Have the Ten Commandments been abolished?

I ask this question as most Christian denominations believe that the Ten Commandments have been abolished.

I find this interesting in light of Ten Commandment Day on Sunday, May 7, 2006.

Its actually a contradiction Daryl. What I mean is that the majority of evengelicals and mainstream Christianity leaders back this up, so its a rather confusing message to give. They say the 10 commandments were done away with at the cross, then they say that it wasn't.
What they really want to say is that the Seventh-Day Sabbath was done away with.
God Bless,
Will

Well yes, according to some it has. One person explained it this way. The 4th commandment is now abrogated by Christ's death since He is now our Sabbath. That's their interpretation of Hebrews chapter 4. The rest of the commandments are still binding though, since no types or shadows abrogate them.

Jeff

In the days before I came into contact with members of the SDA Church, I believed the Ten Commandments had been abolished.

It's interesting how we accept things told to us without studying it out for ourselves.

It was only after being challenged that I studied it out for myself in order to prove them wrong, however, it ended out proving them right, which later resulted in my becoming a member of the SDA Church.

Has anyone been listening to 3ABN with the sermons on the Ten Commandments? They are doing a wonderful job on answering all these quetions going through each of the Ten Commandents. Amen God is so Good to us.

Dear friends

Some people think that we are now under a "law of Christ", and to speak of the 10 Commandments, or the "the law of God" is something past, related only to the Jewish people.

But I would invite those who think like that to try to answer the questions below because in this way I hope such a person will realize how baseless is this rationale. God's law and Christ's law is only one and the same, as Chist and God are ONE.

10 QUESTIONS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE LAW OF GOD/LAW OF CHRIST

Jesus said: "I and My Father are One" (John 10:30)

1 – Where does the Bible say, in a direct, clear, straightforward way, that “the law of Christ” took the place of the “law of God” for the Christians?

2 – If now we just have the “law of Christ”, that replaced the supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Paul still refer to the “law of God”, saying he has pleasure on it, and keep it in his mind, that the “inclinação da carne” ["inclination of the flesh"] is not subject to the law of God, etc. (Rom. 7:22, 25; 8:7 e 8')? Why does he still refer to the “law of God”, “commandments of God”, things that would be past, instead of focusing only on the “law of Christ”?

3 – If now we just have the “law of Christ” that replaced the supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Paul enumerate the Decalogue’s commandments (“law of God”), prescribing them to the Christians as to be obeyed according to the principle of “love”, instead of speaking of the “law of Christ” (Rom. 13:8-10)?

4 – If now we just have the “law of Christ” that replaced the supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Paul remind the Ephesians of a commandment of the Decalogue (“law of God”) as still in force, instead of urging them to obey the same principle, applying it to a different code, related to the “law of Christ” (Eph. 6:1-3)?

5 – If now we just have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Paul say that now importa obedecer os “commandments of God”, and not the “commandments of Christ” (1 Cor. 7:19)?

6 – If now we just have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does John speak of “law of God” and “law of Christ” interchangeably in his various epistles (see 1 John 2:7; 3:21-24; 4:7-12, 21)?

7 – If now we have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does John in the book of Revelation say clearly that the faithful children of God are characterized as those who “keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:12)? Why doesn’t he say that they “keep the commandments of Christ”?

8 – If now we have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Hebrews 8:6-10, dealing with the change of the Old to the New Covenant, refer to “My laws” (God’s), which are written on the hearts and minds of those who accept this New Covenant [New Testament], and not the “laws of Christ”?

9 – If now we have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does James mention the Decalogue’s commandments (“law of God”) as norms for the Christians, instead of concentrating attention on the “law of Christ” (James 2:10-12)?

10 – If now we have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why as John defines what sin is—transgression of the law (1 John 3:4)—he doesn’t specify that this applies now to the “law of Christ”?

Note.: The context of that verse doesn’t even speak of Christ, only of God. His primary readers would clearly identify the “law” as being God’s. The onus of the proof rests with whoever deny that.

======

Edited to insert "inclination of the flesh" in the proper place per other post. - Daryl

A little correction.

My text in the previous square was translated from Portuguese and as I did it I missed one phrase in the 2nd question. Instead of "inclinação da carne" understand it as "inclination of the flesh".

Thanks you. . .

Saw 50% of it beginning with the study pertaining to this very topic.

I have been listening to it all day I didnt go to church today and stayed home listening and studying the Bible.
Very good and powerful sermons, I only caught part of 1 sermon where science was being discussed, specifically Mr.Hubble, the red shift, Orion etc etc. I am hoping it is played again, but overall very inspiring, and truthful. I learned a few things today from it.
God Bless,
Will

Thanks, bro. Daryl for the necessary correction.

I have developed along the years of Internet debates and confrontation with people of other faiths, especially Protestants (both traditional and charismatic), as well as spiritists, Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and even atheists, a series of Bible studies presented in a very didactic, clear and straightforward style, based mostly on 10 main points or reflexions, or questions for deepening the study of a great variety of doctrinal subjects, in the style of the study posted above.

I have been translating this material into both English and Spanish to make them available to those who speak these languages in our midst and who care to reach out for helping those who are in error to acquire a better understanding of the God’s Word. These studies are intended for free distribution, so there is no monetary gain involved in the project.

I would like to see if I could find volunteers to have them translated into French or other languages. I thought that since you are Canadians, and there are many people who are bilingual in Canada, mastering both English and French, I could find one, or even more than one, volunteer to offer me a helping hand to put them in French(it doesn’t have to be all at once)! Also people who master Portuguese and Spanish would be welcome. The material is mostly in Portuguese (my native language).

The total number of these apologetic studies and short articles nears 100, covering the basic subjects of our beliefs--God's law, Sabbath/Sunday, conditional immortality , Bible dietary laws, 'Sola Scriptura'.

I have a BA in Theology, got some training in both Greek and Hebrew, so the material is not something theologically “naïve” or amateurish, nor prepared by a “layman” who just have good will in explaining Bible points but with little theological grounds. I base my studies on sound theological research, in part by collecting data from scholars such as Samuele Bacchiocchi, the SDABC, and other SDA authors, including Ellen White, but not mostly from her writings due to the intention of reaching people outside our fold.

Actually, even though the language and style are the easiest to understand, they are at the same time exegetically sound and simple to handle, besides being attractive in terms of layout.

So, if you “qualify” according to the above description, please get in touch with me at one the following addresses: azenilto@yahoo.com; profazenilto@aol.com or profazenilto@hotmail.com.

May God bless you all richly.

Let me add one more of my studies dealing with the subject of the law:

10 POINTS TO PONDER ON THE THEME OF GOD’S LAW AND THE SABBATH

1st. – God’s law is called “perfect” (Sal. 19:17), thus how could it be discarded as an inadequate “first law” to be replaced by a best one in the New Testament? Would God create an imperfect law for the Jews and a perfect one for the Christians?

2nd. – Jesus DIDN’T create a new, revolutionary code, in SUBTITUTION to the divine law of the Old Testament, since his “golden rule” is just a reiteration of what Moses had already said (compare Mat. 22:3-40 with Lev. 19:18 and Deu. 6:5). What He did was to highlight the deeper and ethical aspects of the law that had been lost sight of due to the bad instruction His hearers had got from the religious leaders of the Jewish nation. After all, it was always wrong to look at a woman with impure intentions (see Job 31:1) as well as to hate a neighbor (Lev. 19:17).

3rd. – A proof of that is what we read in Matthew 5:20—the key to understand Christ’s statements in His famous antithesis, “ye have heard that it was said by them of old time. . . But I say unto you. . .”: “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven”.

4th. – Another proof that Christ didn’t intend to REPLACE the principles of the law, besides His statements in Matthew 5:17, 18 that He hadn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, is that what He says in these verses is accompanied by His RECOMMENDATIONS regarding the most perfect obedience, taking into account the minimal details of such law (see vs. 19).

5th. – Also in Matthew 23:1-3 Jesus recommends to His hearers that they accept ALL that their religious leaders taught (not what they practiced). And one of the things they taught, even though corrupting the meaning of the commandment, was the faithful observance of the seventh-day Sabbath: Luke 13:14.

6th. – The expressions used by Paul of “law of the spirit of life” and “law of sin and death” don’t mean different laws, but different visions on the law. He employs the word “law” in Romans 7:25 as a “play on words”, for he is speaking on the operation of sin as a “law”, while significantly he also states: “I myself serve the law of God”. That would make no sense in case he understood that this law was annulled. But he also declared: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (Rom. 3:31).

7th. – Jesus Christ stated that “the Sabbath was made because of man, and not man because of the Sabbath” (Mar. 2:27). In that statement He confirms the universal character of the Sabbath and REINFORCES the need to keep the Sabbath commandment, which is, above all, a privilege of God’s children, while He condemned the distortions to the commandment practiced by the religious leaders of His time. Christ’s debates on the Sabbath didn’t have the objective of teaching that it was an abolished commandment to be no more obeyed (for that would be in opposition to His own words in Matthew 5:19), rather He showed the CORRECT spirit by which the Sabbath should be kept.

8th. – On the question of the “division of the laws” as “moral”, “ceremonial”, “civil”, etc., we find the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 7:19, where he speaks that “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God”. In that we see how he himself makes a “division” of the laws that were important, but are no more so, and commandments that must be fulfilled by God’s people.

9th. – Christian leaders along history always defined God’s law on this basis: as moral law (the Ten Commandments), ceremonial, civil laws, etc. The historic confessions of faith, creeds and catechisms of Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Congregationalists, and even Roman Catholics, allow anyone to realize it.

10th. – Finally, there is the question of the change of Old Covenant for the New Covenant: There isn’t the least hint that in this process, as God writes His laws on the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of this New Covenant (New Testament), He

a) leaves out the 4th commandment (of the Bible’s Decalogue, not of the falsified one in the Roman Catholic catechisms)

b) includes the 4th commandment, but changing the day of observance from the seventh-day Sabbath to the first day of the week (Sunday)

OR

c) includes the 4h commandment, but as a vague, voluntary and variable principle, that can be fulfilled or not, or adopted according to the most convenient time for the believer (or his/her employer).

Basic Texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; Jeremiah 31:31-33 y Ezekiel 36:26 y 27. – By Prof. Azenilto G. Brito.

__________

P.S.: In a certain Forum a Roman-Catholic said that my last question is IMPOSSIBLE to be answered only through the Bible.

Oh, I noticed that bro. Daryl only added the English version for my Portugese phrase that I missed to change, in the study on the 10 commandments, a few squares above. He should have eliminated totally the Portuguese words, replacing them for the English.

Thanks

I think, it would be interesting to share this with our fellow christians in:

********************

I have some shares as well there.

In His love

JS

========

As we do not make it a habit of directing members and guests of MSDAOL to topics in other forums outside of MSDAOL, SDA or otherwise, the URL has been removed. - Daryl

Anonymous Poster:

If you are the same person I think you are, then you are a registered member of MSDAOL, therefore, you should be able to log on.

If you have forgotten your password, and your email address has changed from what you have shown in your membership profile, please let me know.

The software has sent your username and password to the email address in your membership profile.

One of the more interesting things to me is how many Christians say that the Ten Commandments, as well as all other Biblical laws, are slavery. I have a big problem with this because of three texts:

Quote:

---

Your (The Lor's) righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your law is truth.”
Psalms 119:142 NKJV

---

Quote:

---

The law of truth was in his (Levi's) mouth, and injustice was not found on his lips. He walked with Me in peace and equity, And turned many away”
Malachi 2:6 NKJV

---

Quote:

---

Then you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
John 8:32 NCV

---

So I guess I can't understand how a law of truth (a law that sets us free) is slavery.

Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Yes, I know that is the text that people use to support that claim, but it is not used right. I have an entire sermon about this. The laws that pertain to ordinances have no use, so to continue to do them is to make one a slave, but the moral laws actually make us free. Can you dispute this? Take the sixth commandment (you mustn’t murder). We are set free from the threat of murder because the law says we shouldn’t do it.

Is it your position that the Ten Commandments make us slaves? If so, how do you reconcile that God’s law is a law of truth and the truth sets us free?

I think Paul did in one or other letter refer to a christian having left the service of sin to enter the service of God. Couldnt find it now though.

I just tried to point out that the idea of the laws as slavery isnt taken out of thin air. If the ten commandments are included in "Sinai" I dont know, maybe not.

I think the Ten C could make us slaves, or rather, we could enslave ourselves with them.

Then you have instance:

Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

About the sixth commandment, remember how Jesus thaught it. No longer is it enough not to murder someone, after Jesus you also musnt hate someone or plot his/hers death as hating or ploting is now equal to the actual killing. Do you think there might be simmilar "new" dept to all of the Ten, even those which Jesus didnt specificly enlargen?

Q1 – Where does the Bible say, in a direct, clear, straightforward way, that “the law of Christ” took the place of the “law of God” for the Christians?

Answer no. 1..
Read John 14:15 and John 15:12.
Christ ordered us to love each other, which is His command to us, His believers after the cross.

Read Leviticus 18:4,5.
God ordered the Jews to keep the Ten Commandment for a reward of life.

Read Romans 3:19,20.
All law keepers who seek life through obedience are under condemnation.
Read 2 Corinthians 3:6,7
Serving the Law lead only to death .

Read Romans 13:8.
But by loving each other we have fulfilled the demands of the Ten Commandment.

Read Romans 8:4.
By walking after the Spirit, the righteousness of the Law (Ten Commandments) is fulfilled in us.

Read Galatians 5:22.
The fruit of the Spirit is love.

Conclusion: if we live with faith and walk after the Spirit, the righteous demands of the law (love) is fulfilled in us for love is fruit of the Spirit and love is the fulfillment of the law.

With this in mind, who need the Ten Commandments? No one.

Thus, as Paul said, Christians should now serve the ministry of the Spirit (to live according to the Spirit and the fruit is love) with faith in Christ (2 Corinthians 3:6-11), for the ministry of the law (keeping and obeying the law) lead only to death and has been done away.

Luke approved it: The law (10 Cs) and the prophets (the Mosaic law) were until John; since that time the Kingdom of God is preached……. Luke 16:16.

Repeated by Paul: Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made. Galatians 3:19.

And He has come 2,000 years ago., till then, it stops function.

In his love

James S

James, John 14:15 tells us that if we love Jesus we are to keep His commandments. It does not say anything about love taking the place of the commandments. Quite the contrary, Jesus is telling us that keeping the commandments is a sign of our love for Him.

Who needs the 10 commandments? I do. If I keep them I will be happier, I won't be in jail, nor will I catch a sexually transmitted disease. I'll have better family relationships. I will have a day of rest, I'll have respect for God and my fellow man. By keeping the 4th commandment I'll keep in mind the Creation and show my love to the Creator.

We are told that the law has not changed.

Keeping the law does not earn us heaven, however sin will keep us out of heaven and sin is the transgression of the law. Sin separates us from a saving relationship with God.

Redfog

Redfog, you missed the point.

Jesus said, if we love him, we shall keep his commadment and his commandment is to love each other.

It is very clear that Jesus commandment is: To love each other.

Denying this is denying him.

In His love

James S.

Quote.
Who needs the 10 commandments? I do. If I keep them I will be happier, I won't be in jail, nor will I catch a sexually transmitted disease. I'll have better family relationships. I will have a day of rest, I'll have respect for God and my fellow man. By keeping the 4th commandment I'll keep in mind the Creation and show my love to the Creator.
Unquote.

So, you rely on a written code on blocks of stone to keep you away from sinning?

Didn’t Paul say that serving this codes lead only to death?

And by loving each other we shall fulfill the demands of the 10 Cs even it is banned. Don’t you believe this?

Do you think that Adam and Eve have this 10 Cs even after they multiply? They didn’t have this law, what is with them is the law of love.

Do we need the 10 Cs in heaven and the New World? Who need it? Love is the great law of God, his very self, which is the FITNES for heaven for those who want to go there.

In His love

James S

I didn't read this whole thread, so hopefully I'm not pointing out something somebody else did, but it was Moses who taught the two great laws which Jesus cited: Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy mind and heart and soul and strength and Thou shalt love thy neighbor as Thyself.

So the idea that love is the fulfillment of the law, as Paul put it, was present in the Old Testament.

What Christ did, as far as the law is concerned, was to reveal what the keeping of the law really looks like.

Q.2 – If now we just have the “law of Christ”, that replaced the supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Paul still refer to the “law of God”, saying he has pleasure on it, and keep it in his mind, that the “inclinação da carne” ["inclination of the flesh"] is not subject to the law of God, etc. (Rom. 7:22, 25; 8:7 e 8')? Why does he still refer to the “law of God”, “commandments of God”, things that would be past, instead of focusing only on the “law of Christ”?

Why? Because the law of God discern sin and righteousness!

We will be righteous if we love each other but we sin when we break each of the Ten Commandments.

In His love

James S.

Q.3 – If now we just have the “law of Christ” that replaced the supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Paul enumerate the Decalogue’s commandments (“law of God”), prescribing them to the Christians as to be obeyed according to the principle of “love”, instead of speaking of the “law of Christ” (Rom. 13:8-10)?

I think you missed the point.

Paul is not prescribing them to the Christians as to be obeyed according to the principle of “love”, but in fact he points out that those who love his neighbor has done what the Decalogue demand’s him to do to his neighbors.

And since we believe that keeping the Decalogue from our own would only result in condemnation, we then seek to live in the Spirit and walk after the Spirit, where love as fruit of the Spirit engulf our hearts and expressed to our neighbors in deeds that fulfill the Demands of the Decalogue.

Love first to have deeds that fulfill the Decalogue demand.

So, is it not the same as a “replacement?” Compare with Leviticus 18:4, 5, when the Decalogue was first.

In His love

James S

James, your ideas, as I understand them, seem to me to be correct, in that you seem to be saying that love is the fulfilling of the law. However, this is nothing new, in terms of time. It's not something that started with Christ, but, as I pointed out, Moses taught this!

Christ brought these truths to light, however. He showed what it really meant to love; what love really looks like.
But the same Christ who gave the law in the first place is the one who taught Moses the principles which He Himself reiterated on the Sermon of the Mount.

Let us be careful with our theology. This line of thought would suggest that Adam and Eve did not know how to love their children. Jesus came as man because the demonstration of love has always been obvious in man. He did not come to expose something that had been hidden but to reintroduce something that had been ignored.

James do you think it is OK with God if we sin?

When Jesus said if you love Me keep my commandments (notice more than one) do you think it might have been possible that He was refering to His Ten Commandments?

Without the commandments are we free to do anything we want? Of course not.

If we are not to sin then we need the Ten Commandments to know weather or not we are sinning. Right? Sin after all is the transgression of the Law, what law? Gods law. What is Gods law?

James I don't rely on words on blocks of stone to keep me from sinning. I rely on them to know what sin is.

There is nowhere in the Bible that God ever did away with the 10 commandments. And my question is why would anyone not want to keep them? Even if they were no longer valid they would still direct us to a happier life. Why would anyone not want to keep the Sabbath when God blesses us so much? Why would anyone not want to honor our parents? James, keeping the law is not restrictive but freedom from a life of misery. The decalog was given for our own good. Keeping the laws of God is a privilege, not a burden.

Redfog

Redfog, why should I be concerned whether you keep them or not. Conversely, why should you be concerned whether I keep them or not?

Well Darius I always thought that if I love my fellow man I'd want what is best for him. As a Christian I have an obligation to tell others about God, part of that telling involves the freedom one gets from keeping His commandments. (I am my brother's keeper). And keeping the law is a indication of our love for Jesus.

Redfog

The best telling is the showing.

Quoted from Tom:
James, your ideas, as I understand them, seem to me to be correct, in that you seem to be saying that love is the fulfilling of the law. However, this is nothing new, in terms of time. It's not something that started with Christ, but, as I pointed out, Moses taught this!

Christ brought these truths to light, however. He showed what it really meant to love; what love really looks like.
But the same Christ who gave the law in the first place is the one who taught Moses the principles which He Himself reiterated on the Sermon of the Mount.
Unquote.

Quoted from Darius:
Let us be careful with our theology. This line of thought would suggest that Adam and Eve did not know how to love their children. Jesus came as man because the demonstration of love has always been obvious in man. He did not come to expose something that had been hidden but to reintroduce something that had been ignored.
Unquote.

No problem Tom and Darius, I had said the same in my earlier post. You overlooked it.

Quoted from James post #82083 - Mon Jun 26 2006 12:25 AM
Do you think that Adam and Eve have this 10 Cs even after they multiply? They didn’t have this law, what is with them is the law of love Unquote.

In His love

James S
= = == ===

Redfog

Do you really believe that a person who walks with the Spirt of God as his/her guide will sin? Remember the law which says "13 You shall not murder.", and we cant even agree about wether this means intentional murder or all kind of intentional killing such as in war.
Then remember Jesus said that "21You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. " Here is no question about what is meant and it goes way beyond the original commandment. Any somewhat civilized person can stay himself from killing another human, but very few if indeed any at all can stay themselves from anger and in their heart, or loudly insulting another person. That is without the help of the Spirit of course.

Remember what Paul wrote in Galatians 5 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Anyone who has a crop of this fruit is miles on the safe side of the law of Moses and is also in no risk of testing the boundaries of the law.

I agree with Darius, preach this at all times, IF nessessary, use words.

Are you folks really saying the ten commandments should be done away with and that they have have no useful place in a Christians life? Christ said If you love me keep My commandments. That sounds like relevence to me.

Yes I agree that the greatest commandment is that we love our neighbor but that was never meant to take the place of the others. The ten commandments lay down a basic framework as to how we are to relate to God and our fellow man.

Redfog

Gal 3

15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Rom3
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is 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.

Quote.
Q.4 ~ Q. 10. ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

Note.: The context of that verse doesn’t even speak of Christ, only of God. His primary readers would clearly identify the “law” as being God’s. The onus of the proof rests with whoever deny that.
Unquote.

Love is the fulfillment of the law (10Cs), Love expressed in deeds as according to the 10Cs. But we only might express these deeds if we have the love of God in our hearts and we might have this love in our hearts if we live for God and walked after the Spirit. Thus, the focus is no longer the 10 Cs but Christ through faith in Him (Hebrew 12:2; Matthew 10:37, 38).

So, shall we abolish the law because of faith? No, we uphold the law!
For the law might still useable to discern sin and righteousness. But we understood that the ministry of the Spirit had replaced a ministry once is the first; the ministry of the law.

First, God asked men to be righteous by keeping His commands in exchange for life, which failed, and all came under condemnation except Jesus Christ who successfully kept it and rewarded with life.

God knew that no men might be justified by His law, but He still commanded men to keep it, because only through His law he might has the legal right to execute judgment upon men (to abolish sin and sinners through death) and thus justify Christ righteousness to become our sin redeemer. But it was in His plan from the beginning that justification at the end is by faith without the deeds of the law (Romans 3:19-22). So, when (the object of our) faith came, we are no longer under a schoolmaster (the law).

According to my opinion in regards of other denomination’s view, this is the reason why Love replaced the 10Cs as the focus of our Christian living.

In His love

James S

James if the ten commandments are no longer valid is it no longer sin to disregard the Sabbath Is adultry no longer sin? If not why not?

Redfog

God knew that no men might be justified by His law, but He still commanded men to keep it, because only through His law he might has the legal right to execute judgment upon men (to abolish sin and sinners through death) and thus justify Christ righteousness to become our sin redeemer.

Paul tells exactly why God formally gave the law. It was "added because of transgressions."

The law was given as a diagnostic tool. It shows us our need for Christ by making clear our sin. When we receive Christ, it testifies of the righteousness we have in Him.

God has never been dependent upon something written on tablets to have the right to execute judgment. And besides, the judgment which God executes is simply to allow those who have made free choices to experience the results of those choices.

For example:

For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord; they would none of my counsel; they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.Prov. 1:29-32.

But it was in His plan from the beginning that justification at the end is by faith without the deeds of the law (Romans 3:19-22). So, when (the object of our) faith came, we are no longer under a schoolmaster (the law).

It wasn't God's plan in the sense that God looked at several alternatives and said, "Let's go with this one!" The only way by which one can be reconciled to God is by faith. Not because God said so, but because there is no other way. That's why God said so.

Faith is the open hand of a beggar, accepting the free gift which God places in it. Since we have nothing of ourselves by which we can restore our relationship with God, God must meet us where we are, revealing His kindness to us, and bidding us to receive His forgiveness, provided at great cost and risk to Himself.

The law is individually our shoolmaster, to lead us to Christ, not dispensationally. That is, Paul is not saying that those who were before Christ did not need faith, and those after Christ were saved by faith instead of the law. What Paul said must apply to both those who lived before the cross as well as after. Otherwise, how could those who lived before the cross have been saved?

Paul is not speaking in terms of chronological time. Paul is speaking in terms of the condition of each one's heart. Paul is saying that the law is our (individual) schoolmaster, to lead us to Christ. When we try to satisfy God by our righteousness, we are under the law. When we believe that God graciously forgives us, out of the goodness of His own heart, we are no longer under the schoolmaster; we have been led to Christ.

This principle is true for all who have ever lived, regardless of whether before or after the cross. The poster boy for righteousness by faith is Abraham, who lived even before the law was given by Moses!

It might be that the teaching from Jesus mount sermon did not go beyond Gods intentions even before the lawgiving, however, if we keep ourselves from speculating about Gods intentions and read only what the text in exodus acctually says we find the difference between "do not kill" and in the mount sermon "do not harbor anger or insult to anyone". If any of the laws given to/by Moses includes one against anger/hate/unspoken insult, id like to see it.

We aim to please, Thomas. Here you go:

"Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart." Leviticus 19:17.

It's my experience that those who try to say the Ten Commandments are no longer valid are those that for one reason or the other wish to do away with the 7th day Sabbath. All the other nine all of Christianity agrees on but not the 4th. Thou shall not kill (murder) is a no brainer, as is committing adultery, stealing, taking the Lords name in vain etc. It's the Sabbath one that people wish not to follow.

Personally I'm so thankful for the Sabbath. Without it, in my field of work, I'd work 7days a week, sometimes 20 hours a day. I'm so glad that at the end of Creation week God set aside one day for rest and spiritual renewal.

Redfog

Many don't really wish to do away with the law for any specific reason, like breaking the Sabbath, but because of their theological beliefs. Many know nothing about the Sabbath, but are against the idea of the Ten Commandments being in force, because they think we are under grace not under the law, like those who lived in the Old Testament. Adventists tend to know more about those who are familiar with the Sabbath, because they talk to them about it!

But you're right that many do use the argument as an excuse not to keep the Sabbath. And you're also right that it's a great blessing!

It's a little sad and amusing that here in the US we are having debates about whether or not we can display facsimiles of the 10 commandments in public places, and the very people who are pushing to put them on display are Sunday keepers.

Redfog

Quote.
James if the ten commandments are no longer valid is it no longer sin to disregard the Sabbath Is adultry no longer sin? If not why not?
Unquote.

Redfog, does the law of love justify adultery? Stealing? Killing?

Regarding Sabbath, in line with this thought, a rest from self righteousness by abiding in Christ through faith is the whole matter. Unlike the disobedient from Moses time, they would never enter God’ rest even they have a day of rest (7th day Sabbath), but Christ believers from nowadays may enter God’ rest at any day as long as it is still called today, for God has set a certain day called today.

In His love

James S

Quote.
Paul tells exactly why God formally gave the law. It was "added because of transgressions."
Unquote.

Exactly, it was added because of transgressions, otherwise if there is no law there is no transgressions (Romans 4:15), and if there is no transgression, no one should die. But sin and death was present even there is no law, only sin would not be imputed if there is no law (Romans 5:13,14), and if sin is not imputed there should be no death as the wages of sin.

Could you see the chain of reaction IF THERE IS NO LAW?

Therefore, it was added because of transgressions.

In His love

James S

James, what you're saying here doesn't make logical sense. If transgression only started existing after the law was given, how could it have been given *because* of transgressions? The transgressions wouldn't have existed!

Think of sin as selfishness, and think of the awful things sinfulness results in: misery, pain, death, murders, etc. Whether or not the law was formally given, all of these things would exist, wouldn't they?

The law was given as a diagnostic tool, so we could recognize our lack of righteousness and need for Christ.

Sin can only cause death, as life comes only from God, law or no law. The law helps us recognize what sin is, and what rightouesness is, but it neither creates rightouesness, nor sin, nor the fruit of these things, which is life in the one case and death in the other.

James what would the advantage be for Christians if the Ten Commandments were abolished? (Which you've not proven to be the case). I can't see any.

Redfog

Redfog

Can you see the difference between "abolished" and "no longer the focus of religious observation"? What is argued is that the TenC are not THE focal point of the christian religion, but I guess it is easier to attack an abolishment of them...

/Thomas

I vote for the focal point of Christianity being Christ. That has a nice ring to it.

I agree, and that seems also to be the point of all New Testament teaching on the law, like in Romans or Galatians...

/Thomas

Quote.
Sin can only cause death, as life comes only from God, law or no law. The law helps us recognize what sin is, and what rightouesness is, but it neither creates rightouesness, nor sin, nor the fruit of these things, which is life in the one case and death in the other.
Unquote.

I disagree with your disagreement Tom even I agree that “The law was given as a diagnostic tool, so we could recognize our lack of righteousness and need for Christ”, but it was given with the command to keep it in exchange for life.

God clearly say in Leviticus 18:4-5 that those who kept his commandment would earn life as a reward, which means no Savior is needed.

Christ repeats this message in Matthew 19:16-19 and John 12:50.
Paul said the same thing in Romans 7:10; 10:5.

God would be a LIAR if no man can be justified to life because of his perfect righteousness in obeying the law. And Christ did it, he earn life as a reward of his perfect righteousness obtained to a sinless perfect obedience to the law throughout his whole life.

The law must condemn men for their inability to keep it perfectly and fulfill it demands and on the other hand it is to justify Christ righteousness.

Therefore it was added (given) because of our transgression, where Adam has robbed our life and through the law men might get it back by their obedience, which failed for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

I think Romans 3:20 indicates it, that no man would be declared righteous in God sight by observing the law (the reason because they fall short of God glory thus could not fulfill the demands of the law), the effect of this failure is, the law reveal our failures (sin) and points out to Christ, which God had sent to redeem men.

In His love

James S.

Well Thomas the title of this thread is abolishment, not not be the focal point. I agree the Ten Commandments should not be the focal point of religion however they are still valid and binding to a Christian. They were never to be replaced nor be made to less effect by the law of love. The Ten Commandments were never to be a burden for man. They were Gods way of telling us how to love our fellow man and the Creator Himself.

In them we find Gods love for all humans. They compliment John 15:12, that says were are to love our fellow humans.

Redfog

James, how many people do you think kept the law perfectly before Christ came? Do you think noone before Christ will be saved?

James, I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. What is it you disagreed with in what I said?

I wrote, "Sin can only cause death, as life comes only from God, law or no law. The law helps us recognize what sin is, and what rightouesness is, but it neither creates rightouesness, nor sin, nor the fruit of these things, which is life in the one case and death in the other."

Which part of this do you disagree with?

Redfog

The title of the thread may be abolishment, but if you read my posts and maybe those of the others aswell I think you will find that what I(we?) have been talking about has really been about what place to give to the TenC rather than to throw them on a dump.

You are right that the TenC where never to be a burden, but we have such an easy time to lay burdens on ourselves and others. If a person sets his/her mind to keep the TenC the person will inevietably lay a burden on him/herself possibly leading to burnout and in a worstcase scenario bitterness towards God. If a person otoh sets his/her mind to walk with the Spirit, Jesus will bear the burden and the person will end up living a much more lawabiding life than had he pursued lawkeeping. If you dont believe this, ask yourself this, will the Holy Spirit lead anyone into lawlessness=sin?

Gods love for all humans, He layed down His divinity to become a human and walk with us, then He layed down His life to reconcile us to Himself. The text says:
Joh 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Twise God has shown this love for us, greater than this for we where His enemies when He surrendered Himself for us.

Rom 5:6 For at just the right time, while we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:7 For it is rare for anyone to die for a righteous person, though somebody might be brave enough to die for a good person.
Rom 5:8 But God demonstrates his love for us by the fact that Christ died for us while we were still sinners.
Rom 5:9 Now that we have been justified by his blood, how much more will we be saved from wrath through him!
Rom 5:10 For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life!
Rom 5:11 Not only that, but we also continue to boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation.

/Thomas

I disagree with you Tom of what you said that the law creates neither righteousness nor sin, nor the fruit of these things, which is life in the one case and death in the other.

Clearly God said that those who keep his law shall live: Do it and live. And we have Christ as the proof; he was righteous and the law justifies him and rewarded him with life, he rose from the grave even he was dead.

And none kept the law perfectly before the cross and even after the cross, except Jesus, therefore, we are always under grace.

In His love

James S

Why is the Law (Ten cs) not abolished yet?

Because as according to Christ (Matthew 5:17,18; Luke 16:17),it must be fulfilled first, and before the fulfilment take place, this heaven and earth may not pass away.

Since we still live in the old heaven and earth where Satan rules, it means that the fulfilment has not come yet.
What kind of fulfilment that must take place which make Christ delayed his 2nd coming?

In His love

James S

Because Christ from His heavenly ministry still must fulfill the righteousness of the law in his believer's hearts and life as according to Romans 8:4.

For those who think that the law was abandon 2,000 years ago, can Christ fulfill the righteousness of the law in them?

Can God sanctify them who abandon the Sabbath observation?

In His love

James S

James, what are you talking about? What do you think God requires for Sabbath observation? Where does the Bible mandate attendance at a church service for Sabbath observation?

Where did James say that one must be in attendance at a church service for Sabbath observation?

The ten commandments is a transcript of God's character. It doesn't even make sense to speak of it being abolished. They embody the principles of love, as applied to human beings. They should not be thought of as rules to obey, but rather as principles which set out how one should live to be happy, or blessed.

This is what it means to say that God blesses those who keep His commandments, and curses those who disobey. The blessing is in the keeping of them, not an arbitrary response on the part of God for doing something He wants. Similarly the curse comes from living selfishly. Only misery, suffering and death can come from living with self as king.

Quote.
James, what are you talking about? What do you think God requires for Sabbath observation? Where does the Bible mandate attendance at a church service for Sabbath observation?
Unquote.

I use the only bible text that has a reference for Sabbath observation long since the ascension of Jesus Christ.

“Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.” Matthew 24:20.

What do you think God is talking here?
Christ was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem that will take place about 35 years after his ascension. He was talking “alone and private” to his twelve disciples (Matthew 24:3). So, when he said that his disciples should pray for the destruction would not take place on Sabbath, he was teaching us that Sabbath observation is attended at every Sabbath ever since his ascension. That the church should continue with the Sabbath observation as according to the 4th commandment.

Christ was talking to his twelve disciples alone, meaning that he put a mandate on them to teach the same about the Sabbath observation to wherever they preach the Gospel.

If in case he was talking to hundreds audience rather than to his disciples alone, we might say that his speech means nothing in connection with Christians to observe Sabbath, because it was said to the Jews, whom Christ knew would ever observe the Sabbath even they crucify him.

But he was talking to his disciples alone, he was giving them a mandate to continue with the Sabbath observation as according to the 4th commandment.
In His love

James S

I have read this thread and everyone seems to agree that both Christ and the Law are good. The debate seems to be about which one should we focus on. Why not focus on both?

You see the danger of saying we should really just focus on Christ without the Law is that you can then make any kind of Christ you want. This is what happens in the other churches who say they follow Christ but really use this as a way to excuse themselves from the Law.

Thought I was logged in. The last post was from me, in case anyone is interested.

On the other side of the coin. If we just focus on the Law we may make the same mistake the Jews made:

31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.[a] 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. (Romans 9:31,32)

I believe it was suggested earlier in this thread that God gave the Law as a legitemate way of salvation if anyone could keep it. This text in Romans says otherwise. You cannot attain "righteousness" "by the works of the law." Because righteousness is simply something we don't posses and need to receive (as a gift) from God.

Didn't only one person keep the Law legally, that one person being Jesus Christ?