The 10 Commandments

[Greg Long] 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?

[James K] 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.

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

I am worried that you have a huge disconnect between you and the average Joe.

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

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!

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

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

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!

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.

Now, gentlemen, I have seen a lot of philsophical arguments, but I have not seen very much documentation from Scripture to support your position.

[James K] Stephen, you keep referring to how simple it is but can’t explain with any kind of consistency why you choose which laws are and aren’t moral. There are plenty of covenantists who disagree with each other over what is and isn’t a moral law. Theonomists still want the civil portions kept as well since they too are moral.

You just refuse to answer a direct question. Your posting of a bunch of verses that doesn’t prove anything. You start with your believe then cherry pick verses. I prefer to start with scripture and then form a conclusion. Your approach explains much.

Until you can explain how you consistently choose which laws are moral and which aren’t other than how smart you are, I am done.

[Larry] Stephen,

Your response to me above is a pretty long and convoluted response to a simple issue. The NT declares that we are not longer under the Law. The NT declares that if you keep any of it, you have to keep all of it.

What else is there to talk about?

Where do we find any scriptural basis for saying that God must say something several times in order for it to be true? Again, your whole approach to truth seems misguided here, at best. The truth is that if something is stated in the Bible, it is true, even if only stated once.

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

Yes, I did. I said the character of God and the NT.

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

So doesn’t this destroy your whole point? The ten commandments aren’t authoritative. Only the last five are. Except they are simply expressions of what it means to love your neighbor as yourself, something that is clearly outside the ten commandments. It is the “royal law of love” to which every believer is responsible.

And in fact you have already stipulated that the ten commandments aren’t actually binding because you admit that the Sabbath commandment is not binding. So you start off saying 10, then go to 9, and now down to 5. That trajectory is great if you are playing golf; not so much if you are dealing with the authority of Scripture.

My question - which nobody has answered - is by what authority do you teach that murder is wrong, if not by the 10 commandments?

Creation, the image of God in man, love your neighbor as yourself, specific condemnations of murder in various places in Scripture. .

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!

And you would be wrong. The authority of NT teaching is derived from the character of God and the revelation of God.

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

And this destroys your whole point becasue the Law was for Israel, not the church. You live in Texas right? Do you really believe that you would be charged with breaking a Michigan law while committing a crime in the state of Texas? Even if that act were also a crime in Michigan? Of course not. You would be charged with breaking the law in the place in which you committed the act.

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

[Larry]

I have an answer to that question. Jesus is demonstrating that whole Law “hangs on” loving God with all that you are and loving others. The Law taught Israel how to do that in their covenant community. We are taught how to do that in other ways. We do not need the Law for that because we don’t live in the covenant community of Israel.

Where, Larry, where? can you provide specific examples that do not end up pointing us back to the OT Law?

But I seriously do not see how you can appeal to this. It sounds to me like you want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible apply directly to us and do away with the rest of it.

1. II Timothy 2:15 - “rightly dividing the word of truth”

2. Actually, the reverse is true. You seem to be dismissing the entire OT, at least from Exodus-deuteronomy as not applicable to the Christian in any way. This is absurd on the face of it. Have you seen the dismal answers to the thread on Leviticus? I am shocked that very few have very little to say on that book, and it demonstrates that too many in our fundamental circles have adopted your view. II Timothy 3:16-17 tell us that ALL Scripture - including the OT - is profitable for DOCTRINE - it is all profitable for us, Larry, but you seem to think it is not.

And with that, I think I will try to bow out here unless something is particularly noteworthy that I have not yet addressed.

I agree with you - we are simply rehashing what we have already said.

In Christ,

2 Cor 3:4-11

Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant- — not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

Rom 10:4

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Rom 9:3-4

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.

Gal 6:2

Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

The Mosaic Law was one of several codes of ethical conduct that God has given throughout human history. That particular code contained 613 commandments. There have also been other codes. Adam lived under laws, the sum of which may be called the code of Adam or the code of Eden. Noah was expected to obey the laws of God, so there was a Noahic code. We know that God revealed many commands and laws to Abraham (Gen. 26:5). They may be called the Abrahamic code. The Mosaic code conotained all the laws of the Law. And today we live under the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2) or the law of the Spirit of life in Christ (Rom. 8:2). This code contains the hundreds of specific commandments recorded in the New Testament.

The Mosaic Law was done away in its entirety as a code. It has been replaced by the law of Christ. The law of Christ contains some new commands (1 Tim. 4:4), some old ones (Rom. 13:9), and some revised ones (Rom. 13:4, with reference to capital punishment). All the laws of the Mosaic code have been abolished because the code has. Specific Mosaic commands that are part of the Christian code appear there not as a continuation of part of the Mosaic Law, or in order to be observed in some deeper sense, but as specifically incorporated into that code, and as such they are binding on believers today. A particular law that was part of the Mosaic code is done away; that same law, if part of the law of Christ, is binding. (Basic Theology, p. 351-352)

Please provide the quote where I say that we are under the Law!

All I have said is that the moral aspects of the Law have not changed.

Sin is still sin, murder is still murder, stealing is still stealing, lying is still lying, adultery is still adultery.

Tell it to the judge, Larry. Try going to court with one piece of evidence and see how far you get.

Larry, if you offer me one verse to prove your case, it isn’t enough.

Larry, I asked for specific references. this is a generalization, and it is very vague.

Kinda endless isn’t it? How much patience will the Judge have in that case?

I asked you to define sin Scripturally for the NT Christian. You did not provide a SCRIPTURAL DEFINITION, nor did you provide any references or passages in your defence!

Larry, you are talking in circles here. You say this is the “royal law of love” and “every believer is responsible” to observe this, yet its roots and origins are in the OT Law

Murder is still murder, stealing is still stealing, lying is still lying, homosexuality is still an abomination, disobedience to parents is still sin, etc. etc. etc.

1. You have admitted that the 10 commandments have bearing in this case.

2. The 10 commandments fit the bill here - it specifically condemns murder.

3. Murder is only one of the 10.

So the 10 commandments are not a revelation of God, and don’t reveal the character of God?

By making the Hyper-distinction between Israel and the Church, you have tossed out the universal application of the law.

All I am saying Larry, is that while the 10 commandments codified them for the Jew

those moral laws are still moral laws!

Larry, I have checked this thread - it was not until the very end here that you gave any DIRECT references, and before that James only gave three.

The Bible? That is all you have?

Where, Larry, where? can you provide specific examples that do not end up pointing us back to the OT Law?

II Timothy 2:15 - “rightly dividing the word of truth”

You seem to be dismissing the entire OT, at least from Exodus-deuteronomy as not applicable to the Christian in any way.

Have you seen the dismal answers to the thread on Leviticus?

I am shocked that very few have very little to say on that book, and it demonstrates that too many in our fundamental circles have adopted your view.

II Timothy 3:16-17 tell us that ALL Scripture - including the OT - is profitable for DOCTRINE - it is all profitable for us, Larry, but you seem to think it is not.

[Greg Long] 1. This whole idea that for us to believe something it has to be addressed in more than one passage of Scripture is something you brought up before and we challenged you on it. I’ve never heard anything like this before—not from any pastor I’ve sat under, not from any Bible college or seminary professor, not from any theology book of any kind. I certainly don’t find it in the Bible. If God says it even once, it is true. unlike a court of law, God does not require 2 or 3 witnesses to validate His Word. I urge you to reconsider this novel idea.

2. I must not be smarter than a fifth grader, because I cannot figure out which of the laws I asked you about above are moral, which are civil, and which are ceremonial. In other words, which of the laws are we still obligated to follow? I’d really like to know because I really want to obey God! Again, if it’s so easy, please take a few seconds of your time and enlighten me. If you can’t or won’t, I must question whether it’s really that easy after all.

3. What if I told you that I could list 4,000 verses of Scripture that support my position? Of course you would want to know what they are, and you would want to examine them to see if they really do support my position. In other words, as Larry has pointed out, it doesn’t matter if you have referred to more Scripture references if they really don’t prove your point.

4. Let me point to some passages of Scripture that clearly state that the OT Law has been abrogated.

Rom 10:4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. Larry has already mentioned this verse, which clearly says Christ is the end of the law. Christ is the “end of the law” because He fulfilled it (Mt. 5:17).

5. What authority are we under today? Galatians 6:2 answers this question:

The Mosaic Law was done away in its entirety as a code. It has been replaced by the law of Christ. The law of Christ contains some new commands (1 Tim. 4:4), some old ones (Rom. 13:9), and some revised ones (Rom. 13:4, with reference to capital punishment). All the laws of the Mosaic code have been abolished because the code has. Specific Mosaic commands that are part of the Christian code appear there not as a continuation of part of the Mosaic Law, or in order to be observed in some deeper sense, but as specifically incorporated into that code, and as such they are binding on believers today. A particular law that was part of the Mosaic code is done away; that same law, if part of the law of Christ, is binding. (Basic Theology, p. 351-352)

[Larry] Alright, I said I wasn’t going to do this, but here goes yet again.

Please provide the quote where I say that we are under the Law!

In post #5 you said Therefore we ARE under the authority of the 10 commandments, That is what it means to be “under the Law.” It means to be under its authority—subject to its demands and liable for its punishments.

Tell it to the judge, Larry. Try going to court with one piece of evidence and see how far you get.

So you maintain that a single statement from God is not trustworthy? That he must say it more than once? So on what basis then did he hold Adam responsible for a command he gave only one time? God expected Adam to know that his single command was authoritative.

Larry, I asked for specific references. this is a generalization, and it is very vague.

The whole Bible, Stephen. Don’t be obtuse. I am not giving specific references to define every sin in Scripture. I don’t even have to do that for people who aren’t pastors.

Kinda endless isn’t it? How much patience will the Judge have in that case?

We are not in a court, and I don’t think I need to argue the character of God with another pastor.

The whole Bible, Stephen. Sin is defined by the totality of God’s revelation as directed to people in their particular times. It is measured by his right standard that flows from his character. Again, this is introductory theology. Romans 3:23 defines it as falling short of the glory of God.

Where, Larry, where? can you provide specific examples that do not end up pointing us back to the OT Law?

I did … I cited 1 John 3 where murder is defined as sin by referencing Cain who lived at least 2500 years before the Law. It is impossible for that to reference the Law. Second, you can look at passages like Hebrews 10:24-25 about forsaking the assembling of yourselves together. That does not point back to the Law because it is about the church which didn’t exist.

We don’t get to make up our own theology in order to strive for profitability. It is only profitable when it is understood rightly.

[Stephen Schwenke]

[Greg Long] 2. I must not be smarter than a fifth grader, because I cannot figure out which of the laws I asked you about above are moral, which are civil, and which are ceremonial. In other words, which of the laws are we still obligated to follow? I’d really like to know because I really want to obey God! Again, if it’s so easy, please take a few seconds of your time and enlighten me. If you can’t or won’t, I must question whether it’s really that easy after all.

Not getting into that argument of classification, Greg - do you mean to tell me that you cannot distinguish what is immoral? I find that hard to believe!

[Stephen Schwenke] This is a nice summary of your view….I guess I just can’t see how something has been “abolished” if it was in force before the Law, during the Law, and after the Law. To me, this speaks to the universal application of certain moral Laws that the Creator gave to all mankind for all time. I would say that just because they were codified in the Jewish Law during the OT dispensation does not diminish their universal application to all men for all time, including today. We certainly can cite the 10 commandments as authoritative - they reveal the character of God on those points. Paul cited them as authoritative - why can’t I?

[Stephen Schwenke] Not getting into that argument of classification, Greg - do you mean to tell me that you cannot distinguish what is immoral? I find that hard to believe!

[Greg Long]

I’ve asked simply. I’ve asked as clearly as I could. I’ve asked repeatedly. And yet you are still unable to tell me which of the laws I listed above are moral, and therefore still binding, and which are merely civil or ceremonial, and therefore not binding. I rest my case.

Greg, I am not deviating from the OP which dealt specifically with the 10 commandments. My initial response was to James who stated that the 10 commandments are not authoritative for the Christian, and that anyone who taught they were authoritative was not teaching the “whole counsel of God.” It is not my intention to get into a running dog-fight over which of the rest of the OT Law is moral, civil, or ceremonial. The issue for this thread is the 10 commandments.

So you believe Christians today must keep the Sabbath? It’s one of the Ten Commandments that you say are “authoritative” with “universal application to all men for all time, including today.”

I have responded to the Sabbath several times. Leviticus 23 clearly places in with part of the ceremonial aspects. Paul cites the moral laws many times over as authoritative, and I provided those references for everyone to see. However, he never exhorts the believer to observe the Sabbath or feasts days. In fact he deals directly with that issue in Col. 2 as I have already stated.

I am not avoiding your question, Greg. I am simply trying to stay on topic.

[Kevin Miller] I can certainly see the difficulty in establishing what is immoral. Oh, the commands repeated in the NT are easy to see, since they are repeated and thus would be included in the “law of Christ.” It is easy to see that the feasts and holy days are done away with, since those are specifically mentioned as being done away with. But I want to ask about just one command that is not repeated or specifically done away with, and your reasoning with this command will help me see how you might handle any other. Lev. 19:28 prohibits tattoos, and when I was growing up, I was always taught that tattoos were wrong because the Bible says so. So my question is: Is getting a tatoo immoral? Is the prohibition against tattoos part of the moral code that hasn’t changed, or was the prohibition part of the ceremonial guidelines that the Israelites had to keep? Thanks in advance for your response.

[James K] Stephen focus. We all agree that morality is something found throughout the Bible. No one is questioning that.

You said to me, “I am simply astounded that you don’t know what is moral/immoral.”

Stephen, I have never said I don’t know what is and isn’t moral, ever. I am asking you to tell me what the basis for your distinction between what is moral and what isn’t. So far you have appealed to your personal smarts, your son’s smarts, the smarts of a 5th grader, and prayer.

I will try one more time with you. Please stay focused this time.

[Stephen Schwenke] Kevin, I really hesitate to answer this on the same grounds I have chosen not to answer Greg’s questions. But i think if we reason through the question, and look for some applicable NT principles (if there are any), understand why the law was given in the first place, and what tatoos have been used for in the past, and even for today, we could probably make that determination. That is about as far as I want to go here - and again, I am not avoiding the issue, I simply don’t want to get so far off track here with nitpicking everything apart that we stray from the original point.

So, Kevin, there may be some “grey areas” that are not so easily identifiable. I accept that.

My only argument on this thread is whether or not the 10 commandments have any “authority” in the Christian’s life. I say they do by the authority of the apostle Paul who quotes them throughout his epistles, with the notable exception to the Sabbath, which he deals with also.

[James K] Alright Stephen, since you insist on dividing the 10 commandments from the rest of the Old Covenant (something you lack any support for), I will play along. Let us examine the NT writings concerning the Law.

FIRST POINT:

When asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus said:

Matt 22

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind and Love your neighbor as yourself. He then said that the whole law and prophets hang on these 2.

So when given the opportunity to say the 10 commandments are the eternal moral law for all people at all times, Jesus declined that route, gave 2 laws not from the decalogue, and then said the whole law including the decalogue hang on the 2. The decalogue can’t be foundational if they hang from something.

SECOND POINT:

2 Cor 3 refers to the 10 commandments as:

1) the ministry of death, chiseled in letters on stones

2) the ministry of condemnation

3) not glorious in this case

4) fading away

This is compared to the current ministry of the Spirit, a ministry of life. Paul was not a minister of the decalogue. He was a minister of the New Covenant. The 10 commandments are NOT a way of life. Paul wasn’t talking about just salvation either.

If you want me to keep going I can. I gave you more than one passage to deal with. Please focus on what has actually been said.

But I believe I have provided plenty of clarification on that….

I refer you to my response to Greg on this….

Adam - a unique case. A sinless man in a perfect environment….I don’t think that you can make the corollary to today’s environment some 6,000 some odd years after Adam fell.

Considering the nature of the argument, it would certainly lend to your credibility, at least from my point of view. I listed several verses giving the Scriptural definition of sin. Why can’t you? This is a Bible forum, right? Why leave yourself open like that?

Salvation is a legal issue, and so is the OT Law.

Not in the sense you were appealing to courtroom scenario.

I am speaking specifically

Actually, I don’t think you are being specific at all. You keep referring to the ten commandments, but you have admitted that there are only nine. You use language of authority and then appear to deny that you are using language of authority. You have so far refused to be specific on the issue of moral/ceremonial distinction, appealing only to a fifth grade intellect. I find that a rather unconvincing method of argumentation. But if a fifth grader can understand it, you should be able to explain shouldn’t you?

So I think there are many things you are not being specific about.

But you overlooked this verse in the same passage:

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

Why do you think I ignored that? I think it utterly destroys your point. The fact is that murder was a sin before the Law, and 1 John 3 references it without referring it back to the ten commandments.

You fail to answer the question of what “law” is being talked about there. I don’t think “law” in that context is the 10 commandments at all, for the very specific reason that Cain is being talked about and the ten commandment did not have authority over Cain because they did not even exist.

So yes, I think there are numerous problems with your position.

If you contention is that we are bound by the same standards that are expressed in the 10 commandments, I can deal with that. I think it is actually true for the most part. But we are not bound by them because they are in the ten commandments but because they are part of God’s law outside the ten commandments.

[Larry] I think that is an implicit denial of the biblical teaching of inspiration.

[James K] In other words, you have no answer. For you the decalogue as you pick and choose its application or authority or whatever is up to you. There really is no objective basis higher than yourself.

You have yet to answer any of my questions despite me answering yours. I am done.

Larry - is this comment really necessary? Are you really accusing me of not believing in the inspiration of Scripture? Gimme a break?

I know you don’t like me

I gave you the Scriptures and the examples. If Jesus Christ thought it was necessary to give three proofs of His claims, then I don’t know why you think one is alright.

If you can’t prove that claim, then you should not make that claim.

If one person told me they saw Elvis downtown today, I would blow them off.

But if 2 or 3 people told me they saw Elvis, and all 3 gave the same independent testimony - time, place, etc. - well, then maybe it is worth looking into.

I don’t understand why you get so carried away with this stuff.

[Larry] So in a perfect environment, truth only has to be said one time; but in an imperfect environment it has to be said more than once?

I quoted Romans 3:23. In addition, sin is defined all throughout Scripture. I don’t think my credibility is really at stake here.

So I think there are many things you are not being specific about.

You fail to answer the question of what “law” is being talked about there. I don’t think “law” in that context is the 10 commandments at all, for the very specific reason that Cain is being talked about and the ten commandment did not have authority over Cain because they did not even exist.

If you contention is that we are bound by the same standards that are expressed in the 10 commandments, I can deal with that. I think it is actually true for the most part. But we are not bound by them because they are in the ten commandments but because they are part of God’s law outside the ten commandments.

[Larry]

Larry - is this comment really necessary? Are you really accusing me of not believing in the inspiration of Scripture? Gimme a break?

Yes, it is necessary because it highlights an implication of your belief. I am not accusing you of not believing in inspiration. That’s why I said “implicit.” I think your assertion that the truth of Scripture has to be repeated two or three times is an implicit denial of inspiration. I don’t think you intend that, but I don’t think you have any option. And I can’t imagine it’s even disputable.

[James K] Stephen, you have not answered my questions….

Maybe next time someone asks you to explain how you arrive at a certain position, give them a biblical reason instead of talking about how smart you think you are.

Larry - did you know that there is more than one definition to “implicit?”

Now - all I am saying with this is that any time you build a case to prove something, it is always best to build a SOLID case with MANY supports.

Anyone can take ONE verse and twist it to mean anything they want it to.

If it is true, then there WILL be many supports - surely you recognize that, right?

I don’t see the problem in asking you to provide an air-tight case to prove your point from Scripture.

What is wrong with that? Maybe this would be better treated on its own thread???

As to the “I know you don’t like me…” statement, it seems I remember “bumping” into you before here at SI, and we rarely take the same side on anything.

[Larry] I honestly don’t remember. I have no issue with you at all. I don’t care if people agree with me or not. To me, it’s simply a discussion that hopefully sharpens us both (and all the rest as well). Nothing personal in the least.

Off to bed now …

[Paul S] Wow, in this thread it seems more heat than light is being generated.

Now, because of this, my comments may not be of any help. But, here is my understanding of this issue. Anyone’s disagreement with me on this of little personal importance to me.

First, all the 10 Commandments are still in force. Second, believers in the finished work of Christ are effectively exempt from the curse of the Law (Deuteronomy 26:27. Galatians 2:21. Galatians 3:10. Galatians 5:4. 1 John 3:4. James 2:10.)

[Greg Long] John S.,

So, do you believe the other 603 commands in the Law of Moses are still in effect? If not, why not?