God's Ten Commandments? Still valid?

[LittleHamster]

Hmm. How many strawmen can I spot?

.
.
Q: What happens to those who don't keep the Law after coming to Christ?
(which mind you, is every single one of us, right?)

From personal experience, I f'd up monumentally in keeping the law. The Holy Spirit told me I was the worst of the worse. It got so bad in the end, Christ himself had to come down and sort me out.....and yes, I'm still saved. You can talk all you want from scripture, but I'm telling what I know from direct-experience. I can't even talk about it yet in detail - still recovering a bit (traumatized). So when I first was saved, I thought I was the greatest Christian to ever walk the earth. Turns out, I was the worst !

Anyway, if you like scripture, I found a nice little write-up : Does God's Grace Blot Out the Law? -> https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-libr ... t-the-law-

Edit: the article points out that the Law and Grace actually work together to assist those who have been saved, which is one of the points I agree with.

[BavarianWheels]

Weren't you recently arguing that Jesus as God didn't break the Sabbath, but rather fulfilled the requirements of the Law?
Who was nailed to the cross? So too the requirements of the Law, met in Jesus, were also nailed.

1. Let's be logical. You can ask any lawyer about a person that is found "not guilty" of breaking the law. Ask that lawyer if the guilty verdict allows the person on trial to break that law again because he/she has been found "not guilty" at some point.

2. This is not the same point. You made a distinct claim and one that I'm hoping you can back up with scripture, not rationalizing through what you think it means to fulfill law.

3. When one drives the speed limit, they are fulfilling the law. To then fulfill the law does not mean the person is free to speed the next day without fear of being pulled over. It's just not logical.

4. Jesus did fulfill the requirements of the Law...Jesus fulfills the requirements of the Law continually or else He would be a lawbreaker.

But let's see what the verse about "nailing to the cross" actually says vs. what you have claimed it says; Colossians 2:13,14

13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.

He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross.

by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

God wiped out the charges that were against us for disobeying the Law of Moses. He took them away and nailed them to the cross.

And he has blotted out by his authority the bill of our debts which was adverse to us and he took it from the midst and nailed it to his cross.

Clearly the text does not say God nailed the law to the cross, but rather the Bill, the Charges, the Record of Debt...What was nailed to the cross was the CHARGE against us...not the law itself so as to remove it as law.

Q. When a person is put on trial for breaking the law, is the law removed as law if the person is found "not guilty" or is the charge against the person removed?

You're claiming the law is removed. That's not logical...that's not what happens...that's not what scripture says is removed or nailed to the cross.

This is made plain by Paul in stating, "does this allow us to disregard the law? No, rather we uphold it." Why? Because that law STILL points at sin. It has never stopped doing so, it never will stop doing so. The Spirit lives according to the righteous requirements of the law...etc.

I'm perplexed that any Christian would baulk at this. This is the Gospel and why we hope in Christ, because if we're still under Law, then likewise only judgement and condemnation awaits us hereafter.

I'm sorry K, but the gospel is not that God removed the law. The gospel is that God came and PAID for our sins that are against the law. To pay for a speeding ticket does not absolve that person from having to continue to obey the speed law(s).

It seems to me strange that some preach in one breath we're forgiven, God won't punish us for our sin and we'll receive eternal life (thus, we call "being saved" since we pass from God's righteously deserved wrath). Yet then, in the next breath argue that we're still bound by the Law (either fully or in part).

Well, first of all, you've just admitted that we sin.

Q. What is it the bible claims tells us what sin is?

Again, once you receive a speeding ticket and pay the fine, that doesn't mean you can speed without consequence or without receiving another ticket for speeding...why? Because the law STILL exists.

In what way is Law still binding upon us, and to what end if we don't keep it? You know we can try to keep it, and we'll fail miserably. Martin Luther found this out the hard way. Until it dawned on Luther that such was why Jesus came, and our only hope really is if it is by grace through faith in Christ! If we're forgiven, and then saved, but then have to keep the Law again -- well, we'll just fail over and over again. So either, Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Law, which were then nailed to the cross, or we'll still end up facing God's eventual judgement and wrath hereafter. You can't have your feet in both camps. Or you can, but if you do, then we're all still going to be judged and condemned hereafter.

You're missing what I'm saying for hearing what you think I'm saying. At no time has my claim been 'we MUST keep the law'. My claim is that like of scripture, that if we claim to be in Christ, then we live according to the Spirit...and the Spirit fulfills the righteous requirements of the law on a continual basis...( the law has no charge, no record of debt, no bill against the Spirit ) we LIVE by the Spirit, not by the flesh...which is hostile to God's law. The Law remains law and we DO IT, not for salvation, but because doing so IS righteousness and it should be what we choose to do if we live by the Spirit...and not that we can keep the law perfectly.

As for your earlier question re: Law and knowledge of sin, I asked you for clarification on what your point was and don't believe I received a response. That said, I'm happy to provide an answer now. Sure as heck, we know sin, and the Law will highlight it all the more, convict us and make us feel guilty as heck. The Law will help sin to beat us down and rot us from the inside out with guilt. We're not the cure for that however, Jesus is. Most certainly our keeping the Law isn't the cure.

Q: What happens to those who don't keep the Law after coming to Christ?
(which mind you, is every single one of us, right?)

I don't understand this question. If you mean what happens to sinners that come to Christ, I would answer that sinners are COVERED by Christ's righteousness...not absolved from keeping God's law.

Again...in context, there is only ONE law that remains in question here. It's not Commands 1-3 nor is it Commands 5-10. It's just Command 4 that people put on the cross...and ironically do not act on the logic if the WHOLE of the law was nailed to the cross.

Q. Why is it you don't murder if the murder Command was nailed to the cross?

Q. Why is it you don't "Remember...by keeping it holy"?

You can't logically answer those two questions with differing answers if they are both ( all 10 actually ) nailed to the cross.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

And you seem to be defending to keep the law just so you can have the sabbath justified.

This is the best part of your post...that you would think I'M trying to justify the Sabbath.

8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For 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.

It's not me that is defending and/or justifying it...scripture does so. James makes this clear...if you break one, you're guilty of ALL of it.

28For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

It's not me defending to keep the law...simply read scripture...it's full of that defense on it's own.
.
.

[warren631]

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus reportedly said:

"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. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…"
Isn't that plain enough?

You highlighted and underlined the wrong sentence. Fixed that for ya.

Did heaven and earth pass away? I hadn't noticed.

[BavarianWheels]

1. Let's be logical. You can ask any lawyer about a person that is found "not guilty" of breaking the law. Ask that lawyer if the guilty verdict allows the person on trial to break that law again because he/she has been found "not guilty" at some point.

The ability for me to edit my posts has disappeared...

Anyway the above should read, "Ask that lawyer if the NOT GUILTY verdict allows..."
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus reportedly said:

"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. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…"
Isn't that plain enough?

You highlighted and underlined the wrong sentence. Fixed that for ya.

Did heaven and earth pass away? I hadn't noticed.

Excellent point.
.
.

[neo-x]

Weren't you recently arguing that Jesus as God didn't break the Sabbath, but rather fulfilled the requirements of the Law?
Who was nailed to the cross? So too the requirements of the Law, met in Jesus, were also nailed.

1. Let's be logical. You can ask any lawyer about a person that is found "not guilty" of breaking the law. Ask that lawyer if the guilty verdict allows the person on trial to break that law again because he/she has been found "not guilty" at some point.

2. This is not the same point. You made a distinct claim and one that I'm hoping you can back up with scripture, not rationalizing through what you think it means to fulfill law.

3. When one drives the speed limit, they are fulfilling the law. To then fulfill the law does not mean the person is free to speed the next day without fear of being pulled over. It's just not logical.

4. Jesus did fulfill the requirements of the Law...Jesus fulfills the requirements of the Law continually or else He would be a lawbreaker.

But let's see what the verse about "nailing to the cross" actually says vs. what you have claimed it says; Colossians 2:13,14

13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.

He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross.

by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

God wiped out the charges that were against us for disobeying the Law of Moses. He took them away and nailed them to the cross.

And he has blotted out by his authority the bill of our debts which was adverse to us and he took it from the midst and nailed it to his cross.

Clearly the text does not say God nailed the law to the cross, but rather the Bill, the Charges, the Record of Debt...What was nailed to the cross was the CHARGE against us...not the law itself so as to remove it as law.

Q. When a person is put on trial for breaking the law, is the law removed as law if the person is found "not guilty" or is the charge against the person removed?

You're claiming the law is removed. That's not logical...that's not what happens...that's not what scripture says is removed or nailed to the cross.

This is made plain by Paul in stating, "does this allow us to disregard the law? No, rather we uphold it." Why? Because that law STILL points at sin. It has never stopped doing so, it never will stop doing so. The Spirit lives according to the righteous requirements of the law...etc.

I'm perplexed that any Christian would baulk at this. This is the Gospel and why we hope in Christ, because if we're still under Law, then likewise only judgement and condemnation awaits us hereafter.

I'm sorry K, but the gospel is not that God removed the law. The gospel is that God came and PAID for our sins that are against the law. To pay for a speeding ticket does not absolve that person from having to continue to obey the speed law(s).

It seems to me strange that some preach in one breath we're forgiven, God won't punish us for our sin and we'll receive eternal life (thus, we call "being saved" since we pass from God's righteously deserved wrath). Yet then, in the next breath argue that we're still bound by the Law (either fully or in part).

Well, first of all, you've just admitted that we sin.

Q. What is it the bible claims tells us what sin is?

Again, once you receive a speeding ticket and pay the fine, that doesn't mean you can speed without consequence or without receiving another ticket for speeding...why? Because the law STILL exists.

In what way is Law still binding upon us, and to what end if we don't keep it? You know we can try to keep it, and we'll fail miserably. Martin Luther found this out the hard way. Until it dawned on Luther that such was why Jesus came, and our only hope really is if it is by grace through faith in Christ! If we're forgiven, and then saved, but then have to keep the Law again -- well, we'll just fail over and over again. So either, Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Law, which were then nailed to the cross, or we'll still end up facing God's eventual judgement and wrath hereafter. You can't have your feet in both camps. Or you can, but if you do, then we're all still going to be judged and condemned hereafter.

You're missing what I'm saying for hearing what you think I'm saying. At no time has my claim been 'we MUST keep the law'. My claim is that like of scripture, that if we claim to be in Christ, then we live according to the Spirit...and the Spirit fulfills the righteous requirements of the law on a continual basis...( the law has no charge, no record of debt, no bill against the Spirit ) we LIVE by the Spirit, not by the flesh...which is hostile to God's law. The Law remains law and we DO IT, not for salvation, but because doing so IS righteousness and it should be what we choose to do if we live by the Spirit...and not that we can keep the law perfectly.

As for your earlier question re: Law and knowledge of sin, I asked you for clarification on what your point was and don't believe I received a response. That said, I'm happy to provide an answer now. Sure as heck, we know sin, and the Law will highlight it all the more, convict us and make us feel guilty as heck. The Law will help sin to beat us down and rot us from the inside out with guilt. We're not the cure for that however, Jesus is. Most certainly our keeping the Law isn't the cure.

Q: What happens to those who don't keep the Law after coming to Christ?
(which mind you, is every single one of us, right?)

I don't understand this question. If you mean what happens to sinners that come to Christ, I would answer that sinners are COVERED by Christ's righteousness...not absolved from keeping God's law.

Again...in context, there is only ONE law that remains in question here. It's not Commands 1-3 nor is it Commands 5-10. It's just Command 4 that people put on the cross...and ironically do not act on the logic if the WHOLE of the law was nailed to the cross.

Q. Why is it you don't murder if the murder Command was nailed to the cross?

Q. Why is it you don't "Remember...by keeping it holy"?

You can't logically answer those two questions with differing answers if they are both ( all 10 actually ) nailed to the cross.
.
.

K will obviously reply but Ofcourse we can answer these last two questions. Christ said love one another as I have loved you. That is the only way people will know that you are children of god. Not by keeping sabbaths, nor by not murdering people.

So the murder command was given to jews and nailed to the cross. And we don't need it in order to not murder.

This is beyond ridiculous that you think this is the bullseye point. Instead of all this you could have simply discussed what others feel on the topic. Surely, you can't be that obtuse to think that others wouldn’t have given any thought to this? But it appears you have an axe to grind.

Its beyond insulting to simply think that others, just because they reject the law, should be murders because that is what it leads to. Sin is still sin and is recognized easily even without the law.

[BavarianWheels]

Colossians 2:13-14
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

You missed the context which plays to my point. There exists no law for circumcision in the Decalogue. That exists in the written code. So while in one translation, it is the CHARGE, the BILL, the accusation, if you will, in this translation it is the written code where one can find circumcision...these are what is nailed to the cross.

Ephesians 2:14-15
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Again, you completely miss the context. See Ephesians 2:11 Who is this talking to? It's directed at Gentiles...the uncircumcised, separate from God. Why? Uncircumcised.

And now verse 14...two groups...circumcised and uncircumcised, breaking the barrier...circumcision, the dividing wall of hostility ( see the latter part of Ephesians 2:11 for the hostility )

And as for the Old Covenant/New Covenant theology:

Hebrews 7:11-12
11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.

You're not reading the context...AGAIN. There is no "Levitical priesthood" in the Decalogue. That priesthood existed for the purposes of the TEMPLE...it's laws and THESE are the laws that were a shadow of things to come. I can't believe you're completely missing the context(s).

Hebrews 7:18-22
18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
20And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.'” 22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

AGAIN...context. The law made nothing perfect. The Decalogue does NOT EXIST to make anything perfect, it exists to make us conscious of sin. The law that was to "make perfect" was the laws of animal sacrifice that shadowed things to come...the reality and BETTER COVENANT in Christ's blood...not of animals blood.

Hebrews 8:6-13
6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said: “The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. 10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
13By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

AGAIN...CONTEXT! There is no mediator of the Decalogue. The Decalogue exists to POINT TO SIN. Christ is the mediator of the covenant of REDEMPTION and as we know the Decalogue does not save. So Christ cannot be a mediator of something that doesn't save. It is HIS BLOOD that saves...

Galatians 2:19-21
"For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

This just further establishes that the Decalogue does not bring righteousness...but that we have died to the law...Christ's death serves as our death, He took on the curse.

The context here mentions, again, circumcision...Jewish customs. This is the law that is nailed to the cross.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

K will obviously reply but Ofcourse we can answer these last two questions. Christ said love one another as I have loved you. That is the only way people will know that you are children of god. Not by keeping sabbaths, nor by not murder people.

So the murder command was given to jews and nailed to the cross. And we don't need it in order to not murder.

Completely wrong.

8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Love is the fulfillment of ALL the law...notice he specifies which law ( the Decalogue ).

Commandments 1-4 = How to love God

Commandments 5-10 - How to love your neighbor.
.
.

[neo-x]

There you proved my point. The reason we don't need to follow the law is because we can simply love. But love is the fulfillment of law, obeying the law isn't love. For you can obey the law in fear of punishment without actually changing. But love goes beyond the law. And does what sadly law can never do. I don't murder, not because I need to follow the law but because being in Christ makes me a new person. That love is what makes law obsolete for as Paul himself argues that law is after all for lawless people, for slaves. But people in Christ are free.

[BavarianWheels]

There you proved my point. The reason we don't need to follow the law is because we can simply love. But love is the fulfillment of law, obeying the law isn't love. For you can obey the law in fear of punishment without actually changing. But love goes beyond the law. And does what sadly law can never do. I don't murder, not because I need to follow the law but because being in Christ makes me a new person. That love is what makes law obsolete for as Paul himself argues that law is after all lawless people.

Commandments 1-4 = How to love God

Commandments 5-10 - How to love your neighbor.

You're completely wrong again.
.
.

[neo-x]

There you proved my point. The reason we don't need to follow the law is because we can simply love. But love is the fulfillment of law, obeying the law isn't love. For you can obey the law in fear of punishment without actually changing. But love goes beyond the law. And does what sadly law can never do. I don't murder, not because I need to follow the law but because being in Christ makes me a new person. That love is what makes law obsolete for as Paul himself argues that law is after all lawless people.

Commandments 1-4 = How to love God

Commandments 5-10 - How to love your neighbor.

You're completely wrong again.
.
.

Yeah, grace is a totally irrational thing. It never makes sense.

Fwiw, When I first joined this forum I held the identical position as yours. Not only on the law but also on understanding eternal life.

So you are saying that paul is wrong when he says the law is for lawless people?

[RickD]

This board's (independent?) moderator states that God's Laws are only applicable to Jews? Just OT Jews?
So this board's moderator says Christians are above God's Commandments and can safely ignore some of them?
I will continue to try to comply with all that The Father and His Son said in the Bible - not with this board's evil propaganda.

Warren631,

I'm going to respond to this, and ask you to stop misrepresenting me. If you have a question about something I said that you don't understand, simply ask. Don't make up straw man arguments, that you refute.

And please, as you are a guest on a Christian forum, please respect that we are primarily a Christian forum. We do allow non Christians such as yourself, to post here, but you must do it respectfully.

This board's (independent?) moderator states that God's Laws are only applicable to Jews? Just OT Jews?

First off, I am one of many moderators here. Next, I never said that God's laws are only applicable to Jews. We are talking about specific laws, given specifically to Israel. Those specific laws, are not all of God's laws.

So this board's moderator says Christians are above God's Commandments and can safely ignore some of them?

Please tell me exactly where I said this. Hint: I never did.

I will continue to try to comply with all that The Father and His Son said in the Bible - not with this board's evil propaganda.

As I said before, I am one of many moderators here. I am one person, and I speak for myself. I don't speak for the entire board. And, if you are going to try to comply with all that "The Father and His Son said in the Bible", then you might want to "comply" with what the Bible says about Jesus Christ being God.

Again, please be respectful, and most likely, you'll receive respect in return. You are a guest on a Christian board. Keep that in mind please.

[RickD]

Bav,

I know you have said multiple times, that observing the sabbath is not a requirement for salvation. In your opinion, is observing the sabbath and other OT commandments the fruit one who is saved, shows?

“Salvation is all of grace and not of works, but its fruitage is obedience to the Commandments.”

From “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-Day Adventists” (1980), 18, cited in Seventh-day Adventists Believe…, 232.

[warren631]

Jesus said “If ye love me keep my commandments” (John 14:15). After all this heated discussion I will answer my own question with a definite YES! If I fail then Jesus will forgive me if I have faith and love Him. Anyway, keeping Saturday holy and not murdering anyone will not be too onerous for me.