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.