Should Christians Keep the Ten Commandments Today???

[Ben Joiner]

Brother Lionel.
First, You say that the way ceremonial laws were given and who gave them is an indication only. Fair enough. Your explanation is not at all unlikely. Then you affrim that any law not specifically denounced in the NT is still one to be followed? Hopefully I'm getting your view correct.
so there are two options
1any laws not re-affirmed in the NT covenant are no longer in effect
2any laws not done away with in the NT covenant are still in effect

You appear to choose 2. On what do you base this judgment? What of the civil laws? Are they denounced as well? It just strikes me as odd. Here's an example:
27 " 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "
Maybe I'm missing something.


When I ask whether it is possible that the 10C are part of a larger righteous plan, what I mean is whether they are like commands that are to be followed out to fullfill a larger purpose and when their part in that plan is completed, then they are not to be followed. Obviously, God cannot give later commands that negate His authority, so the commands to serve Him and no other must logically be as eternal as He is. But the shift at vs 5 leaves room. What if in heaven theft, family, and marriage are not situations we deal with? Furthermore, the command to remember the Sabbath could easily be interpreted as making the nation of Israel distinct, only for the larger purpose of bringing the Messiah. It's like it being necessary to boil water to eat dinner. Once dinner is ready, the necessity of boiling water is ended. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily my view. I'm still gathering info. My question is whether or such a condition is possible because this thread seems to consistently dwell on this point. "The 10C are God's righteousness" So my point is "Are they simply part of God's righteousness."

 

[RND]

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?

Easy! From a logic standpoint alone you have turned logic on it's head.

I suspect that you are making arguments you do not really believe to amuse yourself and others.

Sometimes I wonder if you are having a difficult time following the logic of your own arguments.

I will no longer engage you on this or other matters, unless I come to believe that your posts are misleading others.

Hey, suit yourself. I have to suspect this has to do with the realization you must have come to that the position you have decided to take is as useful as a watering pale full of holes - it holds no water.

No even suggest the that murder is against the Ten Commandments but the Ten Commandments don't matter is the height of either arrogance or stupidity. Since I don't think for a minute you're stupid then I can only assume you are just being arrogant.

"Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Isn't interesting that God "spoke" His Ten Commandments into existence.

 

[RND]

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?

That type of logic is far from logical BL!

 

[Drew]

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?

I politely suggest that for you to understand where I am coming from, you need to accept Paul's clear teaching that sin can exist even in the absence of Law. I have argued this in one or more previous posts. If you think my reasoning is flawed, please tell me exactly how it is flawed. So if we agree with Paul, we have to accept that an act be a sin, even if there is no law. Law reveals sin, it does not create it. So the act of murdering someone can be a sin even in the absence of a law against it.

Another thing I would ask you to do is to not project your beliefs onto me. Its easy to do. But when you write that I say "it is still a sin to break the 10 commandments" you attribute something to me that I have never said. I have said it is a sin to murder, whether or not there is a commandment against it. That is an entirely coherent position.

But if you insist on believing that sin can only exist when there is a law, then, of course you are going to find my position hard to understand.

I made a post about how I love my dog. There is no law that prevents me from giving my dog food that I know she hates, or from giving her a bath every day - something she hates. But would it be "sin" for me to needlessly inflict suffering on my dog? I think most would say that it is, even though there is no law.

I politely suggest you need to take Paul at his word - sin can and does exist even in the absence of a law.

Do you deny that Paul teaches this?

 

[Drew]

Some will argue that Paul never really abolished the 10 commandments as a written code. This view is undermined by his argument of Romans 7:

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

So we know that Paul thinks we are no longer under law – that the new authority is the Spirit. Does this “law†that we are no longer under include the 10 commandments? Obviously it does. Note what Paul immediately goes on to write:

7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

I trust I need not point out the obvious, but I will. The command “Do not covet†is one of – you guessed it – the 10 commandments.

So it is clear that Paul sees that we have been released from the 10 commandments.

 

[RND]

I politely suggest that for you to understand where I am coming from, you need to accept Paul's clear teaching that sin can exist even in the absence of Law.

Unfortunately for you Drew, Paul never makes such an argument.

I have argued this in one or more previous posts. If you think my reasoning is flawed, please tell me exactly how it is flawed. So if we agree with Paul, we have to accept that an act be a sin, even if there is no law. Law reveals sin, it does not create it. So the act of murdering someone can be a sin even in the absence of a law against it.

Trouble with such logic is that no where is there a society on earth, nor in the heavens, where there ISN't a law against murder.

Another thing I would ask you to do is to not project your beliefs onto me. Its easy to do. But when you write that I say "it is still a sin to break the 10 commandments" you attribute something to me that I have never said. I have said it is a sin to murder, whether or not there is a commandment against it. That is an entirely coherent position.

No it's not a coherent position. In fact it smacks of an obstinate attitude that is as logical as arguing with someone who has been drinking heavenly.

But if you insist on believing that sin can only exist when there is a law, then, of course you are going to find my position hard to understand.

There are no scriptures, not one, that say that sin exists outside of a law for the transgression.

I made a post about how I love my dog. There is no law that prevents me from giving my dog food that I know she hates, or from giving her a bath every day - something she hates. But would it be "sin" for me to needlessly inflict suffering on my dog? I think most would say that it is, even though there is no law.

The fact of the matter is that there are laws on the books that prevent someone from inflicting any type of suffering on a defenseless animal.

Pro 12:10 A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked [are] cruel.

I politely suggest you need to take Paul at his word - sin can and does exist even in the absence of a law.

Paul say s that sin is "not imputed" where there is no law. That is not the same thing as saying that sin exists where there is no law.

Do you deny that Paul teaches this?

I do.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

 

[RND]

...we have been released from the law....

Which law was Paul taking about here?

Rom 7:12 Wherefore (this is why) the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

 

[Drew]

What does Paul say about the Law of Moses in 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, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit

The law was powerless. Fine. So what does God do? Renew us so we can now successfully follow the Law of Moses, something that was only ever for the Jews in the first place? No. Paul tells right here what guides us now.

And it is not the law - it is the Holy Spirit.

 

[RND]

What does Paul say about the Law of Moses in 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, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit

The law was powerless. Fine. So what does God do?

He gives us Jesus! The last Lamb. No more sacrificial lambs.

Renew us so we can now successfully follow the Law of Moses, something that was only ever for the Jews in the first place? No. Paul tells right here what guides us now.

So then we aren't to eat pork right? I mean, that would be one aspect of successfully following the Law of Moses. Stone adulterers and disobedient children? Drew, I don't honestly think you know the difference between the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moshe.

And it is not the law - it is the Holy Spirit.

What standard does the Holy Spirit use to judge if something is sin or not?

 

[Brother Lionel]

On what do you base this judgment? What of the civil laws? Are they denounced as well? It just strikes me as odd. Here's an example:
27 " 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "
Maybe I'm missing something.

It’s not a judgment, its doctrine that the NT verifies. And the civil laws are not denounced because the NT mentions no such thing to do so. So let’s examine your example shall we??

Lev 20:27 - A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Here God is addressing a law that deals with those who communicate with the demons and evil spirits. God says that there penalty is death. Now that we have addressed the context, let’s take a view on what the NT says about this verse in terms of the penalty.

Gal 3:13 - Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us…

Mat 7:1 - Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:37 - Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven

Jhn 5:22 - For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son

Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

These scriptures have addressed two things: Christ has redeemed us from the penalty of the law and that all judgment has been committed to Christ. When we take this into consideration, we arrive at a point where the penalty of the law has been delayed until the Day of Christ when He will come to judge the world (2 Timothy 4:1). So, because the penalty of the law has been removed (or delayed until the return of Jesus), does that mean that the law itself has been removed? The bible says no (Rom 2:13, Rom 7:12, Jam 1:25, 1 John 3:4). So, this leaves us with this question: Is it still a sin to associate with “familiar spiritsâ€Â? I would say yes, not only to familiar spirits, but with all of the demonic practices. Because Deuteronomy 18:9-12 says “…thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD…â€Â

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. Are they not? Do you believe that it is now “okay†to associate with demonic spirits as Deuteronomy states? And if you agree that it is sin, do you believe that Jesus will judge those to damnation who practice such things??

 

[RND]

Excellent post BL. Very well stated. Justice delayed, in the case of Jesus Christ, is not justice denied. The secular view of the world is much different. The secular world is a "Justice delayed is justice denied" kind of world. Yet the Lord is patient and kind.

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

 

[Brother Lionel]

I politely suggest that for you to understand where I am coming from, you need to accept Paul's clear teaching that sin can exist even in the absence of Law. I have argued this in one or more previous posts. If you think my reasoning is flawed, please tell me exactly how it is flawed. So if we agree with Paul, we have to accept that an act be a sin, even if there is no law. Law reveals sin, it does not create it. So the act of murdering someone can be a sin even in the absence of a law against it.

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? Now, I'm not the smartest guy in the world but I think he said that sin can not exist in the absence of the Law. What is your understanding of it?

Another thing I would ask you to do is to not project your beliefs onto me. Its easy to do. But when you write that I say "it is still a sin to break the 10 commandments" you attribute something to me that I have never said. I have said it is a sin to murder, whether or not there is a commandment against it. That is an entirely coherent position.

But if you insist on believing that sin can only exist when there is a law, then, of course you are going to find my position hard to understand.

I apologize if you feel as though I am “proselytizingâ€Â; I only want to see where you are coming from and compare this logic to the Word of God. But my friend, my logic is that if we are “freeâ€Â, as you say, from the commandments, then I am “free†to kill, or steal, or covet because the commandments clearly state that we are not to kill, steal, or covet. That’s why you are confusing me. You say that we are not obligated to live by the Ten Commandments but yet you say that it is still wrong to kill, steal, or covet.

And I think the confusion is because you assume that sin is sin even without the law as if sin came even before the law. But the problem with that thought is that the bible disagrees – 1 John 3:4 “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." Not only the bible, but man’s basic knowledge of sin disagrees as well:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sin

The very first definition of sin is the transgression of the divine law, in this case, God’s divine law. So could you please expound on 1 John 3:4?

 

[shad]

It is amazing that so many Christians believe that they don't have to keep God's law. That's what makes us look like bunch of hypocrites.

.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

It is amazing that so many Christians believe that they don't have to keep God's law.

.

I dont know,,,when it comes down to it,,,,me,,,personally I have always felt alot better when I was following Gods rules.......

 

[shad]

It is amazing that so many Christians believe that they don't have to keep God's law.

.

I dont know,,,when it comes down to it,,,,me,,,personally I have always felt alot better when I was following Gods rules.......

I agree, God's law makes us clean feelings inside.

.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

[quote="Ben Joiner":15q3x46o]
On what do you base this judgment? What of the civil laws? Are they denounced as well? It just strikes me as odd. Here's an example:
27 " 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "
Maybe I'm missing something.

It’s not a judgment, its doctrine that the NT verifies. And the civil laws are not denounced because the NT mentions no such thing to do so. So let’s examine your example shall we??

Lev 20:27 - A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Here God is addressing a law that deals with those who communicate with the demons and evil spirits. God says that there penalty is death. Now that we have addressed the context, let’s take a view on what the NT says about this verse in terms of the penalty.

Gal 3:13 - Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us…

Mat 7:1 - Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:37 - Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven

Jhn 5:22 - For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son

Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

These scriptures have addressed two things: Christ has redeemed us from the penalty of the law and that all judgment has been committed to Christ. When we take this into consideration, we arrive at a point where the penalty of the law has been delayed until the Day of Christ when He will come to judge the world (2 Timothy 4:1). So, because the penalty of the law has been removed (or delayed until the return of Jesus), does that mean that the law itself has been removed? The bible says no (Rom 2:13, Rom 7:12, Jam 1:25, 1 John 3:4). So, this leaves us with this question: Is it still a sin to associate with “familiar spiritsâ€Â? I would say yes, not only to familiar spirits, but with all of the demonic practices. Because Deuteronomy 18:9-12 says “…thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD…â€Â

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. Are they not? Do you believe that it is now “okay†to associate with demonic spirits as Deuteronomy states? And if you agree that it is sin, do you believe that Jesus will judge those to damnation who practice such things??[/quote:15q3x46o]

I agree,,,but not with the end.......

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....

 

[Drew]

So, because the penalty of the law has been removed (or delayed until the return of Jesus), does that mean that the law itself has been removed?

There are those who will argue that Paul’s declarations about the Law coming to an end leave the Torah entirely intact in terms of being a set of prescriptive behaviours we should pursue. Some who hold this position maintain that Paul is only declaring the end of the judgement function of Torah. Here is an expression of this view, in specific relation to the Galatians 3 statements about how we are no longer under the guardianship of the Torah.

“As you can see from the definition above, Paul is NOT referring to the Law as a teacher. Instead, he is again speaking of the judgment function of the Law. The context indicates that the Law functioned as a guardian for those convicted of sin. Since all have sinned (Gal. 3:22), this was all of humanity. When forgiveness came through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Yeshua, we were no longer subject to the guardianship of the Law; we were no longer under its penalty for disobedience. However, this did not mean that the Law's role as God's standard of right conduct had been voided.â€Â

There are a wide range of reasons for being sceptical of such an interpretation. First of these is that, unless there are truly compelling reasons to the contrary, the statement that we “are no longer under the supervision of the Law†reasonably suggests that the Law has been fully retired, not that it continues to be a prescriptive obligation for us, with only one specific aspect of it done away with – its function of conferring on us a specific penalty for it disobedience.

The problem with this view is more strongly seen in Ephesians 2:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations

I will continue to bring up this text, since I think it is perhaps the clearest proof that the Torah has indeed been abolished. To return to the point, what writer would clearly assert that the Torah, as set of rules and regulations has been abolished, and yet expect the reader to continue to think that it is still in force, in any prescriptive capacity? It would be a deeply confused, inarticulate writer who would use this direct statement of abolition, clearly in reference to the prescriptions of Torah, and really mean that it is only the judgement function of the Torah that has changed. Why not some other function, like the function of giving us knowledge of sin? – Paul, at several places, ascribes such a function to Torah.

Failure to give Paul due credit for being a competent and clear thinker is probably the biggest reason for the survival of the clearly erroneous view that Torah is still in force. By assuming he would use “abolition of Torah†language to only denote the end of its judgement function is to suggest that he is less competent than a high school student. If a high school student wrote Ephesians 2:14-15 intending the reader to understand that we are still expected to follow the prescriptions of Torah, he would, rightfully, be given a failing grade. I repeat: no competent writer, least of all the highly educated Pharisee Paul, would write Ephesians 2:14-15 and not expect the reader to get the plain sense of his words – the Torah, as a written code, has been retired.

Imagine that a certain society was under a prescriptive law that, for example, people are not allowed to drive cars on Sunday. Now imagine that the government “abolished this law with its commandments and regulationsâ€Â. No reasonable person would think that the prohibition against Sunday drive persists in any sense at all that could remotely be called a law.

And yet this is precisely what we are being asked to believe – that while in both Ephesians 2 and Galatians 3 the end of the law is clearly declared, it still continues to survive, as a law

 

[Drew]

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]

But my friend, my logic is that if we are “freeâ€Â, as you say, from the commandments, then I am “free†to kill, or steal, or covet because the commandments clearly state that we are not to kill, steal, or covet.

This is simply incorrect logic. I have explained this before, but I will try again. Let's say that there is no Law against murdering your cat in a particular country. Are you morally free to murder your cat? Of course not. Your entire argument is grounded in the demonstrably incorrect premise that a prescriptive code of "do this and don't do that" laws is the only possible authoritative guide for human actions.

Do you really live this way? Maybe you own a cat. Do you really need a codified law against murdering your cat to prevent you from murdering your cat?

I would hope not.

 

[Drew]

So could you please expound on 1 John 3:4?

This is an excellent question. I will get back to you on that.