V
VociMike
Guest
Don’t bother to repeat it, since it now seems to be a pointless question, a distraction, a red herring.
- Status
S
sandusky
Guest
Continuation of Watson from my post #43Having answered these questions, I shall in the next place, lay down some general rules for the right understanding of the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments. These may serve to give us some light into the sense and meaning of the commandments.
Rule I. The commands and prohibitions of the moral law reach the heart.
(1) The commands of the moral law reach the heart. The commandments require not only outward actions, but inward affections; they require not only the outward act of obedience, but the inward affection of love. ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart.’ Deut 6: 5.
(2) The threats and prohibitions of the moral law reach the heart. The law of God forbids not only the act of sin, but the desire and inclination; not only does it forbid adultery, but lusting (Matt 5: 28): not only stealing, but coveting (Rom 7: 7). Lex humana ligat manum, lex divina comprimit animam ‘Man’s law binds the hands only, God’s law binds the heart.’
Rule 2. In the commandments there is a synecdoche, more is intended than is spoken. (1) Where any duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden. When we are commanded to keep the Sabbath-day holy, we are forbidden to break the Sabbath. When we are commanded to live in a calling, ‘Six days shalt thou labour,’ we are forbidden to live idly, and out of a calling.
(2) Where any sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded. When we are forbidden to take God’s name in vain, the contrary duty, that we should reverence his name, is commanded. ‘That thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, the Lord Thy God.’ Deut 28: 58. Where we are forbidden to wrong our neighbour, there the contrary duty, that we should do him all the good we can, by vindicating his name and supplying his wants, is included.
Rule 3. Where any sin is forbidden in the commandment, the occasion of it is also forbidden. Where murder is forbidden, envy and rash anger are forbidden, which may occasion it. Where adultery is forbidden, all that may lead to it is forbidden, as wanton glances of the eye, or coming into the company of a harlot. ‘Come not nigh the door of her house.’ Prov 5: 8. He who would be free from the plague, must not come near the infected house. Under the law the Nazarite was forbidden to drink wine; nor might he eat grapes of which the wine was made.
Rule 4. In relato subintelligitur correlatum. Where one relation is named in the commandment, there another relation is included. Where the child is named, the father is included. Where the duty of children to parents is mentioned, the duty of parents to children is also included. Where the child is commanded to honour the parent, it is implied that the parent is also commanded to instruct, to love, and to provide for the child.
Rule 5. Where greater sins are forbidden, lesser sins are also forbidden. Though no sin in its own nature is little, yet one may be comparatively less than another. Where idolatry is forbidden, superstition is forbidden, or bringing any innovation into God’s worship, which he has not appointed. As the sons of Aaron were forbidden to worship an idol, so to sacrifice to God with strange fire. Lev 10: 1. Mixture in sacred things, is like a dash in wine, which though it gives a colour, yet does but debase and adulterate it. It is highly provoking to God to bring any superstitious ceremony into his worship which he has not prescribed; it is to tax God’s wisdom, as if he were not wise enough to appoint the manner how he will be served.
Rule 6. The law of God is entire. Lex est copulativa [The law is all connected]. The first and second tables are knit together; piety to God, and equity to our neighbour. These two tables which God has joined together, must not be put asunder. Try a moral man by the duties of the first table, piety to God, and there you will find him negligent; try a hypocrite by the duties of the second table, equity to his neighbour, and there you will find him tardy. If he who is strict in the second table neglects the first, or he who is zealous in the first, neglects the second, his heart is not right with God. The Pharisees were the highest pretenders to keeping the first table with zeal and holiness; but Christ detects their hypocrisy: ‘Ye have omitted judgment, mercy and faith.’ Matt 23: 23. They were bad in the second table; they omitted judgment, or being just in their dealings; mercy in relieving the poor; and faith, or faithfulness in their promises and contracts with men. God wrote both the tables, and our obedience must set a seal to both.
(continued below)
Rule I. The commands and prohibitions of the moral law reach the heart.
(1) The commands of the moral law reach the heart. The commandments require not only outward actions, but inward affections; they require not only the outward act of obedience, but the inward affection of love. ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart.’ Deut 6: 5.
(2) The threats and prohibitions of the moral law reach the heart. The law of God forbids not only the act of sin, but the desire and inclination; not only does it forbid adultery, but lusting (Matt 5: 28): not only stealing, but coveting (Rom 7: 7). Lex humana ligat manum, lex divina comprimit animam ‘Man’s law binds the hands only, God’s law binds the heart.’
Rule 2. In the commandments there is a synecdoche, more is intended than is spoken. (1) Where any duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden. When we are commanded to keep the Sabbath-day holy, we are forbidden to break the Sabbath. When we are commanded to live in a calling, ‘Six days shalt thou labour,’ we are forbidden to live idly, and out of a calling.
(2) Where any sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded. When we are forbidden to take God’s name in vain, the contrary duty, that we should reverence his name, is commanded. ‘That thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, the Lord Thy God.’ Deut 28: 58. Where we are forbidden to wrong our neighbour, there the contrary duty, that we should do him all the good we can, by vindicating his name and supplying his wants, is included.
Rule 3. Where any sin is forbidden in the commandment, the occasion of it is also forbidden. Where murder is forbidden, envy and rash anger are forbidden, which may occasion it. Where adultery is forbidden, all that may lead to it is forbidden, as wanton glances of the eye, or coming into the company of a harlot. ‘Come not nigh the door of her house.’ Prov 5: 8. He who would be free from the plague, must not come near the infected house. Under the law the Nazarite was forbidden to drink wine; nor might he eat grapes of which the wine was made.
Rule 4. In relato subintelligitur correlatum. Where one relation is named in the commandment, there another relation is included. Where the child is named, the father is included. Where the duty of children to parents is mentioned, the duty of parents to children is also included. Where the child is commanded to honour the parent, it is implied that the parent is also commanded to instruct, to love, and to provide for the child.
Rule 5. Where greater sins are forbidden, lesser sins are also forbidden. Though no sin in its own nature is little, yet one may be comparatively less than another. Where idolatry is forbidden, superstition is forbidden, or bringing any innovation into God’s worship, which he has not appointed. As the sons of Aaron were forbidden to worship an idol, so to sacrifice to God with strange fire. Lev 10: 1. Mixture in sacred things, is like a dash in wine, which though it gives a colour, yet does but debase and adulterate it. It is highly provoking to God to bring any superstitious ceremony into his worship which he has not prescribed; it is to tax God’s wisdom, as if he were not wise enough to appoint the manner how he will be served.
Rule 6. The law of God is entire. Lex est copulativa [The law is all connected]. The first and second tables are knit together; piety to God, and equity to our neighbour. These two tables which God has joined together, must not be put asunder. Try a moral man by the duties of the first table, piety to God, and there you will find him negligent; try a hypocrite by the duties of the second table, equity to his neighbour, and there you will find him tardy. If he who is strict in the second table neglects the first, or he who is zealous in the first, neglects the second, his heart is not right with God. The Pharisees were the highest pretenders to keeping the first table with zeal and holiness; but Christ detects their hypocrisy: ‘Ye have omitted judgment, mercy and faith.’ Matt 23: 23. They were bad in the second table; they omitted judgment, or being just in their dealings; mercy in relieving the poor; and faith, or faithfulness in their promises and contracts with men. God wrote both the tables, and our obedience must set a seal to both.
(continued below)
S
sandusky
Guest
**Continued from post #82
Rule 7.** God’s law forbids not only the acting of sin in our own persons, but being accessory to, or having any hand in, the sins of others.
How and in what sense may we be said to
partake of, and have a hand in the sins of others?
(1) By decreeing unrighteous decrees, and imposing on others that which is unlawful. Jeroboam made the people of Israel to sin; he was accessory to their idolatry by setting up golden calves. Though David did not in his own person kill Uriah, yet because he wrote a letter to Joab, to set Uriah in the forefront of the battle, and it was done by his command, he was accessory to Uriah’s death, and the murder of him was laid by the prophet to his charge. ‘Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword.’ 2 Sam 12: 9.
(2) We become accessory to the sins of others by not hindering them when it is in our power. Qui non prohibit cum potest, jubet [The failure to prevent something, when it lies within your power, amounts to ordering it]. If a master of a family see his servant break the Sabbath, or hear him swear, and does not use the power he has to suppress him, he becomes accessory to his sin. Eli, for not punishing his sons when they made the offering of the Lord to be abhorred, made himself guilty. 1 Sam 3: 13, 14. He that suffers an offender to pass unpunished, makes himself an offender.
(3) By counselling, abetting, or provoking others to sin. Ahithophel made himself guilty of the fact by giving counsel to Absalom to go in and defile his father’s concubines. 2 Sam 16: 21. He who shall tempt or solicit another to be drunk, though he himself be sober, yet being the occasion of another’s sin, he is accessory to it. ‘Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him.’ Hab 2: 15.
(4) By consenting to another’s sin. Saul did not cast one stone at Stephen, yet the Scripture says, ‘Saul was consenting unto his death.’ Acts 8: 1. Thus he had a hand in it. If several combined to murder a man, and should tell another of their intent, and he should give his consent to it, he would be guilty; for though his hand was not in the murder, his heart was in it; though he did not act it, yet he approved it, and so it became his sin.
(5) By example. Vivitur exemplis [We live by example]. Examples are powerful and cogent. Setting a bad example occasions another to sin, and so a person becomes accessory. If the father swears, and the child by his example, learns to swear, the father is accessory to the child’s sin; he taught him by his example. As there are hereditary diseases, so there are hereditary sins.
Rule 8. The last rule about the commandments is, that though we cannot, by our own strength, fulfil all these commandments, yet doing quod posse, what we are able, the Lord has provided encouragement for us. There is a threefold encouragement.
(1) That though we have not ability to obey any one command, yet God has in the new covenant, promised to work that in us which he requires. ‘I will cause you to walk in my statutes.’ Ezek 36: 27. God commands us to love him. Ah, how weak is our love! It is like the herb that is yet only in the first degree; but God has promised to circumcise our hearts, that we may love him. Deut 30: 6. He that commands us, will enable us. God commands us to turn from sin, but alas! we have not power to turn; therefore he has promised to turn us, to put his Spirit within us, and to turn the heart of stone into flesh. Ezek 36: 26. There is nothing in the command, but the same is in the promise. Therefore, Christian, be not discouraged, though thou hast no strength of thy own, God will give thee strength. The iron has no power to move, but when drawn by the loadstone it can move. ‘Thou hast wrought all our works in us.’ Isa 26: 12.
(2) Though we cannot exactly fulfil the moral law, yet God for Christ’s sake will mitigate the rigour of the law, and accept of something less than he requires. God in the law requires exact obedience, yet will accept of sincere obedience; he will abate something of the degree, if there be truth in the inward parts. He will see the faith, and pass by the failing. The gospel remits the severity of the moral law.
(3) Wherein our personal obedience comes short, God will be pleased to accept us in our Surety. ‘He has made us accepted in the Beloved.’ Eph 1: 6. Though our obedience be imperfect, yet, through Christ our Surety, God looks upon it as perfect. That very service which God’s law might condemn, his mercy is pleased to crown, by virtue of the blood of our Mediator. Having given you these rules about the commandments, I shall come next to the commandments themselves.
Rule 7.** God’s law forbids not only the acting of sin in our own persons, but being accessory to, or having any hand in, the sins of others.
How and in what sense may we be said to
partake of, and have a hand in the sins of others?
(1) By decreeing unrighteous decrees, and imposing on others that which is unlawful. Jeroboam made the people of Israel to sin; he was accessory to their idolatry by setting up golden calves. Though David did not in his own person kill Uriah, yet because he wrote a letter to Joab, to set Uriah in the forefront of the battle, and it was done by his command, he was accessory to Uriah’s death, and the murder of him was laid by the prophet to his charge. ‘Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword.’ 2 Sam 12: 9.
(2) We become accessory to the sins of others by not hindering them when it is in our power. Qui non prohibit cum potest, jubet [The failure to prevent something, when it lies within your power, amounts to ordering it]. If a master of a family see his servant break the Sabbath, or hear him swear, and does not use the power he has to suppress him, he becomes accessory to his sin. Eli, for not punishing his sons when they made the offering of the Lord to be abhorred, made himself guilty. 1 Sam 3: 13, 14. He that suffers an offender to pass unpunished, makes himself an offender.
(3) By counselling, abetting, or provoking others to sin. Ahithophel made himself guilty of the fact by giving counsel to Absalom to go in and defile his father’s concubines. 2 Sam 16: 21. He who shall tempt or solicit another to be drunk, though he himself be sober, yet being the occasion of another’s sin, he is accessory to it. ‘Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him.’ Hab 2: 15.
(4) By consenting to another’s sin. Saul did not cast one stone at Stephen, yet the Scripture says, ‘Saul was consenting unto his death.’ Acts 8: 1. Thus he had a hand in it. If several combined to murder a man, and should tell another of their intent, and he should give his consent to it, he would be guilty; for though his hand was not in the murder, his heart was in it; though he did not act it, yet he approved it, and so it became his sin.
(5) By example. Vivitur exemplis [We live by example]. Examples are powerful and cogent. Setting a bad example occasions another to sin, and so a person becomes accessory. If the father swears, and the child by his example, learns to swear, the father is accessory to the child’s sin; he taught him by his example. As there are hereditary diseases, so there are hereditary sins.
Rule 8. The last rule about the commandments is, that though we cannot, by our own strength, fulfil all these commandments, yet doing quod posse, what we are able, the Lord has provided encouragement for us. There is a threefold encouragement.
(1) That though we have not ability to obey any one command, yet God has in the new covenant, promised to work that in us which he requires. ‘I will cause you to walk in my statutes.’ Ezek 36: 27. God commands us to love him. Ah, how weak is our love! It is like the herb that is yet only in the first degree; but God has promised to circumcise our hearts, that we may love him. Deut 30: 6. He that commands us, will enable us. God commands us to turn from sin, but alas! we have not power to turn; therefore he has promised to turn us, to put his Spirit within us, and to turn the heart of stone into flesh. Ezek 36: 26. There is nothing in the command, but the same is in the promise. Therefore, Christian, be not discouraged, though thou hast no strength of thy own, God will give thee strength. The iron has no power to move, but when drawn by the loadstone it can move. ‘Thou hast wrought all our works in us.’ Isa 26: 12.
(2) Though we cannot exactly fulfil the moral law, yet God for Christ’s sake will mitigate the rigour of the law, and accept of something less than he requires. God in the law requires exact obedience, yet will accept of sincere obedience; he will abate something of the degree, if there be truth in the inward parts. He will see the faith, and pass by the failing. The gospel remits the severity of the moral law.
(3) Wherein our personal obedience comes short, God will be pleased to accept us in our Surety. ‘He has made us accepted in the Beloved.’ Eph 1: 6. Though our obedience be imperfect, yet, through Christ our Surety, God looks upon it as perfect. That very service which God’s law might condemn, his mercy is pleased to crown, by virtue of the blood of our Mediator. Having given you these rules about the commandments, I shall come next to the commandments themselves.
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
this has been answered before, but if it helps you find peace somehow…
Christ doesn’t say the words “my commandments” in scripture.
What is your point? Make it. Your answer has to be futher from truth then your answers here in this tail chase. Even if you catch your tail in this argument, it’s going to still hurt because you’ll still have to bite it.
If the commandments are of God then they are also of Christ, since they are both in the same God-head. In order to call yourself Christian, you must believe that they are one in the same. You still claim the title, christian right?
Then our point has been made over and over again. Christ and God are one in the same. One does not make laws that the other must fix.
Again point?
P
Philthy
Guest
Thank you for the complimentary comparison to Guanophore.
I apologize if my paraphrase did not convey your intended meaning - I didnt quote you, however. Here is your original statement which began this thread:
MD:
If the 10 Commandments were thought to be a rule of life - or a rule of relationship - would that not imply that they were meant to influence conduct? I mean they are rules of do’s and dont’s, right? If your original “rule of life” comment did not imply something to do with Christian conduct then it’s very confusing indeed. Providing a quote from Romans that reiterates that we should not sin certainly doesnt bolster your position. It was precisely because Christians were thinking that they could “sin boldly” that grace may abound that Paul needed to straighten them out. They were claiming that to struggle to avoid sin was dishonoring to the glorious gift of salvation through the forgiveness of sin which was finished once and for all time by Christ. Oh I can hear them now - "sinning boldly professes my abiding faith in Christ and what HE has accomplished on my behalf - I trust in His atoning work on my behalf: therefore my sins are irrelevent…blah, blah, blah. Paul straightened them right out: What shall we say then? Shall we sin so that grace may abound all the more? OF COURSE NOT “Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers etc, etc etc will inherit the kingdom of God.”
You continue to spread a message aimed at people who believe that works alone will save you. Catholics know better.
C
ChrisWRIT
Guest
Teflon already answered your “question”.
Exodus 20:1-6
“1: And God spake all these words, saying,
2: I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6: And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
God is Triune, Father, Son (Jesus), & Holy Spirit.
Here is Exodus 20:1, 6 again, just for clarity:
“And God the Father, Son & Holy Spirit] spake all these words, saying,…
…
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
T
Teflon93
Guest
There is no point.
Moondweller simply begins with his own manmade tradition, seeks out those snippets of Scripture which seem most congruent to it, and ignores the rest of Scripture, especially when it clearly contradicts his manmade tradition.
Notice also that Moondweller won’t even cop to precisely what his manmade tradition is.
That’s the boldness of faith Christ exhorts us to!
Meanwhile, the Catholic professes the faith, supports it with the whole of Scripture, and adds a heaping helping of common sense for good measure.
Let’s blow some minds, shall we?
One cannot love one’s neighbor, as Christ commanded, and:
Christ in Matthew 19:
16: And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18: He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, **Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19: Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. **
Here we have Christ exhorting us to keep the Commandments if we are to have eternal life. Apparently, because he didn’t say “Keep MY Commandments” his command is invalid in Moondweller’s eyes. Apparently the fact that Jesus is God and God told the people to “keep my commandments” in Exodus 20 isn’t sufficient for him either, although he’s evasive on whether he believes Jesus and God are one in being.
That presents us with a quandary: do we believe Christ or Moondweller? I believe Christ.
We see in Romans 13 St Paul exhorting us to keep the Commandments:
B]8: Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
**9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10: Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. **
Again, do we believe Moondweller, or St Paul? I believe St Paul.
You see, for the Catholic, it must ever and always come down to “By what authority?” Thus, every theological novelty that comes down the manmade tradition turnpike has to be reconciled with authority. In this case, the words of Christ and St Paul, as recorded in Scripture, debunk completely the notion that Christ wished to abolish the Ten Commandments, or that St Paul urged Christians to not follow them.
No wonder Moondweller’s so timid in putting forth the teaching of his own tradition!
Moondweller simply begins with his own manmade tradition, seeks out those snippets of Scripture which seem most congruent to it, and ignores the rest of Scripture, especially when it clearly contradicts his manmade tradition.
Notice also that Moondweller won’t even cop to precisely what his manmade tradition is.
That’s the boldness of faith Christ exhorts us to!
Meanwhile, the Catholic professes the faith, supports it with the whole of Scripture, and adds a heaping helping of common sense for good measure.
Let’s blow some minds, shall we?
One cannot love one’s neighbor, as Christ commanded, and:
- Murder him
- Covet what is his
- Steal from him
- Lie about him
Christ in Matthew 19:
16: And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18: He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, **Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19: Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. **
Here we have Christ exhorting us to keep the Commandments if we are to have eternal life. Apparently, because he didn’t say “Keep MY Commandments” his command is invalid in Moondweller’s eyes. Apparently the fact that Jesus is God and God told the people to “keep my commandments” in Exodus 20 isn’t sufficient for him either, although he’s evasive on whether he believes Jesus and God are one in being.
That presents us with a quandary: do we believe Christ or Moondweller? I believe Christ.
We see in Romans 13 St Paul exhorting us to keep the Commandments:
B]8: Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
**9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10: Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. **
Again, do we believe Moondweller, or St Paul? I believe St Paul.
You see, for the Catholic, it must ever and always come down to “By what authority?” Thus, every theological novelty that comes down the manmade tradition turnpike has to be reconciled with authority. In this case, the words of Christ and St Paul, as recorded in Scripture, debunk completely the notion that Christ wished to abolish the Ten Commandments, or that St Paul urged Christians to not follow them.
No wonder Moondweller’s so timid in putting forth the teaching of his own tradition!
G
guanophore
Guest
The fact that the covenant is made anew does not invalidate the commandments, which existed before the old covenant was formed.
I this case, it so happens that our interpretation of scripture is the same.
This is where your perspective departs from Apostolic Teaching. On the contrary, Laws are man made, and there are many that are related to the commandments. The Commandments are divine principles related to His revelation of HImself about how we should relate to one another. They don’t come from man, but from God.
Indeed! Failure to obtain eternal life being the most serious.
God infuses us with His spirit, enabling us to keep His commandments.
But, we are not “of the works of the Law”, since we are under grace, and we are no under condemnation, but have been transferred from the Kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light.
It is not that for us, moon. We live under grace, covered by the blood of the new covenant, shed for us for the forgiveness of sins. Faith is how we access the grace poured out in the new covenant. We keep the commandments by his grace, through faith, just like we do everything now that we are in Christ.
G
guanophore
Guest
I guess I am not understanding the question. It seemed to me that Teflon answered this.
Are you getting at the fact that the commandments were given for the benefit of man, and not God? Are you pointing out that they are our commandments, not His?
Or, when Jesus says we are to follow **the **commandments, do you take this to mean that they are not His?
Surely you don’t mean to imply that Jesus was not present when the commandments were given!
G
guanophore
Guest
It seems you are trying to make the point that, when Jesus speaks of keeping “my commandments” he is not including the Decalogue?
Keeping the commandments our of love, and by the obedience of faith, is the opposite of being “under law”. We are under grace.
But, I agree, those who want to be “under lawa” are in dangerous waters. Paul makes this clear in Galatians.
G
guanophore
Guest
We are in agreement, James.
I am interested to find out from moondweller what it is in this passage that indicates what Jesus is saying does not apply to Christians.
Matt 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
What is it in this passage:
Rom 13:8-10
Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law."
That indicates the 10 commandments are invalid?
G
guanophore
Guest
I copied and pasted the OP, so I don’t think I am guilty of misquoting on this point. The words in the title are yours. Perhaps there is a distinction between “rule of life” and “rule of relationship”?
I agree with you, however, that the commandments should not be the “rule of relationship” with God. Yes, it is a significant difference.
The question is, how do we determine what is sin? The commandments reveal this to us, as that is the whole purpose of the Law.
I think of a “rule of life” as a standard of behavior, which the 10 commandments do provide. Although they are not the basis of our relationship with God, they are a sure guide of His moral precepts in relation to himself, and to others.
Thank you for clearing this up for me. That was the purpose of the thread, and I appreciate you accomodating me in my confusion. :clapping:
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
Wow thats a first. Don’t follow the commandments. Geez, what heresy can we come up with next?
T
Teflon93
Guest
Oh, it’s even worse than that:
Apparently, Moondweller not only believes we should not follow the Ten Commandments; we are not even to follow Christ’s command in John 13 that we love one another.
We used to at least be able to count on a basic notion that Christians ought to do as Christ commands, and follow Christ’s example.
I can certainly understand the need to flee to Christ in a world where one cannot even count upon Christians to act morally and lovingly toward their neighbors.
Since few enough people share Moondweller’s novel reading of Scripture, we fortunately do not yet live in such a world.
But if you do, Moondweller, by all means—get thee to Mass, where the Body of Christ will protect you!
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
Do you need to carry your cross to be saved moondweller?
I find it ironic that the gospel you propose is as void of life as the Moon which apparently wish to dwell at.
I find it ironic that the gospel you propose is as void of life as the Moon which apparently wish to dwell at.
G
guanophore
Guest
No,I don’t think it is that. He seems to think that life begins “after” salvation, and all the things that we think of as part of salvation, he considers “sanctification” and only occur to saved persons. I am sure he will correct me if I got it wrong.
S
Sabbath_Keeper
Guest
It wasn’t Adam and Eve who brought sin into the world, it was Lucifer (Satan). He was the original sinner above all others. His first sin was that of covetousness, desiring to hold the place of God, as God. Through his jealously he designed to bring about the distruction of God’s most prized possession, those made in his image. From that time until today, he has spread his disceptions to all that would heed them. The biggest being, “God lies to you, if you disobey him you shall not surely die.”
S
Sabbath_Keeper
Guest
S
Sabbath_Keeper
Guest
Sorry about that last post but I got side tracked here is how it should have read.
QUOTE=moondweller;3909182]Oh really?
Jesus declared himself to be “Lord of the Sabbath”, making the seventh day the “Lord’s Day.”
QUOTE=moondweller;3909182]Oh really?
Indeed, it was God who sanctified the Sabbath in the beginning:
Code:
*Gen. 2:1-3 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he made. And god blessed the seventh day , and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.*
Christ, himself, rested on the Sabbath, even in his death:
*Luke 23:52-56 This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein, never man before was laid. And that day was the preparation day* (Friday) *and the Sabbath drew on. And the women also, which came him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepluchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.*
Look to the prophecies and you will see He intends for us to keep the Seventh day Sabbath when we are finally with him for all eternity:
* Isaiah 66:22-23 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.*
Code:
*Luke 6:1-5 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. And certain of the Pharisees said unti them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days? And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which wre with him; How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the preists alone? And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath.*
To prove his point, he healed the very next sabbath, read on through verses 6 to 12.
The Sabbath is God's day of rest which he made for man so that he may fellowship with man and man with him.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Because Act of the Apostles no longer see fit of the Levtical Law such which the Council of Jerusalem under Peter’s guidance and that Gentiles are no longer subject to it in order to be saved.
I actually didn’t come up with these terms. We are under God’s Law not.
- Status