Sin is Transgression of the Law - 1 John 3:4

[expos4ever]

In my understanding the Words of God are Spirit and Life. And I believe in the Christ of the Bible. "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." And also the Christ inspired Words of Paul.

2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works..

You keep pushing this argument - that since the law is "a word that proceeded from the mouth of God", and since we are to live by all such words, then we have to follow the law. Well, here is a commandment that proceeded from the mouth of God:

If there is a girl who is a virgin [l]betrothed to a man, and another man finds her in the city and sleeps with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them [m]to death:

Do you advocate that we do this? If not, why not? After all, it is clearly your argument that we are to live by every word.

 

[DamianWarS]

The Ten Commandments did start at creation as almost every Christian denomination on planet Earth has stated in their key doctrinal statements.

So that means it was a sin to "take God's name in vain" right from the very start - as all Christians freely admit.
What is more in Gen 4 murder is "a sin" even without having two tablets of stone.

that will need to be unpacked more, but doctrinal statements do not appear from thin air, they need biblical support. The 10 commandments is based on foundational structures that predate the commandments themselves or constructs based on the infallible and unchanging nature of God. What we get are innately contextualized versions of these filtered through from the infallible to the failable. the 10 commandments themselves are failable, the first ones were in fact shown destroyed showing. The second version likely met the same fate as the first. The absence of the physical 10 commandments, a symbol of the authority and rule of God of the old covenant are all but lost and the covenant itself is no longer upon us yet what that covenant is based on and what it points to is far better.

before the giving of the 4th commandment in stone -- it is commanded in Ex 16 and set apart for observance in Gen 2:1-3

the 4th commandment or sabbath commandment of Ex 16 is innately based on the 7th day of creation. Ex 16 does not spell this out but it would be silly to argue Ex 16 is not based on the 7th day of creation but regardless it is still a starting point. according to Ex 16 it was clear that ritual sabbath rest was not a part of their custom as some ignored the warnings or didn't believe it and went out on the Sabbath anyway to look for manna. So Ex 16 or Ex 20, Ex 31, Ex 34, etc...., it doesn't matter, it is still well past creation (about 2500 years past creation) and when we go back to the 7th day to see what it was about it speaks of no commandment so it is only in the Mosaic covenant this commandment is revealed, and Ex 16 is a part of this covenant.

the first commandment given to man is the commandment to multiply given prior to the Sabbath. Multiplication has far-reaching spiritual meaning and it is shown to be the first thing God wants us to do, implicitly allowed on the 7th day as there were no restrictions imposed upon this commandment or no restrictions since. Sure there may be a cute little devotion about how the 10 commandments is in creation but it is anecdotal at best. the 10 commandments are made for time and place, that time and place was in the Mosaic covenant which is explicit where they are called "two tablets of the covenant law" (Ex. 31:18, 34:29) and the Sabbath is. The Sabbath itself is a sign of the covenant (31:13), they are placed in the "Ark of the Covenant". this is not a universal covenant, this is the Moasic Covenant and all these things are based inside this covenant and do not extend outside. They are based on universal constructs and it is those constructs that would extend beyond the covenant.

Indeed He quotes exclusively from the "LAw of Moses" in Matt 22 for the "two greatest commandments".

Jesus says all the law and prophets hang upon these two commandments. that would be inclusive of the entire thing meaning it predates it all. it's a good thing it was also revealed in the old covenant but that doesn't change that these are universal constructs and not dependant upon the Mosaic covenant as the 10 commandments are. Jesus in fact quotes the law of Moses and by doing this he reveals these commandments are the foundation of it all.

A very firm foundation indeed.

Paul does that very thing in 1 Cor 7:19.

Do you have another suggestion?

splitting up the law into sub-divisions by calling it moral, ceremonial, sacrificial, etc... is not a biblical value nor are those terms biblical revealed. Although it may help in study it can also enable us to justify pushing aside certain commandments while lifting up others with the reasons of x commandment is ceremonial, or sacrificial, etc... so I don't have to follow it. Where does such a doctrine come from? The Mosaic covenant has a purpose and goal and every jot and tittle works towards that goal in harmony. You can't devalue one while exalting another, it comes as a whole package. Jesus says in Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them". He does not signal out specific commandments, he lumps the whole thing together. "Law or the Prophets" is a reference to the entire thing. We cannot do likewise and rub out some while keeping others.

1 Cor 7:19 makes no mention of ceremonial or moral. it speaks of a covenant law and contrasts that with "what counts". What counts is God's commandments but isn't circumcision a commandment of God? it indeed is a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, an everlasting covenant for generations to come. So clearly the passage is eliminating this from its comparison, you see this as cause to split up the law into unbiblical categories then insert a parenthetical that states what Paul really means is contrasting ceremonial and moral. Yet there is no need to guess at it's meaning since Paul uses the same turn of phrase to the Galatians and expands upon "what counts"

1 Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

Gal 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Gal 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.

since these are all the same points they are the same meaning. So "what counts" or "God’s commands" is "faith expressing itself through love" or "the new creation". This is reconcilable with the two greatest commandments but if there is an argument there then we need to look deeper in the meaning of the "new creation". The "new creation" is expanded upon in 2 Cor 5 if you want to study it further which is more consistent with the charge of multiplication we see on day 6 than it is to do with the 10 commandments.

The 10 commandments (and I assume dietary laws) are being conflated with these passages out of convenience not out of revelation. There is no revelation to divide the law from itself, so you may honor one but dishonor another, and there is no revelation to look backwards just broad overreaching themes to exalt the 10. The Mosaic covenant points ahead to the new, but the new covenant does not tell you to turn around and go back. You may feel it is, but lack any biblical support to reveal this and that's just a logic I can't track with.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

The Ten Commandments did start at creation as almost every Christian denomination on planet Earth has stated in their key doctrinal statements.

So that means it was a sin to "take God's name in vain" right from the very start - as all Christians freely admit.
What is more in Gen 4 murder is "a sin" even without having two tablets of stone.

that will need to be unpacked

There is no need to "unpack" the glaringly obvious as it turns out.

This is why almost every Christian denomination on planet Earth - affirms the TEN as being in place since Eden. They all know it was never ok "to take God's name in vain".

This is not even a little bit confusing.

Baptist Confession of Faith: Section 19

1. 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.​

​

2. 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.​

​

3. Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing​

Westminster Confession of Faith: (Presbyterian)

Chapter 19. Of the Law of God.​

​

19.1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.​

19.2. This law, after his Fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.​

19.3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a Church under age, ceremonial laws,​

Catholic Catechism:

​

2058 The "ten words" sum up and proclaim God's law: "These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them to me." (Deut 5:22 )19 For this reason these two tables are called "the Testimony." In fact, they contain the terms of the covenant concluded between God and his people. These "tables of the Testimony" were to be deposited in "the ark."20​

​

2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."29​

​

The unity of the Decalogue​

​

2069 The Decalogue forms a coherent whole. Each "word" refers to each of the others and to all of them; they reciprocally condition one another. The two tables shed light on one another; they form an organic unity. To transgress one commandment is to infringe all the others.30 One cannot honor another person without blessing God his Creator. One cannot adore God without loving all men, his creatures. The Decalogue brings man's religious and social life into unity.​

​

The Decalogue and the natural law​

​

2070 The Ten Commandments belong to God's revelation. At the same time they teach us the true humanity of man. They bring to light the essential duties, and therefore, indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human person. The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law:​

​

From the beginning, God had implanted in the heart of man the precepts of the natural law. Then he was content to remind him of them. This was the Decalogue.​

​

2071 The commandments of the Decalogue, although accessible to reason alone, have been revealed. To attain a complete and certain understanding of the requirements of the natural law, sinful humanity needed this revelation:​

​

A full explanation of the commandments of the Decalogue became necessary in the state of sin because the light of reason was obscured and the will had gone astray.32​

​

We know God's commandments through the divine revelation proposed to us in the Church, and through the voice of moral conscience.​

​

The obligation of the Decalogue​

​

2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.​

Dies Domini:

"God blessed the seventh day and made it holy" (Gn 2:3)​

​

13. ..unlike many other precepts, it (The Sabbath Commandment) is set not within the context of strictly cultic(Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue, the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of the moral life inscribed on the human heart. In setting this commandment within the context of the basic structure of ethics, Israel and then the Church declare that they consider it not just a matter of community religious discipline but a defining and indelible expression of our relationship with God, announced and expounded by biblical revelation. This is the perspective within which Christians need to rediscover this precept today. Although the precept may merge naturally with the human need for rest, it is faith alone which gives access to its deeper meaning and ensures that it will not become banal and trivialized.

 

[BobRyan]

the 4th commandment or sabbath commandment of Ex 16 is innately based on the 7th day of creation. Ex 16 does not spell this out

But Exodus 20 - "the fourth commandment" DOES spell it out.

Ex 20:8 "REMEMBER the Sabbath day to KEEP it Holy... (11) for in SIX Days the LORD created the heavens and earth and seas and all that is in them and rested the seventh day THEREFORE the Lord (YHWH) BLESS the SABBATH day and made it holy"'

Gen 2:1-3
And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

It was "set apart" - 'sanctified' - set apart for holy use - in Gen 2:1-3 and that is what the Sabbath commandment in Ex 20 calls us to "Remember".

We are told to Keep it Holy - FOR In six days the Lord made... and He rested the seventh day... THEREFORE the Lord BLESSED the SABBATH and sanctified it (Made it Holy) - set it apart for holy use.

but it would be silly to argue Ex 16 is not based on the 7th day of creation

indeed it would.

And even sillier to claim the 4th commandment does not explicitly point to its own quote of Gen 2:1-3.

but regardless it is still a starting point.

Not for the reader who pays attention to what the fourth commandment explicitly points to in its vs 11 -- right at Gen 2... no ambiguity needed

 

[BobRyan]

You keep pushing this argument - that since the law is "a word that proceeded from the mouth of God", and since we are to live by all such words, then we have to follow the law.

Read the NEw Covenant much? Jer 31:31-34 (And unchanged verbatim in Heb 8) where the LAW of God known to Jeremiah and his readers is written on the heart.

 

[BobRyan]

A very firm foundation indeed.

they are not contrasting ceremonial law with moral law which are post-biblical titles

Paul does that very thing in 1 Cor 7:19.

splitting up the law into sub-divisions by calling it moral, ceremonial, sacrificial, etc... is not a biblical value

consider actually quoting the text - your avoidance of it is "telling" in regard to how well your preference is not inclined to accommodate it1 Cor 7:19 makes no mention of ceremonial or moral.

consider actually quoting the text.

it speaks of a covenant law and contrasts that with "what counts". What counts is God's commandments

you are starting to come around.

but isn't circumcision a commandment of God?

Not in 1 Cor 7:19 context.

1 Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

you are employing a kind of double-speak where "circumcision is the commandments of God and is nothing, but what matters is keeping the commandments of God" -- that kind of double speak - falls apart right out of the gate.

To have "Circumcision is nothing" contrasted to the Commandments of God as that which MATTERs -- means that circumcision is not being included in the phrase "the Commandments of God" (Obvioulsy) in the context that Paul has for us in 1 Cor 7.

And because of Deut 5:22 where "He spoke the TEN commandments from the mountain directly to the people... and HE ADDED NO MORE" - there is a distinction made in both OT and NT (as Paul reminds us) - that the moral law of God "the Commandments of God" are what matters. And it is beyond question that it INCLUDES the TEN - and because of 1 Cor 7:19 does NOT include ceremonial features.

 

[DamianWarS]

This is not even a little bit confusing.

it seems to be as your sources don't say what you claim. the 10 commandments are not in creation.

 

[DamianWarS]

indeed it would.

And even sillier to claim the 4th commandment does not explicitly point to its own quote of Gen 2:1-3.

you got that backwards. the 4th is quoting the 7th, not the 7th the 4th. we can compare the two and conclude both say the day is holy, both have a focus of ceasing (sabbath) works but both do not have a commandment, that part is new to the Mosaic law. the 4th commandment doesn't make up the day, the day was already there, it was already holy and it already had a focus of ceasing, that part is clear by reading the creation account. But as per the commandment, that part is new and is not a requirement on the 7th day. therefore we can conclude that although the day itself has been since creation the restriction upon the day is not and is defined within the mosaic covenant as we can plainly read the starting point in the mosaic law.

 

[DamianWarS]

Not for the reader who pays attention to what the fourth commandment explicitly points to in its vs 11 -- right at Gen 2... no ambiguity needed

the starting point is not the day, it is the requirement upon the day, thus the starting of the commandment. This cannot be disputed as we can plainly see when the commandment started and plainly see when there was no commandment.

 

[DamianWarS]

A very firm foundation indeed.

Paul does that very thing in 1 Cor 7:19.

consider actually quoting the text - your avoidance of it is "telling" in regard to how well your preference is not inclined to accommodate it1 Cor 7:19 makes no mention of ceremonial or moral.

consider actually quoting the text.

you are starting to come around.

Not in 1 Cor 7:19 context.

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

you are employing a kind of double-speak where "circumcision is the commandments of God and is nothing, but what matters is keeping the commandments of God" -- that kind of double speak - falls apart right out of the gate.

To have "Circumcision is nothing" contrasted to the Commandments of God as that which MATTERs -- means that circumcision is not being included in the phrase "the Commandments of God" (Obvioulsy) in the context that Paul has for us in 1 Cor 7.

And because of Deut 5:22 where "He spoke the TEN commandments from the mountain directly to the people... and HE ADDED NO MORE" - there is a distinction made in both OT and NT (as Paul reminds us) - that the moral law of God "the Commandments of God" are what matters. And it is beyond question that it INCLUDES the TEN - and because of 1 Cor 7:19 does NOT include ceremonial features.

you seem to be applying a very specific definiition upon 1 Cor 7:19 that the text itself does not declare. Perhaps you think it is implict but since it is lacking support it is just conjecture. You want me to quote the whole thing? I'm confused because I already have but here goes again:

1 Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

I'm still failing to see the contrasting terms "ceremonial" and "moral". Sorry for being facetious but since you insist it's in the text can you point it out to me? What I'm seeing you're actually doing is applying a measure of interpretation to the text and then pretending like the matter is closed. it's not closed because the text doesn't say these things and if you're going to have an interpretation of the text then you need a source to support that interpretation, and failing that it's just opionin. what's my interpretation? it's supported by Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 since they are the same point they are the same meaning. Instead of looking at the verse using 1 angle, we have 3 angles that are revealed so we can better understand its meaning with greater confidence as any interpretation needs to agree with all 3 verses not just 1. the meaning of 1 Cor 7:19 is Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 but there is no mention of the 10 commandments. do you still see the 10 in here? if you do then you're words alone don't prove this and there needs to be a supporting source that ties this all together.

 

[Dahveed]

Read the NEw Covenant much? Jer 31:31-34 (And unchanged verbatim in Heb 8) where the LAW of God known to Jeremiah and his readers is written on the heart.

"They will all know Me"

​

"This same covenant was renewed to Abraham in the promise, “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” Genesis 22:18.​

This promise pointed to Christ. So Abraham understood it, and he trusted in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. It was this faith that was accounted unto him for righteousness.” Genesis 17:1; 26:5....​

​

The Abrahamic covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ, and it is called the “second,” or “new,” covenant, because the blood by which it was sealed was shed [for the sins committed under the first covenant Heb 9:15]. 46 Patriarchs and Prophets, 370, 371.​

​

The covenant of grace is not a new truth, for it existed in the mind of God from all eternity. This is why it is called the everlasting covenant. 47 The Signs of the Times, August 24, 1891.​

​

There is hope for us only as we come under the Abrahamic covenant, which is the covenant of grace by faith in Christ Jesus. The gospel preached to Abraham, through which he had hope, was the same gospel that is preached to us today.... Abraham looked unto Jesus, who is also the author and the finisher of our faith." 48 SDA Bible Commentary 6:1077.​

​

The Faith I Live By Page 77​

​

God raised up His Servant, [His Son Jesus] and sent Him to bless you ...Acts 3:25-26

"We are now children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, and if we be Christ’s, then are we Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise...So surely as Jesus died and rose again, and by the power of that death and resurrection, will all Israel be gathered, and the new, the everlasting covenant be established with them—the righteous nation that keepeth the truth." EVCO 528.2​

​

Rejoice, for great is the holy one of Israel in your midst. Isaiah 12:6 Rejoice in the Lord always; Phil 4:4

 

[Dahveed]

To all you that are trying so hard to push Sabbath keeping on the rest of us,

hint ... we did not write the Bible.

Your argument is "with the text"

"We have already learned that the Sabbath rest is a spiritual rest, and it is therefore impossible for one to keep the Sabbath unless Christ, whose presence gives rest, dwells in his heart by faith.​

So the Sabbath is a sign to every Christian of the creative power of God in his deliverance from the power of sin. It is a sign to him of the blessing of God in turning him away from his iniquities. It is a sign to him of the presence of Christ to make him holy. It is a sign to him of the presence of Christ in him to sanctify him. CAS 25​

And thus we read in Isaiah 66:22, 23: “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain." EGW CAS 26​

​

Consequently a sabbath rest remains for the people of God. Heb 4:9 For He Himself has said [Deut 31:6] “I will never leave you, nor will I by any means forsake you”, Heb 13:5 “My presence shall go with you, Ex 33:14 and I will give you rest." Matt 11:28
Blessed be the Lord, who has given rest to His people; 1 Kings 8:56 Who is like you, a people saved by the Lord; Deut 33:29
They will be called, "The redeemed of the Lord”, Isa 62:12 In Him is full redemption. Ps 130:7 Isa 45:25 Jer 9:24

 

[BobRyan]

"We have already learned that the Sabbath rest is a spiritual rest, and it is therefore impossible for one to keep the Sabbath unless Christ, whose presence gives rest, dwells in his heart by faith.​

So the Sabbath is a sign to every Christian of the creative power of God in his deliverance from the power of sin. It is a sign to him of the blessing of God in turning him away from his iniquities. It is a sign to him of the presence of Christ to make him holy. It is a sign to him of the presence of Christ in him to sanctify him. CAS 25​

And thus we read in Isaiah 66:22, 23: “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain." EGW CAS 26​

Is 66:23 "from one Sabbath to another shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" . That shows that even for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth -- Sabbath is still a time interval "from one Sabbath to another" and it is a call for holy convocation Lev 23:3 - for worship

Bread is a type/symbol of Christ the bread of life (John 6). Yet bread literally still exists and has the same function as food.

Sabbath was possible for mankind to keep in Gen 2:1-3. It was also possible for mankind not to take God's name in vain in Gen 2:1-3, in Eden.

In Gen 2:1-3 - it was not given to Adam as a sign of God's power to deliver Adam from Sin.

But after sin - it had that added feature of a sign of God's power to give rest - from the power of sin.
And after the fall - only the born again Christian Adam - could truly keep the Sabbath. And so on for all of his descendants.

Yet the literal Sabbath command still remained.
- Adam did not stop observing Sabbath after the fall.
- In Ex 20:8-11 God does not say stop observing Sabbath on the 7th day since it is now just a sign that I can deliver you from the power of sin.

 

[BobRyan]

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.


In your post - you are employing a kind of double-speak where "circumcision is the commandments of God and is nothing, but what matters is keeping the commandments of God" -- that kind of double speak - falls apart right out of the gate.

To have "Circumcision is nothing" contrasted to the Commandments of God as that which MATTERs -- means that circumcision is not being included in the phrase "the Commandments of God" (Obvioulsy) in the context that Paul has for us in 1 Cor 7.


And because of Deut 5:22 where "He spoke the TEN commandments from the mountain directly to the people... and HE ADDED NO MORE" - there is a distinction made in both OT and NT (as Paul reminds us) - that the moral law of God "the Commandments of God" are what matters. And it is beyond question that it INCLUDES the TEN - and because of 1 Cor 7:19 does NOT include ceremonial features.

you seem to be applying a very specific definiition upon 1 Cor 7:19 that the text itself does not declare.

You are ignoring Bible detals in 1 Cor 7:19 and then employing a self-conflicted king of double speak where "circumcision is the commandments of God and is nothing, but what matters is keeping the commandments of God"

Perhaps you think it is implict

As I stated above - you suggestion of the form "circumcision is the commandments of God and is nothing, but what matters is keeping the commandments of God" -- falls apart on its own.

What I am pointing to are the details you keep needing to avoid.

but since it is lacking support it is just conjecture. You want me to quote the whole thing? I'm confused because I already have but here goes again:

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

Thank you for reminding us again of what it says.

Your argument is still failing -- do you have a response designed to rescue it?

I'm still failing to see the contrasting terms "ceremonial" and "moral".

Because you keep ignoring the detail I pointed to - and you appear to be unwilling to even quote it and respond to... so then "again..."

you suggestion of the form "circumcision is the commandments of God and is nothing, but what matters is keeping the commandments of God" -- falls apart on its own.

To have "Circumcision is nothing" contrasted to the Commandments of God as that which MATTERs" (which IS IN THE TEXT) -- means that circumcision is not being included in the phrase "the Commandments of God" (Obvioulsy) in the context that Paul has for us in 1 Cor 7.

Sorry for being facetious but since you insist it's in the text can you point it out to me?

As I just did 3 times??

Are we simply not supposed to notice that you refuse to address that point - stated 3 times so far?

What I'm seeing you're actually doing is applying a measure of interpretation to the text

I am pointing to "a detail" you keep needing to avoid.

 

[BobRyan]

but there is no mention of the 10 commandments. do you still see the 10 in here?

"the Commandments of God" are such that as Paul ALSO says "'honor your father and mother' is the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2

"the Commandments of God" are such that as James also says "
8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. 12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law of love" James 2:8-12

The "commandments of God" are such that in Matt 19 Jesus says "KEEP the Commandments" and when asked "which ones" He quotes exclusively from the moral LAW of Moses -- the TEN and also Lev 19:18

Just as Paul does in Rom 13.

 

[Dahveed]

"We have already learned that the Sabbath rest is a spiritual rest, and it is therefore impossible for one to keep the Sabbath unless Christ, whose presence gives rest, dwells in his heart by faith.​

So the Sabbath is a sign to every Christian of the creative power of God in his deliverance from the power of sin. It is a sign to him of the blessing of God in turning him away from his iniquities. It is a sign to him of the presence of Christ to make him holy. It is a sign to him of the presence of Christ in him to sanctify him. CAS 25​

And thus we read in Isaiah 66:22, 23: “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain." EGW CAS 26​

​

Consequently a sabbath rest remains for the people of God. Heb 4:9 For He Himself has said [Deut 31:6] “I will never leave you, nor will I by any means forsake you”, Heb 13:5 “My presence shall go with you, Ex 33:14 and I will give you rest." Matt 11:28
Blessed be the Lord, who has given rest to His people; 1 Kings 8:56 Who is like you, a people saved by the Lord; Deut 33:29
They will be called, "The redeemed of the Lord”, Isa 62:12 In Him is full redemption. Ps 130:7 Isa 45:25 Jer 9:24

Yet the literal Sabbath command still remained.
- Adam did not stop observing Sabbath after the fall.
- In Ex 20:8-11 God does not say stop observing Sabbath on the 7th day since it is now just a sign that I can deliver you from the power of sin.

And by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Beware therefore, lest what has been spoken in the prophets come upon you:
‘Behold, you despisers, Marvel and perish!
For I work a work in your days, A work which you will by no means believe,
Though one were to declare it to you.’ ”
And as they went out, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.
Acts 13:39-42

 

[BobRyan]

And by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Amen - but the Law of Moses still says "do not take God's name in vain" and that still matters.
"Sin is still transgression of the Law".

1 John 2:1 "These things I write to you that you sin not"
1 John 3:4 "sin IS transgression of the Law"
1 John 5:3 "This IS the LOVE of God that we keep His commandments"
Where "the first commandment with a promise" is "Honor your father and mother" Eph 6:2

Because even for born again saints under the NEW Covenant "The law is written on the heart" Jer 31:31-34, Heb 8:6-12.
"Do we make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the LAW" Rom 3:31
"it is not the hearers of the law that are just before God but the doers of the LAW will be justified... on the day when according to my Gospel God will judge" Rom 2:13-16

Jeremiah includes that Law where God says "He spoke these TEN Commandments... and added no more" Deut 5:22

 

[Bob S]

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

So far you have never really identified what the commandments of God are that you think we should keep. God has given, over man's existence, many commandments that you do not recognize as being part of our duty. Jesus kept all of the old covenant laws pertaining to the Israelite mandates. Give us the scriptural reason you feel you have the authority to observe the few you observe.

On the other hand, I have provided scripture that tells us explicitly how God wants new covenant Christians and all mankind how to live. You have refused to even consider God's plan and instead take the word of your self proclaimed prophet.

See 1JN3:9-24 for the real truth.

 

[DamianWarS]

In your post - you are employing a kind of double-speak where "circumcision is the commandments of God and is nothing, but what matters is keeping the commandments of God" -- that kind of double speak - falls apart right out of the gate.

To have "Circumcision is nothing" contrasted to the Commandments of God as that which MATTERs -- means that circumcision is not being included in the phrase "the Commandments of God" (Obvioulsy) in the context that Paul has for us in 1 Cor 7

And because of Deut 5:22 where "He spoke the TEN commandments from the mountain directly to the people... and HE ADDED NO MORE" - there is a distinction made in both OT and NT (as Paul reminds us) - that the moral law of God "the Commandments of God" are what matters. And it is beyond question that it INCLUDES the TEN - and because of 1 Cor 7:19 does NOT include ceremonial features.

1 Cor 7:19 contrasts 2 things which can be plainly seen and we agree one. However I do not suggest it is contrasting old covenant with old covenant, that is more of a conflict that I feel you need to wrestle with. There are many commandments in the bible, circumcision is one and it is in fact explicitly a commandment of God, a pretty heavy one, yet clearly, this passage removes it from "God's commandments". so "God's commandments" are something else other than circumcision in this context despite the fact that circumcision can rightly be called a commandment of God. This passage then must be addressing newer revelation that no longer counts circumcision as a commandment of God.

Do I suggest a contrast of old covenant with old covenant? no. It's a contrast of old covenant (circumcision) with new covenant (God's commandments). This seems to be a concept that evades you and for some reason you're unable to see the term "God's commandments" outside of a 10 commandments vacuum to such a level that you refuse to even allow me to view it this way. even to the extent that in all caps exclaim "HE ADDED NO MORE" do you in fact only obverse the 10? what of dietary laws because that would seem to be an inconsistency of that logic.

Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 are mirror copies of this verse and they all say the same thing so there is no need to search for it's meaning someone else because it's already spelled out. What the verses say is not contrasting post-biblical ideologies of ceremonial law vs moral law. The entire old covenant has the same goal in mind so what you call ceremonial and moral both have the same goal and both are incomplete without each other.

Galatians speaks of an idea closer to what Jesus speaks with the two greatest commandments. 5:6 says "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love". Faith is the part towards God and love is the part towards each other which is the synopsis of the two greatest commandments. 6:15 tells us "what counts is the new creation". Now Paul just got finished saying "the only thing that counts..." so he is not conflicting with himself but complimenting it. What counts is both and they are not different things they are the same thing. "faith expressing itself through love" is the product of the "new creation" which is redemption through Christ. 1 Cor 7:19 also is speaking of the same thing so when Paul speaks of God's commandments in 7:19 what he means is "faith expressing itself through love" as a product of the "new creation". it is all the same meaning and these verses work in harmony with each other. Any idea that would conflict one of the verse would conflict all the verses.

I understand you don't view the term "God's commandments" this way but please don't superimpose your view over my words to then claim I'm double speaking. You're going to have to adjust your thinking and be able to read my perspective and show you understand it if we are going to have a meaningful dialog.

 

[DamianWarS]

"the Commandments of God" are such that as Paul ALSO says "'honor your father and mother' is the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2

"the Commandments of God" are such that as James also says "
8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. 12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law of love" James 2:8-12

The "commandments of God" are such that in Matt 19 Jesus says "KEEP the Commandments" and when asked "which ones" He quotes exclusively from the moral LAW of Moses -- the TEN and also Lev 19:18

Just as Paul does in Rom 13.

you are presenting a 10 commandments theme but not a 10 commandments case. quoting passages and forming your own context with them is not showing me how 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 is pointing to the 10 commandments.

James speaks of a royal law, this is the law of Christ (1 Cor 9:21) and is as he puts it "love your neighbor as yourself". this is an echo of the two greatest commandments, as 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 is as well and James is giving it the highest honor (above all else). You see quotes from the 10 commandments so are quick to say this is speaking of keeping the 10 commandments but that is far from a closed case. to love your neighbor as yourself means you're not committing adultery, stealing, coveting, murdering, etc... these are laws about what not to do to each other, although they are not laws about how to love being guilty of them are inconsistent with love.

Since James is writing to a Jewish audience it would make sense for him to use contextual approaches so they grasp his point clearly, or as Paul says "To the Jew I become as a Jew". James is just trying to speak to them on their level and using their values. Quoting the commandments of murdering or committing adultery is consistent with his point but would be odd to suggest what he really means is keeping the 10 commandments since that would be a competing goal in the text. For example, he could not make the same point if he instead quoted the 4th commandment since the 4th is inconsistent with his goal so it wouldn't make much sense to quote that. Since we can't just replace what he quotes with other commandments of the 10 he must be making a point outside of a 10 commandment vacuum. James conclusions are in v12 "Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom" (or "law of love" as the version you quoted shows). this Royal law, Christ's law, or the "law of love" is the driving focus of James and his goal.