God's TEN Commandments: Keep them? or break them?

[VictorC]

Here is what Martin Luther said about the TEN Commandments -

Those who declare war on God's TEN Commandments find no sympathy in Luther's writings for that sort of solution. He condemns it.

And as we see in the section above even Victor's reach for Luther is not helping with the 'toss the Ten Commandments under the bus' solution that some would have proposed.



I simply point out that Luther rejects the idea of dumping the TEN Commandments when he quotes Ex 20:6 as the condemning statement for those who would do such a thing. Since you are the one bringing Luther into this - I thought it would be of interest.

I certainly find it "instructive" that your own strategy for dealing with the issue is condemned by the source you bring up.

Just not in real life.

you seem to suppose that when you have imagined something we all see the same vision. I find your logic "illusive" at that point.

Here again you offer a form of fiction as your argument. I merely point out by quoting verbatim Luther's comment on the subject of the "TEN Commandments" -- he does not trash them in his conclusion but rather claims they are applicable to the saints still today.

I have stated repeatedly that your sunday-sources affirm the TEN Commandments as still applicable to the saints but they attempt to bend/edit them to suit their traditions.

My point is that at least they knew enough not to be at war with them and declare that they were simply ignoring them.

Here again - stating the obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, the point of my post is very simple. Your use of extra-Biblical sources that contradict themselves marks them as unreliable. You alternate between acceptance and rejection of these sources, showing that your rationale for using them is fallacious at best.

I -and others- have wondered why you show no interest in the Law for its own testimony. You have argued that the sabbath came to an end, and then contradict yourself in asserting that the sabbath exists outside the Law that ordained it. You can't reconcile these assertions, and you keep rejecting Scripture that has the answer to your self-imposed poisoned well.

 

[from scratch]

Here is what Martin Luther said about the TEN Commandments -

Those who declare war on God's TEN Commandments find no sympathy in Luther's writings for that sort of solution. He condemns it.

And as we see in the section above even Victor's reach for Luther is not helping with the 'toss the Ten Commandments under the bus' solution that some would have proposed.



I simply point out that Luther rejects the idea of dumping the TEN Commandments when he quotes Ex 20:6 as the condemning statement for those who would do such a thing. Since you are the one bringing Luther into this - I thought it would be of interest.

I certainly find it "instructive" that your own strategy for dealing with the issue is condemned by the source you bring up.

Just not in real life.

you seem to suppose that when you have imagined something we all see the same vision. I find your logic "illusive" at that point.

Here again you offer a form of fiction as your argument. I merely point out by quoting verbatim Luther's comment on the subject of the "TEN Commandments" -- he does not trash them in his conclusion but rather claims they are applicable to the saints still today.

I have stated repeatedly that your sunday-sources affirm the TEN Commandments as still applicable to the saints but they attempt to bend/edit them to suit their traditions.

My point is that at least they knew enough not to be at war with them and declare that they were simply ignoring them.

Here again - stating the obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

No but the following do for the Christian -

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held

Once again they're not our Sunday sources. We didn't bring them up you did.

 

[dhh712]

Looking down, hardly. The law condemns them, not the pro grace crowd.

The law definitely condemns those who try to follow it because it is impossible for a mere human to keep it (only Christ was the faithful witness). I'm still not convinced that the "pro grace" crowd does not look down on those who want to keep the law out of love for God though. I have the impression that they think they are legalists.

I'd say we're trying to drag them up to grace.

I'm sure you know that only God can do such a thing. Those who do try to keep God's commands do have the grace of God. They would not be wanting to keep God's law out of love for Him without it, they wouldn't love His law.

They run from the law to grace on violation anyway.

I'm not sure what is meant by this. Are you saying they seek grace when they transgress the law (which is done on a daily basis)? I would say that they run to Christ their mediator and reconciler to God when this happens. They already have grace.

Why not be a full time gracer?

They already are. Loving the law and having grace are one in the same thing.

 

[from scratch]

The law definitely condemns those who try to follow it because it is impossible for a mere human to keep it (only Christ was the faithful witness). I'm still not convinced that the "pro grace" crowd does not look down on those who want to keep the law out of love for God though. I have the impression that they think they are legalists.

I think the pro law people do it to themselves without the help of the pro grace people. Read the testimonies of the SDA formers. They are all over the net. There are even a few out reach sites that collect them and have fresh testimonies weekly. The holiness movement has the same problem. Its based on performance of the flesh to a rules list.

Your impression is correct for the most part. I've never been approached with less than performance requirements for salvation. Recently an SDA even admitted to such here at CF.

I'm sure you know that only God can do such a thing. Those who do try to keep God's commands do have the grace of God. They would not be wanting to keep God's law out of love for Him without it, they wouldn't love His law.

I'd disagree. They think and teach salvation by works mostly of the law. It is said regularly here to have salvation one must keep the law. The Bible says one has to choose between the law and grace. They are opposites and cancel the other out. Since the law only offers death and never eternal life (salvation) those who demand the law can't be saved according to Gal 5:4. This isn't my requirement. Jesus even said everyone must enter through Him and to try anything else is theft - John 10. That's Jesus and not my requirement.

I'm not sure what is meant by this. Are you saying they seek grace when they transgress the law (which is done on a daily basis)? I would say that they run to Christ their mediator and reconciler to God when this happens. They already have grace.

Yes that's exactly what I mean. They teach and preach here all the time about cheap grace and every time the sin the run from the law to get exception from its punishment. They say we're delivered from the punishment of the law. That isn't Biblical. Then they carry on as though nothing happened. That's not law observance.

They already are. Loving the law and having grace are one in the same thing.

Nope There is no provision in the law for grace. Its violation always gets death.

 

[from scratch]

Nope, I just think that instead of being baited into long explanations to refute a ton of cut and paste nonsense we should pick and choose and get to the points that cut to the heart of the matter. I don't think there is much of an audience reading these threads in the first place and those who do will probably quickly get annoyed at the excessively long posts from one side and to the point of the other side.

That really gets under their skin bad.

 

[from scratch]

Here is what Martin Luther said about the TEN Commandments -

Those who declare war on God's TEN Commandments find no sympathy in Luther's writings for that sort of solution. He condemns it.

And as we see in the section above even Victor's reach for Luther is not helping with the 'toss the Ten Commandments under the bus' solution that some would have proposed.



I simply point out that Luther rejects the idea of dumping the TEN Commandments when he quotes Ex 20:6 as the condemning statement for those who would do such a thing. Since you are the one bringing Luther into this - I thought it would be of interest.

I certainly find it "instructive" that your own strategy for dealing with the issue is condemned by the source you bring up.

Just not in real life.

you seem to suppose that when you have imagined something we all see the same vision. I find your logic "illusive" at that point.

Here again you offer a form of fiction as your argument. I merely point out by quoting verbatim Luther's comment on the subject of the "TEN Commandments" -- he does not trash them in his conclusion but rather claims they are applicable to the saints still today.

I have stated repeatedly that your sunday-sources affirm the TEN Commandments as still applicable to the saints but they attempt to bend/edit them to suit their traditions.

My point is that at least they knew enough not to be at war with them and declare that they were simply ignoring them.

Here again - stating the obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

Did he really do that? Be the first to mention Luther? Got a post number? I want to see it myself, but not bad enough to go hunting. It usually you that do such stuff and claim someone else is guilty.

 

[Sophrosyne]

They teach and preach here all the time about cheap grace and every time the sin the run from the law to get exception from its punishment. They say we're delivered from the punishment of the law. That isn't Biblical. Then they carry on as though nothing happened. That's not law observance.Nope There is no provision in the law for grace. Its violation always gets death.

Cheap Law.... pretend to keep it.... break it and then condemn others who "break it" by refusing to keep it while turning a blind eye to those around them still pretending.

 

[from scratch]

Cheap Law.... pretend to keep it.... break it and then condemn others who "break it" by refusing to keep it while turning a blind eye to those around them still pretending.

Figaroe ain't it funny what the children say? That's as close as I can come to the song. Yep it dates me.

 

[jackmt]

Will someone tell me exactly what is entailed in "keeping the Sabbath?"

 

[dhh712]

I think the pro law people do it to themselves without the help of the pro grace people. Read the testimonies of the SDA formers. They are all over the net. There are even a few out reach sites that collect them and have fresh testimonies weekly. The holiness movement has the same problem. Its based on performance of the flesh to a rules list.

I don't know what an SDA former is. I think these people must be of a different faith than me then (especially if it is based on a performance scale--that is very heretical). I just hear of people saying Presbyterians are legalists which isn't true. If we were under the law, then we would be condemned; only we're not, we're under the covenant of grace. That does not mean that the law should be discarded. Who ever loves God keeps His commandments. It is well known that we can never keep God's commandments, that we break them in thought, word, and action every day.

I There is no provision in the law for grace. Its violation always gets death.

There isn't. There is only condemnation. We are in perfect agreement there. What I mean by having grace is that we have that gift of faith which God gave to us; in that, we come to a relationship and knowledge of God which brings about an intense love for Him. Because of that love, we want to do what He has commanded us to do. We know we can't do that and it kills us to be in these weak vessels of flesh that strive to do worldly things that separate us from God. That doesn't mean the spiritual bodies which God has awakened in us upon the gift of faith to us are not craving to uphold the commandments He has given us. They are. But thank God for providing us with a Saviour and Redeemer so that we can have communion with Him without having to do the impossible, which our physical bodies are unable to do.

 

[from scratch]

Will someone tell me exactly what is entailed in "keeping the Sabbath?"

We can start with Ex 20:8-11. Do you need a long commentary? If so I suggest a reading of the Sabbath and law threads.

 

[from scratch]

I don't know what an SDA former is. I think these people must be of a different faith than me then (especially if it is based on a performance scale--that is very heretical). I just hear of people saying Presbyterians are legalists which isn't true. If we were under the law, then we would be condemned; only we're not, we're under the covenant of grace. That does not mean that the law should be discarded. Who ever loves God keeps His commandments. It is well known that we can never keep God's commandments, that we break them in thought, word, and action every day.

You really don't know what a former is? Its an expression used by SDA people to describe those who have left their church. Maybe a dictionary might help you some.

I'm slightly curious are you either a Presbyterian or SDA? Or are you just making an argument? Please answer both questions.

There isn't. There is only condemnation. We are in perfect agreement there. What I mean by having grace is that we have that gift of faith which God gave to us; in that, we come to a relationship and knowledge of God which brings about an intense love for Him. Because of that love, we want to do what He has commanded us to do. We know we can't do that and it kills us to be in these weak vessels of flesh that strive to do worldly things that separate us from God. That doesn't mean the spiritual bodies which God has awakened in us upon the gift of faith to us are not craving to uphold the commandments He has given us. They are. But thank God for providing us with a Saviour and Redeemer so that we can have communion with Him without having to do the impossible, which our physical bodies are unable to do.

What exactly does God command or require of the Christian?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Will someone tell me exactly what is entailed in "keeping the Sabbath?"

I couldn't tell you exactly but I can give you a starting point. The "Sabbath" starts at sundown on Friday and extends to sundown on Saturday. Some change this to Saturday (time zone, calendar) only which isn't correct via the Bible. In order to keep the Sabbath one must totally refrain from all work and not cause anyone else to work on their behalf which includes all who dwell in the premises of their property. Typically serious Sabbath keepers prepare in advance for the day making sure all chores are done meals needing cooking ar done etc so they won't do any labor. The problem is that in modern society we have providers of services such as water, gas, electric, internet, phone, etc. These services have people working all the time to maintain them and if you use them at all then you are essentially associated with attributing to people working on the Sabbath Day on your behalf. We see SDA here keeping a modified version of the Sabbath that doesn't have to deal with a lot of issues (causing others to work on their behalf).

 

[from scratch]

I couldn't tell you exactly but I can give you a starting point. The "Sabbath" starts at sundown on Friday and extends to sundown on Saturday. Some change this to Saturday (time zone, calendar) only which isn't correct via the Bible. In order to keep the Sabbath one must totally refrain from all work and not cause anyone else to work on their behalf which includes all who dwell in the premises of their property. Typically serious Sabbath keepers prepare in advance for the day making sure all chores are done meals needing cooking ar done etc so they won't do any labor. The problem is that in modern society we have providers of services such as water, gas, electric, internet, phone, etc. These services have people working all the time to maintain them and if you use them at all then you are essentially associated with attributing to people working on the Sabbath Day on your behalf. We see SDA here keeping a modified version of the Sabbath that doesn't have to deal with a lot of issues (causing others to work on their behalf).

 

[dhh712]

You really don't know what a former is? Its an expression used by SDA people to describe those who have left their church. Maybe a dictionary might help you some.

I don't know what SDA is; instead of looking it up I thought you might just tell me (not too curious though, if you don't want to, that's fine; I can get enough from context and they don't seem like people I would be in much agreement with anyway). From what I have learned, a former is someone who forms something, could be anything, or the first of two options as opposed to latter; I'm not quite sure how it means someone who has left a church.

I'm slightly curious are you either a Presbyterian or SDA? Or are you just making an argument?

I attend an RPCna (Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America) Church. Just giving my opinion. I get this impression that some people think following the law (or rather, wanting to follow it, attempting to) makes you a legalist. I feel that some people might not understand that it depends on what your motive is for wanting to do so (though probably there would be some who disagree with that).

Yet my opinion is that legalists are only those who think that attempting to perform the law--for no one can keep it perfectly--will enable them to have eternal communion with God. I personally lean toward the idea that if one were to perfectly keep the law this would gain them salvation, yet no one is able to do this. The only hang up I have with this is original sin--so even if someone were to perfectly obey the law from the time they were born, it still may not be enough to merit them eternal communion with God due to original sin. I don't quite understand the philosophy of legalists since they are trying to perform something which isn't possible.

What exactly does God command or require of the Christian?

Of the Christian, nothing more or less than what He requires of all, that we perfectly conform to His commandments.

 

[BobRyan]

As soon as your uninspired sources ...
Martin Luther wrote this in 1535, in his Commentary on Galatians addressing v4:10:

The Apostle Paul knew what the false apostles were teaching the Galatians:
​

.

Here is what Martin Luther said about the TEN Commandments -

Martin Luther: "Small Catechism" -

TEN COMMANDMENTS:
...
What Does God Say of All These Commandments?
Answer.
He says thus (Exod. 20:5f): 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, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

What does this mean?--Answer.
God threatens to punish all that transgress these commandments. Therefore we should dread His wrath and not act contrary to these commandments. But He promises grace and every blessing to all that keep these commandments. Therefore we should also love and trust in Him, and gladly do [zealously and diligently order our whole life] according to His commandments.
http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#tencommandments

Those who declare war on God's TEN Commandments find no sympathy in Luther's writings for that sort of solution. He condemns it.

And as we see in the section above even Victor's reach for Luther is not helping with the 'toss the Ten Commandments under the bus' solution that some would have proposed.

This opening comment alone suggests that this post is addressed to me. You're on record in deleting Luther when it suited you.

I simply point out that Luther rejects the idea of dumping the TEN Commandments when he quotes Ex 20:6 as the condemning statement for those who would do such a thing. Since you are the one bringing Luther into this - I thought it would be of interest.

I certainly find it "instructive" that your own strategy for dealing with the issue is condemned by the source you bring up.

Stop here a moment, and consider that you're on record of contradicting the Ten Commandments in nearly every one of your posts.

Just not in real life.

you seem to suppose that when you have imagined something we all see the same vision. I find your logic "illusive" at that point.

You act as if an author contradicts himself, and doing so forms a basis for acceptance.

Here again you offer a form of fiction as your argument. I merely point out by quoting verbatim Luther's comment on the subject of the "TEN Commandments" -- he does not trash them in his conclusion but rather claims they are applicable to the saints still today.

You've already conceded that Luther's observation of Sabbatarian dependency ...

I have stated repeatedly that your sunday-sources affirm the TEN Commandments as still applicable to the saints but they attempt to bend/edit them to suit their traditions.

My point is that at least they knew enough not to be at war with them and declare that they were simply ignoring them.

Here again - stating the obvious.

Bob, the point of my post is very simple. Your use of extra-Biblical sources that contradict themselves marks them as unreliable.

It just means "you find them unreliable" because they are sunday-sources well known, well accepted that condemn your idea of trashing God's Ten Commandments.

I grant you that I would have expected you to find their statements "inconvenient" because you would much prefer to "imagine" that only SDAs hold to this view of not abolishing God's Ten Commandments or of admitting to the Sabbath commandment applicable to all mankind starting in Eden.

I think that is pretty obvious.

My entire point is that the fact that your own sunday-sources complain about the methods you are using -- is at least a "sign" for the objective unbiased readers.

in Christ,

Bob

You have argued that the sabbath came to an end,

I have not argued that in "real life" however.

Not sure what you are envisioning for us - perhaps a future event??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I attend an RPCna (Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America) Church. Just giving my opinion. I get this impression that some people think following the law (or rather, wanting to follow it, attempting to) makes you a legalist. I feel that some people might not understand that it depends on what your motive is for wanting to do so (though probably there would be some who disagree with that).
.

You may have read this post on page 9 of this thread -- This is the typical sort of thing that an SDA would post - so a number of people here opposed to the Commandments of God here will not like it.

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

Here is how the OP starts out.


God's TEN Commandments: Keep them? or break them?

The "Baptist Confession of Faith"
The "Westminster Confession of Faith"
The Catholic Catechism
D.L. Moody
R.C Sproul
Andy Stanley
Thomas Watson

For those whose only concern is trying to find the best way to downsize the TEN Commandments of God "to nine" - please notice that the list of sources above are all Sunday-keeping sources.


Here is how one of those sunday keeping sources present full support of the TEN Commandments.

Originally Posted by BobRyan

Since the question is also asked about the "Baptist Confession of Faith" affirmation of the TEN commandments as binding on all saints from Eden to this very day...

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

C.H. Spurgeon[FONT=&quot]

“The Perpetuity of the Law of God”
[/FONT]
Very great mistakes have been made about the law. Not long ago there were those about us who affirmed that the law is utterly abrogated and abolished, and they openly taught that believers were not bound to make the moral law the rule of their lives. What would have been sin in other men they counted to be no sin in themselves. From such Antinomianism as that may God deliver us. We are not under the law as the method of salvation, but we delight to see the law in the hand of Christ, and desire to obey the Lord in all things. Others have been met with who have taught that Jesus mitigated and softened down the law, and they have in effect said that the perfect law of God was too hard for imperfect beings, and therefore God has given us a milder and easier rule. These tread dangerously upon the verge of terrible error, although we believe that they are little aware of it.

Section 19 of the Baptist Confession of Faith .

Section 19
. The Law of God

• God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.

• The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the TEN COMMANDMENTS, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

• Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

• To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

• The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it.

• Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expected in this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace.

• The aforementioned uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but they sweetly comply with it, as the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do freely and cheerfully those things which the will of God, which is revealed in the law, requires to be done.

​

I have pretty much the same statement from the "Westminster Confession of Faith" for those who prefer that source.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't know what SDA is; instead of looking it up I thought you might just tell me .

Since I am actually an SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) I can help with some of that.

For example here is another post from page 9 that is just oohhh so typical of those SDA people -- the sort of thing they like to post.

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

Notice how Christ deals with religious leaders trying to find a way to set aside the commandments of God --


10 Commandments are –
“Commandments of God” Neh 10:29
“Law of God” Neh 10:29
“Word of God” Mark 7:13
“Commandment of God” Mark 7:6-13
NT “Scripture” James 2:8
NT “Law” – James 2:9-11
NT Commandments Eph 6:2, Rom 13:9, Romans 7:7-10


1John 2:
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.


John says -
Rev 22:
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.(KJV)

Christ said

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

In Mark 7 the religious leaders had figured out a way to sidestep the 5th commandment.

Christ was not pleased.
===========================================

 

[VictorC]

Bob, the point of my post is very simple. Your use of extra-Biblical sources that contradict themselves marks them as unreliable. You alternate between acceptance and rejection of these sources, showing that your rationale for using them is fallacious at best.

I -and others- have wondered why you show no interest in the Law for its own testimony. You have argued that the sabbath came to an end, and then contradict yourself in asserting that the sabbath exists outside the Law that ordained it. You can't reconcile these assertions, and you keep rejecting Scripture that has the answer to your self-imposed poisoned well.

...

When I remove the material that has already been answered, nothing in your post remains. Have you even read the preamble to the covenant God Spoke, recorded in Exodus 20? He specifies who the covenant embodied in the Ten Commandments is charged to. It doesn't include Christians.

We're still wondering why you "toss the Ten Commandments" away, and accuse others of your own actions.

 

[BobRyan]

The "supposed challenge" of being able to "ignore details" in both the Bible and even your own Sunday sources -- has never been something I have challenged you to do - nor have I doubted your ability in that regard.

I freely admit that you are quite capable in that regard - but if you expect all new posters that come to this thread to turn the same blind eye to the Bible texts listed regarding the Law of God and even to your own Sunday-Sources as they condemn your model of tossing the Law of God under a bus - to solve your issues with it - then I think the data does not show support for such speculation.

Still each one has free will - each can decide on their own --

But I do give you credit for making up a line about SDAs known for ignoring the Ten Commandments - that I have yet to find objective Bible students on this forum signing up for.

You may need to pursue that one with some actual data.

in Christ,

Bob