man.
Just look at this.
Luk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Jesus asks the lawyer what he understands by the law. That is what he means by how readest thou. The word used for readest is the greek word anaginōskō which means to know again. The lawyer responds by 2 statements. Those two statements were not in the 10 commandments but that is what the man understands the 10 commandments to be saying in summary and Jesus tells him that he is correct.

Albion

5th November 2007, 12:20 PM

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." -Mt. 22:27-40 (KJV)

Jesus took all 613 "Laws" and boiled them down to 2, and we can't even do these. And you want us to follow these two plus eight more?!?

Geez, gimme a break."

The reason it can be said that Jesus boiled 10 down to 2 is that the first 4 are about our duty to God, and the second 6 are about our relationships with other people.

So, yes, to "love the Lord thy God," etc. and "thou shalt love thy neighbor" is a summarization of the Decalogue.

But if anyone thinks that the Ten Commandments are hereby eliminated, the 2 on which "hang all the law and the prophets" are made unintelligible. The 2 mention the law, but now some folks say they don't relate to the law?

And what is more, we have no guidance about how we are to serve God and our neighbor unless we understand that the 2 refer us back to the 10 for specifics.

PROPHECYKID

5th November 2007, 03:42 PM

The reason it can be said that Jesus boiled 10 down to 2 is that the first 4 are about our duty to God, and the second 6 are about our relationships with other people.

So, yes, to "love the Lord thy God," etc. and "thou shalt love thy neighbor" is a summarization of the Decalogue.

But if anyone thinks that the Ten Commandments are hereby eliminated, the 2 on which "hang all the law and the prophets" are made unintelligible. The 2 mention the law, but now some folks say they don't relate to the law?

And what is more, we have no guidance about how we are to serve God and our neighbor unless we understand that the 2 refer us back to the 10 for specifics.
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DeaconDean

6th November 2007, 03:43 AM

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See, this proves that neither you or I or Albion can even do the two Jesus said.

I put out sound doctrine, and you take me to task.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" -2 Tim. 4:3 (KJV)

Lets see here, I'm not the only one who espouses that the Law, for the 10 Commandments start the Law, are not binding on believers in Christ.

Stephen Westerholm, A Primer on the Mosaic Law and the Christian, http://theologica.blogspot.com/2006/09/primer-on-mosaic-law-and-christian.html
Lee Irons, Married to Another, http://www.upper-register.com/papers/married_to_another.html
John Murry, The Law and Grace, http://www.the-highway.com/lawgrace.html
Greg Welty, Eschatological Fulfilment and the Confirmation of Mosaic Law(A Response to D. A. Carson and Fred Zaspel on Matthew 5:17-48), http://www.the-highway.com/mosaic-law_Welty.html
Robert Riccaltoun, But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. (Riccaltoun on Gal. 5:18), http://www.covenantofgrace.com/riccaltoun_gal_5_18.htm
Thomas R. Schreiner, THE ABOLITION AND FULFILLMENT OF THE LAW IN PAUL, http://www.sbts.edu/docs/tschreiner/JSNT_35.pdf
Thomas Watson, Man's Inability to Keep the Moral Law, http://www.bpc.org/resources/watson/wsc_wa_082.html
John Calvin, We all stand condemned by the Law, http://www.reformedsermonarchives.com/Cal14.htm
John Calvin, Freedom from the Bondage of the Law, http://www.reformedsermonarchives.com/Cal2.htm
Charles Spurgeon, Christ the end of the Law, http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1325.htm
Arthur W. Pink, The Law and the Saint, http://www.the-highway.com/Law_Pink.html
A.A. Hodge, Of the Law of God, http://www.rtrc.net/documents/wcf/hodge/wcfaah19.htmThis is enough for now. Shall I list others?

You go ahead, put yourself back under a Jewish set of Laws that were never given to Gentiles. Ignore what Peter, James and the other disciples said in Acts 15.

As for me, I'll keep believing:

"ye are not under the law, but under grace." -Rom. 6:14 (KJV)

What are you gonna do when you stand before God, say I deserve to be allowed into heaven because I kept the 10 Commandments?

If keeping the 10 Commandments could get you into heaven, then Christ died in vain.

What do the 10 commandments and the Law do?

Forbidding sin...
the Law unmasks it. Sin is shown up in its sinfullness. The Law brings out plainly its character as rebellion against God. To be sure, sin is already there before man comes into contact with the Law: elqoushV de thV entolhV h amartia anezhsen, Rom. 7:9. Through the commandment sin kindles desire, Rom. 7:8. The point of Rom. 7:7 then is, that through the Law sin does not merely come to my knowledge, but for the first time, it becomes a reality for me...The Law makes sin a deadly force, 1 Cor. 15:56; Rom. 7:9f. For it works wrath, Rom. 4:15. Hereby, the Law leads him who hears it aright to the knowledge of sin, Rom. 3:20. Paul is not suggesting that this knowledge of sin gives man a subjective insight into his need of redemption. What he means is that a man cannot appeal to the Law before God, since the law is the very thing which unmasks him as a sinner. All this means is that the true effect of the Law is to nail man to his sin. As a prison holds the prisoner, as a paidagwoV keeps the boy under his authority, so man is shut up by the Law under sin. This is the verdict of scripture, which means according to the will of God, Gal. 3:22 ff. Rightly understood, then, the Law prevents any attempt on man's part to secure righteousness before God in any other way than by faith in Jesus Christ and the pardoning grace of God...According to Paul, this is the real connection between the Law and Christ.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1964, reprinted 2006, nomoV, 3. The Material Understanding of the Law in Paul, Section c, Sub-Section b, c, and d., p. 1073-1074

Believe what you want. But your continual taking me to task in the clear light of such teaching, and Paul's clear statement that we are under the Law, but grace (cf. Rom. 6:14) shows clearly that you are not, (and me for that fact) following what Jesus said:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." -Mt. 22:39 (KJV)

Go ahead, put yourself back under a Law that wasn't given to Gentiles. Ignore Acts 15.

I have shown you otherwise, and according to scriptures, my duty is done:

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." -Mt. 10:14 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

Albion

6th November 2007, 11:13 AM

See, this proves that neither you or I or Albion can even do the two Jesus said.

But again, it's a problem of you talking about one thing while we are talking about another. If we don't say that you are misunderstanding the discussion, or that you are speaking like an antinomian or libertine, at least appreciate that you are not refuting us but are instead addressing something entirely different.

We are saved by Grace, not by Law. HOWEVER, it is incorrect to think that Christ rendered all moral standards obsolete. Whether or not we can keep the 10 (no one can or did) or the 2 that Jesus spoke of as a condensation of the 10, the Bible still commends the Decalogue to us, and this is what is meant most often by "Law." It remains as a moral standard. If we keep some of it, sometime, or none of it, that does no make the standard unimportant.

In fact, if your position were correct, what is the purpose for Jesus' giving the 2? They are commandments, are they not?

Yes, we are still not to do murder.
Yes, we are to honor our parents.
Yes, there is only one God and we are to put none above him.

And so on.

These are precepts God has given us. Can you deny that murder is wrong or adultery are wrong? No. Is it the case that it doesn't matter in God's eyes, and we can do either as we wish?

BUT if you want to discuss how this relates to our salvation...you are onto a different subject and one which, I suspect, we all are in agreement on.

shrewdsnake

6th November 2007, 02:01 PM

PROPHECYKID

7th November 2007, 01:21 PM

Instead of DeaconDean use the bible he uses peoples opinions. He want to list the people that support what he says. Can he list scriptures that say that we should not keep the Law (10 commandments)? No.

Albion

7th November 2007, 01:31 PM

We may not be under the law but I try to still not break any of the commandments since nothing in the New Testament says it's ok to now. They are still a pretty common sense list of "what not to do".

What you've written neatly encapsulates the issue. No, the Commandments "still apply"-- which is the title of the thread and the question here.

If anyone maintains that Jesus did away with the law, he's either:

1) an Antinomian, a tiny abberation in Church history holding that we are under no moral guidance at all now

OR

2) he misunderstands that the Commandments can still be there for us to follow without them also being what determines our salvation (or lack of it).

MandM

14th November 2007, 06:20 PM

PROPHECYKID

14th November 2007, 07:35 PM

We may not be under the law but I try to still not break any of the commandments since nothing in the New Testament says it's ok to now. They are still a pretty common sense list of "what not to do".
The problem is that people do not understand what "Under the Law" really means.

If you live under the law you cannot get to heaven you must live under grace because grace through faith is how we are saved. What is living under the law anyway? It means to be living under the condemnation of the law. The law condemns us as sinners and we therefore must pay the wages of sin. But wait, here comes God grace to save us. We now are free from the wages of sin. Let me try to explain better. You cant live both under the law and under grace. Living under the law does not mean obeying the law but it means living under the condemnation of the law. Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace.
If you are under the law sin will have dominion over you. Is the bible saying that if you obey the law, sin will have dominion over you. NO! If you live under the law you live under the condemnation of the law which comdemn us as sinners and causes us to have to pay the wages of sin. If we live under grace however, although the law still condemns us as sinners we do not have to pay the wages of sin because God's grace covers us. That is why Paul says that because we are under grace and not under the law it does not mean that we should sin. Paul also says that he knew sin through the law and by the law is the knowledge of sin. John says that sin is the transgression of the law in John 2:3,4. Therefore Paul is saying that because we are under grace and not under the law it does not mean that we should break the law.

ContentInHim

14th November 2007, 07:42 PM

I don't believe any one has said that one is saved through observance of the law, have they?

PROPHECYKID

14th November 2007, 08:03 PM

I don't believe any one has said that one is saved through observance of the law, have they?
Im sorry. I copied and pasted that from another forum without reviewing so forgive me. However i just wanted to show the relationship between the Law and Grace.

Tea

17th November 2007, 07:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albion http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=40447428#post40447428)
The reason it can be said that Jesus boiled 10 down to 2 is that the first 4 are about our duty to God, and the second 6 are about our relationships with other people.

So, yes, to "love the Lord thy God," etc. and "thou shalt love thy neighbor" is a summarization of the Decalogue.

But if anyone thinks that the Ten Commandments are hereby eliminated, the 2 on which "hang all the law and the prophets" are made unintelligible. The 2 mention the law, but now some folks say they don't relate to the law?

And what is more, we have no guidance about how we are to serve God and our neighbor unless we understand that the 2 refer us back to the 10 for specifics.

Amen, amen, and amen.
Never has the keeping of the Law been a means of salvation. It has always been how God has intended that we live, in respect to Him, and towards each other.
The two are a summerization of the ten. If I love God with all my heart, soul and mind, then I am not going to put idols in my lounge room, or set up money, just as an example, as my god.
If I love my brother, I am not going to steal from him. Neither am I going to jump the fence and commit adultry. Nor will I shift boundary markers, or keep a beast that will cause harm to others.
Where do we find how we are to Love God and love our fellow brother, other than in God Torah were he tells us what He expects.
In regards to the Law being our school master, is like learning to drive. While learing I need the book and a teacher to tell me and remind me of where I can drive, and how fast I can drive. Once I get my licence and I no longer have the teacher there, does that mean that I can forget everything that I have been taught, and drive on what ever side of the road I like, and at what ever speed I like. Well I can, but then I will come under the Law of the land, and I will be penalized. Or I can choose to drive by the rules of the road that I have been taught, and then I don't come under the penalities of the Law.
So with God, I can choose to live according to His Word, and thus having it written on my heart, or I can be stuborn, and need it to be written in stone, before me at al times.
My bible warns me of the following,

Heb 10:26 For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God,and hath counted the blood of the covenant,wherewith, he was sanctified, an unholy thing,and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

WHile ignorant of God's word, I sin in ignorance. But when I know what God word is, then I sin with knowledge. Heaven forbid.

So to the OP's question, Yes, I believe they do still apply.

Just my understanding.
Tracey
My apologies for the font, not sure what happened. :confused:

minister50

18th November 2007, 10:06 AM

You tell me as the Scriptures say: (Hebrews 10:16) This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

PaladinGirl

18th November 2007, 11:18 AM

Yes, the 10 Commandments still apply to us today. Of course the one that says Honor the Sabbath to keep it holy is now equivalent to Honor the Lord's Day to keep it holy.

Loveaboveall

18th November 2007, 11:30 PM

Yes, the 10 Commandments still apply to us today. Of course the one that says Honor the Sabbath to keep it holy is now equivalent to Honor the Lord's Day to keep it holy.

What is the Lord's day?

DeaconDean

19th November 2007, 02:54 AM

Albion thank you for making some very good points in this thread.

Whenever a topic like this comes up, a lot of people think that some of us are saying that we are saved by observing the Law.

That is NOT what we are saying.

The apostle Paul certainly understood this distinction.

In Romans 3, he first tells us that salvation is apart from the Law:

Romans 3:21-24

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Then later on in chapter 3 he answers the 64,000 dollar question:

31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Does our faith in Christ nullify the Law?

According to the apostle Paul, the answer is NO!

But, Paul also said:

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." -Rom. 10:4 (KJV)

Observing the Law, or the Decalogue cannot earn us rigteousness before God. Our righteousness before God is now determined by our relationship with Jesus Christ His Son, and not on whether or not we have observed the Law or the Decalogue.

There is not a single person who has posted in this thread, or the other threads the OP has started, who has obeyed the Decalogue fully. NOT ONE! Me included.

The Decalogue certainly is God's revealed will for man, and it holy, good, and just. But, I again say not one of us have observed the Decalogue fully.

"Verse 3 says that the Jews did not submit themselves to God's righteousness because they tried to establish their own. Verse 4 provides the reason why (gar) they should have submitted themselves to God's righteousness. Let us assume that Paul is saying that they should have submitted to God's righteousness and forsaken their own because Christ is the "goal" of the law: The connection between vv. 3-4, then, would indicate that the Jews tried to pursue their own righteousness because they misread the true goal or intention of the law. But if they failed to obtain righteousness because they did not see the goal of the law, then it follows that their own righteousness in 10:3 was based on a misunderstanding of the law. My point, then, is that even if we accept the view that teloV means "goal" in v. 4, the false righteousness of the Jews in v. 3 is still based on the law (sic) It follows, therefore, that both v. 3 and v. 5 describe righteousness by law, and if v. 3 refers to works-righteousness, then so does v. 5.

An adversative relationship between vv. 5 and 6-8 is also supported by the antithesis between doing and believing which permeates the text in Rom 9:30-10:13. Israel did not attain righteousness through the law because it was pursued "as from works" (9:32}. Israel had a zeal for God (10:2) which was manifested in the establishment of their own righteousness (10:3). These texts seem parallel to the idea of gaining righteousness by doing (10:5). But Paul stresses again and again in this text that the way to obtain righteousness is not by doing but by believing (Rom 9:30, 32-33; 10:4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11)...The close parallel between Phil 3:9 and Rom 10:5 is powerful evidence supporting the idea that Rom 10:5 describes works-righteousness. The wording of the two texts is almost exactly the same: dikaiosunhn thn ek nomou, Phil. 3:9, and dikaiosunhn thn ek [tou] nomou Rom. 10:5. All scholars agree that Phil 3:9 speaks negatively of "righteousness from law" It is extremely unlikely that the same phrase in Rom 10:5 is being used positively. This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that in both Phil 3:2-11 and Rom 9:30-10:8 Paul is
responding to Jewish opponents who insisted that Gentiles must observe the OT law to be saved. The subject under discussion in Philippians 3 and Romans 10 is, therefore, the same. Paul contends that faith in Christ is what is necessary for righteousness, not observance of the law."

http://www.sbts.edu/docs/tschreiner/WTJ_55.pdf

In Paul's day, he recognized that Israel failed to attain righteousness because thay didn't seek it from faith, but rather, from an observance of the Law, or as paul said: "they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law." (Rom. 9:32) However, Gentiles obtained "righteousness by faith" (Rom. 9:30; cf. 9:33) It is the one who "believes" who stops using the law to establish his own righteousness.

We all ultimately depend on God's grace. Period. And Paul still states:

"...for ye are not under the law, but under grace." -Rom. 6:14 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean

19th November 2007, 04:48 AM

And, let me add:

"What is astonishing to Paul is that people who fail to obey the law still think they can gain life by observing the commandments. Thus, Paul reminds the church that perfect obedience, which is impossible, is needed to be right before God. Supporting the idea that Paul is speaking negatively of works righteousness in Rom 10:5 is his citation of Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12. Most commentators concur that in Gal 3:12 Paul quotes Lev 18:5 to contrast the law and faith. He says, "But the law is not of faith, but the one who does them [the commandments of the law] shall live by them." It is improbable that Paul is using Lev 18:5 in a different way in Rom 10:5 and Ga13:12, for both texts treat the same theme, i.e., whether or not righteousness is available by the law. Gal 3:12 also contains the same contrast
between the law and faith which we are contending is present in Rom 10:5-6. The burden of proof is clearly on those who think Paul cites Lev 18:5 in two completely different ways. Feeling the sting of this argument, a few scholar have suggested that haul describes the keeping of the law positively in Ga13:12 as well. This suggestion is completely improbable given the situation in the Galatian churches and the structure of the argument in the letter. The Galatians were under attack from opponents who insisted that they submit to circumcision to be part of the people of God (Ga15:2-6; 6:12-13). The heart of the letter (Gal 2:15-5:12) contains a response to these opponents. Paul labors to prove that justification does not come by "works of law" (2:16; 3:2, 5, 10), that the attempt to obtain righteousness by law leads to a curse (3:10), that the law is not a source of life (3:21), and that people who are "under law" are actually under the sway of sin (3:23, 25; 4:3, 8-10, 21-25)."

http://www.sbts.edu/docs/tschreiner/WTJ_55.pdf

And no matter what, it still boils down to this, whether you keep all 613 "Laws" or only the Decalogue, if you break one, then you've broke all. (cf. Jas. 2:10)

John Gill points out: "this seems to agree with some common sayings of the Jews, that he that is suspected in one thing, is suspected in the whole law[1]...though he does not violate every condition, yet breaks the whole covenant; so he that transgresses in anyone point of the law, breaks the whole, commits sin, and is deserving of death, and is treated by the law as a transgressor of it, let it be in what instance it will."

[1] T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 69. 1.

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=jas&chapter=2&verse=10

God Bless

Till all are one.

Albion

19th November 2007, 01:44 PM

And no matter what, it still boils down to this, whether you keep all 613 "Laws" or only the Decalogue, if you break one, then you've broke all. (cf. Jas. 2:10)

True, but it doesn't bear upon the question of whether or not the Law still applies.

DeaconDean

23rd November 2007, 03:19 AM

While the Decalogue may be good rules to follow, a guide on how to live, if you will, the Law, even the Decalogue which are found in the Law, demand complete obedience.

The Law, gave Israel their line of priests.

The Law prescribed how the sacrifical system was to be installed and followed.

The Law gave rules of general conduct.

The Law gave rules for moral conduct.

The Law, governed every facet of both communtity and corporate life.

James says:

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." -Jas. 2:10 (KJV)

I have argued this how many times now?

Paul says:

"Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." -Gal. 3:15 (KJV)

Here I shall be quoting from Thomas R. Schreiner's article: "Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law."

A brief analysis of Gal. 3.15ff. indicates that Paul believed, in some sense, in the abolition of the Mosaic law. This does not imply that the Mosaic law was inherently legalistic, even though the Judaizers were distorting it and using it in a legalism way. Paul’s point is that God intended the Mosaic covenant to be in force for only a certain period of salvation history.

http://www.sbts.edu/docs/tschreiner/JSNT_35.pdf p. 50

Legalism was an issue at the church in Galatia. Judaizers had came behind Paul and were planting seeds that not only was faith a requirment, but observation of the Mosaic Law had to be followed also. This is seen very clearly in the issue of circumcision that popped up.

Paul was writting/teaching/preaching to the Galatian church of how once faith comes, the "Law" fades.

the chronological argument that Paul uses in Gal. 3.15ff: where he demonstrates the priority of the Abrahamic covenant over the Mosaic covenant, proves that he is not exclusively referring to legalism. He is also referring to the Sinai covenant. It was not legalism which was handed down on Mount Sinai, but the Mosaic law. Paul is employing a salvation-historical argument in Galatians 3 which indicates the priority of the Abrahamic covenant over the Mosaic covenant. Now that Messiah has arrived the Mosaic covenant is no longer in force (3.19). The temporal argument is underlined in 3.23-25. We were guarded under the law until faith came (pro tou de elqein thn pistin upo nomon efrouroumeqa, "But before faith came, we were kept under the law,) The faith (thn pistin)Paul has in view must be specific faith in Jesus as Messiah.

http://www.sbts.edu/docs/tschreiner/JSNT_35.pdf p. 50

The faith that ultimately was revealed in Jesus Christ is what Paul is refering to. And the parallel between verse 24 and 25 shows this.

Verse 24 says that the law functioned as our "paidagwgoV...eiV criston" The prepositioneiV should be translated temporally (“until”) since the parallel statement in v. 25 employs the temporal idea of no longer (ouketi ) being under the child attendant. What Paul says here about the paidagwgoV clearly applies to the Mosaic law. Now that Christ has come believers are no longer under the law. His point is a salvation-historical one. Now that the new era has arrived in Christ one should not live under the Mosaic law.

http://www.sbts.edu/docs/tschreiner/JSNT_35.pdf p. 50-51

Now, the Decalogue is "holy," "just" and the commandments "good."

And they are the revealed will of God, however, to make then a concrete rule, no, absolutely not. No man can obey them. And by that, I mean no man can obey the Deaclogue, much less the other 603 laws fully.

We can try to live by them, but ultimately, we will sooner or later, fail even in these 10.

And a point that James brings out is that if you keep 9 and not all 10, then you may as well have broke all 10 because you just as guilty as if you had.

And another point, Paul also taught:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." -Gal. 3:28 (KJV)

Jesus took all 613 laws, even the Decalogue, and boiled then down into two:

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." -Mt 22:37-40 (KJV)

And we can't even do these two and you want to put eight more on our backs?

Jesus is the only One who could have and did, fulfill all the requirments of the Law. And Paul's statement in Gal. 3:28 sums up like this, once faith in Jesus has come, we are no considered Jew, Gentile, free, slave, male, or female, we have been joined to Christ. We are one in Him. And since Jesus has already fulfilled the Law, and since His righteousness is imputed to us, we can now say we have fulfilled the Law because of our unity in Him.

And to say that the "Law," even the Decalogue, is still in effect and applies today is to say that Christ died in vain because the Law, or even one point of it, is still in effect. When Christ cried out on the cross, "It is finished" not only was the work that the Father given Him finished, but fulfillment of the Law was finished, fully and completely.

But to make the Decalogue an "absolute" still application, nope, I cannot see it. For no man, not one single person today can fulfill the requirments of them.

They make a good rule of thumb, but to place me back under the "Law," nope, it ain't gonna happen.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Albion

23rd November 2007, 04:11 PM

While the Decalogue may be good rules to follow, a guide on how to live, if you will, the Law, even the Decalogue which are found in the Law, demand complete obedience.

The problem is in denying that the Decalogue applies today.

Had the question been worded differently, for example, asking if we are under the Law or if the Law if what saves, etc. the discussion would have been different, too.

Of course the Law still applies. That means a "yes" answer to the title question of the thread.

At the same time, we are not held accountable any longer, so we here all agreed that we are not under the Law. We can--and are--freed from the consequences of not living up to the Law but, at the same time, it is correct to say that the Commandments apply to us. If we are told to follow them, they apply. If we don't manage it, that's another issue altogether.

As for whether the Law includes Hebraic ritual and not just moral admonitions, this can be answered without a blanket statement that is a half-truth, i.e., that the Law doesn't apply, period.

DeaconDean

24th November 2007, 05:23 AM

Although I cannot see what Albion has posted, I know it is in response to my post.

Here is my absolute lasat post.

And I'm sure you'll have some thing to say about it albion.

The End of the Mosaic Law as a Rule of Life

The Fact EstablishedSeveral passages of Scripture clearly establish that the coming of Christ has brought an end to the Mosaic Law. Paul specifically states that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)). This instituted a new law or principle of life, i.e., the law of the Spirit, the one of liberty and grace (Rom. 8:2, 13 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)). This fact was also clearly settled by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#). A council was convened in the church at Jerusalem to look into the issue of the Law and its place in the life of believers because some were saying “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved,” and because even certain of the Pharisees who had believed were also saying “It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.” The conclusion of the council, consisting of apostles and elders, was to reject the concept of placing New Testament believers under the yoke of the Law (15:6-11). The only thing the Jerusalem Council asked was that Gentile believers control their liberty in matters that might be offensive to Jewish believers, but they did not seek to place the believers under the yoke of the Law for they realized the Law had come to an end.
Finally, the book of Hebrews demonstrates that the old covenant of the Mosaic Law was only temporary and has been replaced by the coming of Christ whose ministry is based on (1) a better priesthood, one after the order of Melchizedek which is superior to Aaron’s, and (2) a better covenant with better promises (see Heb. 7-10 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)). The old covenant was only a shadow of heavenly things, and if it had been able to make men perfect before God there would have been no occasion for a second or new covenant (see Heb. 7:11-12 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#); 8:1-13). This change in the priesthood also necessitates a change in the Law. Such a change shows the Law has been terminated or done away.

The Problem of Mosaic Laws as Commands for New Testament BelieversA careful reading of the New Testament shows us that nine of the Ten Commandments are repeated as obligations for believers. The one exception is the command to keep the