An attempt to eliminate God.

[Elder 111]

In my studies it has dawn on me that the attempt to have God's Holy Ten commandment law abolished is an attempt to abolish God.
I see that on so many levels.

1. Removal of God laws is the removal of His government. How can one rule with out Law? Which ruler does that?
2. To take down God's law one would have to take down God, the law giver!
3. New rules new ruler.
4. God's law is under His throne/mercy seat, to get to His law one would definitely have to move Him. That amounts to dethroning God!

We do not understand the extent of our advocating the abolition of the Ten commandments. Even the first 4 directly refer to God. When we remove these where is God? Where is His sovereignty/worship and dignity as God?
3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

 

[listed]

In my studies it has dawn on me that the attempt to have God's Holy Ten commandment law abolished is an attempt to abolish God.
I see that on so many levels.

1. Removal of God laws is the removal of His government. How can one rule with out Law? Which ruler does that?
2. To take down God's law one would have to take down God, the law giver!
3. New rules new ruler.
4. God's law is under His throne/mercy seat, to get to His law one would definitely have to move Him. That amounts to dethroning God!

We do not understand the extent of our advocating the abolition of the Ten commandments. Even the first 4 directly refer to God. When we remove these where is God? Where is His sovereignty/worship and dignity as God?
3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

What can we say without getting into trouble here? After gaining control of myself all I can say is the rejection of God's prophets and the testimony of Jesus allow this.

God replaced the covenant law with a covenant of promises.

 

[DamianWarS]

What can we say without getting into trouble here? After gaining control of myself all I can say is the rejection of God's prophets and the testimony of Jesus allow this.

God replaced the covenant law with a covenant of promises.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but fulfill them"

My question to the OP is what is the common product of a abolished law and a fulfilled law?

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Does "fulfill" mean "add to"?

If I post a job posting, and an unemployed man fulfills it, does that position still need to be fulfilled? Are the requirements of that position still left undone?

 

[DamianWarS]

Does "fulfill" mean "add to"?

If I post a job posting, and an unemployed man fulfills it, does that position still need to be fulfilled? Are the requirements of that position still left undone?

Fulfilled means completed, satisfied. Using your example if a job posting is fulfilled then the job posting itself no longer has purpose because it is finished. If someone comes to your office and asks about the job posting the reply would be something like "the job has been fulfilled and we no longer need someone". You don't keep posting the ad because the right person came along and completed the requirements for the job posting.

In a sense the law was a job posting and Jesus was the qualified person that fulfilled the posting.

If I reject the job posting and make it void not hiring anyone OR have it fulfilled by the right person the same result happens which is I am no longer accepting applicants and the job posting itself is no longer needed. Both scenarios have the same fate for the posting but one is left fulfilled and the other is left unfulfilled.

The law today is fulfilled by Christ so we need to stop looking at the job posting and start looking at the one who fulfilled it.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Completed and satisfied... very different from Abolished, yet still doesn't have a hold on my life today. Sounds like what Jesus said.

 

[Elder 111]

What can we say without getting into trouble here? After gaining control of myself all I can say is the rejection of God's prophets and the testimony of Jesus allow this.

God replaced the covenant law with a covenant of promises.

You mean that instead of living a life of righteousness by obeying God's law by the indwelling of His holy Spirit I have a free pass.

 

[Elder 111]

Does "fulfill" mean "add to"?

If I post a job posting, and an unemployed man fulfills it, does that position still need to be fulfilled? Are the requirements of that position still left undone?

Does not fulfill mean to carry out to perform?
It does not mean remove make redundant!
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Fulfill can not be to do away with , to make void. For Jesus said that He did not come to destroy, is that not plain!! Then He says that not even the dot of an "I" or the crossing of a "T" will pass from the law. How can that mean the same as "done away with"
Are we so blind!!!

 

[Elder 111]

Fulfilled means completed, satisfied. Using your example if a job posting is fulfilled then the job posting itself no longer has purpose because it is finished. If someone comes to your office and asks about the job posting the reply would be something like "the job has been fulfilled and we no longer need someone". You don't keep posting the ad because the right person came along and completed the requirements for the job posting.

In a sense the law was a job posting and Jesus was the qualified person that fulfilled the posting.

If I reject the job posting and make it void not hiring anyone OR have it fulfilled by the right person the same result happens which is I am no longer accepting applicants and the job posting itself is no longer needed. Both scenarios have the same fate for the posting but one is left fulfilled and the other is left unfulfilled.

The law today is fulfilled by Christ so we need to stop looking at the job posting and start looking at the one who fulfilled it.

The analogy is flawed. The law is not like the job posting but like the job, it needs to be done regardless of the post being taken or not. Jesus showed us how to do the work and is willing to give us the Holy Spirit for us to get it done too.

 

[Elder 111]

Completed and satisfied... very different from Abolished, yet still doesn't have a hold on my life today. Sounds like what Jesus said.

NO! Not at all. Mat 19:
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Looks like the ten to me! Jesus' words.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5)
“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” (Acts 15:10-11)

“For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Matthew 11:30)

You see in Acts 15 that forcing people to live under the burden of the Law is equated with putting God to the test. This passage says that the Law was a burden too great for the Jews to bear. How can Jesus's burden be the same if He said His burden was light?

Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Galatians 3:19-25)

This tells the purpose of the Law for us, and also explicitly states that we are no longer under it.

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. (Romans 7:6)

Can't get much clearer than that.

 

[Steeno7]

In my studies it has dawn on me that the attempt to have God's Holy Ten commandment law abolished is an attempt to abolish God.
I see that on so many levels.

1. Removal of God laws is the removal of His government. How can one rule with out Law? Which ruler does that?
2. To take down God's law one would have to take down God, the law giver!
3. New rules new ruler.
4. God's law is under His throne/mercy seat, to get to His law one would definitely have to move Him. That amounts to dethroning God!

We do not understand the extent of our advocating the abolition of the Ten commandments. Even the first 4 directly refer to God. When we remove these where is God? Where is His sovereignty/worship and dignity as God?
[/B][/SIZE]

To make the Law synonymous with God Himself is a grave and idolatrous error.

 

[listed]

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but fulfill them"

My question to the OP is what is the common product of a abolished law and a fulfilled law?

Interesting question.

 

[listed]

You mean that instead of living a life of righteousness by obeying God's law by the indwelling of His holy Spirit I have a free pass.

Is that not what you get after violating the law and run from it to grace?

 

[BornAgainBrian]

You mean that instead of living a life of righteousness by obeying God's law by the indwelling of His holy Spirit I have a free pass.

Not at all. Romans 7 and Galatians 3 address your concern quite well.

 

[listed]

Does not fulfill mean to carry out to perform?
It does not mean remove make redundant!
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Fulfill can not be to do away with , to make void. For Jesus said that He did not come to destroy, is that not plain!! Then He says that not even the dot of an "I" or the crossing of a "T" will pass from the law. How can that mean the same as "done away with"
Are we so blind!!!

Yet you claim ceremonial aspects of the law have changed. Am I the only 1 who sees your double tongued post (lie)?

 

[listed]

The analogy is flawed. The law is not like the job posting but like the job, it needs to be done regardless of the post being taken or not. Jesus showed us how to do the work and is willing to give us the Holy Spirit for us to get it done too.

What does the Holy Spirit have to do to get you to believe the truth? The plain truth is you simply do not observe even the law you promote as it is written in the Scripture. You do observe an amended law for your ease in compliance. Who gave you this authority? Remember no jots or tittles of the law have passed.

 

[listed]

NO! Not at all. Mat 19:
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Looks like the ten to me! Jesus' words.

IOW we do not need Jesus. It seems to me you make either Jesus of John a liar when I read his Gospel.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

That's the part I never understood. The Bible never gives even a hint that a partial Law is ok. It's all or nothing!

 

[DamianWarS]

Does not fulfill mean to carry out to perform?
It does not mean remove make redundant!
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Fulfill can not be to do away with , to make void. For Jesus said that He did not come to destroy, is that not plain!! Then He says that not even the dot of an "I" or the crossing of a "T" will pass from the law. How can that mean the same as "done away with"
Are we so blind!!!

If I destroy a contract the contract I break it and want it no more; I refuse to follow it. If I fulfill the contract the contract is also no more and I no longer need to follow it yet following it was my pleasure.

The difference is in the former I refuse to follow and what nothing to do with the contract. Any copy of it I would seek to destroy so I am not bound by it. In the latter I don't destroy the contract I instead hang it proudly on the wall because it represents something I was a part of and is something I want to remember. Both examples have the same product however.