Skip to comments.Churches adopt new Ten Commandments
Posted on 03/06/2012 5:29:15 AM PST by blueyon
Hundreds of churches across the country are now preaching an updated version of the Ten Commandments, rewritten to reflect modern values. The religious rules, which Christians believe were etched onto tablets by God and given to Moses, have been modified to use up-to-date language and principles.
Inspired by last years riots, the new vows include manage your anger, know God and catch your breath and are understood to be used in more than 600 churches in Britain.
The original thou shalt not steal has become prosper with a clear conscience, and the lengthy thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain becomes take God seriously.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
“The Camel’s nose under the edge of the tent”. “The Foot in the Door”.
Both of those are cliches that I believe mean the beginning of an inevitable if something isn’t done to stop it cold, dead in its tracks.
Changing the Ten Commandments as displayed in this article is just the beginning of redefining the word of GOD IMO.
“....affair-proof your relationships....”
I don’t even know what that means. I’m not even sure it’s really English.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
The Church of England can have them, leave my stone tablets brought down by Moses alone!
having a church declare new commanments of God...
...is tantamount to FDR declaring 4 freedoms in complete opposition to the constitution.
1.Freedom of speech and expression
2.Freedom of worship
3.Freedom from want
4.Freedom from fear
there is no freedom from want or fear in the constitution...he just tucked it in with 1 constitutional protection, split into 2....and thew it against the wall to see if it stuck...
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
Acts 20:28-30 NASB
Unreal. No gray areas in these “rules.” I can rip this idiot off for every dime and possession he has on this Earth as long as my conscience is clear, right?
“Do unto others as they have done unto you” would be a small subtle change some wouldn’t notice. They are completely changing what God meant and said and teaching it as such. We are not to change a jot or a tittle. Period.
The Ten Commandments along with the rest of the Law of Moses were nailed to the cross when Christ was crucified. Christ’s strictures in Matthew 5 supersede the Decalogue. If you are bound to keep the requirements of the Ten Commandments, then you are bound to accept the punishments for violating them listed in Exodus 21-23.
Now for those who would alter any part of the scriptures, let them read their fate in Revelation 22:18-19.
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” ~~Galatians 3:24
New King James Version (NKJV)
The Ten Commandments
20 And God spoke all these words, saying:
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 You shall have no other gods before Me.
4 You shall not make for yourself a carved imageany likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7 You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
12 Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
13 You shall not murder.
14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.
16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 You shall not covet your neighbors house; you shall not covet your neighbors wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbors.
What’s so hard to understand? I understood the original Ten Commandments when I was 9.
Understanding them is not the issue. The issue is that they do not apply any longer, being part of the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was abolished and replaced by the New Covenant when Christ was crucified. In Matthew 5, Christ revealed the requirements of this new covenant as opposed to the requirements under the Old Covenant. Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:14-16 clearly state that the Old Law was done away with and replaced with the new.
Hence, the flap about the Ten Commandments is absolutely unnecessary.
People who believe in nothing will believe in anything.
I understand your point and agree that we no longer need to be bound by the Old Law because of the freedom Christ’s death has given us.
The value of the Ten Commandments is that they show us our sin and therefore show us we need the Savior. Since no man can keep them, every man needs Jesus’ atoning sacrifice. Without the words of the law of one cannot come to that place.
Yaaay! Idolatry is okay now! Jesus specifically affirmed (and fleshed out) two of the Ten in Matthew 5, though, so I guess we still have to follow those.
Seriously, though -- it is true that we are not under the covenant that contains these regulations, but do you not think that the commands of the Decalogue reflect God's holy character and the holiness he desires to see in His people? We can receive the Decalogue for our instruction in this way, because it shows us the heart of our creator-- the characteristic behavior of those who are His set-apart ones -- those who, to paraphrase what Jesus said, love God with all that is in them, and love their neighbors as themselves.
Now for those who would alter any part of the scriptures, let them read their fate in Revelation 22:18-19.
Go back to the Revelation passage, and prove to me that the warning applies to all of Scripture, rather than to the prophecy that John had just received and written down.
Even if you believe that the law was “nailed to the cross”, you still must recognize that Christ explicitly affirmed every Commandment if not in word, then in deed.
For example, He said as much in Matthew 19:16-20:
(16) And behold, one came and said to Him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?
(17) And He said to him, Why do you call Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.
(18) He said to Him, Which? Jesus said, You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness,
(19) honor your father and mother, and, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.
(20) The young man said to Him, I have kept all these things from my youth up; what do I lack yet?...
It makes no sense to assert that just months before Jesus was going to nullify the Commandments at the Cross that He would say “if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
And speaking of Revelation chapter 22, up a few verses in verse 11, Our Lord dictated to John:
(11) He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
But how can we define “righteous” and “holy” in the absence of any timeless criteria? Or worse, to have one criteria for Jews and another for Gentiles despite that the Apostle Paul declared there is “neither Greek nor Jew” in Col 3:11, that in Christ all humanity is one.
And there were righteous Jews, Jesus made reference to “many prophets and righteous men” in Matthew 13:17.
If the Commandments are in fact literally done away, made moot and of no effect, then we must ignore all of Scripture and propose something that in the end is arbitrary and capricious by which God will judge a person’s life.
To be frank, theologians who assert the Commandments are totally obsolete also reject that God can be arbitrary or capricious. So they work assiduously to bring back the Commandments by citing where Paul and the Apostles uphold them, like in the entire book of James. Or 1 John 3:4 (the only passage that succinctly defines sin: “sin IS the transgression of the law”. What law?)
No, the whole exercise in rejecting the Commandments and then bringing some of them back is really to nullify the Fourth, that which commands observance of the Sabbath. Nobody is free to define their own private righteousness by which God will judge them as He promises to do for every human. He will use one and only one definition for all humanity. That definition has ten main points. Like Our Lord said, if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.
No argument there at all. 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that all scripture is useful for instruction and reproof. The Old Testament and the Old Law is a type of the New Covenant. It contains much wisdom which is useful for understanding the New Testament.
Then you are calling the word of God the dumbest thing you’ve ever heard. See what Paul has to say about this subject in Galatians 5:3.
you are ignorant of scripture and are teaching some mighty dangerous stuff there. I am trying to warn you.
I love that graphic. Thank you.
No, you won’t see the word covenant in Matthew 5. However, you will see it in the following references where it refers to the kingdom of God (the church) which was established when Christ was crucified. And I erred in saying Christ put forth the requirements of the New Covenant in Matthew 5. I should have said he put forth SOME of the requirements. What he did in that chapter was to contrast the works of the old law which were legalistic with the requirements of the spirit under the new law of Christ.
Jer_31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah
Mat_26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mar_14:24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.
Luk_22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.
1Co_11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
2Co_3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Heb_8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH
Heb_8:13 In that He says, “A NEW COVENANT,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Heb_9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb_12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
And, yes, Paul was a Torah keeping Jew until his conversion as recorded in Acts 9:16. With his conversion, he ceased being a practicing Jew. The rest of Paul’s life after this moment was dedicated to spreading the gospel. How that made him a practicing Jew, in your words, is a mystery.
I am not a Bible scholar, but didn’t Jesus say that even he wasn’t here to change the laws? And now the churches want to? Doing the devil’s work.
I can’t help but feel pity upon those whom change God’s Law.
Given that the substance of nine of the Ten Commandments is clearly repeated in the New Testament and failure to abide by that is labelled as sin, it seems that Christians are still obligated to keep them. Not to earn our salvation but to please God. The only commandment that is not clearly repeated as an obligation to keep in the New Testament is the 4th Commandment on Sabbath observance.
In the early to mid-90’s the Bible was translated into Klingon. Seriously. Wall Street Journal had a write up on it at the time.
Glad I still use my KJV.
Some of these changes may make a good talking point in a sermon as examples or how they fit into modern life. But to change the wording of the Commandments?
For example - the “affair-proof your relationships” might mean to change behaviours so you aren’t tempted. (Like Billy Graham always making sure never to be alone with a woman). Of course that cuts down on the rumors and lawsuits as well!
1Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
Of course Paul was a Jew...a Jew who had converted to Christianity by divine influence. His words to the audience in Acts 22:3 were an attempt to get the audience to identify with him in hopes he could convert them as well. He then recounted his own conversion and the crowd in the latter part of the chapter rejected both him and his message. So you need to read further than verse 3 to see what really went on. This does not make Paul a Jew who practiced the Old Law.
In chapter 23, Paul was not acquitted. He made use of the schism between the Pharisees and Sadduccees concerning resurrection of the dead to disrupt the council thus clearing the way to escape. His words concerning the resurrection form part of the basic tenants of Christianity...Christ’s resurrection from the dead being essential to the core beliefs. He held his belief in the matter both as a Pharisee practicing the Old Law and later, after his conversion, as an Apostle of Christ...because the words were the truth. The Pharisees found no fault in him only on this point and that was enough to save Paul’s life. This argument between the Pharisees and the Sadducees became so heated that soldiers had to intervene and rescue Paul. So, no, he wasn’t acquitted, just removed from the scene.
So yes, Paul was a Jew, and no, he did not continue to uphold the Law of Moses after his conversion.
So your contention, Paul is a Jew, is correct...in part.
My words are quite clear on Paul’s status. He was a converted Jew. He practiced Christianity. He no longer followed the Law of Moses as did the Pharisees and Sadducees. That is quite clear from his writings in Romans and Galatians if you will take the time to read them.
Yes, I am quite familiar with what he did before his meeting with Christ on the road to Damascus. Are you familiar with what he did AFTER his conversion?
In Chapter 23 of Acts, specifically verse 8, you will find that the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed on the subject of resurrection. Doesn’t take a scholar of the law to determine that point. This disagreement led to such controversy that verse 10 records that the commander (of the Roman troops) feared for his safety so he sent troops to rescue him. Where do you find an acquittal here? Verse 9 records that the Pharisees in the crowd agreed with his statement concerning resurrection but that does not equate to acquittal.
And where does it say he did not uphold the law? Try the third chapter of Galatians and Romans chapter 10. It’s true he did not DISOWN the Law of Moses, he simply acknowledged that it was no longer in effect. The Law of Moses was necessary to lead men to the Law of Christ as he acknowledged in both Galatians and Romans. However, he knew that the Law of Moses would not save men. Only Christ’s law can do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.