Antinomianism, definition and a Question "is this you"?

Hentenza · Dec 18, 2025

SabbathBlessings said:
I believe the issue is not understanding how the Bible is written. Trying to go by strict chronological order and not allowing the Bible to explain Itself, one will only come to wrong conclusions and not Biblical Truth.

No the problem for you and your church is ignoring the context (historical, linguistic, positional, and cultural) and trying to make it say what it does not. For example something that was told to a subset of people does not apply to the whole. Until you and your church understand context, error will continue to be pervasive.

BobRyan · Dec 18, 2025

First my attempt to have you pay attention to the actual details in Matt 22 as Jesus quotes from the Law of Moses in Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18

Apparently I need to make this very very easy.

Fine , one step at a time

Hentenza said:
No. The law of Moses is fulfilled on the two commandments as Jesus fulfilled all of the law. You have no scripture to prove your hypothesis.

I am beginning to question if you are even reading what you post.

Jesus reminds us all of two commandments from the LAW of Moses in Matt 22. They are:

Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart"

Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".

(Mark 12:28-31) Luke 12:28 -- The Jews fully agree that this is what happened at the time of Moses' writing. Those commands are foundational as Jesus said, and nothing in the least had changed in that regard, even the Jews agree. You should feel inclined to agree with them ... even nonChristian Jews got the point.

Those commands did not suddenly appear in the first century AD. They were already there at the time Moses wrote them. If this is confusing for you, just go read the texts I have as stated right there, repeatedly given to you. So now you do not need to act as if it is news.

That means whatever those laws fulfilled (in your words) would have been done in Leviticus 4000 years ago.

Moral law (hint: do not take God's name in vain, do not murder) like the TEN Commandments does not get deleted as soon as someone actually refrains from taking God's name in vain. That is not how moral law works. You keep responding as if this obvious detail is somehow confusing for you. That would be nonsensical since even you argue for at least nine out of the actual TEN Commandments of God.

Jesus said that ALL "OF SCRIPTURE" (the LAW AND THE PROPHETS) are fulfilled by those two commandments AND THE JEWS agreed!

Neither of them said "ALL of scripture IS DELETED by these two commandments".

Since this simply oft repeated detail keeps having to be posted to the same flawed suggestion... let's stop right here and find out why you find this part so difficult. There is just a couple details, this should be very easy.

If you can accept this instead of continually circling back so it has to be explained again... we can move to the next part.

Hentenza said:
I’ve been trying but you just ignore my posts.

I have yet to see you respond the details in Matt 22 and Deut 6:5 that don't fit your preferences.

Is now a good tim

Hentenza said:
The two love commandments were indeed first spoken of during the OC

And quoted in the Gospels, in fact quoted by the Jews themselves as we see in "the details" listed above that you are so prone to completely ignore.

Hentenza said:
but, as usual, they were not heeded and trampled over

No doubt the antinomian tendency to ignore all parts of God's word that do not fit preference is a big problem in the Gospel examples.
Still EVEN the nonChristian Jews know that these two OT commandments are the bedrock foundation for ALL of scripture "The Law AND the prophets".

More "details" that you are sidestepping though repeatedly handed to you from scripture.

Hentenza said:
The difference between now and then is that now both of these commandments are the fulfillment of ALL of the law and the prophets.

Sadly you went off the rails again. Right out of the gate ignoring the DETAILS in the gospels.

So "the details" you are skimming past repeatedly... get handed right back to you until you address them.

two commandments from the LAW of Moses in Matt 22. They are:

Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart"

Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".

(Mark 12:28-31) Luke 12:28 -- The Jews fully agree that this is what happened at the time of Moses' writing. Those commands are foundational as Jesus said, and nothing in the least had changed in that regard, even the Jews agree. You should feel inclined to agree with them ... even nonChristian Jews got the point.

Notice that it is THE JEWS (not Christ) in Mark 12 and Luke 12 that point out to Christ that these two commandments are the foundation of ALL the LAW and the scriptures. The very thing you wish to proclaim did not exist at that time. Pointed right at the texts that refute you claim your response repeatedly is to "ignore details in scripture". This allows you to then "circle back" and repeat yourself which begs to have the Bible answer to that very point, put to you again?

Why keep doing that??

Hentenza said:
“Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22‬:‭40‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Matthew 22:40 (NASB2020) - Upon these two commandments hang th | YouVersion

Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”

bible.com

INDEED JUST as we saw the nonChristian Jews state in Luke 12 and Mark 12.

Mark 12:
28 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; 30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that He is One, and there is no one else besides Him; 33 and to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as himself, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently

Luke 10:25 And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.”

Here it is the nonChristian Jew that provide the full answer himself ... the very same thing that the nonChristian Jews agreed as being the correct answer in Matt 22.

Hentenza said:
Is that in the Torah or the books of the prophets? Of course not.

You seem to be horrifically confused just then.

What part of Leviticus and Deut are not in the Law and the prophets?
What part of "non Christian Jew" giving the very answer you refuse to allow them to give??

Hentenza said:
This is the logical result of Christ fulfillment of the law.

Sadly for your failed argument you were confronted by three examples of nonChristian Jews giving the right answer, and NONE of them accept that Jesus perfectly complied with the moral law of God in the TEN or in Deut 6:5 or in Lev 19:18, yet they all make your same stated that these two OT Commands of Moses are the foundation of "ALL the Law AND THE PROPHETS"... so then "all scripture"

Hentenza said:
It’s really simply Bob.

lol There goes the drama again. Deleted. Did anyone say that?

You seem to have difficulty holding focus. What part of this is the least bit confusing for you?

I think this explains why we can't get you to focus in context in even one single Bible text example.

You have free will of course, you can ignore all the scripture that you please in service to your preferences

BobRyan · Dec 18, 2025

Hentenza said:
No the problem for you and your church is ignoring the context

Until you can master the details in that one Matt 22 example, simple and obvious for every member of this board to grasp.. I don't see the point in playing our false accusation game above.

You have to at least try.

Until then we have this waiting for you to take it seriously

#42

Hentenza · Dec 18, 2025

BobRyan said:
First my attempt to have you pay attention to the actual details in Matt 22 as Jesus quotes from the Law of Moses in Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18

Apparently I need to make this very very easy.

Fine , one step at a time

I am beginning to question if you are even reading what you post.

Jesus reminds us all of two commandments from the LAW of Moses in Matt 22. They are:

Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart"
Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".
(Mark 12:28-31) Luke 12:28 -- The Jews fully agree that this is what happened at the time of Moses' writing. Those commands are foundational as Jesus said, and nothing in the least had changed in that regard, even the Jews agree. You should feel inclined to agree with them ... even nonChristian Jews got the point.

Those commands did not suddenly appear in the first century AD. They were already there at the time Moses wrote them. If this is confusing for you, just go read the texts I have as stated right there, repeatedly given to you. So now you do not need to act as if it is news.

That means whatever those laws fulfilled (in your words) would have been done in Leviticus 4000 years ago.

Moral law (hint: do not take God's name in vain, do not murder) like the TEN Commandments does not get deleted as soon as someone actually refrains from taking God's name in vain. That is not how moral law works. You keep responding as if this obvious detail is somehow confusing for you. That would be nonsensical since even you argue for at least nine out of the actual TEN Commandments of God.

Jesus said that ALL "OF SCRIPTURE" (the LAW AND THE PROPHETS) are fulfilled by those two commandments AND THE JEWS agreed!

Neither of them said "ALL of scripture IS DELETED by these two commandments".

Since this simply oft repeated detail keeps having to be posted to the same flawed suggestion... let's stop right here and find out why you find this part so difficult. There is just a couple details, this should be very easy.

If you can accept this instead of continually circling back so it has to be explained again... we can move to the next part.

I have yet to see you respond the details in Matt 22 and Deut 6:5 that don't fit your preferences.

Is now a good tim

And quoted in the Gospels, in fact quoted by the Jews themselves as we see in "the details" listed above that you are so prone to completely ignore.

No doubt the antinomian tendency to ignore all parts of God's word that do not fit preference is a big problem in the Gospel examples.
Still EVEN the nonChristian Jews know that these two OT commandments are the bedrock foundation for ALL of scripture "The Law AND the prophets".

More "details" that you are sidestepping though repeatedly handed to you from scripture.

Sadly you went off the rails again. Right out of the gate ignoring the DETAILS in the gospels.

So "the details" you are skimming past repeatedly... get handed right back to you until you address them.

two commandments from the LAW of Moses in Matt 22. They are:

Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart"
Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".
(Mark 12:28-31) Luke 12:28 -- The Jews fully agree that this is what happened at the time of Moses' writing. Those commands are foundational as Jesus said, and nothing in the least had changed in that regard, even the Jews agree. You should feel inclined to agree with them ... even nonChristian Jews got the point.

Notice that it is THE JEWS (not Christ) in Mark 12 and Luke 12 that point out to Christ that these two commandments are the foundation of ALL the LAW and the scriptures. The very thing you wish to proclaim did not exist at that time. Pointed right at the texts that refute you claim your response repeatedly is to "ignore details in scripture". This allows you to then "circle back" and repeat yourself which begs to have the Bible answer to that very point, put to you again?

Why keep doing that??

INDEED JUST as we saw the nonChristian Jews state in Luke 12 and Mark 12.

Mark 12:
28 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; 30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that He is One, and there is no one else besides Him; 33 and to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as himself, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently

Luke 10:25 And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.”

Here it is the nonChristian Jew that provide the full answer himself ... the very same thing that the nonChristian Jews agreed as being the correct answer in Matt 22.

You seem to be horrifically confused just then.

What part of Leviticus and Deut are not in the Law and the prophets?
What part of "non Christian Jew" giving the very answer you refuse to allow them to give??

Sadly for your failed argument you were confronted by three examples of nonChristian Jews giving the right answer, and NONE of them accept that Jesus perfectly complied with the moral law of God in the TEN or in Deut 6:5 or in Lev 19:18, yet they all make your same stated that these two OT Commands of Moses are the foundation of "ALL the Law AND THE PROPHETS"... so then "all scripture"

You seem to have difficulty holding focus. What part of this is the least bit confusing for you?

I think this explains why we can't get you to focus in context in even one single Bible text example.

You have free will of course, you can ignore all the scripture that you please in service to your preferences

From now on I’m just going to copy my answer from my previous post since you just ignore it.

“The two love commandments were indeed first spoken off during the OC but, as usual, they were not heeded and trampled over by legalism (sound familiar?) . The difference between now and then is that now both of these commandments are the fulfillment of ALL of the law and the prophets.

“Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22‬:‭40‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬”

Hentenza · Dec 18, 2025

BobRyan said:
Until you can master the details in that one Matt 22 example

When you actually address my post and reply to my answer your accusations are just meaningless.

BobRyan · Dec 18, 2025

Hentenza said:
“The two love commandments were indeed first spoken off during the OC but, as usual, they were not heeded and trampled over by legalism (sound familiar?) .

you keep saying it without addressing a single point in the conversation. Consider actually responding.

Especially since I have made this so easy for you, just the Matt 22 topic.

Hentenza said:
The difference between now and then is that now both of these commandments are the fulfillment of ALL of the law and the prophets.

Your creative writing noted.

The point made for you ten times so far is that these commandments had not changed at all and even the nonChristians were claiming that at the time of Moses they were already considered the foundation and fulfillment of the love called for in the Law of God.

Your obvious mistake is your "insert" of "now both of these" as if some change had happened ... a detail rejected by both Christ and the Jews that gave Him the very two commandments that they also knew to be the foundation and embodiment of the Law of Moses

Hentenza said:
“Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22‬:‭40‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬”

Mark 12:
28 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; 30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that He is One, and there is no one else besides Him; 33 and to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as himself, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently

Luke 10:25 And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength

even the NONChristian Jews got this truth as something that had been true for all of the OT.

Your argument is falling apart because of the details in the text. As we saw here
=========================

Apparently I need to make this very very easy.

Fine , one step at a time

Hentenza said:
No. The law of Moses is fulfilled on the two commandments as Jesus fulfilled all of the law. You have no scripture to prove your hypothesis.

I am beginning to question if you are even reading what you post.

Jesus reminds us all of two commandments from the LAW of Moses in Matt 22. They are:

Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart"

Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".

(Mark 12:28-31) Luke 12:28 -- The Jews fully agree that this is what happened at the time of Moses' writing. Those commands are foundational as Jesus said, and nothing in the least had changed in that regard, even the Jews agree. You should feel inclined to agree with them ... even nonChristian Jews got the point.

Those commands did not suddenly appear in the first century AD. They were already there at the time Moses wrote them. If this is confusing for you, just go read the texts I have as stated right there, repeatedly given to you. So now you do not need to act as if it is news.

That means whatever those laws fulfilled (in your words) would have been done in Leviticus 4000 years ago.

Moral law (hint: do not take God's name in vain, do not murder) like the TEN Commandments does not get deleted as soon as someone actually refrains from taking God's name in vain. That is not how moral law works. You keep responding as if this obvious detail is somehow confusing for you. That would be nonsensical since even you argue for at least nine out of the actual TEN Commandments of God.

Jesus said that ALL "OF SCRIPTURE" (the LAW AND THE PROPHETS) are fulfilled by those two commandments AND THE JEWS agreed!

Neither of them said "ALL of scripture IS DELETED by these two commandments".

Since this simply oft repeated detail keeps having to be posted to the same flawed suggestion... let's stop right here and find out why you find this part so difficult. There is just a couple details, this should be very easy.

If you can accept this instead of continually circling back so it has to be explained again... we can move to the next part.

Hentenza said:
I’ve been trying but you just ignore my posts.

I have yet to see you respond the details in Matt 22 and Deut 6:5 that don't fit your preferences.

Is now a good tim

Hentenza said:
The two love commandments were indeed first spoken of during the OC

And quoted in the Gospels, in fact quoted by the Jews themselves as we see in "the details" listed above that you are so prone to completely ignore.

Hentenza said:
but, as usual, they were not heeded and trampled over

No doubt the antinomian tendency to ignore all parts of God's word that do not fit preference is a big problem in the Gospel examples.
Still EVEN the nonChristian Jews know that these two OT commandments are the bedrock foundation for ALL of scripture "The Law AND the prophets".

More "details" that you are sidestepping though repeatedly handed to you from scripture.

Hentenza said:
The difference between now and then is that now both of these commandments are the fulfillment of ALL of the law and the prophets.

Sadly you went off the rails again. Right out of the gate ignoring the DETAILS in the gospels.

So "the details" you are skimming past repeatedly... get handed right back to you until you address them.

two commandments from the LAW of Moses in Matt 22. They are:

Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart"

Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".

(Mark 12:28-31) Luke 12:28 -- The Jews fully agree that this is what happened at the time of Moses' writing. Those commands are foundational as Jesus said, and nothing in the least had changed in that regard, even the Jews agree. You should feel inclined to agree with them ... even nonChristian Jews got the point.

Notice that it is THE JEWS (not Christ) in Mark 12 and Luke 12 that point out to Christ that these two commandments are the foundation of ALL the LAW and the scriptures. The very thing you wish to proclaim did not exist at that time. Pointed right at the texts that refute you claim your response repeatedly is to "ignore details in scripture". This allows you to then "circle back" and repeat yourself which begs to have the Bible answer to that very point, put to you again?

Why keep doing that??

Hentenza said:
“Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22‬:‭40‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Matthew 22:40 (NASB2020) - Upon these two commandments hang th | YouVersion

Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”

bible.com

INDEED JUST as we saw the nonChristian Jews state in Luke 12 and Mark 12.

Mark 12:
28 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; 30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that He is One, and there is no one else besides Him; 33 and to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as himself, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently

Luke 10:25 And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.”

Here it is the nonChristian Jew that provide the full answer himself ... the very same thing that the nonChristian Jews agreed as being the correct answer in Matt 22.

Hentenza said:
Is that in the Torah or the books of the prophets? Of course not.

You seem to be horrifically confused just then.

What part of Leviticus and Deut are not in the Law and the prophets?
What part of "non Christian Jew" giving the very answer you refuse to allow them to give??

Hentenza said:
This is the logical result of Christ fulfillment of the law.

Sadly for your failed argument you were confronted by three examples of nonChristian Jews giving the right answer, and NONE of them accept that Jesus perfectly complied with the moral law of God in the TEN or in Deut 6:5 or in Lev 19:18, yet they all make your same stated that these two OT Commands of Moses are the foundation of "ALL the Law AND THE PROPHETS"... so then "all scripture"

Hentenza said:
It’s really simply Bob.

lol There goes the drama again. Deleted. Did anyone say that?

You seem to have difficulty holding focus. What part of this is the least bit confusing for you?

I think this explains why we can't get you to focus in context in even one single Bible text example.

You have free will of course, you can ignore all the scripture that you please in service to your preferences

Hentenza · Dec 18, 2025

BobRyan said:
you keep saying it without addressing a single point in the conversation. Consider actually responding.

Especially since I have made this so easy for you, just the Matt 22 topic.

From now on I’m just going to copy my answer from my previous post since you just ignore it.

“The two love commandments were indeed first spoken off during the OC but, as usual, they were not heeded and trampled over by legalism (sound familiar?) . The difference between now and then is that now both of these commandments are the fulfillment of ALL of the law and the prophets.

“Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22‬:‭40‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬”

Third repost with no answer.

BobRyan · Dec 18, 2025

DamianWarS said:
if you intend to smuggle in the entire 10 because Paul says "the first commandment with a promise" then read all that you need to bring in with in. Ex 20-23 is the context of where the 10 are first introduced,

"God spoke the TEN And ADDED no more" as I pointed out before. By ignoring the details in the discussion you require that they be posted "Again"

Deut 4: 13 So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

Deut 5:22 22 “These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain from the midst of the fire, of the cloud and of the thick gloom, with a great voice, and He added no more. He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.

You frequently respond to bible details with "smuggle smuggle " as if that game proves some sort of point.

Everyone else can see that the Ten are being treated as a unit where God says "HE added no more" just when you need obfuscation and confusion.

DamianWarS said:
along side a bunch of other commandments directly from God

Obviously NO OTHER commands were spoken by God directly to the people.
By ignoring enough scripture in your responses you could cobble just about any idea as a speculative suggestion. Why not keep track of the facts?

In Heb 10:4-11 Paul says of "Animal sacrifices and offerings" that 'HE takes away the first to establish the second". Your eisegesis tries to turn that into something of the form "well I don't admit to any difference in Laws so then taking away animal sacrifices would delete the law that says not to take God's name in vain". Your eisgesis based argument is pretty weak.

DamianWarS · Dec 31, 2025

BobRyan said:
Obviously NO OTHER commands were spoken by God directly to the people.

I'm not sure your point. that was the people's choice not God's. it also makes the written words no less powerful since they are all after the fact so from our perspective the words have the same impact since we have the luxury of reading it as a single context over responding in fear as Israel did. the covenant established in Ex 24 what for all God's words not just the stuff the people hung around for. there was no suggestion that direct = better. the language is quite clear for all God's words

BobRyan · Dec 31, 2025

"God spoke the TEN And ADDED no more" as I pointed out before. By ignoring the details in the discussion you require that they be posted "Again"

Deut 4: 13 So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

Deut 5:22 22 “These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain from the midst of the fire, of the cloud and of the thick gloom, with a great voice, and He added no more. He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.

You frequently respond to bible details with "smuggle smuggle " as if that game proves some sort of point.

Everyone else can see that the Ten are being treated as a unit where God says "HE added no more" just when you need obfuscation and confusion.

DamianWarS said:
along side a bunch of other commandments directly from God

Obviously NO OTHER commands were spoken by God directly to the people.
By ignoring enough scripture in your responses you could cobble just about any idea as a speculative suggestion. Why not keep track of the facts?

In Heb 10:4-11 Paul says of "Animal sacrifices and offerings" that 'HE takes away the first to establish the second". Your eisegesis tries to turn that into something of the form "well I don't admit to any difference in Laws so then taking away animal sacrifices would delete the law that says not to take God's name in vain". Your eisgesis based argument is pretty weak.

DamianWarS said:
I'm not sure your point. that was the people's choice not God's.

God is the one that spoke the TEN. And in Deut 4 and 5 forty years AFTER He spoke the Ten from Sinai, God reminds them that HE spoke the TEN and HE added no more.

In Ex 20 when the people complain that they are scared out of their witts to hear God speak directly to the congregation. Moses replied that God did that on purpose so the fear of God would remain with them and they would not willy nilly run off into rebellion, but would be inclined to stay faithful.

The point in the texts above is that HE made it a UNIT of Law. The people did not 'Make God put the TEN and only the TEN inside the Ark). The people did not force God to write the Ten and only the Ten in stone. Obviously

As I have stated before, if you ignore enough details you can make almost any suggestion appear to work

DamianWarS said:
it also makes the written words no less powerful since they are all after the fact

The point is not that the written words are worthless, the point is there are in fact units of law and the TEN just such a unit so that "he who is guilty of breaking one is guilty of breaking ALL" James 2 and also "the commandment to honor father and mother is the FIRST commandment with a promise" Eph 6.

DamianWarS said:
so from our perspective the words have the same impact

They all come from God "All scripture is given by inspiration from God" 2 Tim 3:16 but not all scripture is "moral legal code"

As all the confessions of faith in all of Christianity admit.

So then in Heb 10 when God says He took away the ceremonial "animal sacrifices and offerings" , He did not also delete the commandment that forbids taking God's name in vain,

This is just not the hard. Incredibly obvious.

Dave... · May 17, 2026

BobRyan said:
The Bible says to obey the Word of God

1 Cor 7:19 what matters is keeping the Commandments of God
John 14:15 Love Me and KEEP My Commandments
Ex 20:6 Love Me and KEEP My Commandments
Rev 14:12 the saints KEEP the Commandments of God and their faith in Jesus
1 John 5:3 this IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments
Epn 6:1 where the first COMMANDMENT with a promise is "Honor your father and mother"

Eph 6:1 where "the first commandment with a promise is Honor your father and mother" in that still valid unit of TEN

And the Bible says that the antinomians within the Christian church of the first century objected to that Bible teaching

Rom 3:8 8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just.

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

Rather our faith "Establishes the Law" Rom 3:31

And in Rom 6:
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?...6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

==========Definition for "Antinomianism"

AI: says this about Antinomianism

Antinomianism
is a term used in Christian theology to describe the belief that, because salvation is granted by divine grace through faith, believers are not bound by the moral law of God, including the Ten Commandments. The word itself comes from the Greek anti ("against") and nomos ("law"), literally meaning "against the law"

R.C. Sproul

What Are Legalism and Antinomianism?

Legalism and antinomianism undergird all forms of false teaching and heresy.

learn.ligonier.org

"Antinomianism says that God does not require a believer to obey the Law of God (the Ten Commandments)"

Antinomianism | Monergism

www.monergism.com

Antinomianism is a theological heresy that holds that, because of grace and faith in Christ, believers are no longer bound to obey the moral law of God. The term comes from the Greek words anti (against) and nomos (law), and it literally means “against the law.” Antinomianism falsely teaches that Christians, having been saved by grace, are free from the obligations of the moral law, leading to a rejection of the law’s role in the Christian life.

If you have read the threads on this particular forum then every now and then you will see someone arguing against the moral law of God , specifically the Ten Commandments. As James 2 says "he who is guilty of breaking one is guilty of breaking them all"

As Paul says in Eph 6:1-2 "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth.

hint: What are the set of commandments in scripture where the first one in that list WITH a promise is the 5th commandment calling children to Honor father and mother.

Hi Bob

Maybe "duty" is a better word than "bound" so that we don't get the wrong impression. 'Duty' suggests evidences, or fruit, while ''bound' suggests justification.

We are justified by obeying the Law, perfectly, which we cannot do. Jesus did it for us. So we are no longer bound to the Law for justification if we are in Him (Paul). Obeying God is simply an evidence (James) of one who is already justified.

If you asked me, it's the terminology, and what it represents, that causes most of the points of contention in these discussions. Antinomianism means against the Law. That begs the question, for justification? That non answer creates a big grey area for people to argue extremes.

Dave

Bob S · May 17, 2026

Paul describes the Ten Commandments as the Ministry of Death and told the Jews they were no longer their guidance. 2Cor 3:6-11. Jesus gave us the Comforter that guides us every second of our lives. The Ten Commandments were never a requirement for Gentiles. All of the verses that tell us to keep the commandments of God definitely do not refer to the Ten. If they were God's ambassador, Paul, would not have written all he did concerning not being under the Law.

Jesus makes it very plain that we are under the Law of Love. He didn't dwell on all of the laws that pertained to rituals.

Dave... · May 18, 2026

Bob S said:
Paul describes the Ten Commandments as the Ministry of Death and told the Jews they were no longer their guidance. 2Cor 3:6-11. Jesus gave us the Comforter that guides us every second of our lives. The Ten Commandments were never a requirement for Gentiles. All of the verses that tell us to keep the commandments of God definitely do not refer to the Ten. If they were God's ambassador, Paul, would not have written all he did concerning not being under the Law.

Jesus makes it very plain that we are under the Law of Love. He didn't dwell on all of the laws that pertained to rituals.

Love is a summery of the commandments, and not a replacement of it. Love rejoices in truth, His word is truth.

Here's what Paul said about the Law for Christians, making a distinction between the purpose of the Law in justification and it's practical use for a believer.

Galatians 3:6-7 (justification) But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. (Practical use for believers) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."

Paul in Romans 3:31 says "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law."

Hebrews Outline by Kenneth Wuest

HEBREWS Analysis by Kenneth S. Wuest Wuest's Word Studies From the Greek New Testament I. The New Testament is better than and takes the place of the First Testament because its Founder, the Messiah, is better than... (1:1-8:6) 1. The prophets (1:1-3) since Messiah is... ....a. God the Son...

www.christianforums.com

We are no longer bound to the Law for righteousness, but it's still the standard that we strive for, being made perfect by the Spirit (Galatians 3:2-3), conformed to Christlikeness (Romans 8:29). Paul's concern was not that the Law was bad, but that relying on the Law for justification/salvation was.

Dave

DamianWarS · May 19, 2026

BobRyan said:
God spoke the TEN And ADDED no more" as I pointed out before. By ignoring the details in the discussion you require that they be posted "Again"

Deut 4: 13 So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

Deut 5:22 22 “These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain from the midst of the fire, of the cloud and of the thick gloom, with a great voice, and He added no more. He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.

You frequently respond to bible details with "smuggle smuggle " as if that game proves some sort of point.

Everyone else can see that the Ten are being treated as a unit where God says "HE added no more" just when you need obfuscation and confusion.

The context in deut. is Moses summarizing the covenant and he uses the tablets as the covenant document. He is not separating the 10 from the tablets, which would be very unusual, not to mention cryptic. He is reminding people of the roots of the covenant. We have the luxury of knowing what happened if we flip back to Exodus 20 (to the end of Exodus).

Deut 4: 13 So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

God establishes the Covenant, which we can read in Ex 20. The blood covenant is formed in Ex 24 based on all the words of God in Ex 20-23. So the 10 are not uniquely the covenant or stand alone. Ex 20-23 is the covenant. The tablets are made in Ex 31 (and again in Ex 34), which act as the covenant documents. Moses is not trying to separate the tablets from the covenant; he is trying to emphasize the covenant itself to a new generation.

BobRyan said:
The point is not that the written words are worthless, the point is there are in fact units of law and the TEN just such a unit so that "he who is guilty of breaking one is guilty of breaking ALL" James 2 and also "the commandment to honor father and mother is the FIRST commandment with a promise" Eph 6.

James 2 speaks of covenant law, not of an isolated 10. To force only the 10 would mean you are separating the 10 from covenant law, and there is no biblical teaching that supports this. The 10 are spoken first in the covenant (Ex 20), so the 5th is still the first with a promise (that doesn't change). But where does it say we ignore Ex 21, 22 and 23? In Eph 6, Paul quotes the 10, but he also reframes it "in the Lord" to fit a NC application. There are subtle differences; the 5th is about honouring your parents, and Paul's reframing is obedience in the Lord, which carefully places Christ over earthly authorities needed in pluralistic backgrounds. Paul does not quote the 5th to force all of the covenant law with it (or all of the 10 or even the 5th), instead, what we see is quoting a morally based commandment, while at the same time reframing it under the NC.

BobRyan said:
They all come from God "All scripture is given by inspiration from God" 2 Tim 3:16 but not all scripture is "moral legal code"

As all the confessions of faith in all of Christianity admit.

So then in Heb 10 when God says He took away the ceremonial "animal sacrifices and offerings" , He did not also delete the commandment that forbids taking God's name in vain,

This is just not the hard. Incredibly obvious.

"moral legal code" is not a biblical expression. All the confessions of faith in all of Christianity do not recognize the 10 as the universal moral law of God, that is demonstratively incorrect. Plus, "moral law" and what it points is framed in post-biblical era and needs more biblical grounding. Trinity is an expression with lots of biblical grounding; with the "moral law of God" if we are talking about enduring morals rooted in God's character, then it invites and is deserving of deep discussion and study. However, if it's being used as a replacement word for the 10 commandments, then it's anachronistic, highly thematic and interpretive, not to mention lacking biblical grounding.

Did you read Hebrews 7, 8, and 9 along with Hebrews 10? You will see that in 7 there is a change of priesthood, not in the order of Levitical law but in the order of Melchizedek, which is framed outside of law yet also superior to it. It also makes a point that where there is a change of priest, there is a change of law (v12). So what law is this that changes? Is it the 10 or the other laws you swept under the rug? In James, you are quick to isolate the 10, but it doesn't work so well in Heb 7, does it? Heb 8 tells us Christ makes the old covenant obsolete (v13) so what is the sign of the old covenant that has been made obsolete? Is it not Sabbath law? If the covenant is obsolete, does not the sign of the covenant also inherit the same state? This is the time to point out that the 7th is also outside of law and has no legal code itself. And Heb 9 shows us how Christ completes the old while his blood ushers in the new.

God didn't delete the covenant, which is a classic abolish-language strawman argument. What he did is make a new covenant that we are now under and completed the old (complete is not the same as abolish), and as Jer 31 says, that you so often quote, is that the new does not look like the old (Heb 8:8-9, Jer 31:31-32). law is internalized and recognized through the Spirit, which is the sign of the new covenant, not threshold morals like the 10, which can be exploited.

The NT has complete instructions to follow without needing to know the law. There were a good number of pagan born believers in the early church. Why do you think Paul takes the time to discourage fighting over which days are important, even isolating the Sabbath, and never speaks of Sabbath law requirement? Don't you find that rather odd if it is integral to Christian living? We don't circumcise either, and that was a sign of an everlasting covenant (Gen 17), so how is it we can so easily dismiss one everlasting covenant but not the other? It's a massive consistency problem that you seem to refuse to acknowledge and puts you in a choice that if you don't keep it all, you are guilty of it all (that's James point), but instead you've created this 10 vacuum and pretend nobody noticed. I noticed, and it's not a thing. The 10 do not act outside of their covenant. If you address one of it, you address the whole thing.

Bob S · May 19, 2026

Dave... said:
Love is a summery of the commandments, and not a replacement of it. Love rejoices in truth, His word is truth.

Thou shalt not is not the summary of love, Dave. The Ten Commandments were about duty. The Israelite who loved God and respected His wishes did the commands out of Love.

Even if we are law-abiding, sometimes it is a pain to stop completely at a stop sign, but the result of not stopping could be a fine, so we do it out of duty.

Dave... said:
Here's what Paul said about the Law for Christians, making a distinction between the purpose of the Law in justification and it's practical use for a believer.

Galatians 3:6-7 (justification) But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. (Practical use for believers) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."

Certainly, the law is not sin. God designed it for a purpose for the Israelites until our Savior fulfilled (brought them to an end) it. The moral aspects of nine commandments make it clear that the nine commandments are sins and not what God wants anyone to do. All of the Old Covenant with its Laws came to an end when Jesus ratified the New and better Covenant. In the New Covenant, we rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us, not the 613 commandments the Israelites used.

Dave... said:
Paul in Romans 3:31 says "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law."

Hebrews Outline by Kenneth Wuest

HEBREWS Analysis by Kenneth S. Wuest Wuest's Word Studies From the Greek New Testament I. The New Testament is better than and takes the place of the First Testament because its Founder, the Messiah, is better than... (1:1-8:6) 1. The prophets (1:1-3) since Messiah is... ....a. God the Son...

www.christianforums.com

We are no longer bound to the Law for righteousness, but it's still the standard that we strive for, being made perfect by the Spirit (Galatians 3:2-3), conformed to Christlikeness (Romans 8:29). Paul's concern was not that the Law was bad, but that relying on the Law for justification/salvation was.

That causes a conundrum, Dave. The Law was not just the Ten Commandments. It also included the other 603 laws God gave Israel at Sinai. Read Rom 4 to get a better glimpse of Rom3:31

BobRyan · May 19, 2026

Dave... said:
Love is a summery of the commandments,

"Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5
"Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18
That is the LAW of Moses

As Paul says in Rom 7 when you think of the LAW think of "Do not covet" Ex 20
I also think it works to think of "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20

Christ affirms the Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 summation as it exists in the LAW of Moses in Matt 22

Dave... said:
and not a replacement of it. Love rejoices in truth, His word is truth.

Amen

Dave... said:
Here's what Paul said about the Law for Christians, making a distinction between the purpose of the Law in justification and it's practical use for a believer.

Galatians 3:6-7 (justification) But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. (Practical use for believers) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."

Amen that last part is from Rom 7

Dave... said:
Paul in Romans 3:31 says "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law."

Amen

Dave... said:
Hebrews Outline by Kenneth Wuest

HEBREWS Analysis by Kenneth S. Wuest Wuest's Word Studies From the Greek New Testament I. The New Testament is better than and takes the place of the First Testament because its Founder, the Messiah, is better than... (1:1-8:6) 1. The prophets (1:1-3) since Messiah is... ....a. God the Son...

www.christianforums.com

We are no longer bound to the Law for righteousness, but it's still the standard that we strive for, being made perfect by the Spirit (Galatians 3:2-3), conformed to Christlikeness (Romans 8:29). Paul's concern was not that the Law was bad, but that relying on the Law for justification/salvation was.

Dave

Amen and in 1 Cor 6 Paul hammers the church for disregarding the moral law of God

BobRyan · May 19, 2026

Hentenza said:
No the problem for you and your church is ignoring the context (historical, linguistic...

Were you able to bring yourself to answer the question in the title for this thread or address the OP... yet?

Dave... · May 19, 2026

Romans 13:8-10 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

I like to think that love is the positive that cures all the Laws negatives. The Golden rule is a positive, and will always fulfill the negatives of "though shall not". I think that's the point that Paul is making.

Alistair Begg has a great book, I own it and think that I still have it somewhere. It's called "Pathway to Freedom: How God's Laws Guide Our Lives".

Matthew 22:36-40 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

Dave

Hentenza · May 19, 2026

BobRyan said:
Were you able to bring yourself to answer the question in the title for this thread or address the OP... yet?

Yep. Post 10 and, of course, you truncated my post in your “reply” just as you did in this one. Not surprising since legalists would expose themselves if they actually address the obvious, Why can’t you answer my whole post? Are you afraid or just can’t?

BobRyan · May 19, 2026

Did you ever come around to answering the question for this thread... hint it is in the title

Hentenza said:
Yep. Post 10

In real life this is what was in the OP for the definition in case you actually were ever going to address the question (aside from complaining that the question exists as you do in your post 10)

BobRyan said:
==========Definition for "Antinomianism"

AI: says this about Antinomianism

Antinomianism
is a term used in Christian theology to describe the belief that, because salvation is granted by divine grace through faith, believers are not bound by the moral law of God, including the Ten Commandments. The word itself comes from the Greek anti ("against") and nomos ("law"), literally meaning "against the law"

BobRyan said:
R.C. Sproul

What Are Legalism and Antinomianism?

Legalism and antinomianism undergird all forms of false teaching and heresy.

learn.ligonier.org

"Antinomianism says that God does not require a believer to obey the Law of God (the Ten Commandments)"

BobRyan said:
Antinomianism | Monergism

www.monergism.com

Antinomianism is a theological heresy that holds that, because of grace and faith in Christ, believers are no longer bound to obey the moral law of God. The term comes from the Greek words anti (against) and nomos (law), and it literally means “against the law.” Antinomianism falsely teaches that Christians, having been saved by grace, are free from the obligations of the moral law, leading to a rejection of the law’s role in the Christian life.

BobRyan said:
If you have read the threads on this particular forum then every now and then you will see someone arguing against the moral law of God , specifically the Ten Commandments. As James 2 says "he who is guilty of breaking one is guilty of breaking them all"

As Paul says in Eph 6:1-2 "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth.

BobRyan said:
hint: What are the set of commandments in scripture where the first one in that list WITH a promise is the 5th commandment calling children to Honor father and mother.
and, of course, you truncated my post in your “reply” just as you did in this one. Not surprising since legalists would expose themselves if they actually address the obvious, Why can’t you answer my whole post? Are you afraid or just can’t?

It appears you did not answer

Antinomianism, definition and a Question "is this you"?

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Junior Member

Junior Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Junior Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Junior Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Junior Member

Similar threads