Hello RT! What truly has my head turning is thinking about how so many in this forum are so against the Ten Commandments. I do not bring this up to change the subject or direction of the OP, but in response to some of the meaning in your post. When and which denominations have changed their posture on teaching the Ten as good and valid instruction? I know most folks here hint that nine of them are ok, with the commandment on observing the Sabbath to be deleted. Now that is just plain weird since all my life people considered Sunday as the Sabbath. Is it no officially not the Sabbath? I observe the seventh day, but people did always observe the Sabbath, so what happened?
Why does the Law cause contention among professing Christians?
- Thread starter just-me
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
L
I know that this is taking the discussion in a bit of a different direction from obedience to the law, or lack of obedience.
I was studying the word last night on the subject of blessings associated with the law. And while our motives should never be about doing something to gain something, it should be about faithfulness and obedience in Christ.
I noticed that Paul talks about the fifth commandment:
Paul said this:
Ephesians 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
Ephesians 6:2 Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;
Ephesians 6:3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
This isn't changed from the original promise tied to that commandment in Exodus: 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Please compare these, and then explain how those promises associated with the law no longer apply.
That does not look like Paul is saying that the commandment is done away with.
It was commanded by God that we honor our parents. So in going against that commandment, a person is not only sinning against man but also against God.
If we look even further back in the word, it's not difficult to see that the very commandment that Paul is addressing in Ephesians goes much further back than the time of Moses.
I'm amazed how much God's word reveals each time we study it seeking, knocking and asking.
Also, if anyone cares to, check out 1 Tim ch1:12-14, and galatians 3:13-14.
If the scriptures don't agree across the board, then we are missing something. That's always a clue that we need to dig further into it.
It shouldn't be simply about us coming together just to agree with our opinions. It should be about coming together to the point of agreeing with what God said without controversy.
Remember: "All of the promises of God are yes and amen." (2 Cor 1:20)
I was studying the word last night on the subject of blessings associated with the law. And while our motives should never be about doing something to gain something, it should be about faithfulness and obedience in Christ.
I noticed that Paul talks about the fifth commandment:
Paul said this:
Ephesians 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
Ephesians 6:2 Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;
Ephesians 6:3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
This isn't changed from the original promise tied to that commandment in Exodus: 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Please compare these, and then explain how those promises associated with the law no longer apply.
That does not look like Paul is saying that the commandment is done away with.
It was commanded by God that we honor our parents. So in going against that commandment, a person is not only sinning against man but also against God.
If we look even further back in the word, it's not difficult to see that the very commandment that Paul is addressing in Ephesians goes much further back than the time of Moses.
I'm amazed how much God's word reveals each time we study it seeking, knocking and asking.
Also, if anyone cares to, check out 1 Tim ch1:12-14, and galatians 3:13-14.
If the scriptures don't agree across the board, then we are missing something. That's always a clue that we need to dig further into it.
It shouldn't be simply about us coming together just to agree with our opinions. It should be about coming together to the point of agreeing with what God said without controversy.
Remember: "All of the promises of God are yes and amen." (2 Cor 1:20)
The reason that the Sabbath is seen as something of the past is more dynamic than anyone would think. It's the day set aside to remember the work of our Lord in our lives of the previous 6 days. We are suppose to share that. It's always been that way from the beginning. Satan doesn't want us to remember, let alone share. Take away the Sabbath day, and there is no time left. Devastating to the maximum!!!!!
The "falling away" is right here and right now. The seventh day is part of creation. By adding to it, or taking away from it, we find ourselves as corrupt as the rest of the world.
I have a pretty heated comment I have typed up concerning contentious rhetoric, defining those who start this contention. Anybody reading this can say yes or no to me really hammering down. I want to know if I am right or wrong.
The "falling away" is right here and right now. The seventh day is part of creation. By adding to it, or taking away from it, we find ourselves as corrupt as the rest of the world.
I have a pretty heated comment I have typed up concerning contentious rhetoric, defining those who start this contention. Anybody reading this can say yes or no to me really hammering down. I want to know if I am right or wrong.
Last edited:
Another false characterization. We are not against the 10 commandments. We believe that obedience to them is through faith, not works of law. The one who believes in GOD and loves his neighbor has done everything required by the 10 commandments.
So please stop these false characterizations that we are against the law.
So please stop these false characterizations that we are against the law.
Yes brother preach it! Being raised Southern Baptist I never heard anyone speak of the 4th commandment.....so I was in ignorance. However, one day in my 40's I heard a radio sermon (don't remember who was teaching) and that the 4th commandment was never done away with. I was pricked and a seed had been planted. God fertilized it, nourished it with His Word and it wasn't too long I knew I was in wilful disobedience. So yes you are right to really hammer down.
Paul didn't teach against the circumcision law. He taught against the the attitude of self-righteous people using that law in opposition to the truth of it's intent. We can do this again, arguing about the law of circumcision. Both heart and physical are in the law. So lets' get it right and define the law as it was meant in the Spiritual. Saying that Paul taught against circumcision is like condemning anyone to eternal death who has been circumcised as an infant. Spiritual wisdom is of necessity, because the Law is Spiritual.
First, the comment is directed to Red Tent. Second it is about many of the persons who are definitely against the Ten Commandments.
Now I do not know why you have taken the role of some kind of hatchet man for Yahweh, but I would appreciate it if you would pay attention to what has been posted before leveling your accusations.
Stop now, ok?
Now I do not know why you have taken the role of some kind of hatchet man for Yahweh, but I would appreciate it if you would pay attention to what has been posted before leveling your accusations.
Stop now, ok?
First let me say that I appreciate you answering some of my questions.
Ok, I can definitely appreciate this. It's the same way Abraham was righteous through his faith...and like Zechariah & Elizabeth, that faith was expressed through obedience in doing what he was told to do.
So from your perspective, where doesn't this formula break down for us when we do the same thing? For instance, I have faith in Christ, the son of the Living God...I express that faith though obedience in doing what the Son tells me to do...the son tells me to obey God's law, right? Or is this (the colored portion) where the disagreement is; that the son didn't say obey God's law (coined as "the law of Moses")?
I agree with the bold part wholeheartedly...but I think the rest of your statement is actually switch for us and them. I think if anyone received the words of light *directly from the mouth* of God, they did (God spoke the commandments to them before they were written down, and it was because they couldn't bear to hear his voice anymore that they asked to go through Moses for the rest; and they got the rest of it in spans of 40 days, from 1 man talking to God directly). Contrarily, we're the ones reading this truth though pages penned hundreds and hundreds of years after the fact, through translations of translations. I suspect we've the shadow of imperfect men to deal with imo.
This is why I'm guided to believe people like Zech and Liz (and Abraham) knew the truth of Christ (before he was here) *far better* than we do...especially when they were graced by the presence of "angels of God" face to face, you know? It was even said by Christ that Abraham saw him through his faith and was glad.
Ok I'm with you one this...now in my studies, the next question I ask myself if "what did the son *say*?"
Of course, Christ said many things so I can't sit in front of this screen and type everything out...but we know that nothing he said contradicts anything else he said, so please give me your take on these passages [portions emphasized for effect]:
Matthew 23:1-3
I personally think this passage was mistranslated from "he" to "they", but regardless of which one you pick...if we are to listen to what Christ *said*, didn't he just tell the multitude AND his disciples to follow the law of Moses?
Matthew 26:36-40
I ask myself, "in (i.e. within) what law?" Someone asked which commandment - WITHIN God's law (i.e. the law passed down through Moses) - is the greatest or most important. My reasoning suggests that this disciple wanted to know which of God's laws to laser-focus on the most in order to (again) "be faithful to God through obedience in doing what he said to do"...and is now listening exactly to what THE PROPHET, THE son of God, has to say. This tells me Christ is advocating God's law. Isn't this what Christ said or is there another interpretation of this I should consider?
The bold I agree with, but scripture doesn't say Zech and Liz didn't keep the law perfectly nor does it say they sinned and so required personal sacrifices...but indeed if we are to harmonize ALL of scripture that says "all have sinned" I must conclude that they DID sin and did offer personal sacrifices...and from the perspective of the revelation *they* received, their sin sacrifice WAS reckoned as "Christ", in faith.
However, in following all that God's Law prescribed, didn't they keep to it perfectly? The word for word greek-to-english is "walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the lord blameless"...and when I look up "blameless" the Greek word is "amemptoi" which means "free from fault or defect".
What I'm getting at is this...to show their faith to God Zech & Liz were obedient to what he said (and he said follow his law)...and if & when they sinned they had the blood of their lamb to cover them so they wouldn't have to die, but could (instead) repent and continue to walk in obedience to the law God said to follow. Isn't this EXACTLY what we have in Christ? In other words, Christ is the sacrifice for our sin so we are free from the *consequence* of the law (i.e. our death), so we can repent and continue to walk in obedience to the law God said to follow.
Truly, the Levitical priesthood was temporary and those subsection of laws were to administrate the breach...which now has been repaired by Christ so THOSE laws are done away with...but isn't it true that God gave laws to follow *before* adding the Levitical laws after Israel sinned? I think this may be our problem (in both camps); we may be lumping everything together.
Ok, I can definitely appreciate this. It's the same way Abraham was righteous through his faith...and like Zechariah & Elizabeth, that faith was expressed through obedience in doing what he was told to do.
Faith alone...expressed through obedience (in doing what one's told to do) = Righteous in God's eyes
So from your perspective, where doesn't this formula break down for us when we do the same thing? For instance, I have faith in Christ, the son of the Living God...I express that faith though obedience in doing what the Son tells me to do...the son tells me to obey God's law, right? Or is this (the colored portion) where the disagreement is; that the son didn't say obey God's law (coined as "the law of Moses")?
I agree with the bold part wholeheartedly...but I think the rest of your statement is actually switch for us and them. I think if anyone received the words of light *directly from the mouth* of God, they did (God spoke the commandments to them before they were written down, and it was because they couldn't bear to hear his voice anymore that they asked to go through Moses for the rest; and they got the rest of it in spans of 40 days, from 1 man talking to God directly). Contrarily, we're the ones reading this truth though pages penned hundreds and hundreds of years after the fact, through translations of translations. I suspect we've the shadow of imperfect men to deal with imo.
This is why I'm guided to believe people like Zech and Liz (and Abraham) knew the truth of Christ (before he was here) *far better* than we do...especially when they were graced by the presence of "angels of God" face to face, you know? It was even said by Christ that Abraham saw him through his faith and was glad.
Ok I'm with you one this...now in my studies, the next question I ask myself if "what did the son *say*?"
Of course, Christ said many things so I can't sit in front of this screen and type everything out...but we know that nothing he said contradicts anything else he said, so please give me your take on these passages [portions emphasized for effect]:
Matthew 23:1-3
I personally think this passage was mistranslated from "he" to "they", but regardless of which one you pick...if we are to listen to what Christ *said*, didn't he just tell the multitude AND his disciples to follow the law of Moses?
Matthew 26:36-40
I ask myself, "in (i.e. within) what law?" Someone asked which commandment - WITHIN God's law (i.e. the law passed down through Moses) - is the greatest or most important. My reasoning suggests that this disciple wanted to know which of God's laws to laser-focus on the most in order to (again) "be faithful to God through obedience in doing what he said to do"...and is now listening exactly to what THE PROPHET, THE son of God, has to say. This tells me Christ is advocating God's law. Isn't this what Christ said or is there another interpretation of this I should consider?
The bold I agree with, but scripture doesn't say Zech and Liz didn't keep the law perfectly nor does it say they sinned and so required personal sacrifices...but indeed if we are to harmonize ALL of scripture that says "all have sinned" I must conclude that they DID sin and did offer personal sacrifices...and from the perspective of the revelation *they* received, their sin sacrifice WAS reckoned as "Christ", in faith.
However, in following all that God's Law prescribed, didn't they keep to it perfectly? The word for word greek-to-english is "walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the lord blameless"...and when I look up "blameless" the Greek word is "amemptoi" which means "free from fault or defect".
What I'm getting at is this...to show their faith to God Zech & Liz were obedient to what he said (and he said follow his law)...and if & when they sinned they had the blood of their lamb to cover them so they wouldn't have to die, but could (instead) repent and continue to walk in obedience to the law God said to follow. Isn't this EXACTLY what we have in Christ? In other words, Christ is the sacrifice for our sin so we are free from the *consequence* of the law (i.e. our death), so we can repent and continue to walk in obedience to the law God said to follow.
Truly, the Levitical priesthood was temporary and those subsection of laws were to administrate the breach...which now has been repaired by Christ so THOSE laws are done away with...but isn't it true that God gave laws to follow *before* adding the Levitical laws after Israel sinned? I think this may be our problem (in both camps); we may be lumping everything together.
No, Paul actually did warn believers in Galatia against becoming circumcised as a means of obedience to the law of Moses. Here's the law:
In the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Leviticus 12:3
Here's the consequences for not obeying the law:
The uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Genesis 17:14
Here's what Paul taught:
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 1 Corinthians 7:19
So it's pretty obvious that Paul called a very important commandment in the law of Moses nothing and warned against trying to follow it.
In the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Leviticus 12:3
Here's the consequences for not obeying the law:
The uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Genesis 17:14
Here's what Paul taught:
For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing! And again I testify to every man who becomes circumcised, that he is under obligation to keep the whole law. You are estranged from Christ, you who are attempting to be justified by the law; you have fallen from grace. Galatians 5:1-4
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 1 Corinthians 7:19
So it's pretty obvious that Paul called a very important commandment in the law of Moses nothing and warned against trying to follow it.
G
WOW...it just struck me reading your post, and I think I've read that verse a few times before but never really saw it....how serious this is, that he who becomes circumcised is OBLIGATED/INDEBTED to keep THE WHOLE LAW!
Gal 5:3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
unless Paul is anti-Christ then I definitely would heed his statement. Now I do not think this applies to anyone who is circumcised for health reasons although having knowledge of this Scripture I would be weary to do it.Gal 5:3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
Paul didn't teach against the circumcision law. He taught against the the attitude of self-righteous people using that law in opposition to the truth of it's intent. We can do this again, arguing about the law of circumcision. Both heart and physical are in the law. So lets' get it right and define the law as it was meant in the Spiritual. Saying that Paul taught against circumcision is like condemning anyone to eternal death who has been circumcised as an infant. Spiritual wisdom is of necessity, because the Law is Spiritual.
Please understand, and read what I wrote again. It was the attitude of people using this law for self-righteousness. The attitude of self righteousness is what causes Christ to profit us nothing. Paul never said that circumcision outside of the wrong motivation was wrong. So in short, it is the attitude that Paul is addressing, not the action. Circumcision is in common practice today. Would any minister in their right mind tell young parents if they circumcise their infants that it was a sure way to send their child straight to hell, along with them. After all, the baby is too young to have a self-righteous attitude.
Even the secular world doesn't see circumcision as a religious practice. Therefore in our society, whether righteous or corrupt, doesn't consider circumcision as religious. Now I have never bragged about my self-righteousness according to that subject, so you are preaching to the choir. Go to a Jewish synagogue that denies that Christ Jesus is the true Messiah, and send the message where it means something.
To finalize my thoughts. It's a persuasion that causes an attitude as mentioned. According to verse 6, neither circumcision or uncircumcision means anything when we are in Christ, so why bring it up? Instead, sensitize your heart.
Deuteronomy 10:16 (KJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP]Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
It's the law. Thanks for your input. I've always responded according to the Spiritual aspects of this law. I present that, and you present the flesh. I ask you, from now on, please talk with me about the circumcision of the heart. I really don't care about the fleshly part.
Galatians 5:4-9 (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
[SUP]8 [/SUP]This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
