10 Commandments debate on Fox News Channel

[BobRyan]

Mike Huckabee debates Allen Durshowitz on the subject of the Ten Commandments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw1aCRyPPjs&feature=related

Transcript
http://www.livedash.com/transcript/huckabee/51/FNC/Sunday_December_5_2010/528715/


In that program - Huckabee argues that the 10 Commandments cannot be changed but the constitution can be ammended/changed etc. Huckabee gives the example of adultery pointing out that the 10 Commadments are unchangable.

Durshowitz argues in effect that "actions speak louder than words". He points to historic examples of Christianity changing the 10 commandments if not in writing then in practice that boldly defies the actual written text.

His example is the 2nd commandment (images used in Catholic Churches) and the 4th commandment.

Alan's position appears to be that "in practice" man-made traditions trump the written text.

Watch the 8 minute clip and then answer this question -- "What say you?"

In my opinion Huckabee's initial position is correct and Alan is correct to point out that history shows people disregarding the idea of "no change" in that they want to claim acceptance of the Ten Commandments while freely changing whatever they wish "in practice".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[luke1616]

The Ten Are Over

For the true Christian, it does not matter. For the unsaved, give them Jesus, not Moses.:love2:

 

[BobRyan]

Luke 16 - Jesus said "If they do not listen to Moses neither will they listen though one rise from the dead".

In 1Cor 7:19 - Paul said "but what matters is keeping the commandments of God".

In the end both Christ and Paul admit that the topic is important.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[preacher4truth]

Mike Huckabee debates Allen Durshowitz on the subject of the Ten Commandments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw1aCRyPPjs&feature=related

Transcript
http://www.livedash.com/transcript/huckabee/51/FNC/Sunday_December_5_2010/528715/


In that program - Huckabee argues that the 10 Commandments cannot be changed but the constitution can be ammended/changed etc. Huckabee gives the example of adultery pointing out that the 10 Commadments are unchangable.

Durshowitz argues in effect that "actions speak louder than words". He points to historic examples of Christianity changing the 10 commandments if not in writing then in practice that boldly defies the actual written text.

His example is the 2nd commandment (images used in Catholic Churches) and the 4th commandment.

Alan's position appears to be that "in practice" man-made traditions trump the written text.

Watch the 8 minute clip and then answer this question -- "What say you?"

In my opinion Huckabee's initial position is correct and Alan is correct to point out that history shows people disregarding the idea of "no change" in that they want to claim acceptance of the Ten Commandments while freely changing whatever they wish "in practice".

in Christ,

Bob

Why don't you tell us your position and what you think on it, publicly, for a change?

:thumbs:

 

[billwald]

>Luke 16 - Jesus said "If they do not listen to Moses neither will they listen though one rise from the dead".

In other words, the Tanakh is sufficient for salvation and the NT is merely commentary.

 

[BobRyan]

Why don't you tell us your position and what you think on it, publicly, for a change?

:thumbs:

In my opinion Huckabee's initial position is correct and Alan is correct to point out that history shows people disregarding the idea of "no change" in that they want to claim acceptance of the Ten Commandments while freely changing whatever they wish "in practice".

Thus they are both correct on some points - but they are also both mistaken on a few points.

Huckabee is mistaken if he thinks that using idols/images in worship as the Catholics do (pointed out by Alan) is not a man-made change to the 10 Commandments. The same goes for the example given in the 4th commandment.

But Huckabee is right to argue that the 10 Commandments - and the Bible in general are not up for a vote or editing.

Alan is right to argue that "in practice" Christians have made two significant man-made changes even if they are not editing the wording in the text itself. But Alan is wrong to think that this is justified simply because traditions of various stripes may find excuses for making those changes.

Alan is agruing "case law" by claiming that changes/edits made by man in the past prove that it must be right to change God's Word with man-made tradition. But God never said he approved of those man-made edits - so the law remains unchanged and the cases of attempts to " change times and laws" in the past prove only that mankind has a sinful nature not that the Law of God is editable.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

>Luke 16 - Jesus said "If they do not listen to Moses neither will they listen though one rise from the dead".

In other words, the Tanakh is sufficient for salvation and the NT is merely commentary.

Christ does not argue in Luke 16 that the scriptures are "insufficient".

And you are right to think that scripture at the time Christ said this - did not include the NT.

Paul writing to Timothy in 2Tim 3 says that the "scriptures" that Timothy read as a child (the OT not the OT + NT) were sufficient to guide and lead to salvation 2Tim 3:15-17.

There is no such thing as the Jews of Christ day having to proclaim "We have accepted the Bible through the book of Malachi but still are not born-again/saved until we read the book of Matthew".

And in the NT there was no such thing as "oops you died before the book of Revelation was written - so you are not a saved saint".

The books of the Bible did not stop people from being saved.

In Matt 17 Moses and Elijah are on the mount of transfiguration - saved saints with Christ BEFORE the Cross.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[preacher4truth]

In my opinion Huckabee's initial position is correct and Alan is correct to point out that history shows people disregarding the idea of "no change" in that they want to claim acceptance of the Ten Commandments while freely changing whatever they wish "in practice".

Thus they are both correct on some points - but they are also both mistaken on a few points.

Huckabee is mistaken if he thinks that using idols/images in worship as the Catholics do (pointed out by Alan) is not a man-made change to the 10 Commandments. The same goes for the example given in the 4th commandment.

But Huckabee is right to argue that the 10 Commandments - and the Bible in general are not up for a vote or editing.

Alan is right to argue that "in practice" Christians have made two significant man-made changes even if they are not editing the wording in the text itself. But Alan is wrong to think that this is justified simply because traditions of various stripes may find excuses for making those changes.

Alan is agruing "case law" by claiming that changes/edits made by man in the past prove that it must be right to change God's Word with man-made tradition. But God never said he approved of those man-made edits - so the law remains unchanged and the cases of attempts to " change times and laws" in the past prove only that mankind has a sinful nature not that the Law of God is editable.

in Christ,

Bob

Well, it's refreshing to see someone actually answer their own OP. Thanks.

:thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

I live to serve.