Why worry about the Ten Commandments, if you are disregarding the Sabbath? (2)

wild01 said:

wooba, I think you have misunderstood me, My point was if you want to observe the sabbath rest ie (to use your words)
"remembering your Creator, and giving Him your undivided attention through worship."
great wahoo good for you

but if you insist that it is a sin to do any work from sundown friday to sundown saturday then you are missing the point.

BTW as a recovering legalist I very much understand OT law. At one point in my life I did strive to observe all the OT laws all the "holy days" clean and unclean meats three tier tithe. etc. then I learned the truth, Romans 7 was the chapter that opened my eyes, which is why I quoted it.

Click to expand...

Romans 7 only tells us our relationship to sin and the law, using the example of the law of a husband (Deut 24:1-4). When isolated, Romans 7 can be misapplied.

BrightCandle said:

It seems that Cardinal Gibbons is not so popular these days among our Catholic friends, I don't think that I've ever seen a post by a RC CF member from Cardinal Gibbons regarding Sabbath vs Sunday issues, its as if his writings are now considered heresy by RCs.

Click to expand...

Has the RCC changed then?

wild01 said:

Romans 7 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003 by Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville Tennessee. All rights reserved.

Romans 7

An Illustration from Marriage

1 Since I am speaking to those who understand law, brothers, (A) are you unaware that the law has authority over someone as long as he lives? 2 For example, a married woman is legally bound to her husband while he lives. (B) But if her husband dies, she is released from the law regarding the husband. 3 So then, if she gives herself to another man while her husband is living, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law. Then, if she gives herself to another man, she is not an adulteress. 4 Therefore, my brothers, you also were put to death (C) in relation to the law (D) through the [crucified] body of the Messiah, (E) so that you may belong to another—to Him who was raised from the dead—that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, (F) [a] the sinful passions operated through the law in every part of us (G) [b] and bore fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the law, since we have died to what held us, so that we may serve in the new way [c] of the Spirit (H) and not in the old letter of the law.



If we are in Christ we are no longer under the old covenant. The new covenant is not a new set of rules. Everything is permissable, however everything is not beneficial. (not my words-paul's)

Click to expand...

I will give my comments on Romans 7 in a moment. But the everything is permissible section in I Corinthians was addressing sexual immorality. And there is good evidence to show that he was responding to two of their quotes..."everything is permissible to me" and "food for the stomach, stomach for the food." They seemed to be taking the notion that the body was made for sex, so why not have it often with whoever.

And Paul replies, "food for the stomach and stomach for the food, but God will destroy them both. " And then goes on to say that the body is not meant for sexual immorality ,but for the Lord.

Notice also that just before that he had said that those who practice sexual immorality will not inherit the kingdom of God, but that some who were doing so were washed and sanctified.

The point is he was in no way saying it was permissible but just a poor idea. He was addressing their rationalizations.

Here is my longer explanation of the Romans 7 passage and its context.

Paul undoubtedly changed in his focus from law orientation to Christ orientation. But does this mean he was antinomian? As he would say "by no means!".

Instead Paul was focused on the change that the resurrection brought about in our sinful nature, giving life to our mortal bodies so that we could now live for Christ willingly. At the same time Jesus took away all condemnation. My contention is simply this. The law which condemned Paul, because of his sinful nature, which was external, in tablets of stone, was now in Paul's heart. He was freed from his body of death which was a slave to sin, to serve Christ freely, and was cleansed from past sin so he felt no condemnation.


RO 7:1 Do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to men who know the law--that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

RO 7:4 So, my brothers, 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 to God. 5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, 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.

v.1-3 Setting the human example of the law's power over a man ceasing after death. The specific application is of the marriage law. The spouse is released after death, and is not an adulterer.

v.4-5 We are no longer wedded to the law but to Christ. Notice that we now belong to Christ. This was key for Paul since in his earlier experience he was completely dedicated to the law, and as for legalistic righteousness was "faultless" according to Philippians. Paul's motivation has radically changed,.as has his understanding of what saved him:


PHP 3:2 Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh-- 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence.
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

PHP 3:7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Here in Philippians Paul is saying that

a. We are not considered righteous by circumcision, by race, or even by keeping the law. But in fact, by righteousness that comes from Christ.

b. Notice, Paul is merely saying that it is grace that saves us. He is not arguing against the moral law. He is arguing against being saved by anything but Christ. Once you have broken the law in one point, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be saved by the law. So dependence on it for salvation is pointless. We are not under the law for salvation.

So Paul's focus has radically shifted from legalistic righteousness (confidence in the flesh, in who he was and what he did), to Christ's righteousness. He has been married to Christ instead of the law.


RO 7:4 So, my brothers, 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 to God. 5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, 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.


By participating in the death of Christ (Romans 6) we were freed from the need to perfectly keep the law for salvation–which the sinful nature made impossible. Without Christ we are only able to bear fruit for death. In other words, we can only disobey. And since our righteousness was just on our own, we were lost. But now Jesus forgave us AND made it possible for us to bear fruit to God. We are released from serving for salvation and now server God in a new way, by the SPIRIT (of God). (keep in mind that even in the OT grace was present, looking forward to Jesus as we look back. But the temptation was always there to earn salvation).

Now what is it that really changed here? As we will see more clearly in chapter 8, what changed is that we now serve God by His Spirit making alive our sinful nature so that we can fully obey. We never could before. And we also have forgiveness for the failures in keeping the law. Jesus is our forgiveness and our power.


RO 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

v. 7 Paul realizes that the reader might deduce from the earlier statement that the law is sin, or somehow bad. He makes clear that is not his point at all. In fact, the law informed him of what sin was.

NOTE: Paul uses the word law in different ways at times. He speaks of it as a principle or force, and as particular parts of the OT law. we have to tell by the context which he means in each instance.

In this case it is clear that he is speaking at the least of the ten commandments because he makes particular mention of the coveting command. So it is clear that he is saying the law, including the 10 commandments is not sin.

v. 8-9 Sin came in and used the commandment to produce wrong desires. Why is this if the law is not sin? Because the sinful nature is provoked by the law. It sees what it wants, and goes after it. But is the problem the law? Paul doesn't seem to say so. The problem is SIN and the sinful nature.


sin is dead without the law, because the law points out what God's will is. But sin using the law condemns us. Once Paul was aware of what the law said, he was condemned by his breaking of it. He was UNDER THE PENALTY of the law, because he could never keep it.

v.10-12 the law was intended to bring life, but couldn't. Why not? Because of sin.
It was sin that deceived Paul and put him to death through the law. But Paul affirms that the law is HOLY, RIGHTEOUS AND GOOD. It was used by sin to destroy him. The law only condemns because of sin. So the sinful nature, slave to sin, cannot hope to gain salvation. It needs the forgiveness of Christ. But does this mean that the law is no longer good to follow? No, not at all. The problem was never with the law. But now we follow it not because we are under it for salvation, but because we are forgiven and made alive to God because of Jesus.



RO 7:13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

v. 13 The law is not the cause of our death! Sin needed to be recognized for what it was. Sin has always been the problem, not the law. The commandment was added so that men would see just how destructive sin was. Jesus came to get rid of sin, not the law. He did, however, free us from keeping the law for salvation, because once we had broken it in one point, we could no longer do so.



RO 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.

v. 14-17 Again, a defense of the law. The law is spiritual. But Paul is not. Is the problem with the law, or with Paul? Paul is sold as a slave to SIN. He is powerless to do anything but sin. But he agrees the law is good. So the law is holy, righteous, spiritual, good, not sin, etc. Does it sound as though Paul is against the law? But he is a slave to sin, sold to sin, can't do anything but sin, put to death by sin. What is the problem, the law or Paul? It is Paul. He is a slave to sin.


18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

v. 18 As opposed to the law, which is good, nothing good lives in Paul's sinful nature.

v. 19-20 Paul is perplexed by why he keeps doing what is wrong. He concludes that it is sin living in him. He has no other option but to do wrong.


RO 7:21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?


v. 21 Here we see Paul's alternate use of law. Paul finds the "law" at work, or the principle, the rule etc. that he cannot escape sin. When he wants to do good he can't.

v. 22 Now he clarifies that he delights in God's law in his inner being–he wants to do it. So he is clarifying definitions. But there is a problem. There is yet another "law" or rule in his body, the one that does not let him do God's law. It is warring against God's law in Paul's mind. It is called the law of sin. It is at work in his flesh. So Paul says, who will RESCUE me from this body of death? Paul is in real trouble. He can't keep the law, he is condemned by it because of his sin, he is hopeless, without salvation (in his natural self). But now he sees a new hope.


25 Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!


Jesus is the new hope, as will be seen in chapter 8.

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Paul is bound to serve God's law, but the sinful nature keeps him a slave to the law of sin. But God changes all of this in chapter 8. This is a summary statement of his problem, right before the solution.


RO 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

v. 1 We are free from the condemnation of our sin because of Christ Jesus. He has changed our whole relation to the law. Before we were condemned because we were under it for salvation. We had no righteousness but our own which was flawed.

v.2 Paul introduces yet another law. Let's summarize:

a. God's law, includes "do not covet"
b. law of sin and death – the rule that Paul discovered that he could not obey
c. The law of the Spirit of Life. The Holy Spirit overcomes the sinful nature.

Jesus set us free from the law of sin and death which was at work in our members. Notice, this was NOT parallel to God's law. It was the rule of sin that kept overcoming him.

v. 3 Jesus' sacrifice did what Paul could never do because of the sinful nature. He took care of Paul's sin problem, removed him from condemnation under the law, and gave him no condemnation. In so doing he also condemned sin–not the law–sin. Sin was always the problem. Not the law. Jesus kept the law, in the Spirit, not just in the letter. Thus he condemned sinful man, but also freed him by His sacrifice.

v. 4 It is those who live by the Spirit of God who TRULY KEEP the law. It's requirements are "fully met" in them. Paul is arguing that it is the one who keeps the Law by the Spirit that truly keeps it. He is not arguing that they don't keep it.

The angels in heaven do not keep the law as simply tablets of stone. It is inside them. The same is promised in the new covenant where the law is written on the mind and heart (Hebrews 8). We keep His commands and they "are not BURDENSOME" as John says. The point being, God has freed us from our sin, freed us from keeping the law for salvation, which we couldn't do. And He has also given us new power to keep the law the way it should always have been kept–from the heart. Paul is saying that in Christ the law is now RE-INTERNALIZED as it was always meant to be. Not tablets that condemn, but the Spirit of Christ living in us that empowers.

So it is true, the external tablets are no longer our focus. In fact, the law itself is not our focus. The focus is on Christ who forgives us, lives in us, and who makes our dead sinful nature alive by His Spirit.

Jesus didn't just come to save us from our PAST sin , but to overcome current sin, to fully live for Him.


RO 8:5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

v. 5 There is a total difference between Paul in his previous life, with his mind fixated on the law's requirements, his faults, the desires of the flesh, and his later life, focused on Christ and His Spirit.

The Christian's mind is transformed to focus on Christ, seated above. To fix itself on heavenly things. The law in internalized, as it was meant to be. No wonder Paul considered his legalistic righteousness as rubbish.

v. 6-8 Those controlled by the sinful nature, depending on themselves for salvation, on their own effort for righteousness CANNOT PLEASE GOD. They cannot submit to God's law.

RO 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.


v. 9 Those who have the Spirit though are not in the same condition as those who have the sinful nature. They are forgiven first, but they can also submit to God's law, they do please God.

v.10-11 We still have the sinful nature, but the Spirit of God will "also give life to" our "mortal bodies through His Spirit." In other words, God's Spirit has overcome our sinful nature, allowing us to please God.

We are not only forgiven, we are given new power to please God, not for salvation, but for HIM. It is internalized.


RO 8:12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation--but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

v. 12-13 We DO have an obligation to not live according to the sinful nature, but to put to death the misdeeds (sins) of the body. We are still keeping the law, but not in the old way. The focus is not on the law, however, but on Christ who is our forgiveness, and power.

v. 14-17 We have a new outlook, a new Spirit, a new hope. We are no longer condemned by sin and afraid of God. We rejoice that we are sons, who serve out of love.

wild01 said:

If you want to observe the sabbath rest, more power to you, however if you want to try to say that it is still a command of God that His followers do no work from sundown friday to sundown saturday then all the other OT holy days and years also still apply along with every other law in the old testament, and if the temple was rebuilt we would still have to sacrifice animals. Woman are unclean and must dwell away from us when menstration. etc.

If we are in Christ we are no longer under the old covenant. The new covenant is not a new set of rules. Everything is permissable, however everything is not beneficial. (not my words-paul's)

Click to expand...

The new covenant is actually the new agreement. The 10 commandments were the covenant contract so to speak ,but the covenant itself were the promises on both sides. It failed because of the people's promises that they did not keep -- to do all that God required, and He would bless them and make them a nation of priests.

The new covenant still involves the law. It is written on the heart now, and all the promises are God's.

It is really incorrect to say that the Old Covenant was righteousness by works anyway. In Romans 4 and 10 Paul goes to great lengths to show that salvation was by faith even before. Israel had striven for righteousness but in the wrong way.


Now in regards to the law, the Acts council did make it clear that God accepted the gentiles as gentiles. There was no need for them to keep the law of Moses with all of its additional commands regarding uncleanness etc. In fact, one could say that they were bound only with those requirements already found for foreigners and strangers (ie gentiles or non-Israelites) that were already listed in the Torah.

The Jewish believers continued right on being zealous for the law as Acts 21 informs us. The gentiles were grafted in, and need not be burdened with the extra requirements.

Additionally in Acts 15 the 10 commandments don't even seem to be on the table, but rather the law of Moses.

And indeed we see not on the Jewish church meeting on the Sabbath in the NT (Paul looked in the synagogues for them, as well as James mentioning the preaching of Moses every Sabbath in the Synagogue, etc.), but Paul meeting week after week on the Sabbath even with gentile converts. When there was no synagogue he looked for a place of prayer on the Sabbath.

The church continued to keep the day for hundreds of years with the eventual exception of Rome and Alexandria due to "some ancient tradition" as Scholasticus and Sozomon point out.

v.4-5 We are no longer wedded to the law but to Christ. Notice that we now belong to Christ.

We were never "wedded to the law". That is not what the passage says. I find this to be a common mistake, so nothing personal. But I believe that in order for one to properly interpret the passage correctly, one must, as Paul says in 7:1, "know the law".

The woman is not bound to the law. The woman is bound by the law (Gen 2:23-24; Deut 24:1-4) to her husband. If she goes to another man, she is adulteress if her husband is still alive.

If he's dead and she goes to some one else, she is free from the law (of a husband). So let's make the analogy here.

By the law, we were bound to a husband, that husband representing sin. If we try to join to Yeshua with that sin, we are adulteresses (sinners).

Yet if we die to that sin (through the body of Yeshua, who atoned for us), we are free from that condemnation (of being an adulteress). We don't jump from the law to Yeshua. We go from one state of existence (a damned one) to Yeshua. Based on the principle of 7:2 (that we are bound by law to a husband), in order for us to be metaphorically married to Yeshua, a law must still exists that sanctions that marriage. Yahweh operates by the book. He's not, in a manner of speaking, "willy nilly" with his authority and power.

Other than this I generally agree with everything else you said.

Wavy said:

v.4-5 We are no longer wedded to the law but to Christ. Notice that we now belong to Christ.

We were never "wedded to the law". That is not what the passage says. I find this to be a common mistake, so nothing personal. But I believe that in order for one to properly interpret the passage correctly, one must, as Paul says in 7:1, "know the law".

The woman is not bound to the law. The woman is bound by the law (Gen 2:23-24; Deut 24:1-4) to her husband. If she goes to another man, she is adulteress if her husband is still alive.

If he's dead and she goes to some one else, she is free from the law (of a husband). So let's make the analogy here.

By the law, we were bound to a husband, that husband representing sin. If we try to join to Yeshua with that sin, we are adulteresses (sinners).

Yet if we die to that sin (through the body of Yeshua, who atoned for us), we are free from that condemnation (of being an adulteress). We don't jump from the law to Yeshua. We go from one state of existence (a damned one) to Yeshua. Based on the principle of 7:2 (that we are bound by law to a husband), in order for us to be metaphorically married to Yeshua, a law must still exists that sanctions that marriage. Yahweh operates by the book. He's not, in a manner of speaking, "willy nilly" with his authority and power.

Other than this I generally agree with everything else you said.

Click to expand...

No one doubts that the law is saying you are bound to your husband. But he is using an illustraion. So the issue is this...

There was a relationship to something, that was then replaced with Christ.

was it to sin as you suggest, or the law as I suggest?

To me it is pretty plain that Paul says it was the law.

Rom 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

The illustration from the law is here applied. The previous spouse, which you died to, was the law. The new one, that you are belonging to is Christ.

Later in the chapter he goes on to speak of sin being the problem. But he nonetheless says plainly here that we died to the law as a spouse as part of the illustration.

Taken in the context of the rest of the chapter it is pretty plain that he is not getting rid of the law, but upholding it. But you still have to see what the application he makes of the principle is in this passage, and it seems to be to the law.

tall73 said:

No one doubts that the law is saying you are bound to your husband. But he is using an illustraion. So the issue is this...

There was a relationship to something, that was then replaced with Christ.

was it to sin as you suggest, or the law as I suggest?

To me it is pretty plain that Paul says it was the law.

Rom 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

The illustration from the law is here applied. The previous spouse, which you died to, was the law. The new one, that you are belonging to is Christ.

Later in the chapter he goes on to speak of sin being the problem. But he nonetheless says plainly here that we died to the law as a spouse as part of the illustration.

Taken in the context of the rest of the chapter it is pretty plain that he is not getting rid of the law, but upholding it. But you still have to see what the application he makes of the principle is in this passage, and it seems to be to the law.

Click to expand...

Died to the law how? What was the illustration, as you say? What does he use to make his point?

The law of a husband. Died to the law how? Not from a marriage to the law. A marriage to other things. When we die to the law that binds us to other things, we belong to another.

He says so that we can bear fruit to YHWH. In our other relationship, this was our fruit:

Rom 7:5
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

That was the former relationship: sin and death.

Again, the illustration he uses is not dying to the law as a spouse. It is dying to the law that forbad us to marry another as opposed to the former husband and way of life.

BrightCandle said:

FYI:

Here is the latest mission statement from the US based Ten Commandments Day Organization. The question is: Which day is going to be promoted as the Sabbath? The 1st, or the 7th, or both?

News & Info

The Ten Commandments: Mission Statement for Mankind
By: Ron Wexler

2006-04-06 -- www.TenCommandmentsDay.com

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of the government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity … of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

-- James Madison, 1778

Recent Supreme Court rulings and a host of potential "civil liberties" lawsuits have made the Ten Commandments an issue Americans cannot afford to ignore. Just as we have seen prayer disappear from our schools and public expressions of faith in God come under an aggressive assault by "civil libertarians," so we will soon see the Ten Commandments, the very foundation of our Judeo-Christian moral and faith tradition, disappear from our culture if we as Godly leaders do not step to the forefront to stop the attack.

One wonders how far our nation must drift from its moorings of faith before good people stand up and declare, "Enough is enough!" At a time when a handful of un-elected judges are issuing decrees that will change our nation forever, religious leaders from across our great nation must lead a concerted campaign that will once again raise the banner of God's righteousness for all Americans to follow.

For generations of Americans that banner of righteousness has been represented by God's Ten Commandments, a common foundation for our national commitment to the rule of law and righteousness.

It is worth considering why we, as "one nation under God," have always identified our national righteousness with the Ten Commandments. Perhaps James Madison reflected best the importance of our commitment to God's standard when he noted in 1778 that America 's success was dependent upon the determination of "each and every one of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

But what gave this venerable Founding Father the boldness to make such a declaration? To discover this we must examine the very essence of the Ten Commandment. Without a doubt they form the single greatest source of morality that the world has ever known -- and they are the moral foundation of many societies throughout history.

The principles laid out in the Ten Commandments -- such as the brotherhood of man, the importance of a just legal system, and the vision for eternal peace -- form the basis for a successful civilization. In fact, a basic theme of the Ten Commandments – in fact of all of Scripture – is God's desire for humans to fulfill the great potential for which He created them.

At some point in time, perhaps during a personal crisis, each on of us has sensed something powerful within helping us to overcome and succeed. I strongly believe that this is the stirring of that potential God has placed within each one of us. Unfortunately, most people have little understanding of this potential and God's desire to help them achieve it. Often, visiting a cemetery, I have wonder how many are buried under the tombstones and monuments who never fulfilled the potential God had for them -- or even understood what that potential was.

I believe the Ten Commandments mark the starting point for such fulfillment. Understanding God's holiness and perfect law is the first step in discovering and reaching ones potential. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and it is why they declared that all people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" – including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

America's Constitution is the encoding of God's law, as understood by our Founders, into our nation's civil law structure, and as such represents the work of the most brilliant and able minds our young nation had at its disposal. It is the culmination of their understanding of the importance of incorporating God's unchangeable law into the realm of man's constantly changing environment.

It is alarming, then, that the Ten Commandments – the representation of God's unchangeable law to generations of Americans – should now face such merciless attack from our nation's highest court. Let us be clear: To rip the Ten Commandments from our nation's fabric would be a major step in destroying our foundation in law and morality. Such destruction would surely leave our nation's future in jeopardy.

That is why the Ten Commandments Commission was established – to facilitate a coalition of religious leaders and people of faith all across the nation who will work diligently to defend God's law and righteousness in the public square. Members of this grassroots effort – men and women just like you and me – have made it their passion to contend for the Judeo-Christian moral tradition that made this country great. The recent ruling of the Supreme Court, along with a host of disturbing trends we witness daily throughout our culture, clearly demonstrate that our nation is moving away from that tradition.

But the recent High Court decisions actually provide a rare opportunity for all of us who honor the Ten Commandments to come together in unity and reconciliation and boldly raise the standard of God's unchanging word before the nation and the world.

The Ten Commandments Commission was initiated as the vehicle for this to happen -- to facilitate a broad-based, unified expression of our national commitment to God's eternal authority. We believe wholeheartedly that when God's own return humbly to their knees, confess their sins, and seek His holiness, His blessings will return to us both personally and corporately.

On Sunday, May 7 th , 2006, Christians and Jews from around this nation -- and the world -- will celebrate the first annual Ten Commandments Day, a day in which all who are concerned about maintaining God's righteous standard will join together in a massive and unified show of support.

The Ten Commandments Commission has also created a beautiful Ten Commandments Pin (pictured), a striking emblem that gives expression to the deep reverence generations of Americans have had for the Ten Commandments and the Judeo-Christian principles that have guided our nation from its inception.

I strongly believe that God has raised leaders like you for this very hour to lead the defense of the Ten Commandments and God's righteous standard in our nation. To find out what you and your church or ministry can do to support this effort visit us today at www.tencommandmentsday.com

America's future rests with Godly leaders like you who will take a bold stand for what is right.
God bless you and may God bless America , One Nation Under God.

Ron Wexler is founder and CEO of the Ten Commandments Commission.

http://www.tencommandmentsday.com/

Click to expand...

Thanks for passing that info on.

Cliff2 said:

At least they are being honest about the Sabbath issue.

Click to expand...

I beg your pardon?

BrightCandle said:

It seems that Cardinal Gibbons is not so popular these days among our Catholic friends, I don't think that I've ever seen a post by a RC CF member from Cardinal Gibbons regarding Sabbath vs Sunday issues, its as if his writings are now considered heresy by RCs.

Click to expand...

The link will take you past Gibbon to other RCC tinkers. It also shows protestant observations and conclusions. The latter do not make the connection between yes it is true and yes it applies to me.

Wavy said:

Died to the law how? What was the illustration, as you say? What does he use to make his point?

The law of a husband. Died to the law how? Not from a marriage to the law. A marriage to other things. When we die to the law that binds us to other things, we belong to another.

He says so that we can bear fruit to YHWH. In our other relationship, this was our fruit:

Rom 7:5
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

That was the former relationship: sin and death.

Again, the illustration he uses is not dying to the law as a spouse. It is dying to the law that forbad us to marry another as opposed to the former husband and way of life.

Click to expand...

I see the possibility of what you are saying. But it seems you are more ruling it out as a possibility based on other texts, rather than looking at what it says.

What would Paul have said if he DID mean the law was the previous spouse? He puts the text like this..

you have died to ___________ to be bound to __________


On the other hand, chapter 6 might fit in better with your thought, since there we are clearly talking about sin and death.

So I will think it over.

Either way though you the chapter plays out the same. Whether the spouse was the law, or sin and death, you still die to the law through Christ.

So the application is the same, but the identification is different.

Redwolf said:

I beg your pardon?

Click to expand...

I wonder why?

Cliff2 said:

I wonder why?

Click to expand...

Me, too.
Honest about the Sabbath issue? You mean they don't mind telling you of their enterprise?

Redwolf said:

Me, too.
Honest about the Sabbath issue? You mean they don't mind telling you of their enterprise?

Click to expand...

What I really meant was that at least the RCC were honest in what they said about the change of the Sabbath from the 7th day of the week to Sunday.

They have said time and again that there is no Biblical support for a Sunday/Sabbath.

It is only there because they are the ones that have the authority to make it that way.

That is as honest as you can get on the issue.