Hebrews 8 shows us that Christ gave the TEN Commandments - Christ's Commandments

Anyone can be taught this. Did God change? Did God's mind change? God chose to do something, but realized afterward that this was wrong, and did otherwise? God did not know something to start with, but needed to learn that thing and do otherwise? God in reality is lacking in nothing, being unlimited. It may seem God changes yet God never changes at all.

FredVB said:

Anyone can be taught this. Did God change? Did God's mind change?

Click to expand...

No of course not.

FredVB said:

God chose to do something, but realized afterward that this was wrong, and did otherwise? God did not know something to start with, but needed to learn that thing and do otherwise? God in reality is lacking in nothing, being unlimited. It may seem God changes yet God never changes at all.

Click to expand...

Yes, here Scripture to support this.

What God does Himself, its forever. Nothing can be added, nothing can be subtracted, our only response is to fear God- give Him our upmost reverence above all.

Ecc3:14 I know that whatever God does,
It shall be forever.
Nothing can be added to it,
And nothing taken from it.
God does it, that men should fear before Him.

Why we cannot take from or add to God's holy commandments.

Exo 32:16 Now the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God engraved on the tablets.

Our only correct response should be this after God spoke His Ten Commandments

Exo 20:20 And Moses said to the people, “Do not fear; for God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.”

repeated

Ecc12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:

Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
14 For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.

Rev 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— 7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”

8 And another angel followed, saying, “Babylon[f] is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.”

9 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

Which is why we know the location changed where God placed His laws 2Cor3:3 Heb8:10 Jer 31:33 not the laws itself Psa89:34 Mat5:18-19

SabbathBlessings said:

No of course not.

Yes, here Scripture to support this.

What God does Himself, its forever. Nothing can be added, nothing can be subtracted, our only response is to fear God- give Him our upmost reverence above all.

Ecc3:14 I know that whatever God does,
It shall be forever.
Nothing can be added to it,
And nothing taken from it.
God does it, that men should fear before Him.

Why we cannot take from or add to God's holy commandments.

Exo 32:16 Now the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God engraved on the tablets.

Our only correct response should be this after God spoke His Ten Commandments

Exo 20:20 And Moses said to the people, “Do not fear; for God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.”

repeated

Ecc12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:

Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
14 For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.

Rev 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— 7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”

8 And another angel followed, saying, “Babylon[f] is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.”

9 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

Which is why we know the location changed where God placed His laws 2Cor3:3 Heb8:10 Jer 31:33 not the laws itself Psa89:34 Mat5:18-19

Click to expand...

God's commandments in our hearts is something the design from God was including when God first made commandments known. They were given externally when those told, to be God's people, did not take them to heart. God meant them still to be in our hearts. And there is resistance still.

FredVB said:

God's commandments in our hearts is something the design from God was including when God first made commandments known. They were given externally when those told, to be God's people, did not take them to heart. God meant them still to be in our hearts. And there is resistance still.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Psa 40:8 I delight to do Your will, O my God, And Your law is within my heart.”

There is God's will to start with, everything afterward is compromise to it. God is not willing to just let those God created perish, so for those fallen because of sin God accommodates them with things said for human people, Jews or gentiles, besides God's will, for more to be redeemed from the greater opportunity, while God's will should be more important to us.

BobRyan said:

Heb 8:6-12 makes it very clear that Christ is the one speaking at Sinai

1 Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord set up, not man... 6 But now He (Christ) has obtained a more excellent ministry, to the extent that He (Christ) is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

A New Covenant
7 For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second. 8 For in finding fault with the people, He (Christ) says,

“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord (Christ),
When I (Christ) will bring about a new covenant
With the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
9 Not like the covenant which I (Christ) made with their fathers
On the day I (Christ) took them by the hand
To bring them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I (Christ) did not care about them, says the Lord (Christ).
10 For this is the covenant which I (Christ) will make with the house of Israel
After those days, declares the Lord:
I (Christ) will put My (Christ) laws into their minds,
And write them on their hearts.
And I (Christ) will be their God,
And they shall be My (Christ) people.
11 And they will not teach, each one his fellow citizen,
And each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For they will all know Me (Christ),
From the least to the greatest of them.
12 For I (Christ) will be merciful toward their wrongdoings,
And their sins I (Christ) will no longer remember.”
===============================

So then the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 known to Jeremiah and his readers writes the LAW of God "on heart and mind". That includes the TEN according to Paul in Eph 6:2 having "honor your father and mother as the first commandment WITH a promise". And even in the NT - "Sin IS the transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4. Which means it is "still a sin" - to take God's name in vain (Ex 20:7) - even for born again Christians.

So then NO such thing as "God's covenant deleted/removed/annulled/set-aside/made void" - the Commandments of God.

Rather "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
And "this IS the Love of God that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:2-3

Where saints are commanded to "fulfill" compliance with those commandments found in the Law of Moses as noted by Christ in Matt 19 where He says "KEEP the Commandments" - and Paul quotes from that same list in Rom 13.

Rom 3:"31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? Far from it! On the contrary, we establish the Law."

The moral law of God includes "the Ten" having "' honor your father and mother' as the first commandment with a promise" according to Paul in Eph 6:2

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

We can notice that the Law of God known to Jeremiah and his readers included the TEN - as Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations freely admit


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.


That is a good example of a text that does not say "the Commandments of God have been made obsolete" but rather the old covenant is obsolete for those under the New Covenant.

Here is another one "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

No wonder these Sunday sources all affirm all TEN of the Ten Commandments for Christians and the Sabbath in Eden for all mankind from Eden to the cross.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism

I like it when Christians from many different points of view can all agree on the same obvious Bible details.



Yep! That is the whole point of this.

Click to expand...

Then why the fuss about pork consumption? That’s not one of the ten commandments but in another thread we saw a rather surprising amount of SDA opposition to the idea of eating pork.

There is also the issue as to what following the commandments means and the signifigance of the summary of the Law. Additionally Christ clearly declared a New Commandment was given to us, that being that we love one another as He loved us. So that takes us to eleven, at least, not counting His instructions concerning Baptism and the Eucharist or the many other things Christ told us to do.

The issue really comes down to one of interpretation. We also have to consider context - Hebrews was written to the Jews (most believe it was written by St. Paul, but the author is not identified, which is why this book was disputed in antiquity - uncertain provenance, but it was ultimately accepted as canonical thanks to St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius of Caesarea and others, and I’m glad it was), but in his epistles to the gentiles, particularly Romans and Galatians, the Holy Apostle Paul stresses the importance of salvific faith and cautions against trying to adhere to the Torah and against legalism.

Also regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church, there is no singular Eastern Orthodox catechism agreed to by all Orthodox jurisdictions - it does not exist. If you have found one you should provide a link to it so I can see which one you have found and who authored it, and when. Many Orthodox are opposed to catechisms regarding them as a Western thing (I am not, but many are, believing that rather we should continue to do catechesis in a manner uninfluenced by the question and answer format popularized by Luther’s shorter catechism).

BobRyan said:

show both non-Christian-Jews and ALSO God fearing gentiles (also non-Christian) in the SAME worship services Sabbath after Sabbath in the synagogues.

Click to expand...

Not quite, it shows St. Paul preaching to Jews and Proselytes (converts to Judaism.

But if you’re going to mention that then we also have to review other examples of worship on the first day, for example, Acts 2, and the fact that our Lord rose from the dead on the First Day, and the fact that no verse prohibits worship on the First Day.

We Orthodox, if you read our liturgical texts, and also the Roman Catholics according to their liturgical texts, believe the Sabbath to be Saturday (you have found some Roman Catholic documents which say otherwise but these are mostly obsolete and were not issued by the Vatican, but if we look at the Missale Romanum, it refers to the Seventh Day as Sabbato - and I believe my Catholic friends @Valletta @Xeno.of.athens @chevyontheriver @concretecamper and @Michie among others can affirm the authority of the calendar in the Missal. The objection is rather over the legalistic adherence to this, and additionally, to legalism over other issues, such as pork consumption, particularly where this is selective, since pork is prohibited under the levitical code but other things required by it such as the execution of those who disrespect their parents, animal sacrifices, and other things, are not being done, and in the case of pork we have New Testament indications that there is no prohibition on it, and a great many martyred Christians known to have been saved ate of it, and furthermore Christ our True God did say that what goes into a man does not defile him, neither is it part of the ten commandments, so decalogue-centricity does not apply either.

Rather the real issue becomes a focus on adherence to arbitrary and specific commandments, especially the Sabbath commandment, which appears to be prioritized over at least some of the commandments given the amount of time spent talking about it, in a manner which appears to contradict the relaxed approach Christ took to the Sabbath, for example gleaning grain on the Sabbath, telling a man healed from paralysis to pick up his bed and carry it, which violated a Rabinnical standard, and blessing the rescue of a cow stuck in a ditch on the Sabbath, and other things. Additionally, those commandments and aspects of the Old Testament which you do feel are imperative are interpreted in an extremely literal manner, but we know from Luke chapter 24 that the Old Testament is primarily Christological prophecy and with regards to the Sabbath, Christ uses it to refer to coming into His rest in the sense of the life of the World to Come.

By the way, respectfully, on this issue, one thing I have not seen any Adventist do, and if one were to do this I would be genuinely interested, is to provide a verse by verse exegesis of Galatians 3:15 - 5:15 that explains how each indviidual verse pertains to Adventist doctrine. In the past when I’ve mentioned this pericope, I’ve simply had 2 Peter 3:16 quoted at me (likewise when quoting Colossians 2:8-2:16. and certain sections of Romans, and Ephesians, and other texts that stress salvation by grace as discussed in John 3:16.

BABerean2 said:

You fail to comprehend that Christ is our Sabbath rest every day of the week for those who are in the New Covenant.


Col 2:16 Let no one, then, judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths,
Col 2:17 which are a shadow of the coming things, and the body is of the Christ;

.

Click to expand...

This is an important point.

I was also discouraged to see you accused of having an argument with Scripture - I myself have faced that accusation on numerous occasions even with regards to texts which are generally regarded as being of a disputed meaning. It seems like there is no understanding of divergent interpretations made in good faith. Which would be less of an issue if the exegesis being promoted were more internally consistent; if a Confessional Lutheran or Continuing Anglican or a Calvinist* got on my case about a Scriptural doctrine I would be concerned and would double check, due to the thoroughness of their systematic theology, and if a fellow Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian Christian (of the Church of the East, as opposed to the ethnic Assyrians in the Syriac Orthodox Church who are Oriental Orthodox) got on my case about it I would be quite concerned and would have to triple check. But it very seldom happens, and never in the sense of “you just disagree with Scripture”, rather a more irenic approach is usually encountered wherein questions are asked and we walk through the pericope (the verses) in question.

Now earlier in the thread you expressed a concern regarding the Trinity and while I have seen some concerning views about the Trinity, if you were worried about the idea of Christ giving Moses the Old Covenant on Mount Sinai, I wouldn’t worry about that too much, simply because the Pentateuch reports Moses seeing Christ from behind - and interacting with Him as if he were present bodily, and in the New Testament we are informed that no one has seen the Father at any time, and there is quite a lot of Scriptural basis to support the idea that God the Father lacks a body and is not in any sense corporeal or local but is rather unoriginate and inscrutable but entirely loving, and His uncreated Son and Word, our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, reveals Him to us, allowing us to behold the Father through Him, and His uncreated Spirit, who proceeds from Him eternally just as Christ is begotten before all ages, the Lord and Giver of Life who spoke through the Prophet, descended on the Church on Pentecost (on a Sunday, at around 9 AM, no less!) on the 200 disciples in the Upper Room, and is with Christians since that time, as our Comforter and Paraclete.

But it is also the case that the Trinity is indivisible and undivided and I think what you were concerned about, correct me if I’m mistaken, was posts which appeared to divide the Trinity or claim one person being present meant that the others were positively not present, which is not how things work. God is God, abiding in three persons, and the idea that if one encounters Him in one prosopon (person) one cannot concurrently encounter him in others, seems to me to be modalist, and also there’s the issue of it being directly refuted by the perception of all three persons at the Baptism of Christ in the Jordan (Christ the incarnate Son and Word of God, the Holy Spirit descending like a dove, and the voice of the Father being heard declaring “This is my Son in whom I am well pleased.”

*Indeed I adhered to a lightweight Calvinism for a time, essentially during my period in Congregationalism at one point my views were basically that of the type of liturgical Calvinism often called Reformed Catholic, and I greatly admire a number of Calvinists for their moral theology, such as Dr. James Kennedy, memory eternal, and Dr. Albert Mohler; after the repose of Pope John Paul II I think Dr. Kennedy was the foremost moral theologian in Western Christianity and after his repose in 2007 which was heartbreaking for me i think Dr. Mohler has been the foremost moral theologian in Western Christianity, on a par with the likes of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch Shenouda II and among English speaking Orthodox, Fr. Josiah Trenham.

BobRyan said:

what does that have to do with this thread??

Click to expand...

You spoke of an “Eastern Orthodox Catechism” - I regret to form you that any such catechism that exists is not an offiical catechism approved by the Eastern Orthodox Communion as a whole (since issuing one would require either (a) an ecumenical synod or (b) for the catechism to be endorsed by the Holy Synod of all 15 autocephalous Orthodox Churches (Albanian, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Bulgarian, Constantinopolitan, Cypriot, Czech-Slovak, Georgian, Hagiopolitan (Jerusalem), North Macedonian, OCA, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Serbian) and by some of the autonomous churches or those of disputed status (ROCOR, Finland, Japanan, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova, Sinai, GoArch, AOCNA, among the former, and among the latter, the UOC/OCU) which is very unlikely. Also that’s just the canonical churches - there is a possibility your Eastern Orthodox catechism was published by Old Calendarists like the “Genuine Orthodox Church.”

BobRyan said:

entile converts to Judaism refers to gentiles worshipping the one true God of scripture. The OT is clear that they did not have to be circumcised in order to stop worshiping idols and worship the one true God.

Acts 13 shows that even in the NT the nonChristian Jews were freely allowing gentiles to worship with them in the synagogues.

Click to expand...

No, it shows proselytes - Gentiles who were considering conversion to Judaism, which was a big deal at the time and are referred to by Christ our True God in Matthew 23:15, and in Acts 2:10 and Acts 6:5 (and in Acts 13:43. and elsewhere). Here is a useful and uncontroversial argument explaining this fact: Topical Bible: Proselytes: Later Called Devout Greeks

BobRyan said:

Acts 2 is a great example of people breaking bread every day including Tuesdays.

Click to expand...

The text doesn’t say that and I would note the Third Hour (9 AM) is a very odd time of the day to break bread - the concept of the Sunday brunch would not begin to appear for at least another 1,930 years. The fact that all of the Apostles were there along with 200 disciples indicates worship (which would make sense, because Pentecost is a holy day even for the Jews) - when we combine this with other texts including the Resurrection of our Lord it becomes extremely obvious that Sunday worship was normal. As was Saturday worship - the early church normally worshipped on both days with at a minimum Vespers happening on Saturday and the Eucharist happening on Sunday, often at midnight or before dawn following Compline and Matins due to the risk of being caught, particularly for Christians worshipping on the graves of the martyrs. (see: the Oxford History of Christian Worship, the Cambridge History of Christianity (vol. 1-2), the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea, etc.

BobRyan said:

I'll admit, I find that pretty handy

Click to expand...

It’s the truth. If we look at the Missale Romanum, at the Ordo, the liturgical calendar, for the past week, we have:


(the last entry being today)

The Liturgist said:

Then why the fuss about pork consumption? That’s not one of the ten commandments but in another thread we saw a rather surprising amount of SDA opposition to the idea of eating pork.

There is also the issue as to what following the commandments means and the signifigance of the summary of the Law. Additionally Christ clearly declared a New Commandment was given to us, that being that we love one another as He loved us.

Click to expand...

As far as what to eat, all the things claimed to be permitted only after the world wide flood and thousands of years of previous human history are concessions from God that more would not perish, yet not of God's will shown in the perfect design, showing with this same basis that God does not change and God's will does not change. And, permission claimed is completely in error, when in reality there should be nothing with blood.

Commandments are not ended. The change is that of Christ recognized for the priesthood, sacrifice system, and the way for being clean in the way needed for being before God as we need in coming to God. All shortcomings are covered in Christ, for those really redeemed. Growth spiritually must still happen.

FredVB said:

Commandments are not ended

Click to expand...

That would be a strawman fallacy in that I did not say that they had been.

Rather, my point was that how the commandments are to be implemented.

Christ our True God did furthermore issue a New Commandment, that we love each other as He loves us.

FredVB said:

The change is that of Christ recognized for the priesthood, sacrifice system, and the way for being clean in the way needed for being before God as we need in coming to God.

Click to expand...

According to our incarnate God Jesus Christ, it is not what goes into our mouth but what comes out that defiles us (Matthew 15:17-19).

FredVB said:

And, permission claimed is completely in error, when in reality there should be nothing with blood.

Click to expand...

The Holy Apostles in Acts 15 prohibited blood as food or drink, but specifically allowed all other things except the meat of strangled animals and food sacrificed to idols, and St. Paul further clarifies that this would be acceptable were it not for the risk of scandalizing the faithful.

Speaking of St. Paul, how would you justify your theology in light of Romans chapter 6 and Galatians 3:15 - 5:15?

The Liturgist said:

That would be a strawman fallacy in that I did not say that they had been.

Rather, my point was that how the commandments are to be implemented.

Christ our True God did furthermore issue a New Commandment, that we love each other as He loves us.

According to our incarnate God Jesus Christ, it is not what goes into our mouth but what comes out that defiles us (Matthew 15:17-19).

The Holy Apostles in Acts 15 prohibited blood as food or drink, but specifically allowed all other things except the meat of strangled animals and food sacrificed to idols, and St. Paul further clarifies that this would be acceptable were it not for the risk of scandalizing the faithful.

Speaking of St. Paul, how would you justify your theology in light of Romans chapter 6 and Galatians 3:15 - 5:15?

Click to expand...

Alright, you did not say commandments came to an end. A number of others do say that.

Jesus clarified the meaning of commandments for us, and that was not limiting them.

Love is important and necessary, but it was meant from the beginning. After the fall, people did not love enough. So further commandments were needed when what would be needed was not in the hearts of such people.

I am sorry to see use of scripture passages by believers completely apart from context without any shame. I should just say look again without spelling this out to make any push toward embarrassment.

God had the perfect design, and love does not cause fear but includes mercy. God cares for creatures and provides for all life. Now, why would God prohibit something from anyone at all? Is God unreasonable with that, and would God change? I would think not. Malachi 3:6

What was the promise to the Seed? It was about being the blessing to the nations. The law from God did not change that, which was the priority, and nothing else does. But the commandments are still the same, if they are good, they are always good. Nothing good became bad. Any change is from us, but God makes it so that we can change back, with turning to God's will for us.

BobRyan said:

The new Covenant (Jer 31:31-34 Heb 8) always had the Law written on the heart.
That is the Gospel "preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8 ,, only one Gospel Gal 1:6-9

Click to expand...

Yes, what God commands is supposed to be on the heart, and the new covenant is for enabling that... among further things. What was preached to Abraham that was good news was the promise of the blessing to the nations through him. Did he learn that he must have faith in Christ's atonement then?