Can a person love without the Ten Commandments

[VictorC]

I woudn't say you are getting through to me but I would say you are getting to me.
You believe that it's all Jesus and there is nothing else. Just believe and you're on the train to glory.

1 Corinthians 1:18-25
18: For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19: For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20: Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21: For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22: For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24: But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25: Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Well Jesus had a different view of things. He knew and taught that it's not only Him, but rather, it's doing the will of His Father. Those who refuse the will of His Father are considered lawless.

Hebrews 10:26-29
26: For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27: But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28: He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

 

[mva1985]

Ephesians clearly states that we are saved by grace through faith - it is a gift from God. You can't buy it. You can't boast that you did anything to earn this free gift from God.

James clearly states that faith without works is dead.

I think what really needs to be seen is balance.

 

[VictorC]

Ephesians clearly states that we are saved by grace through faith - it is a gift from God. You can't buy it. You can't boast that you did anything to earn this free gift from God.

James clearly states that faith without works is dead.

I think what really needs to be seen is balance.

I wholeheartedly agree. As Galatians 2:21 instructs us, I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. We have nothing that we can add to His gift.

And, even James brought attention to faith being the cause for works.

James 2:17-26
17: Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18: Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19: Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20: But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21: Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22: Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23: And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24: Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25: Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26: For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

It wasn't Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac that incurred God's imputation of righteousness; rather, Abraham believed God and trusted Him.

I grieve over the practice I have seen on this thread of insistance that we need to return to Moses instead of trusting in Jesus' sufficiency to save us to the uttermost. Hebrews 6:4-6 has sober words that I hope find a home in us all.

Victor

 

[VictorC]

There are so many posts in this thread, that this likely got overlooked.
I hope k4c will read it, even if a response isn't deemed expedient.
-Victor

I miss many details contained in the law, just because there is so much detail there. The more I become familiar with it, the more I find the need to flee from its clutches and trust in my Redeemer. Apparently you have not reached that same point, as you believe that you're going to comply with Israel's covenant that none of Israel ever did.

I find that when you reply, you do so without reading the passages that are involved, and you miss context often in the assertions you postulate. Many times that missing context negates the point you're trying to convey, and this is the case once again with this citation.

Numbers 28:1-10
1: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2: Command the children of Israel, and say unto them, My offering, and my bread for my sacrifices made by fire, for a sweet savour unto me, shall ye observe to offer unto me in their due season.
3: And thou shalt say unto them, This is the offering made by fire which ye shall offer unto the LORD; two lambs of the first year without spot day by day, for a continual burnt offering.
4: The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at even;
5: And a tenth part of an ephah of flour for a meat offering, mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil.
6: It is a continual burnt offering, which was ordained in mount Sinai for a sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD.
7: And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of an hin for the one lamb: in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the LORD for a drink offering.
8: And the other lamb shalt thou offer at even: as the meat offering of the morning, and as the drink offering thereof, thou shalt offer it, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
9: And on the sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot, and two tenth deals of flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and the drink offering thereof:
10: This is the burnt offering of every sabbath, beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering.

The burnt offerings that are made every sabbath day are contained in the passage governing the twice-daily oblations. These offerings are made every single day of the year. Not only are these offerings inclusive of the seventh-day sabbath, but any and all other sabbaths as well.


If I miss details, I find you missing words staring at you in the face.
The oblations don't contradict the prohibition against lighting a fire in your house. However, you have profaned the sabbath if you were to light a fire in your furnace or on your stove. You had better push your car out of the garage before you dare light a fire in any of the engine's cylinders, as well.


As the Pharisees once noted, "this people who knoweth not the law are cursed" (John 7:49). God didn't call "us" as Gentiles to observe Israel's covenant, that Moses testified was unique to them (Deuteronomy 4:7-8) and wasn't even possessed by the generation previous to him (Deuteronomy 5:2-3). What you're saying here is that the Gentiles don't know how to love God.
Suffice to say, I frankly don't believe you. The law isn't a mere guide for good living, and God knew this as He gave Ezekiel another source of instruction prophesied in Ezekiel 36:27.

The council at Jerusalem considered the very position you posit, that the Gentiles should become observant of the law of Moses, which is reference to Israel's covenant made at Sinai (Deuteronomy 5). Peter stood up and proclaimed these words in Acts 15:7-11:

7: And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8: And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9: And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10: Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11: But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Peter already knew that Israel didn't comply with the law, and I have already quoted passages from Paul that assert the same thing. Peter saw that God didn't use a litmus test of the law on the Gentiles, who had never had the law. Ergo, God has accepted them, and why should we now crush them with a legal package we couldn't comply with? God doesn't care about the law, having taken it away (Hebrews 10:9), so why should we?

You are following those zealous of the law against Peter's conclusion, and the conclusion of the council.


That particular forest has 613 trees in it, any of which can crush you and condemn you, and you ignore them at your own peril (which you do):
Galatians 3:10
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Galatians 5:3-5
3: For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4: Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5: For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Romans 3:19
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Let me give you the bottom line: Keeping a part of the law is meaningless unless you comply with all things contained in the book of the law.
Many generations have tried before, and have failed.
You don't stand a chance, and frankly, the conclusion of being under the law is that it still leaves you guilty before God.

This is why the Gospel seems so foreign to you who hope you can keep the law.
John 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.


Apparently you aren't familiar with the authority Adventism ascribes to Ellen White.
Ellen muttered error after error while affixing the endorsement of "I saw" and/or "my accompanying angel told/showed me" or "Jesus showed me" verbiage, a claim to divine inspiration.
Error isn't from God, and when Ellen's "I saw" statements are found to be in error, then we have this rule given in Deuteronomy 18:22:
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
You shall not believe or follow a false prophet.

Victor

 

[k4c]

Ephesians clearly states that we are saved by grace through faith - it is a gift from God. You can't buy it. You can't boast that you did anything to earn this free gift from God.

James clearly states that faith without works is dead.

I think what really needs to be seen is balance.

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

 

[VictorC]

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

Romans 7:14
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

 

[mva1985]

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

I never said anything about the 10 commandments being done away with - I believe them to still be binding.

 

[VictorC]

I never said anything about the 10 commandments being done away with - I believe them to still be binding.

Are you aware that the ten commandments were the old covenant mediated by Moses?

Exodus 34:27-28
27: And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28: And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And He wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Deuteronomy 4:12-14
12: And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.
13: And He declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
14: And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.

By "binding" are you asserting that this covenant has jurisdiction over those who have been redeemed from it?

Hebrews 7:12-28
12: For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
...
18: For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19: For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
...
28: For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

This epistle conveys the change of the covenants, and is addressed to the recipients of the covenant mediated by Moses. It tells us that the old covenant, the ten commandments, was taken away. The details in Hebrews 8 confirm this.
How can something taken away continue to bind?

Victor

 

[mva1985]

Are you aware that the ten commandments were the old covenant mediated by Moses?

First Moses did not mediate any thing - he received what God gave him.

Exodus 34:27-28
27: And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

Moses wrote words - what words were they? The ceremonial law or the sacrificial law if you will. Which he also received from God.

28: And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And He wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

The 10 Commandments were written by God not Moses.

Deuteronomy 4:12-14
12: And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.
13: And He declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

God commanded a covenant to be performed - the sacrificial system PLUS or EVEN the 10 commandments.

14: And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.

By "binding" are you asserting that this covenant has jurisdiction over those who have been redeemed from it?

Hebrews 7:12-28
12: For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

What does the priesthood have to do with the 10 commandments? The priests ministered in the Temple. Sacrifices and the things pertaining to them.
...
18: For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19: For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Sacrificial system pointed forward to Christ - how exactly are the 10 commandments symbolic of a Messiah to come? How do the 10 commandments symbolize bringing in a better hope? Again the sacrificial system is what pointed to a Messiah to come.

...
28: For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Do the 10 commandments make men high priests or does the sacrificial system make them priests?

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

This epistle conveys the change of the covenants, and is addressed to the recipients of the covenant mediated by Moses. It tells us that the old covenant, the ten commandments, was taken away. The details in Hebrews 8 confirm this.
How can something taken away continue to bind?

Victor

My answers are in red.

 

[mva1985]

Daniel 9:27
"Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

This is exactly what Christ did when He died on the Cross, brought an end to sacrifice and offering.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

Romans 7:14
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Romans 5:20:
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

NO ONE can out-sin God's grace and mercy. It bes impossible. End of story, end of issue, end of argument, period.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

My answers are in red.

Colossians 2:17
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

 

[VictorC]

My answers are in red.

When Israel's 'one law' was abolished, it made no distinction between the tables of stone and the Levitical rites. It isn't possible to separate them with regards to the sabbath ordinance, normally a hot topic here, because the Levitical rites contain the sabbath in Leviticus 23:3 with the equal strength of the tables of stone. Abolish either one, and the other falls with it.

This is why Paul mentions this in Romans 7:6-7:

6: But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
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.

We are delivered in the present tense from the law that considered us dead while we were in it - and this same law contains the words "thou shalt not covet". What is this law we were delivered from?
Exodus 20:17
17: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

We are delivered from the law, the whole law, and that includes the ten commandments.

Missing in your reply is the change in the covenants. These are legal dispositions being made, changing the citizenship of the redeemed from Moses to Christ. A Suzerainty Covenant made for the vassal Israel has no jurisdiction over those purchased from it, any more than traffic laws for Georgia pertain to Mexico.

Victor

 

[mva1985]

Delivered as in we are not required to keep the ceremonial laws or the 10 commandments?

 

[VictorC]

Delivered as in we are not required to keep the ceremonial laws or the 10 commandments?

Again, you're dividing the 'one law' that is common practice in Adventism, but you have no Scriptural basis to do so. It was Catholicism that invented the notion of a continuing ten commandments, and Adventism simply noticed that they didn't have any authority to "change" the sabbath to Sunday. Adventism never noticed that Catholicism never received any authority to claim that the old testament (covenant) was still binding.

Romans 7:6-7 is specific that we're delivered from the ten commandments.
2 Corinthians 3 is specific that the law inscribed on the tables of stone, that Moses carried down in Exodus 34, are abolished.
Hebrews 8 is specific that the covenant of the ten commandments given at Sinai was replaced with a better covenant based on better promises, and the covenant given at Sinai isn't permitted entrance into our hearts and minds.
Galatians 4 is specific in making an allegory of Hagar equivalent with the covenant of the ten commandments given at Sinai. In this allegory, Hagar (and Sinai) gender bondage, and her disposition is that she is to be disposed of, because she has no inheritance with the free woman and her children.

Those children are us, the redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb.

It is all one legal package, and it is no longer respected by its Author, who has done away with it with His own Blood. I haven't touched on propitiation, as that is a large subject in itself, but the entire law has been satisfied, and it does not contain a provision for double jeopardy, and it loses jurisdiction over those justified by the Blood of Christ.

Victor

 

[k4c]

I never said anything about the 10 commandments being done away with - I believe them to still be binding.

I kind of thought so but my quote fit with your statements anyway for those who don't receive the Ten Commandments.

 

[mva1985]

Again, you're dividing the 'one law' that is common practice in Adventism, but you have no Scriptural basis to do so. It was Catholicism that invented the notion of a continuing ten commandments, and Adventism simply noticed that they didn't have any authority to "change" the sabbath to Sunday. Adventism never noticed that Catholicism never received any authority to claim that the old testament (covenant) was still binding.

Romans 7:6-7 is specific that we're delivered from the ten commandments.
2 Corinthians 3 is specific that the law inscribed on the tables of stone, that Moses carried down in Exodus 34, are abolished.
Hebrews 8 is specific that the covenant of the ten commandments given at Sinai was replaced with a better covenant based on better promises, and the covenant given at Sinai isn't permitted entrance into our hearts and minds.
Galatians 4 is specific in making an allegory of Hagar equivalent with the covenant of the ten commandments given at Sinai. In this allegory, Hagar (and Sinai) gender bondage, and her disposition is that she is to be disposed of, because she has no inheritance with the free woman and her children.

Those children are us, the redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb.

It is all one legal package, and it is no longer respected by its Author, who has done away with it with His own Blood. I haven't touched on propitiation, as that is a large subject in itself, but the entire law has been satisfied, and it does not contain a provision for double jeopardy, and it loses jurisdiction over those justified by the Blood of Christ.

Victor

All you had to say was no we don't have to keep either.

Maybe you would like to elaborate as to why one set of laws was put IN the Ark of the Covenant and one was put OUTSIDE the Ark? Do you not see an spiritual significance to that?

 

[Man-ofGod]

Before I get into why I believe the 10 commandments are still valid today I would like to point out that the 10 commandments were written in love not out of legal action. Grace is not a concept just for the new testament but also exist in the old testament on many occasions. Jesus said if you love him you will keep his commandments.

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

One of the facts in the Bible that is clear is that the 10 commandments never never went away. Ask yourself, does God change? What does the Bible say?

Malachi 3:6

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

So if God does not change why would he change his laws?

The 10 commandments were the only laws that were written in stone by gods own finger! With that said, many people think the law of god did not exist until it was given to moses on tables of stone on Mount Sinai. The reason why god wrote the laws on table of stone is because that people broke the laws written in there heart. Therefore, God reinstated the laws that were written in there heart on to tables of stone. Before Sinai it was wrong to steal, it was wrong to murder, it was wrong to commit adultery.

In Romans 15 it states where there is no law there is no transgression. If you do away with the law of God you do away with transgression. If you look at the definition of transgression (Google "define: transgression") you got

Transgression : [SIZE=-1]the act of transgressing; the violation of a law or a duty or moral principle; "the boy was punished for the transgressions of his father"[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]

So we know that transgression is the breaking of the law. If you look at 1 John 3:4 you got:

[/SIZE]

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

To put it plainly, Sin is breaking Gods law. If there was no law there would be no transgression and as a result no sin. But God made it clear that it was wrong to murder and commit adultery etc.. before it was written in stone on Mount Sinai. After all, even Abraham who existed before Moses kept Gods commandments.

Genesis 26:5

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

See its not about weather you think its correct or not to steal. It is a sin because Gods law states it is. Remember, as Christians we are suppose to follow the footsteps of Jesus. Jesus upheld the claims of law in his own life. Jesus took the law written on tables of stone and put them into human flesh. Jesus himself said:

Matthew 5:17

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

Jesus said himself that he did not come to destroy it. If he did not destroy it where did it go? What about fulfill? Many think that fulfill means that the law is abolished now since it was fulfilled. The definition of fulfill is not that friend.

(GOOGLE define: fulfill"

Fulfill:


[SIZE=-1]carry through: put in effect; "carry out a task"; "execute the decision of the people"; "He actioned the operation"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]satisfy: fulfil the requirements or expectations of[/SIZE]

Thats it, nothing more nothing less. He fulfilled the requirements and if we are to follow in Jesus footsteps, we should do the same.

 

[VictorC]

All you had to say was no we don't have to keep either.

That would not have been a satisfactory answer, though, would it?
It isn't a matter of whether or not you have to keep it, as you framed your statement. Rather, it is a matter of God already having declared that His covenant people who were under the ten commandments didn't keep it.
None of them.
It was concerning the Gospel's presentation to the Gentiles that Paul wrote these words in Romans 11:30-32:

30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience,
31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

The Gentiles were already disobedient, and the covenant mediated by Moses estranged them from the promises given to Abraham (Ephesians 2:11-16). Now we see that God has declared all of Israel, those who received the ten commandments, were also all disobedient.
God has concluded everyone disobedient.
Hence the good news of deliverence from the death sentence the first covenant waged on all.

And you're going to tell God that you're going to make Him happy by keeping the law He already declared you disobedient to?

Romans 10:1-3 conveys the attitude of those who have done this before you:

1 ¶ Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.
2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.

You aren't going to please God by your motions, going back to what He set you free from.

Maybe you would like to elaborate as to why one set of laws was put IN the Ark of the Covenant and one was put OUTSIDE the Ark? Do you not see an spiritual significance to that?

It is immaterial.
Our knowledge of the tables of stone are codified in the book of the law, and that's what we quote from daily. You don't have access to the tables of stone.

Galatians 3:10-14
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."
11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith."
12 Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them."
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"),
14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Concerning my last post - I have never asked that you trust what I write to you. I hope that you would trust the Scriptures themselves, and verify that what I write is truthful, if I left out important context, you know, find out for yourself, that kind of stuff.

Romans 7:6-7 is specific that we're delivered from the ten commandments.
2 Corinthians 3 is specific that the law inscribed on the tables of stone, that Moses carried down in Exodus 34, are abolished.
Hebrews 8 is specific that the covenant of the ten commandments given at Sinai was replaced with a better covenant based on better promises, and the covenant given at Sinai isn't permitted entrance into our hearts and minds.
Galatians 4 is specific in making an allegory of Hagar equivalent with the covenant of the ten commandments given at Sinai. In this allegory, Hagar (and Sinai) gender bondage, and her disposition is that she is to be disposed of, because she has no inheritance with the free woman and her children.

Go and read these chapters, and verify that the description of each one is as I claim it is.

Victor

 

[VictorC]

Before I get into why I believe the 10 commandments are still valid today I would like to point out that the 10 commandments were written in love not out of legal action. Grace is not a concept just for the new testament but also exist in the old testament on many occasions. Jesus said if you love him you will keep his commandments.

The ten commandments would be valid for today for the sole purpose of condemnation for those who remain under the jurisdiction of that covenant. For, as Romans 2:12 says,
For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.

I'm a Gentile, in that first category, who would have been destined to perish without hope (as Ephesians 2:11-16 explains).
For those who are in the law of that covenant, Romans 3:19 settles their future:
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Granted, there isn't anyone saved outside of grace, and that has always been true. I can't for the life of me understand why you think grace mandates a disposition of "guilty before God" and slap a label that says "love" on it. Grace and law are antithetical, as apparent in John 1:17:
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

One of the facts in the Bible that is clear is that the 10 commandments never never went away. Ask yourself, does God change? What does the Bible say?

Let's test that theory:
1 Peter 1:18-21
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Yes, you're right - God has never changed His intent to redeem man by His own shed Blood. Is that true of His covenant, which is His creation, and needs to be understood as separate from the Sovereign Creator? No. Please explain all the changes and nullifications and placing the law in the past tense as presented in Hebrews 7:12-28, identified in the next chapter as the covenant given at Sinai, the ten commandments.

So if God does not change why would he change his laws?

You do realize the specific law you're talking about is His covenant given at Sinai, don't you (Deuteronomy 4:13)
What does this passage mean from Hebrews 10:9?
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

What is the 'first'?
What is the 'second'?
What is the disposition of the 'first'?

The 10 commandments were the only laws that were written in stone by gods own finger! With that said, many people think the law of god did not exist until it was given to moses on tables of stone on Mount Sinai. The reason why god wrote the laws on table of stone is because that people broke the laws written in there heart. Therefore, God reinstated the laws that were written in there heart on to tables of stone.

Scripture, please? Where oh where does the Bible ever tell you that the law was written in anyone's heart prior to the new covenant?
And, how do you reconcile this alleged pre-existence with the testimony Moses gave, that the previous generation didn't have this covenant in Deuteronomy 5:2-3?

2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

Before Sinai it was wrong to steal, it was wrong to murder, it was wrong to commit adultery.

In Romans 15 it states where there is no law there is no transgression. If you do away with the law of God you do away with transgression. If you look at the definition of transgression
So we know that transgression is the breaking of the law. If you look at 1 John 3:4 you got:

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

To put it plainly, Sin is breaking Gods law. If there was no law there would be no transgression and as a result no sin. But God made it clear that it was wrong to murder and commit adultery etc.. before it was written in stone on Mount Sinai. After all, even Abraham who existed before Moses kept Gods commandments.

What were God's commandments to Abraham?
Circumcision? Packing bags and leaving Ur of the Chaldees?
Not the ten commandments, which would not exist for another 430 years:
Galatians 3:17-18
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

See its not about weather you think its correct or not to steal. It is a sin because Gods law states it is. Remember, as Christians we are suppose to follow the footsteps of Jesus. Jesus upheld the claims of law in his own life.

Have you never perceived why Jesus followed the law as He did?
Galatians 4:4-5
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Jesus took the law written on tables of stone and put them into human flesh.

Wrong. The law written into our hearts and minds is qualified by these words in Hebrews 8:9:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.

That covenant made at Sinai was the ten commandments, and it doesn't go into our hearts. This statement is verbatim from Jeremiah's prophecy.
I wrote more detail on this very topic in the denomination-specific theology area, in a post entitled God replaces the schoolmaster, please peruse at your pleasure (the link should take you directly to it).

Jesus himself said:

Matthew 5:17
Jesus said himself that he did not come to destroy it. If he did not destroy it where did it go? What about fulfill? Many think that fulfill means that the law is abolished now since it was fulfilled. The definition of fulfill is not that friend.

4137 pleroo

from 4134; TDNT-6:286,867; v

AV-fulfil 51, fill 19, be full 7, complete 2, end 2, misc 9; 90

1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
1a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
1a1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. to complete
2a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
2b) to consummate: a number
2b1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
2b2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)

Never use Google in lieu of a decent lexicon, please.

Fulfill = propitiation, a full expiatory sacrifice that satisfied the mandates of the law - that's just from memory.

Romans 3:23-28
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Please get back to me on Hebrews 10:9.

Victor