-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ten Commandments Keep them or break them?
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
- Status
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your post. I also appreciate a careful reading of the text - paying attention to Bible details and seeking to know God's will.
Your posts have always been helpful and never contain the spirit of name-calling etc that we might find here or there in the case of some posts.
In John 14:14 Christ said "Love Me and KEEP My Commandments" - this is pre-cross. John reminds us of this same point "again" in 1John 5:1-4
In Ex 20:6 God says "Love Me and KEEP My Commandments" -- that is also pre-cross.
Is the God of Sinai - in agreement with God the Son in John 14 in your view?
I think they are one and the same.
According to Paul in Romans 3 and in Romans 7 - the Law of God "defines" what sin is and places all mankind under condemnation and in need of a savior even after the cross.
Thus all mankind is encouraged to seek the way of escape - via the Gospel.
In Rom 3 Paul not only states that the law condemns all mankind as "sinners" but also that our faith does not abolish the Law of God. "Do we then abolish the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31.
Thus the same New Covenant teaching about the Law in Jer 31:31-33 is quoted by Paul in Heb 8 as still applying today. "I will write my LAW on their heart and on their mind". Which is the work of the Holy Spirit under the New Covenant according to Paul in Romans 2.
I Thomas Watson, the Seventh-day Baptists, the Baptist Confession of Faith, C.H. Spurgeon, Andy Stanley, the Westminster Confession of Faith and other sources outside of my particular denomination echo these statements as well so i am not being as parochial when I make this statement, as some would have it.
Christ stated that none of His words were His own - but that "as the Father speaks" He speaks - saying only what He hears from the Father. Christ never pitted His Word against God - but rather chose to expand on the Word of God - showing that God's Word "cannot be broken" and that God's Word has more depth than human traditions of the Jews comprehended.
Your post seems to assume that the "Commandments of God" included the TEN Commandments before Christ - but then excluded them some time after the cross. That remains to be seen from actual scripture in my opinion.
Consider this Eph 6:1-4 says that the 5th commandment is the "FIRST commandment with a promise" - -obviously that holds true in the ordering of the TEN Commandments.
What other list of commandments does the bible have as a Bible-defined "unit" where the 5th commandment is "the FIRST commandment with a promise"?
I think the evidence is compelling that there is continuity in scripture.
In fact in Acts 17:11 you have "sola scriptura testing" of Apostolic doctrine. What "Scripture" were they using n the NT to do that "test"?? It is pretty hard to make this case for "Sola scriptura" with our Catholic friends if we want to exclude the scripture they were using to do the test.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I said --
1. How sad for DHK that he cannot deny my quote above stating "Sunday is not the Sabbath--nor was it ever, not in all of history was it the Sabbath. Moody's proclamation could not change the Sabbath into Sunday. The Sabbath has always been and always will be Saturday. Just because Moody proclaimed it to be Sunday doesn't make it so. "
2. How sad for DHK that he cannot deny my verbatim quote of D.L. Moody that follows my opening statement above.
Which pretty much leaves DHK with no place to go.
There is no hypocrisy in "noticing" that Moody is in full agree with the "Baptist Confession of Faith" when it comes to the affirmation of the TEN Commandments rather than a DOWNSIZED nine.
obviously that point only goes against your own proposals for downsizing or dismissing the TEN Commandments - so "no wonder" I quote D.L. Moody.
That part is "obvious to all".
You are free to resort to nonsense as if it is "Hypocrisy" to notice how this agreement is going against the arguments of DHK on the TEN Commandments.
Sounds a lot like Moody's idea of calling the 4th commandment Sabbath "any day you want" out of seven to me.
So also Iconoclast in his quotes of the Baptist Confession of Faith.
I say - along with all those who post the same point - that keeping the TEN Commandments is what the saints are called to do.
As we all - already knew.
in Christ,
Bob
1. How sad for DHK that he cannot deny my quote above stating "Sunday is not the Sabbath--nor was it ever, not in all of history was it the Sabbath. Moody's proclamation could not change the Sabbath into Sunday. The Sabbath has always been and always will be Saturday. Just because Moody proclaimed it to be Sunday doesn't make it so. "
2. How sad for DHK that he cannot deny my verbatim quote of D.L. Moody that follows my opening statement above.
Which pretty much leaves DHK with no place to go.
There is no hypocrisy in "noticing" that Moody is in full agree with the "Baptist Confession of Faith" when it comes to the affirmation of the TEN Commandments rather than a DOWNSIZED nine.
obviously that point only goes against your own proposals for downsizing or dismissing the TEN Commandments - so "no wonder" I quote D.L. Moody.
That part is "obvious to all".
You are free to resort to nonsense as if it is "Hypocrisy" to notice how this agreement is going against the arguments of DHK on the TEN Commandments.
Biblicist has posted repeatedly both here and recently on the C-vs-A board in favor of the TEN Commandments.
Biblicist said:
Sounds a lot like Moody's idea of calling the 4th commandment Sabbath "any day you want" out of seven to me.
So also Iconoclast in his quotes of the Baptist Confession of Faith.
So also others.Originally Posted by Iconoclast
The ten Commandments are still in full effect for all men everywhere.In the new Covenant they are in our heart.
Originally Posted by The Biblicist
Neither of us deny the ten commandments are valid principles for daily living to define the nature of sin. Neither of us deny the application of the fourth commandment but simply interpret it differently.
Turns out - this is a thread on the "TEN Commandments" and whether statement such as D.L. Moody's that are strongly in favor of the TEN Commandments are the right view -- or whether your DHK solution is to be taken no matter what the Bible says to the contrary.
I say - along with all those who post the same point - that keeping the TEN Commandments is what the saints are called to do.
As we all - already knew.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
--The law is contrary to faith.
Galatians 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
--Those that serve by the Spirit do not serve according to the Law. They are contrary one to another.
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
--Those who put themselves under the law (as in keeping the Sabbath) are cursed.
Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
--No man is justified by the law; the law cannot justify.
Galatians 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
--Here is the question.
What is the purpose of the law? Is the purpose of the law to keep it?
Not according to the Bible! The Bible teaches that the purpose of the law is to show us our transgressions. It shows us that we are sinners.
Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
--The scripture (the law here) has concluded all under sin. That is the purpose of the law. But the promise (of salvation), by faith of (in) Christ is given to them that believe.
Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, confined for the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 So that the law has become our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (WEB)
--The law was a jail. We were kept in custody by it. It bound us.
It also showed us our sin and in doing so became our teacher leading us to the knowledge of a Savior; the knowledge that we might be justified by faith.
The law was not given primarily to be kept (for no man can keep the law), but rather it was given to show man that he cannot keep it, that is, that he is a sinner in need of a Savior.
--The law is contrary to faith.
Galatians 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
--Those that serve by the Spirit do not serve according to the Law. They are contrary one to another.
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
--Those who put themselves under the law (as in keeping the Sabbath) are cursed.
Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
--No man is justified by the law; the law cannot justify.
Galatians 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
--Here is the question.
What is the purpose of the law? Is the purpose of the law to keep it?
Not according to the Bible! The Bible teaches that the purpose of the law is to show us our transgressions. It shows us that we are sinners.
Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
--The scripture (the law here) has concluded all under sin. That is the purpose of the law. But the promise (of salvation), by faith of (in) Christ is given to them that believe.
Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, confined for the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 So that the law has become our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (WEB)
--The law was a jail. We were kept in custody by it. It bound us.
It also showed us our sin and in doing so became our teacher leading us to the knowledge of a Savior; the knowledge that we might be justified by faith.
The law was not given primarily to be kept (for no man can keep the law), but rather it was given to show man that he cannot keep it, that is, that he is a sinner in need of a Savior.
Really?
Do you keep all Ten Commandments? All of them? All the time?
Answer the Question Bob. Don't evade it.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Paul says that the lost will claim that they cannot keep the Law of God - but that the saved saints can keep it.
Rom 8
6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; forit is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Who shall we believe - DHK or Scripture?
That is a pretty hard choice for one or two people here - but there are some others that have no difficulty at all making their choice on that one.
Even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and D.L Moody seem to be able to figure that one out along with the Seventh-day Baptists. At least to a point.
in Christ,
Bob
That is not what Paul said, it is only your faulty interpretation of what Paul said.
Here is what Paul said:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2071900&postcount=184
Deal with those scriptures.
Also answer the question:
Do you keep the Ten Commandments, all of them, all the time?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
One reason I posted this -- Romans 8 Bible answer to DHK's wild claim below
==================
6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Who shall we believe - DHK or Scripture?
That is a pretty hard choice for one or two people here - but there are some others that have no difficulty at all making their choice on that one.
Even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and D.L Moody seem to be able to figure that one out along with the Seventh-day Baptists. At least to a point.
==============================
Is because I had already posted this --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So also Iconoclast in his quotes of the Baptist Confession of Faith.
Turns out - this is a thread on the "TEN Commandments" and whether statement such as D.L. Moody's that are strongly in favor of keeping (rather than ignoring) the TEN Commandments are the right view -- or whether your DHK solution is to be taken no matter what the Bible says to the contrary.
I say - along with all those who post the same point - that keeping the TEN Commandments is what the saints are called to do.
As we all - already knew.
(except apparently for Steaver and DHK)
in Christ,
Bob
==================
Rom 8Originally Posted by DHK
The law was not given primarily to be kept (for no man can keep the law), but rather it was given to show man that he cannot keep it, that is, that he is a sinner in need of a Savior.
Paul says that the lost will claim that they cannot keep the Law of God - but that the saved saints can keep it.
6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Who shall we believe - DHK or Scripture?
That is a pretty hard choice for one or two people here - but there are some others that have no difficulty at all making their choice on that one.
Even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and D.L Moody seem to be able to figure that one out along with the Seventh-day Baptists. At least to a point.
==============================
Is because I had already posted this --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds a lot like Moody's idea of calling the 4th commandment Sabbath "any day you want" out of seven to me.
So also Iconoclast in his quotes of the Baptist Confession of Faith.
So also others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast
The ten Commandments are still in full effect for all men everywhere.In the new Covenant they are in our heart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Biblicist
Neither of us deny the ten commandments are valid principles for daily living to define the nature of sin. Neither of us deny the application of the fourth commandment but simply interpret it differently.
DHK said:
Turns out - this is a thread on the "TEN Commandments" and whether statement such as D.L. Moody's that are strongly in favor of keeping (rather than ignoring) the TEN Commandments are the right view -- or whether your DHK solution is to be taken no matter what the Bible says to the contrary.
I say - along with all those who post the same point - that keeping the TEN Commandments is what the saints are called to do.
As we all - already knew.
(except apparently for Steaver and DHK)
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you keep the Ten Commandments, all of them, all the time?
If not, by your understanding of the above verse you are in the flesh, and cannot please God.
Correct?
The choice is the Bible or SDA. Yep, an easy choice.
And whether or not you can keep them. Turns out you can't keep them. But you won't bring yourself to admit that, not in public anyway.
Not according to Paul. Paul said that no man can keep the Law. The Law is like a jail; it is a tutor, a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. It shows us our sinfulness. No man can keep the law. You are confused.
The purpose of the law is to show us our sinfulness.
Salvation is by grace through faith...not by the works of the law.
Hi Bob - Thank you too for your kind replies and non-judgmental practices. I also believe that close attention is always to be given to the instruction of the Word. This is why I find you posts sincere, because you maintain this and present why and what your reasons are--with Scripture. Please allow me to share this with you in reply.
NT Establishing the OT
I believe the meaning of the word "commandment" or "command" and "law" and "law of God" is defined by which dispensation it refers to--OT or NT. The OT usage for these is related to the doing of the Decalogue and the Levitical ceremonies, which to me both comprise the Law of God for the Jews pre-Cross, which was not intended for any other people at that time (and Scripture has never instructed this towards any other, and is no longer towards the Jew concerning fellowship with Christ), but was the figure (not the substance) of God's plans for all--post-Cross.
The fulfilling of the OT Law was the goal of the commands of Christ (also what His Apostles taught), and the establishing of the OT Law meant going beyond it within the commands of Christ, "For the law (OT Law) having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto complete (Heb 10:1).
The NT law establishes the OT Law, not by continuing in the OT Law, which would keep the rest of the world apart from God's union, but by regeneration in Christ, which introduced a new command of Christ, which is not different in goal (God's desires), but greater in a further application of God's will and desire---which sums up all of Christ's and the Apostles teachings (NT), "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you" (John 15:12).
The last four words in this command takes us from conditional love ("as you love yourself"--OT--Lev 19:18), to something similar, but was not taught in the OT, which is unconditional love, "as I have loved you"--NT (unconditional forgiveness from us to all).
When the NT speaks of the doing of the law or command of God, it refers to what Jesus and those whom He used to write the NT teach. God wants to justify the believer which was not the intention of the OT Law: "And by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:39; Rom 3:20).
-NC
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I think you are describing the dispensationalist view, which is highly regarded by quite a view people these days.
NT Establishing the OT
I believe the meaning of the word "commandment" or "command" and "law" and "law of God" is defined by which dispensation it refers to--OT or NT. The OT usage for these is related to the doing of the Decalogue and the Levitical ceremonies, which to me both comprise the Law of God for the Jews pre-Cross, which was not intended for any other people at that time (and Scripture has never instructed this towards any other, and is no longer towards the Jew concerning fellowship with Christ), but was the figure (not the substance) of God's plans for all--post-Cross.
The fulfilling of the OT Law was the goal of the commands of Christ (also what His Apostles taught), and the establishing of the OT Law meant going beyond it within the commands of Christ,
"For the law (OT Law) having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto complete (Heb 10:1).
The NT law establishes the OT Law, not by continuing in the OT Law, which would keep the rest of the world apart from God's union, but by regeneration in Christ, which introduced a new command of Christ, which is not different in goal (God's desires), but greater in a further application of God's will and desire---which sums up all of Christ's and the Apostles teachings (NT), "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you" (John 15:12).
The last four words in this command takes us from conditional love ("as you love yourself"--OT--Lev 19:18), to something similar, but was not taught in the OT, which is unconditional love, "as I have loved you"--NT (unconditional forgiveness from us to all).
[/quote]
Certainly it is true that Christ magnified the Law of God rather than tossing it under a bus as the saying goes.
You quote the precross John 15:12 statement of Christ which means you appear to be willing to accept the teaching of Christ before the cross as - "valid" for Christians today.
Let's take a look at the teaching of Christ in the Gospels.
So then even by the view you state above the pre-cross "Commandments" mentioned in Mark 7:6-13 include the TEN Commandments to which the Jewish leaders were expected to comply according to Mark 7
and in that case the teaching of Christ is as follows.
I don't see any way around that - if we are to listen to the Teaching of Christ in John 15:12 (as you point out) then so also in Mark 7.
Even by the view above - the "pre-cross" commandments of Christ are in the context of the OT - pre-cross rules "If you Love Me KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15 (and in John 15:14) as the quote to the Jews of the same Ex 20:6 command "Love Me and KEEP My Commandments".
As for all the world accountable to the Law of God -
In Lev 18 God says that pagan nations are destroyed by God for violating certain codes of scripture and Israel is warned that they are subject to the same principle.
In Romans 3 - Paul says "All the WORLD" Jewish or not, pagan or not is held accountable to the Law of God -
Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Is this "the Law of Christ" - supposedly at odds with the "Law of God" - the Ten Commandments?
Romans 7
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
Paul is quoting from the TEN Commandments - He is not quoting from one of the gospels.
The same goes for Eph 6.
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: 3 “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”
This is a direct quote of the 5th commandment not found anywhere in the Gospels with this exact wording.
And it is "the first commandment with a promise" only in context of the Ten Commandments. If you look at the OT it is not the first promise in the books of Moses or in the book of Exodus. Nor is it the first promise in the Gospels or in the NT.
This only works if one takes what the Bible itself calls the UNIT of the "Ten Commandments" where the Bible says "He spoke these TEN words" and then says "HE added no more".
Is it any wonder that the "Baptist Confession of Faith", the Westminster Confession of Faith, Thomas Watson's views of the Ten Commandments, and the Seventh-day Baptist view of it - (as well as D.L Moody's acceptance of the TEN Commandments) - is so consistent with the points made above from Eph 6 and Romans 3?
In Acts 21 the entire idea that the OT ceremonial law is dead - was brought up.
Acts 21
17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law
My question for you - is how this Acts 21 could have been agreed to by Paul given your opening statement above. It should not be there.
In Mal 3 God says "I do not change" in Heb 13 Paul says "Jesus is the SAME yesterday today and forever"
Here is an explicit example of OT Law predicted by God to exist long after the cross:
In Is 66:23 "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" in the New Heavens and New Earth.
In Matt 5 Christ says His work is to magnify the Law of God, to comply with it perfectly -- or replace it?
===============================================
one more point - in Matt 22 Christ quotes Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".
In Romans 13 Paul quotes that commandment from Lev 19:18 again.
It does not appear that they were negating it - rather they quote it verbatim in the NT.
And of course in Eph 6:1-3 you have only verbatim quote of the 5th commandment in the entire NT - and it is given as if that "unit of ten" is still being accepted as authoritative.
in Christ,
Bob
TrevorL
Member
Greetings Bob,
I have often browsed the forum page and seen the title of this thread that you started and now it is up to page 20. Without looking at the rest of the thread I thought a partial response to your position would be to quote Romans 7:7-12 but opening page 20 I find you are quoting this in response to NetChaplain.
Also Romans 6-8 is part of a well-reasoned argument or exposition of the way of life of the believer. One of my favourite passages in this sequence is
Romans 8:1-3 (KJV): 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Kind regards
Trevor
I have often browsed the forum page and seen the title of this thread that you started and now it is up to page 20. Without looking at the rest of the thread I thought a partial response to your position would be to quote Romans 7:7-12 but opening page 20 I find you are quoting this in response to NetChaplain.
My only question / comment on this passage is: Does not this show that the concept of law-keeping, especially the 10 Commandments, will only lead to failure, and that this is highlighted by this 10th Commandment "Thou shalt not covet". Paul's own experience with this particular Law highlights the inevitability of failure to keep The Law, especially the Ten Commandments.
Also Romans 6-8 is part of a well-reasoned argument or exposition of the way of life of the believer. One of my favourite passages in this sequence is
Romans 8:1-3 (KJV): 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Kind regards
Trevor
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
TevorL - certainly it is true that the lost cannot keep the Law of God - as one of my prior posts shows from Romans 8.
As for the saved saints in Romans 6 and 8 they are not enslaved to law breaking. But in Romans 7 Paul points to the problem of the saved saint who has the new nature but realizes that the sinful nature is at war "with the law of my mind". And Paul appeals to the solution in Romans 8 of "by the Spirit putting to death the deeds of the flesh".
Thus in 1Cor 7:19 Paul can say "what matters is KEEPING the Law of God" and speaking of future Justification Paul can say in Romans 2 "it is not the HEARERS of the Law that are just before God but the DOERS of the Law WILL be Justified... on the day when according to my GOSPEL God will judge"
I think you and I would both agree that this conversation would be entirely different had Paul said in Romans 8
[FONT="]5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT="]6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,[/FONT]
[FONT="]7 because [/FONT][FONT="]the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God;[/FONT][FONT="] yet even the mind set on the Spirit [/FONT][FONT="]does not subject itself to the Law of God[/FONT][FONT="], for it [/FONT][FONT="]is not even able to do so[/FONT][FONT="],[/FONT]
[FONT="]8 and those who are alive on earth whether lost or saved cannot please God[/FONT][FONT="] because none can actually obey His word..[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
As for the saved saints in Romans 6 and 8 they are not enslaved to law breaking. But in Romans 7 Paul points to the problem of the saved saint who has the new nature but realizes that the sinful nature is at war "with the law of my mind". And Paul appeals to the solution in Romans 8 of "by the Spirit putting to death the deeds of the flesh".
Thus in 1Cor 7:19 Paul can say "what matters is KEEPING the Law of God" and speaking of future Justification Paul can say in Romans 2 "it is not the HEARERS of the Law that are just before God but the DOERS of the Law WILL be Justified... on the day when according to my GOSPEL God will judge"
I think you and I would both agree that this conversation would be entirely different had Paul said in Romans 8
[FONT="]5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT="]6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,[/FONT]
[FONT="]7 because [/FONT][FONT="]the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God;[/FONT][FONT="] yet even the mind set on the Spirit [/FONT][FONT="]does not subject itself to the Law of God[/FONT][FONT="], for it [/FONT][FONT="]is not even able to do so[/FONT][FONT="],[/FONT]
[FONT="]8 and those who are alive on earth whether lost or saved cannot please God[/FONT][FONT="] because none can actually obey His word..[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
Last edited by a moderator:
After reading a few of these posts I came right to the end to comment.
In reality, I don't believe any of us keeps the 10 commandments.
Exodus 20
If we have entered into the true Sabbath we are not under the law.
In reality, I don't believe any of us keeps the 10 commandments.
Exodus 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
It was not until modern times did Israel put an image on their money (Shekel) unlike the gentile nations.
Open your wallet, look in your purse, pocket.
See all the images you have.
See all the images you have.
Under the law even pictures are considered to be a kind of image and are to be destroyed...
Numbers 33
52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:
52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:
The very fact that one is logged into the BB and producing images on the screen of people and things is a violation of the 10 commandments.
If we have entered into the true Sabbath we are not under the law.
Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
This is the Sabbath rest revealed in the scriptures one must keep to be saved.
Matthew 11
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Hebrews 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
HankD
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I think you and I would both agree that this conversation would be entirely different had Paul said in Romans 8
[FONT="]5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT="]6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,[/FONT]
[FONT="]7 because [/FONT][FONT="]the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God;[/FONT][FONT="] yet even the mind set on the Spirit [/FONT][FONT="]does not subject itself to the Law of God[/FONT][FONT="], for it [/FONT][FONT="]is not even able to do so[/FONT][FONT="],[/FONT]
[FONT="]8 and those who are alive on earth whether lost or saved cannot please God[/FONT][FONT="] because none can actually obey His word..[/FONT]
Christ picked up a coin and asked to have those around him describe the image on it. He never claimed that in this true pre-cross state of Christ in which he lived - that having money with an image on it was breaking one of the commandments - did He?
Judas carried the money bag - the disciples were known for using Roman currency.
in Christ,
Bob
Christ did not pick up a coin.
I doubt if Christ would even touch a coin with an image of a man on it who claimed to be a god.
Luke 20
24 Shew me a penny (denarion). Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.
25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
He said "shew me" not "give me".
The approved money of Israel in Christ day was the silver shekel with no image.
HankD
Last edited:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
In the gospels Christ had his disciples keep a bag of money for the poor and presumably to sustain their group when other forms of gifts were not available.
Christ had Peter pay the temple tax for himself and Peter without ever mentioning that touching money was a form of idolatry. Paul gives instruction to the rich in his letters and also takes up a collection for the poor in Jerusalem - without ever mentioning that to touch money is to break the Ten Commandments.
Same thing in James 2 - James mentions the rich and that breaking one commandment - breaks them all - but never says that for the rich to touch money is to break one of the Ten Commandments.
That is why it is important that Paul says "what matters is kEEPING the commandments" 1Cor 7:19.
in Christ,
Bob
Christ had Peter pay the temple tax for himself and Peter without ever mentioning that touching money was a form of idolatry. Paul gives instruction to the rich in his letters and also takes up a collection for the poor in Jerusalem - without ever mentioning that to touch money is to break the Ten Commandments.
Same thing in James 2 - James mentions the rich and that breaking one commandment - breaks them all - but never says that for the rich to touch money is to break one of the Ten Commandments.
That is why it is important that Paul says "what matters is kEEPING the commandments" 1Cor 7:19.
in Christ,
Bob
TrevorL
Member
Greetings again Bob,
Galatians 2:20 (KJV): I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
On a related matter, we had in our community one of our expositors gave emphasis to obedience to commandments, rather than the obedience that springs from faith, or possibly only a shift of emphasis. At one stage the term “perfect obedience” was used as if it is feasible for the believer. This caused some disruption, and a splitting of my own family members to two sides of the divide for many years. Recently I purchased a 2nd hand book “The Shaking of Adventism – A documented account of the crisis among Adventists over the doctrine of justification by faith” by GJ Paxton 1978. This book highlighted that the concept of perfectionism has been discussed at length in the SDA church over many years. (Possibly in more recent years this has been resolved by a common statement?) When I read this it seemed to echo some of the arguments on both sides of the problem that we experienced. Although I do not agree with the author’s position on this subject, (who in my opinion holds to "faith alone" of Martin Luther) it was an interesting comparison to my experiences on this subject.
Kind regards
Trevor
We are most probably reasonably close in our view of the need to obey the Commandments of Christ. I am not sure though if there is in the SDA community a slight shift in emphasis to obedience rather than an affectionate and whole-hearted belief in the gospel and this faith leading to a way of life that follows and responds to the way of life revealed in Jesus. In other words the obedience comes from or springs out of faith not from simply a desire to obey commandments. Perhaps the following summarises this way of life:
Galatians 2:20 (KJV): I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
On a related matter, we had in our community one of our expositors gave emphasis to obedience to commandments, rather than the obedience that springs from faith, or possibly only a shift of emphasis. At one stage the term “perfect obedience” was used as if it is feasible for the believer. This caused some disruption, and a splitting of my own family members to two sides of the divide for many years. Recently I purchased a 2nd hand book “The Shaking of Adventism – A documented account of the crisis among Adventists over the doctrine of justification by faith” by GJ Paxton 1978. This book highlighted that the concept of perfectionism has been discussed at length in the SDA church over many years. (Possibly in more recent years this has been resolved by a common statement?) When I read this it seemed to echo some of the arguments on both sides of the problem that we experienced. Although I do not agree with the author’s position on this subject, (who in my opinion holds to "faith alone" of Martin Luther) it was an interesting comparison to my experiences on this subject.
Kind regards
Trevor
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
It is true that obedience springs from faith.
It is true that the lost are not called to Keep the Commandments - but rather to surrender to the Gospel, confess, repent, Accept Christ, etc.
And it is true that as Romans 8:6-8 points out - obedience is an action only possible for the already saved saint.
But given that - your statement above is about the "motives and intent of the heart" when someone who is a born-again Christian speaks about the Bible texts calling for "keeping the Commandments of God" as if to say "well that is technically true if you have the right heart motivation".
So then - how is it you would be able to judge the motives of the heart among your fellow Christians? Why do it at all? Why not let God do that work?
As you can well suppose - Gal 2:20 is a text often appealed to among all Christian groups - even Seventh-day Baptists and yes even Seveth-day Adventists. There is no magic formula here for judging the intents of the heart of each person among believers. God alone does that.
One thing is clear - there is no Bible text that says that Paul or anybody else was supposed to pronounce upon themselves "absolute perfection attained" or that they "never sin day after day".
The degree to which one is found obedient to the Word of God - is a degree that God alone can measure.
But at the same time - we would not support the notion from our Catholic friends that the 2nd commandment must not be taken seriously until all Protestants were sinless. (And thankfully they don't make that argument - the way some non-Catholics do here appear to prefefer on this board.) Such arguments are straw.
Another point is that in 1Cor 10 "NO temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man - and God is faithful who will not ALLOW you to be tempted beyond that which you are able" so as a saved saint we cannot blame our sin on the idea that sin is stronger than God.
Furthermore Romans 6 says the saints must choose not to be enslaved by sin and Romans 8:6-8 makes it clear that only the lost have a rightful claim to the idea that "The law cannot be obeyed in this life".
Among Seventh-day Adventists there is the 1John 2:1 and Rev 15:8 scenario at the end of time - during the 7 last plagues that predicts a level of Gospel obedience that is to be taken seriously.
However this thread is not about being a Seventh-day Adventist - it is about not throwing the Ten Commandments under a bus - not tossing out what the Bible calls "the Word of God" in Mark 7:13 and the "Commandments of God" in 1John 5:1-4.
So then many non-SDA groups affirm that the Moral Law of God includes the TEN Commandments, is the heart of the New Covenant "Law written on heart and mind" and continues to be binding upon all the saints to this very day as seen in [FONT="]a number of well known Sunday keeping source documents (Emphasis for DHK to note the detail so often skipped over each time I mention it) such as the "Baptist Confession of Faith" section 19 or the "Westminster Confession of Faith" Section 19 or in D.L. Moody's online sermon on the TEN Commandments, Seventh-day Baptists, Andy Stanley, [/FONT][FONT="][FONT="]R.C Sproul. [/FONT] etc.
[/FONT]
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status