Lord's name in vain

< There is a fundamental principle embedded in the Decalogue. If it is offended in one point, then the whole Law has been offended. >

If that is so, then the "whole Law has been offended"-- Colossians 2:16, Romans 14:5.

< But let's put the question to the cynic. What is the difference between the "handwriting of ordinances" and the "ministration of death written in stone"? >

"Ministration of death written in stone?" Sounds like something that should be in the Women's Forum!

 

Then it would follow that if one part of the Decalogue was done away, then the whole of it was done away.

If we can now forget the Sabbath and remain guiltless, then we can murder, steal, commit adultery, etc.

The Decalogue was God's first written communication to man. It was written upon stone by by God Himself. Righteous, holy and perfect, it is a ministration of death because of the sin that is in us. (2 Cor. 3:7; Rom. 7:9-12) The Law is spiritual, Rom. 7;14.

The handwriting of ordinances are those things which were inspired, yet were written first by Moses. These were the carnal provisions made for Israel at school. These were what were done away with at the cross, Col. 2:14. The Decalogue is spiritual (Rom. 7:14), but the handwriting of ordinances were carnal, Heb. 7:16.

But do not think that the Law is our righteousness. Only Christ is our righteousness. However, on earth, in these cursed bodies we must submit to the Law. No, not submit merely, but beat our bodies into submission, 1 Cor. 9:26-27.

Martin Luther stated it best:

[ May 01, 2002, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

< If we can now forget the Sabbath and remain guiltless, then we can murder, steal, commit adultery, etc. >

Then answer the question: Do you do no work of any kind on the seventh day, or have anyone do it for you?

 

What I do is irrelevant. The Scriptures mean what they mean despite our weaknesses or strengths.

I abstain from regular work and secular amusements on that day. But if my ox is in the ditch, I'll pull him out.

Then again, that is not the whole of remembering the Sabbath, is it?

[ May 02, 2002, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Aaron, from "Lord’s name in vain" --
"There is a fundamental principle embedded in the Decalogue. If it is offended in one point, then the whole Law has been offended."

Aaron from same forum--
"What I do is irrelevant. The Scriptures mean what they mean despite our weaknesses or strengths."

You claim the "decalogue" can not be offended at one point, yet it is "irelevant" what you do? That one point could be which day of the week you refuse to work, whether you light a candle or not, whether you take a picture of something {...not make any likeness of anything.}. You and rest of us scrap the whole law by 'offending' it at quite a number of points. But saying "What I do is irrelevant" does make a good topping!

Aaron from "Yea, hath God said….?"--
"No one can gain insight by the mere reading of the Scriptures, but by doing them."

Compare that one to his quote, "What I do is irrelevant."

 

The Law has been fulfilled but not destroyed. If we say the Moral Law (10 Commandments)is no more then we go into the very scary area of Antinominism.

 

Cynic,

I was saying that whether I remember the Sabbath or not is irrelevant to whether the commandment is still in effect today.

My obedience or disobedience to the Law has no effect on the Law whatever.

My obedience does have an affect on my discernment.

Now, please stick to the topic at hand. We are discussing whether or not one of the Ten Commandments are still valid. Whether I do them or not has nothing to do with whether they are or not.

 

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.

May I suggest reading Divine Law: A New Covenant Perspective

 

As I mentioned earlier, on another thread, "taking the Lord's name in vain" is not about what we say.

It is about telling people you are a Christian (the way my wife took my name on the day we married) and not actually serving Him as your Lord (if she hadn't acted as my wife, if her life had been unchanged after the wedding,).

When you "take His name" as yours, don't do it "in vain", or "without results or change".

For the full article, go to www.achievebalance.com/spirit/gospel/third.htm

Because we (and I include myself here) miss the FULL meaning of the third commandment, we can not find it easily in the NT.

Andrey
www.achievebalance.com

 

Chris,

May I suggest you read The Perpetuity of the Law by C.H. Spurgeon.

Aaron