Today

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

Were the ten commandments done away with when Christ was crucified,,,, or not.

Yes they were.

1) God will write the law into our hearts and minds.

Would you please explain how the decalogue was done away at the crucifixion and then at the same time say that God writes them in the heart?

Quote:

When this takes place we don’t have to try and keep it any more, it’s automatic. Similar to how Adam and Eve kept the law naturally before sin entered the world and not like the forced obedience of the legalist.

Automatic? How come the divorce rate among believers is about the same as unbelievers? So many ministers committing sexual sins? On second thought, if the 10c were done away with as you say, there would no longer be anything that prohibits adultery or pedophilia, would there?

Quote:

2) We will all know the Lord. Knowing God means that we are one with him. We understand his purposes and plans for our life. The fears and doubts we had before are taken away.

That's interesting in light of ESV | ‎1 Jn 2:4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,

Quote:

3) All of our sins are forgiven. This means everything, even the ones we forgot about. Our slate is clean and remains that way. Satan will still bring past sins to mind and test our faith but we simply need to trust in the promise and he will have no power.

So to sum up – the ten commandments were the expression of the law in the old covenant and God’s agape love is the expression or spirit of the law in the new. The one’s who insist on keeping the decalogue are placing themselves back under the old covenant and open rebellion against God.

Please explain how one can keep the law of love WITHOUT keeping the 10c.

[Naomi]

Quote:

That's interesting in light of ESV | ‎1 Jn 2:4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,

[Woody]

Quote:

That's interesting in light of ESV | ‎1 Jn 2:4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,

Personally - I've not come across anyone who is able to keep all of the commandments. Now there might be such an animal out there. I just haven't come across such a person in my lifetime.

[Gail]

Personally - I've not come across anyone who is able to keep all of the commandments. Now there might be such an animal out there. I just haven't come across such a person in my lifetime.

My friend, stop looking at the performance of others. The change doesn't come all at once. Trust in Jesus and never mind "them".

There is power in our Saviour and He gives it to His children to overcome. Wherever they fall short He will supply the lack. The main thing is to accept and submit and trust in Him... stay on His side! We must encourage others to stick with Jesus who will bring us all through if we stay faithful.

[Woody]

That's fine Gail. What I am saying is that I personally "know Him" but I fail to keep all the commandments. Is that better now that I have made it personal?

[Woody]

Exactly Naomi. Good Post.

[Naomi]

Thanks Woody ... where did it go?

[Woody]

Interesting. I guess it vanished into cyberspace. Or did I just imagine that you said something and wrongly gave you credit for nothing. lol

[Naomi]

if it was good, I'll take the credit.

I was going on about keeping our eye on the cross and not looking down or back, cause it's a rocky, slippery hill to climb. That I don't think we'll ever met anyone who can keep the 10C's perfectly all the time.

"For all have sinned ..............."

Not the Preacher, nor the deacon, but it's me Oh Lord, standing in the need of prayer.

{does that sound simular to what you thought you read? }

[Woody]

if it was good, I'll take the credit.

I was going on about keeping our eye on the cross and not looking down or back, cause it's a rocky, slippery hill to climb. That I don't think we'll ever met anyone who can keep the 10C's perfectly all the time.

"For all have sinned ..............."

Not the Preacher, nor the deacon, but it's me Oh Lord, standing in the need of prayer.

{does that sound simular to what you thought you read? }

Yeah - that was what I said Amen to before it got destroyed in cyberspace.

[Naomi]

I do not believe in haematology; I am no Roman Catholic.

I believe anastasis-soteriology; I am a Protestant.

That's good ... you are free to believe whatever you want. :)

[cheddar]

Automatic? How come the divorce rate among believers is about the same as unbelievers? So many ministers committing sexual sins? On second thought, if the 10c were done away with as you say, there would no longer be anything that prohibits adultery or pedophilia, would there?

[cheddar]

Blasphemous!

Although the Ten Commandments are not complete, they are in no way “a faulty expression of the law of God”.

It is a grimacing LIE, that “No sooner had God given the law to Moses than he sent the Israelites into the promised land to murder its inhabitants and steal their possessions.” “Murder” and “steal” are words of lies of your own; not of God’s Law. You have no idea what God’s Law is because you obviously have no love for God’s Law --- which is the Word of God Jesus Christ in fact.

It is also a LIE that “Jesus defended David when he ate the shewbread from the temple which was not lawful. Jesus said it was unlawful for anyone NOT A PRIEST to eat of the showbread; but David acted priest of God lawfully, for he acted type of Jesus Christ who is of the tribe of David and Priest of God, lawfully; in fact “after the Law of Everlasting LIFE”.

So stop to blaspheme!

That there are no matter how many “examples of having agape but breaking the letter of the law”, it gives you no right to accurse God’s written Law.

What God commands is GOD’S LAW, and therefore HOLY, whether it is “to protect the messengers who were sent to spy out the city” through the age-old tactics of misleading, or to wipe out the enemies of God, of his Name and of his People, by slaughtering them with the sword.

You have NO concept of what truth is; your conception of right and wrong is not based on “agape-love”; it is based on humanism disguised as the love of Jesus Christ, but in reality is the devil’s most potent venom.

LOL! Your opinion which is not backed up by scripture.

[Woody]

I agree that we need to stick with scripture.

[Gerr]

cheddar:

The ten commandments are a faulty expression of the law of God.

ESV | ‎Ps 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; ‎8 the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;

ESV | ‎Ro 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

ESV | ‎Ps 99:9 Exalt the LORD our God, and worship at his holy mountain; for the LORD our God is holy!

ESV | ‎Da 9:14 ... for the LORD our God is righteous

ESV | ‎Ps 73:1 Truly God is good

As you can see, the law is but a transcript of God's character.

Cheddar: No sooner had God given the law to Moses than he sent the Israelites into the promised land to murder its inhabitants and steal their possessions. Jesus defended David when he ate the shewbread from the temple which was not lawful. James justified Rahab when she lied to protect the messengers who were sent to spy out the city. All these are examples of having agape but the letter of the law.

So God is an unloving/evil God for telling the Israelites to dispossess the Canaanites?

Chedda

What’s interesting is that you didn’t quote the next verse which explains the previous – ‘But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.’ So a commandment keeper is someone who keeps Christ’s word and has his love.

So what is His word that we are to keep? Do you love your neighbor if you are coveting/stealing what is his?

Can you love God while worshiping idols?

You have not yet answered my question as to how you can love your neighbor without obeying/keeping the 10c.

Cheddar: God’s agape love can’t prevent sin? Agape can prevent sin much better than a forced compliance to rules and laws. The fact that we still see gross sin in the lives of so many believers is simply evidence that they don’t believe and don’t have God’s love. ‘And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold’ Matt 24:12

Oh, they believe, alright, otherwise, they would not be professing as Christians. But ESV | ‎Jas 2:19 Even the demons believe—and shudder!

You see that believing is not enough! ESV | ‎Ro 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.

ESV | ‎Jn 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

ESV | ‎Php 2:13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

What kind of people fill our prisons? Lawbreakers or lawkeepers?

NASB95 | ‎Ps 119:45 °And I °will walk °at liberty, °For I °seek Your precepts. ‎46 I will also speak of °Your testimonies before kings °And shall not be °ashamed. ‎47 °I °shall delight in °Your commandments, °Which I love. ‎48 And I °shall lift up my hands °to Your commandments, °Which I love°; And I will meditate on °Your statutes.

ESV | ‎Jas 1:25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

ESV | ‎Ps 119:97 Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day. ‎98 Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies, for it is ever with me.

[cheddar]

This is going off topic.

I would suggest opening another thread if you want to continue.

I do admit that murder is not the right term for what happened to the Canaanites - Genocide is probably a more accurate description and I don't think God is evil for commanding this.

[Hansen]

Same tired old traditional spooftexts being tossed around. Most of them, in their context, do not support what they are being used to support. As I pointed out on other threads, the "commandments" in the writings of John, refer to the teachings of Christ, not the Decalogue. That is true of the word "commandments" in his gospel and epistles. He is not referencing the Decalogue when he refers to the "commandments."

The sad fact is that many Adventists have been thoroughly indoctrinated, i.e., brainwashed, into believing a certain interpretation of Scripture which is not supported by responsibly interpreted Scripture. Many of us simply do not "get it." In that respect, we have a cultic mentality because we rally around a false interpretation of Scripture.

Before you drag out your old edition of "Bible Readings for the Home" or Haskell's "Bible Handbook" to bury me with prooftexts, look up every verse in John's writings where the word "commandments" appears. Provide any direct evidence, from the context, that he is referring to the Decalogue.

The Decalogue was like a doll given to a child until she is old enough to have a baby of her own. When the baby arrives, time to lose the doll. Too many people prefer the doll [Decalogue] to the real baby [Jesus].

So sorry for you.

[BobRyan]

You seem to have totally lost focus on exegesis.

The historical context for John 14:15 is the pre-cross teaching of Christ. Even Paul post-Cross states "What matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19 and in the Gospel pre-cross accounts when Christ says "Keep the commandments" and then Christ is asked "which commandments" He gives us an excerpt from the 10 commandments. Paul also does the same thing in Romans 7 when providing an example of what the "Commandments" are -- (He does it in Romans 13 as well).

In fact Paul goes so far as to tell us in Ephesians 6 that the 5th commandment is the "First commandment with a promise". This is true only in the context of the Ten Commandments.

Thus the context for the entire NT writing - is that the term refers primarily to the TEN Commandments.

The idea that Christ would be denying the Ten Commandments without actually saying it -- merely assuming His readers knew He rejected them - flatly contradicts His OWN introduction to His ministry in Matt 5 and 6.

Christ said "do NOT think that I came to abolish the law".

Paul said "Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! IN fact we establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31 - this goes entirely against the "Wishful thinking" that insists that we imagine Christ to be rejecting the Ten Commandments even BEFORE the cross and any change at all takes place.

in Christ,

Bob

[Hansen]

Bob, Your arguments have been previously addressed on other threads such as the one entitled "Commandments in John." If you would like to address the points set forth in that thread, please do so. For the sake of continuity, that thread might be a better place to carry on the discussion.

The point of this thread is to make it clear that the Sabbath "rest" of Hebrews 4 is not the weekly Sabbath. Those who insist that it is are just as mistaken as those who insist that the Commandments in John refer to the Decalogue. Both views are false doctrines which perpetuate cultic legalism among Adventists.

There is a stark and real difference between my views and Bob Ryans, just as there is a stark and real difference between truth and error.

What matters is that every Bible believing Christian research the issues. The Online Bible, a free download, is a great tool for Bible study. It is easy to discover that the Decalogue and the Commandments are not the same in John's writings. The "teachings/sayings" of Jesus and the "commandments" are the same, as contextual study of John's gospel clearly indicates.

Regardless of the noise made by cultic legalists, I will continue to proclaim the merits of a crucified and risen Saviour who saves us by faith alone, not by faith + obedience to the Decalogue.

[Gerr]

Same tired old traditional spooftexts being tossed around.

And you are spoofing the spooftexts because you cannot refute them!

Quote:

Most of them, in their context, do not support what they are being used to support. As I pointed out on other threads, the "commandments" in the writings of John, refer to the teachings of Christ, not the Decalogue. That is true of the word "commandments" in his gospel and epistles. He is not referencing the Decalogue when he refers to the "commandments."

And your conclusion is totally false! I showed that in that thread. I smelled what you were trying to show from your opening post.

Quote:

The sad fact is that many Adventists have been thoroughly indoctrinated, i.e., brainwashed, into believing a certain interpretation of Scripture which is not supported by responsibly interpreted Scripture. Many of us simply do not "get it." In that respect, we have a cultic mentality because we rally around a false interpretation of Scripture.

Brainwashed? I'll let God be the Judge as to who has been brainwashed and who is wrong in their interpretation of Scripture.

Quote:

Before you drag out your old edition of "Bible Readings for the Home" or Haskell's "Bible Handbook" to bury me with prooftexts, look up every verse in John's writings where the word "commandments" appears. Provide any direct evidence, from the context, that he is referring to the Decalogue.

Fortunately, there were 3 other gospel writers who clearly showed that when Jesus was talking about the commandments, there is no doubt that He was referring to the decalogue. Besides, John's first epistle leaves no doubt in my mind that since he talks about the sin of lying, murder, hate, and sin being the transgression of the law, there is no doubt for me that he was referring to the decalogue.

Quote:

The Decalogue was like a doll given to a child until she is old enough to have a baby of her own. When the baby arrives, time to lose the doll. Too many people prefer the doll [Decalogue] to the real baby [Jesus].

And will a follower of Jesus throw the decalogue away and begin to take His name in vain, steal, and fornicate? Sorry, I don't see the decalogue as a toy doll at all. The decalogue is the ABCs of Christian living. I have two grandchildren. The older is over 6 yo, and the younger is just a little over two. The younger is learning her alphabet. Her letters are found in her toys, picture books, and even have magnetic ones attached to the fridge. She is referred to these letters frequently. But the older doesn't bother with them anymore. Why? She has learned them by heart and is now reading. Once she learned her ABCs, did she throw the letters away because she no longer have any use for them? Or think about your DMV manual. When was the last time you looked at it? Once you learned how to drive and learned the traffic laws, did you throw away the driver's manual so that you can now break all those rules? You can see how utterly foolish that line of reasong is!!!

Quote:

So sorry for you.

Friend, don't feel sorry for me, because the commandments you are trying to throw away is the very thing that you will be judged by come judgment day.

ESV | ‎Jas 2:12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.

ESV | ‎Jas 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. ‎11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

ESV | ‎Jas 1:22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. ‎23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. ‎24 For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. ‎25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

[Gerr]

Regardless of the noise made by cultic legalists, I will continue to proclaim the merits of a crucified and risen Saviour who saves us by faith alone, not by faith + obedience to the Decalogue.

Jesus kept the 10c, was He a legalist? Ditto, the disciples?

ESV | ‎Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!

ESV | ‎Jas 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? ‎15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, ‎16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? ‎17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

What is the purpose of grace being extended to rebels?

ESV | ‎Ro 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,

GW | 5 Through him we have received God’s kindness and the privilege of being apostles who bring people from every nation to the obedience that is associated with faith. This is for the honor of his name.

GOD'S WORD Translation. 1995 (Ro 1:5). Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group.

ESV | ‎Ro 16:26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith—

Jesus did not die so that sinners can keep on sinning! WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH THAT WORKS, NOT BY FAITH + WORKS, NOR FAITH - WORKS BECAUSE FAITH - WORKS = DEAD FAITH.

[Hansen]

Gerry, You have been itching for a quarrel over these issues. As a matter of principle, I'm not going to enter into one with you. If you can read English, understand principles of Bible interpretation, and are as free as possible from preconceived, prejudiced opinions, you have every right to your views. You may be right.

I praise God that what you think has absolutely no impact on the work that I do. I will continue to preach the Christian gospel as I understand it, without reference to legalistic, cultic Adventism.

I will proclaim Christ and him crucified as a replacement for the Decalogue.

If you have read and disagree with my views, as set forth here, then you go your way and I'll go mine.

[Gerr]

Itching for a quarrel? Friend, I'm not out to quarrel with anyone, but I am zealous "to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints."

I still would like to see your responses to the issues/points I raised.

Grace without law is anarchy. Law without grace is tyranny.

[BobRyan]

The point of this thread is to make it clear that the Sabbath "rest" of Hebrews 4 is not the weekly Sabbath. Those who insist that it is are just as mistaken as those who insist that the Commandments in John refer to the Decalogue. Both views are false doctrines which perpetuate cultic legalism among Adventists.

you are simply wrong. Though you seem to reserve a respectable level of name-calling for SDAs in general as you make your case. I got to think that will certainly go a long way for one or two of our readers.

Hebrews 4 "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" quotes from the 4th commandment - directly.

The argument in Heb 4 would be impossible IF Paul was really preaching "there does NOT remain therefore the 7th day Sabbath of the Ten Commandments - that is done away with". He can only make addition application of the Sabbath because the Sabbath itself remains.

And obviously Isaiah 66 (which you claimed to want to avoid) adds force to the argument that the Sabbath known to Isaiah's readers would be observed for all of time in the New Earth.

In Hebrews 1 Christ is referenced as the maker of the "worlds" - in Hebrews 4 we see another reference to his having made the world in a real 7 day week.

The "day" of Heb 4 is stated to have fully existed at the time of David when David said "Today if you harden not your heart". There is no reference at all in Heb 4 to the term used by David to refer to "no day at all in the time of David". Nor does it make any sense at all to argue that David was asking the people to stop keeping the Ten Commandments - and start resting on Tuesday.

in Christ,

Bob

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Hansen

The point of this thread is to make it clear that the Sabbath "rest" of Hebrews 4 is not the weekly Sabbath. Those who insist that it is are just as mistaken as those who insist that the Commandments in John refer to the Decalogue. Both views are false doctrines which perpetuate cultic legalism among Adventists.

you are simply wrong. Though you seem to reserve a respectable level of name-calling for SDAs in general as you make your case. I got to think that will certainly go a long way for one or two of our readers.

Hebrews 4 "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" quotes from the 4th commandment - directly.

The argument in Heb 4 would be impossible IF Paul was really preaching "there does NOT remain therefore the 7th day Sabbath of the Ten Commandments - that is done away with". He can only make addition application of the Sabbath because the Sabbath itself remains.

And obviously Isaiah 66 (which you claimed to want to avoid) adds force to the argument that the Sabbath known to Isaiah's readers would be observed for all of time in the New Earth.

in Christ,

Bob