Mosaic law was nailed to the Cross - the Ten Commandments "stand fast forever and ever" (Psalms 111:7-8 KJV). We are either obligated to keep them or we are at liberty to break them...which is it?
One is required to satisfy the OT Law. The OT Law is satisfied (fulfilled) through Christ. If one is in Christ, one fulfils the OT Law. You are at liberty to break the OT commandments. But one should not disregard NT commandments.
"For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." - Galatians 5:6 KJV
"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." - Hebrews 10:4
The blood of goat and bull sacrifices does not take away sins. Goats and bulls were the larger sacrifices. They were intended for atonement of sin, not to take away sin.
Hebrews 10 is a great choice for this, kudos for bringing up the section. If we read down to Hebrews 10:9-10:
"And then he said, “God, I will be the One to go and do your will.”
So by being the sacrifice that removes sin, he abolishes animal sacrifices[
d] and replaces that entire system with the new covenant.[
e] By God’s will we have been purified and made holy once and for all[
f] through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus, the Messiah!" - Hebrews 10:9-10 TPT
"For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:" - Heb 8:8-10 KJV
"Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." - 2 Cor 3:3 KJV
I bolded some highlights from the two sections that speak to the non-adherence to OT law. This also appears in the OT:
"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." - Jer 31:33 KJV
This isn't just for "New Covenant Christians" this is for everyone that is in Christ.
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." - Romans 9:6-8 KJV
I could show you many passages which make God's Moral Law of Ten Commandments distinct from the Mosaic Law of ceremonies and sacrifices, so lumping them together in order to nail the former along with the latter to the Cross is a popular, but usually unrecognized violation of hermeneutics.
I'm interesting in hearing this. But it is important to also demonstrate that OT laws in themselves are applicable.
Not a single verse even remotely suggests lying was ever condoned/permitted by God.
There are in fact a few OT passages where God condoned lying:
"And when they came down to him, Elisha prayed unto the Lord, and said, Smite this people, I pray thee, with blindness. And he smote them with blindness according to the word of Elisha. And Elisha said unto them, This is not the way, neither is this the city: follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom ye seek. But he led them to Samaria. And it came to pass, when they were come into Samaria, that Elisha said, Lord, open the eyes of these men, that they may see. And the Lord opened their eyes, and they saw; and, behold, they were in the midst of Samaria." - 2 Kings 6:18-20 KJV
Elisha asked God to blind an enemy Syrian army so that he could trick them into entering Samaria (they were looking for the city of Dothan). God did blind them and Elisha lied in order to bring them into Samaria. God did not reprehend Elisha for this. The Syrians weren't "neighbours" of Elisha in the OT sense.
Also, more explicitly:
"And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so." - 1 Kings 22:21-22
The spirit may not be under the same covenant, but when the spirit said he would be a lying spirit in order to persuade the people, God said "go forth, and do so". The "lying lips are an abomination" that appears in Proverbs may have a very specific connotation. The lying spirit's actions may be considered a Noble Lie as opposed to a lie intended to send someone on the wrong path.
When we see "thou shall not bear false witness" in the NT, it is more restrictive than the OT "thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour". There are permissible non-verbal deceptions in the NT (such as Jesus hiding in the murderous crowd or Paul posing as various types of people in order to convert others).
We should not interpret God's forbearance in not sending a lightning bolt through the sky every time we sin as "permission".
Yes, I completely agree. Matthew 4:45 speaks to your point very well.
"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." - Matthew 4:45
whether the saved are able or not to join the lost. The Bible is absolutely clear we may turn our back on God and reseat Self on the throne of our heart as our god.
I can't think off of the top of my head a passage that would substantiate this, but if you have a passage, this would be the strongest point in the argument especially if the context was correct.
Your argument is mostly subjective...not a good basis for argument
Anything that isn't divinely inspired or from a divine revelation is fallible. I look forward to the idea of being shown how I'm wrong. I'm usually on the edge of my seat waiting for a passage that will disprove or challenge my way of thinking. If someone brings one of my incorrect understandings to light, that is one less thing I will be wrong about in the future.
I was always a fan of how Thomas Aquinas engages a topic. First he proposes an interpretation, then he tests its internal consistency, and then he makes arguments for why that interpretation should be held over other competing interpretations. So far I still think OSAS is internally consistent.
There might be multiple interpretations that are incompatible with each other (mutually exclusive). It's not necessary to narrow it down to one interpretation (so long as each interpretation is worthy). It can stay a mystery until it's not a mystery.
Please consider this point: In
Matthew 24:12-13 KJV, Jesus Himself contrasts two groups: (1) the "many" who allow their love to grow cold because of widespread iniquity, and (2) those that "shall endure to the end" and are "saved".
Are these two groups necessarily mutually exclusive? Cold also doesn't necessarily mean non-existent.
Job is a good example of a Biblical figure that lost his passion but endured.
I'm also not convinced this passage is necessarily talking about endurance only during life in the flesh either.
The interpretation of the passage becomes complicated when we consider people that may have been passionate about God but then had a brain tumour (or any other illness that affects the mind) that caused erratic behaviour that might have left their passion in a faded state. How would a bipolar individual be judged if they suddenly died on a "down" ?
/part 1
