The 10 Commandments

One thought on translation: most of the public 10 commandment memorials I see use the KJV. I am not a KJV only guy, it is just the version they have heard Charlton Heston say for years.

There are three versions of the 10 Commandments.

The original:

1. I am the LORD thy God,

2. Do not have other gods besides Me.

3. Do not misuse the name of the LORD your God, because the LORD will punish anyone who misuses His name.

4. Remember to dedicate the Sabbath day.

5. Honor your father and your Mother.

6. Do not murder.

7. Do not commit adultery.

8. Do not steal.

9. Do not give false testimony against your neighbor.

10. Do not covet.

The Catholic edition:

1. Do not have other gods besides Me.

2. Do not misuse the name of the LORD your God, because the LORD will punish anyone who misuses His name.

3. Remember to dedicate the Sabbath day.

4. Honor your father and your Mother.

5. Do not murder.

6. Do not commit adultery.

7. Do not steal.

8. Do not give false testimony against your neighbor.

9. Do not covet.

10. Do not covet thy neighbour’s wife.

And then the Protestant:

1. Do not have other gods besides Me.

2. Do not make an idol for yourself.

3. Do not misuse the name of the LORD your God, because the LORD will punish anyone who misuses His name.

4. Remember to dedicate the Sabbath day.

5. Honor your father and your Mother.

6. Do not murder.

7. Do not commit adultery.

8. Do not steal.

9. Do not give false testimony against your neighbor.

10. Do not covet.

The Christian is not under the authority of any of the 10 commandments. Preaching them as authoritative fails the whole counsel of God.

[James K] The Christian is not under the authority of any of the 10 commandments. Preaching them as authoritative fails the whole counsel of God.

So we can go commit murder now???

Of course not!

Therefore we ARE under the authority of the 10 commandments, just not in the sense of SALVATION.

It is still wrong for us to steal, murder, lie, covet, and commit adultery. In fact, Jesus Christ STRENGHTENED the meaning of the law in Matthew 5!

Paul points out that “by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

The Law is THE TOOL to use to prove to a lost sinner just exactly how guilty he is!

I have preached through the 10 commandments before. The result was a greater respect for the Holiness of God, a greater sense of how hopelessly short we fall in comparison, and a greater sense of how much we need the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit to help us conquer our fleshly desires!

Why is it than when you point out that we aren’t under the authority of the 10 commandments that the first thought people have is that that means we can go commit murder. It is so predictable I almost put that in my post.

Was it wrong for Cain to murder before the giving of the 10 commandments?

Romans 6

15 What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Absolutely not!

The previous verse said:

14 For sin will not rule over you, because you are not under law but under grace.

So the same guy, in the same book, in the same chapter, in adjacent verses reached a conclusion that not being under the law did not mean you could commit murder.

Stephen, the 10 commandments were never for salvation. It isn’t that they are now not for salvation.

Galatians 4

1 Now I say that as long as the heir is a child, he differs in no way from a slave, though he is the owner of everything. 2 Instead, he is under guardians and stewards until the time set by his father. 3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were in slavery under the elemental forces of the world. 4 But when the completion of the time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

Stephen, has the Son come?

But the fact that Cain was guilty of murder before the 10 commandments was given to us in written form does NOT prove your point. It only confirms the “law that was written in [our] hearts (Romans 2:15). Murder is still wrong for us to commit today, as is adultery, covetousness, lying, stealing, etc. Paul affirms these again and again - Romans 13, Colossians 3, Ephesians 5, etc. etc. etc.

The Law is given to convince us of sin, and to stop the mouths of the lost on judgment day. (Romans 3:19)

When you say that the Chrisitian is “not under the authority of the 10 commandments,” you imply that we have license to live as we please. Of course that is not true - and I am not accusing you of advancing this idea. I just know how the average Joe thinks - and they will come to that conclusion.

We are not under bondage, as they were in the OT to keep the entire Law. We have liberty in Christ. I understand that. However, Liberty has boundaries. We do not have the liberty to cross the MORAL boundaries placed upon us, even if those moral boundaries are mentioned in the written Law of God.

Semantics, my friend, and consideration for the less thoughtful, are in order here. We should not word things in such a way that would give reason for ANYONE to believe that we have no laws whatsoever to follow. We are FREE, but NOT free to commit SIN!

In Christ,

We should not word things in such a way that would give reason for ANYONE to believe that we have no laws whatsoever to follow. We are FREE, but NOT free to commit SIN!

How is that any more dangerous than telling someone something that isn’t true?

First, the law against murder exists outside the 10 Commandments. Second, the 10 Commandments were an inseparable part of the whole Mosaic covenant. If you are under any of it (e.g., the 10 commandments) you are under all of it. Third, the fact that people might think something wrongly is no excuse to tell them something wrong in order to keep them from thinking something wrong.

Maybe the two of you should expound your position a little bit more, because it sure sounds to me that you are both advocating a life of license.

As far as I can tell, the only commandment out of the 10 that we are no longer under any obligation to follow is the Sabbath. The rest of Exodus - Deuteronomy clarifies that the Sabbath was part of the Ceremonial Law.

I am NOT saying that following the other 9 has anything to do with Salvation.

I am NOT saying that following the other 9 makes me any better than anyone else.

I am NOT saying that keeping the other 9 gives anyone any “special” blessings unavailable to anyone else.

I AM saying that those other 9 are “still in play.” I AM saying that we should not murder, we should not covet, we should not lie, we should not steal, we should not lie, we should honor our parents, we should not take the Lord’s name in vain, we should not worship idols, or make idols, and we should only worship the Lord Himself.

I am not sure what mystifies me more - that you are attempting to circumvent those laws by finding them other places in the Scriptures (which only proves their potency and rightful place), or that you are saying that it is wrong for others to teach them.

Paul says very clearly in Romans 7 that the law was HOLY and GOOD, for by the law was the knowledge of sin. The law shows us how much of a sinner we are in GOD’S eyes - not our own eyes. The 10 commandments prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that we are indeed sinners, guilty, and worthy of death.

One of the biggest reasons why we have seen such shallow conversions (if they are real to begin with) in the last several decades is because the lost have not been shown clearly just how bad they really are.

Now, you guys explain to me - how do you prove a sinner’s guilt without the Law? If there is no law (which you seem to be saying), then where do we go to show a lost sinner that he IS a sinner? Sin is the transgression of the law!

Just because we are saved, and not under the curse of the law (i.e. having to keep ALL of it - moral AND ceremonial), does not mean that we are no longer obligated to obey those laws which we know to be good - such as the other 9!

What do you suggest otherwise?

Before you say “liberty in Christ,” remember that liberty is not license?

Does not Paul CONFIRM those other laws as valid for the Christian?

Romans 13:9 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.

Ephesians 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

Ephesians 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

Ephesians 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Colossians 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

Colossians 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

I don’t know - these all seem like Paul re-hashing the 10 commandments (minus the Sabbath.) And AGAIN - it has nothing to do with SALVATION, or legalism; it has to do with living a HOLY life. After all, Paul said the law was HOLY!

Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Perhaps if the two of you would shed more light on your own position, I would not be so astounded at your position. From where I am sitting, it sure looks like you are advocating a life of liscentiousness, which I know is not true. I simply can’t make any sense out of your posts!

I am NOT saying that we are any under bondage to “keep” the Law for any particular purpose.

I AM saying that those 9 I listed are still the Law of God, as Paul confirms time and again.

THose laws cant’ save us - understood.

As saved people, we won’t go to hell for breaking them - understood! (Thank God for Eternal Security!!!)

But Paul’s confirmation of them only solidifies their relevance.

What is there to disagree about on that? Please explain clearly!

Maybe the two of you should expound your position a little bit more, because it sure sounds to me that you are both advocating a life of license.

Before continuing, I would like to know what I said that sounds anything like advocating a life of license. If you could please point me to that, I would be better able to respond.

Maybe you can find where I indicated that as well. I am pretty sure I posted Rom 6:15 for your consideration.

Stephen, that murder was wrong prior to the giving of the decalogue does prove my point. It proves that Cain did wrong even though he wasn’t under the authority of the 10 commandments.

2nd point related but could be dealt with another time: what purpose was it that God gave the 10 commandments if the 10 commandments were already written on the heart of people as you seem to think Rom 2 refers to the 10 commandments.

3rd point: if the 10 commandments represent the eternal law of God as you seem to indicate, how was it the sabbath was removed in the NT and wasn’t even mentioned for man until the Jews were getting manna in the wilderness?

I would like to encourage you to stop with the kneejerk reactions too. Realizing the 10 commandments are not our authority is not the same as advocating a license to sin. God’s grace teaches us not to sin. You can’t grow in righteousness by adding more laws. That is exactly the problem Paul addressed in Rom 6.

Well, neither of you read my posts carefully, and neither of you answered my questions either. I know as much about your position as I did before….

If you can’t explain your position clearly and concisely, then either the problem is with you or the problem is with your position - or maybe even both!

I am not ADDING laws - I am saying that those laws are still a pretty good rule to follow. I can’t figure out why the two of you have a such a difficult time admitting that. Sure we are under “Grace” - I admitted that already - but Grace doesn’t give us license to sin.

You say that the 10 commandments have no authority in our life. Well then, WHAT DOES? Grace?

HUH! - Grace teaches us to keep the Law (not the ceremonial law!)

Titus 2:11-12 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

(Guess what? If a person kept the Moral Law, they would get pretty close to fulfilling v. 12!!!)

You also never dealt with the other verses I gave that show that Paul confirmed those commandments as HOLY, just and good.

I already said that we are not under bondage to the Law. But you will never convince me that it is not proper to preach “Thou shalt not kill.” That law still stands today - as Paul confirmed.

Finally - the greatest Law of all, according to Jesus Christ is here:

Mt 22:34 ¶ But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.

Mt 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

Mt 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Mt 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Mt 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.

Mt 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Mt 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Well, well - these are direct quotations from the OT Law! Are you also going to say that these have “no authority” in our lives? Your previous statements force you into saying that these two “laws” are no longer any authority for us!

Simply put - you are wrong.

Homosexuality is still wrong - it is in the Law.

Bestiality is still wrong - not mentioned before the law, but it is still wrong.

Cross-dressing is still wrong - not mentioned before the law either…

Incest is wrong - not mentioned before the law

Knee-jerk reaction? No more than James K’s initial post on this subject. But at least I explained myself!

So explain to me, that if the 10 commandments have no authority in the Christian’s life, then how does the Christian define “sin?” What is “sin” for the Christian?

[Stephen Schwenke] You say that the 10 commandments have no authority in our life. Well then, WHAT DOES? Grace?

HUH! - Grace teaches us to keep the Law (not the ceremonial law!)

Titus 2:11-12 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

(Guess what? If a person kept the Moral Law, they would get pretty close to fulfilling v. 12!!!)

I’m just curious about something. Is there really that distinct a difference between the moral law and the ceremonial law? James 2:10 says, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Wouldn’t the “whole law” include the ceremonial law? You mentioned one of the laws regarding clothing. You said, “Cross-dressing is still wrong - not mentioned before the law either…” Would wearing two different linds of fabrics together also still be wrong? Are some clothing laws moral and some ceremonial? Are some food laws moral and some ceremonial? How exactly does one tell the difference? Why is the Sabbath command so easily dismissed as being ceremonial? The seventh day as a day of rest was established at creation. Sure, we worship now on Sundays, but does that automatically elinimate the seventh day as being the day of rest that God established?

Well, neither of you read my posts carefully

I read your posts just fine. That’s how I know you accused me of advocating a life of license. And that’s why I asked where you got that from.

and neither of you answered my questions either.

As I say, before I answer your question I need to know what I said that makes you think I am advocating a life of license.

I know as much about your position as I did before….

You seem to think you know my position when you say I am advocating a life of license so I am asking you to show my where you got that from.

If you can’t explain your position clearly and concisely

I can explain it just fine, in about two sentences or less, but my position is irrelevant.

So please indicate what I said that makes you think I am advocating a life of license.

Stephen, I don’t agree with your picking and choosing which laws are still binding on people today. You are arbitrary in picking out which do and don’t still apply. The law was one single unit. Either we are still bound to obey all of it or we are not bound under the authority of any of it. That is what Jesus said in Matt 5. None of it changes unless it all does. I am just not smart enough to pick and choose which ones are still binding. I will opt for what the NT says about it though.

So with that in mind, we can approach this one of two ways. First, we can say the believer is under the authority of the law. The NT is so extensive in the repudiation of that concept that I doubt I need to give you passages that support it. However, if you think you need one try Rom 6:14.

The second option is to say the believer is not under the authority of the law. Now this is explicitly stated in the NT. The NT also states that we must grow in Christlikeness, not ungodliness. So the real conflict is: how does the believer grow in righteousness without being under the authority of the law?

Grace does not teach us to obey the law. You quoted part of Titus 2 so I will quote all of it. I did refer to it in my previous post in case you missed it.

11 For the grace of God has appeared, with salvation for all people, 12 instructing us to deny godlessness and worldly lusts and to live in a sensible, righteous, and godly way in the present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Where is the mention of the law there? I would like to see if you can put together the thoughts on how the believer is to grow in righteousness apart from being under the law.

Your solution of defining righteousness by not breaking laws is one of the same mistakes the pharisees made. You aren’t helping people grow, you are taking them back into a different kind of bondage and bring frustration where there should be peace.

Sorry I also meant to ask you what exactly the moral law is.

[Larry] As I say, before I answer your question I need to know what I said that makes you think I am advocating a life of license.

I did NOT say this. I admitted that I know you are not advocating a life of license, but your position seems to indicate that. To say the 10 commandments has no authority in our life leaves us without any guidelines for what sin actually is. I asked the question that you failed to answer: “Define SIN for the NT Christian.”

You and James through the statement out there without qualification, clarification, or explanation. Now, I ask you, how does “Average Joe” interpret your statements if you don’t explain them?

I can explain it just fine, in about two sentences or less, but my position is irrelevant.

THen please do so!

[Kevin Miller]

[Stephen Schwenke] You say that the 10 commandments have no authority in our life. Well then, WHAT DOES? Grace?

HUH! - Grace teaches us to keep the Law (not the ceremonial law!)

Titus 2:11-12 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

(Guess what? If a person kept the Moral Law, they would get pretty close to fulfilling v. 12!!!)

I’m just curious about something. Is there really that distinct a difference between the moral law and the ceremonial law? James 2:10 says, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Wouldn’t the “whole law” include the ceremonial law? You mentioned one of the laws regarding clothing. You said, “Cross-dressing is still wrong - not mentioned before the law either…” Would wearing two different linds of fabrics together also still be wrong? Are some clothing laws moral and some ceremonial? Are some food laws moral and some ceremonial? How exactly does one tell the difference? Why is the Sabbath command so easily dismissed as being ceremonial? The seventh day as a day of rest was established at creation. Sure, we worship now on Sundays, but does that automatically elinimate the seventh day as being the day of rest that God established?

Of course there is a difference - and if you don’t know it, then you have not been taught well.

The ceremonial law is just that - ceremony. All the feasts, all the rituals of purification, etc. etc. etc.

The moral law is just that - laws having to do with morality.

“Thou shalt not kill” has nothing to do with ceremony - it is moral. How can you not know that?

[James K] Stephen, I don’t agree with your picking and choosing which laws are still binding on people today. You are arbitrary in picking out which do and don’t still apply. The law was one single unit. Either we are still bound to obey all of it or we are not bound under the authority of any of it. That is what Jesus said in Matt 5. None of it changes unless it all does. I am just not smart enough to pick and choose which ones are still binding. I will opt for what the NT says about it though.

I have already quoted Paul’s references to the moral parts of the Law…which confirms the moral law as Holy, just and good (Romans 7).

So with that in mind, we can approach this one of two ways. First, we can say the believer is under the authority of the law. The NT is so extensive in the repudiation of that concept that I doubt I need to give you passages that support it. However, if you think you need one try Rom 6:14.

Considering the fact that you threw your statement out without qualification, clarification, or explanation; and given the fact that I (for one) have taken issue with your statement that could be taken the wrong way, then YES YOU SHOULD give your references to support your position. Romans 6:14 does not SAY what you are saying.

The second option is to say the believer is not under the authority of the law. Now this is explicitly stated in the NT. The NT also states that we must grow in Christlikeness, not ungodliness. So the real conflict is: how does the believer grow in righteousness without being under the authority of the law?

Grace does not teach us to obey the law.

1. We are not under the authority of the Law in regards to Salvation - to that I can agree. But you are not saying that.

Is it still wrong to murder? If so, then the Law is still binding.

Is it still wrong to lie? If so, then the Law is still binding.

Is it still wrong to commit adultery? If so, then the Law is still binding.

2. I did not say that Grace teaches us to obey the Law. I quoted the verses to demonstrate that in keeping the Moral aspects of the Law, we become righteous! (Who’da thunk it???)

Where is the mention of the law there? I would like to see if you can put together the thoughts on how the believer is to grow in righteousness apart from being under the law.

Sorry! that is YOUR position! You put together your thoughts on how the believer grows in righteousness apart from the law! It was your proposition - you should be the one expounding on it!

Your solution of defining righteousness by not breaking laws is one of the same mistakes the pharisees made. You aren’t helping people grow, you are taking them back into a different kind of bondage and bring frustration where there should be peace.

I asked you a question that you have not answered: “Define SIN for the NT Christian.”

Since neither you nor Larry can answer that question, I will.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Uh-Oh!!! There we are again! Sin is the transgression of the Law!!!

1 John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

How do we define righteousness? Romans 1-3 demonstrates that the LAW was given to show how unrighteous we really are. Therefore, if we could keep the Law, we could be “righteous” to some degree or another.

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

THe Law shows us what sin is - therefore, by keeping the law, we could refrain from sin!

Now again, I am not saying that we should harness ourselves with the bondage to the ENTIRE OT Law. Go back and re-read my posts. I have emphatically denied that.

However, this does not mean that we are somehow or another free to commit murder, covetousness, adultery, lying, dishonoring our parents, or worshipping idols. THerefore, the only conclusion we can come to is that the 10 commandments (minus the Sabbath, which Leviticus shows us was part of the Ceremonial Law) is still binding on us today.

If you say that the 10 commandments have “no authority” in the Christian’s life (which James said earlier!) then the only conclusion would be to agree that it is now acceptable to murder, covet, commit adultery, lie, etc. etc. etc.

We know this is not true, but by what standard? What is our authority in stating that murder is still wrong? The New Testament? But the NT is built on the foundation of the OT! In other words, Jesus Christ’s references to the OT CONFIRM the validity of those commandments. The same is true of Paul’s quotations. And the fact that Paul never refers us back to the Ceremonial aspects of the Law demonstrates the two distinct aspects of the Jewish Law, and defines for us the MORAL aspects of the Law which have NEVER changed - not once from Genesis to Revelation.

Everyone knows - or should know - that when a person commits something to writing, it is significant. When God reduced to writing what man already knew to be wrong - it was done to demonstrate that man is incapable of doing good all the time. It does not free us from what we know to be wrong; it only strengthens the case God has against us. It is no longer a subjective case of the “law being written in our hearts” but rather an objective case of “Thou shalt not.”

The Christian is still under obligation to not murder, because Paul confirmed in writing what God told us in Exodus 20.

This does not make me under BONDAGE to the Law, anymore than I was before salvation.

GRACE delivers us from the penalty of the Law, not the Law itself.

[James K] The Christian is not under the authority of any of the 10 commandments. Preaching them as authoritative fails the whole counsel of God.

Please demonstrate your authority for telling the NT Christian that murder, adultery, covetousness, idolatry, disobedience to parents, lying, and stealing are wrong.

[Stephen Schwenke]

[Kevin Miller] I’m just curious about something. Is there really that distinct a difference between the moral law and the ceremonial law? James 2:10 says, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Wouldn’t the “whole law” include the ceremonial law? You mentioned one of the laws regarding clothing. You said, “Cross-dressing is still wrong - not mentioned before the law either…” Would wearing two different linds of fabrics together also still be wrong? Are some clothing laws moral and some ceremonial? Are some food laws moral and some ceremonial? How exactly does one tell the difference? Why is the Sabbath command so easily dismissed as being ceremonial? The seventh day as a day of rest was established at creation. Sure, we worship now on Sundays, but does that automatically elinimate the seventh day as being the day of rest that God established?

Of course there is a difference - and if you don’t know it, then you have not been taught well.

The ceremonial law is just that - ceremony. All the feasts, all the rituals of purification, etc. etc. etc.

The moral law is just that - laws having to do with morality.

“Thou shalt not kill” has nothing to do with ceremony - it is moral. How can you not know that?

Perhaps I haven’t been taught well. Please teach me. If James says that breaking the law in just one point makes a person guilty of breaking the entire law, then wouldn’t every point of the law be a moral matter? I asked you about the clothing laws, and in your haste to tell me that I should already know the answer, you neglected to give me your perspective. Why is cross-dressing a moral matter, but wearing two different kinds of fabrics is not? Was there some ceremony having to do with those fabrics? I’m not trying to argue against your point that murder is still morally wrong. Of course I can figure out the moral nature of that command. Duh. I’m just trying to figure out your framework for classifying some laws as ceremonial when I don’t see a particular ceremony inviolved with them. Was resting on the seventh day actually a ceremony? Wouldn’t it be morally right to rest as God has commanded?

Stephen, you are just all over the place with this. You keep referring to the moral law as something the Christian must follow. I am asking you to define that. So far that is just your answer to every question but you won’t define it. Please so so this conversation can continue toward growth and productivity.

[James K] Stephen, you are just all over the place with this. You keep referring to the moral law as something the Christian must follow. I am asking you to define that. So far that is just your answer to every question but you won’t define it. Please so so this conversation can continue toward growth and productivity.

Please demonstrate your authority for telling the NT Christian that murder, adultery, covetousness, idolatry, disobedience to parents, lying, and stealing are wrong.

Don’t get defensive and play innocent here, James. You started with the assertion that the Christian is not under the authority of the 10 commandments, and you went on to say that anyone who teaches that they are is not teaching the whole counsel of God.

BUT YOU NEVER EXPLAINED THAT.

So, you have accused me by association with not teaching the “whole counsel of God,” a charge which I take very seriously. Yet you have not proven your case when evidence against you has been presented.

So, explain yourself.

I don’t know how else to define it - I have been as clear as possible. I defined it with passages from the Pauline Epistles!

You have not defined “SIN” for the NT Christian - I had to do that for you - yet you never even commented on it.

You have not explained how it can be wrong for a Christian to murder, steal, lie, commit adultery, without reference to the 10 commandments.

You have not addressed my assertion that the quotes from Christ and Paul CONFIRM the validity of the 10 commandments.

You have not addressed the problem that arises with your position in regards to Matthew 22:37-40.

I have repeatedly asked you to explain your position, but you have chosen not to, and instead pretended I am the one who needs to define things.

I responded to your assertion.

You need to prove your assertion.

[Kevin Miller] Perhaps I haven’t been taught well. Please teach me. If James says that breaking the law in just one point makes a person guilty of breaking the entire law, then wouldn’t every point of the law be a moral matter? I asked you about the clothing laws, and in your haste to tell me that I should already know the answer, you neglected to give me your perspective. Why is cross-dressing a moral matter, but wearing two different kinds of fabrics is not? Was there some ceremony having to do with those fabrics? I’m not trying to argue against your point that murder is still morally wrong. Of course I can figure out the moral nature of that command. Duh. I’m just trying to figure out your framework for classifying some laws as ceremonial when I don’t see a particular ceremony inviolved with them. Was resting on the seventh day actually a ceremony? Wouldn’t it be morally right to rest as God has commanded?

It really isn’t that hard Kevin.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture….

The NT is our rule. When the NT confirms the OT, then that shows the validity of the moral laws. If the NT does not repeat or confirm it, then we need to look closer. A ceremony is just that. Some of the things God required of the Jews was to remind them that they were God’s chosen people - a peculiar people. This would include the laws regarding the mixture of fabrics, not “rounding their heads” and such like.

Leviticus 23 proves that the Sabbath was part of the ceremonial Law. Colossians 2:17-23 tells us that Christ did away with the Ceremonial Law at the Cross.

Some other things go without saying, such as the laws governing perversion in Leviticus 18. These are OBVIOUSLY moral laws still in place today. We don’t need confirmation from Paul or Christ on these laws - they are plain common sense to MOST people.

Make sense?

I would not have people misunderstand my position here. I do not spend my time in the pulpit beating people over the head with “Thou Shalt Not…”

There is positive law, and negative law, but both are essential.

There are things that we as Christians should do, and there are things that we as Christians should not do. Strange how many of the things we should not do are repeats from the 10 commandments!

We should grow in grace, we should grow in knowledge, we should demonstrate the love of Christ, we should be kind one to another, etc. etc. etc. These are all examples of positive law - things we should do.

However, there are plenty of things we should NOT do, and many of the things the NT tells us NOT to do are simply repeats of the decalogue.

My disagreement here with James is over the statements he initially made that the 10 commandments have no authority in the life of a Christian.

The words “Thou shalt not kill” are just authoritative and necessary for us today as the day God wrote them on the table of stone for Moses.

My disagreement with James also has to do with the charge that anyone who teaches the 10 commandments as authoritative is not teaching the whole counsel of God. This is simply not true, and James has not proven his point.

Okay see this is helpful Stephen. Your definition of what the moral law is is what is obvious to you. You said, “These are OBVIOUSLY moral laws still in place today.” Of course they are obvious, because you deemed them to be moral laws. Like I said, I am not smart enough to do that. There has to be a way of knowing what is and what isn’t a moral law. You need to settle what the moral law actually is Stephen. Is it what the NT says or is it what the 10 commandments say or is it some other list?

The reason your re-institution of the law as authoritative over the NT believer is not consistent with the whole counsel of God is because the NT explicitly teaches that the Old Covenant has been brought to an end. The 10 commandments are the covenant documents of the Old Covenant. This is why the sabbath is not binding anymore. It was the sign of the covenant.

To give you my answer to this question of yours:

Please demonstrate your authority for telling the NT Christian that murder, adultery, covetousness, idolatry, disobedience to parents, lying, and stealing are wrong.

My position is that sin is defined by the NT scriptures. There are times the NT expects a certain knowledge of the OT when referring to sin. I hope that helps.

See, Cain was guilty of murder even though he wasn’t under the authority of the 10 commandments.

I did NOT say this. I admitted that I know you are not advocating a life of license, but your position seems to indicate that.

Without niggling over the semantics, what did I say that “seems to indicate that”? I am just curious as to how you got that out of my short paragraph.

To say the 10 commandments has no authority in our life leaves us without any guidelines for what sin actually is.

Not at all. There was authority before the ten commandments (which didn’t come until about 1445 B.C.). And the NT declares that we are no longer under the Law of Moses, but we are still under authority. So this means that we are under authority but not under the authority of the ten commandments.

Your whole approach is based on the wrong thing. You are worried about what people might do rather than what God has said. This is indicated by the fact that you think if the ten commandments are not authoritative people might live a life of license, might not know how to interpret them, etc. The fact is that we start with what God has said and then later worry about other things.

The law is indivisible. You can’t break the ten commandments apart from the rest of it. And the Bible is clear that you keep all of it or keep none of it.

And furthermore, my main point is that we have no right to say something God doesn’t say in order to keep people from doing things they shouldn’t do. It is good to teach people they shouldn’t murder, commit adultery steal, etc. It is bad to use God’s word illegitimately to teach that.

The fact is that different laws exist. Here’s an example. Let’s say that I live in Michigan (which I do), and that I take a vacation trip to Ohio (though having lived in Ohio I am not sure why anyone would vacation there unless you have family that was never able to escape … but I digress) … So I live in Michigan and go to Ohio and kill someone in Ohio. Which law will I be charged under? I will not be charged under Michigan’s law even though Michigan has a law against murder. I will be charged under Ohio’s law because Michigan’s law has no authority in Ohio.

In the same way, Israel’s law — the standard for life in the covenant community — has no authority outside that community. And the fact is that we are, as the church, outside the covenant community of Israel. The Law was not given for us, but for Israel.

Furthermore, the Law is indivisible according to places like Gal 5 and James 2. If you keep part of it, then you must keep all of it. The Bible knows nothing of a distinction between moral, ceremonial, and civil with respect to applicability. IMO, that is a distinction made up by people trying to keep people under the Law because they are afraid of grace.

But the fact is that the grace that saves is the grace that teaches us to avoid worldliness (Titus 2:11ff.). The Law does not serve that role for us.

I asked the question that you failed to answer: “Define SIN for the NT Christian.”

Simply put, anything that is not like God in his moral character. God has a law, or a standard of righteousness that exists apart from the OT Law. So had God never given the Law to regulate life in the covenant community of Israel, there would still be a righteous standard, just as there was before the Law. God never limited the definition of “sin” to the ten commandments.

Now, I ask you, how does “Average Joe” interpret your statements if you don’t explain them?

And my point is this is completely irrelevant. I have no right or authority to say something incorrect in order to keep someone from thinking something incorrect.

Then please do so!

The believer is not under Israel’s indivisible law in anyway. The Law was a schoolmaster to lead Israel until the time of faith.

Stephen, the OT law has been abolished as a law code. I have yet to be convinced of any biblical evidence for a tripartite division of the OT law (moral, civil, ceremonial).

We are now under the Law of Christ as contained in the NT teachings. Many of those teachings overlap with the OT law code, but as Larry pointed out, just because some laws overlap doesn’t mean we are under the same code.

[Greg Long] Stephen, the OT law has been abolished as a law code. I have yet to be convinced of any biblical evidence for a tripartite division of the OT law (moral, civil, ceremonial).

We are now under the Law of Christ as contained in the NT teachings. Many of those teachings overlap with the OT law code, but as Larry pointed out, just because some laws overlap doesn’t mean we are under the same code.

Just because you remain unconvinced does not negate the truth of the matter.

The “overlapping parts” prove my position - those laws are just as relevant today as they were when God gave them to Moses.

[James K]

Okay see this is helpful Stephen. Your definition of what the moral law is is what is obvious to you. You said, “These are OBVIOUSLY moral laws still in place today.” Of course they are obvious, because you deemed them to be moral laws. Like I said, I am not smart enough to do that. There has to be a way of knowing what is and what isn’t a moral law. You need to settle what the moral law actually is Stephen. Is it what the NT says or is it what the 10 commandments say or is it some other list?

THis just blows my mind. How can one NOT know what is moral vs what is ceremonial? My 14 year old boy does not need to be told the difference - he knows the difference just by reading the OT Law. It isn’t some great secret - it is just as plain as the nose on your face.

The reason your re-institution of the law as authoritative over the NT believer is not consistent with the whole counsel of God is because the NT explicitly teaches that the Old Covenant has been brought to an end. The 10 commandments are the covenant documents of the Old Covenant. This is why the sabbath is not binding anymore. It was the sign of the covenant.

I am NOT “re-instituting” the law. I am simply saying that some things have not changed from the OT to the NT. Murder is still murder. It is just as wrong NOW as it was THEN. It has not changed. That is not “re-instituting.”

To give you my answer to this question of yours:

Please demonstrate your authority for telling the NT Christian that murder, adultery, covetousness, idolatry, disobedience to parents, lying, and stealing are wrong.

My position is that sin is defined by the NT scriptures. There are times the NT expects a certain knowledge of the OT when referring to sin. I hope that helps.

I am looking for specific examples, verses, passages. Being vague does not help your case.

I gave you several verses and passages to prove my point; I expect the same from you.

See, Cain was guilty of murder even though he wasn’t under the authority of the 10 commandments.

And???

All human beings have a knowledge of good and evil, and will be judged accordingly, regardless of whether or not they have a copy of the written Scriptures. Romans 2:1-15 deals directly with the “heathen who never heard.” But this is way off topic - we are discussing the authority of the WRITTEN LAW for the NT believer.

[Larry] Not at all. There was authority before the ten commandments (which didn’t come until about 1445 B.C.). And the NT declares that we are no longer under the Law of Moses, but we are still under authority. So this means that we are under authority but not under the authority of the ten commandments.

And I have asked you to define that “authority,” and you have not as yet.

Your whole approach is based on the wrong thing. You are worried about what people might do rather than what God has said. quote]

I am worried that you have a huge disconnect between you and the average Joe. Any ministry void of understanding how the average Joe American who has little to no ability in the areas of critical and/or analytical thinking leads that ministry into a highly philosophical and speculative presentation of Scripture. In short, it goes right over their heads. What you intend for them to grasp, and what they actually grasp are two different things. This is true even when the preaching is plain and direct, how much more so when it is over their heads?

The law is indivisible. You can’t break the ten commandments apart from the rest of it. And the Bible is clear that you keep all of it or keep none of it.

WRONG! Paul broke the 10 commandments apart from the rest, and in fact he broke the last 5 from the first 5!

Romans 13:9 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.

And furthermore, my main point is that we have no right to say something God doesn’t say in order to keep people from doing things they shouldn’t do. It is good to teach people they shouldn’t murder, commit adultery steal, etc. It is bad to use God’s word illegitimately to teach that.

My question - which nobody has answered - is by what authority do you teach that murder is wrong, if not by the 10 commandments? If you answer, “By the authority of the NT teachings,” then my response is that the authority of the NT Teachings is derived from the 10 commandments!

In the same way, Israel’s law — the standard for life in the covenant community — has no authority outside that community. And the fact is that we are, as the church, outside the covenant community of Israel. The Law was not given for us, but for Israel.

Nonsense.

Now, I will agree that there is a distinction to be observed between Israel and the Church.

However, Stealing was still stealing before the Law, and it is still a sin today.

These moral parts of the law have not changed. Sin is still sin. The NT definitions and lists of sin point us right back to the Law.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

The Ceremonial part was done away with. Col. 2:13-23

Furthermore, the Law is indivisible according to places like Gal 5 and James 2. If you keep part of it, then you must keep all of it. The Bible knows nothing of a distinction between moral, ceremonial, and civil with respect to applicability. IMO, that is a distinction made up by people trying to keep people under the Law because they are afraid of grace.

In regards to Israel - YES. They were required to keep the entire Law.

And Yes, Christ’s death on the cross did away with the requirements of the ceremonial aspects of the law.

But Paul appeals to the Law to prove our guilt before God as sinners!

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Paul further asserts that the moral aspects of the Law ARE INDEED good things, and we should still attempt to conform to them. Romans 7:7-13

But the fact is that the grace that saves is the grace that teaches us to avoid worldliness (Titus 2:11ff.). The Law does not serve that role for us.

And that wordliness includes covetousness (law!), lying (law!), stealing (law!), disobedience to parents (law!), cursing (law!), etc.

I asked the question that you failed to answer: “Define SIN for the NT Christian.”

Simply put, anything that is not like God in his moral character. God has a law, or a standard of righteousness that exists apart from the OT Law. So had God never given the Law to regulate life in the covenant community of Israel, there would still be a righteous standard, just as there was before the Law. God never limited the definition of “sin” to the ten commandments.

Where is it? What is it? I gave several direct references. I expect the same in return.

Now, I ask you, how does “Average Joe” interpret your statements if you don’t explain them?

And my point is this is completely irrelevant. I have no right or authority to say something incorrect in order to keep someone from thinking something incorrect.

But you DO have a responsibility to be as plain and clear as possible to avoid misunderstandings and misinterpretations. You can’t hide behind this excuse. We (I include myself here) cannot regulate how people interpret what we say, but we can remove much of the misinterpretation and misunderstanding by being precise, plain, succint, and clear. Failure to do so only helps them misunderstand. It is relevant!

The believer is not under Israel’s indivisible law in anyway. The Law was a schoolmaster to lead Israel until the time of faith.

Paul said “US” to the Gentile churches of Galatia, so we are included here!

And yet you have not specifically demonstrated by what authority you can proclaim that murder was wrong, without ending up with a reference to the 10 commandments. Every NT reference inevitably leads us back there.

Moreover, nobody here has even touched Matthew 22:37-40. The secret to the OT Law was not the rules, regulations, and ceremonies, but rather a sincere love for the Lord God of Israel - Jehovah. But the same is true today! Jesus Christ quotes the OT Law from Dueteronomy 6. But the position being advanced here is that this is no longer in effect! NONSENSE! The most important thing a Christian can and should do is have a fervent love for Jesus Christ. Matthew 22:37-40 is just as relevant today as it was in Moses’ time!

Now, gentlemen, I have seen a lot of philsophical arguments, but I have not seen very much documentation from Scripture to support your position. I think that speaks volumes against you!

Stephen,

Is the law against bestiality moral, civil, or ceremonial?

Is the law against incest moral, civil, or ceremonial?

Is the law against tattooing moral, civil, or ceremonial?

Is the law against wearing mixed-fiber clothing moral, civil, or ceremonial?

Is the law against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk moral, civil, or ceremonial?

Is the law commanding Sabbath-keeping moral, civil, or ceremonial?

[Greg Long] Stephen,

Is the law against bestiality moral, civil, or ceremonial?

Is the law against incest moral, civil, or ceremonial?

Is the law against tattooing moral, civil, or ceremonial?

Is the law against wearing mixed-fiber clothing moral, civil, or ceremonial?

Is the law against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk moral, civil, or ceremonial?

Is the law commanding Sabbath-keeping moral, civil, or ceremonial?

What is the purpose of this question?

Wow, this is surreal.

I don’t believe in the tripartite division of the OT law, so of course I can’t answer those questions. I don’t believe there is any hard and fast distinction between moral, civil, and ceremonial. I believe all the OT commands are moral.

You do believe in dividing the commands between moral, civil, and ceremonial, so you should be able to answer those questions.

If you can’t tell us which commands are moral, which are civil, and which are ceremonial, how are we supposed to know which ones we are obligated to obey today and which ones we can disregard?

I cautiously enter this conversation because it seems that it has already become somewhat argumentative

Now, gentlemen, I have seen a lot of philsophical arguments, but I have not seen very much documentation from Scripture to support your position. I think that speaks volumes against you!

But here goes: (Possible solutions)

1. Tripartite division of the OT law (moral, civil, ceremonial). Justin Taylor has an article on this http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/09/27/on-the-trip… here . He’s not fully convinced, “I don’t think it fully works” OR
   
   
2. Christ’s atoning work fulfilled the Law - believers freed from the Law: “that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:3-4). Comments:
   
   
   
   
   
   1. Piper has some good thoughts on this: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/how-chri…] How Christ Fulfilled and Ended the Old Testament Regime . “The law was kept perfectly by Christ. And all its penalties against God’s sinful people were poured out on Christ. Therefore, the law is now manifestly not the path to righteousness, Christ is. The ultimate goal of the law is that we would look to Christ, not law-keeping, for our righteousness.” (Romans 10:4)
      
      
   2. The redeemed and regenerated man has the Holy Spirit Who guides and controls.Obviously this position is NOT antinomianism.
      
      
      
      
      
      1. Romans 3:31, “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law”
         
         
      2. Romans 6:15, “Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!”
         
         
      3. Romans 8:4, “that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”
         
         
         
         
      4. With regards to the Ten Commandments (I’ll call that the Moral Law): 9 of the 10 are repeated in the epistles. The exception is to keep the Sabbath
         
         

And this is one of the great dilema’s of my position - how to convince others that I am NOT putting anyone back under the law, but still recognizing that the moral parts of the law are still valid.

But it is so simple, I think too many over look the simplicity of it with all of the theological/philosophical argumentation.

Your last sentence says it all!

[Greg Long] Wow, this is surreal.

I don’t believe in the tripartite division of the OT law, so of course I can’t answer those questions. I don’t believe there is any hard and fast distinction between moral, civil, and ceremonial. I believe all the OT commands are moral.

You do believe in dividing the commands between moral, civil, and ceremonial, so you should be able to answer those questions.

If you can’t tell us which commands are moral, which are civil, and which are ceremonial, how are we supposed to know which ones we are obligated to obey today and which ones we can disregard?

Right, Greg. Your position does not allow you to answer your own questions….makes me question your position.

Your answer here admits that there IS an answer if only they took a different position!

I can answer the questions - but what is the point of that of you don’t accept it to begin with?

Seems rather pointless to me, Greg. All it does is send us down a rabbit trail.

Stephen, let me try to say this as clearly as I can.

I do NOT believe OT laws can be divided or categorized as moral, civil, or ceremonial. Therefore, the questions are meaningless to me.

But you DO believe OT laws can be divided or categorized as moral, civil, or ceremonial. Therefore, you MUST be able to tell me which OT laws as moral, which are civil, and which are ceremonial. It really shouldn’t be that difficult for you.

If you can’t answer the questions, then you have proven my point, that OT laws cannot be neatly categorized as moral, civil, or ceremonial.

Why can’t you answer the questions?

Stephen, what is the basis for your determination that something is moral as opposed to simply civil or ceremonial? Before we can continue, we need to be on the same page with at least that.

Now, gentlemen, I have seen a lot of philsophical arguments, but I have not seen very much documentation from Scripture to support your position. I think that speaks volumes against you!

I gave you Rom 6 which specifically ends the authority of the law over the believers.

I gave you Gal 4 which specifically ends the role of the law as steward until the Messiah came.

I gave you Tit 2 which specifically does NOT appeal to law as the means of righteousness for the believer.

You admit that the sabbath isn’t binding on the believer yet refer to the permanence of what was written in stone. Make up your mind.

You pick and choose which laws are moral and which aren’t but have not demonstrated how you reach those conclusions.

If the NT commands a certain positive/negative action/motive, it may indeed pull from the OT as the base of information, but never as authority. For example, saying to not murder or even have contempt in your heart assumes that you know why murder is wrong, because man was created in the image of God. That is why Cain was guilty by the way. It had nothing to do with the 10 commandments. Your failure to understand my constant reference to Cain (even Larry did it to help you) demonstrates you have not thought through your position. You have tried to argue that there is a law written on people’s hearts as though that is the authority. I thought you were saying it was the 10 commandments or the NT repetition of it. So now we have 3 variations of the authority.