(Moved) The law. Is it done away with? Is it, really?

[A_Thinker]

Like Him bringing up the grieving or vexing the Spirit. He didn't just make that concept up, it came from the OT, and in the OT we can see what it means to do that, as I pointed out, we see what it means to vex the Spirit. Same thing with to be quickened, because what it means to be quickened doesn't start in the NT, he was referencing it from what it was shown to mean in the OT. I could've just described it this way, instead of going off in complicated analogies. Hindsight.

Noone is saying that the NT is not grounded in the Old. Every Christian's Bible contains the Old Testament.

In fact, I think that few would disagree that the Old Covenant is a jumping off point for the New Covenant.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus says in Matthew chapter 5:

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For 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. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

In verse 18, He says that not until heaven and earth pass, shall the law have to be removed. Heaven and earth are still here, so not only does this mean that the law is still meant to be obeyed. In verse 19, He says that whoever shall refrain from the law, and teach others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom, but whoever keeps the law, and teaches others to do the same, will be called great. Then in verse 20:

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And in Mark 7:6-13 Christ said this -
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

 

[BobRyan]

Come on, Devin ... no one here is ignorant of the Law.

I, myself, am entering my 50th year of scriptural study, starting with Sunday School as a child, progressing through all manner of Bible studies through the past 35 years or so. Today, I function in the church as a Bible teacher, and, having read through the OT and NT scriptures twice in the past 35 years, I feel like I'm fairly conversant with what is found there.

The Ten Commandments ... is one the pillars of OT teaching. Ultimately, we receive that teaching in the CONTEXT of what God was doing in the Old Testament (essentially managing a COVENANT with God's OT people, the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews). We understand that it was a covenant of LAW, and that Israel, over millennia, proved that they could not keep it.

Paul's argument in Ephesians 6:2 is that the Ten Commandments make the command to honor parents -- irrefutable even in the NT.

Eph 6
2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise),

That is a direct appeal to the Ten Commandments for authority -- by a NT Apostle.

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

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm the Ten Commandments for Christians.

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.

 

[BobRyan]

If anyone wants to live by the law PRAISE GOD. Its not just the 10 commandments its 613. You obey ALL or you fail in all. And Jesus made it very clear. Love the lord your God.. all your mind soul body.. love each other as your self.. blah balh blah.. in this you do ALL the law.
r

"IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15
"Love me and KEEP My Commandments" Exodus 20:6
'what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
1 John 5:2-3 "this IS the Love of God - that we KEEP His Commandments"

 

[A_Thinker]

Paul's argument in Ephesians 6:2 is that the Ten Commandments make the command to honor parents -- irrefutable even in the NT.

Eph 6
2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise),

That is a direct appeal to the Ten Commandments for authority -- by a NT Apostle

Several of the Ten are reaffirmed in the New Testament.

I think that most christians affirm the Ten ...

 

[twinserk]

Of course you have to try and reason anything to support your errant views
As for your comment about gentiles being able to murder people.
What is the core foundation upon which the NC stands?
And yet again. The Jerusalem Church had no intention of, in the future asking gentile converts to follow more than four laws. For years later they confirmed to Paul they Only asked gentiles to follow the four laws agreed at the council of Jerusalem in Acts ch15
And finally, Gods applicable laws are not arbitrary. You are not free to ignore any of them, so your point is very badly thought through to put it mikdly.
If you are correct, the Jerusalem Church, many of whom had been Christ's disciples gave gentile converts a licence to sin. Frankly that is unarguable

Ok, so you're saying that gentiles only have to keep 4 laws, but at the same time saying that there are others they "obviously" have to keep too (like not murdering), thus contradicting your original point.

You then tell me that my point is unarguable.

Jesus fulfilled the Law by giving His life to pay for our violations of the Law.

It is finished.

There is nothing left for us to do in regard to the Law.

We now walk in Grace and the Spirit ...

That's a lovely sentiment, but you didn't address the scriptures I referenced. Nor did you quote scripture to support your above statement.

The simple fact is that scripture doesn't support the belief you're seeking to keep alive. The Messiah taught that we are saved by grace (forgiveness), after which, we are commanded to stop sinning.

John 5:14 Afterward the Messiah findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And the Messiah said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
​

Every NT writer unequivocally condemns the practice of sin, and sin is the violation of the law.

Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.​

You, I, and everyone else, is therefore commanded to not sin (break the law). Which, obviously, means the law is still very much alive - and in full effect. Scriptures teach that those who refuse to keep the law will be refused by the Messiah.

Matthew 7:22 "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'​

 

[stuart lawrence]

Ok, so you're saying that gentiles only have to keep 4 laws, but at the same time saying that there are others they "obviously" have to keep too (like murder), thus contradicting your original point.

You then tell me that my point is unarguable.



That's a lovely sentiment, but you didn't address the scriptures I referenced. Nor did you quote scripture to support your above statement.

The simple fact is that scripture doesn't support the belief you're seeking to keep alive. The Messiah taught that we are saved by grace (forgiveness), after which, we are commanded to stop sinning.

John 5:14 Afterward the Messiah findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And the Messiah said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
​

Every NT writer unequivocally condemns the practice of sin, and sin is the violation of the law.

Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.​

You, I, and everyone else, is therefore commanded to not sin (break the law). Which, obviously, means the law is still very much alive.

Yes, because you appear not understand the NC.
Why was their debate about those laws, if they were laws that without question God wants every believer to follow?
There would be no discussion would there. What's there to debate?

 

[RDKirk]

Several of the Ten are reaffirmed in the New Testament.

I think that most christians affirm the Ten ...

The repetition of certain OT moral values in the NT does not affirm that Christians are under the OT, it only affirms that those are timeless moral values dictated by the same God.

 

[twinserk]

Yes, because you appear not understand the NC.
Why was their debate about those laws, if they were laws that without question God wants every believer to follow?
There would be no discussion would there. What's there to debate?

What was up for debate, like I already explained, was circumcision. You can read it directly from Acts 15 - that was the issue brought to the disciples.

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.​

Once they got there, this case was made by the Pharisees:

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.​

Peter replied and stated that the Pharisees were attempting to yoke new converts with a burden that the apostles and their fathers were unable to bear.

Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?​

The disciples kept the law of Moses. They all condemned the practice of sin, and sin is defined by John, Paul, and James, as breaking the law. Which testifies that the law is not what is being referred to as unbearable by Peter. Since they were bearing it, and teaching it to others.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.​

In addition, we are told by John that God's commands are not burdensome. Which further proves that Peter was not speaking about the law, but of something else.

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.​

So what was Peter referring to? What was the original issue brought to the disciples? Circumcision. The Pharisees were teaching that you had to be circumcised in order to be saved. But if we look in the law, a convert to the faith had to be circumcised in order to partake of the Passover (Exodus 12:48). The Pharisees were once again trying to add additional regulations to the faith. Just as they were during the Messiah's ministry. They had created their own rules, and re-branded them as law.

Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.​

So Peter struck down the Pharisees' unlawful assertions, stating that Gentiles and Jews alike are saved the same way - by grace.

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Messiah we shall be saved, even as they.​

After Peter said his part, James made an official ruling on the matter:

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.​

James says that once saved, gentile converts are only required to do 4 things:

1. Not pollute themselves with idolatry.
2. Not commit fornication.
3. Not eat things strangled.
4. Not eat blood.

James then conditions his previous statement with "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day". Unless you'd just like to ignore this part of his statement.

He was saying "They need only do these four things upon conversion. They can then learn the rest of the law at their local sabbath meetings". Gentile believers were obviously not allowed to steal, commit murder, etc., which makes this apparent. Those four things weren't the only rules for gentiles, but the minimum requirements necessary for fellowship with the community of believers.

 

[RDKirk]

What was up for debate, like I already explained, was circumcision. You can read it directly from Acts 15 - that was the issue brought to the disciples.

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.​

Once they got there, this case was made by the Pharisees:

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.​

Peter replied and stated that the Pharisees were attempting to yoke new converts with a burden that the apostles and their fathers were unable to bear.

Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?​

The disciples kept the law of Moses. They all condemned the practice of sin, and sin is defined by John, Paul, and James, as breaking the law. Which testifies that the law is not what is being referred to as unbearable by Peter. Since they were bearing it, and teaching it to others.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.​

In addition, we are told by John that God's commands are not burdensome. Which further proves that Peter was not speaking about the law, but of something else.

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.​

So what was Peter referring to? What was the original issue brought to the disciples? Circumcision. The Pharisees were teaching that you had to be circumcised in order to be saved. But if we look in the law, a convert to the faith had to be circumcised in order to partake of the Passover (Exodus 12:48). The Pharisees were once again trying to add additional regulations to the faith. Just as they were during the Messiah's ministry. They had created their own rules, and re-branded them as law.

Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.​

So Peter struck down the Pharisees' unlawful assertions, stating that Gentiles and Jews alike are saved the same way - by grace.

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Messiah we shall be saved, even as they.​

After Peter said his part, James made an official ruling on the matter:

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.​

James says that once saved, gentile converts are only required to do 4 things:

1. Not pollute themselves with idolatry.
2. Not commit fornication.
3. Not eat things strangled.
4. Not eat blood.

James then conditions his previous statement with "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day". Unless you'd just like to ignore this part of his statement.

He was saying "They need only do these four things upon conversion. They can then learn the rest of the law at their local sabbath meetings". Gentile believers were obviously not allowed to steal, commit murder, etc., which makes this apparent. Those four things weren't the only rules for gentiles, but the minimum requirements necessary for fellowship with the community of believers.

Except that there were no regular sabbath meetings in Philippi at all, and it's unlikely the Corinthians went to sabbath meetings either. So that could not have been a general expectation.

 

[stuart lawrence]

What was up for debate, like I already explained, was circumcision. You can read it directly from Acts 15 free- that was the issue brought to the disciples.

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.​

Once they got there, this case was made by the Pharisees:

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.​

Peter replied and stated that the Pharisees were attempting to yoke new converts with a burden that the apostles and their fathers were unable to bear.

Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?​

The disciples kept the law of Moses. They all condemned the practice of sin, and sin is defined by John, Paul, and James, as breaking the law. Which testifies that the law is not what is being referred to as unbearable by Peter. Since they were bearing it, and teaching it to others.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.​

In addition, we are told by John that God's commands are not burdensome. Which further proves that Peter was not speaking about the law, but of something else.

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.​

So what was Peter referring to? What was the original issue brought to the disciples? Circumcision. The Pharisees were teaching that you had to be circumcised in order to be saved. But if we look in the law, a convert to the faith had to be circumcised in order to partake of the Passover (Exodus 12:48). The Pharisees were once again trying to add additional regulations to the faith. Just as they were during the Messiah's ministry. They had created their own rules, and re-branded them as law.

Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.​

So Peter struck down the Pharisees' unlawful assertions, stating that Gentiles and Jews alike are saved the same way - by grace.

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Messiah we shall be saved, even as they.​

After Peter said his part, James made an official ruling on the matter:

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.​

James says that once saved, gentile converts are only required to do 4 things:

1. Not pollute themselves with idolatry.
2. Not commit fornication.
3. Not eat things strangled.
4. Not eat blood.

James then conditions his previous statement with "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day". Unless you'd just like to ignore this part of his statement.

He was saying "They need only do these four things upon conversion. They can then learn the rest of the law at their local sabbath meetings". Gentile believers were obviously not allowed to steal, commit murder, etc., which makes this apparent. Those four things weren't the only rules for gentiles, but the minimum requirements necessary for fellowship with the community of believers.

The leaders of the Christian church, many of whom had been Christ's disciples ONLY asked gentiles to observe FOUR laws. Three of which it is widely believed were given to appease Jewish legalists who had become Christians. The leaders of the Christian church years later reaffirmed to Paul they stood by that decision, only to ask gentiles to obey those four laws no more.( Acts21:25) So your point about only four laws needing to be followed at the point of conversion is negated and proved not to be true. Jo
Why were the TC not mentioned? Because nine of those laws as written are written in the mind and placed in the heart of the Christian under the core terms of the NC( heb10:16&17) No need to mention them. They were discussing DEBATEABLE law, NOT law written in the mind and placed on the heart of the believer. That law is NOT DEBATEABLE.
It's a plain fact, that if God wanted gentile converts to obey the law of Moses, the Jerusalem Church gave gentile converts a licence to sin for the rest of their lives( Acts ch15&Acts21:25)
Despite some people's earnest attempts to claim otherwise

 

[Devin P]

law written in the mind and placed on the heart of the believer.

Tell us, which laws, are written on your heart as a believer? Which law exactly? What happens if you break that law? Who's law is it?

 

[A_Thinker]

The repetition of certain OT moral values in the NT does not affirm that Christians are under the OT, it only affirms that those are timeless moral values dictated by the same God.

I agree ...

 

[A_Thinker]

Tell us, which laws, are written on your heart as a believer? Which law exactly? What happens if you break that law? Who's law is it?

Those which God has written there.

We trust God to successfully guide us.

If we break the law that God has written on our hearts, He convicts us of it, and we repent.

 

[A_Thinker]

A_Thinker said:

Jesus fulfilled the Law by giving His life to pay for our violations of the Law.

It is finished.

There is nothing left for us to do in regard to the Law.

We now walk in Grace and the Spirit ...

twinserk said: That's a lovely sentiment, but you didn't address the scriptures I referenced. Nor did you quote scripture to support your above statement.

Romans 7

4 So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death.

6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

 

[Devin P]

Those which God has written there.

We trust God to successfully guide us.

If we break the law that God has written on our hearts, He convicts us of it, and we repent.

What laws though? You didn't answer. What laws are those? What can you do, and what can you not do? And how will everyone else know what they aren't to do?

Give me just two things you can't do, two is all I ask.

 

[twinserk]

Except that there were no regular sabbath meetings in Philippi at all, and it's unlikely the Corinthians went to sabbath meetings either. So that could not have been a general expectation.

These verses would suggest otherwise.

Acts 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.​

Acts 13:27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.

Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Acts 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.​

The leaders of the Christian church, many of whom had been Christ's disciples ONLY asked gentiles to observe FOUR laws. Three of which it is widely believed were given to appease Jewish legalists who had become Christians. The leaders of the Christian church years later affirmed to Paul they stood by that decision, only to ask gentiles to obey those four laws no more.( Acts21:25) So your point about only four laws needing to be followed at the point if conversion is negated.
Why were the TC not mentioned? Because nine of those laws as written are written in the mind and placed in the heart of the Christian under the core terms of the NC( heb10:16&17) No need to mention them. They were discussing DEBATEABLE law, NOT law written in the mind and placed on the heart of the believer. That law is not DEBATEABLE.
It's a plain fact, that if God wanted gentile converts to obey the law of Moses, the Jerusalem Church gave gentile converts a licence to sin for the rest of their lives( Acts ch15&Acts21:25)
Despite some people's earnest attempts to claim otherwise

Right. Then why doesn't every christian instinctively knows the ten commandments without being taught?

You are continuing to ignore the fact that Acts 21:25 is once again speaking about circumcision. It's in the preceding verses, or are previous verses just frivolous details?

Those which God has written there.

We trust God to successfully guide us.

If we break the law that God has written on our hearts, He convicts us of it, and we repent.

So in essence, you've made yourself into god. Something isn't wrong, unless you think it is, or feel guilty about it.

God expresses what is right and wrong inside scripture. Your own conscience being the only judge of what's right is very convenient - and entirely unbiblical. The Messiah spoke about people who paid lip service to obeying God, yet refused to do so.

Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.​

 

[RDKirk]

What laws though? You didn't answer. What laws are those? What can you do, and what can you not do? And how will everyone else know what they aren't to do?

Give me just two things you can't do, two is all I ask.

I've quoted this:

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

The law of the Spirit does not have to be a "written code" upon paper. How many millions of different situations will the millions of different Christians over the thousands of years will be in? How can any written code have the correct action for every situation? How can anyone have studied and memorized them? That's why Jews under the law developed such a massive set of additional rules and expert positions such as mavens to further define individual situations.

The person whose mind has been renewed to conform to the mind of Christ will know the good, perfect, pleasing will of God in every situation. He will not need to refer to a written code or to a teacher (Matthew 23:8) or to a maven. He will have the Mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16)

 

[A_Thinker]

What laws though? You didn't answer. What laws are those? What can you do, and what can you not do? And how will everyone else know what they aren't to do?

Give me just two things you can't do, two is all I ask.

I am bound to LOVE.

Those things that LOVES requires I must do. And those things that LOVE forbids, I cannot do.

God will write His desires for you ... upon your heart.

Romans 14

4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, they stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sistera ? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:

“ ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’ ”

12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.

 

[A_Thinker]

So in essence, you've made yourself into god. Something isn't wrong, unless you think it is, or feel guilty about it.

It is God, Himself, Who declares that He will write His laws upon our hearts ... and unfailingly guide us with His Spirit. I trust Him to do so.

It's His plan, not mine. I only need have FAITH in Him.

Romans 7

4 So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death.

6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.