Ten Commandments still valid so says Bible and pro-Sunday Scholars

[stevenfrancis]

Why would one need to go to vatican.va when we already have the Holy Bible? Is the instructions written in the Word insufficient that the Vatican need to come out with their own written statements or assertions with regards to the laws of God?

To be clear, everybody DOESN'T need to go to the Catechism. I was providing some information that seemed to be asked for in an earlier post. Use it or don't No skin off my nose. The Holy Scriptures are just that Holy. Of course they're sufficient. Many Christians believe that Jesus Christ Himself left the world His Bride, the Church, until He returns in glory to judge the living and the dead. He also told the Apostles whom He built His Church upon, "what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven and what you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.". He also said of the Apostles: " He who listens to you, listens to me; he who despises you, despises me; and he who despises me, despises him that sent me."

Flash forward to the Catechisms over the centuries, and you have the spiritual descendents of the Apostles assisting the faithful by the grace of the Holy Spirit in applying the very same scriptures which have served all the various cultures, and civilizations of the world which rise and fall and pass away with valid interpretations of the scriptures for our times. It is the teaching authority of the Church. And authority, which is protected by the Holy Spirit in TEACHING error. If you were to read these passages in the Catechism, you would not find one word which contradicts the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures are the inspired written word of God, Many of us Christians, even with prayer to the Holy Spirit are not actual theologians. We need help understanding the scriptures. Christ's Apostes, and Apostolic successors, by the grace of God, have been providing this interpretive help and application to human lives for 2,000 years, and have proved themselves trustworthy with the Word, and the deposit of faith in matters regarding the preservation and defense of the faith. Catholics read the scriptures and pray, then refer to the Catechism to find how the Apostolic sees can help us with application of the truths of scripture to the civilization we live in. Sorry for being so verbose, and of course, we each have free will. You can choose not to find any assistance to the interpretation of scripture beyond prayer to the Holy Spirit, and you will do well. It's not an either /or. It's a both /and which is available to Christians, like me, who are not endowed with great exegetical skills, even after prayer, and need other trusted resources to assist me in the matter. May God bless and keep you. Thank you for your post.

Yours in Christ,
Steven

 

[Albion]

Except for those that say the Law was nailed to cross ie: done away with.

Those people, however, say that it was "done away with" only to the extent of no longer being the determiner of our salvation. They do not--definitely do not--say that the Ten Commandments are no longer valid.

Christ reaffirmed them, and the churches that preach that we are now in the era of Grace still say that the Ten Commandments are standards of behavior, that they are right in themselves. We all believe, do we not, that it is a sin to murder, to steal, to covet, etc.?

So, they are "valid"...and that was the question asked by this thread.

 

[Albion]

This was what you said when you replied to BobRyan is his earlier post.

My simple question to you was, what is the Ten Commandments still valid for? Be specific.

Chris, I believe that I covered this in my post 382 addressed to EastCoastRemnant. I wrote that before I picked up your post here.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Those people, however, say that it was "done away with" only to the extent of no longer being the determiner of our salvation. They do not--definitely do not--say that the Ten Commandments are no longer valid.

Christ reaffirmed them, and the churches that preach that we are now in the era of Grace still say that the Ten Commandments are standards of behavior, that they are right in themselves. We all believe, do we not, that it is a sin to murder, to steal, to covet, etc.?

So, they are "valid"...and that was the question asked by this thread.

Why are all understood and obeyed in letter and spirit except one... the one that says "Remember..."

Why does violating 9 Commandments constitute sin and require repentance, but one is violated with impunity?

 

[Albion]

Why are all understood and obeyed in letter and spirit except one... the one that says "Remember..."

Why does violating 9 Commandments constitute sin and require repentance, but one is violated with impunity?

It's not conceded by people who worship on Sunday that they do, in fact, violate the first commandment.

I think that's the best answer to your question.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

It's not conceded by people who worship on Sunday that they do, in fact, violate the first commandment.

I think that's the best answer to your question.

Obviously, but are they, that's the question. Why are we going on our own wisdom not the clear Word. Why, if obeying the precepts of the Decalogue are still in play, would anyone take a chance on being right on the sunday thing, , perhaps because everyone else does, and not place you obedience in the only Sabbath He gave... eternity is too precious to me to think I can disregard a clear "thus sayeth the Lord".

 

[Chris Tan]

Chris, I believe that I covered this in my post 382 addressed to EastCoastRemnant. I wrote that before I picked up your post here.

I for one, do not dispute that a Christian do not need to lead a Godly life if he's in the covenant of grace. For in the covenant of grace, it's a given, since one is born of the Spirit of God. But does it lead to sinless perfection? Most definitely not, not while we're still in this body of death.

However, you still have not stated your purpose to your statement of "still valid". For you give me the impression that if a Christian breaks a law, there's a possibility that he will lose his salvation. Please feel free to correct me if I have wrong your intention of saying that "the ten commandments is still valid".

Based on your thread 382, is one therefore saved through the covenant of grace or the covenant of works?

 

[Chris Tan]

It is the teaching authority of the Church. And authority, which is protected by the Holy Spirit in TEACHING error. If you were to read these passages in the Catechism, you would not find one word which contradicts the Holy Scriptures.

So you are saying that outside of the Holy Bible, the Catechism that comes from the Roman Catholic church is from the authority of the Holy Spirit? How so? Does the Holy Bible tell is that apart from the Word of God (aka the Holy Bible), there will be another set of instructions that will come through the Vatican? And if you cannot produce from the Scriptures of such a prophesy, aren't you adding on to the word of God?

Catholics read the scriptures and pray, then refer to the Catechism to find how the Apostolic sees can help us with application of the truths of scripture to the civilization we live in. Sorry for being so verbose, and of course, we each have free will.

Is "free will" of man even taught in the Holy Bible? Where? If the "free will" of man is taught by God, then you are telling me He contradicts Himself. For it is written:

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." (Isaiah 46:10)

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." (John 6:44,65)

These verses kind of contradict your idea of man's "free will", isn't it? And if these verses are from the Holy Bible, you can be rest assured that you are not going to find any verses that supports your Catholic assertion of the man's "free will".

And you say that the Holy Bible is sufficient? So where did you get the teaching of man's "free will" from? Most definitely not from the Word of God, I assure you that.

 

[BobRyan]

Why are all understood and obeyed in letter and spirit except one... the one that says "Remember..."

Why does violating 9 Commandments constitute sin and require repentance, but one is violated with impunity?

James 2 says - to break one of them - is to break them all.

James has a lot of "doubters" in these last days - who don't think he was correct -- apparently.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
That is the strategy most often used for the irrefutable texts and evidence that your argument fails to answer. Simply repeat the question and hope for a response that is not quite so irrefutable.

I think we can all see how that strategy works.

Then when the irrefutable response is not found to "vanish" simply because "the objection to it prefers a more refutable one" - we are all supposed to just "not notice"?? The gap in such logic for dealing with those irrefutable posts is more than a little transparent. As it turns out.

Why would the objective unbiased reader ever fall for such methods??

But the POINT is that your response is not irrefutable and that in fact I have refuted it

Oh this should be fun.

Pick one and show us.

I think it is a teachable moment. Everyone can benefit.

Pick something where your own church AND the Bible - do not refute your argument against something I claim is "irrefutable", when it comes to this thread. (Or tell us if we all need to go look at some other thread for that lesson)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[bugkiller]

Why are all understood and obeyed in letter and spirit except one... the one that says "Remember..."

Why does violating 9 Commandments constitute sin and require repentance, but one is violated with impunity?

Your crowd has been informed several times to no avial.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Obviously, but are they, that's the question. Why are we going on our own wisdom not the clear Word. Why, if obeying the precepts of the Decalogue are still in play, would anyone take a chance on being right on the sunday thing, , perhaps because everyone else does, and not place you obedience in the only Sabbath He gave... eternity is too precious to me to think I can disregard a clear "thus sayeth the Lord".

Its like my neighbor, who will tell anyone what to do with their religion. Essentially he does better on the last 6 of the famous 10 than many Christians. His ethics are excellent. Since he's not a Christian his behavior is incidental and not obedience to the law. In the same way the behavior of the Christian is incidental to and not obedience to (keeping) the law (10 Cs). Contrary to your belief Jesus didn't give the law (10 Cs) or the Gospel of John is a fraud specifically in 1:17 and 15:10. Yeppers I know and understand fully why these two verses give you a headache.

bugkiller

 

[stevenfrancis]

So you are saying that outside of the Holy Bible, the Catechism that comes from the Roman Catholic church is from the authority of the Holy Spirit? How so? Does the Holy Bible tell is that apart from the Word of God (aka the Holy Bible), there will be another set of instructions that will come through the Vatican? And if you cannot produce from the Scriptures of such a prophesy, aren't you adding on to the word of God?





Is "free will" of man even taught in the Holy Bible? Where? If the "free will" of man is taught by God, then you are telling me He contradicts Himself. For it is written:

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." (Isaiah 46:10)

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." (John 6:44,65)

These verses kind of contradict your idea of man's "free will", isn't it? And if these verses are from the Holy Bible, you can be rest assured that you are not going to find any verses that supports your Catholic assertion of the man's "free will".

And you say that the Holy Bible is sufficient? So where did you get the teaching of man's "free will" from? Most definitely not from the Word of God, I assure you that.

I get that you're not a Catholic. Fair enough. Only a little over a billion Christians are. But you don't believe that man has free will, and chooses good or evil? I don't know where to even go with that, so I'll just let it be, I suppose. You've quoted a couple of verses which on the faces of them don't seem germain to the principle to me. I'll study them further. In response I'd need to essentially quote the entire of Holy Scripture. It's kind of the point of it all. Man was created. Man fell, (by bad choices.....acts of free will). Man needed redemption. God provided it in the incarnation of Himself among us. After witnessing the divinity of Christ, and hearing the Gospel man chooses whether to open their heart to it, or remain in our sins. Are you conflating free will with justification? I understand that in all Christian teaching that we are justified by living faith which itself is a grace of God, but man chooses as an act of will whether to accept grace, or even faith.

Well honestly, without free will (the freedom to choose to love one another. the freedom to choose to hate one another. To love God, to hate God, why does anyone need any instruction by anyone, including God, on doing or not doing anything? Why have the incarnation? Why scripture? Why a church? Why heaven? Why hell? I'm just not tracking. I'm afraid it goes beyond my ability to understand or reason. In any even, thank you for your comments. I will take them to prayer and see if anything pops. I'm afraid I just don't get it. Sorry.

Yours in Christ,

Steven

 

[bugkiller]

So you are saying that outside of the Holy Bible, the Catechism that comes from the Roman Catholic church is from the authority of the Holy Spirit? How so? Does the Holy Bible tell is that apart from the Word of God (aka the Holy Bible), there will be another set of instructions that will come through the Vatican? And if you cannot produce from the Scriptures of such a prophesy, aren't you adding on to the word of God?





Is "free will" of man even taught in the Holy Bible? Where? If the "free will" of man is taught by God, then you are telling me He contradicts Himself. For it is written:

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." (Isaiah 46:10)

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." (John 6:44,65)

These verses kind of contradict your idea of man's "free will", isn't it? And if these verses are from the Holy Bible, you can be rest assured that you are not going to find any verses that supports your Catholic assertion of the man's "free will".

And you say that the Holy Bible is sufficient? So where did you get the teaching of man's "free will" from? Most definitely not from the Word of God, I assure you that.

Is the phrase "whosoever will" found in the Bible?

bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

A classic case in point of someone who's a works monger is when they use a verse like Romans 8:8,9 and they highlight the following:

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

As it turns out - scripture is not a "works monger" -- scripture is the "Word of God".

and completely disregard the following:

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

You quoted the same text twice....
And your only complains is that I use "different font" or underlining?? and this is "proof" that someone is a "case in point of someone who's a works monger" ???

Are you a legalist??

When I post a text like this --


Romans 8
3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

And then you post part of that same text with a few different color changes or bold font settings - and then complain that I did not select your same bold font at the exact spot ---- begins to look like legalism.

Me a legalist? Seriously?

You quote the "same text" -- and then point out that your "underlining is different" than mine - and "THIS" is supposed to be "proof" that I am in error?? as "proof' that someone is a "case in point of someone who's a works monger"

That sir - is legalism. Making stuff up and then condemning others over something you just conjured up out of thin air.

That is not sola-scrptura testing of anything.

Gee... reading most of your posts here tells me that you are the legalist, for majority if not all of your post seems to direct people to one thing only

hmm let me guess -- "The Bible" -- I keep directing them to what Christ calls "The WORD of God" and the "Commandment of God" in Mark 7:6-13 -- and you think that is how the Bible defines a legalist??

When you invent rules like that -- you follow the Col 2 model of legalism. "Making stuff up".

", that one needs to be performing the law to be saved.

I assume that instead of "quoting you" when making that false accusation - you meant to "quote me" and show that I am in error. Did you forget??

There's not even a word with regards to "faith in Jesus Christ" that a sinner is saved.

Because you don't read my posts on Galatians 3.

Would you like to try doing that??

Your intentions and implications with reference to the Scriptures is totally void of GRACE.

Another false accusation - or is it your claim that the Bible texts I am quoting are opposed to grace and devoid of it.

Another tactic of legalists is to invent "The evil parts of the Bible" that are "at war with grace".

You do well to quote the many verses in the Scriptures with regards to the laws of God

And you believe those "parts of God's Word" -- to be "Evil" or just "devoid of grace"??

So then Christ in Mark 7:6-13 ... "Christless" or was he "devoid of Grace" in his teaching?

So also John in 1 John 5:1-4 -- 'Christless' or "evil" or "devoid of Grace"???

How about the oft-quoted Heb 8:6-10 and the NEW Covenant - 'Evil" or just "devoid of Grace"???

How does highlighting, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." being stand accused of being a legalist?

you are free to quote that all day long. You quoted it in response to MY QUOTING of IT!!

But your idea of "making stuff" up that something is underlined or has a different font that you would prefer - proves me to be "works monger" is pure fiction not something to justify the false factless accusations you are making.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[bugkiller]

James 2 says - to break one of them - is to break them all.

James has a lot of "doubters" in these last days - who don't think he was correct -- apparently.

So why prove to all you don't keep the law?

bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

I get that you're not a Catholic. Fair enough. Only a little over a billion Christians are. But you don't believe that man has free will, and chooses good or evil? I don't know where to even go with that, so I'll just let it be, I suppose. You've quoted a couple of verses which on the faces of them don't seem germain to the principle to me. I'll study them further. In response I'd need to essentially quote the entire of Holy Scripture. It's kind of the point of it all. Man was created. Man fell, (by bad choices.....acts of free will). Man needed redemption. God provided it in the incarnation of Himself among us. After witnessing the divinity of Christ, and hearing the Gospel man chooses whether to open their heart to it, or remain in our sins. Are you conflating free will with justification? I understand that in all Christian teaching that we are justified by living faith which itself is a grace of God, but man chooses as an act of will whether to accept grace, or even faith.

Free will is given to all mankind by God as a supernatural act of God.

The John 12:32 "Drawing of ALL mankind" by God - enables all the "Choice" for accepting the Gospel -- that depravity disables.

So much so that in Romans 2 we are told that even those with no access at all to the Bible - are in some cases saved Romans 2:11-16.

And conversely in John 1:11 "He came to HIS OWN and His OWN received Him not" -- God sovereignly chose them - STILL they rejected Him.

And Luke 7 "The Pharisees rejected God's PURPOSE for themselves" in rejecting the baptism of John.

And in the Bible it is "Whosoever will may come" - not "whomsoever I arbitrarily zap".

Well honestly, without free will (the freedom to choose to love one another. the freedom to choose to hate one another. To love God, to hate God, why does anyone need any instruction by anyone, including God, on doing or not doing anything? Why have the incarnation? Why scripture? Why a church? Why heaven? Why hell? I'm just not tracking.

All good points. God should have 'stopped Lucifer' once He decided that free will was nothing to value - because allowing it to all melt down like that - was very very very 'costly'.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[bugkiller]

As it turns out - scripture is not a "works monger" -- scripture is the "Word of God".



You quoted the same text twice....
And your only complains is that I use "different font" or underlining?? and this is "proof" that someone is a "case in point of someone who's a works monger" ???

Are you a legalist??

When I post a text like this --


Romans 8
3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

And then you post part of that same text with a few different color changes or bold font settings - and then complain that I did not select your same bold font at the exact spot ---- begins to look like legalism.



You quote the "same text" -- and then point out that your "underlining is different" than mine - and "THIS" is supposed to be "proof" that I am in error?? as "proof' that someone is a "case in point of someone who's a works monger"

That sir - is legalism. Making stuff up and then condemning others over something you just conjured up out of thin air.

That is not sola-scrptura testing of anything.



hmm let me guess -- "The Bible" -- I keep directing them to what Christ calls "The WORD of God" and the "Commandment of God" in Mark 7:6-13 -- and you think that is how the Bible defines a legalist??

When you invent rules like that -- you follow the Col 2 model of legalism. "Making stuff up".



I assume that instead of "quoting you" when making that false accusation - you meant to "quote me" and show that I am in error. Did you forget??



Because you don't read my posts on Galatians 3.

Would you like to try doing that??



Another false accusation - or is it your claim that the Bible texts I am quoting are opposed to grace and devoid of it.

Another tactic of legalists is to invent "The evil parts of the Bible" that are "at war with grace".



And you believe those "parts of God's Word" -- to be "Evil" or just "devoid of grace"??

So then Christ in Mark 7:6-13 ... "Christless" or was he "devoid of Grace" in his teaching?

So also John in 1 John 5:1-4 -- 'Christless' or "evil" or "devoid of Grace"???

How about the oft-quoted Heb 8:6-10 and the NEW Covenant - 'Evil" or just "devoid of Grace"???



you are free to quote that all day long. You quoted it in response to MY QUOTING of IT!!

But your idea of "making stuff" up that something is underlined or has a different font that you would prefer - proves me to be "works monger" is pure fiction not something to justify the false factless accusations you are making.

in Christ,

Bob

Have you some where said and agreed with Jesus saying He is the door and no one will enter except thru that door and any one who atemps otherwise is a thief. See Jn 10.

Why do you seem to miss Heb 8 saying on "better promises"? What promise does the 4th commandment give?

bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

You have not answered my question.

Once again, I ask based on your assertion.

Was there any soul that was even "saved by the law" since time beginning from Genesis?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

Thank you.

Certainly it is true that the LAW defines sin and condemns. It does not offer forgiveness - it points out that death is the penalty for sin.

But "BibleDoctrine" appears to be taking an interesting definition - by including all the statements in the Bible regarding laws for sacrifice for sin - and including them in a broader definition for "LAW".

Like Galatians 4 does. Christ conformed perfectly to the LAW of God and ALSO paid the penalty demanded by the LAW of God - a perfect sacrifice for sins. Thus the atonement complied perfectly with what the LAW of God demanded.

Gal 4
4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Same thing in Heb 9 -- God is providing salvation via the means that is in perfect harmony with His LAW.
Heb 9
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

So then no "bull in the china shop" indiscriminate accusations -- else you might once again be at war with some part of the Word of God.

BibleDoctrine may well be pointing to the Romans 3 detail "God is JUST AND the JustiFIER" and as Romans 2:13 says "It is not the HEARERS of the LAW that are JUST before God - but the DOERS of the LAW will be justifIED" -- justification is "PURE GOSPEL" which is why in Rom 2:16 Paul adds "on the day when according to MY GOSPEL - God will judge".

No wonder Paul ends Romans 3 blending them "Do we then nullify the LAW of God by our FAITH? God forbid! IN fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31

No wonder D.L. Moody, C.H. Spurgeon, The "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" are all so united on this point that the TEN Commandments remain as applicable to all mankind - to this very day.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Have you some where said and agreed with Jesus saying He is the door and no one will enter except thru that door and any one who atemps otherwise is a thief. See Jn 10.

Why do you seem to miss Heb 8 saying on "better promises"? What promise does the 4th commandment give?

bugkiller

SAME LAW - as Jer 31:31-33 points out... but the NEW Covenant is under a different context - "LAW written in the heart" as we see in Deut 6:6 - hence giants of faith in NT - are the HEB 11 - OT saints!!