The ten commandments Old covenant, and the law "done away" and "abolished" as paul said

[bugkiller]

This is a hard issue for many. Because we can still use the law lawfully to expose sin etc as Paul said in 1 Timothy 1, many think that this means the law is still for us as righteous men. But Paul said the law is not made for a righteous man.

The law is done away, abolished, a ministration of death and condemnation, we are free from the law, dead to the law, not under the law, and the end of the law is charity out of a pure heart. By the law is the knowledge of sin. If there had been a law given that could have given life then Christ did not need to come.

Anyway God bless

exactly

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

There's been a lot said, and once again a lot of misunderstanding...

We are no longer under the law. If we were under the law, then we woul d have to depend on the law for salvation. We depend on Jesus and His sacrifice for our salvation.

However, the law has not passed away. Nor has it been abolished. And anyone who freely breaks the law unrepentantly shows that he does not know God.

Cribstyl quoted Luke 16:16, but left out verse 17 because it creates an apparent contradiction without proper understanding. Verse 17 reads "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass [away], than one tittle of the law to fail" (KJV)

This is the second place where we are told that Jesus tells us not a single tittle of the law shall perish.

What it means to be free from the law means that we no longer have to depend on the law for salvation. It does not mean that the law is null and void or that it doesn't tell us what's right and wrong.

When we had to depend on the law for salvation, salvation was impossible. Now that we are free from the law, salvation has been made possible through Jesus Christ. But that doesn't mean that we can just ignore the law and pretend that it no longer tells us what's right.

The law can't give us salvation. Never could, never will be able to. But it can tell us God's standards of right and wrong - which it does. These standards are the same, and as His children we need to put effort into conforming to His standards even though we know that we'll fail and that following His standards won't save us.

If the law remains Jesus is a sinner according to Heb 7:12. This can't be true if Jesus kept or keeps the law. Jesus isn't from the tribe of Levi.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Not true. Just because those who are saved become God's children and therefore through His Spirit are being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ doesn't mean that the gift is not free. If the gift were not free, then there would have to be something that we have to do in order to receive it, when, in fact, there's absolutely nothing that we can do to be worthy of it. Therefore, it is offered freely.

However, if a gift is offered freely, that doesn't affect what comes after. For example, if I give my daughter a free corvette when she turns 16, it's a free gift. If I tell her to drive responsibly and obey the rules of the road, it doesn't make it any less free. And if she chooses to disobey the rules of the road and gets caught, there will be monetary penalties. If she disobeys enough rules of the road and gets caught often enough, she eventually won't be able to legally drive it.

Just as in this scenario, our choices after receiving the free gift of salvation affect every area of our lives. If we choose to live as though we still belonged to the world, not submitting ourselves to the Law of God and the direction of the Spirit, we will suffer the consequences. In fact, there are some passages in the Bible that indicate that someone can at least appear to possess salvation and then lose that salvation. While there is a lot of scholarly debate over whether this means you can "lose" your salvation or it wasn't real in the first place, the outcome is the same whether it's "lost" or just "not real."

If you require the law to be kept salvation is by works and not free. Not sinning isn't the same as keeping he law.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

The phrasing is not improper, since the adverbial clause "at least" modifies the verb "appears." The sentence thus means that there was certainly an appearance of the salvation being there, and the salvation may actually have been there. I simplified the end of the sentence to "lose that salvation" rather than "lose that salvation or lose that appearance of salvation" because I believed there to be a reasonable expectation that people would get the intended meaning.

But thank you for pointing that out - by which I mean submitting a post on this forum that made me aware of the possible lack of understanding. Perhaps we should all be careful to police - by which I mean examine and make changes where necessary - our phraseology so that every idea in every sentence is spelled out - by which I mean carefully worded with no omissions for the sake of expediency, words or phrases that have multiple possible meanings, cliches, or similar literary devices - and no expectation of the readers' understanding is ever made.

And you imply if one doesn't keep the law AKA the 7th day Sabbath one isn't a Christian possessing salvation.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

You're correct to say it's an apparent misunderstanding. The ones with the misunderstanding are those who are ignorant to the fact that Jesus is confirming all that Moses and the prophets wrote.

I could also point out that you changed the word "fail" to "perish" for a reason. Yes..the scriptures does reiterate that; if a dot or comma changes from what's written, then God's words to would fail. You, like many are focused on the glow of the ten and not understanding references to the entire scriptures.
Did Moses write in the law that the covenant is the ten commandments? YES
Is it not also spelled out in Jeremiah that God will give a new covenant unlike the one given the fathers? YES
THESE 2 MAJOR FACTS ARE ARGUED AWAY FROM WEAK CHRISTIANS. but it's written.
Luke16:16-17 Jesus is confirming that God's word (written in the law) will not fail. Paul also confirms that, written in the law and the prophets; God will call for righteousness without the law.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets

Really?? If you don't add to where Paul taught about being free from the law. You should be saying that the law cannot make you free from sin or death. Somehow you're teaching on the law's relationship to salvation in order to uphold your doctrine over what is written. (ripping my tunic)
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:



The truth is not that complicated. Being free from the law and being dead to the law is really about the covenant you're under. It's explained by Paul as: your wife being dead and you're married to another. Somehow you see the law alive and don't understand the one who died for you. Dude you cant have two lovers.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Yes he can and that would violate the law. But he can't serve two masters which oppose each other. If he demands and keeps the law (which he doesn't) Jesus has no value to him and he doesn't possess salvation according top Gal 5:4.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Right. And Paul was writing to the majority. Not to the minority.

Doesn't matter because the minority is included.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Well there's the law and then there's the Law.
There are all kinds of ordinances in the Bible- the Adamic laws, the Noahide laws, and so on. The 'Law' was Mosaic, but the Commandments are altogether made separate from the rest. In other words, there was a reason they are carved in stone from God and the rest not.

The Ten Commandments cannot be rejected because what they state are the pillars of everything Jesus taught morally.
People who deny this just have no idea what they are even looking at upon these things.

Nope, no sale. I read the Bible and it refers to the 10 Cs as the law and not something separate from the law. Romans if very clear on this issue.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Then why does the apostle Paul specifically list in Romans 7:6-7 "coveting", one of the big ten, as that which those in Christ have died to and been released from, so that, we serve in the New way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code?

Excellent question

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

The moral teachings of the New Covenant are all within the Commandents. I would like for you to point to any one of them and say 'the apostles do not teach this as sinful'.

It is not rocket science. The Ten Commandments are the pillars of morality.

Wrong focus. Paul teaches against sin, not keeping the law.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

If you live in Christ, coveting is not existent- one is freed from the shackles of such. Totally different message going on there.

It is also taught that adultery is a sin, just as thievery, murder, idolatry, and everything else stated in the Commandments. Paul even implies that such things can demerit one's salvation.

Shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid. Sin was before the law. The law didn't create sin. See Romans

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Just curious here... Are you implying that the introduction of a new commandment (that we love one another as He loved us) negates all former commandments? Because there's certainly nothing to that effect in the text... Jesus doesn't say anywhere that the new commandment replaces any former commandments given. Nor is there any reason given in the New Testament to believe that.

Jesus said that anyone who breaks a commandment - even one of the least commandments - and teaches others to do so will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven. Does this carry less weight because he introduced a new commandment?

I've seen a lot of references to Paul, specifically where he talks about being freed from the law. There seems to be a little confusion as to what Paul is talking about. When we were bound by the law, the only possible ending for us was death. Not a single one of us can follow the law perfectly. In fact, Paul spends time making that point before talking about freedom from the law of sin and death. The law of Moses, as it is sometimes called, couldn't save anybody. It could only bind them.

The law of the Spirit - the fulfillment of the entirety of the sacrificial law - was able to save us. So through Jesus' death we were set free from the law of Moses. That doesn't mean that the law of Moses is no longer what's right. It means that we are no longer bound by it to an end of certain death.

Paul says in this same chapter (Romans 8) that those who have Jesus Christ abiding in them do not live according to the flesh - that is sin. They abide by the Spirit and the law of God, whom we are to love by His own commandment.

And how do we love God? We keep His commandments? (1 John).

How do we love each other? Well, according to Jesus, the "law and the prophets" are all predicated on us loving God and each other... So it would appear that the law tells us how to do that.

Please explain how one complies with Jesus' love one another and violate the law at the same time. Jesus' command isn't he law per the Gospel of John.

Wow you mix it up.

Rom 7:6 makes it clear we're not bound by the law.

Your incomplete reference to I John and misguided idea violate JN 1:17, 15:10 and chapter 10.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Yes, God IS love, but the law and the prophets tell us how to love God and love others. Just because we can't do that on our own (and never perfectly in this life) doesn't mean that's not how it's done.
The sacrifice of Jesus and the New Covenant free us, so that we are no longer judged by the law and we can actually have a relationship with the Holy God.
But here are some other things to consider:
Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it... whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven..."
Jesus also said “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father. And He will give you another Helper to be with you forever..."
John said, "And this is love, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not burdensome..."
Jesus said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself. On these hang all the law and the prophets."
Also consider the author of Hebrews who says "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth there remains no longer a sacrifice for sins..."
And finally Paul, "For the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet," and any other commandment are summed up in this word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law"

Again, we are justified by faith. If we live by faith, we will walk according to the Spirit - and not according to the flesh (sin). If we love God we will keep his commandments. If we love God and love others we will keep the law. The law does not save us, but neither is it wrong, evil, or revoked. Those who do not know Jesus are still judged by the law. Those who claim to know Jesus and live contrary to the law are scripturally said to be false sons and daughters. ("For anyone who keeps on sinning does not know God...")

Does that mean we'll never slip up? No. But it means that when we do we repent and acknowledge our wrongdoing rather than saying that God's law is no longer just, perfect, and loving, and we are now permitted to live contrary to it and still have a relationship with God.

If you live by faith, it will be evident in your works (James). If your faith doesn't manifest in your works, then it can't even save you (James).

I've no idea why people here continue to think not stealing is observing or keeping the law. Many people who aren't Christians don't steal.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

The Christian life is about Christ, but it doesn't "just happen." We have to put effort into it.

Nothing that you said counters my points... You just denied all of them and classified them as "unrelated."

You're right. We can't obey the law of God without Jesus Christ. Under the new covenant, He gives us the tools we need to resist temptation. But we still have to make an effort.

Loving each other fulfills the law, yes. This means that the law shows us how to love each other.

Let me put this another way. If you get a self-assembly kit for a bookshelf, and you put it together without using the instructions, that doesn't mean that the instructions don't tell you how to do it. It means you followed the instructions without actually using them. You still fulfilled the purpose of the instructions. You just didn't use the instructions to do it. You weren't bound by the instructions because you already had the ability to create what they were showing you how to create.

The law is similar. It tells us how to love others and love God. If we love others and love God through Jesus' power, we fulfill the law, even if we're not bound by it. We follow the law instinctively because the Spirit that God gives us shows us how to.

The law is like an instruction booklet for how to love others. God gives us the power to love others through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But He also gives us the guidebook because He knows we won't always get it right, and there's a lot of confusing and wrong ideas about what it means to "love others" out there. Will we ever be able to live perfectly? No. But that doesn't release us from the responsibility to try.

Is your testimony that you never sin?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

According to James in Acts 15 - the Christians attended to hear Moses being preached. --- "scripture" .

That may be because Christians followed the teaching of Christ.

And Christ said this about Moses -

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68311812, member: 235244"]So then what is the specific point -- Christ makes here "in his own words"??

=========================

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Notice that it is identified as "Moses said" and as "The Word of God"

AND as the "Commandment of God"??

=========================================

Notice that "Moses said" is also called "The Commandment of God" by Christ and also "The Word of God".

So trashing the Bible was not part of the first century Christian agenda.[/QUOTE]Sorry but Acts 15 says no such a thing.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

In Romans 7 Paul says that the LAW defines sin for "US" and in Gal 3 and Romans 3 - Paul says that the "US" in that case is "the entire world".

The condemnation of the LAW is the reference for Romans 7:6.

And as for Romans 6 --

Who is the "WE" in Romans 6? The context for Romans 7.
Did this get answered - on the way to Romans 7???


1. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

You miss Paul's point altogether. Paul addresses sin and not the law .

bugkiller

 

[Hank77]

If the law remains Jesus is a sinner according to Heb 7:12. This can't be true if Jesus kept or keeps the law. Jesus isn't from the tribe of Levi.

bugkiller

Hebrews is what gave me a more complete understanding of the whole scheme of things. Hebrews 7, is major scripture and not hard to understand.
Heb 7:11 If indeed, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood--for the people under it had received law--what further need, according to the order of Melchisedek, for another priest to arise, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 for the priesthood being changed, of necessity also, of the law a change doth come,

This may be a similar concept, if I am understanding it correctly....
Under the Law someone could be sent to a sanctuary city. They were protected from the revenge from others, but if they left there they did so at their own risk. UNTIL, the high priest changed. When the high priest changed they could leave and expect the same protections as anyone else. So when the high priest changed, that law as it related to them, changed.

I see the Law of Moses rather like that sanctuary city, a place of protection. UNTIL, there was a change in the priesthood.

 

[bugkiller]

It's not a hard question. We've determined that we are to follow all the 10 but only some of the 613. The question is how do you know which of the 613? How do you know that you are to follow the commandment against gay sex, but don't need to follow the commandment against mixing wool and linen? What about lighting a fire on sabbath? Are we to follow that? How about not having sex with a menstruating woman? Are we to follow that?

No its not we that have determined a requirement to follow (obligated to) the law. It is the pro law camp adding to the free gift making it wages. This simply can't be done.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

It would help if you quoted the verses you are referring to. There were of course some Jews in Antioch, but not many, just as there are 2 of us Jews in my own parish. The NT has believing Jews still keeping the Law simply by its silence. For example, Acts 15 and Acts 21 are perfect places for James to admonish Jews to stop keeping the Law but he does no such thing. Romans is written to Judaized Gentiles.

Sure v 6 says we are delivered from the law which includes everyone including Jews otherwise Paul couldn't say "we" cause he is one.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

He misunderstood and believed that the delegation from James would have, as in days of old, required him to stop eating with Gentiles.

No Peter is being the emotional Peter we all know and following fear and sinning.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Beginning in the second century, after the bar Kochba rebellion and the end of the jerusalem church, Gentile christians began to view themselves as opposed to Judaism.

Betja Gentile Christians had this concept well under their belt prior to the Kochba rebellion.

bugkiller