Should Christians Keep the Ten Commandments Today???

[Brother Lionel]

So, again my friend, my view is that these laws (the moral laws, the civil laws, and the health laws) are still in tact but the penalty has been delayed until Jesus’ return

I think people get penaltys before Christ return,,,,I mean GOd has given health laws,,,now any person with common sense can look at america and tell we abide by no health laws,(most of us),,,,and because of it we are very sickly overweight and filled with things like youth diabetes???? youth diabetes are you kidding me....

Anyhow breaking Gods laws can easily cause death/sickness/pain....,,,so im thinking that pentalty will come sooner then Christ for many....

Awesome point Nightmare! I would've threw that in but I didnt want to make it more complicated to understand for my friends like Drew and others as it already is (no offense Drew). Saying that we dont have to live by the law of God is opening the door for all sorts of foolishness as we can see in our world today. People need to understand that the Law of God is established for our protection - protection from ourselves and protection from the enemy. That's why James calls it the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25, 2:12)!!! Could you imagine if everyone kept God's Commandments?? We would be free and full of liberty! We would be able to sleep at night without a security system or our doors locked because no one would steal. We would be able to go about our neighborhoods and cities any day at any time without worrying about getting mugged or murdered. The divorce rate would be null and void and millions of families wouldn't be destroyed. So to say that we are "free" from keeping God's Commandments is not only unbiblical, but it is a doctrine of devils!!!

 

[Brother Lionel]

I do accept Paul’s teaching and I’m sorry friend, but he does not teach that sin can exist in the absence of the Law:

Rom 4:15 “Because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression..

If Paul teaches that sin can exist without the law, please explain why did he say where there is no law, there is no sin?

Why do you think it is acceptable to take this statement:

where there is no law there is no transgression

and strike out the word "transgression" and replace it with the word "sin" to make it read:

where there is no law there is no sin

How is this substitution justified? Are you suggesting that sin and transgression mean the same thing? Before you explcitly assert that they do, I suggest that you search for all occurrences of these 2 terms in the New Testament.

Sin and transgression are decidedly not the same thing.

Drew.......Really dude???? You're joking right???

 

[Drew]

Drew.......Really dude???? You're joking right???

I am not joking. Sin is a different greek word than transgression. You simply cannot assume they mean the same thing. Please think about this. You cannot simply take one word and substitute another one for it without actually making the case for the two words meaning the same thing.

And Paul clearly thinks that sin and transgression are two distinct concepts. What has Paul actually said? Has he said "where there is no law there is no sin"?

No.

This is what he said:

And where there is no law there is no transgression

So tell us, why do you conclude that he really means:

where there is no law there is no sin"?

 

[RND]

Why do you think it is acceptable to take this statement:

where there is no law there is no transgression

and strike out the word "transgression" and replace it with the word "sin" to make it read:

where there is no law there is no sin

Because sin "is" the transgression of the law. Sin is transgression.

Have we reached a point in this debate where even the plain meaning of words are dismissed?

sin
1  /sɪn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sin] Show IPA noun, verb, sinned, sin⋅ning.
Use sin in a Sentence
See web results for sin
See images of sin
–noun
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.

 

[RND]

I am not joking.

:o That's truly sad.

Sin is a different greek word than transgression.

Crime and murder are two different words as well. Are you suggesting that murder isn't a crime?

 

[Brother Lionel]

Drew.......Really dude???? You're joking right???

I am not joking. Sin is a different greek word than transgression. You simply cannot assume they mean the same thing. Please think about this. You cannot simply take one word and substitute another one for it without actually making the case for the two words meaning the same thing.

And Paul clearly thinks that sin and transgression are two distinct concepts. What has Paul actually said? Has he said "where there is no law there is no sin"?

No.

This is what he said:

And where there is no law there is no transgression

So tell us, why do you conclude that he really means:

where there is no law there is no sin"?

Ok, I respect your post even if I do not agree. But this is what the dictionary says:

transgress – to violate a law, command, moral code, etc.; to offend; to sin.

Synonyms:
sin, trespass, iniquity, disobey, breaking of the law, wrongdoing, disobedience


sin - transgression of divine law

Synonyms:
transgression, disobedience, evil-doing, fault, iniquity, offense, trespass, ungodliness, unrighteousness, violation, wickedness, wrong, wrongdoing, wrongness

Do you see how both definitions are interchangable? So according to the dictionary Drew, these two terms are the same. I understand how this can be difficult to digest and I just want to let you know that I've been there buddy. But I encourage you to study what is said in the posts, don't take our word for it, study the scriptures and read for yourself. Pray and study and God will guide you because Jesus said that the truth will make you free.

 

[Brother Lionel]

Ok so the question still remains to those who feel that the Ten Commandments are not binding. And since we have establised Romans 4:15 where Paul implies that there is no sin where no law is present, should we keep the Ten Commandments today people?

 

[Drew]

Saying that we dont have to live by the law of God is opening the door for all sorts of foolishness as we can see in our world today!

BL and others: There is a huge conceptual problem here, and we are talking past each other as result.

Let's remember what Paul means when he refers to "the Law". In almost every case (with one exception being Romans 2:13), he is referring to the written code of the Law of Moses. This includes the 10 commandments.

Such references to “the Lawâ€Â, therefore, are not, repeat not, references to an "internal sense of what's right" or some vague moral "rule" like "do unto others.

Such references to “the Lawâ€Â, therefore, are not, repeat not, references to common sense “rules†like “If you eat too many bags of potato chips you will get fatâ€Â.

I suspect that some of you are confused by my assertions that the 10 commandments have been “retiredâ€Â. You may think that this means that I think its ok for the Christian to murder and commit adultery.

I would have hoped that my posts would have suggested that I am more sensible than that.

Of course, I believe no such thing.

What I am doing, and I am only following Paul (a practice I would commend to all) is asserting that the fundamental “informing and authoritative source†for Christian behaviour is the Holy Spirit, and not the list of 613 commandments and rules that constitute the Law of Moses.

Now please try to understand this: I believe that a Christian who is in tune with the Spirit will neither murder, nor steal, nor commit adultery. But the reason such a Christian behaves like this is because the Spirit guides them – they are not ordering their lives by the 613 rules in the law of Moses.

A Christian with the Spirit will not “need to be told by a set of rules†to not murder, or commit adultery. The Spirit will transform the person so that they will avoid this behaviour by the very fact that their natures are being renewed.

If a Christian says “I really want to murder people, and the only reason I don’t is that the 10 commandments tell me not toâ€Â, I suggest we are not dealing with a real Christian.

If a Christian says “I really want to bone the neighbour’s wife, and the only reason I donâ€â¢t is that the 10 commandments tell me not toâ€Â, I suggest we are not dealing with a real Christian.

Does that clarify things?

 

[Drew]

Ok, I respect your post even if I do not agree. But this is what the dictionary says:

transgress – to violate a law, command, moral code, etc.; to offend; to sin.

Synonyms:
sin, trespass, iniquity, disobey, breaking of the law, wrongdoing, disobedience


sin - transgression of divine law

Synonyms:
transgression, disobedience, evil-doing, fault, iniquity, offense, trespass, ungodliness, unrighteousness, violation, wickedness, wrong, wrongdoing, wrongness

Do you see how both definitions are interchangable? So according to the dictionary Drew, these two terms are the same.

They are not the same concept for Paul, as I will show in subsequent posts. One clue is that Paul uses different greek words for sin and for transgression.

Here is just one teaser in this regard:

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in (I)the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

If sin = transgression of divine law, as you suggest, then here we have Paul saying that God condemns transgression of divine law. This is conceptually nonsensical. Imagine that you are on trial for murder. Imagine that the judge says “I sentence the transgression of the law†to life in prison. Does that make sense? Of course not. The “thing†that should be sentenced is you.

Same thing with this text from Romans. It makes no sense to condemn “transgressions†– a transgression is not the kind of thing you condemn.

Here, as elsewhere in Paul, the word “sin†refers to a very real and powerful force that exists in the world, and it is this force - sin – that is condemned on the cross.

 

[Drew]

Further to point that "sin" does not always connote "breaking of law" for Paul.

It is difficult for we 21st century products of enlightenment thinking to conceive of sin as a power or force. But my reading of Paul inclines me to think that Paul indeed did consider sin to be a real force or power in the world.

In this respect, consider some of the things that Paul writes in Romans 7. As I have exhaustively argued elsewhere, the main argument that Paul is making in Romans 7 is about the Jew under Torah, not the Christian experience.

Consider this from Romans 7:

8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

If one comes to this text without an a priori bias to believe that Paul is speaking metaphorically, one must consider taking Paul literally and concluding that sin is indeed a power or force that can do the things described here. Now it is, of course, possible that Paul is speaking metaphorically here but the overall shape of Paul’s argument in Romans speaks strongly against a metaphorical reading. I will return to this at the end.

This text is even more telling:

For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to doâ€â€this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

It is not really possible to reconcile this description of sin with the view that sin is simply "transgression of the law". Note that in the above, Paul is drawing a clear distinction between himself (as representative of the Jew under Torah) and sin. This really only makes sense if sin is conceived to be a real force, fundamentally distinct from Paul. In this text, the metaphorical reading falls apart. Paul clearly ascribes responsibility for the evil he does to a separate agency – sin living in him. He is not saying that “the sinful part of me†is doing this evil. No, he has clearly stated that agency who does this sin is not the “I†- how much clearer could he be than a claim “it is no longer I who do itâ€Â.

While I suspect most will claim I am reading Paul too literally when he should be read metaphorically, that argument cannot work. It might work in verses 8-9 but not here. Paul has closed the door on the possibility that he is only metaphorically describing sin as if it were a force. How has he done this? Obviously by the clear statement “I do not do the evil I do, sin living in me does this evilâ€Â.

And finally, we have this famous text from Romans 8:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,...

God condemns sin on the cross, not Jesus. How can this possibly be if sin is merely "breaking the law"? No. Sin is a real power in the world that is defeated on the cross.

And now to very briefly address an overarching theme that I think is clearly present in Paul and which endorses the notion that sin is indeed a force:

The Jews are "chosen" by God, "elected" by God, to act out the Christ pattern - to be the place where sin is accumulated, concentrated, and brought to full hideousness of expression.

Why on earth would God do such a thing? Precisely so that sin in its full flower of expression could then be transferred into the flesh of her faithful Messiah Jesus and there condemned.

I think that this is what Paul is talking about in the potter account in Romans 9 - an account commonly seen as addressing the pre-destination of individuals to ultimate glory or loss. Instead, I think that Paul is talking about Israel and how, like the potter with his pot, God has the right to harden Israel by using Torah to actually increase her sinfulness.

This is how Israel blesses the nations - by being the place where sin is localized, magnified, and rendered vulnerable to final condemnation in Jesus.

None of this should be misrepresented as establishing a basis for abdicating responsibility for sin on the part of the Christian. The material in Roman 7 is about the unregenerate Jew under Torah. Unlike that person, the Christian is indeed able to resist the power of sin in his life.

 

[Drew]

Ok so the question still remains to those who feel that the Ten Commandments are not binding. And since we have establised Romans 4:15 where Paul implies that there is no sin where no law is present, should we keep the Ten Commandments today people?

We have established no such thing.

Here is what Paul actually writes in Romans 4:15

And where there is no law there is no transgression.

The greek word translated as "transgression" is this word: parabasis.

What is the Greek word for "sin". It is this word: hamartia

Now, if Paul meant to say "where there is no law, there is no sin", why didn't Paul, an accomplised scholar and careful writer, actually use the word "sin"?

 

[lovely]

Ok so the question still remains to those who feel that the Ten Commandments are not binding. And since we have establised Romans 4:15 where Paul implies that there is no sin where no law is present, should we keep the Ten Commandments today people?

Brother Lionel, I think that many of us have already said that the Ten Commandments are encapsulated in the law written on the hearts of believers, and that Jesus takes them further. Lust, or committing adultery in the heart, is addressed rather than just the the act of committing adultery. The Love commands bring us to the spirit of the law which surpasses the letter by far, and reminds us constantly what Christ did for us and how we are to treat others. When we love Him, we obey Him, it's simple. We are not condemned, being 'in Christ', and because we are 'in Christ', we are 'free' to walk in the spirit, not in the flesh. So, while we are not under the Law, as scripture says, we who walk in the Spirit actually uphold the righteousness of God. It's when we try to follow a list of rules in the flesh that we get into problems. So, the Ten Commandments are surpassed in love. Think how different the church would be if we would all be mature in love, and allow the Holy Spirit to indwell others and change their hearts to further the Kingdom.

The Lord bless you.

 

[lovely]

Drew,

I think we agree about this. The Law was given so that the transgression of the law would reveal the sin that lurked in the hearts of fallen men. Sin has been washed away by the blood of Christ for the believer, and so there is no longer a need for the Law. The Law was also given as a tutor, but now that we have Christ in us, we can follow Him in ways that the Law could never teach, and so again the Law is no longer needed. Would you agree, or am I missing some other subtle point?

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Ok so the question still remains to those who feel that the Ten Commandments are not binding. And since we have establised Romans 4:15 where Paul implies that there is no sin where no law is present, should we keep the Ten Commandments today people?

We have established no such thing.

Here is what Paul actually writes in Romans 4:15

And where there is no law there is no transgression.

The greek word translated as "transgression" is this word: parabasis.

What is the Greek word for "sin". It is this word: hamartia

Now, if Paul meant to say "where there is no law, there is no sin", why didn't Paul, an accomplised scholar and careful writer, actually use the word "sin"?

Please go back and research,,,,Paul was not a accomplished Greek scholar Paul was a Hebrew scholor he only spoke/wrote colloquial Greek.......You see this many times throughout such as ::::

Hebrews 12:1
Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us

Being a Hebrew scholor and not a accomplished Greek scholor Paul used words like "cloud" to describe a great "crowd" of witnesses.........

 

[Drew]

Drew,

I think we agree about this. The Law was given so that the transgression of the law would reveal the sin that lurked in the hearts of fallen men. Sin has been washed away by the blood of Christ for the believer, and so there is no longer a need for the Law. The Law was also given as a tutor, but now that we have Christ in us, we can follow Him in ways that the Law could never teach, and so again the Law is no longer needed. Would you agree, or am I missing some other subtle point?

I agree with you in specific relation to the present status of the Law - we no longer need it and have been given the Spirit.

I would, however, add these assertions which I do not think change my agreement with you in relation to the present status of the Law (it is retired).

1. The Law of Moses was not only given to "reveal" sin, it was given to actually increase sin. This is deeply counter-intuitive and will no doubt serve as fuel for those who are already convinced I am mistaken about the Law. I have not gotten into this issue much since I think it is only very loosely connected to the matter at issue - whether the Law of Moses is still in force. We agree that it is not in precisely the sense that you have articulated.

2. On the cross, sin is condemned, not Jesus (Romans 8:3) - further evidence that sin cannot simply connote "law-breaking" since it is conceptually incoherent that "judgements as to transgression of the law" are the kind of thing that can be subject to the action of condemnation. Paul sees sin as a "personal force", and perhaps here is equating it with Satan. And, of course, it would indeede make sense to suggest that Satan is condemned on the Cross.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Drew,

I think we agree about this. The Law was given so that the transgression of the law would reveal the sin that lurked in the

hearts of fallen men. Sin has been washed away by the blood of Christ for the believer, and so there is no longer a need for the Law. The Law was also given as a tutor, but now that we have Christ in us, we can follow Him in ways that the Law could never teach, and so again the Law is no longer needed. Would you agree, or am I missing some other subtle point?

Indeed your missind something.....The law is no longer need huh????? Im sure if you trully new the law you wouldnt say that......When has Christ ever inmdicated that the law is not needed??????

This is what you said
[quote:w11imhis]The Law was also given as a tutor, but now that we have Christ in us, we can follow Him in ways that the Law could never teach, and so again the Law is no longer needed.

This is what Christ said

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

[/quote:w11imhis]

Now am I miising something or are you and Christ on two totally different sides spectrum...

 

[Brother Lionel]

Drew,

I think we agree about this. The Law was given so that the transgression of the law would reveal the sin that lurked in the hearts of fallen men. Sin has been washed away by the blood of Christ for the believer, and so there is no longer a need for the Law. The Law was also given as a tutor, but now that we have Christ in us, we can follow Him in ways that the Law could never teach, and so again the Law is no longer needed. Would you agree, or am I missing some other subtle point?

Ok lovely, I object because you are implying that sin no longer exists. Paul says that where there is no law, there is no transgression. So when you say that there is no longer a need for a Law, then you are indirectly saying that sin does not exist. I would be the first to admit that I fall at times. And the idea of "no law" is not biblical because the bible says that "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." - 1John 1:8. Now the bible defines sin as lawlessness. So when you say that we have no law, then you imply that we have no sin.

So, we are all a working progress and we all fall short at times. But to say that because Jesus washed away our sins so we are no longer obligated to live according to God's principles is not sound doctrine in my mind.

 

[lovely]

Drew,

I think we agree about this. The Law was given so that the transgression of the law would reveal the sin that lurked in the hearts of fallen men. Sin has been washed away by the blood of Christ for the believer, and so there is no longer a need for the Law. The Law was also given as a tutor, but now that we have Christ in us, we can follow Him in ways that the Law could never teach, and so again the Law is no longer needed. Would you agree, or am I missing some other subtle point?

I agree with you in specific relation to the present status of the Law - we no longer need it and have been given the Spirit.

I would, however, add these assertions which I do not think change my agreement with you in relation to the present status of the Law (it is retired).

1. The Law of Moses was not only given to "reveal" sin, it was given to actually increase sin. This is deeply counter-intuitive and will no doubt serve as fuel for those who are already convinced I am mistaken about the Law. I have not gotten into this issue much since I think it is only very loosely connected to the matter at issue - whether the Law of Moses is still in force. We agree that it is not in precisely the sense that you have articulated.

2. On the cross, sin is condemned, not Jesus (Romans 8:3) - further evidence that sin cannot simply connote "law-breaking" since it is conceptually incoherent that "judgements as to transgression of the law" are the kind of thing that can be subject to the action of condemnation. Paul sees sin as a "personal force", and perhaps here is equating it with Satan. And, of course, it would indeede make sense to suggest that Satan is condemned on the Cross.

I agree. As usual, you are aticulated yourself well, especially your second assertion, and what you are saying is Biblical I think.

 

[lovely]

Drew,

I think we agree about this. The Law was given so that the transgression of the law would reveal the sin that lurked in the hearts of fallen men. Sin has been washed away by the blood of Christ for the believer, and so there is no longer a need for the Law. The Law was also given as a tutor, but now that we have Christ in us, we can follow Him in ways that the Law could never teach, and so again the Law is no longer needed. Would you agree, or am I missing some other subtle point?

Ok lovely, I object because you are implying that sin no longer exists. Paul says that where there is no law, there is no transgression. So when you say that there is no longer a need for a Law, then you are indirectly saying that sin does not exist. I would be the first to admit that I fall at times. And the idea of "no law" is not biblical because the bible says that "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." - 1John 1:8. Now the bible defines sin as lawlessness. So when you say that we have no law, then you imply that we have no sin.

So, we are all a working progress and we all fall short at times. But to say that because Jesus washed away our sins so we are no longer obligated to live according to God's principles is not sound doctrine in my mind.

Brother Lionel, I am saying that sin is condemned, and that believers are set free from the law of sin and death. We can not please God in the flesh, but in the Spirit our minds are set upon pleasing God...it is the only way that we can be at peace with God. Jesus did what the Law could not do, and in Him we are at liberty to walk in the Spirit, and the righteousness of God can be fulfilled in us. I would never say that because our sins are washed away that we are not to live according to God's principals. I actually said that we can obey God, 'more' in love and in walking in the Spirit, because Christ in us is successful where the Law fell short. We can only be subject to God when the Spirit of God dwells in us, and we can not please Him in our flesh, and so the Law is no longer needed to condemn us or tutor us. Jesus condemned sin on the cross, and His Holy Spirit teaches us and moves us to obey in love.

Please, brother, be careful about your words as we are all believers here. Just read the posts, but do not read into them. If you call me on something that is not Scriptural, then I will try to look at my Bible and see if God is using you, but if you read into my words beyond what I am actually saying, then it only puts us at odds and we can't be sharpened or have a sincere discussion that edifies. The Lord bless you.

 

[Drew]

Here is Romans 8:3 as per the NASB:

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,…

Now some will assert that the term sin means “transgression of the law†and nothing more. Well, let’s see where that leads here. If we substitute “transgression of the law†for sin in the last phrase, we get the assertion that God “condemned transgression of the lawâ€Â. I would point out, as I have already done, that it is conceptually incoherent to talk about condemning the “transgression of the law†– it only makes sense to talk about condemning an agent, or person who transgresses the law.

Think of it this way. If you have committed murder and judicial condemnation is about to be passed on you, what would the judge say. If sin is simply “transgression of the lawâ€Â, the judge would say “I hereby condemn this transgression of the law against murder to life in jailâ€Â.

Do you not see the problem? It is the person who should be condemned, not their transgression of the law. This is perhaps so obvious that it is difficult to see – it would make no sense at all for Paul to assert that “a transgression of law†has been condemned.

I expect, of course, that my worthy opponents in this matter will say that Paul is not to be taken literally, that he is really saying that “the person who transgressed the law†is being condemned even though he actually says that it their sin that is condemned. Well, the person who transgressed the law is you and me. And it is precisely not you and I who are condemned – that’s the whole point of the cross. No doubt the next wriggle on the part of my opponents will be to assert that “Jesus is reckoned to be the person who transgressed†and Paul is saying that Jesus is being condemned.

Well why doesn’t Paul say that God condemned Jesus? What he actually says is that God condemned sin. Note all the gyrations and bendings that are done to avoid the direct assertion: God condemned sin. If we follow Paul and not force his words awkwardly into our schemes, we need to understand that he means what he says: sin is the target of the condemnatory wrath of God on the cross.

No doubt the objectors will fall into the trap of begging the very question at issue by loudly protesting that sin, because it is “transgression of the lawâ€Â, cannot be condemned, since you only condemn “responsible agentsâ€Â, not the act of classifying their actions – you send the person to jail, you do not send their “violation of the law†to jail.

Precisely. And this is why we need to see Paul as asserting that sin is a “personal agency†in the world that is the legitimate target of condemnatory wrath. And this, despite what the “dictionaries†give as the definition for sin.

Sound strange? Well remember what Paul has just said a few breaths ago in Romans 7 about sin:

But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;

Note how Paul’s choice of words cohere perfectly with this notion that sin here is seen not as the judgement that law has been transgressed, but rather as a real, active, sinister, personal force.

And, of course, we get the very same kind of personal language here:

So now, (AG)no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me

I suggest the real issue here is whether you take Paul seriously, which leads to the conclusion that he is characterizing sin here as a personal force or agency – something which indeed be sensibly “condemnedâ€Â, or whether you insist on the view that sin is mere “transgression of the law†and make Paul into a deeply confused writer, one who apparently aributes actions like “taking opportunity†and “coming alive†to a lifeless moral judgement that a law has been broken. And who then makes the extremely odd claim that, on the cross, God vents condemnation against the violation, not the party responsible for the violation.