God's TEN Commandments: Keep them? or break them?

[from scratch]

Many who are at war with God's Law - are primarily at war with this statement so typical of their own sunday-sources listed.

Beg your pardon.

 

[BobRyan]

So the reality is they don't do .

I claim that even "sunday sources" admit to the obvious fact that

1. the Seventh-day Sabbath was given to mankind in Eden,
2. Was applicable to all the saints
3. That it is the 4th commandment as God gave it.
4. That it is part of the moral law of God applicable in all ages to all saints.
5. That it continues to be binding on the saints.

But what they do - that I do not agree with - is "bend-edit" that 4th commandment begin with the cross of Christ.

So other than that - these Sunday source get A+ just where some others are seeking out "any ol excuse will do" arguments to oppose God's 4th commandment.

Who are the sunday sources?



The "Baptist Confession of Faith"
The "Westminster Confession of Faith"
The Catholic Catechism
D.L. Moody
R.C Sproul
Andy Stanley
Thomas Watson

What do they say?


"Besides this law (The TEN Commandments), commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away. "

 

[BobRyan]

No wonder Paul can say "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19 just when some Christians want to "circle back" to the POV that the lost have of the Law of God.

 

[VictorC]

I claim that even "sunday sources" admit to the obvious fact that

1. the Seventh-day Sabbath was given to mankind in Eden,

As soon as your uninspired sources reject the Law as you claim, you had a choice to retain error or accept the Law in lieu of their error. You chose poorly.

Martin Luther wrote this in 1535, in his Commentary on Galatians addressing v4:10:

The Apostle Paul knew what the false apostles were teaching the Galatians: The observance of days, and months, and times, and years. The Jews had been obliged to keep holy the Sabbath Day, the new moons, the feast of the passover, the feast of tabernacles, and other feasts. The false apostles constrained the Galatians to observe these Jewish feasts under threat of damnation. Paul hastens to tell the Galatians that they were exchanging their Christian liberty for the weak and beggarly elements of the world. ​

Luther describes Adventism long before it even existed.

 

[BobRyan]

As soon as your uninspired sources ...
Martin Luther wrote this in 1535, in his Commentary on Galatians addressing v4:10:

The Apostle Paul knew what the false apostles were teaching the Galatians:
​

.

Here is what Martin Luther said about the TEN Commandments -

Martin Luther: "Small Catechism" -

TEN COMMANDMENTS:
...
What Does God Say of All These Commandments?
Answer.
He says thus (Exod. 20:5f): I the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

What does this mean?--Answer.
God threatens to punish all that transgress these commandments. Therefore we should dread His wrath and not act contrary to these commandments. But He promises grace and every blessing to all that keep these commandments. Therefore we should also love and trust in Him, and gladly do [zealously and diligently order our whole life] according to His commandments.
http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#tencommandments

Those who declare war on God's TEN Commandments find no sympathy in Luther's writings for that sort of solution. He condemns it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[VictorC]

Here is what Martin Luther said about the TEN Commandments -



Those who declare war on God's TEN Commandments find no sympathy in Luther's writings for that sort of solution. He condemns it.

in Christ,

Bob

I know what Martin Luther wrote. I personally don't think it bodes well for anyone to "declare war" on the Ten Commandments as you have.
I did notice that you offered no defense to Luther identifying your perspective as sourced from false apostles. I take this as conceding his observation to be accurate.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I know what Martin Luther wrote. I personally don't think it bodes well for anyone to "declare war" on the Ten Commandments as you have.
I did notice that you offered no defense to Luther identifying your perspective as sourced from false apostles. I take this as conceding his observation to be accurate.

I'm still trying to figure how you declare "war" on something that you are plainly IGNORING in the first place. It is like declaring "war" on Switzerland.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is what Martin Luther said about the TEN Commandments -

Martin Luther: "Small Catechism" -

TEN COMMANDMENTS:
...
What Does God Say of All These Commandments?
Answer.
He says thus (Exod. 20:5f): I the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

What does this mean?--Answer.
God threatens to punish all that transgress these commandments. Therefore we should dread His wrath and not act contrary to these commandments. But He promises grace and every blessing to all that keep these commandments. Therefore we should also love and trust in Him, and gladly do [zealously and diligently order our whole life] according to His commandments.
http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#tencommandments

Those who declare war on God's TEN Commandments find no sympathy in Luther's writings for that sort of solution. He condemns it.

I know what Martin Luther wrote. I personally don't think it bodes well for anyone to "declare war" on the Ten Commandments

Then we are getting closer to the same POV.

All I ask is that the details be noticed.

I did notice that you offered no defense to Luther identifying your perspective as sourced from false apostles.

All the "Sunday Sources" promote the TEN Commandments but want to "BEND-EDIT" one to their liking.

I have stated from the start - that bending the word of God - editing it to please man-made tradition is condemned by Christ in Mark 7:6-13.

So also is tossing the Word of God "under a bus" so to speak -- condemned by Christ.

So while I approve of the "details" that they get right - I do not approve of the ones they get wrong.

By contrast there are some here using an "any ol excuse will do" model where they come up with wild solution that even their own sunday sources - condemn.

in my view - they have gone to an "extreme" in so doing.

Here again - just stating the obvious, since we have repeated this so often by now.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since you appealed to Luther -- (your idea not mine) and then I pointed to Luther's affirmation of the very Ten Commandments you are trying to toss under a bus I will make this one observation more on the subject of Luther vs the Baptist Confession of Faith.

I find Luther's edit of the Ten Commandments noticeably more Catholic than the Baptist version that tends to leave the Commandments almost entirely in one piece.

notice how Spurgeon does it. Still his views are very similar to Luther in the act of affirming the continued authority of the TEN Commandments.

Hard to miss that part.


[FONT=&quot]CH Spurgeon[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
“The Perpetuity of the Law of God”
[/FONT]
Very great mistakes have been made about the law. Not long ago there were those about us who affirmed that the law is utterly abrogated and abolished, and they openly taught that believers were not bound to make the moral law the rule of their lives. What would have been sin in other men they counted to be no sin in themselves. From such Antinomianism as that may God deliver us. We are not under the law as the method of salvation, but we delight to see the law in the hand of Christ, and desire to obey the Lord in all things. Others have been met with who have taught that Jesus mitigated and softened down the law, and they have in effect said that the perfect law of God was too hard for imperfect beings, and therefore God has given us a milder and easier rule. These tread dangerously upon the verge of terrible error, although we believe that they are little aware of it.

Section 19 of the Baptist Confession of Faith .

Section 19
. The Law of God

• God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.

• The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the TEN COMMANDMENTS, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

• Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

 

[VictorC]

Since you appealed to Luther

This opening comment alone suggests that this post is addressed to me. You're on record in deleting Luther when it suited you.

-- (your idea not mine) and then I pointed to Luther's affirmation of the very Ten Commandments you are trying to toss under a bus I will make this one observation more on the subject of Luther vs the Baptist Confession of Faith.

Stop here a moment, and consider that you're on record of contradicting the Ten Commandments in nearly every one of your posts. It is dishonest to claim that others are guilty of the actions you've embraced. It is a personal attack, a logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, and bearing false witness. Several of us have tried to turn your attention to the Ten Commandments, and you've rejected it.

I find Luther's edit of the Ten Commandments noticeably more Catholic than the Baptist version that tends to leave the Commandments almost entirely in one piece.

The claim of an edit on Luther's part is another fallacy. He makes an argument for the dual role of the Law, as a basis for civil government and as a historic covenant designed to drive one to their Redeemer. This is in accordance with the apostle's presentation in his epistle to the Galatians. In contrast, most of the ECFs that date after Luther have a dependency on Thomas Aquinas. The quotes you keep turning to have their roots in Roman Catholicism, and their mistake in origin that you keep repeating. This is what you're promoting.

notice how Spurgeon does it. Still his views are very similar to Luther in the act of affirming the continued authority of the TEN Commandments.

You act as if an author contradicts himself, and doing so forms a basis for acceptance. While human agents do change their views over the course of time as they learn, this does not form a basis for an argument. You've already conceded that Luther's observation of Sabbatarian dependency on false apostles is accurate - and as we have seen in all your posts, you've conceded that none of your sources are Sabbatarian by calling them "Sunday sources". You've even openly relied on their mislabelling of 'ceremonial' law as ended, concurrent with your demand that we observe the 'ceremonial' aspects of the Law that God has no pleasure in.

Such contradiction devoid of growth in understanding shows that your sources are not inspired. Your conclusions are unreliable. And when we try our best to turn your attention to the Law that is inspired, each time you run from it. When one of us asks you why you flee from the Law so consistently, our questions are met with silence.

Case in point:

All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

Of course the time of the Reformation is well over a thousand years after Jesus Christ took away the 'first', so this author is already relegated to the theologically illiterate society. Why don't you recognize such blatant incompetence when it's in your face?

It simply isn't possible to reconcile your dependency on this uninspired source with your assertion that we abandon God's rest and revert to the temporal sabbath that your uninspired quotes assert to be 'ceremonial' by its very nature. You contradict yourself and argue in circles, and show that you aren't thinking about your posts.

 

[VictorC]

I'm still trying to figure how you declare "war" on something that you are plainly IGNORING in the first place. It is like declaring "war" on Switzerland.

I think Bob actually claiming others have 'declared war' on something they have embraced as factual and divinely inspired with purpose. It goes beyond the unbelievable.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I think Bob actually claiming others have 'declared war' on something they have embraced as factual and divinely inspired with purpose. It goes beyond the unbelievable.

I think the premise of the OP is akin to asking someone if they quit beating their wife as it already assumes such nonsense aka the fallacy of poisoning the well.

 

[VictorC]

I think the premise of the OP is akin to asking someone if they quit beating their wife as it already assumes such nonsense aka the fallacy of poisoning the well.

Agreed. Come to think of your point, it applies to many of the threads in this new sub-forum. It was a long process that Edial took on, which concluded with moving these threads away from an area meant for rational discussion. The administrative staff at CF show wisdom at times, and this is something to ponder.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Agreed. Come to think of your point, it applies to many of the threads in this new sub-forum. It was a long process that Edial took on, which concluded with moving these threads away from an area meant for rational discussion. The administrative staff at CF show wisdom at times, and this is something to ponder.

The fact is now you can't see these threads in the regular GT area now so creating a dozen threads and bumping them for attention there isn't an option any more one has to be interested in clicking on the Sabbath and the Law area of the forum to see them all now and most likely will be turned off by seeing nothing but a bunch of the same thing no longer separated by a lot of other topics making it seem like there is more people interested in them.

 

[VictorC]

The fact is now you can't see these threads in the regular GT area now so creating a dozen threads and bumping them for attention there isn't an option any more one has to be interested in clicking on the Sabbath and the Law area of the forum to see them all now and most likely will be turned off by seeing nothing but a bunch of the same thing no longer separated by a lot of other topics making it seem like there is more people interested in them.

Would you go as far as suggest we should leave this asylum? It was designed to restore sanity in GT, after all.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Would you go as far as suggest we should leave this asylum? It was designed to restore sanity in GT, after all.

Nope, I just think that instead of being baited into long explanations to refute a ton of cut and paste nonsense we should pick and choose and get to the points that cut to the heart of the matter. I don't think there is much of an audience reading these threads in the first place and those who do will probably quickly get annoyed at the excessively long posts from one side and to the point of the other side.

 

[BobRyan]

As soon as your uninspired sources ...
Martin Luther wrote this in 1535, in his Commentary on Galatians addressing v4:10:

The Apostle Paul knew what the false apostles were teaching the Galatians:
​

.

Here is what Martin Luther said about the TEN Commandments -

Martin Luther: "Small Catechism" -

TEN COMMANDMENTS:
...
What Does God Say of All These Commandments?
Answer.
He says thus (Exod. 20:5f): I the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

What does this mean?--Answer.
God threatens to punish all that transgress these commandments. Therefore we should dread His wrath and not act contrary to these commandments. But He promises grace and every blessing to all that keep these commandments. Therefore we should also love and trust in Him, and gladly do [zealously and diligently order our whole life] according to His commandments.
http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#tencommandments

Those who declare war on God's TEN Commandments find no sympathy in Luther's writings for that sort of solution. He condemns it.

And as we see in the section above even Victor's reach for Luther is not helping with the 'toss the Ten Commandments under the bus' solution that some would have proposed.

This opening comment alone suggests that this post is addressed to me. You're on record in deleting Luther when it suited you.

I simply point out that Luther rejects the idea of dumping the TEN Commandments when he quotes Ex 20:6 as the condemning statement for those who would do such a thing. Since you are the one bringing Luther into this - I thought it would be of interest.

I certainly find it "instructive" that your own strategy for dealing with the issue is condemned by the source you bring up.

Stop here a moment, and consider that you're on record of contradicting the Ten Commandments in nearly every one of your posts.

Just not in real life.

you seem to suppose that when you have imagined something we all see the same vision. I find your logic "illusive" at that point.

You act as if an author contradicts himself, and doing so forms a basis for acceptance.

Here again you offer a form of fiction as your argument. I merely point out by quoting verbatim Luther's comment on the subject of the "TEN Commandments" -- he does not trash them in his conclusion but rather claims they are applicable to the saints still today.

You've already conceded that Luther's observation of Sabbatarian dependency ...

I have stated repeatedly that your sunday-sources affirm the TEN Commandments as still applicable to the saints but they attempt to bend/edit them to suit their traditions.

My point is that at least they knew enough not to be at war with them and declare that they were simply ignoring them.

Here again - stating the obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[from scratch]

I think the premise of the OP is akin to asking someone if they quit beating their wife as it already assumes such nonsense aka the fallacy of poisoning the well.

The poison is placed in the well by them. The problem is they can't now get it out.

 

[from scratch]

The fact is now you can't see these threads in the regular GT area now so creating a dozen threads and bumping them for attention there isn't an option any more one has to be interested in clicking on the Sabbath and the Law area of the forum to see them all now and most likely will be turned off by seeing nothing but a bunch of the same thing no longer separated by a lot of other topics making it seem like there is more people interested in them.

The new disguise is calling the law the law of Jesus Christ.

 

[from scratch]

Nope, I just think that instead of being baited into long explanations to refute a ton of cut and paste nonsense we should pick and choose and get to the points that cut to the heart of the matter. I don't think there is much of an audience reading these threads in the first place and those who do will probably quickly get annoyed at the excessively long posts from one side and to the point of the other side.

At least one would have to come here for the most part and have an interest in the subject instead of being barraged with covered deception on the subject intending to stir up confusion for the unlearned and unsuspecting.