God's Law

Status
Not open for further replies.

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
I've been looking at the law in the scriptures recently, particularly those verses in the NT that talk about aspects of the law (sacrifices) that Christians are no longer expected to observe, and others that they are (moral law). I'm trying to get a handle on what the verses collectively say about the law. I'm sure I'll have a lot of questions as time goes on.

I do have one question for starters that I've sometimes wondered about. Some people say that the 10 commandments are valid (for lack of a better word) today to the extent that they're repeated somewhere in the NT. I was just wondering where that idea came from. Is there some biblical support for that kind of thinking?

I'm thinking God said "Thou shalt not..." once, that's enough. Unless He says differently in the NT, the commandment stands.
 
I do have one question for starters that I've sometimes wondered about. Some people say that the 10 commandments are valid (for lack of a better word) today to the extent that they're repeated somewhere in the NT. I was just wondering where that idea came from. Is there some biblical support for that kind of thinking?

Charles Ryrie--Dispensationalism.
 
For those who don't have the Larger Catechism, here is Q&A 99, with some commentary from my text study for interest.
Q.99. What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments?
For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed:


(1) That the law is perfect, and bindeth everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience, forever; so as, to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin. (o)


(2) That it is spiritual; and so, reacheth the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul, as well as words, works, and gestures. (p)


(3) That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments. (q)


(4) That, as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; (r) and, where a sin is forbidden the contrary duty is commanded: (s) so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included; (t) and, where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included. (u)


(5) That, what God forbids, is at no time to be done; (w) what he commands, is always our duty, (x) yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times. (y)


(6) That, under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded, together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto. (z)


(7) That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavour that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places. (a)


(8) That, in what is commanded to others, we are bound according to our places and callings to be helpful to them; (b) and to take heed of partaking with others in what is forbidden them. (c)


o PSA 19:7; JAM 2:10; MAT 5:21 to the end. [MAT 5:20 to the end; first verse given in text though is verse 21. Also in Duncan and 1771np. Corrected by KNCDa.


p ROM 7:14; DEU 6:5; With MAT 22:37-39; MAT 5:21-22, 27-28, 36 to the end. [Dunlop and L&Rbc drop the MAT 5 reference altogether. RP retained it.] [Rothwell etc Compared With]


q COL 3:5; AMO 8:5; PRO 1:19; 1TI 6:10 [RPc had AMO 8:3]


r ISA 58:13; DEU 6:13; With MAT 4:9-10; MAT 15:4-6 [Rothwell ibid]


s MAT 5:21-25; EPH 4:28 [Dunlop and L&Rbc drop vs 25 from the MAT reference].


t EXO 20:12; With PRO 30:17 [Rothwell ibid]


u JER 18:7-8; EXO 20:7; With PSA 15:1, 4-5; And PSA 24:4-5 [Rothwell Compared With and And With]]


w JOB 13:7-8; ROM 3:8; JOB 36:21; HEB 11:25


x DEU 4:8-9


y MAT 12:7


z MAT 5:21-22, 27-28; MAT 15:4-6; HEB 10:24-25; 1TH 5:22; JUD 23; GAL 5:26; COL 3:21 [JUD 22 in RPc].


a EXO 20:10; LEV 19:17; GEN 18:19; JOS 24:15; DEU 6:6-7


b 2CO 1:24


c 1TI 5:22; EPH 5:11


Variants:
1)The rules for rightly understanding the Ten Commandments in Larger Catechism 99 seem to have first been numbered in the Dillingham Latin translation first published by John Field in 1656 (DLL). MAX did not number them, but RTHb does so, as do THIRD, SNDRS, and SWTNab. See Coldwell, “The Development of the Traditional Form of The Westminster Standards” CPJ 1.169.
2)“commandments these rules”: MSa.
3)(1) observed.”: MSa; MAX; RothB; RPa. (2) “observed;” MSb; L&Rc. (3) “observed,”: THIRD; FOURTH; COX; DNLP; L&Rb. (3) “observed:”: E.Rob?; but may be broken type and a semi-colon. Duncan and 1771np have the semi-colon.
4)In Rule 1: “conformity, in”: MSb.
5)“whole man, unto”: MSS.
6)“obedience forever; so”: MSa; W1438; Dunlop; L&R; E.Rob. (2) “forever, so”: MAX; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX; E.Rob. (3) “so as to”: W1438; Dunlop; L&R; E.Rob; RPc.
7)“and, to forbid”: MSb.
8)In Rule 2: “spiritual, and”: MSS; MAX; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX; Dunlop; RP; L&R; E.Rob.
9)“so reacheth”: FOURTH; Dunlop; RP; L&R; E.Rob.
10)“soul; as”: Dunlop; L&Rbc. [corrected; typo of “soul; and” in previous files]. E.Rob has the comma.
11)“works and”: MSa.
12)In Rule 3: “same things”: MSb.
13)“required, or”: MSS.
14)“forbidden, in”: MSa.
15)In Rule 4: (1) That as where”: MSa; Dunlop. (2) That as, where”: RP; L&R; E.Rob.
16)(1) “is forbidden &, where a sin”: W1438. (2) “forbidden, and where”: MAX; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX. (3) “forbidden; and where”: Dunlop; RPa; L&R. (4) “forbidden,— and where” … “included, — and where”: RPc.
17)(1) “forbidden, the contrary”: MSb; AM; Tyler; MAX; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX; Dunlop; RP; L&R; E.Rob. (2) “forbidden; the”: W1438.
18)“commanded; so”: RP; E.Rob.
19)(1) “so where”: W1438; FOURTH; Dunlop. (2) “and where”: W1438; Dunlop; RPc.
20)(1) “included: and”: Tyler. (2) “included, and”: E.Rob. (3) “and where”: E.Rob.
21)In Rule 5: “That what”: MSa; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX; Dunlop; E.Rob.
22)“forbids is”: MSa.
23)(1) “done: what”: MSa. (2) “done, what”: Tyler; MAX; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX.
24)commands is”: MSa.
25)(1) “duty; yet”: MSa; W1438. (2) “our duty, and yet”: MAX; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX. (3) “our duty; and yet”: Dunlop; RP; L&R; E.Rob. (4) “our duty: and yet”: RPc. Rothwell ‘A’ (MAX) added the “and” prior to “yet.”
26)In Rule 6: “That under”: MSS; FOURTH; Dunlop; L&R.
27)“sin, or duty”: MSa.
28)“forbidden, or”: MSa.
29)“commanded; together”: Dunlop; L&R; E.Rob.
30)“occasions and”: RPa.
31)In Rule 7: “That, what”: MSb; RP.
32)“bound according”: Dunlop.
33)“forbidden, or”: MSa.
34)“avoided, or”: MSa.
35)“performed, by”: MSb.
36)“to, the duty”: AM.
37)In Rule 8: “That in”: MSa; Dunlop; L&Rb. The comma is in L&Rc; 1771np.
38)“others we”: FOURTH.
39)“bound, accordingly”: MSb; RPc.
40)“places, and”: MSa.
41)“callings, to”: MSS; E.Rob; RPc.
42)(1) “them, and”: MAX; RothB; FOURTH; COX; RP; E.Rob. (2) “them and”: THIRD.
43)“and, to”: MSS.
 
Its a shame sometimes the law gets such "negative coverage" sometimes. Here's something good to keep in mind with any study about the law, taken from a blog entry that Josh wrote:

First, what does God’s Word say about God’s Law? Many things. My personal favorite follows thus from Psalm 19:

7 The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;
8 the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes;
9 the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold;sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb.
11 Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.​

More good thoughts here.
 
I do have one question for starters that I've sometimes wondered about. Some people say that the 10 commandments are valid (for lack of a better word) today to the extent that they're repeated somewhere in the NT. I was just wondering where that idea came from. Is there some biblical support for that kind of thinking?

Charles Ryrie--Dispensationalism.

This is why dispensationalists typically will say that the 4th commandment has been abrogated, arguing that it wasn't explicitly restated in the NT as the other 9 were.

Dispensationalism certainly popularized this teaching and it may have originated with Dispensationalists. But it goes back further than Ryrie.
 
Of course, the fourth commandment was "repeated" in the New Testament, that is, assuming you think that Jesus' sanction and corrective teachings respecting it are as normative as the rest of his doctrine. And elsewhere in the apostles; and see the book of Hebrews, e.g. 4:9.

Its amazing to me to note how there is more direct and indirect teaching by Jesus on this 4th commandment than on any other of the 10. And yet people quickly assert "I don't have to remember it."
 
I do have one question for starters that I've sometimes wondered about. Some people say that the 10 commandments are valid (for lack of a better word) today to the extent that they're repeated somewhere in the NT. I was just wondering where that idea came from. Is there some biblical support for that kind of thinking?

I'm thinking God said "Thou shalt not..." once, that's enough. Unless He says differently in the NT, the commandment stands.

Those who say that that the commandments are valid only if repeated in the NT are missing something. There is more in the OT than the Mosaic/Sinaitic/Old Covenant made specifically with Israel. There is also pre-Mosaic instruction given to all men such as the death penalty for murder (Gen. 9:6). These instructions have never been revoked by God and remain valid today. Included in these instructions are the moral law written on the hearts of all men and women from Adam down to the latest newborn.

But if God says "Thou shalt not..." in a Sinaitic stipulation the case is a little more complicated. That covenant was made between God and Israel not God and all men. It reiterated the moral law as the decalogue, and contained ceremonial and civil stipulations as well. When that covenant was superseded by the new, it ended, and is no longer covenantally obliging on any today.

Yet although the ceremonial laws have been "abrogated" in Christ's new covenant fulfillment, the substance of the decalogue and some of the civil laws remain obligatory for different reasons than covenant obligation. The decalogue remains obligatory by virtue of the fact that it is the moral law given to all men pre-Sinai and never revoked, and some of the civil stipulations will remain obligatory because they remain just despite the change in covenants.
 
Of course, the fourth commandment was "repeated" in the New Testament, that is, assuming you think that Jesus' sanction and corrective teachings respecting it are as normative as the rest of his doctrine. And elsewhere in the apostles; and see the book of Hebrews, e.g. 4:9.

Why do you think a weekly sabbath is meant here? In context, Heb. 4:9 appears to refer not to a weekly sabbath but a more permanent condition under the name of sabbath rest, something that believers are exhorted to enter into.
 
Of course, the fourth commandment was "repeated" in the New Testament, that is, assuming you think that Jesus' sanction and corrective teachings respecting it are as normative as the rest of his doctrine. And elsewhere in the apostles; and see the book of Hebrews, e.g. 4:9.

Could you point me to the references where the apostles repeat the fourth commandment? I can't think of any at the moment...
 
Of course, the fourth commandment was "repeated" in the New Testament, that is, assuming you think that Jesus' sanction and corrective teachings respecting it are as normative as the rest of his doctrine. And elsewhere in the apostles; and see the book of Hebrews, e.g. 4:9.

Could you point me to the references where the apostles repeat the fourth commandment? I can't think of any at the moment...

There isn't a direct one, however there is none that tell us that the 4th is repealed either.
The Lord says:


Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Is the sabbath still made for man?
 
Of course, the fourth commandment was "repeated" in the New Testament, that is, assuming you think that Jesus' sanction and corrective teachings respecting it are as normative as the rest of his doctrine. And elsewhere in the apostles; and see the book of Hebrews, e.g. 4:9.

Could you point me to the references where the apostles repeat the fourth commandment? I can't think of any at the moment...

There isn't a direct one, however there is none that tell us that the 4th is repealed either.
The Lord says:


Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Is the sabbath still made for man?

James... thanks for that... however, I was thinking about references in the apostles (meaning the epistles) and not the gospels. I'am aware of the many references to the sabbath in the gospels, I just can't think of any in the epistles, apart from hebrews.
 
Of course, the fourth commandment was "repeated" in the New Testament, that is, assuming you think that Jesus' sanction and corrective teachings respecting it are as normative as the rest of his doctrine. And elsewhere in the apostles; and see the book of Hebrews, e.g. 4:9.

Could you point me to the references where the apostles repeat the fourth commandment? I can't think of any at the moment...

There isn't a direct one, however there is none that tell us that the 4th is repealed either.
The Lord says:


Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Is the sabbath still made for man?

If men made in the image of God still exist (which they do), then there must still be a Sabbath rest for their good.
 
James... thanks for that... however, I was thinking about references in the apostles (meaning the epistles) and not the gospels. I'am aware of the many references to the sabbath in the gospels, I just can't think of any in the epistles, apart from hebrews.
Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

Isn't that a reference to the sabbath?
 
Pay close attention to what the apostle Paul says in Acts 24. This was spoken after he had written 1&2 Cor, Romans, and Galatians for sure:

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

He says he still beleives all things written in the law and the prophets. Would that include the sabbath?
 
Pay close attention to what the apostle Paul says in Acts 24. This was spoken after he had written 1&2 Cor, Romans, and Galatians for sure:

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

He says he still beleives all things written in the law and the prophets. Would that include the sabbath?

Surely it would, but it would also include the animal sacrifices, levitical priesthood etc etc. I don't think that verse is an argument for keeping the sabbath.

By the way, I am not making pushing any position here. I was just wondering if I missed any verses on this topic.
 
Of course, the fourth commandment was "repeated" in the New Testament, that is, assuming you think that Jesus' sanction and corrective teachings respecting it are as normative as the rest of his doctrine. And elsewhere in the apostles; and see the book of Hebrews, e.g. 4:9.

Could you point me to the references where the apostles repeat the fourth commandment? I can't think of any at the moment...
Question, Mark (no pun intended ;)). Why would it have to be repeated?

I' am not saying it would have to be.

As I said I am not intending to argue a point.

Pastor Buchanan, in the quote above, mentioned several places in the NT referencing the sabbath. I know where are Jesus' teaching on it, I know about the book of Hebrews, I was just wondering where is 'And elsewhere in the apostles', as nothing comes to my mind at present.
 
But if God says "Thou shalt not..." in a Sinaitic stipulation the case is a little more complicated. That covenant was made between God and Israel not God and all men. It reiterated the moral law as the decalogue, and contained ceremonial and civil stipulations as well. When that covenant was superseded by the new, it ended, and is no longer covenantally obliging on any today.
Just so I'm clear, you're saying the decalogue is still abliging today, but the part that reitereated the moral law of the decalogue isn't. Did I understand you correctly?
 
But if God says "Thou shalt not..." in a Sinaitic stipulation the case is a little more complicated. That covenant was made between God and Israel not God and all men. It reiterated the moral law as the decalogue, and contained ceremonial and civil stipulations as well. When that covenant was superseded by the new, it ended, and is no longer covenantally obliging on any today.
Just so I'm clear, you're saying the decalogue is still abliging today, but the part that reitereated the moral law of the decalogue isn't. Did I understand you correctly?

Not quite. It is obliging only because the decalogue is the pre-obliging moral law given to all men by God to Adam before his fall. In that form God has never abolished it and it remains valid today even though the Sinai covenant, of which it was the ethical centerpiece, has been abolished.

Put it this way: Assume that two separate countries, Sinaiticus and Moralicus have law codes which have ten stipulations in common. There is a war between the two countries and Moralicus wins and annexes Sinaiticus. In that situation, the Sinaitical legal system is abolished and is longer valid. But ten stipulations do remain valid because they are in the Moralicus legal system also. With the Sinai covenant superseded by the New, the Jewish people formerly living covenantally under Sinai were now returned to the jurisdiction of the moral law under which they had been living under from Adam to Moses and which all the Gentiles had been living under since Adam and are still living under today.

(Note this only attempts to explain why the moral law is still valid. I am not here discussing the civil laws.)
 
Not quite.
Thank-you for the clarification.

It is obliging only because the decalogue is the pre-obliging moral law given to all men by God to Adam before his fall
One sentence into it, and ya lost me, no fault of your own. The Sinaiticus/Moralicus analogy makes sense, I'm just trying to think what scriptures would be used to back up that the same law was given to Adam before the fall.

A little slow sometimes,

Bob
 
Of course, the fourth commandment was "repeated" in the New Testament, that is, assuming you think that Jesus' sanction and corrective teachings respecting it are as normative as the rest of his doctrine. And elsewhere in the apostles; and see the book of Hebrews, e.g. 4:9.

Could you point me to the references where the apostles repeat the fourth commandment? I can't think of any at the moment...

I think what I had in mind when I wrote that specifically was the apostle's practice as recorded n Acts. I would contend that their pattern of 1st day worship is reflective of their understanding that Jesus, that is, God began meeting with them (calling them to worship) on the first day of the week immediately upon his resurrection. So they followed his lawful positive prescription concerning the change of (his) day. Whilst the moral commandment remained unchanged.

Of course, the fourth commandment was "repeated" in the New Testament, that is, assuming you think that Jesus' sanction and corrective teachings respecting it are as normative as the rest of his doctrine. And elsewhere in the apostles; and see the book of Hebrews, e.g. 4:9.

Why do you think a weekly sabbath is meant here? In context, Heb. 4:9 appears to refer not to a weekly sabbath but a more permanent condition under the name of sabbath rest, something that believers are exhorted to enter into.
Tim, here's my response:
Jesus was, and is, Lord of the Sabbath.

The ancient Jewish Sabbath was invested with the following theological meanings:
1) Creation, following God's example (Ex 20)
2) Redemption, following the Exodus (Dt 5)
Upon entry of the Promised Land (rest) the Sabbath did not go away. The rest provided Israel by Joshua was not final, and he knew it. The Sabbath pointed ahead.

Jesus/Joshua has now entered his rest, but we are still involved in the outworking of creation and redemption. "There remains a rest for the people of God," just as for Israel of old, until heaven and/or the consummation.

The Sabbath teaches us that we are not fully resting yet. But Jesus invites us weekly to participate in the rest he is already enjoying, in much the same way that God at creation invited man to join him in his rest one day out of the week.
 
The annotations to WCF 19:1 are Gen. 1:26,27; 2:17, [I add Rom 1:20-32] Rom 2:14, 10:5, 5:12,19; Gal 3:10,12; Eccl. 7:29; Job 28:28.
I don't quite see it in those verses. Here's a quick summary of what I see:

1. Adam was created in God's image (Gen 1:26,27)
2. Adam commanded not to eat of the tree, penalty of death for disobedience (Gen 2:17)
3. Creation reveals God's eternal power and Godhead, man is without excuse. Men sin, God gave them over to sin...(Rom 1:20-32)
4. Gentiles do by nature the things in the law are a law unto themselves (Rom 2:14)
5. Moses described the law's righteousness - you do the laws, you live by the laws (Rom 10:5)
6. By one man sin and death passed to all men. By one man's obedience shall many be made righteous (Rom 5:12,19)
7. Everyone who doesn't continue in all things of the book of the law are cursed. (Gal 3:10,12)
8. God made man upright, man sinned (Ecc 7:29)
9. Fear God = wisdom; depart from evil = understanding (Job 28:28)​
I'm not saying its not there, but I just don't see it in those verses.

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

This verse, and God punishing mankind by the flood, seems to support the idea somewhat. It makes me wonder, evil compared to what? If man at the time of the flood was judged for their evil and wickedness, there must have been some way for them to know they were evil and wicked, and accountable to God for their wickedness.
 
The Commandment That Time Made 'Optional'

Here's one of those surprising things you learn when you study church history. You read the words of Charles Spurgeon talking about "profane Sabbath-breakers", and the Puritans talking about Sabbath-breaking in the same sentence as lying, lusting, and other moral failings. You read many of the greatest theologians and seminary professors essentially saying: "of course we believe in the Sabbath, it is one of the 10 commandments". Now fast forward a hundred years or two, and you find modern Christians, usually with a fraction as much bible knowledge, who are so sure of themselves that the Sabbath is no longer for today. So who's right, the new Christians, or the old ones?



As you can see by my recent participation in a thread on Ingrid's blog, this is a debate where I happen to come out on the side of the extreme minority, today. Statistically speaking, it's likely that even you (the Old Truth reader) disagrees with me on this topic. But it probably wouldn't have been that way in the past. In his booklet on the 10 Commandments, AW Pink diagnoses our present Christian era: "The fact that any man can escape the observance of [the 4th] Commandment is a sad reflection upon our modern social order, and shows how far we have departed from the Divine plan and ideal". And in Pink's writing The Redeemer's Return he wrote: "There is such an awful 'falling away' from the observance of the Holy Sabbath". He went on to say:

"All around us are people who are worldly-minded, money-lovers, pleasure-seekers, Sabbath-breakers, yet who think all is well with them because they have 'accepted Christ as their personal Savior'. In their aspiration, conversation, and recreation, there is practically nothing to differentiate them from those who make no profession at all. Neither in their home-life nor social-life is there anything except empty pretensions to distinguish them from others. The fear of God is not upon them, the commands of God have no authority over them, the holiness of God has no attraction for them." --AW Pink, Gospel Preaching Commanded

Chances are, if you've benefited from a quotation or book excerpt that I've ever posted here on Old Truth, the person that I quoted was probably a Sabbatarian. That's likely true of your favorite hymn writers and authors of commentaries as well.

You see, in many past times and places, the Christian Sabbath was a wonderful thing to behold. It was said of one town in England during the Puritan era: "On the Lord's Day all disorder became quite banished out of the town. As you passed along the streets on the Sabbath morning, you might hear a hundred households singing psalms at their family worship". It reminds me of the scripture that my pastor's father based a book on, which he entitled Call The Sabbath a Delight.

So why have today's Christians rejected the Sabbath?

In the aforementioned book, Walter Chantry explains the reason why many today have jettisoned the 4th Commandment. In his chapter which demonstrates that even the New Testament teaches the Sabbath, Chantry responds to the common thinking that it was "just for the Jews", saying:

"Such a response calls our attention to one of the great difficulties which arises when modern evangelicals discuss the bible and it's teaching. In the United States, the Bible School movement and the Scofield Bible have spread far and wide a system of thought called 'dispensationalism'. Dispensationalism is a theology which distorts one's understanding of Scripture and places blinders on Bible students. ... It is dispensationalism which has given the popular impression that a Christian may dismiss Old Testament teaching or Commandments unless it is repeated in the New Testament. ..."

Dispensationalism, of course is rather new in church history, and as you know, I am very suspicious of new ways to interpret the bible. There are many great dispensationalists that I respect (such as John MacArthur), but here is one area where I depart with their teaching in favor of the 'old truth'.

By now you probably have questions (or even protests) that you are itching to comment on. This should make for some useful and friendly debate in the comments below, but before we get into the details, let me make a couple of things clear and set some ground rules:

Sabbatarians do NOT believe that those highly detailed rules (the ceremonial law) in the Old Testament are still for Christians today, however the 10 Commandments are not in the ceremonial law.
The Sabbath pre-dates the 10 Commandments, as the bible establishes this pattern: "for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day".
Let's save "what Christians should and should not do on the Sabbath" for another post. In this post I am simply interested in discussing whether the 10 commandments are still for Christians to follow.
Sabbatarians do NOT believe that Christians are justified (saved) by following the 10 Commandments. With the Holy Spirit's help we endeavor to follow them because we want to please the God who has saved us, though we know we won't follow them perfectly in this life.
Be careful not to make the mistake of thinking that this is an easy issue to decide against. Consider whether it's an arrogant thing to say "all of those dead guys were wrong and I am right". Maybe you ARE right, but just to make sure, do some reading on this topic; one book that I especially recommend is The Lord's Day, by Joseph Pipa. Also see the Richard Barcellos links given by my blogging partner over at SBF.
And finally, resist the temptation to think that it's "fine for you but not for me". Either it's 100% right for everyone to obey this commandment, or it's equally right that none of us should. Could murder (or another commandment) be fine for one person but not another?
Isn't it interesting how many Christians today will fight to keep the 10 Commandments posted in the schools and court houses, but when it comes right down to it, many of these same Christians don't even believe that the 10 commandments are for them to follow as a rule of life? Go figure.
 
The annotations to WCF 19:1 are Gen. 1:26,27; 2:17, [I add Rom 1:20-32] Rom 2:14, 10:5, 5:12,19; Gal 3:10,12; Eccl. 7:29; Job 28:28.
I don't quite see it in those verses. Here's a quick summary of what I see:

1. Adam was created in God's image (Gen 1:26,27)
2. Adam commanded not to eat of the tree, penalty of death for disobedience (Gen 2:17)
3. Creation reveals God's eternal power and Godhead, man is without excuse. Men sin, God gave them over to sin...(Rom 1:20-32)
4. Gentiles do by nature the things in the law are a law unto themselves (Rom 2:14)
5. Moses described the law's righteousness - you do the laws, you live by the laws (Rom 10:5)
6. By one man sin and death passed to all men. By one man's obedience shall many be made righteous (Rom 5:12,19)
7. Everyone who doesn't continue in all things of the book of the law are cursed. (Gal 3:10,12)
8. God made man upright, man sinned (Ecc 7:29)
9. Fear God = wisdom; depart from evil = understanding (Job 28:28)​
I'm not saying its not there, but I just don't see it in those verses.

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

This verse, and God punishing mankind by the flood, seems to support the idea somewhat. It makes me wonder, evil compared to what? If man at the time of the flood was judged for their evil and wickedness, there must have been some way for them to know they were evil and wicked, and accountable to God for their wickedness.

I should also have included the references the Divines gave to support WCF 19:3 and 19:5 as well. They are: Rom.13:8-10; Eph. 6:2; 1 John 2:3,4,7,8; James. 2:8,10,11; Rom. 3:31. The Divines also add Matt. 5:17-19 but if I understand Christ's intent here, these verses don't teach the continuing validity of the moral law in the church age but the continuing validity of all the Sinai covenant while it is in force.
 
I should also have included the references the Divines gave to support WCF 19:3 and 19:5 as well. They are: Rom.13:8-10; Eph. 6:2; 1 John 2:3,4,7,8; James. 2:8,10,11; Rom. 3:31. The Divines also add Matt. 5:17-19 but if I understand Christ's intent here, these verses don't teach the continuing validity of the moral law in the church age but the continuing validity of all the Sinai covenant while it is in force.
Those verses don't seem to speak about the law given to Adam before the fall, but they are helpful with regard to my initial question.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top