Clarifying the Debate "basics" on Sabbath and the TEN Commandments

[BobRyan]

Then how many sets of commandments are found below?


Joh 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.


.

Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "Which ones" in Matt 19. He quotes from THE TEN and also from Lev 19:18.

We cannot ignore the obvious and easy part of the discussion which is the point of the OP.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi Bob,

I believe you have misunderstood much of what I wrote to you.

In order for me to explain, I think we will need to agree to discuss in detail laws in addition to the ten commandments.

you already said you reject the TEN - so we have already found the point where we differ and as noted in the OP - the point is the "easy part" of the discussion where Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the deeply divided Sabbath topic AGREE.

IF the "easy part" is too difficult for you and I to find agreement - what was your "other suggestion" that would be "even easier" for you to reach a conclusion?

 

[BABerean2]

Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "Which ones" in Matt 19. He quotes from THE TEN and also from Lev 19:18.

We cannot ignore the obvious and easy part of the discussion which is the point of the OP.

You seem to have missed the meaning of Christ's words in Matthew chapter 19.

The young man said he had kept those commandments.

Do you actually believe what the young man said?

Have you kept the ten commandments?

.

 

[BobRyan]

You seem to have missed the meaning of Christ's words in Matthew chapter 19.

The young man said he had kept those commandments.

Do you actually believe what the young man said?

Have you kept the ten commandments?

.

Regardless of the young ruler's claims about himself - what matters are the Words of Christ - not the words of sinners. Christ is the one saying "keep the Commandments" in Matt 19 and when asked "which ones" - Christ is the one that quotes exclusively from the "law of Moses" as the answer. Quoting from the same commandments that Paul also quotes from in Rom 13.

I myself could find a lot of faults in the words and actions of the Jewish ruler that came to Christ - but that is not my standard of right and wrong. My standard is determined by the Word of Christ and His choice was to point us to the Law of Moses in Matt 19.

 

[BABerean2]

Regardless of the young ruler's claims about himself - what matters are the Words of Christ - not the words of sinners. Christ is the one saying "keep the Commandments" in Matt 19 and when asked "which ones" - Christ is the one that quotes exclusively from the "law of Moses" as the answer. Quoting from the same commandments that Paul also quotes from in Rom 13.

I myself could find a lot of faults in the words and actions of the Jewish ruler that came to Christ - but that is not my standard of right and wrong. My standard is determined by the Word of Christ and His choice was to point us to the Law of Moses in Matt 19.

Do you understand the fact that the New Covenant had not yet made the Old Covenant "obsolete", (Hebrews 8:13) when Christ spoke the words in Matthew chapter 19?



.

 

[Leaf473]

you already said you reject the TEN - so we have already found the point where we differ and as noted in the OP - the point is the "easy part" of the discussion where Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the deeply divided Sabbath topic AGREE.

IF the "easy part" is too difficult for you and I to find agreement - what was your "other suggestion" that would be "even easier" for you to reach a conclusion?

I don't reject the 10.

I don't know if you and I can reach a conclusion or not, but if you would like me to more fully explain my position, please expand the topic of this thread to include the possibility of discussing any law from Genesis to Deuteronomy.

 

[Leaf473]

Do you understand the fact that the New Covenant had not yet made the Old Covenant "obsolete", (Hebrews 8:13) when Christ spoke the words in Matthew chapter 19?



.

I think that's a good thing to remember,
The man is asking and Jesus is answering under the terms of the old covenant.

The man places emphasis on doing,
What must I do?
And rightly so, under the old covenant.

I think the New covenant emphasis is on believing, the question is
In whom must I believe in order to get eternal life?

 

[BobRyan]

Leaf473 said: ↑
After having some time to look at Hebrews with some good Bible study tools, I think the best interpretation of what is being take away is the law.

I don't reject the 10.

Because you don't think that God's TEN Commandments are included in God's Law?? Or are you changing your mind?

Hi Bob,
I'm happy to explain the situation, but I will want to bring in other laws as part of the explanation.

let's make it easy for you -- just one of the TEN "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 - what "other law" do you need to help you explain your decision to reject or accept that part of the Word of God?

 

[BobRyan]

I think the New covenant emphasis is on believing,

The New Covenant text can be found here Jer 31:31-34 - and it says "I will write My LAW on their heart and mind". We have been over that a few times already. So while everyone agrees we must believe and have faith - the New Covenant specifically points to God's LAW - at the very moment you have claimed it is God's LAW that is "taken away" under the New Covenant.

With that level of a somewhat self-conflicted statement you are already on a point that needs some work to clarify or correct or fix it.

"Do we than make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! IN fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31

The lost person "does not submit to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they" Rom 8:5-11

the "saints KEEP the Commandments of GOD AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

 

[BobRyan]

Do you understand the fact that the New Covenant had not yet made the Old Covenant "obsolete",
.

That is not true in terms of the LAW that defines what Sin is. It was always sin to take God's name in vain and still is. The OLD Covenant of Gal 3 is the Law (the same moral law of God) condemning the UNSAVED person who has no faith. "But WHEN FAITH COMES" according to Gal 3 then that Old Covenant condition is removed from that person who has faith. UNTIL that point God's Law continues to condemn - to close every mouth, to "Hold all the world accountable" Rom 3:19-20 - even in NT "sin IS Transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4

That is part of the ONE Gospel of Gal 1:6-9 - that was "preached to Abraham" and was true then just as it still is to this very day

 

[Leaf473]

Because you don't think that God's TEN Commandments are included in God's Law?? Or are you changing your mind?

Hi Bob,

I'm happy to explain the situation, but I will want to bring in other laws as part of the explanation.

This is the list of God's eternal laws that I was working on with @SabbathBlessings

The Ten Commandments

Eat only clean foods

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.

You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Lev 27:30 All the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the trees, is the Lord’s. It is holy to the Lord.

Lev. 27:32 And concerning the tithe of the herd or the flock, of whatever passes under the rod, the tenth one shall be holy to the Lord.

Is the list complete in your view? On the other thread that we were talking on the got closed, I believe you were saying that people who generally agree with you were talking in other parts of CF about the rest of the laws.

If the above list isn't complete, is there a place where a complete list is posted?

 

[Leaf473]

The New Covenant text can be found here Jer 31:31-34 - and it says "I will write My LAW on their heart and mind". We have been over that a few times already. So while everyone agrees we must believe and have faith - the New Covenant specifically points to God's LAW - at the very moment you have claimed it is God's LAW that is "taken away" under the New Covenant.

With that level of a somewhat self-conflicted statement you are already on a point that needs some work to clarify or correct or fix it.

"Do we than make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! IN fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31

The lost person "does not submit to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they" Rom 8:5-11

the "saints KEEP the Commandments of GOD AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

I hear what you're saying. I think the issues with the theology you are putting forward will become more clear if you decide you are willing to talk about laws in addition to the ten commandments and the first and second greatest commandments.

 

[BobRyan]

I hear what you're saying. I think the issues with the theology you are putting forward will become more clear if you decide you are willing to talk about laws in addition to the ten commandments

I think the flaw in your doctrine is apparent in the apparently conflicted statements you make about the entire Law of God taken away - while claiming you affirm the Ten Commandments as still binding on Christians. There is a glaring "problem" that can be addressed even before we get to various kinds of farms.

 

[Leaf473]

I think the flaw in your doctrine is apparent in the apparently conflicted statements you make about the entire Law of God taken away - while claiming you affirm the Ten Commandments as still binding on Christians. There is a glaring "problem" that can be addressed even before we get to various kinds of farms.

I understand my position doesn't make sense to you. I will be happy to try to explain it more fully, but I will want to talk about laws in addition to the ten commandments and the first and second greatest commandments.

Are you willing to expand the topic of this thread to accommodate that? Or did you want to talk on some other thread? Or do you not want to talk about it at all?

******************

I realized that I didn't address this part yet

let's make it easy for you -- just one of the TEN "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 - what "other law" do you need to help you explain your decision to reject or accept that part of the Word of God?

Not just one "other law", but "other laws" i.e. the rest of the laws.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi Bob,
I'm happy to explain the situation, but I will want to bring in other laws as part of the explanation.

let's make it easy for you -- just one of the TEN "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 - what "other law" do you need to help you explain your decision to reject or accept that part of the Word of God?

Not just one "other law", but "other laws" i.e. the rest of the laws.

Do you really need to go through the entire Bible on this thread before you can take that simple example above and explain your POV regarding that commandment?

If so - that sounds like a bit of a red flag to me.

 

[Leaf473]

let's make it easy for you -- just one of the TEN "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 - what "other law" do you need to help you explain your decision to reject or accept that part of the Word of God?



Do you need to go through the entire Bible on this thread before you can take that simple example above and give your POV

I don't think we would need to go through the entire Bible. But I would want to talk about other laws.

In the past, I believe you had indicated that that was outside the topic of this thread. Also, I believe you recently talked about not wanting to discuss any commandment outside of the 10 and the first and second greatest commandments with someone who doesn't agree with your approach to the law.

Am I understanding that correctly?

 

[BABerean2]

That is not true in terms of the LAW that defines what Sin is. It was always sin to take God's name in vain and still is. The OLD Covenant of Gal 3 is the Law (the same moral law of God) condemning the UNSAVED person who has no faith.

The term "moral law of God" is not found in the Bible.
It comes instead from man-made confessions.

Christ reveals below the fact that the New Covenant is a higher standard than the Old Covenant. Therefore, they cannot be the same.


Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't think we would need to go through the entire Bible. But I would want to talk about other laws.

In the past, I believe you had indicated that that was outside the topic of this thread.

True - as we can see this thread is about the Ten Commandments and in your case I am offering to make it even simpler - so down to just one commandment "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7

The more simple we make this - the more determined you appear to be not to discuss it.

If that is how you want to leave it - it is fine with me. The choice is yours - you have free will.

 

[BobRyan]

The term "moral law of God" is not found in the Bible.

1. It is useful shorthand for " SIN IS transgression of the Law " 1 John 3:4 - so then it is that Law that defines what sin IS.

2. It is useful shorthand for "through the LAW comes the knowledge of what SIN IS" Rom 3:19-20.

Like the term "Trinity" it is simply shorthand for something we find in the Bible

Christ reveals below the fact that the New Covenant is a higher standard than the Old Covenant. Therefore, they cannot be the same.

Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.'

Christ does not use the term "New Covenant" or "Old Covenant" in the entire chapter of Matt 5 - this is irrefutable.

Christ is not comparing new covenant with old covenant in Matt 5 - rather he is showing how the letter of the Law is EXPANDED when enlightened by the spirit of the Law and covers many more actions.

Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Proof of this unchanged letter and spirit of the Law can be seen a few chapters later in Matt 19

In Matt 19 Christ said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "Which ones?". Once again Christ lists "do not commit adultery".

 

[BABerean2]

1. It is useful shorthand for " SIN IS transgression of the Law " 1 John 3:4 - so then it is that Law that defines what sin IS.

2. It is useful shorthand for "through the LAW comes the knowledge of what SIN IS" Rom 3:19-20.

Like the term "Trinity" it is simply shorthand for something we find in the Bible



Christ does not use the term "New Covenant" or "Old Covenant" in the entire chapter of Matt 5 - this is irrefutable.

Christ is not comparing new covenant with old covenant in Matt 5 - rather he is showing how the letter of the Law is EXPANDED when enlightened by the spirit of the Law and covers many more actions.

Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Proof of this unchanged letter and spirit of the Law can be seen a few chapters later in Matt 19

In Matt 19 Christ said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "Which ones?". Once again Christ lists "do not commit adultery".

What then has become "obsolete"?

Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


.