Commandments should not be followed ...

[JustaServant]

Originally Posted by moondweller

I do say the 10 Commandments should not be followed either for salvation or the believer’s rule of life before God. They can only condemn. This side of the cross the believer is not under the principle of law as his rule of life on earth before God, but under the principle of grace.

No law today? If there’s no law, then there can be no sin (since sin is lawlessness). So . . Christians ought to live however they please? That is called antinomianism – it’s a heresy that’s deeply embedded in dispensationalism. Antinomianism is a heresy that means “against the law.” It basically is the teaching that you can be a christian (salvation being an ‘event’, not a process). and live however you please.
The Bible you claim to know says otherwise:
First Great Commandment: Deuteronomy 6:5
"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

Second Great Commandment: Leviticus 19:18
'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

Jesus’ Reiteration of the Great Commandments: Matthew 22:37-40
37 Jesus said to him, " ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
38 "This is the first and great commandment.
39 "And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Jesus Speaks of His Relation to the Law: Matthew 5:17-18
17 " Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Paul Speaks of the Christian’s Relationship to the Law: Romans 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

John Speaks of the Christian’s Need to Keep the Law: 1 John 2:3-4
3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 

[guanophore]

Hey spin doctor, read John 13:34-35;Keep up the spinning Guanophore. You do realize God knows the motives of the heart, right?

Oh, I agree that there is a family unity and special affection/conduct toward those with whom we share our faith. However, my point is that Jesus did not instruct us to love only those that believe as we did.

However, I think this is irrelevant to you, since you have posted that the parables were for a “specific lesson”, and therefore, need not be applied to Christians. The fact that the disciples specifically asked Him “who is my neighbor” and He deliberately chose an outsider would not concern you, since this is not part of the “doctrines of salvations” expounded in Paul’s epistles.

Yes, I realize that God knows the motives of the heart. May I be purified with hyssop.!

 

[JustaServant]

Acts is an historical account of GREAT value indeed (some doctrinal), but as I said, the doctrines of grace, directly related to what Christ accomplished perfectly and completely on the cross for the believer, are predominately taught and expanded upon in the Epistles. The gift of justification through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus could not be taught as an established fact until His redemptive work was “finished” (Rom. 3:24). That makes perfect sense, doesn’t it, Tef.?

Are you a follower of Peter Ruckman?

 

[Teflon93]

Augustine (354-430):

In this passage, it seems to me that the apostle is portraying himself as a man set under the law and that he speaks in that role.

The law was given not to introduce sin nor to extirpate it but simply to make it known; by the demonstration of sin to give the human soul a sense of its guilt in place of the assurance of its innocence. Sin cannot be overcome without the grace of God, so the law was given to convert the soul by anxiety about its guilt, so that it might be ready to receive grace…Desire was not implanted in him by the law but was made known to him. (To Simplician on Various Questions 1.1)

Pseudo-Constantius:

Paul wants to show that the weakness of the law was not in the attempt to keep it but in human nature. For in saying “If it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin,” Paul assumed the role of a child who is not bound to keep the law because of his age, but when he grows up, he knows what the commandments are and begins to be under the law. (The Holy Letter of St Paul to the Romans)

Pelagius (354-420):

From here on Paul speaks as one who accepts the law , i.e. one who first comes to know God’s commandments while he is still in the habit of breaking them. Paul does not say that without the law he would not have been in the habit of coveting, nor does he say that he would not have done it; rather, he says that he would not have known that coveting was a sin. (Pelagius’ Commentary on Romans)

Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428):

We often covet the things of this life, not merely food and drink and sex but fame and fortune as well. We have these desires inside us and would never know there was anything wrong with them unless the law told us so. (Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church)

Cyril of Alexandria ( fl 412-444):

Paul did not say that he had no sin apart from the law but rather that he was unaware of it. Therefore the law is not the cause of sin but rather the instrument which points it out, making it clear to those who did not know what it was. It did not do this in order that, once sin was made known, those who committed it should continue in what they were doing…On the contrary, its intention was to convert people to better things by making their sins known to them. (Explanation of the Letter to the Romans)

 

[guanophore]

So . . Christians ought to live however they please? That is called antinomianism – it’s a heresy that’s deeply embedded in dispensationalism. Antinomianism is a heresy that means “against the law.” It basically is the teaching that you can be a christian (salvation being an ‘event’, not a process). and live however you please.

Is this true of all dispensationalists? I have not gotten this impression from moondweller or sandusky. I have read in their posts that they both espouse a lifestyle of godly conduct. However, I have met people that do espouse this view…

The Bible you claim to know says otherwise:
First Great Commandment: Deuteronomy 6:5
"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

Second Great Commandment: Leviticus 19:18
'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

Jesus’ Reiteration of the Great Commandments: Matthew 22:37-40
37 Jesus said to him, " ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
38 "This is the first and great commandment.
39 "And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Jesus Speaks of His Relation to the Law: Matthew 5:17-18
17 " Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Paul Speaks of the Christian’s Relationship to the Law: Romans 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

John Speaks of the Christian’s Need to Keep the Law: 1 John 2:3-4
3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

I think the dispensationalists would say that the pre-crucifixion verses are instructions for those born under the law.

The post - resurrection writers are speaking of the law of love, not the Decalogue. Either that, or I am misunderstanding what I have read.

Moon made it pretty clear that when Christ said “my commandments” He did not think he was referring to the decalogue.

 

[Teflon93]

They can still define sin without being “in force.” For almost 1500 years Israel was under that Law, and NONE could keep it. Nor could it impart life. For LIFE it pointed to Jesus Christ that a man might be “justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24). This is all clearly explained in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians who also wanted to self-impose the Law.The Law demanded animal sacrifice, not merely confession of it. But the violation of working on the Sabbath day, however, required death by stoning.Guanophore answered for me: NONE!!! Believers are not under law but under GRACE. Oh that you would read the Epistles, especially Paul’s.

1. So is it your position that no one made it to heaven who was born prior to the 1st century A.D.?
2. The “who also wanted to self-impose the Law” is a nice touch, but I seek to do no such thing. My understanding is that of the ECFs—the Ten Commandments are the yardstick of sin. We need grace to repent and be reconciled to the Lord, which we do through the sacrament of penance and reconciliation which Christ instituted.
3. Animal sacrifice has been replaced by the true sacrifice of the Eucharist, wherein the faithful are able to be present at the Cross on Good Friday and partake of the true bread of life as Christ promised in John 6.
4. Your answer was unclear: Are you saying Christians may violate NONE of the Ten Commandments, or may violate ALL of them?

 

[JustaServant]

Is this true of all dispensationalists? I have not gotten this impression from moondweller or sandusky. I have read in their posts that they both espouse a lifestyle of godly conduct. However, I have met people that do espouse this view…

Speaking of thier philosophy of course, which runs contrary to what they espouse (though they themselves cannot see this would deny it (I know I would have)). It is a dwarfed view of sin.
Dispensationalists don’t understand the connection between the Old and New Testaments correctly (aka, Mosaic covenant and New Covenant).
Dispensationalists don’t understand “law” in the context of Paul’s statement correctly.

 

[Teflon93]

No time to go through the whole Book. You can read it for yourself. But a couple of examples are 4:12 and 16:30-31.James mentions the doctrine of justification, but he is notoriously misunderstood. Chapter two has been hashed over many a times on this forum.

I have read it for myself any number of times. I appreciate your time, but appreciate the references even more.

This allows me to quote them at length and see what’s what:

Acts 4:

1: And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them,

2: Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
3: And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide.
4: Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
5: And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes,
6: And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
7: And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?
8: Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9: If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
**10: Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. **
**11: This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. **
12: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. **
13: Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
14: And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.
15: But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves,
16: Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.
17: But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.
18: And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
19: But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
20: For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. **
21: So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done.
22: For the man was above forty years old, on whom this miracle of healing was shewed.
23: And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.
24: And when they heard that, **they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
25: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
26: The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
27: For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28: For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
29: And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
30: By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
31: And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
32: And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33: And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. **34: Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35: And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
36: And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
37: Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

I would say the doctrinal content goes well beyond the one verse!

If you call us “Paulists,” are Catholics then “Jamists?”

No, we are Christians, for of course we hew to the whole of Scripture, and place due premium on the words of God and Christ recorded therein.

 

[runandsew]

Acts is an historical account of GREAT value indeed (some doctrinal), but as I said, the doctrines of grace, directly related to what Christ accomplished perfectly and completely on the cross for the believer, are predominately taught and expanded upon in the Epistles. The gift of justification through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus could not be taught as an established fact until His redemptive work was “finished” (Rom. 3:24). That makes perfect sense, doesn’t it, Tef.?

This type of thinking falls really close to the heresy of Marcionism, but then quite a bit of Protestantism today consists of rehashed and repackaged heresies.

 

[JustaServant]

I think the dispensationalists would say that the pre-crucifixion verses are instructions for those born under the law.
The post - resurrection writers are speaking of the law of love, not the Decalogue. Either that, or I am misunderstanding what I have read.
Moon made it pretty clear that when Christ said “my commandments” He did not think he was referring to the decalogue.

It’s a domino effect.
Dispensationalism creates two classes of God’s people, yet God’s people are truly one in all ages.
Dispensationalism is built on the false dichotomy of physical (“Israel”) vs. spiritual (church).
Dispensationalism would rather keep the partition wall between Jews and Gentiles up, rather than see Christ who has torn it down.
Dispensationalism is inherently Marcionite, considering the Scriptures of the OT to be for Israel and not us.
Thus Dispensationalism is inherently antinomian, seeing the law for Israel but grace for the church.

 

[JustaServant]

This type of thinking falls really close to the heresy of Marcionism, but then quite a bit of Protestantism today consists of rehashed and repackaged heresies.

It is Marcionism, that is why I asked him about Peter Ruckman.
He is what is called a ‘hyper’-dispensationalist (although Ruckman simply takes dispensationalism to its logical conclusion and thus should be called an ‘honest dispensationalist’ ).
Dispensationalism is Antinomian when they declare:
“The Law was for Israel, not the church.”
They are Marcionite when they say:
“Only some parts of Scripture apply to Christians.”
And they dualistic when they claim:
“Israel is God’s physical kingdom; the church is God’s spiritual kingdom.”

 

[Teflon93]

With a dash of Manichaeanism thrown in as well, JaS—the notion that the law itself is evil is Manichaean, as we see in the quote from John Chrysostom I posted above.

Paul himself clearly did not believe the law to be evil, for he praised its glories. It simply was not sufficient for salvation because human beings were unable to keep it. The yardstick of sin represented by the Decalogue is a wonderful instrument; it is we who fail to measure up in righteousness, and need God’s grace to do so.

So what happens when after the altar call, the Sinner’s Prayer, the baptism in the robes in the pool in the sanctuary, after all of this, we then fall back into covetousness?

For the Catholic, the answer is we confess our sins, repent, and are forgiven.

For the Fundamentalist, what is the answer?

 

[JustaServant]

So what happens when after the altar call, the Sinner’s Prayer, the baptism in the robes in the pool in the sanctuary, after all of this, we then fall back into covetousness?

For the Catholic, the answer is we confess our sins, repent, and are forgiven.

For the Fundamentalist, what is the answer?

Dwarfing of sin.

 

[guanophore]

With a dash of Manichaeanism thrown in as well, JaS—the notion that the law itself is evil is Manichaean, as we see in the quote from John Chrysostom I posted above.

Paul himself clearly did not believe the law to be evil, for he praised its glories. It simply was not sufficient for salvation because human beings were unable to keep it. The yardstick of sin represented by the Decalogue is a wonderful instrument; it is we who fail to measure up in righteousness, and need God’s grace to do so.

So what happens when after the altar call, the Sinner’s Prayer, the baptism in the robes in the pool in the sanctuary, after all of this, we then fall back into covetousness?

For the Catholic, the answer is we confess our sins, repent, and are forgiven.

For the Fundamentalist, what is the answer?

Doesn’t that just mean one was not saved in the first place?

 

[JustaServant]

Doesn’t that just mean one was not saved in the first place?

If one views ‘being saved’ as an ‘crisis event’ limited to a moment in time instead of a process that trancends time.
This sedways into the thread on OSAS.
Example: A particular fundamentalist preacher down in Florida famous in his circles was arrested for child molestation (he died before he was brought to trial). Since he was a preacher, one of thier own, believed and taught all the ‘right things’, he was still ‘saved’ (event in time). His crimes did nothing to his eternal destiny, he’s as sure for Heaven as Jesus Himself.

 

[guanophore]

If one views ‘being saved’ as an ‘crisis event’ limited to a moment in time instead of a process that trancends time.
This sedways into the thread on OSAS.
Example: A particular fundamentalist preacher down in Florida famous in his circles was arrested for child molestation (he died before he was brought to trial). Since he was a preacher, one of thier own, believed and taught all the ‘right things’, he was still ‘saved’ (event in time). His crimes did nothing to his eternal destiny, he’s as sure for Heaven as Jesus Himself.

Boggles the mind. And what does one do with “nothing impure can enter heaven”?

 

[pneuma07]

Yes. The Mosaic Law, given to the descendants of Jacob (Israel) at Sinai consisted of (1) The Commandments, of which the Decalogue was the center. They revealed God’s righteous will for the nation (Ex. 20:1-17. (2) The Judgments, which related to the social life of Israel (Ex. 21:1 - 24:11) and (3) The Ordinances, which related to the religious life of Israel (Ex. 24:12 - 31:18). … IOW, it was one packaged deal (covenant) called “The Law.”

The whole Mosaic system (covenant), including the Decalogue, with its resounding “Thou shalt not…” has given way to a reign of grace, through faith, by the “once for all” sacrificial work and bodily resurrection of the incarnate Son, to Whom it pointed, even for its fulfillment (Rom. 5:20-21; Matt. 5:17). By His sacrificial blood He inaugurated a “NEW” covenant. He Himself being the divine “planned obsolescence” of the “old.” (Heb. 8:13). No believer today, Jew or Gentile, is brought into right standing with God under the Mosaic Covenant, a covenant of Law/works. Christ was the end (or “goal”) of the Law (Rom. 10:4).

Of course there are those who still make the erroneous claim that Christ fulfilled only the ceremonial aspect of the Law. Catholics here call it the “Levitical Law.” Others, even Protestants, refer to it as a separate “Moral Law.” But such a notion is not Biblically accurate. The answer to this is clear and conclusive. Not only is the Decalogue included and embedded in the O.T. statement of the “LAW,” but, in the N.T. the Decalogue is distinctly said to be “the Law.” Paul wrote about the tendency of his own heart toward sin in Romans chapter seven:Rom 7:7 "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin (i.e., by transgression) except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet."He refers to the tenth commandment of the Decalogue as “the Law.” Notice that the Law did its work with Paul by causing him to flee to Christ (Rom. 7:24-25).

Also, it impossible for any believing Jew or Gentile to keep the ceremonial Law (sacrificial aspect of the Law), so, therefore, the warnings against Law observance (keeping the Law), found in the N.T. Epistles, are of necessity applicable only to the Decalogue.The issue of circumcision covered the whole aspect of Law observance. Circumcision was not actually a part of the Law of Moses itself, but was the seal (sign) of the promise of the Abrahamic covenant made with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob, 430 years prior. But in those days receiving circumcision meant converting to Judaism and the obligation of Law keeping. The real issue at the Jerusalem council was not, should Christians celebrate Briss? But Law keeping. Is it by faith or works, Grace or Law? Peter testified that by his mouth the Gentiles were to hear the gospel and BELIEVE. And through faith (in Christ) they received the Holy Spirit just as they themselves previously did at Pentecost, and making no distinction between Jew and Gentile He (God) cleansed their hearts "BY FAITH (Acts 15:9).Acts 15:11 "But we believe that we are saved through THE GRACE of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."The N.T. Epistles may make reference to the Decalogue but it NEVER makes reference to it as a means of salvation or abiding in it as a means of sanctification or justification. It was, and still is, with its resounding, “Thou shalt not…,” a ministry of “condemnation” and “death.” As Peter pointed out very early in church history: the hearts of men are cleansed “by faith,” and Paul pointed out that the Law is “not of faith,” i.e., faith based (Gal. 3:12). Hence, no heart can be cleansed by Law keeping - including the Decalogue. From the beginning of this church age it was all of grace through faith alone.Yes, the believer’s rule of life before God.Rom 4:15: “for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.” The believer is not “under” law but “under” grace. “Under” is in reference to his rule of life before God. God places the believer, now “in Christ,” “under grace.” Like oil and water, Law and grace cannot, do not, mix.We are commanded to love one another, i.e., fellow believers. A natural family response which always need encouragement. Paul teaches to excel in it (1 Thess. 4:9). But salvation itself is always by grace through faith.

Dear Moondweller,

   you raise  several momentous questions.

Correct me where I’m misinterpreting:

-The Decalogue is abolished as the whole of the mosaic Law.

Although abolished, it must be respected, its violation being sin ( as per Rom 6:15)

Although it must be respected , this respect is immaterial to getting eternal life. ( for which just grace through faith matters).

In Rom. 6 we read:
*
12
2 Therefore, sin must not reign over your mortal bodies so that you obey their desires. 13 And do not present the parts of your bodies to sin as weapons for wickedness, but present yourselves to God as raised from the dead to life and the parts of your bodies to God as weapons for righteousness.
14 For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not! …

22
But now that you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit that you have leads to sanctification, 5 and its end is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.*

So, for believers in the new dispensation sin is possible, and it leads to death. If so, believers have to avoid sin to get eternal life. It appears a necessity. Then the Decalogue has always much to do with salvation, at least in negative terms.

You say we have to love fellow believers. Christ says: I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you Matthew 5:44 . Are His words abolished ?
I am somehow under the impression that you consider the Gospel as …the last four books of the OT.
Can you see why ?

Is in what you appear to consider the “real NT” ( ie the Epistles) any behavior immaterial to salvation ?

*Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you. * ( 1 Tim 4:16)
Here you have a behavior which is positively linked to salvation.

• Law and grace cannot, do not, mix * Which law ?

Aren’t there “works” in “Christ’s law” ? See Galatians 1-10:
*
1 Brothers, even if a person is caught in some transgression, you who are spiritual should correct that one in a gentle spirit, looking to yourself, so that you also may not be tempted.
2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deluding himself.
4 Each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason to boast with regard to himself alone, and not with regard to someone else;
5
for each will bear his own load.
One who is being instructed in the word should share all good things with his instructor. 4
7 Make no mistake: God is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows,
8 because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the spirit will reap eternal life from the spirit.
9 Let us not grow tired of doing good, for in due time we shall reap our harvest, if we do not give up*

Even if you want to forget completely the works of the “ancient” law, even if you want to consider only the “real NT”, you have to do the works of the law. Christ’s law ., and we shall reap only what we sow.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Even if it were true that the young man did indeed keep all the commandments from his youth, there is no where that the Commandments state that one must “love one’s neighbor as himself”. In fact, this is not how most of the Jews understood the commandments. Jesus’ teaching on this point, that love is the fullfimment of the law, was a major change in how the commandments were understood and taught. I agree that this is not a “change”, as it is clear in reading the OT that this was God’s intention from the beginning. Perhaps it might be clearer to say that he changed the understanding of how they were to be kept. He certainly pushed beyond them by teaching that the thoughts and attitudes of the heart were as much a transgression as behavior.

The above in the blue which you state is not a commandment to the Jews is in fact, according to Jesus, written in the law in Lev 19, and, it was a lawyer in the Mosaic Law who recited it back to the Lord (Lk 10:23).

 

[sandusky]

JustaServant:

If one views ‘being saved’ as an ‘crisis event’ limited to a moment in time instead of a process that trancends time.

This sedways into the thread on OSAS.

Example: A particular fundamentalist preacher down in Florida famous in his circles was arrested for child molestation (he died before he was brought to trial). Since he was a preacher, one of thier own, believed and taught all the ‘right things’, he was still ‘saved’ (event in time). His crimes did nothing to his eternal destiny, he’s as sure for Heaven as Jesus Himself.

That is the view of the “antinomian,” thus the designation; however, just as all Catholics are not “cafeteria,” neither are all protestants “antinomian.”

 

[sandusky]

Yes. The Mosaic Law, given to the descendants of Jacob (Israel) at Sinai consisted of (1) The Commandments, of which the Decalogue was the center. They revealed God’s righteous will for the nation (Ex. 20:1-17. (2) The Judgments, which related to the social life of Israel (Ex. 21:1 - 24:11) and (3) The Ordinances, which related to the religious life of Israel (Ex. 24:12 - 31:18). It was a whole system of government for the people and constituted them a theocratic nation. It is the ONLY earthly nation God personally dealt with in such a manner: by covenant, albeit, a covenant of works. The three divisions of the system were interrelated and interdependent. It had its own instruction as to what was good and prohibitions against that which was evil, or, an abomination before God. For the wrong committed it provided prescribed sacrifices. IOW, it was one packaged deal (covenant) called “The Law.”

The whole Mosaic system (covenant), including the Decalogue, with its resounding “Thou shalt not…” has given way to a reign of grace, through faith, by the “once for all” sacrificial work and bodily resurrection of the incarnate Son, to Whom it pointed, even for its fulfillment (Rom. 5:20-21; Matt. 5:17). By His sacrificial blood He inaugurated a “NEW” covenant. He Himself being the divine “planned obsolescence” of the “old.” (Heb. 8:13). No believer today, Jew or Gentile, is brought into right standing with God under the Mosaic Covenant, a covenant of Law/works. Christ was the end (or “goal”) of the Law (Rom. 10:4).

Of course there are those who still make the erroneous claim that Christ fulfilled only the ceremonial aspect of the Law. Catholics here call it the “Levitical Law.” Others, even Protestants, refer to it as a separate “Moral Law.” But such a notion is not Biblically accurate. The answer to this is clear and conclusive. Not only is the Decalogue included and embedded in the O.T. statement of the “LAW,” but, in the N.T. the Decalogue is distinctly said to be “the Law.” Paul wrote about the tendency of his own heart toward sin in Romans chapter seven:Rom 7:7 "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin (i.e., by transgression) except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet."He refers to the tenth commandment of the Decalogue as “the Law.” Notice that the Law did its work with Paul by causing him to flee to Christ (Rom. 7:24-25).

Also, it impossible for any believing Jew or Gentile to keep the ceremonial Law (sacrificial aspect of the Law), so, therefore, the warnings against Law observance (keeping the Law), found in the N.T. Epistles, are of necessity applicable only to the Decalogue.The issue of circumcision covered the whole aspect of Law observance. Circumcision was not actually a part of the Law of Moses itself, but was the seal (sign) of the promise of the Abrahamic covenant made with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob, 430 years prior. But in those days receiving circumcision meant converting to Judaism and the obligation of Law keeping. The real issue at the Jerusalem council was not, should Christians celebrate Briss? But Law keeping. Is it by faith or works, Grace or Law? Peter testified that by his mouth the Gentiles were to hear the gospel and BELIEVE. And through faith (in Christ) they received the Holy Spirit just as they themselves previously did at Pentecost, and making no distinction between Jew and Gentile He (God) cleansed their hearts "BY FAITH (Acts 15:9).Acts 15:11 "But we believe that we are saved through THE GRACE of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."The N.T. Epistles may make reference to the Decalogue but it NEVER makes reference to it as a means of salvation or abiding in it as a means of sanctification or justification. It was, and still is, with its resounding, “Thou shalt not…,” a ministry of “condemnation” and “death.” As Peter pointed out very early in church history: the hearts of men are cleansed “by faith,” and Paul pointed out that the Law is “not of faith,” i.e., faith based (Gal. 3:12). Hence, no heart can be cleansed by Law keeping - including the Decalogue. From the beginning of this church age it was all of grace through faith alone.Yes, the believer’s rule of life before God.Rom 4:15: “for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.” The believer is not “under” law but “under” grace. “Under” is in reference to his rule of life before God. God places the believer, now “in Christ,” “under grace.” Like oil and water, Law and grace cannot, do not, mix.We are commanded to love one another, i.e., fellow believers. A natural family response which always need encouragement. Paul teaches to excel in it (1 Thess. 4:9). But salvation itself is always by grace through faith.

Another excellent post!