In fairness to certain members, they claim that they keep the law, not to be justified by it, but simply to honor God with it. And they claim that the fourth commandment is not bondage but a wonderful blessing. I will apologize to my brother above (James) that I jumped in without reading the many posts on this thread, but there are a lot of them. I suppose many points have already been repeated, as well as this one of yours.Putiing it simple, satan loves division, and christians make it s easy for him.
If you keep just one law, you must keep all the rest, this annuls the work Jesus did on the cross. The law that was given to the Jews, not the gentiles ( us ) was finished at the cross, Jesus fullfilled it all as He promised He would. To keep the law is to put ones self into bonadge to it, undoing the freedom given to us in Christ, Are you going to be the one to tell Jesus His work was not enough for you. Do you think you can keep all the laws as Jesus did, are you perfect as HE is to think that keeping the law can save you. You are under grace , till you choose the law, then it becomes the works of the flesh and you will fail.
So argue all you like , your reasoning may be sound to the human mind but it is by the spirit that we walk, not in bondage to the flesh.
In all His abundant love
However to avoid the space it takes to quote and reply, I will comment on the 'wonderful blessing'.
The assumption is that others are missing out on a wonderful blessing by not keeping the sabbath. This actually vindicates my observation that the law is/was kept for one's own benefit. Thus it is one's own work. Words such as obligation and responsibility are used by the post-er above. These all speak of motive. However, as I shared, love's motive is not for the benefit of the person loving, but rather the person being loved. The wonderful blessing we have is that which we have recieved by faith...including the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control...."against such there is no law" . And it is called fruit because it goes out from us and provides a wonderful blessing for others.
The biggest change I have seen between the covenants from our perspective of works, is the motive for what we do. We no longer need to do anything to "get" anything from God. All things that come to us from Him are freely given ( Rom.8:32, 1Cor.2:12). We love Him because He first loved us. But the thing that He gave us that pertains to this thread....is REST. Unlike the old covenant where this rest must be taken, in the new it is given. It is something we enter into. And the author of Hebrews called it His rest.
So, my point was and is that I am not missing out on a wonderful blessing. I am appropriating the blessing that is promised, not the one I must gain through my own works. I have ceased from my own works. (sorry, couldn't figure out how to get rid of the bold text feature). blessings to all, Howie
Greetings, James. I have a little time and would like to answer the following quote:
There is a real danger in basing a major doctrine or asking “true or false?” on ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE. And you’ve already majorly contradicted yourself in the above paragraph by saying, Paul says all the law is fulfilled in ONE word (or commandment) and then saying that “Jesus gave TWO commandments. So which is, Howie it one or two commandments? Or is it TEN? Maybe, 640 as the Jews believe?
I really don't see "danger" in asking if a passage is true or false. However, in relation to the apparent contradiction, May I just reply by clarifying the difference between the two passages? In the new covenant, we come to Jesus by faith. Therefore it stands to reason that this is a command from Him. However, why do we suddenly regard a command as a law?
Paul said that all the law is fulfilled in one word; love your neighbour. This is one of the commandments mentioned by John. These are two different texts by two different people. John made no mention of any fulfillment of law in the passage at hand. But if a person has 'law on the brain', then I can see how John's statement can be construed as law. What he said is what he said. What Paul said is what Paul said. If there is contradiction, (which there isn't), why point the finger at me? They said what they said. Paul did not say that Jesus gave only one commandment. He merely stated how the law is fulfilled.
As well, how in the world can we accept that John (1John 3:23) was merely summarizing or generalizing the ten commandments? Is faith in Jesus one of those commandments? NO! This is something new. In regards to Gal.5:14, Paul did not say he was summarizing or generalizing the law. His wording was clear. Love is the fulfillment of the law.
But this brings about the argument that we are not loving God properly if we are not obeying the first four of the 'ten'. However...Why are we bringing this rule of thumb into the new covenant? I suppose if one has already concluded that the ten are part of the new covenant, then the rule of thumb becomes an automaitc reasoning. This is an example of what we call circular reasoning. In a debate about determining whether or not the ten commandments have a part in the new covenant, one cannot use the ten commandments themselves as part of their argument. How we show love for God in the new covenant is not a matter of opinion. It is clearly stated in the new testament, that we show love for Him through our treatment and love of others. eg: " inasmuch as you did it to the least of these, you did it to Me".
In John 13:34, Jesus gave a new commandment to them; that they love one another. So tell me, how is this new? What is new about it? And in John 15:10-12, this is what we find..." If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. These thngs I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you and that your joy may be full. This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you".
One thing that is sure, the word commandment is used often. It in simple words, simply means a command, or an order from authority. Jesus gave orders, or instructions. His Father did the same to Him. Do you really think His Father's commandments to Jesus were those that were written on the tablets? There is no guessing as to what Jesus commanded them/us. It is written down. But show me a new testament example of a command to keep the Sabbath day (Saturday) holy.
Just because our marching orders are called commandments, as was Jesus' from His Father, how do we move from that into the assumption that it speaks of that which came down from Mount Sinai? Paul told the Galatians that the covenant that came down from that mountain gives birth to bondage (4:24). As well you know, and no doubt have answered..that the ministry of death and condemnation was that which was written and engraved on stones. Paul referred to that as the 'letter' which kills (2Cor.3 5-9). Keep in mind that he knew full well and even no doubt previously taught that the law itself when it was given and administered, was considered a potential blessing, which is the present argument still being used as a motive for keeping the law.
There was an obvious change in his thinking.
All the blessing of the law now comes to us through faith in Christ, and all of the curse of the law is removed from us through faith in Christ. For...
" Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for all who believe" (Rom.10:4). The truth is that all the joy and peace offered up by God into our hearts can come to us and has come to us through His promise of the Holy Spirit. I can testify that this is my testimony. To me, it is going backwards to think that any further blessing can come into my heart by fulfilling an obligation to keep a law.
But I will reiterate. I fully believe that the fourth commandment is fulfilled in me at this very moment. To each his own.
grace and peace, Howie