Do you agree that christians should keep the 10 Commandments? (2)

[MamaZ]

Scripture does not teach that. What Paul said is that we are not under the law. What does "not under the law" mean? It does not mean that there is no law but that we are not under the condemnation of the Law. All have sinned and therefore deserve death. Is that not so? But by the Spirit indwelling we have the power to overcome sin. If we overcome sin we overcome breaking the law. The law does not move.
Think about it, if the law could have been removed then Christ would have had no need to die. Just move the law and we were home free. But Christ died for us, for breaking the law, for every man that will ever live. Why would Christ died for a law that He would remove?

Scripture does not say we are not under the condemnation of the law. Scripture says we are not under the law. We are under the blood. We are born again. New creations in Christ.

 

[MamaZ]

The law does not bring death. The law to drive under 60 does cause you to get a ticket. This is the misconception of the law. You only get a ticket if you exceed 60. The law is death if you break it, that is why we are required to keep it. Stay with in the speed limit. Do not kill, do not lie, do not steal. Is that salvation by works or obedience?

scripture tells us the law is the minister of death. Do you drive under 60 just so you do not get a ticket? Is that the motive?

 

[Yab Yum]

I believe Jesus has fulfilled the law. But ...

Epic post IMHO.

 

[from scratch]

Please. Salvation does not depend on keeping the law. But you will not expect to be saved and be a murderer or not worship God.
Why would God removed the commandment that says we should worship Him alone? Do you realize that that is part of the same that is said to be removed? Can you conceive God doing that? If so why?

It is no longer a requirement as such. It is a desire. Thus the modivation for such has changed to a free will by anyone that will. What is worship that isn't from the heart? It it really worship or ceremony?

 

[from scratch]

The law does not bring death. The law to drive under 60 does cause you to get a ticket. This is the misconception of the law. You only get a ticket if you exceed 60. The law is death if you break it, that is why we are required to keep it. Stay with in the speed limit. Do not kill, do not lie, do not steal. Is that salvation by works or obedience?

IOW one is righteous and has no need of mercy, grace or a Redeemer.

 

[Yab Yum]

It's a desire to conform to the natural law, which is the portion of God's eternal law that is comprehensible to human beings. The desire was internalized into our hearts by God's Grace. Otherwise why does Jesus instruct us to obey his commandments? Otherwise why does Paul instruct us to obey Christ's Law?

 

[IreneAdler]

IOW one is righteous and has no need of mercy, grace or a Redeemer.

I was under the impression if you even thought hard about breaking it you were guilty of it....

 

[from scratch]

I agree with the context you laid out here tall73.

I will comment on a couple points, however. When I see that the emphasis of Jesus' point is "what is lawful to do on the Sabbath", this, to me, automatically implies that there are "unlawful things to do on the Sabbath". For if Christ did not believe the Seventh-Day Sabbath was to be kept by all mankind, why didn't He just argue with the Pharisees that the Sabbath is no longer important?

Had Jesus been living in our day, His approach would have had to have been totally different. In Jesus' day, you had the pendulum shifted way to the right, where legalistic Judaism was at its peak. For Christ to place His emphasis on keeping the Sabbath would have completely defeated His purpose in reaching out to the Jews who were way in left-field about Sabbath keeping.

It would seem to me, then, that Christ's argument leaned more toward what is spoken of in Isaiah 58:13,14, where the Sabbath is to be a "delight". Clearly, the exacting, burdensome, rigorous rules being imposed on the Sabbath by the Tulmud had turned the day into a miserable "burden".

As for the "Son of Man". We have to remember that everything about Christ is "Judo-centric". Forgive me if I'm wrong, however, but it appears that you are implying that "perhaps" this lends credence to the possibility of the Sabbath being tied only to the Jews because it is a Messianic prophecy in Daniel 7? Or maybe I'm just not digesting what you are implying could be derived from Daniel 7.

One thing that from scratch doesn't seem to take into account is that we Sabbatarians do agree that the Sabbath was only given to Israel. When He gave it to Israel, however, there were no other nations on the planet who believed in Jehovah! So how can the Sabbath be for a nation who does not believe in Jehovah? It is impossible. Therefore, the Sabbath can only be given to Israel. But once Israel fulfills its duty, and commission, to bring other nations into the covenant blessings of their Father Abraham, so that all nations might be blessed, all these nations are grafted into the stock of Israel, and they become "part of Israel".

In fact, in Isaiah 61:1-11, it prophesies the day when it will be the strangers who will build the old wastes and raise up the former desolations of Israel, and these strangers would be the ones to stand and feed the flock, and would be the plowmen and vinedressers for the vineyard, Israel.

I from scratch do fully recognize and understand what the SDA people believe and why they beleive such. It is trying to be promoted that I have no understanding of the Bible really maening that I simply don't agree with the SDA church as demanded.

There is no biblical support for the Church being Israel anywhere in the Bible. A Christian isn't graft into Israel. A Christian is graft into Jesus Christ the Root. According to that false teaching a Jew must be graft into his own nation. Jesus didn't say come to Israel. Jesus said come to Me. Jesus didn't say come to this fold. Jesus did say there would be one fold which isn't identified as this fold meaning Israel. Israel can't give life. Jesus can and does.

I would ask because it is admited above that the sabbath is given only to Israel why it is claimed the Gentiles are required to keep the sabbath. It isn't claimed that Christians are given the sabbath anywhere in the Scripture or by the above statement. There is only one way into the covenant made with Israel and that is circumcision as required by the law.

 

[11822]

IOW one is righteous and has no need of mercy, grace or a Redeemer.

What does IOW mean?

 

[IreneAdler]

in other words

 

[Lysimachus]

To all
let's consider Heb 8.
The belief is that with the new covenant came the abolition of the law in this case the 10 commandments.
7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Definitly there is a new covenant and there was a problem with the first, was it the law?

8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Clearly the problem was the people. Emphatically the law is elevated and is far from being removed, for it is now written on the heart. The problem is not the law,

9Not 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; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Again it is made clear the reason for the new covenant. The people did not keep there end of the agreement. As legalistic as they became did they really keep the law? Did they not kill Jesus? Is that not murder and by no one less that the priests. Did they not get angry because someone was healed? An act of love.

10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

The law has not be removed.

11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

We all know we shall not steal or kill, or lie, or commit adultery. We know we should serve the one and only God. What do we say then? where is God holy 10 commandments? Even the non-christian can tell the christian when he falters.

12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Definitely this a confirmation that they kept not the law. Why else would He need to show mercy? Why would they be sins? Is this not because the violated the law? For all their legalism, they broke the law. I believe that satan has brought us to the other extreme and we are now in just as must trouble as they were.

13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Mercy has benn shown to us in that there is a new covenant, for the first was not obeyed. The contract should was canceled, but God in His mercy has given us an opportunity to live by the principles of the covenant, the laws of the covenant not to disregard them.

This is a comment I found on the same passage.
Here we can see both aspects of what it means to have salvation in Christ, to be covered in His righteousness. How wonderful is the promise that the Lord will be “merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more” (vs. 12). He is talking about those who through faith have surrendered to Jesus and have claimed His new-covenant promises, those who have His law written in their hearts and thus obey it, not to achieve salvation but because they already have it. Clothed in the covering of His righteousness, they now live out that righteousness in their own lives. That’s the heart and soul of the New Covenant.

This is a well-written, and powerfully moving post Elder 111. You've helped to crystallize the concept for me. Thank you for sharing!

In addition to that, I might remind the readers of some additional points. I wrote the following sometime ago in a blog of mine:

Problem #1) Those of us who strongly believe in upholding ALL Ten Commandments in the New Covenant age wholeheartedly believe that the Old Covenant is completely done away with. It is old, vanished away, and completely abolished and replaced by the New Covenant. To this we have no question, as Hebrews 8:13 is clear on this matter. However, we do not believe the laws themselves engraved in the Tables of the Covenant carry over with this abolishment, and we shall see why below.

Our difference is not regarding whether the Old Covenant has been abolished or not. That is not our problem. Our problem lies in the fact as to whether the Moral Ten Commandments Law was abolished with the Old Covenant. We believe that the New Covenant promise in Jeremiah 31:31-33 establishes that the same Moral Laws that were given at Sinai are to be written in the hearts of of New Testament believers by God Himself through the Holy Spirit, and we will keep all 10 of them out of love in the spirit and in truth through the merits of Christ's redemption and Priesthood, and not of the letter. That is the difference. The laws have not changed, but the same laws have changed in their location--from tables of stone to tables of the heart—and that is, only if we let Him do it. To obey them by the letter is to rely on our own human self-sufficiency. To obey them in spirit and in truth is to rely on the merits of Christ as He makes us "perfect in every good work to do his will, working in us that which is wellpleasing in his sight." (Hebrews 13:21) and "working in us both to will and do of his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).

Most Christians today mistake the "Ten Commandments" for being the "Old Covenant". But a careful exegesis of scripture does not allow for this interpretation, and we shall see why:

The Ten Commandments were only the basis of the Covenant (agreement), but not the agreement itself. It's impossible to say a law is the same thing as a covenant. It is simply a set-of-rules for which the covenant is established on. A covenant is a mutual "agreement", a "pact", a "promise", a "contract" made between two parties concerning the words written in a law. But the reason why the covenant was abolished was because it was "faulty" (See Hebrews 8:7), but it was not the Moral Ten Commandment Law that was faulty, it was with "them" (verse 8 ), the Israelites, in their failure to keep them by not relying on the merits of Jehovah working in them. However, according to the scriptures, the Law of God was "perfect, converting the soul" (Psalms 19:7), and Paul declares the law and commandment "holy, just, and good" (Romans 7:12). How can the law be holy, just, and good and yet faulty at the same time? Obviously Paul is speaking of a different law, otherwise he would be contradicting himself in Hebrews 7:18,19 (relating to the earthly priesthood in the Old Covenant) and Colossians 2:14-17. Paul also says "We know that the the law is spiritual" (Romans 7:14) Why would one who is spiritual find fault with and oppose that which is spiritual? In Romans 8:4 he states: "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us." Here he is declaring the law to be "righteous". Remember, the New Covenant is this: "I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their hearts" (Hebrews 8:10). That which is spiritual has to do with the heart. If it does not go out of the head into the heart, it is legalism. Since Paul is quoting Jeremiah 31:33, we know that it is the same Ten Commandment law existing in the Old Testament. The law of Ten Commandments has not changed, but the transfer of location has--from the tables of stone to the tables of the heart. Now it can make perfect sense when Paul said that it is "the carnal mind" that "is not subject to the law of God" (Romans 8:7). There is no such thing as a carnal mind being in agreement with that which is spiritual. Anyone that rejects the commandments of God is trying to get them out of the way to justify his transgression of one or all of them is badly infected with carnality, and "to be carnally minded is death" (Romans 8:6). Only the spiritual mind is subject to God's law.

Therefore, we are left with no choice to conclude that if the Moral Law is perfect but the Covenant is faulty, it is impossible for the Moral Law to get blotted out with it. It is the "old promise"...meaning "faulty agreement" of the children of Israel to keep it rightfully that was abolished, not the Ten Commandments themselves. One could say "the OLD Agreement vanished". We are now living under a new promise, a new agreement! There was nothing faulty with God's Ten Commandments. Nothing at all. But it was in the arrangement of how the children of Israel promised that was faulty.

 

[Yab Yum]

Aquinas solved this problem hundreds of years ago:

"The Old Law showed forth the precepts of the natural law, and added certain precepts of its own. Accordingly, as to those precepts of the natural law contained in the Old Law, all were bound to observe the Old Law; not because they belonged to the Old Law, but because they belonged to the natural law". (ST I–II:98:5).

 

[Lysimachus]

It is no longer a requirement as such. It is a desire. Thus the modivation for such has changed to a free will by anyone that will. What is worship that isn't from the heart? It it really worship or ceremony?

Alright! Sounds good then. Now let's take this reasoning and apply it to the 4th commandment....

""It is no longer a requirement as such. It is a desire. Thus the motivation for such has changed to a free will by anyone that will. What is worship that isn't from the heart? Is it really worship or ceremony?"

I will be waiting to see when you will have the desire to keep the Sabbath Holy. To meet God on His sanctified date He has appointed.

 

[IreneAdler]

(I think God would really much rather us worship in reality than falsely - heart wise - observe a sabbath we don't mean, maybe it's just me... )

 

[Yab Yum]

Alright! Sounds good then. Now let's take this reasoning and apply it to the 4th commandment....

""It is no longer a requirement as such. It is a desire. Thus the motivation for such has changed to a free will by anyone that will. What is worship that isn't from the heart? Is it really worship or ceremony?"

I will be waiting to see when you will have the desire to keep the Sabbath Holy. To meet God on His sanctified date He has appointed.

"This Commandment about the observance of the Sabbath, on the other hand, considered as to the time appointed for its fulfillment, is not fixed and constant, but changeable, pertaining not so much to mores but to ceremonies. Neither is it a principle of the natural law; we are not instructed by nature to give external worship to God on that day, rather than on any other. And in fact the Sabbath was kept holy only from the time of the liberation of the people of Israel from the bondage of Pharaoh".

 

[11822]

in other words

thanks.

 

[Lysimachus]

I from scratch do fully recognize and understand what the SDA people believe and why they beleive such. It is trying to be promoted that I have no understanding of the Bible really maening that I simply don't agree with the SDA church as demanded.

There is no biblical support for the Church being Israel anywhere in the Bible. A Christian isn't graft into Israel. A Christian is graft into Jesus Christ the Root. According to that false teaching a Jew must be graft into his own nation. Jesus didn't say come to Israel. Jesus said come to Me. Jesus didn't say come to this fold. Jesus did say there would be one fold which isn't identified as this fold meaning Israel. Israel can't give life. Jesus can and does.

I would ask because it is admited above that the sabbath is given only to Israel why it is claimed the Gentiles are required to keep the sabbath. It isn't claimed that Christians are given the sabbath anywhere in the Scripture or by the above statement. There is only one way into the covenant made with Israel and that is circumcision as required by the law.

Have you ever studied the striking parallels how the prophets admitted and confessed that the prophecies concerning Israel were fulfilled in Jesus Christ? That Jesus Christ was, ultimately, the "true Israel"? Is not Jesus the "Prince of God?" Is not that what "Israel" means?

I admire the fact that you understand much of SDA theology. However, allow me to kindly remind you that this is not SDA theology. This is "Covenant Theology", for which many Evangelical Christians today subscribe to.

SDA's happen to subscribe to Covenant Theology (concerning Israel), albeit somewhat modified. Most of those who subscribe to Covenant Theology believe that, although Israel is now realized in the Church in the New Covenant, the Law has been done away with for everyone (Jews and Gentile--and everyone in the Church).

I would encourage you, from scratch, to take out some time to read this little booklet from beginning to end entitled: Spirritual Israel

Give special notice to the parallels of Israel and Christ.

Logic:

If Jesus is ultimately the true seed of Israel, and Gentiles are grafted into Christ, then they are grafted into Israel, because Jesus is the embodiment of Israel.

 

[Lysimachus]

(I think God would really much rather us worship in reality than falsely - heart wise - observe a sabbath we don't mean, maybe it's just me... )

You are right! I whole-heartedly agree. If our heart isn't right, these observances will be nothing more than a mere form of legalism. Only if we are sanctified, transformed, and regenerated by the renewing of the Spirit can obedience to any of these precepts, including the Sabbath, mean anything to the soul.

The same goes with the 5th commandment. It says to honor our parents that our days may be long upon the land. In other words, this is a promise of eternal inheritance.

Now let us ask the question: If our hearts are not transformed, yet we outwardly honor our parents (but it's not heart-born), will the outward form save us? Absolutely not. Compliance with these laws must be a result of our heart-born faith.

 

[Lysimachus]

"This Commandment about the observance of the Sabbath, on the other hand, considered as to the time appointed for its fulfillment, is not fixed and constant, but changeable, pertaining not so much to mores but to ceremonies. Neither is it a principle of the natural law; we are not instructed by nature to give external worship to God on that day, rather than on any other. And in fact the Sabbath was kept holy only from the time of the liberation of the people of Israel from the bondage of Pharaoh".

That is interesting, coming from Aquinas, seeing that Catholics hold to Sunday observance dogmatically. Was Aquinas in not good standing with his Church?

 

[IreneAdler]

I honestly think you can be reborn in Christ and still have an off day though - times in which you're just not present.