Ten Commandments Keep them or break them?

[Winman]

Indeed - Romans 7:1-4 begins with the context of one who is lost getting saved.

I never argue against the fact that the lost person is taken from being lost - to being saved in Rom 7:1-4.

In Romans 6 Paul is dealing with the saved person in vs 7-16 and the two choices that they have.

in Christ,

Bob

Nope, you are clinging to the false concept that Paul is saying your performance is what determines if you are saved or not. That is not what he is saying in Romans 6, or 7!

When you obey the gospel, you are transferred over to Jesus. Sin is no longer your master and has no dominion over you. You now belong to Jesus Christ and he is your master.

It is just as if you were married to sin, but sin had died, and now you are married to Jesus. Your marriage is not determined by your behavior, you are either married, or you are not, it has no relationship to how you act.

You actually have somewhat of a Calvinist view of Romans 6 or 7, they think that a person is a slave of sin and is compelled to sin. It is not saying that either. A slave can disobey his master, a slave can run away from his master. However, the master could recapture the slave and bring him back home.

No, it is speaking of a position, of ownership. If you have trusted Jesus, you no longer belong to sin, you now belong to Jesus. Sin has no more power or dominion over you, he cannot recapture you as he could in the past.

It is not unlike slaves who ran away from their masters before the Emancipation Proclamation, the owner had the legal right to recapture the slave. But after the Emancipation Proclamation, the slave owner no longer had any legal power to keep or recapture a slave.

 

[BobRyan]

Nope, you are clinging to the false concept that Paul is saying your performance is what determines if you are saved or not.

1. You are mixing Romans 7:1-5 speaking of how the lost person (the one married to the law and condemned as a sinner without Christ) becomes saved -- with Romans 6:7-16 speaking of the choices that the saved person has (the one not under law but under grace).


2. You are ignoring the deeds done "in the members of your body" in Romans 6 as if this is not an outward act of "performance".

11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

Paul explicitly addresses the subject of these outward actions "the one that you obey" in real life - and what it means.

Impossible to miss.

My particular doctrinal POV does not require that I ignore these key Bible details - so I don't ignore them.

But my reason for bringing up Romans 6 on this thread - was to point out that sin "defined" as "transgression of the law" 1John 3:4 is not something the saints are supposed to be indifferent about.

I can't help if if Paul's way of making that point - also refutes OSAS - I am not even trying to debunk OSAS on this thread. It is simply a matter of the way Paul states the case about sin and the saints.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It is not unlike slaves who ran away from their masters before the Emancipation Proclamation, the owner had the legal right to recapture the slave. But after the Emancipation Proclamation, the slave owner no longer had any legal power to keep or recapture a slave.

Indeed the Law of God no longer declares the saint to be doomed to the Lake of Fire -

But Paul says sin still comes up - and that the one under grace and not under law - has a choice of either returning to slavery to sin or remaining as a slave as righteousness.

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

 

[Winman]

Indeed the Law of God no longer declares the saint to be doomed to the Lake of Fire -

But Paul says sin still comes up - and that the one under grace and not under law - has a choice of either returning to slavery to sin or remaining as a slave as righteousness.

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

Once again you are stopping short at verse 16. Paul did not stop here like you repeatedly do.

You can't simply ignore scripture that refutes your view, but that is exactly what you are attempting to do.

You are starting to remind me of another frequent poster here who presents "indisputable proof!" that he is always right. :laugh:

He ignores any scripture that refutes him too. :thumbsup:

 

[BobRyan]

Once again you are stopping short at verse 16. Paul did not stop here like you repeatedly do.

You can't simply ignore scripture that refutes your view, but that is exactly what you are attempting to do.
:thumbsup:

Nothing in the remainder of Romans 6 refutes vs 7-16.

"The details" in 11-16 do not allow for the idea that Romans 6 says nothing about the outward actions of the saved.

You CAN look at vs 17-23 and say "hey look nothing said here about outward actions so maybe they are not mentioned in the chapter" - but we both know that does not work.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Winman]

Nothing in the remainder of Romans 6 refutes vs 7-16.

"The details" in 11-16 do not allow for the idea that Romans 6 says nothing about the outward actions of the saved.

You CAN look at vs 17-23 and say "hey look nothing said here about outward actions so maybe they are not mentioned in the chapter" - but we both know that does not work.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, this is it, I am not going to keep arguing with you. Verses 17-18 refutes your concept of verses 15 and 16;

Rom 6:17 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.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Verse 17 explains what Paul meant by "yielding to obedience to righteousness". He is not saying that a person has to live a sinless life, he is speaking of a one time event, believing the gospel.

And verse 18 is further proof that this is speaking of a one time event, Paul here says, "Being then", which refers back to believing the gospel, made free from sin, ye "became" the servants of righteousness.

Paul is not saying these persons stopped sinning forever, as no person could possibly say such a thing.

No, Paul is saying that after this one time event of believing the gospel, these persons have been made free of sin and are now the servants of righteousness.

He is saying that sin is no longer their master and no longer owns them, they now belong to righteousness, which in reality is Jesus Christ.

Now why do you persist in error? You know what I am saying is true. You have come across as an honest interpreter of scripture, but you are beginning to act like some others here that wrest scripture to make it say what they desire it to say.

Do you really want to do that?

 

[BobRyan]

"The details" in 11-16 do not allow for the idea that Romans 6 says nothing about the outward actions of the saved.

You CAN look at vs 17-23 and say "hey look nothing said here about outward actions so maybe they are not mentioned in the chapter" - but we both know that does not work.

Bob, this is it, I am not going to keep arguing with you. Verses 17-18 refutes your concept of verses 15 and 16;

Rom 6:17 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.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Verse 17 explains what Paul meant by "yielding to obedience to righteousness". He is not saying that a person has to live a sinless life

1. I never claim that the person in the good scenario in vs 7-16 has to live a sinless life. You keep making that up and providing no quote at all from me stating such a thing. Am I not supposed to "notice"?

In any case that is not a "detail" in vs 17 refuting any position I have actually taken - only a straw-man you are proposing. But I never thought your straw man was valid to start with - you don't need vs 17 for that.

2. The "problem" you have with vs 7-16 is NOT with the one who is "obeying" not even "obeying from the heart" the heart burn you are having is with vs 16 regarding the one who does NOT obey.

3. vs 17 does not say "the one who obeys sin - is still obeying from the heart". This is the missing verse 17 that I think you may be looking for.

Vs 17-18 also does not say "the one who obeys sin - is not a servant of sin - because in fact they are obeying from the heart" -- you believe it apparently - but you don't have anything that actually says it.

4. "Servants of Righteouseness" is a phrase already defined in Romans 6.

It is in the very part of the chapter you are most hoping to avoid.

But vs 18 does not say "even if we obey sin we are still servants of righteousness" --again this would be the missing vs 18 that I think you might be looking for - it would refute vs 7-16 if it existed -- so I understand why you keep wanting to find it.

No, Paul is saying that after this one time event of believing the gospel, these persons have been made free of sin and are now the servants of righteousness.

But only if they are complying with the information already given in the chapter (so that is "context"). And the context has Paul defining the fact that the save (the one under grace) is only remaining as the servant of righteousness IF they are obeying God's Word rather than living in rebellion against it.

vs 17-18 are in perfect harmony with vs 11-16 as it turns out.

Paul explicitly deals with the SAVED person UNDER grace - when HE says --

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?


Vs 17-18 do NOT say "only those who are NOT UNDER GRACE are servants of sin IF they choose to obey sin -- those UNDER GRACE are not servants of sin regardless if they choose to obey sin or not".


In any case - I am not even trying to refute OSAS on this thread - I only quoted Romans 6 to point out that the saints are supposed to respect obedience and to avoid sin - which is "defined" by God as "transgression of the LAW" 1John 3:4.

You are making this a debate about OSAS - because you know that vs 7-16 is a problem for OSAS "as it reads" even if it is just quoted to speak about the saints respecting the Law of God vs rebellion against God's Law "sin is transgression of the Law".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Winman]

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[steaver]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
You asked what the Bible says about what we are supposed to do to honor the 4th commandment.

I pointed you to "the Bible details" in Ex 20:8-11 (a day of no work) and also to the "Bible details" in Lev 23:1-3 and Is 66:23 come together for worship,
Regarding the texts I posted for affirming God's Ten Commandments --

I don't think you will find any whining or complaining about these texts and these observance details in well known Sunday keeping source documents 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 - in his 4th Commandment section. Nor will you find the Seventh-day Baptists complaining about these texts - nor the Messianic Jewish groups I have personally visited, nor R.C Sproul.


in Christ,

Bob

This is taken from the Messianic Jewish congregation website you gave us for a reference....

(3) No scripture specifically defines REMEMBERING THE SABBATH AND KEEPING IT HOLY as gathering together on that day for public worship.

Are you going to continue to argue against even the Messianic Jews about gathering together for worshipping on the Sabbath?
__________________
How can one stop believing in that which they have personal knowledge of is an absolute truth?

 

[BobRyan]

Are you going to continue to argue against your own Baptists? --- The Seventh-day Baptists? The "Baptist Confession of Faith"? - C.H. Spurgeon?? D.L. Moody??

Really?

 

[BobRyan]

This is taken from the Messianic Jewish congregation website you gave us for a reference....

Are you going to continue to argue against even the Messianic Jews about gathering together for worshipping on the Sabbath?

Try this -


That link says

The Origin of the Sabbath

When Yeshua taught that "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.." (Mark 2:27) His words do not point back to the Ten Commandments. They point to the action of G*d long before the giving of the Ten Commandments. They point to the original purpose and will of G*d. The Sabbath came into being as a final crowning part of the act of Creation. It was set apart at creation for the benefit of humanity. G*d's Sabbath rest was a divine example for the benefit of man. (Genesis 2:1-3).



http://www.messiahassembly.com/shabbot.asp


===============


I am not as convinced as you are - that this is an argument against the Bible Sabbath.


Here is more from that site -


==================




Observing the Sabbath was part of the covenant which G*d made with Israel at Sinai. Is It Applicable to All People?

We have shown that the Sabbath precedes the Mosaic covenant. It would seem reasonable to understand that some supposed annulment of that covenant would only annul the Sabbath instructions of that covenant. The pre-Mosaic principle is still applicable to all who want the benefits of keeping the Sabbath. The setting apart of the Shabbot acknowledges the physical need of humanity for a Sabbath of rest. We are so constituted that the welfare of our bodies requires that we rest from ordinary labor at least one day in seven. The failure of many people to set aside a day of total rest may account for the staggering toll which stress takes on people in our modern society.
G*d set Himself, on the seventh day of creation, as the ultimate example. How can we ignore this ultimate example? If we do really love G*d, we need to spend time with Him. Indeed, we should crave to spend time with Him! We need to come to this one inescapable conclusion -- It is for our benefit! G*d is not a capricious diety like the "gods" of the Egyptians, antagonistic to the welfare of His creation, and making capricious demands so He can watch us dance like puppets on a string. He did not command the keeping of the Sabbath to make us give up something which was really for our benefit. Failure to rest one day out of seven hurts our health, hurts our families, hurts us emotionally, and hurts us spiritually. Keeping the Sabbath is for our benefit. Can we point to a clear and unequivocal commandment that Gentiles keep the Sabbath? NO! Can we point to sound and solid reasons for them to do so? Yes, a thousand times, yes..

...
Some people seem to believe that the Ten Commandments is no longer a law from G*d. Logic demands that if we were to accept this doctrine, (which we do not} then we could ONLY assume that ONLY the Mosaic regulations governing the Sabbath were revoked.

=================

At the very least these guys are as 'enlightened' as the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and "D.L.Moody".

And given that many of these Messianic Jewish sources actually do keep the seventh day as is written in the Word of God - probably even more enlightened on that point - possibly more like the Seventh-day Baptists!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Are you going to continue to argue against your own Baptists? --- The Seventh-day Baptists? The "Baptist Confession of Faith"? - C.H. Spurgeon?? D.L. Moody??

Really?

You made the claim about the Messianic Jews, as I gave your quote. I took their quote from the link you provided. Are you going to continue to argue against the Messianic Jews on this point? Don't you think those coming out of Judaism should understand the Sabbath a bit better than a non Jew??

(3) No scripture specifically defines REMEMBERING THE SABBATH AND KEEPING IT HOLY as gathering together on that day for public worship

Taken from the link you provided http://www.messiahassembly.com/shabbot.asp

 

[steaver]

Try this -


That link says

The Origin of the Sabbath

When Yeshua taught that "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.." (Mark 2:27) His words do not point back to the Ten Commandments. They point to the action of G*d long before the giving of the Ten Commandments. They point to the original purpose and will of G*d. The Sabbath came into being as a final crowning part of the act of Creation. It was set apart at creation for the benefit of humanity. G*d's Sabbath rest was a divine example for the benefit of man. (Genesis 2:1-3).



http://www.messiahassembly.com/shabbot.asp


===============


I am not as convinced as you are - that this is an argument against the Bible Sabbath.


Here is more from that site -


==================




Observing the Sabbath was part of the covenant which G*d made with Israel at Sinai. Is It Applicable to All People?

We have shown that the Sabbath precedes the Mosaic covenant. It would seem reasonable to understand that some supposed annulment of that covenant would only annul the Sabbath instructions of that covenant. The pre-Mosaic principle is still applicable to all who want the benefits of keeping the Sabbath. The setting apart of the Shabbot acknowledges the physical need of humanity for a Sabbath of rest. We are so constituted that the welfare of our bodies requires that we rest from ordinary labor at least one day in seven. The failure of many people to set aside a day of total rest may account for the staggering toll which stress takes on people in our modern society.
G*d set Himself, on the seventh day of creation, as the ultimate example. How can we ignore this ultimate example? If we do really love G*d, we need to spend time with Him. Indeed, we should crave to spend time with Him! We need to come to this one inescapable conclusion -- It is for our benefit! G*d is not a capricious diety like the "gods" of the Egyptians, antagonistic to the welfare of His creation, and making capricious demands so He can watch us dance like puppets on a string. He did not command the keeping of the Sabbath to make us give up something which was really for our benefit. Failure to rest one day out of seven hurts our health, hurts our families, hurts us emotionally, and hurts us spiritually. Keeping the Sabbath is for our benefit. Can we point to a clear and unequivocal commandment that Gentiles keep the Sabbath? NO! Can we point to sound and solid reasons for them to do so? Yes, a thousand times, yes..

...
Some people seem to believe that the Ten Commandments is no longer a law from G*d. Logic demands that if we were to accept this doctrine, (which we do not} then we could ONLY assume that ONLY the Mosaic regulations governing the Sabbath were revoked.

=================

At the very least these guys are as 'enlightened' as the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and "D.L.Moody".

And given that many of these Messianic Jewish sources actually do keep the seventh day as is written in the Word of God - probably even more enlightened on that point - possibly more like the Seventh-day Baptists!

in Christ,

Bob

That's all very nice indeed. Now why do you accept some of what the Jews say and reject the other??

(3) No scripture specifically defines REMEMBERING THE SABBATH AND KEEPING IT HOLY as gathering together on that day for public worship

 

[BobRyan]

Well even your own "Baptist Confession of Faith" prints the answer to that question - why not ask them?

then the "Baptist Confession of Faith" says.

[FONT=&quot]Section 19
. The Law of God [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]God gave to Adam a law[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of universal obedience which was written in his heart[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it. [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the TEN COMMANDMENTS, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away. [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times. [/FONT]

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Well even your own "Baptist Confession of Faith" prints the answer to that question - why not ask them?

in Christ,

Bob

What's the problem Bob?? The very link you provided for a genuine Messianic Jewish congregation debunks your doctrine of Sabbath being a day for public worship. Do you think you know better than they??

(3) No scripture specifically defines REMEMBERING THE SABBATH AND KEEPING IT HOLY as gathering together on that day for public worship

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
(3) No scripture specifically defines REMEMBERING THE SABBATH AND KEEPING IT HOLY as gathering together on that day for public worship

Taken from the link you provided http://www.messiahassembly.com/shabbot.asp

Except for Is 66:23 and Lev 23:1-3 of course. I guess if we ignore that part of the Bible well then "maybe" -- "no scripture" but I am not sure we can take out our scissors and cut those pages out.

I am also not sure there is no other place to find that same instruction.

They appear to be in error on that point. (you probably already knew that)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

(3) No scripture specifically defines REMEMBERING THE SABBATH AND KEEPING IT HOLY as gathering together on that day for public worship

Who do you think knows better Bob? A Messianic Jewish congregation or the "Baptist Confession of Faith"? Or maybe the SDA knows better??

I will go with the Messianic Jews on this one Bob. How about you??

 

[steaver]

Except for Is 66:23 and Lev 23:1-3 of course. I guess if we ignore that part of the Bible well then "maybe" -- "no scripture" but I am not sure we can take out our scissors and cut those pages out.

I am also not sure there is no other place to find that same instruction.

They appear to be in error on that point. (you probably already knew that)

in Christ,

Bob

Wow! Messianic Jews in error on the Sabbath Day worshipping. Who would have thought?? Maybe you could set them straight next time you visit with them. Tell them about Ellen White being sent from God to set them straight maybe.

 

[BobRyan]

I am likely to quote Ellen White there as much I have done it here to make my case. I guess that means I will need to link them to you and SaturnNeptune since you are the ones most anxious to discuss her writings in your efforts to avoid the Bible details I keep bringing up. ...

 

[BobRyan]

Except for Is 66:23 and Lev 23:1-3 of course. I guess if we ignore that part of the Bible well then "maybe" -- "no scripture" but I am not sure we can take out our scissors and cut those pages out.

I am also not sure there is no other place to find that same instruction.

They appear to be in error on that point. (you probably already knew that)

Who do you think knows better Bob? A Messianic Jewish congregation or the "Baptist Confession of Faith"? Or maybe the SDA knows better??

Let's see now ... hmmm.. I gave you the Bible details for Lev 23:1-3 and Isaiah 66:23 and then you ... well... "ignore the Bible details - again".

Wow! I am surprised Steaver -- I really did not think you would go that route.

What happened??

In case you missed this detail - this thread is on the TEN Commandments. You can find them in Exodus 20. Did you want to say something about them?

in Christ,

Bob