Ten Commandments Replaced?

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

You've said this before.

---

You brought up this particular versse again. For that reason, I reiterated. Do you have any response as to the content of the verse?

[benherndon]

Yes, David, I do have some response but I sort of expected you to go through that list of texts first and I planned to not interrupt you until you sort of finished interpreting them your way. I didn't want to influence you one way or another, make you become defensive, or, whatever in such a way as to disturb your train of thought which I seriously would like to understand how it is that some people in our church can interpret these texts differently than they read in English.

I started that list of texts with Mark 2:27 saying that beginning with the 23rd verse as the disciples were handshucking the grain as they passed through the field. Christ was challenged by the pharisees. He defends his disciples quoting examples that the needs of man were more important than the details of the Law and, finally, by saying man's needs in this instance and the two others He quoted were more important than strict keeping of the commands of the Law. This is, by the way, an instance(among others in the Gospels) where Christ sort of showed his 'take' on some details of the Law and in this instance it even included Sabbath 'work', in a way of speaking, as it also did when He healed so often on Sabbath like the cripple at the Pool of Bethsaida who'd been crippled for 38 yrs already---no "ox in the ditch" sort of thing, either. So the use of this text by Sabbatarians to say or imply that Christ was 'backing up'mandatory Sabbath observance is not a proper interpretation of what Christ said. The whole comment from Him is in response to the unjustified criticism of the disciple's Sabbath 'breaking'. What He says is the exact opposite of the usual SDA use of the text, "The Sabbath was made for man..not man FOR the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." meaning it was OK for the disciples to 'work' on the SAbbth in the sense that the pharisees were criticising them and Him. His comments were a defence---not a reiteration of the 'mandatory'Sabbath observance of OT times!!!

Now---on to Rom 3:19,20 "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under law [there are several references to the fact that the Christian believer is not "under the law"---the Ten Commandments are part of the Law---the Law is not divisible as SDAs and EGW say it is--that's wrong]so that every mouth may be silenced.....Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law, rather through the law we become conscious of sin."

Firstly, observing the law will not gain us righteousness and, implied in the context, and, said, a sentence later, we are made righteous by faith APART FROM LAW.. Then he gives the purpose of the law, too, in addition to making the first doctrinal statement. How can you possibly not agree with this?. See, it also says 'apart from'..that means that NONE of the Law effects our salvation if we are not 'under it'. Those who are not under Grace are, indeed, under Law....but this doesn't apply to the 'good man' as said in 1Tim 1:9 (I think)

As an "aside," the last sentence in that 3rd Chap says, "Do we, then nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather we uphold the law." In view of that chapter How could this be the conclusion????? Answer: Without the law there is 'sin' and wrong, but since there was no law [how come?... didn't we "get" the law when God rested on Sabbath, Gen 2?---No, we didn't! See Deut 5;2 & 3 and a host, literally, of other texts saying 'when' the Law was given] If there is no law there is no guilt. If there is no guilt there is nothing to get forgiven of. But there was a law, now, and there was guilt. Guilt can only be forgiven through the blood of Christ---even animal blood didn't do it except figuratively. Guilt provided the 'set up' for Christ to come to this earth and show us humans very directly what God was like, His character and His love...DIRECTLY! Not through Moses and the Prophets....but DIRECTLY!! Isn't that the message you get, too?

So, then, faith and grace was not needed in the absence of law-breaking and its guilt or 'bond' as mentioned in Col 2:14,15. No Law equals NO guilt! Guilt requires Christ?Messiah... and our faith in Him and His actions reconciling us to the Father. Without guilt mankind would not have even needed a Savior! As it is, since SDAs break the Sabbath every week and so do those who 'keep' Sunday we are all in the same 'boat' so to speak and we are all, everyone of us, in need of a Savior...all the time!

Now Rom 6:14....'you are not under law but under grace'---see above. NO! we are not under some strange combination of law and grace. If so, how much of one and how much of the other?? The Law of the Spirit [i.e., faith!]sets us free from the law of sin and death!

You can read English, Dave. Explain please how you interpret these texts.

Now I know you are almost certain to criticize my above analysis via plain English. But what in the world are you going to do with the 'other' texts I mentioned----2Cor 3, Gal 3, Gal 4, Eph 2 and Col 2 as well as 1 Tim 1? I forgot Rom 14.

By listing these I say by weight of evidence that mandatory Sabbath observance just cannot be a sine qua non requirement of entrance into the heavenly kingdom. By this I also say that its strongly implied and actually said in the NT that Christ came to save sinners that had no other way to be saved....none at all!! Without Christ it wouldn't have mattered one whit if everybody had kept every Sabbath strictly according to the OT instructions---is would have been a useless endeavor!!

Not angry....don't mean to argue....only discuss. These are the things I came up against that took me 18 months of prayer and reading of both the Bible and reviewing SOP and still I had to come out on the side of Sabbath NOT BEING mandatory. Besides I had worked some of nearly every Sabbath in my entire adult life as an SDA physician/surgeon. I HAD to do so!! How could I or any other surgeon keep Sabbath according to the commandment?

Now I've gone and gotten you off track----when what I wanted was for you to exegete all those texts first according to the way you read the Bible and/or were taught in the Seminary or....wherever!

Ben

(its late and this is not corrected for spelling or grammar or syntax. Sorry!)

[benherndon]

David.....For the purposes of this discussion, I wish I could erase what I said last night. I don't learn anything if I talk. I want to hear what you think about that list of texts at this point in our time.

So, please, proceed with your 'take' on 2Cor 3:6-18. What is called the 'ministry of death'? to what is the allegory of the fading on Moses face referring? What 'had glory' but now 'has no glory'? what is 'taken away'? to what does 'reading Moses' refer? how is it that 'reading Moses' produces a 'vail covering their hearts'? how is that 'vail' removed?

After you finish with 2Cor 3, proceed to Gal 3:25 and Gal 4:30, Eph 2:15, Col 2:14,15, 1Tim 1:9 and Rom 14:5,6----one at a time successively, please. I perfer to 'hold' my comments until you're through.

You don't like ME telling YOU....and I don't blame you! So, forget what I wrote last night and proceed through this list of texts. YOU tell ME....I'm asking you!

THEN, maybe we can discuss our differences.

Ben

[John317]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

So, then, moving right along to Ben's next reference, quoting from his post--"Rom 6:14 (we are not under law but under Grace----no, we are not under some combination of the two, its either one OR the other!)"

Let's take a look at the verse itself. Ahh, I forgot, I don't have the NASB online, but I do have the NKJV (good ol' TR). Here goes:

"For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace."

Very well, then, this verse was presented by Ben in support of his assertion that "Sabbath observance is not commanded upon New Testament Christians."

Does this verse support that assertion? Any thoughts?

David Koot

---

First of all, there are no significant variants in verse 14 among all the ancient Greek manuscripts, and therefore the NKJV, NRSV, NIV, and NASB all read virtually the same at Romans 6:14.

Second, in order to understand the context of the message, we should read Romans 6:1-14. Verse 1, with its question of should we continue to sin, and the answer that we have died to sin and therefore can no longer live in it, is the key to understanding the entire chapter. Why can we not continue to sin habitually? It is in verse 14 that Paul answers this question.

A good paraphrase of this verse would be, "The sinful nature will not lord it over you or control you because you are not attempting to earn salvation by obeying any kind of law but instead you will attain victory and freedom over your sinful nature and unrighteousness through reliance upon God's undeserved favor for power to overcome it." The New Translation reads, "Sin must no longer be your master, for you are not living under the rule of Law, but under God's wonderful, undeserved favor." Charles B. Williams' translation: "For sin must not any longer exert its mastery over you, for now you are not living as slaves to law but as subjects to God's favor."

In the very next verse, Paul asks if not being under law means that we should go on sinning. Verse 18 answers that we are made free from sin and are now slaves of righteousness. It is obvious, then, that Paul does not mean that God's grace gives us a license to go on breaking God's commandments. Rather, God's grace provides power to keep them. As he says in Romans 6:18, "...since you have been freed from sin, you have become the slaves of right-doing." And again, in verse 22, "... you have been freed from sin and have become the slaves of God..."

Being "under law" is being under legalism, that is, living as slaves to law, or attempting to earn God's favor, or to be justified, by law-keeping. It is not a question, however, of whether we should obey God's commandments, including the Sabbath commandment. ( See 1 Cor. 7:19; Romans 8:7; 13:8-10.) It is a question of whether we are willing to trust in Christ for our right standing with God. (Galatians 2:16; 3:11, 24). If we are truly in right standing with God, and if the Holy Spirit is leading us, we will be empowered to keep God's commandments, or become slaves of right doing (Romans 6:18; 8:4); but such obedience will not be the result of attempting to earn salvation. Rather, this obedience is the result of the Christian's joyful "enslavement to righteousness" (Romans 6:18-- The NT In the Language of the People.)

The Psalms say that God's law is "perfect, converting the soul." If, then, we alter God's law by saying that under the NT all 7 days of the week are the same, i.e., work days, it is self-evident that the law becomes less perfect.

Finally, I believe that James 2:8-12 clinches the matter of the necessity of keeping all of the Ten Commandments when he says plainly that this law is the one that defines sin, or law-breaking, and that if we break one of these commandments, we break all of them, for they stand together as one law, this law being "itself holy, and its specific commands holy, right, and good" (Romans 7:12). Jim

[Robert]

Doesn't matter how you phrase it...if you insist we "keep" the law as "a result" it still equates to legalism.

Rob

[Robert]

Quote:

---

John317 said:

If, then, we alter God's law by saying that under the NT all 7 days of the week are the same, i.e., work days, it is self-evident that the law becomes less perfect.

---

Here we go again....

The WHOLE issue is Lucifer's love vs. God's love. It's called the GC. Lucifer invented "self"...God's love is selfless! According to the Spirit of God's law your love must be outward, never, never inward. Since you are failing there then you have broke the whole law. That's because (as you said) you break one rule...you have broken all of them.

When you live Christ's life in every detail, then you are "keeping" the law. Until then any endeavor to reduce God's Holy law to mere outward acts reduces it to a less perfect law.

Rob

[David Koot]

Robert, I have to agree with Nicodema. You seem to want to take over every thread and turn it into the same topic. As the one who started this thread, I am asking you to not do that here. You already started a thread to discuss that issue. This is not that thread. Please don't hijack this thread. Thank-you.

[jasd]

Dr. BHerndon,

It’s good that you are able to post a bit (hope your wife is doing well). I recall following your postings for going-on about three-four years… and have been blessed bunches, as I’ve had to go to text to verify. Please,

continue finding time to make yourself available to this forum.

If it seems that I’ve excelled myself at times it is because – of late, I’ve tried to respond in kind. Although the posts I’ve responded to in past have been of good character… I neglected to respond in like good manner and in attempting to do so now – I suppose, that some of my posts reflect both the quality of the dialogic positions I attempt to rebut – and a good deal of effort on my part. (don’t hold me to what is surely unsustainable )

I will be abbreviating participation on this forum for awhile, as matters of urgency press me; however, that is not to say I’ll discontinue posting entirely… and will be looking on lurkingly therefore, for the time being – am defaulting this issue. That said,

it is comforting to carry away an expression of warm approval from you.

Thanks, jas.

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

As the one who started this thread,

---

>>>?????.....Archierieus?...

[Robert]

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

Robert, I have to agree with Nicodema. You seem to want to take over every thread and turn it into the same topic. As the one who started this thread, I am asking you to not do that here. You already started a thread to discuss that issue. This is not that thread. Please don't hijack this thread. Thank-you.

---

You're the one that hi-jacks every thread into this legalistic junk....I simply give you the spirit of the law...You know, that part you keep ignoring.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

John317 said:

If, then, we alter God's law by saying ... it is self-evident that the law becomes less perfect.

---

The 7th commandment forbids adultery, but says nothing of homosexual sex or fornication. Why?

A: Because the moral law is a brief description of sin.

Rob