Is following the 10 commandments required for salvation?

[bbbbbbb]

What you say is wrong. We are told by Jesus do not kill, do not steal, do not lie. We are told thete os no condemnation for those in christ, and those in christ do not live on sin, that is, they love their neighbors as them selves, that is, they follow the ten commandments.

My fear is one day someone unsaved is going to ask you if they have to follow the ten commandments to be saved and you'll say no. So they'll lie, steal and cheat all the while thinking they are right with god. Knowing you'll be calked the least in tge kingdom of god does nothing for that poor soul suffering eternity in hell all because you wanted to play games with words. "But that's not what I meant" does no goid once one faces the judgement. You know, for a fact, that if we continue to live in sin we are not saved, you've as much said so. But because the words aren't exactly the way you say them you think that means something. All means is your doctrine is unsound. Do you deny that time and time again it says in the bible that those continuing living in sin won't enter the kingdom of god? Do you deny the scriptures that say all liars won't enter the kingdom of god, etc...? You know what the bible says, i've heard you paraphrase it enough. I know your reply is going to be something along the lines of but we're not saved ny works. This is why we are in the end days. People read in the bible that we must not live in sin but live in the spirit to be saved and deny it because they think not sinning is works.

Just a simple question here. When was the last time you completely rested on Saturday and did not leave your house?

 

[DeaconDean]

Just a simple question here. When was the last time you completely rested on Saturday and did not leave your house?

Simple question here.

Show me in the scriptures where the names of the days of the week are listed.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Simple question here.

Show me in the scriptures where the names of the days of the week are listed.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I was trying to keep it simple as in KISS for him lest he insist that his Sunday (or Saturday, for that matter) religiosity suffices for Sabbath-keeping.

 

[DeaconDean]

I was trying to keep it simple as in KISS for him lest he insist that his Sunday (or Saturday, for that matter) religiosity suffices for Sabbath-keeping.

My bad.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[bbbbbbb]

My bad.

God Bless

Till all are one.

My bad.

God Bless

Till all are one.

No problem.

 

[DeaconDean]

I am leery addressing this because it is such an emotional topic for many. If for some reason we can't have a reasonable discussion, I will just back out.

There are two words in Greek that are translated as new. The first is nehos, the second is kainos. The word nehos means "new in regards to age," so nehos would be something that is brand new. The word kainos means "new in regards to freshness," so this word leans toward the idea of being "renewed." In "every" case but once, if you see the words, "new covenant," it is kainos not nehos. So the Greek is suggesting a renewed covenant, not a new one.

We need a second witness... and we have one. Hebrews 8:8-11 is quoted directly from Jer. 31:31-34 and it is there that we read of a "new covenant." At least, in English. In the Greek it is of course a kainos covenant. In the Hebrew, in Jeremiah, the word is chadashah. That is the verb kodesh which means "to renew" being used as an adjective. So, in the Hebrew it is also, "renewed covenant."

So what is NEW... what is passing away? The covenant God called "everlasting" (Psalm 105:8-10) that is said to be "renewed" in two different biblical languages? No.... what is passing away and what is "BETTER" is the placement of the LAW. Ezekiel 11:19, Jer. 31:34... and a few other places speak of the Law being taken from STONE and being written directly on the HEART. So God is renewing His everlasting covenant and in the process taking that which was on stone and writing it Himself on our minds and hearts directly as part of the perfection process.

The old (stone) is passing away and a better way (law on the heart) is coming. The commandments are neither bondage nor antiquated... "Do not steal" and "love your parents" are still for today. It is the stone along with sin and death... that will pass... and life and the instructions of God inside us forever that is the better way.

In theory, I would agree.

When quoting from Hebrews, it is always necessary to remember to whom the writer was addressing.

Arthur W. Pink, in his "Exposition of Hebrews" says:

"This 8th chapter of Hebrews treats of two things: the sphere of our High Priest’s ministry and the better covenant with which it is connected: the one being in suited accord with the other. The 6th verse gives the connecting link between them. The apostle’s object in introducing the “new covenant” at this stage of his argument is obvious. It was to the old covenant that the whole administration of the Levitical priesthood was confined. The entire church-state of the Jews, with all the ordinances and worship of it, and all the privileges connected with it, depended wholly on the covenant which God made with them at Sinai. But the introduction of the new Priesthood necessarily abolished that covenant, and put an end to all the sacred ministrations which belong to it. This it is which the apostle here undertakes to prove. “The question which troubled the minds and hearts of the Hebrews was their relation to the Levitical priesthood, and to the old dispensation. The temple was still in Jerusalem, and the Levitical ordinances appointed by Moses were still being observed. Although the Sun had risen, the moon had not yet disappeared. It was waning; it was ready to vanish away. Now it became an urgent necessity for the Hebrew Christians to understand that Christ was the true and eternal High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, and that the new and everlasting covenant with Judah and Israel was connected with the gospel promise, and not with the law. God Himself had made the first covenant old by promising the new. And now that Christ had entered into the holy of holies by His own blood, the old covenant had passed away; and yet the promises of God to His chosen people remained firm and unchanged” (Adolph Saphir)."

Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews, Chapter 37, The Two Covenants

He also says:

"In seeking an answer to the above question, it is needful to recognize (as was pointed out in our last article) that the “new covenant” referred to in Hebrews 8 is not the new covenant absolutely considered, and as it had been virtually administered from the days of Genesis 3:15 in a way of promise. For considered thus it was quite consistent with the covenant that God made with Israel at Sinai: in Galatians 3:17 the apostle proves that the renewal of the covenant (as a promise) to Abraham, was in no way abrogated by the giving of the law. Instead, in Hebrews 8 the apostle is treating of such an establishment of the new covenant as demanded the revocation of the Sinaitic constitution. What this “establishment” was, is made clear in Hebrews 9 and 10: it was the ordinances of worship connected with it.

First , the introduction of the new covenant was made by the ministry of John the Baptist ( Luke 16:16). He was sent to prepare the way of the Lord. Until his appearing the Jews were bound absolutely unto the covenant at Sinai, without any alteration or addition to any ordinance of worship. But John’s ministry was “the beginning of the Gospel” ( Mark 1:1,2). He called the people off from resting in the privileges of the old covenant ( Matthew 3:8-10), and instituted a new ordinance of worship, baptism. He pointed away from Moses to the Lamb of God. Thus, his ministry was the beginning of the accomplishment of God’s promise through Jeremiah.

Second , the incarnation and ministry of the Lord Jesus was a further advance unto the same. His appearing in the flesh laid an axe to the root of the whole Mosaic dispensation ( Matthew 3:10), though the tree was not immediately cut down. By His miracles and teaching Christ furnished abundant proof that He was the Mediator of the new covenant.

Third , the way for the introduction of the new covenant having been prepared, it was solemnly enacted and confirmed in and by Christ’s death: thereby the “promise” became a “testament” ( Hebrews 9:14-16). From that time onwards, the old covenant and its administration had received its full accomplishment ( Ephesians 2:14-16, Colossians 2:14,15), and it continued to abide only in the longsuffering of God, to be taken out of the way in His own time and manner.

Fourth , the new covenant was further established in the resurrection of Christ. The old covenant could not be abrogated till its curse had been borne, and that was discharged absolutely when Christ was “loosed from the pains of death” and delivered from the grave.

Fifth , the new covenant was promulgated and confirmed on the day of Pentecost, answering to the promulgation of the law at Sinai, some weeks after Israel had been delivered out of Egypt. From Pentecost onwards the whole Church of God was absolved from any duty with respect unto the old covenant and the worship of it (although it was not manifest as yet unto their consciences), and the ordinances of worship and all the institutions of the new covenant now became obligatory upon them.

Sixth , the question was formally and officially raised as to the continuance of the obligatory form of the old covenant, and the contrary was expressly affirmed by the apostles under the infallible superintendence of the Holy Spirit: Acts 15:1-29."

Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews, Chapter 38, The Two Covenants

This may be confirmed in Col. 2:14:

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"

So in a sense, it is a "renewal" in that now God is offering a new covenant minus the ordinances.

But in another sense, it is a new one in that our relationship is not based on the covenant of works, but of that by grace.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ken Rank]

Hebrews also tells us that for all it was, the "law" had a fatal flaw.

"For finding fault with them," -Heb. 8:8 (KJV)

Dean, I appreciate your responses. I could spend a great deal of time going over each and every point you have made. I have an entirely different viewpoint now than I did 20 years ago as a new Christian. However, that is MY viewpoint and does not have to be yours. We don't need to agree here, God will lead us in whatever path we are expected to be on.

That said, I clipped the above to just to show how easily we can miss points being made. As you were quoting others, you may or may not have realized the word "them" in the above verse. If the law had flaws (a point I would vehemently challenge seeing GOD is the author of the law and He doesn't do anything that has flaws!!!) it would say "finding flaws in IT," but instead, it says "finding flaws in THEM." The problem wasn't and isn't the law (again, God is the author so it can't have a flaw) it was the PEOPLE who could not keep it on their heart as He commanded. This is why, when the covenant is renewed... the law that was on stone will be written in full, directly and by God... on the heart where He commanded His people to keep it in the first place. As Ezekiel said (11:19) the stony heart will be removed and replaced with a heart of flesh.

By the way, the verse about a change in the priesthood.... the word in Greek means transferred not changed. Both the Levitical and Melchizedekian are called EVERLASTING priesthoods. Whether we can reconcile that or not doesn't change the fact that the bible makes this claim. Understanding perhaps the function of each might help work through how and why there can ever be work for a Levite again. But to save you some time, the Levitical is a priesthood to God and Israel, the Mechizedekian is Israel and is a priesthood to the nations.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[Major1]

What you say is wrong. We are told by Jesus do not kill, do not steal, do not lie. We are told thete os no condemnation for those in christ, and those in christ do not live on sin, that is, they love their neighbors as them selves, that is, they follow the ten commandments.

My fear is one day someone unsaved is going to ask you if they have to follow the ten commandments to be saved and you'll say no. So they'll lie, steal and cheat all the while thinking they are right with god. Knowing you'll be calked the least in tge kingdom of god does nothing for that poor soul suffering eternity in hell all because you wanted to play games with words. "But that's not what I meant" does no goid once one faces the judgement. You know, for a fact, that if we continue to live in sin we are not saved, you've as much said so. But because the words aren't exactly the way you say them you think that means something. All means is your doctrine is unsound. Do you deny that time and time again it says in the bible that those continuing living in sin won't enter the kingdom of god? Do you deny the scriptures that say all liars won't enter the kingdom of god, etc...? You know what the bible says, i've heard you paraphrase it enough. I know your reply is going to be something along the lines of but we're not saved ny works. This is why we are in the end days. People read in the bible that we must not live in sin but live in the spirit to be saved and deny it because they think not sinning is works.

I am very sorry Jim, but you are very wrong!

I have posted Bible verse after Bible verse and you are still stuck in the mode of legalism and cherry picking words. I feel bad for you because you are not disagreeing with me but instead the Word of God.

Rom. 6:14.........
"For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace,".

Rom. 7:4..........
"Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to The Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God,".

Though The Law is good, but we are not able to keep it sufficiently. The Old Testament standard of keeping The Law is perfection as seen Deut. 27:26 and Gal. 3:10. So, we cannot be saved by keeping the commandments because were not capable of doing them perfectly. This is why Jesus came to this world, was made under The Law in Gal. 4:4 and fulfilled it perfectly having never sinned as confirmed in 1 Peter 2:22.

So, though we are obligated to not lie, steal, commit adultery, etc., abiding by these do not keep us saved nor do they get us saved. We keep them to honor God as Christians.

Instead of spending your time arguing your logistic theology, maybe you could spend that time in study of the Scriptures. Just a suggestion.

 

[Ken Rank]

I don't think I know ANYONE who believes that Yeshua/Jesus is messiah and thinks works or obedience save. Nobody.... 21 years as a Christian, 15 in a realm where we keep things like the Sabbath and Feasts... and I have yet to meet one person who believes that we are saved by works. That said, just because we are saved by grace does not abrogate works or obedience. Faith without works is dead being alone... if there are not works, you have no faith and that isn't me, that is the head of the church of Jerusalem, James the Apostle, who said that.

 

[1John2:4]

What else did Paul write to the Galatians?

He said: "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." -Gal. 3:25 (KJV)

The "old" system of works, is done away with. We are no longer under it.

Paul called the "law" a "yoke of bondage" (cf. Gal. 5:1), and told us not to again be under the yoke of bondage.

He also taught:

"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." -Gal. 5:18 (KJV)

But here again, just as Jesus took all 613 "laws" and boiled them down to two, Paul tells us:

" For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." -Gal. 5:14 (KJV)

But sadly, we still cannot do that.

If you really really want to get "nit-picky", read Acts 15 and what they said at the first Apostolic Council meeting as to exactly how much of the "Law" applies to Gentiles.

God Bless

Till all are one.

But while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

 

[1John2:4]

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace,".

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedienceleading to righteousness?

 

[Major1]

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedienceleading to righteousness?

We sin because we are sinners.

 

[Major1]

I don't think I know ANYONE who believes that Yeshua/Jesus is messiah and thinks works or obedience save. Nobody.... 21 years as a Christian, 15 in a realm where we keep things like the Sabbath and Feasts... and I have yet to meet one person who believes that we are saved by works. That said, just because we are saved by grace does not abrogate works or obedience. Faith without works is dead being alone... if there are not works, you have no faith and that isn't me, that is the head of the church of Jerusalem, James the Apostle, who said that.

Then with all due respect Ken, you need to get out more often. There is a whole denomination with millions of members who believe exactly that.

 

[1John2:4]

Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to The Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God,".

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedienceleading to righteousness?
13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Major 1, Paul usually takes a lot of writing to make a point. I am just posting the rest of his point. If we take just a little verse from Paul and use it to prove our point we miss his amazing message. Not trying to pick on you or anything ")

 

[Ken Rank]

Hear me out guys...

We define sin as missing the mark... but what is the mark? We know it is the righteousness of God that we aim to hit, but what does righteousness mean?

Modern Websters - Righteousness 1. acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin

1828 Webster's - Righteousness 1. Just; accordant to the divine law. Applied to persons, it denotes one who is holy in heart, and observant of the divine commands in practice; as a righteous man.

So if the mark we aim at is the righteousness of God, and righteousness is divine law, then are we not... in our walk AS A CHRISTIAN (not to become a Christian but once we ARE one).... expected to walk according to His understanding of righteousness, i.e. His divine law? Yeshua did, and he is our model to follow so why would he willingly walk in that manner and then we, who follow him, do not?

But to show my conclusion here is consistent... let's finish my question. What is sin? Missing the mark and the mark is the righteousness of God, His divine law. So sin is what, living outside the law?

1 John 3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

Sin is breaking of the law, living outside the law, literally in Greek, anomia (without law). But not secular or civil law, GOD'S LAW.

NOT UNTO SALVATION... but God's people are expected to walk according to His will. We professed Him as Lord... that means we live according to His ways and not ours.

 

[Ken Rank]

Then with all due respect Ken, you need to get out more often. There is a whole denomination with millions of members who believe exactly that.

We all have a special gift God has given us, time. We should try to respect that gift. You could have listed the denomination rather than make it so that I either need to go on a Google search or wait on you for an answer.

As for my need to get out more often? Do we really need to make comments like that as they tend to place small little wedges between us. I get out a little more than you might think, I don't know of any mainstream denomination that teaches works unto salvation. I know MANY that teach works... I teach works... but not unto salvation. The problem is that today so many Christians have been raised to recoil at the mere mention of works THINKING "unto salvation" is being stated when it isn't even on our minds at all.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Never said it was. Only that what he said is pertinent to this discussion.

People want to quote what Jesus said, and not look at the context in which it was said.



I never said that. Post it here for all to see.

What I said was Jesus took all 613 laws and boiled them down to two, and we have trouble obeying those two.



So what part of the "law" did Jesus not fulfill?

Remember:

"And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." -Deut. 4:13 (KJV)

The Decalogue and the "Law" are combined in one. (According to Deut. 4:13)

God Bless

Till all are one.

He said that the laws were based on love. Love for God and love for your neighbor as yourself. He didn't repeal the 10 commandments. That would be stupid being they concern showing love for God and love for one's neighbor.

He filled full the ceremonial law so that he as the last sacrifice for the sins of the world.
People try to rewrite Jesus ministry to their own liking and they're wrong every time.

 

[Ken Rank]

Major 1, Paul usually takes a lot of writing to make a point. I am just posting the rest of his point. If we take just a little verse from Paul and use it to prove our point we miss his amazing message. Not trying to pick on you or anything ")

That is more true than you might even realize. Paul attended Beit Hillel (School of Hillel) and he understood exegesis like none of the other NT authors. He employs one tool known at the 7 Rules of Hillel. These are MAJOR context effecting rules and he used them over 50 times. With one rule he might quote a whole verse or just part of one and you are expected to go to the verse he quotes and take the context from the whole discourse that taken verse came from, and apply that to his letter. We see this really well in Romans 9 (especially in verses 20 through 27) where he is quoting Hosea and Isaiah which are talking about the Northern Kingdom and their RETURN to God and the land. We read it and see "all Israel will be saved" and think "eternal salvation" when the place he is quoting doesn't have 'saved' it has 'returned' and the context is clearly tied to Israel (Northern Kingdom) coming back from the nations they were scattered into. My point is simply... you can't take a verse that Paul uses and expect to make a proper point. You did well in pointing that out!

 

[Ken Rank]

Here is a good one... "there are none righteous, no not one!!!!" That is used on me anytime I mention the word "Works." Paul is quoting, however, two different Psalms which are speaking about those who "say there is no God." Atheists, not those following God. Many people are called righteous in the NT and OT. But we quote verses like that, out of context, to try to make a anti-law point.

I don't care WHAT the truth is, I just care that I learn in it and walk it as best I can. Father expects us to seek perfection even if we can't achieve it until we are changed.

 

[tooldtocare]

Heads Up: Commandments 7, 8, 9 & 10 have been but into “law” in every country on the face of the earth
[7] Thou shalt not kill (Murder)

[8] Thou shalt not steal

[9] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour

[10] Thou shall not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s

-