Should Christians Keep the Ten Commandments Today???

[Drew]

Drew, I stated clearly that transgression happened and that the law of Moshe was added because of that transgression. I think you are greatly confussed at this point.

I am not the one who is confused. In what you say above, you assert that the Law was added because of transgression. Now, let's look at what you have written in a previous post:

Genesis 26 clearly says that Abraham obeyed the mitsvah, the chuqqah and the Towrah. Also, you might want to familarize yourself Drew as to "what" las was added 430 "after" transgression. That law was the Mosaic law that gave instruction as to how the sin problem would be dealt with. Think about it. If sin is the "transgression of the law" and the "law" came because of transgression, sin, then it can only be referring to the Mosaic law!

Look at the material I have underlined. You are making the nonsensical claim that the violation of the Mosaic Law was the basis for the institution of the Mosaic Law. Clearly not a sensible statement.

In any event this statement:

"If sin is the "transgression of the law" and the "law" came because of transgression, sin, then it can only be referring to the Mosaic law"

.....is poorly written and deeply confusing.

So, please, learn to communicate properly and do not blame others for your confusing wrting.

 

[Drew]

Its not that easy to understand since you seem to not understand it. The law does not reveal transgression, it reveals sin.

Which is the same thing Drew! Same exact thing. Sin is the "transgression" (breaking) the law.

No. Sin is not "trangessing the law", at least that is not the full meaning of the term as Paul uses it

Consider this from Paul:

because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression

Paul is clear - if there is no law there can be no transgression. Now the relevant questions is this: can there be sin in the absence of law? Paul's answer is clearly "yes" to this question.

Romans 5 makes it clear that sin exists independent of law:

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Have all men, at all times, sinned? Obviously Paul thinks so: "death came to all men, because all sinned". And Paul makes an even more focused statement about the time before the Torah: "before the law was given, sin was in the world". So there has never been a time when sin was not in the world.

Now let's look at verse 14: We have the interval from Adam to Moses. We already know that all people in that interval have sinned. Let's suppose that 1000 people lived during that time interval, including Adam himself (I know that's too low, but that's beside the point).

Did they all sin? Obviously yes, Paul has already made this crystal clear.

Did some of them sin in a manner where no command was broken? Yes. And this is the clincher. Paul says that some of these 1000 people have the characteristic that they "did not sin by breaking a command" But we know that they sinned.

So what is the conclusion? While all 1000 sinned, some did so in a manner where no command was broken.

 

[Drew]

Well, let's see. Adam coveted that which he wasn't entitled (10th). He lied to God (9th). He dishonored His Father (5th). He took what wasn't his to take (8th). He listen to the snake so I guess we can consider that worshiping false gods and placing them above God (1st). So count at least five commandments that Adam broke by disobeying the word of God Drew. I'm sure if we took the time we could find more.

Your reasoning is incorrect.

No one is saying that Adam did not do things that, if the 10 commandments had been given to him, would have "counted" as breaking the 10 commandments. But the 10 comandments had not been given to Adam. Why can't you see this? So even though Adam did things which would have broken the 10 commandments, had they been instituted at the time, the fact remains: they had not been instituted.

You are reasoning like someone who would make this argument:

1. Adam slapped Eve;
2. Laws passed in 1958 make slapping someone a violation of the law;
3. Therefore, Adam broke the law

This is not correct.

 

[Brother Lionel]

Ok so Drew. Please answer this straight forward question. It's not a trick question so there's no need to rationalize.

Is it a sin today to murder a man and take his life?

 

[Drew]

Ok so Drew. Please answer this straight forward question. It's not a trick question so there's no need to rationalize.

Is it a sin today to murder a man and take his life?

Of course. But please, o please, I hope you are not going to argue as follows:

1. Murder is sin;
2. Therefore every murder is a violation of commandment number 6 (or whatever the "thou shalt not murder" commnandment is).

Speeding may be a "sin", in the sense that it represents destructive human behaviour that is counter to God's desire for a safe and secure world. But if there is no law against speeding, no law has been broken when someone speeds. But it is still a sin.

Law has the effect of revealing sin. But that doesn't mean that there has to be a law for sin to exist. Your flashlight reveals the cockroach in the corner. But the cockroach is there whether or not you shine a light on it.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Ok so Drew. Please answer this straight forward question. It's not a trick question so there's no need to rationalize.

Is it a sin today to murder a man and take his life?

Of course. But please, o please, I hope you are not going to argue as follows:

1. Murder is sin;
2. Therefore every murder is a violation of commandment number 6 (or whatever the "thou shalt not murder" commnandment is).

Speeding may be a "sin", in the sense that it represents destructive human behaviour that is counter to God's desire for a safe and secure world. But if there is no law against speeding, no law has been broken when someone speeds. But it is still a sin.

Law has the effect of revealing sin. But that doesn't mean that there has to be a law for sin to exist. Your flashlight reveals the cockroach in the corner. But the cockroach is there whether or not you shine a light on it.

1 Yes murder is a sin....

2 Correct it is a violation and you have broken the law...(there is a difference in murder and killing of course)

Is speeding a sin?????? Please step your game up,,,these question that you present thinking they cant be answered using the logic of obeying the 10 commandments is flat out

I speeding a sin ?????? What has Christ told you concerning these issues???? YOu seem to have forgot,,,so let me remind you......

1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

The higher powers have made the law/rule there is no speeding.....You have been told to obey the laws of the land.........

Have you not read this??????????????? It is written::

Mark 12:31
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

I hardly see how driving over the speed limit is loving they neighbor especially if your doing it in a dangerous manner,,,we do have race tracks....

But anyway you said:::::

Speeding may be a "sin", in the sense that it represents destructive human behaviour that is counter to God's desire for a safe and secure world. But if there is no law against speeding, no law has been broken when someone speeds. But it is still a sin.

Yes it is a sin and the rules concerning can be found in Roman 13,,,,,,care to try again?

 

[Drew]

1 Yes murder is a sin....

2 Correct it is a violation and you have broken the law...(there is a difference in murder and killing of course)

Ye have caused me to rend my garment........

How can one violate a law that has not yet come into existence? One cannot. So any Jew who murdered before the 10 commandments came has not broken any commandment. Have they sinned? Of course they have, since there does not have to be a law for sin to exist. You may not like this, RND may not like this. But Paul is happy with the idea.

And therefore, so am I.

 

[Drew]

Yes it is a sin and the rules concerning can be found in Roman 13,,,,,,care to try again?

Your argument is invalid. There is no law against speeding in Romans 13.

I know this will bounce of you and RND but in case anyone else out there is reading this thread: Paul is clear - sin exists apart from law of any kind.

When you drive 200 mph in a country without a speeding law, you have broken no law.

But a case can be made that you have sinned, since it is clear from Paul - in Romans 5 if not elswhere - that sin can and does exist in the absence of law.

In all candor, guys, are you "playing" me - mounting arguments that you surely must know are false and amusing yourselves at my frustrated replies?

 

[Drew]

Here is another argument that sin exists even in the absence of law:

Here is Romans 3:20 in the NIV:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

I take it as self-evident that the reference to “law†here is a reference to the Law of Moses, including the 10 commandments which are part of the Law of Moses (even though RND will dispute this). Although it may not be obvious at a superficial reading, I suggest this text shows that Paul cannot have believed that “sin†was simply “law-breakingâ€Â.

Everyone agrees that sin existed prior to the Law of Moses. If sin is only law-breaking, then some law, call it “Law Aâ€Â, must have been in place prior to delivery of the Law of Moses.

Substituting “breaking of Law A†for "si"n into the latter half of Romans 3:20, we get:

through the Law of Moses we become conscious of the breaking of Law A.

Remember that you guys are saying that sin is law-beaking, so you have no objection to this substitution.

The problem should already be clear. What is Law A? It must be a set of commands comprehensible to human beings – we need to understand the law in order for it to be “law†in any reasonable sense. So Law A must have the property that it allows us to identify that Law A has been broken. But what is Paul saying about the Law of Moses, if indeed “sin = lawbreaking� He is saying that it is the Law of Moses, not Law A, that makes us conscious of breaking Law A. But if that is so, we were not conscious of breaking Law A when we were under Law A.

How can Law A then be a law, if we need some other law to make us conscious of breaking Law A?

 

[Brother Lionel]

Ok so Drew. Please answer this straight forward question. It's not a trick question so there's no need to rationalize.

Is it a sin today to murder a man and take his life?

Of course.

Ok so yes, you answered my question. I dont need any of the other stuff...

So, question 2.
Is it still a sin to brake into a man's house and steal his belongings?

 

[NIGHTMARE]

1 Yes murder is a sin....

2 Correct it is a violation and you have broken the law...(there is a difference in murder and killing of course)

Ye have caused me to rend my garment........

How can one violate a law that has not yet come into existence?

There does not have to be a law for sin to exist.

You may not like this, RND may not like this.

But Paul is happy with the idea. And therefore, so am I.

Ye have caused me to rend my garment........

That doesnt sound good.......

How can one violate a law that has not yet come into existence?

Ask Cain

There does not have to be a law for sin to exist.

There has always been a mental/spiritual law......Common sense if you will....

You may not like this, RND may not like this.

But Paul is happy with the idea. And therefore, so am I

Nah im pretty sure were cool.........

 

[Drew]

So, question 2.
Is it still a sin to brake into a man's house and steal his belongings?

Yes.

 

[Drew]

Hi NIGHTMARE:

I will no longer be interacting with you on this topic. No hard feelings - we are simply not getting anywhere.

 

[Brother Lionel]

So, question 2.
Is it still a sin to brake into a man's house and steal his belongings?

Yes.

Ok so question 3.
Is it still a sin to worship other gods and make images of them to bow down to?

 

[Drew]

[quote="Brother Lionel":2bnyh5aw]So, question 2.
Is it still a sin to brake into a man's house and steal his belongings?

Yes.

Ok so question 3.
Is it still a sin to worship other gods and make images of them to bow down to?[/quote:2bnyh5aw]
Yes.

I think I know where you are heading. Please think very carefully about your argument here, remembering that Paul is clear that sin exists even in the absence of Law.

So my saying "yes" to all these questions does not, repeat does not, mean that the 10 commandments are still lawsto be obeyed.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Hi NIGHTMARE:

I will no longer be interacting with you on this topic. No hard feelings - we are simply not getting anywhere.

I understand,,,but since I seem to be doing pretty well off of now,,,,, I think I will continue in following them.....

 

[RND]

I think I know where you are heading.

By agreeing you are obviously admiting that the ten commandments still exist - no matter how much you protest they don't!

Please think very carefully about your argument here, remembering that Paul is clear that sin exists even in the absence of Law.

Paul never said that. Paul said where the is no law sin is not imputed, meaning sin is not charged to one's account.

So my saying "yes" to all these questions does not, repeat does not, mean that the 10 commandments are still lawsto be obeyed.

Yes it is. If it is wrong to murder, steal, and worship idols then those are still laws that are in effect, no matter how much you insist otherwise.

 

[Drew]

By agreeing you are obviously admiting that the ten commandments still exist - no matter how much you protest they don't!.

I have come to believe that you are not taking this discussion seriously - how can a serious person make a response like the one above? I suspect that you are making arguments you do not really believe to amuse yourself and others. I will no longer engage you on this or other matters, unless I come to believe that your posts are misleading others.

 

[Drew]

Some will argue that Paul’s position on the Law of Moses, which of course includes the 10 commandments, is that it is still in force and that statements that appear to suggest its expiry are really intended to help the reader understand that it is Christ, and not Torah, which justifies, although the Law of Moses remains in force. Some texts are indeed consistent with such an understanding.

But others are not and make it quite clear that Paul sees the Law of Moses as having been retired. Consider this from Galatians 3:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Just in case there is any doubt that “law†here refers specifically to the Law of Mosws, note the meaning that Paul ascribes to the word “law†a few sentences back:

What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

Clearly, Paul is here using “law†to denote the set of command and prescriptions that were delivered to the Jews at Sinai – he is not talking about a “law†that is for Gentiles.

Paul would have to be a very incompetent writer if he didn't intend to suggest that the Torah has now "expired". The word "tutor" here is the well-known Greek word "paidagogos". And, as per the Net Bible definition, a paidagogos is

"a tutor i.e. a guardian and guide of boys. Among the Greeks and the Romans the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them before arriving at the age of manhood."

By the very nature of the task of the paidagogos, his job comes to an end at some point in time - when the child becomes a man. Paul would have to be very incompetent to characterise the Law as a paidagogos (to his Greek readers who knew what the term meant), and yet not expect the reader to understand that, like the real tutor, the Law "loses its job" at some point in time.

Yet we have every reason to believe that Paul is using the term "paidagogos" in the proper sense - the sense where the tutor's job comes to an end at a certain point. Just as the tutor's job ends when the boy becomes a man, the Law's job comes to an end once "faith has come" as Paul explicitly states.

And consider what Paul goes on to say:

26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Note the inclusivity. If Paul has just written something whereby the Torah has been affirmed as still applicable, then the Jew and the Gentile are still two distinct groups within the body - we have Torah following Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians who do not follow the Torah. But the whole spirit of what Paul says here (and elsewhere) is that there are no "sub-groups" within the people of God.

How would verses 26-28 make sense specifically as a "for" (effectively a "because") conclusion to what Paul has just said about being no longer under the tutorship of the Torah? It would hardly make sense if the Torah were still active precisely because the Torah served the purpose of demarcating the Jew as distinct from the Gentile (I will support this elsewhere). Many do not think of Torah as serving that function, but I suggest that Paul clearly does – and that is what matters. The relevant text for that argument is from the beginning of Romans 10.

Instead, these verses only make sense if the boundary marker between Jew and Gentile - the Torah - has been retired.

I am going to politely suggest that the only reason such texts can be read as not indicating the expiry of Torah is to make the implicit assumption that Paul is a bad writer not in command of his argument and its terms. Thus, to believe that Torah is still in force, we need to believe the following:

1. Paul's choice of the paidagogos metaphor is misleading, since proper use of the metaphor would imply that the Torah, like the tutor's job, expires.

2. Paul has been doubly incompetent in his choice of the metaphor, since his "now that faith has come" statement would be naturally seen as corresponding to the condition of the boy reaching manhood, triggering the release of the paidagogos.

3. Paul writes a very weak and contradictory conclusion in 26 - 28, since he argues that the Jew and Gentile are indistinguishable from each other in the family, yet the Jew retains this massive set of rules, festivals, and practices that they alone are to follow. This is hardly being "non-distinct" from the Gentile.

 

[Brother Lionel]

So Drew, help me out here because I really want to understand your logic. You say that it is still a sin to break the ten commandments but we are not obligated to keep them?