The new Ten Commandments

British evangelist J. John has re-formulated the Ten Commandments in an effort to make them more relevant for today.  His effort is getting some good press, and some 600 churches in England have bought into the program.  This article tells all about it.  You do have to, literally, buy into the program, because the commandments are presented, discussed, and taught in a DVD program called Just 10 for Churches (not available, at least yet, in the USA, as far as I can tell).

The article linked above tells about the new commandments but doesn’t give a list of the entire 10.  So thanks to the SOWER blog for digging them out, giving the traditional version (with Protestant numbering) followed by the new formulation:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me…“know God”

2 You shall not make for yourself a graven image…… “catch your breath”

3. You shall not use the Lord’s name in vain……..“take God seriously”

4. Remember the Sabbath…………..…“live by priorities”

5. Honor your father and mother……………..…..“keep the peace with your parents”

6. You shall not murder………………… .……..….“manage your anger”

7. You shall not commit adultery………….“affair-proof your relationships”

8. You shall not steal……………………………..“prosper with a clear conscience”

9. You shall not bear false witness……………….….“hold to the truth”

10. You shall not covet…………..“find contentment”

via S.O.W.E.R.: New 10 Commandments?.

What do you think about this?  A dynamic equivalent translation with the virtue of putting the law in positive terms rather than all of those negative “thou shalt not’s,” thereby removing obstacles to evangelism and church growth?  Or an attempt to defang God’s Law by turning it into easy to follow self-help principles that turn Christianity into a different religion?  Or what?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    I much prefer Luther’s explanations with the promises attached to the Commandments.

    Leaving more law on top of already existing law is fine…as far as exposing us goes (and that may be helpful)…but the gospel side IS the message once the law has done it’s job.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    I much prefer Luther’s explanations with the promises attached to the Commandments.

    Leaving more law on top of already existing law is fine…as far as exposing us goes (and that may be helpful)…but the gospel side IS the message once the law has done it’s job.

  • http://abitibibob.hubpages.com/ Bob Hunter

    I didn’t realize God’s Commandments needed improving.

  • http://abitibibob.hubpages.com/ Bob Hunter

    I didn’t realize God’s Commandments needed improving.

  • Eric Brown

    It lacks the cohesion and elegence of Luther’s explanations, which makes me think they are just an attempt to sound “cool” rather than the result of a deep theological understanding.

  • Eric Brown

    It lacks the cohesion and elegence of Luther’s explanations, which makes me think they are just an attempt to sound “cool” rather than the result of a deep theological understanding.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Agree with @3.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Agree with @3.

  • Michael B.

    I’ve always felt them to be a bit sparse. Slavery was very common in that period. What about a commandment not to have slaves?

  • Michael B.

    I’ve always felt them to be a bit sparse. Slavery was very common in that period. What about a commandment not to have slaves?

  • fws

    We have a much greater treasure on the 10 commandments in our Small Catechism written by Martin Luther.

    One could suppose that because most Lutherans see it as having been written for children they miss , in it’s elegant simplicity, the profundity of what it tells us about the Law of God and how it works among us.

    And also, we modern Lutherans miss alot of the theological foundation behind it and so are confused when we really do read it. Example: There was a debate a while back as to whether or not the word “fear” as in “we are to fear, love and trust in God” really means fear. Hint: terrified is an even better word here. So yes. Fear means fear.

    Before one reads the Small Catechism on the Ten Commandments, it is useful to read what the author Dr Luther says about them in his other writings. He tells us that the 10 commandments do not apply to us. They were written for the Jews.

    Yet Luther is no antinomian. We also should note that Luther places the 10 commandments at the very front of the Small Catechism telling us that they are one of the 6 things that are essential to know if one is to be a christian. So what gives with that apparent contradiction?

    My suggestion is that one should start by reading 3 other short writings of the author as a foundation for understanding the Small Catechism on the 10 Commandments. They are very short readings that require almost no time.

    This reading should be followed then by a careful reading of the Large Catechism. I suggest these three short readings because it provides a broader context we modern Lutherans often lack. And then one can see the true profound treasure of the Small Catechism more clearly. Here are the 3 short writings I recommend:

    A) “How Christians are to Regard Moses” http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/LutherMoses.htm

    B) Luther’s Preface to his 1545 translation of St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans . Focus here especially on how Luther tells us how God’s Law differs, fundamentally, from codified Law that one would find in a courtroom. http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    C) Finally, and probably most importantly, the Apology to the Augsburg Confession and the sections “On Justification” and “On Love and the Fulfilling of the Law”. This is a denser read, but it yeilds the richest reward of all in comprehension of Luther and all else he confessed. I will focus on the first few paragraphs of “on justification” for that is where the Lutherans start to define what they mean by “The Law of God”.
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para5

    This Apology is one of Luther’s formal and public confessions of faith that he formally signed. So we let this and the other Confessions guide or reading of all else the Luther wrote. Here I would call your attention to the starting paragraphs of the section titled ” On Justification”. Here the Lutherans and Luther explain precisely what they mean by the “Law of God”. And they tell us the following:

    1)The Law is written and fully revealed by God in the Reason (Note: not the hearts!) of ALL men. This Law in Reason agrees with the 10 commandments. Why? It is the SAME Law! Therefore the same confession declares that, as to social morality, there is nothing that can be demanded beyond the ethics of a pagan named Aristotle.

    2) In the 10 commandments there is a part of the Law of God that is “veiled” from Reason. Reason is blind to only this one particular Law apart from Holy Scripture that means.

    That part of the Law Reason is blind to is found in the first table of the Decalog. This Law is uniquely found in Scripture and it deals with matters of the heart. With ones emotions!

    I hope at this point there are lots and lots of questions running through your mind. This should feel like new material. And for most modern Lutherans, it is!

    So why can’t reason see this Law that addresses (and always accuses) the heart, that is our emotions?

    Reason is of the opinion that God’s Law can be kept by doing or not doing what is contained in a list. We are tempted to call this “legalism” but it is not that. It is simply how all men understand the law in it’s workings and desired effect. And it is God who placed that understanding in the Reason of men Lutherans assert. It is not a wrong understanding. It simply has a blind spot. So then this is precisely how civil law works and how God intends for it to work in fact. And this is all Reason can know.

    For Reason, it simply does not matter whether or not our heart is in it when we do what the Law demands or refrains from doing what it prohibits. What matters is that we follow the list. And yes this can feel oppresive. It is supposed to feel that way. If we are completely honest, we all will confess that if we did not fear the consequences of not doing the list, we would probably do the contrary to what is on the list. And so we really hate the list. And more: We hate the Author if the list!

    More importantly: it also does not matter, in doing good law, whether or not mercy results from following that list either. What matters is that justice be done.

    The theological word for justice is the word sacrifice. Note that sacrifice always requires a death. Someone has to “die” to their “rights”. The baby must be cut in two. Reason knows that for justice to be done, a sacrifice must always be made. And ultimately reason then knows that death is the price for breaking the Law.

    We, of course, think this is right, but at the same time we find it more … um.. convenient for that death not to be our own.

    Hint: This is the start to understanding what our Lord Jesus meant when he says “God desires mercy and not sacrifice”. More on that later.

    A reading of Luther’s Preface to his Romans Translation will help to further explain what the Apology is driving at here.

    To be continued.

  • fws

    We have a much greater treasure on the 10 commandments in our Small Catechism written by Martin Luther.

    One could suppose that because most Lutherans see it as having been written for children they miss , in it’s elegant simplicity, the profundity of what it tells us about the Law of God and how it works among us.

    And also, we modern Lutherans miss alot of the theological foundation behind it and so are confused when we really do read it. Example: There was a debate a while back as to whether or not the word “fear” as in “we are to fear, love and trust in God” really means fear. Hint: terrified is an even better word here. So yes. Fear means fear.

    Before one reads the Small Catechism on the Ten Commandments, it is useful to read what the author Dr Luther says about them in his other writings. He tells us that the 10 commandments do not apply to us. They were written for the Jews.

    Yet Luther is no antinomian. We also should note that Luther places the 10 commandments at the very front of the Small Catechism telling us that they are one of the 6 things that are essential to know if one is to be a christian. So what gives with that apparent contradiction?

    My suggestion is that one should start by reading 3 other short writings of the author as a foundation for understanding the Small Catechism on the 10 Commandments. They are very short readings that require almost no time.

    This reading should be followed then by a careful reading of the Large Catechism. I suggest these three short readings because it provides a broader context we modern Lutherans often lack. And then one can see the true profound treasure of the Small Catechism more clearly. Here are the 3 short writings I recommend:

    A) “How Christians are to Regard Moses” http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/LutherMoses.htm

    B) Luther’s Preface to his 1545 translation of St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans . Focus here especially on how Luther tells us how God’s Law differs, fundamentally, from codified Law that one would find in a courtroom. http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    C) Finally, and probably most importantly, the Apology to the Augsburg Confession and the sections “On Justification” and “On Love and the Fulfilling of the Law”. This is a denser read, but it yeilds the richest reward of all in comprehension of Luther and all else he confessed. I will focus on the first few paragraphs of “on justification” for that is where the Lutherans start to define what they mean by “The Law of God”.
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para5

    This Apology is one of Luther’s formal and public confessions of faith that he formally signed. So we let this and the other Confessions guide or reading of all else the Luther wrote. Here I would call your attention to the starting paragraphs of the section titled ” On Justification”. Here the Lutherans and Luther explain precisely what they mean by the “Law of God”. And they tell us the following:

    1)The Law is written and fully revealed by God in the Reason (Note: not the hearts!) of ALL men. This Law in Reason agrees with the 10 commandments. Why? It is the SAME Law! Therefore the same confession declares that, as to social morality, there is nothing that can be demanded beyond the ethics of a pagan named Aristotle.

    2) In the 10 commandments there is a part of the Law of God that is “veiled” from Reason. Reason is blind to only this one particular Law apart from Holy Scripture that means.

    That part of the Law Reason is blind to is found in the first table of the Decalog. This Law is uniquely found in Scripture and it deals with matters of the heart. With ones emotions!

    I hope at this point there are lots and lots of questions running through your mind. This should feel like new material. And for most modern Lutherans, it is!

    So why can’t reason see this Law that addresses (and always accuses) the heart, that is our emotions?

    Reason is of the opinion that God’s Law can be kept by doing or not doing what is contained in a list. We are tempted to call this “legalism” but it is not that. It is simply how all men understand the law in it’s workings and desired effect. And it is God who placed that understanding in the Reason of men Lutherans assert. It is not a wrong understanding. It simply has a blind spot. So then this is precisely how civil law works and how God intends for it to work in fact. And this is all Reason can know.

    For Reason, it simply does not matter whether or not our heart is in it when we do what the Law demands or refrains from doing what it prohibits. What matters is that we follow the list. And yes this can feel oppresive. It is supposed to feel that way. If we are completely honest, we all will confess that if we did not fear the consequences of not doing the list, we would probably do the contrary to what is on the list. And so we really hate the list. And more: We hate the Author if the list!

    More importantly: it also does not matter, in doing good law, whether or not mercy results from following that list either. What matters is that justice be done.

    The theological word for justice is the word sacrifice. Note that sacrifice always requires a death. Someone has to “die” to their “rights”. The baby must be cut in two. Reason knows that for justice to be done, a sacrifice must always be made. And ultimately reason then knows that death is the price for breaking the Law.

    We, of course, think this is right, but at the same time we find it more … um.. convenient for that death not to be our own.

    Hint: This is the start to understanding what our Lord Jesus meant when he says “God desires mercy and not sacrifice”. More on that later.

    A reading of Luther’s Preface to his Romans Translation will help to further explain what the Apology is driving at here.

    To be continued.

  • Ray

    The “new and improved” commandments leave out the neighbor aspect of the original ones that Luther included. And the motive to make them more “relevant” gives the subtle suggestion that the original ones are not eternal, which could easily be transferred to God as wel, that God needs “tweaking” to make him more relevant.

  • Ray

    The “new and improved” commandments leave out the neighbor aspect of the original ones that Luther included. And the motive to make them more “relevant” gives the subtle suggestion that the original ones are not eternal, which could easily be transferred to God as wel, that God needs “tweaking” to make him more relevant.

  • Tom Hering

    I wish others good luck in living out the new ten commandments. They don’t sound any easier to live by than the original ten. Less easy, actually, as they lack the original ten’s simplicity and straightforwardness. (Watch J. John here.) Most importantly, Jesus obeyed the original ten commandments – perfectly, in my place – and all His righteousness is credited to me. Who’s going to be my substitute for the new ten?

  • Tom Hering

    I wish others good luck in living out the new ten commandments. They don’t sound any easier to live by than the original ten. Less easy, actually, as they lack the original ten’s simplicity and straightforwardness. (Watch J. John here.) Most importantly, Jesus obeyed the original ten commandments – perfectly, in my place – and all His righteousness is credited to me. Who’s going to be my substitute for the new ten?

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    Most of these actually require the original wording for them to make any kind of sense. I mean, one could certainly try finding contentment by acquiring the items they covet. Likewise, one could “live by priorities” and completely forget that receiving God’s word is one of those priorities. And for 6, it’s not as though anger is our only reason for harming our neighbor. When it comes to murder these days, its pretty common to be motivated by empathy. I’m not really sure what 2 is supposed to mean at all.

    In short, whereas Luther’s explanations unpack the commandments, these ‘explanations” just shift the focus to an ancillary point and make them vague. I suppose it makes it easier to think we follow the law when we do that. But if self-righteousness is the goal, it would at least be better for our neighbors to go the route of the rich young ruler and take them too literally.

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    Most of these actually require the original wording for them to make any kind of sense. I mean, one could certainly try finding contentment by acquiring the items they covet. Likewise, one could “live by priorities” and completely forget that receiving God’s word is one of those priorities. And for 6, it’s not as though anger is our only reason for harming our neighbor. When it comes to murder these days, its pretty common to be motivated by empathy. I’m not really sure what 2 is supposed to mean at all.

    In short, whereas Luther’s explanations unpack the commandments, these ‘explanations” just shift the focus to an ancillary point and make them vague. I suppose it makes it easier to think we follow the law when we do that. But if self-righteousness is the goal, it would at least be better for our neighbors to go the route of the rich young ruler and take them too literally.

  • Jack

    Aren’t we to be confronted with the law in order to know the need for a savior? How can one even think that these “commandments” do such a thing?

    There is no curb, no rule, no mirror here.

    Garbage, conceived by man in order to make man feel good about himself.

  • Jack

    Aren’t we to be confronted with the law in order to know the need for a savior? How can one even think that these “commandments” do such a thing?

    There is no curb, no rule, no mirror here.

    Garbage, conceived by man in order to make man feel good about himself.

  • Joe

    “prosper with a clear conscience” – does this mean I am now commanded to not be poor? Do I have to actually prosper? Before I just had to refrain from stealing from others but I could still be poor. This is not good. I better figure out how to start living my best life now ….

  • Joe

    “prosper with a clear conscience” – does this mean I am now commanded to not be poor? Do I have to actually prosper? Before I just had to refrain from stealing from others but I could still be poor. This is not good. I better figure out how to start living my best life now ….

  • Kirk

    @8 That was exactly my thought. “Live by priorities?” Which priorities? Oh right, the ones set in the 10 Commandments.

  • Kirk

    @8 That was exactly my thought. “Live by priorities?” Which priorities? Oh right, the ones set in the 10 Commandments.

  • ronh

    I emphatically agree with Jack in his comments above.

  • ronh

    I emphatically agree with Jack in his comments above.

  • Tom Hering

    Jack @ 9, I disagree there’s no curb, rule, or mirror in J. John’s rewriting of the commandments. But I do agree they’re divorced from the saving work of Jesus Christ.

  • Tom Hering

    Jack @ 9, I disagree there’s no curb, rule, or mirror in J. John’s rewriting of the commandments. But I do agree they’re divorced from the saving work of Jesus Christ.

  • #4 Kitty

    I prefer NonStampCollector’s take on the Ten Commandments. He asks questions from a perspective we’re not likely to encounter in Sunday school and adult Bible class.

  • #4 Kitty

    I prefer NonStampCollector’s take on the Ten Commandments. He asks questions from a perspective we’re not likely to encounter in Sunday school and adult Bible class.

  • Jon

    Wait a tick—maybe I CAN do these!

  • Jon

    Wait a tick—maybe I CAN do these!

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Find it a bit ironic that he goes with the reformed numbering, declaring the second commandment to be “take God Seriously” and then interprets the commandments in such a lousy manner. He isn’t even taking his own advice.
    And this bit about the first commandment being divided in two, one who takes God’s word seriously doesn’t do such nonsense.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Find it a bit ironic that he goes with the reformed numbering, declaring the second commandment to be “take God Seriously” and then interprets the commandments in such a lousy manner. He isn’t even taking his own advice.
    And this bit about the first commandment being divided in two, one who takes God’s word seriously doesn’t do such nonsense.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    The graven image bit reads as explanation to the first commandment, and the rest of what God tells Moses concerning the building of the temple and so on demands that it be interpreted that way.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    The graven image bit reads as explanation to the first commandment, and the rest of what God tells Moses concerning the building of the temple and so on demands that it be interpreted that way.

  • CRB

    Didn’t the Pharisees also do that? Didn’t they redefine the law in order to make it more, “doable”?

  • CRB

    Didn’t the Pharisees also do that? Didn’t they redefine the law in order to make it more, “doable”?

  • formerly just steve

    I couldn’t get past the first one. “know God”? What about the demons who know God and yet still reject Him?

    Anyway, I guess I’m going to somewhat echo what some other have said. These sound more like advice on how to obey the 10 Commandments. Shallow and trite, but advice nonetheless. They mean nothing without the originals.

  • formerly just steve

    I couldn’t get past the first one. “know God”? What about the demons who know God and yet still reject Him?

    Anyway, I guess I’m going to somewhat echo what some other have said. These sound more like advice on how to obey the 10 Commandments. Shallow and trite, but advice nonetheless. They mean nothing without the originals.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    #2 doesn’t make any sense at all.

    I think this list of re-jiggered commandments refutes itself by violating the new #3.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    #2 doesn’t make any sense at all.

    I think this list of re-jiggered commandments refutes itself by violating the new #3.

  • Tom Hering

    From the “What We Believe” section of J. John’s Philo Trust website:

    The 10 Best Ways To Live

    You might have heard of ‘the ten commandments’ – they’re an ancient God-given code for living, dating from the 16th century BC and found in the Bible. Today, not many people can remember them – let alone keep them! They are not, however, a suffocating list of “thou-shalt-not”s, but simple, profound and wise instructions for human happiness.

    Here they are in contemporary English (taken from Exodus 20 and Matthew 5), in question format:

    1. Do you put God at the centre of your life, where he should be?

    2. Do you put anything or anyone else in the place of God in your life?

    3. Have you ever used the name of God carelessly or insincerely?

    4. Do you keep one day free each week, to focus on God and to get some much-needed rest?

    5. Do you respect and honour your parents?

    6. Don’t murder – and watch your angry thoughts, because they, too, are murderous.

    7. Have you ever had impure or lustful thoughts about another person? Don’t commit adultery – not even in your mind.

    8. Have you ever stolen anything?

    9. Have you ever told a lie or half-truth to another person or about another person?

    10. Have you ever been jealous of what is not yours?

    When we don’t keep these basic rules for living, it affects us and all our relationships – with other people, with God and with his creation. We become cut off – ‘dislocated’ – and that’s what the Bible calls ‘sin’.

    ‘Anyone then, who knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins’ (James 4:17).

    Today, the word ‘sin’, to most people, seems either outdated or else a bit of fun. But if we’re serious about understanding why we have so many problems in the world, we have to take sin seriously.

  • Tom Hering

    From the “What We Believe” section of J. John’s Philo Trust website:

    The 10 Best Ways To Live

    You might have heard of ‘the ten commandments’ – they’re an ancient God-given code for living, dating from the 16th century BC and found in the Bible. Today, not many people can remember them – let alone keep them! They are not, however, a suffocating list of “thou-shalt-not”s, but simple, profound and wise instructions for human happiness.

    Here they are in contemporary English (taken from Exodus 20 and Matthew 5), in question format:

    1. Do you put God at the centre of your life, where he should be?

    2. Do you put anything or anyone else in the place of God in your life?

    3. Have you ever used the name of God carelessly or insincerely?

    4. Do you keep one day free each week, to focus on God and to get some much-needed rest?

    5. Do you respect and honour your parents?

    6. Don’t murder – and watch your angry thoughts, because they, too, are murderous.

    7. Have you ever had impure or lustful thoughts about another person? Don’t commit adultery – not even in your mind.

    8. Have you ever stolen anything?

    9. Have you ever told a lie or half-truth to another person or about another person?

    10. Have you ever been jealous of what is not yours?

    When we don’t keep these basic rules for living, it affects us and all our relationships – with other people, with God and with his creation. We become cut off – ‘dislocated’ – and that’s what the Bible calls ‘sin’.

    ‘Anyone then, who knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins’ (James 4:17).

    Today, the word ‘sin’, to most people, seems either outdated or else a bit of fun. But if we’re serious about understanding why we have so many problems in the world, we have to take sin seriously.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    I’m going to be a bit gracious here; yes, the paraphrase does lose some of the hammer of the Decalogue on our souls, but if you explained it well, it starts to come close to what Christ explained in the Sermon on the Mount. Does not “control your anger” have something in common with Christ’s comment about anger with one’s brother being tantamount to murder?

    I don’t know if this was the person’s idea, or if this is supposed to be freestanding. If freestanding, it’s a no go. If a starting point for contemplation, perhaps it could be useful.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    I’m going to be a bit gracious here; yes, the paraphrase does lose some of the hammer of the Decalogue on our souls, but if you explained it well, it starts to come close to what Christ explained in the Sermon on the Mount. Does not “control your anger” have something in common with Christ’s comment about anger with one’s brother being tantamount to murder?

    I don’t know if this was the person’s idea, or if this is supposed to be freestanding. If freestanding, it’s a no go. If a starting point for contemplation, perhaps it could be useful.

  • formerly just steve

    Thanks, Tom. That’s a bit clearer but still off the mark. Questions aren’t commands. God isn’t asking us anything. He’s telling us.

    If Mr. John had simply stated that these were commentaries on the 10 Commandments rather than putting them forward as a contemporary English translation nobody would have said a word. Then again, it’s also likely nobody would have been talking about Mr. John at all, so… read into that whatever you like.

  • formerly just steve

    Thanks, Tom. That’s a bit clearer but still off the mark. Questions aren’t commands. God isn’t asking us anything. He’s telling us.

    If Mr. John had simply stated that these were commentaries on the 10 Commandments rather than putting them forward as a contemporary English translation nobody would have said a word. Then again, it’s also likely nobody would have been talking about Mr. John at all, so… read into that whatever you like.

  • Jon

    Bike Bubba’s comments @22 make sense.
    I heard somewhere that someone took these 10 and summed them up as love God, love your neighbor. The whole law is thus described.

  • Jon

    Bike Bubba’s comments @22 make sense.
    I heard somewhere that someone took these 10 and summed them up as love God, love your neighbor. The whole law is thus described.

  • Tom Hering

    God inscribed on the two tablets Ten Questions For Contemplation, that they might strive to live in peace and fulfillment. Then He sent His Only Son for some reason or another. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    God inscribed on the two tablets Ten Questions For Contemplation, that they might strive to live in peace and fulfillment. Then He sent His Only Son for some reason or another. :-D

  • formerly just steve

    lol @ 25.

  • formerly just steve

    lol @ 25.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I hate to bring this up, but there are quite big differences between what Jesus did with the ten commandments, and what this John fellow is doing.
    These differences start with the person. Jesus is infact God so he was free to do what he wanted with them. Of course one could get into a discussion of how free God is to change the rules mid game and all that. But we will save that conversation for another day. I don’t think God is really free to declare murder as not a sin. but this gets into the second difference, the what is done.
    Jesus sums the law, but he doesn’t make it any easier. And in fact when he sums up the law in love, he is really just quoting scripture already extant. This man, John, is treating them as tritely as anyone has ever treated the Ten Commandments. It’s sort of a self defeating position to be telling people they should take something seriously when you are being trite with them. This isn’t a re telling of them in modern language. This is watering them down and completely missing the point of them in the first place.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I hate to bring this up, but there are quite big differences between what Jesus did with the ten commandments, and what this John fellow is doing.
    These differences start with the person. Jesus is infact God so he was free to do what he wanted with them. Of course one could get into a discussion of how free God is to change the rules mid game and all that. But we will save that conversation for another day. I don’t think God is really free to declare murder as not a sin. but this gets into the second difference, the what is done.
    Jesus sums the law, but he doesn’t make it any easier. And in fact when he sums up the law in love, he is really just quoting scripture already extant. This man, John, is treating them as tritely as anyone has ever treated the Ten Commandments. It’s sort of a self defeating position to be telling people they should take something seriously when you are being trite with them. This isn’t a re telling of them in modern language. This is watering them down and completely missing the point of them in the first place.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson
  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson
  • kerner

    A lot of Lutherans have pointed this out already, but finding a “positive side” to the overtly negative 10 Commandments is a very Lutheran thing to do (see Luther’s Small Catechism). So, I can’t object to the concept of positives per se. But as other Lutherans have already pointed out, some of these are superficial and even undecipherable.

  • kerner

    A lot of Lutherans have pointed this out already, but finding a “positive side” to the overtly negative 10 Commandments is a very Lutheran thing to do (see Luther’s Small Catechism). So, I can’t object to the concept of positives per se. But as other Lutherans have already pointed out, some of these are superficial and even undecipherable.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I can see there are 30 comments above mine (more if I type slowly), so I’m going to respond to the post first.

    Veith asked:

    A dynamic equivalent translation with the virtue of putting the law in positive terms rather than all of those negative “thou shalt not’s,” thereby removing obstacles to evangelism and church growth?

    Hmm. Just a wee bit loaded there, that question. I don’t have a problem with using modern language to explain biblical principles, as such.

    I think it’s dubious whether avoiding the word “not” actually makes anything less of an obstacle. It might seem so facially, but a quick glance over these allegedly non-negative commandments makes me think they’re still quite burdensome. Whether the Law is phrased positively or negatively, is there a human who doesn’t know what it’s like to feel guilty, to know that you have fallen short of (at least some part of) God’s Law?

    Looking over the list, it’s hard to know what the alleged “new formulations” actually mean. I mean, there’s a whole DVD to unpack those statements, so my reading into them without that context isn’t going to be the most informed task.

    And, to be fair, I could say the same about the original formulations. I mean, more than a few people seem to have been surprised by Jesus’ unpacking of the originals in his Sermon on the Mount (“You have heard it said … But I tell you …”).

    So I think “find contentment” sounds like a reasonable translation of the commandement(s) on coveting. I mean, does anyone outside of church even know what coveting is anymore? And I could see how “know God” attempts to express the same thing as the First Commandment. And “manage your anger” definitely points us to Jesus’ explanation of the commandment on murdering, so that’s a good thing.

    But then there are the clunkers. “Catch your breath”? No idea what that means. It’s remarkably more vague than the phrase it would replace. And why did he add the command to “prosper” to the commandment not to steal? That smacks a bit of prosperity “gospel”, on the surface. “Affair-proof your relationships”? Hyphenated adjectives as verbs? Oof. Was he just desperate for a new way to phrase that commandment?

    Anyhow, Veith also asked whether this was:

    an attempt to defang God’s Law by turning it into easy to follow self-help principles that turn Christianity into a different religion?

    “Easy to follow”? You think these new translations are “easy to follow”? It is not easy to “find contentment”! Or to “hold to the truth”! Or, well, the rest of them. Now, maybe I say this as a man who already knows the full weight of God’s Law, and how I’ve utterly failed by it. Maybe your average modern person could look at this new list and say “Check, check, check, done that, I’m all good.” But then, I believe not a few people approach the original translations in the same way, completely missing (or willfully ignoring) what Christ teaches about them in the New Testament.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I can see there are 30 comments above mine (more if I type slowly), so I’m going to respond to the post first.

    Veith asked:

    A dynamic equivalent translation with the virtue of putting the law in positive terms rather than all of those negative “thou shalt not’s,” thereby removing obstacles to evangelism and church growth?

    Hmm. Just a wee bit loaded there, that question. I don’t have a problem with using modern language to explain biblical principles, as such.

    I think it’s dubious whether avoiding the word “not” actually makes anything less of an obstacle. It might seem so facially, but a quick glance over these allegedly non-negative commandments makes me think they’re still quite burdensome. Whether the Law is phrased positively or negatively, is there a human who doesn’t know what it’s like to feel guilty, to know that you have fallen short of (at least some part of) God’s Law?

    Looking over the list, it’s hard to know what the alleged “new formulations” actually mean. I mean, there’s a whole DVD to unpack those statements, so my reading into them without that context isn’t going to be the most informed task.

    And, to be fair, I could say the same about the original formulations. I mean, more than a few people seem to have been surprised by Jesus’ unpacking of the originals in his Sermon on the Mount (“You have heard it said … But I tell you …”).

    So I think “find contentment” sounds like a reasonable translation of the commandement(s) on coveting. I mean, does anyone outside of church even know what coveting is anymore? And I could see how “know God” attempts to express the same thing as the First Commandment. And “manage your anger” definitely points us to Jesus’ explanation of the commandment on murdering, so that’s a good thing.

    But then there are the clunkers. “Catch your breath”? No idea what that means. It’s remarkably more vague than the phrase it would replace. And why did he add the command to “prosper” to the commandment not to steal? That smacks a bit of prosperity “gospel”, on the surface. “Affair-proof your relationships”? Hyphenated adjectives as verbs? Oof. Was he just desperate for a new way to phrase that commandment?

    Anyhow, Veith also asked whether this was:

    an attempt to defang God’s Law by turning it into easy to follow self-help principles that turn Christianity into a different religion?

    “Easy to follow”? You think these new translations are “easy to follow”? It is not easy to “find contentment”! Or to “hold to the truth”! Or, well, the rest of them. Now, maybe I say this as a man who already knows the full weight of God’s Law, and how I’ve utterly failed by it. Maybe your average modern person could look at this new list and say “Check, check, check, done that, I’m all good.” But then, I believe not a few people approach the original translations in the same way, completely missing (or willfully ignoring) what Christ teaches about them in the New Testament.

  • Jerry

    Great comments; it may not matter how you phrase the Ten Commandments if you don’t have a grasp of the Gospel…God gave the Law not so we could follow it, but because we cannot follow it…however, these definitions point out post-modern church growth proponents are always trying to make God less scary; wish they had all read C.S. Lewis, “He’s dangerous, but good.”

  • Jerry

    Great comments; it may not matter how you phrase the Ten Commandments if you don’t have a grasp of the Gospel…God gave the Law not so we could follow it, but because we cannot follow it…however, these definitions point out post-modern church growth proponents are always trying to make God less scary; wish they had all read C.S. Lewis, “He’s dangerous, but good.”

  • JDB

    On one level, some of these “new commandments” might serve as a teaching tool to help flesh out the original. I could see myself using “manage your anger” when trying to show that the Fifth Commandment is also directed to the heart and not merely the outward action. Obviously, it doesn’t cover the whole subject.

    Others of these do not work well. I’m with Formerly Just Steve @ 19. I had trouble getting past the First Commandment as “know God.” God isn’t One we are simply to know. Luther in Large Catechism rightly states that a god is that “from which we expect all good and in which we are to take refuge in all distress. So, to have a God is nothing other than trusting and believing Him with the heart… confidence and faith of the heart alone make both God and an idol.” The First Commandment is about the faith and trust of the heart. Nevertheless, why do we need to rewrite the commandments. Leave them as they are and flesh them out.

    As for the positive aspect of these new commandments, let’s keep in mind that the prohibition implies that one is to be doing the opposite. Again, Luther notes that in ever one of his explanations.

    Btw Tom, the Law is good for showing us our sin, that repenting we might cling to Christ as our Savior. You are right in that we do rejoice that Christ has fulfilled them for us. Nevertheless, the Commandments do serve as a guide for the Christian [3rd use of the law].

  • JDB

    On one level, some of these “new commandments” might serve as a teaching tool to help flesh out the original. I could see myself using “manage your anger” when trying to show that the Fifth Commandment is also directed to the heart and not merely the outward action. Obviously, it doesn’t cover the whole subject.

    Others of these do not work well. I’m with Formerly Just Steve @ 19. I had trouble getting past the First Commandment as “know God.” God isn’t One we are simply to know. Luther in Large Catechism rightly states that a god is that “from which we expect all good and in which we are to take refuge in all distress. So, to have a God is nothing other than trusting and believing Him with the heart… confidence and faith of the heart alone make both God and an idol.” The First Commandment is about the faith and trust of the heart. Nevertheless, why do we need to rewrite the commandments. Leave them as they are and flesh them out.

    As for the positive aspect of these new commandments, let’s keep in mind that the prohibition implies that one is to be doing the opposite. Again, Luther notes that in ever one of his explanations.

    Btw Tom, the Law is good for showing us our sin, that repenting we might cling to Christ as our Savior. You are right in that we do rejoice that Christ has fulfilled them for us. Nevertheless, the Commandments do serve as a guide for the Christian [3rd use of the law].

  • Jonathan

    While some of these have glimmers of improvement in them, most just obscure the original meaning. I mean look at 5: “keep the peace”? So it doesn’t really matter if you respect/obey those in authority, just make sure the yelling stays to a minimum?
    “affair-proof your relationships”? So as long as you don’t have more than one sex partner at a time, you’re good to go?
    “prosper with a clear conscience”? So as long as you don’t feel TOO guilty about using the test questions online, you’re on your way to excellence?

    These rewritings are abysmal.

  • Jonathan

    While some of these have glimmers of improvement in them, most just obscure the original meaning. I mean look at 5: “keep the peace”? So it doesn’t really matter if you respect/obey those in authority, just make sure the yelling stays to a minimum?
    “affair-proof your relationships”? So as long as you don’t have more than one sex partner at a time, you’re good to go?
    “prosper with a clear conscience”? So as long as you don’t feel TOO guilty about using the test questions online, you’re on your way to excellence?

    These rewritings are abysmal.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The problem is you would have to know the original ten for these to make sense. If you didn’t know the original ten and just had these, you would be entirely without a moral compass.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The problem is you would have to know the original ten for these to make sense. If you didn’t know the original ten and just had these, you would be entirely without a moral compass.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “affair-proof your relationships”?

    So, lock up spouse so he can’t cheat on me? Or just use emotional blackmail? Or get plastic surgery and work out? Or…

    I mean, what DOES it MEAN?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “affair-proof your relationships”?

    So, lock up spouse so he can’t cheat on me? Or just use emotional blackmail? Or get plastic surgery and work out? Or…

    I mean, what DOES it MEAN?

  • Tom Hering

    The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord

    VI. The Third Use of the Law

    20] So, too, this doctrine of the Law is needful for believers, in order that they may not hit upon a holiness and devotion of their own, and under the pretext of the Spirit of God set up a self-chosen worship, without God’s Word and command, as it is written Deut. 12:8,28,32: Ye shall not do … every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes, etc., but observe and hear all these words which I command thee. Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish therefrom.

  • Tom Hering

    The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord

    VI. The Third Use of the Law

    20] So, too, this doctrine of the Law is needful for believers, in order that they may not hit upon a holiness and devotion of their own, and under the pretext of the Spirit of God set up a self-chosen worship, without God’s Word and command, as it is written Deut. 12:8,28,32: Ye shall not do … every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes, etc., but observe and hear all these words which I command thee. Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish therefrom.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    These younger edgier Ten Commandments are proof that humanity is becoming more and more stupid.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    These younger edgier Ten Commandments are proof that humanity is becoming more and more stupid.

  • Tom Hering

    JDB @ 33, insofar as I’m a Christian, I don’t need no stinkin’ Third Use. Insofar as I’m the Old Adam, I still need the Law shot at me like a bullet from a gun. So I (simul justus et peccator) don’t go around making up user-friendly versions of the Law, among other things. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    JDB @ 33, insofar as I’m a Christian, I don’t need no stinkin’ Third Use. Insofar as I’m the Old Adam, I still need the Law shot at me like a bullet from a gun. So I (simul justus et peccator) don’t go around making up user-friendly versions of the Law, among other things. :-D

  • Dan Kempin

    It is somewhat ironic to see lutherans, of all people, in arms over an exposition of the ten commandments. I thought we liked that sort of thing, digging in to the principles and applications of the commandments. I mean, lutherans often quote Luther’s exposition as though they are quoting the commandment itself. Does that mean that we are trying to rewrite the Word of God?

    As for this program, or sermon series, or whatever it is, I would expect it to be flawed by the influence of reformed theology and who knows what else. Yet I also thought some of the headings were insightful and might be worth a read.

    And of course I don’t want to jump to the conclusion that they are trying to re-write the law of God. That would not be putting the best construction on everything with regard to my neighbor. (Which is not a commandment, I know. It’s just one of those lutheran principles I learned in considering the commandment.)

  • Dan Kempin

    It is somewhat ironic to see lutherans, of all people, in arms over an exposition of the ten commandments. I thought we liked that sort of thing, digging in to the principles and applications of the commandments. I mean, lutherans often quote Luther’s exposition as though they are quoting the commandment itself. Does that mean that we are trying to rewrite the Word of God?

    As for this program, or sermon series, or whatever it is, I would expect it to be flawed by the influence of reformed theology and who knows what else. Yet I also thought some of the headings were insightful and might be worth a read.

    And of course I don’t want to jump to the conclusion that they are trying to re-write the law of God. That would not be putting the best construction on everything with regard to my neighbor. (Which is not a commandment, I know. It’s just one of those lutheran principles I learned in considering the commandment.)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@40) +1.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@40) +1.

  • Grace

    “removing obstacles to evangelism and church growth?”

    God stated the Ten Commandments exactly HIS way. While others choose to re-write them to suit themselves, thinking that revamping the Commandments is a clever idea, (this is not the first time, it’s been ongoing for over 500 years) it points to an individual who believes their way, is superior to God the Father. God made it simple, man wants to expound, if not intellectualize the Commandments, and a great deal of the Word of God. Look upon all the pounds of books that have been written to define the Word of God, as though the LORD was remiss in HIS words.

    For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
    Hebrews 12:4

    As far as “church growth” is concerned – we are to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, those who come to know HIM will come to worship HIM within the church of their choice. Concerning ourselves with filling the pews, doesn’t exist in the Scriptures. “Church growth” has become a business for some in the “church community” but it doesn’t align itself to reaching the lost for Christ.

    And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
    Mark 16:15

  • Grace

    “removing obstacles to evangelism and church growth?”

    God stated the Ten Commandments exactly HIS way. While others choose to re-write them to suit themselves, thinking that revamping the Commandments is a clever idea, (this is not the first time, it’s been ongoing for over 500 years) it points to an individual who believes their way, is superior to God the Father. God made it simple, man wants to expound, if not intellectualize the Commandments, and a great deal of the Word of God. Look upon all the pounds of books that have been written to define the Word of God, as though the LORD was remiss in HIS words.

    For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
    Hebrews 12:4

    As far as “church growth” is concerned – we are to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, those who come to know HIM will come to worship HIM within the church of their choice. Concerning ourselves with filling the pews, doesn’t exist in the Scriptures. “Church growth” has become a business for some in the “church community” but it doesn’t align itself to reaching the lost for Christ.

    And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
    Mark 16:15

  • JDB

    Dan @ 40: “[L]utherans often quote Luther’s exposition as though they are quoting the commandment itself.” Yes, there are times I resemble that. And it’s OK. : )

    Tom, thanks for the response. Even for the believer, because we are not renewed completely in this life, instruction by the Holy Spirit through the written Law is still needed; but not for justification.

  • JDB

    Dan @ 40: “[L]utherans often quote Luther’s exposition as though they are quoting the commandment itself.” Yes, there are times I resemble that. And it’s OK. : )

    Tom, thanks for the response. Even for the believer, because we are not renewed completely in this life, instruction by the Holy Spirit through the written Law is still needed; but not for justification.

  • Tom Hering

    JDB @ 43, no, not for justification, but to continue killing the Old Adam, so the New Creation can “from a free, cheerful spirit” do what is, now, written in the heart.

  • Tom Hering

    JDB @ 43, no, not for justification, but to continue killing the Old Adam, so the New Creation can “from a free, cheerful spirit” do what is, now, written in the heart.

  • Art Going

    There’a long history of rewording the Commandments–even among Lutherans. I’ve used the J John material a bit and found them a very winsome way to get at some of the basic issues addressed. As for the positive tone, Luther himself followed Jesus’ pattern of laying out the narrow proscription and then discussing all the positive applications.By the way, I’ve always appreciated the Reformed pattern of combining the 9th and 10th Commandments (their division always seemed rather artificial to me), and separating Commandments 1 and 2. This actually allows a fuller treatment of Luther’s timeless insight into the First Commandment being the one the explains all the others, as well as a focus on idolatry. To be sure, what some Reformed teachers have done with the prohibition of idolatry is another matter. But if you want to see how one influential contemporary Presbyterian pastor runs with Luther’s insight, check out Tim Keller.

  • Art Going

    There’a long history of rewording the Commandments–even among Lutherans. I’ve used the J John material a bit and found them a very winsome way to get at some of the basic issues addressed. As for the positive tone, Luther himself followed Jesus’ pattern of laying out the narrow proscription and then discussing all the positive applications.By the way, I’ve always appreciated the Reformed pattern of combining the 9th and 10th Commandments (their division always seemed rather artificial to me), and separating Commandments 1 and 2. This actually allows a fuller treatment of Luther’s timeless insight into the First Commandment being the one the explains all the others, as well as a focus on idolatry. To be sure, what some Reformed teachers have done with the prohibition of idolatry is another matter. But if you want to see how one influential contemporary Presbyterian pastor runs with Luther’s insight, check out Tim Keller.

  • fws

    jdb @ 43

    the Law as a mirror, a curb or instruction (third use) still always accuses and kills. Pick your poison.

    And further, the third use is is for pagans and christians alike. That is what the Formula of Concord says in it’s section on the Third Use which means something if you are a Lutheran. No way to know if you are….

    EPITOME FORMULA OF CONCORD ON THE [LUTHERAN] THIRD USE OF THE LAW

    8] Accordingly, we reject as a dogma and error injurious to, and conflicting with, Christian discipline and true godliness the teaching that the Law in the above-mentioned way and degree is not to be urged upon Christians and true believers, but only upon unbelievers, non-Christians, and the impenitent. http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#part6.8

    Rephrased in the positive:

    The same above mentioned Law is to be urged upon both Christians and true believers, as well as unbelievers , non-Christians and the impenitent in the same above mentioned way and degree. To do otherwise is injurious to and conflicting with true Godliness and christian discipline.

    There is no special Law just for Christians and there is no Law that instructs but does not kill and always accuse.

    There is a part of the Law however that is veiled to Reason (with the veil of Moses) and can only be known from the Word of God. Reason is of the opinion that the Law is kept by what we do or refrain from doing. Reason thinks the Law is kept or broken by following or failing to follow a list.

    8] 7. As to the revelation of sin, because the veil of Moses hangs before the eyes of all men as long as they hear the bare preaching of the Law, and nothing concerning Christ, and therefore do not learn from the Law to perceive their sins aright, but either become presumptuous hypocrites [who swell with the opinion of their own righteousness] as the Pharisees, or despair like Judas, Christ takes the Law into His hands, and explains it spiritually , Matt. 5:21ff ; Rom. 7:14. And thus the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all sinners [ Rom. 1:18 ], how great it is; by this means they are directed [sent back] to the Law, and then first learn from it to know aright their sins-a knowledge which Moses never could have forced out of them.

    9] Accordingly, although the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath, whereby men are first led into the Law aright, after the veil of Moses has been removed from them, so that they first know aright how great things God in His Law requires of us, none of which we can observe, and therefore are to seek all our righteousness in Christ http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#part5.8

    And what is meant by this “spiritual understanding of the Law ” that reason is veiled to by the “veil of Moses”? It is “that part of the Law “peculiarly ” found in the first table of the Decalog that deals with movements of the heart [and emotions].” http://bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para5

    Here is how Luther, in his wonderful preface to his translation of the Epistle to the Romans explains the difference between the Law as it is known, quite correctly so, to reason, and how God’s Law and God’s Courtroom is different. The entire text is a very short read and is very profitable!:

    To begin with, we have to become familiar with the vocabulary of the letter and know what St. Paul means by the words law, sin, grace, faith, justice, flesh, spirit, etc. Otherwise there is no use in reading it.

    You must not understand the word LAW here in human fashion, i.e., a regulation about what sort of works must be done or must not be done. That’s the way it is with human laws: you satisfy the demands of the law with works, whether your heart is in it or not. God judges what is in the depths of the heart. Therefore his law also makes demands on the depths of the heart and doesn’t let the heart rest content in works; rather it punishes as hypocrisy and lies all works done apart from the depths of the heart. All human beings are called liars (Psalm 116), since none of them keeps or can keep God’s law from the depths of the heart. Everyone finds inside himself an aversion to good and a craving for evil. Where there is no free desire for good, there the heart has not set itself on God’s law. There also sin is surely to be found and the deserved wrath of God, whether a lot of good works and an honorable life appear outwardly or not. http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    And this Law that is found only in the first table of the Decalog and is veiled to Reason is only known how and when? We can only know this Law when our hearts have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

    And only then the Law can do what?

    It terrifies us! Only in a regenerate heart can there be this true fear of God.

    And it tells us to then hide ALL we can see and do in the Works of Another.

    And only then can God become an Object of Love because, with our works ALL hidden in the Works of Another, the Law can no longer accuse us.

  • fws

    jdb @ 43

    the Law as a mirror, a curb or instruction (third use) still always accuses and kills. Pick your poison.

    And further, the third use is is for pagans and christians alike. That is what the Formula of Concord says in it’s section on the Third Use which means something if you are a Lutheran. No way to know if you are….

    EPITOME FORMULA OF CONCORD ON THE [LUTHERAN] THIRD USE OF THE LAW

    8] Accordingly, we reject as a dogma and error injurious to, and conflicting with, Christian discipline and true godliness the teaching that the Law in the above-mentioned way and degree is not to be urged upon Christians and true believers, but only upon unbelievers, non-Christians, and the impenitent. http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#part6.8

    Rephrased in the positive:

    The same above mentioned Law is to be urged upon both Christians and true believers, as well as unbelievers , non-Christians and the impenitent in the same above mentioned way and degree. To do otherwise is injurious to and conflicting with true Godliness and christian discipline.

    There is no special Law just for Christians and there is no Law that instructs but does not kill and always accuse.

    There is a part of the Law however that is veiled to Reason (with the veil of Moses) and can only be known from the Word of God. Reason is of the opinion that the Law is kept by what we do or refrain from doing. Reason thinks the Law is kept or broken by following or failing to follow a list.

    8] 7. As to the revelation of sin, because the veil of Moses hangs before the eyes of all men as long as they hear the bare preaching of the Law, and nothing concerning Christ, and therefore do not learn from the Law to perceive their sins aright, but either become presumptuous hypocrites [who swell with the opinion of their own righteousness] as the Pharisees, or despair like Judas, Christ takes the Law into His hands, and explains it spiritually , Matt. 5:21ff ; Rom. 7:14. And thus the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all sinners [ Rom. 1:18 ], how great it is; by this means they are directed [sent back] to the Law, and then first learn from it to know aright their sins-a knowledge which Moses never could have forced out of them.

    9] Accordingly, although the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath, whereby men are first led into the Law aright, after the veil of Moses has been removed from them, so that they first know aright how great things God in His Law requires of us, none of which we can observe, and therefore are to seek all our righteousness in Christ http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#part5.8

    And what is meant by this “spiritual understanding of the Law ” that reason is veiled to by the “veil of Moses”? It is “that part of the Law “peculiarly ” found in the first table of the Decalog that deals with movements of the heart [and emotions].” http://bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para5

    Here is how Luther, in his wonderful preface to his translation of the Epistle to the Romans explains the difference between the Law as it is known, quite correctly so, to reason, and how God’s Law and God’s Courtroom is different. The entire text is a very short read and is very profitable!:

    To begin with, we have to become familiar with the vocabulary of the letter and know what St. Paul means by the words law, sin, grace, faith, justice, flesh, spirit, etc. Otherwise there is no use in reading it.

    You must not understand the word LAW here in human fashion, i.e., a regulation about what sort of works must be done or must not be done. That’s the way it is with human laws: you satisfy the demands of the law with works, whether your heart is in it or not. God judges what is in the depths of the heart. Therefore his law also makes demands on the depths of the heart and doesn’t let the heart rest content in works; rather it punishes as hypocrisy and lies all works done apart from the depths of the heart. All human beings are called liars (Psalm 116), since none of them keeps or can keep God’s law from the depths of the heart. Everyone finds inside himself an aversion to good and a craving for evil. Where there is no free desire for good, there the heart has not set itself on God’s law. There also sin is surely to be found and the deserved wrath of God, whether a lot of good works and an honorable life appear outwardly or not. http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    And this Law that is found only in the first table of the Decalog and is veiled to Reason is only known how and when? We can only know this Law when our hearts have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

    And only then the Law can do what?

    It terrifies us! Only in a regenerate heart can there be this true fear of God.

    And it tells us to then hide ALL we can see and do in the Works of Another.

    And only then can God become an Object of Love because, with our works ALL hidden in the Works of Another, the Law can no longer accuse us.

  • fws

    Tom @ 44

    +1

  • fws

    Tom @ 44

    +1

  • Jack

    Why take the clear Word of God and make it muddy? What man, then shall decide when we do wrong, and by what authority shall he do so?

    Look at it from the standpoint of the many secular laws regarding the operation of a motor vehicle. We could save tons of trees by reducing all of these laws to: “Operate motor vehicles in a responsible manner”. It may sound good, but who is to decide, under this law what is, or is not a violation? Any rule under which a person would cite someone for a violation would be an “unwritten rule”. How is one held to unwritten rules?

    God’s word is clear. Don’t allow man to hold you to “unwritten rules”, for those rules are ONLY the rule of man.

  • Jack

    Why take the clear Word of God and make it muddy? What man, then shall decide when we do wrong, and by what authority shall he do so?

    Look at it from the standpoint of the many secular laws regarding the operation of a motor vehicle. We could save tons of trees by reducing all of these laws to: “Operate motor vehicles in a responsible manner”. It may sound good, but who is to decide, under this law what is, or is not a violation? Any rule under which a person would cite someone for a violation would be an “unwritten rule”. How is one held to unwritten rules?

    God’s word is clear. Don’t allow man to hold you to “unwritten rules”, for those rules are ONLY the rule of man.

  • fws

    Jack @ 48

    “Why take the Word of God and make it muddy?”

    Jesus tells us the love is the sum total of the Law of God.

    Please tell me how to love someone by following a list of rules. Is that how anyone at all goes about loving their spouse or other loved one?

    Would you feel loved if someone tried to love you by strictly following a lit of instructions to the letter?

    I suggest this feels”muddy” only because we are sinners to the very core of our hearts and our emotions.

    Consisder this: Aristotle says that a man becomes virtuous by using his Reason, guided by love, to control and restrain his natural appetites that are driven by emotion. Aristotle is saying that within each man there is a war going on!

    And he is right about both how we are to become virtuous and about the war.

    The Law of God written in our conscience and Reason is at war with…. our hearts and emotions and the things they look to for it’s good.

    But here is the deal: God says that if we are outwardly completely virtuous and yet our whole heart and emotions are not also totally behind that good, then it is all a waste. God spits it all out as something he hates when we try to present that kind of goodness to him as our sacrifice.

    In that case it is as though we are trying to love our spouse by very very begrudgingly going through the motions and doing EVERYTHUNG right outwardly, but at the same time our spouse knows that we hate doing those things and would really rather do the opposite if it were not for our fear of our spouse. What kind of love for God is that??!! What kind of love for neighbor is that??!!

    Now it IS true that it is good that we are outwarding doing everything by the book. The alternative is messy. Yet at the same time, our conscience that God has written in our reason still
    accuses us! Roman 2:15.

    Why is that true Jack? There is nothing ‘Muddy” going on here now is there?

  • fws

    Jack @ 48

    “Why take the Word of God and make it muddy?”

    Jesus tells us the love is the sum total of the Law of God.

    Please tell me how to love someone by following a list of rules. Is that how anyone at all goes about loving their spouse or other loved one?

    Would you feel loved if someone tried to love you by strictly following a lit of instructions to the letter?

    I suggest this feels”muddy” only because we are sinners to the very core of our hearts and our emotions.

    Consisder this: Aristotle says that a man becomes virtuous by using his Reason, guided by love, to control and restrain his natural appetites that are driven by emotion. Aristotle is saying that within each man there is a war going on!

    And he is right about both how we are to become virtuous and about the war.

    The Law of God written in our conscience and Reason is at war with…. our hearts and emotions and the things they look to for it’s good.

    But here is the deal: God says that if we are outwardly completely virtuous and yet our whole heart and emotions are not also totally behind that good, then it is all a waste. God spits it all out as something he hates when we try to present that kind of goodness to him as our sacrifice.

    In that case it is as though we are trying to love our spouse by very very begrudgingly going through the motions and doing EVERYTHUNG right outwardly, but at the same time our spouse knows that we hate doing those things and would really rather do the opposite if it were not for our fear of our spouse. What kind of love for God is that??!! What kind of love for neighbor is that??!!

    Now it IS true that it is good that we are outwarding doing everything by the book. The alternative is messy. Yet at the same time, our conscience that God has written in our reason still
    accuses us! Roman 2:15.

    Why is that true Jack? There is nothing ‘Muddy” going on here now is there?

  • Jack

    fws @ 49

    I guess that I might agree with you in the event that the Ten Commandments were nothing more than a bunch of legalistic rules for us to live by in order to be a good member of society.

    We cannot possibly meet the requirements of the Commandments. Aren’t we told in Scripture that if we are guilty of violating one Commandment we are guilty of them all?

    Let’s rejoice that Christ, through His suffering and death has atoned for our sins.

    We are saved by grace, through faith, which is a gift of God, not a work of man.

  • Jack

    fws @ 49

    I guess that I might agree with you in the event that the Ten Commandments were nothing more than a bunch of legalistic rules for us to live by in order to be a good member of society.

    We cannot possibly meet the requirements of the Commandments. Aren’t we told in Scripture that if we are guilty of violating one Commandment we are guilty of them all?

    Let’s rejoice that Christ, through His suffering and death has atoned for our sins.

    We are saved by grace, through faith, which is a gift of God, not a work of man.

  • fws

    Jack @ 50

    Almost Jack. The 10 commandments are a bunch of legalistic rules. And God demands that we keep those legalistic rules. All of them. And that we keep them with all our heart, soul and mind. Joyfully and spontaneously like someone doing good things for a beloved.

    But we dont have the heart for that in our Old Adam. So God sends those rules to kill us. There is no Life in them.

    God does this killing work, using the Law, because only by the Law making a dead sacrifice out of Old Adam can he make the mercy and goodness flow out of Old Adam that He WILL have done among even sinful, faithless and unworthy other Old Adams.

    But then Christ takes the Law into his Own Hands and shows us the spirtual poverty that is our Old Adam heart, and terrifies us with the Law. Only then can we know to hide ALL we can do according to the Law in the Works of Another.

    Now being hidden in those Works, the Law no longer can accuse us. We are dead to the Law because we died in Christ. And so now God can truly become an Object of Love. God can never be an object of Love to those whom the Law accuses.

    And the Law always accuses and accuses and accuses. It kills us. There is no life there in anything we can do to keep that Law. Mortification and our death is what keeping the Law looks like.

    But now in Christ we have a new man with a new heart that longs from the deepest emotions to do God’s will and desire that Goodness and Mercy be done even for those who least deserve it.

    Mercy, by definition is undeserved. But it is still for us on earth a Law word. It is what God desires to have done as a result the work of the Law sacrificing and killing us. The Law works justice. It works sacrifice. That always requires a death. But it is the mercy that flows from that that God desires. He desires the death of no man. Unfortunately in our Old Adam, there is no other way for mercy to be made to happen.

    So mercy sounds like Gospel but it is not. Then there is that Mercy that is alone in the Works of Another. We hide our own works of mercy in that One Sacrificial Mercy that is acceptable to God.

  • fws

    Jack @ 50

    Almost Jack. The 10 commandments are a bunch of legalistic rules. And God demands that we keep those legalistic rules. All of them. And that we keep them with all our heart, soul and mind. Joyfully and spontaneously like someone doing good things for a beloved.

    But we dont have the heart for that in our Old Adam. So God sends those rules to kill us. There is no Life in them.

    God does this killing work, using the Law, because only by the Law making a dead sacrifice out of Old Adam can he make the mercy and goodness flow out of Old Adam that He WILL have done among even sinful, faithless and unworthy other Old Adams.

    But then Christ takes the Law into his Own Hands and shows us the spirtual poverty that is our Old Adam heart, and terrifies us with the Law. Only then can we know to hide ALL we can do according to the Law in the Works of Another.

    Now being hidden in those Works, the Law no longer can accuse us. We are dead to the Law because we died in Christ. And so now God can truly become an Object of Love. God can never be an object of Love to those whom the Law accuses.

    And the Law always accuses and accuses and accuses. It kills us. There is no life there in anything we can do to keep that Law. Mortification and our death is what keeping the Law looks like.

    But now in Christ we have a new man with a new heart that longs from the deepest emotions to do God’s will and desire that Goodness and Mercy be done even for those who least deserve it.

    Mercy, by definition is undeserved. But it is still for us on earth a Law word. It is what God desires to have done as a result the work of the Law sacrificing and killing us. The Law works justice. It works sacrifice. That always requires a death. But it is the mercy that flows from that that God desires. He desires the death of no man. Unfortunately in our Old Adam, there is no other way for mercy to be made to happen.

    So mercy sounds like Gospel but it is not. Then there is that Mercy that is alone in the Works of Another. We hide our own works of mercy in that One Sacrificial Mercy that is acceptable to God.

  • fws

    Jack at 50

    Let’s rejoice indeed. God has had mercy on us. Even a pagan can know that God is loving and merciful.

    But only in Christ alone can we know that He is most certainly merciful to US personally.

    Apart from that personal application of the Works of Christ that is faith and trust alone in Him, Christ is the most terrifying preachment of the Law that exists. Trying to follow Christ as Example in our own works, should lead to naked terror in our hearts.

    But when the Holy Spirit informs our heart that that Work of Christ is to save ME, then I receive a new heart and new set of emotions that allows God to become an Object of Love for me.

    This is so even as I fear him and am terrified at all I can see and do in my own works.

  • fws

    Jack at 50

    Let’s rejoice indeed. God has had mercy on us. Even a pagan can know that God is loving and merciful.

    But only in Christ alone can we know that He is most certainly merciful to US personally.

    Apart from that personal application of the Works of Christ that is faith and trust alone in Him, Christ is the most terrifying preachment of the Law that exists. Trying to follow Christ as Example in our own works, should lead to naked terror in our hearts.

    But when the Holy Spirit informs our heart that that Work of Christ is to save ME, then I receive a new heart and new set of emotions that allows God to become an Object of Love for me.

    This is so even as I fear him and am terrified at all I can see and do in my own works.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    A good paraphrase is like a good commentary. A bad paraphrase is like a bad commentary. A good commentary is a useful thing, but even a good commentary should not take the place of the Bible.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    A good paraphrase is like a good commentary. A bad paraphrase is like a bad commentary. A good commentary is a useful thing, but even a good commentary should not take the place of the Bible.

  • Grace

    Rick @ 33

    “even a good commentary should not take the place of the Bible.”

    AMEN!

  • Grace

    Rick @ 33

    “even a good commentary should not take the place of the Bible.”

    AMEN!

  • Michael B.

    “even a good commentary should not take the place of the Bible.”

    And yet churches have all these Creeds and Statements of Faith. Shouldn’t both merely say “see the Bible”?

  • Michael B.

    “even a good commentary should not take the place of the Bible.”

    And yet churches have all these Creeds and Statements of Faith. Shouldn’t both merely say “see the Bible”?

  • Tom Hering

    Huh. I’ve never met a Christian who preferred a creed, a confession, a commentary, or a statement of faith to Scripture. Simply because the words of Scripture – God’s own words – speak in many powerful and satisfying ways to the inner man.

    I mean, any nominal Christian who doesn’t love the Scriptures isn’t going to be a fan of writings that restate or reference the Scriptures, is he? I would think he’d prefer something entirely non-Scriptural.

    So we have a fake problem here.

  • Tom Hering

    Huh. I’ve never met a Christian who preferred a creed, a confession, a commentary, or a statement of faith to Scripture. Simply because the words of Scripture – God’s own words – speak in many powerful and satisfying ways to the inner man.

    I mean, any nominal Christian who doesn’t love the Scriptures isn’t going to be a fan of writings that restate or reference the Scriptures, is he? I would think he’d prefer something entirely non-Scriptural.

    So we have a fake problem here.

  • Bob

    “even a good commentary should not take the place of the Bible.”

    Especially Chuck Smith tape commentaries

  • Bob

    “even a good commentary should not take the place of the Bible.”

    Especially Chuck Smith tape commentaries

  • Grace

    Bob,

    After reading a number of your posts, I have wondered if you are a Believer in Jesus Christ as your Savior? have you put your faith in HIM? Do you believe the Scriptures to be the inerrant Word of God?

  • Grace

    Bob,

    After reading a number of your posts, I have wondered if you are a Believer in Jesus Christ as your Savior? have you put your faith in HIM? Do you believe the Scriptures to be the inerrant Word of God?

  • Grace

    Michael @ 5

    “I’ve always felt them to be a bit sparse. Slavery was very common in that period. What about a commandment not to have slaves?

    What about it? – do you think God made a mistake?

    We don’t have “slavery” in this country any longer, however there are many countries that do practice “slavery” especially when considering the attitudes towards their wives and daughters.

    Even though slavery is illegal in most parts of the world, including Africa, it still exists.

  • Grace

    Michael @ 5

    “I’ve always felt them to be a bit sparse. Slavery was very common in that period. What about a commandment not to have slaves?

    What about it? – do you think God made a mistake?

    We don’t have “slavery” in this country any longer, however there are many countries that do practice “slavery” especially when considering the attitudes towards their wives and daughters.

    Even though slavery is illegal in most parts of the world, including Africa, it still exists.

  • Bob

    This is getting much too personal.

    I didn’t come on here to have the state of my soul examined.

    Good day, everyone.

  • Bob

    This is getting much too personal.

    I didn’t come on here to have the state of my soul examined.

    Good day, everyone.

  • Grace

    I’m sorry you feel that way Bob, I mean that.

    Christ means everything to me, without HIM as my Savior I would be lost, confused, with no compass, or purpose. Sharing what I believe about the LORD is a joy – the reason I ask others what they believe, is so I can better understand them. I don’t ask every single person what they believe, but if they have been interacting with me for a time, I do ask.

    I hope you continue to interact with those on this blog, .. perhaps even sharing your beliefs.

  • Grace

    I’m sorry you feel that way Bob, I mean that.

    Christ means everything to me, without HIM as my Savior I would be lost, confused, with no compass, or purpose. Sharing what I believe about the LORD is a joy – the reason I ask others what they believe, is so I can better understand them. I don’t ask every single person what they believe, but if they have been interacting with me for a time, I do ask.

    I hope you continue to interact with those on this blog, .. perhaps even sharing your beliefs.

  • fws

    grace. no one here questions your christian faith in spite of the fact that your disbelieve huge portions of Gods Word.

  • fws

    grace. no one here questions your christian faith in spite of the fact that your disbelieve huge portions of Gods Word.

  • Grace

    Bob,

    My father, attended church every Sunday with all his brothers and sisters. After leaving Europe, sailing to the United States with one of his sisters and her husband, attended an Evangelistic meeting on the east coast. My father was stunned when the Evangelist made the amazing statement which comes from the books of Matthew and Mark: 36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

    37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Mark 9

    After hearing the message and pondering the passage of Scripture above, my father prayed, he believed, having faith in the only Savior of the World, the one who had died for him on the Cross. My father shared that Scripture in many of his sermons, (he later became a pastor) as the turning point in his life.

    God bless you Bob

  • Grace

    Bob,

    My father, attended church every Sunday with all his brothers and sisters. After leaving Europe, sailing to the United States with one of his sisters and her husband, attended an Evangelistic meeting on the east coast. My father was stunned when the Evangelist made the amazing statement which comes from the books of Matthew and Mark: 36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

    37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Mark 9

    After hearing the message and pondering the passage of Scripture above, my father prayed, he believed, having faith in the only Savior of the World, the one who had died for him on the Cross. My father shared that Scripture in many of his sermons, (he later became a pastor) as the turning point in his life.

    God bless you Bob

  • fws

    grace @ 62

    I hope you take to heart those passages as your father did. You stubbornly deny what the Holy Scriptures tells you as Gods Inspired word about faith, repentance, holy baptism, holy absolution, the Lords supper, election, sin, regeneration, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and lots of other stuff besides.

    And you question Bob’s faith because he questions the value of Chuck Smith’s tape commentaries.

    uh huh.

    Repent Grace. God is not mocked.

  • fws

    grace @ 62

    I hope you take to heart those passages as your father did. You stubbornly deny what the Holy Scriptures tells you as Gods Inspired word about faith, repentance, holy baptism, holy absolution, the Lords supper, election, sin, regeneration, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and lots of other stuff besides.

    And you question Bob’s faith because he questions the value of Chuck Smith’s tape commentaries.

    uh huh.

    Repent Grace. God is not mocked.

  • fws

    you are sorry to hear that Bob feels that way.

    and you mean that.

    what in the heck does that mean Grace?

  • fws

    you are sorry to hear that Bob feels that way.

    and you mean that.

    what in the heck does that mean Grace?

  • Grace

    fws,

    The following was posted by you:

    Posted fws @ 37 on February 20, 2012 – -

    On Thoughts on homosexuality not being genetic

    “I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/02/16/thoughts-on-homosexuality-not-being-genetic/#comment-142493

    Don’t bother expounding on my belief in Christ, when you clearly don’t understand the meaning of sin, repentance or the obvious sin of homosexuality.

  • Grace

    fws,

    The following was posted by you:

    Posted fws @ 37 on February 20, 2012 – -

    On Thoughts on homosexuality not being genetic

    “I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/02/16/thoughts-on-homosexuality-not-being-genetic/#comment-142493

    Don’t bother expounding on my belief in Christ, when you clearly don’t understand the meaning of sin, repentance or the obvious sin of homosexuality.

  • fws

    grace @ 66

    YOu are clueless as to what I mean by that statement. You can’t seem to see that my definition of ‘homosexuality’ is different than yours is.

    there are 4 year old homosexuals by my definition Grace. where is that 4 year old sinning and in need of repentence for being a homosexual?

    Now then… you can launch into a debate about whether or not what I say is true or not. That would not be a biblical discussion on sin or repentence or how “obvious ” it is , to you, that homosexuality is a sin. Or..
    you can cut and paste biblical passages putting certain words in all capitals. that is what you usually do.

    You think anyone here pays attention to you here when you do that? You don’t accept correction. You are haughty and arrogant. And you usually drip with sarcasm. And when you do say “i am sorry” it looks like “I am sorry to hear that you feel that way Bob. I really am.” “sorry” in that sentence reflect no repentence.

    Can you produce ONE post here of yours that reflects even a droplet of repentence out of yourself? No. You can’t. And of course, you will totally ignore this challenge to you won’t you? Yet you question the faith of others for questioning the value of Chuck Smith tapes. Really Grace.

    Further : I did not expound in any way on your believing in Christ or not. I observed that you deny what God’s Word says about some very very fundamental teachings, and you do so defiantly and loudly.

    Repent Grace. God is not mocked.

  • fws

    grace @ 66

    YOu are clueless as to what I mean by that statement. You can’t seem to see that my definition of ‘homosexuality’ is different than yours is.

    there are 4 year old homosexuals by my definition Grace. where is that 4 year old sinning and in need of repentence for being a homosexual?

    Now then… you can launch into a debate about whether or not what I say is true or not. That would not be a biblical discussion on sin or repentence or how “obvious ” it is , to you, that homosexuality is a sin. Or..
    you can cut and paste biblical passages putting certain words in all capitals. that is what you usually do.

    You think anyone here pays attention to you here when you do that? You don’t accept correction. You are haughty and arrogant. And you usually drip with sarcasm. And when you do say “i am sorry” it looks like “I am sorry to hear that you feel that way Bob. I really am.” “sorry” in that sentence reflect no repentence.

    Can you produce ONE post here of yours that reflects even a droplet of repentence out of yourself? No. You can’t. And of course, you will totally ignore this challenge to you won’t you? Yet you question the faith of others for questioning the value of Chuck Smith tapes. Really Grace.

    Further : I did not expound in any way on your believing in Christ or not. I observed that you deny what God’s Word says about some very very fundamental teachings, and you do so defiantly and loudly.

    Repent Grace. God is not mocked.

  • Grace

    fws

    I have no interest whatsoever in having yet another useless discussion over homosexuality, HIV/AIDS, or all the other aspects and results of that lifestyle, with you.

    If you honestly believe that God is not mocked, take it to heart!

  • Grace

    fws

    I have no interest whatsoever in having yet another useless discussion over homosexuality, HIV/AIDS, or all the other aspects and results of that lifestyle, with you.

    If you honestly believe that God is not mocked, take it to heart!

  • Tom Hering

    Bob @ 60, I got the impression @ 57 you wanted this discussion to get personal, by goading Grace.

  • Tom Hering

    Bob @ 60, I got the impression @ 57 you wanted this discussion to get personal, by goading Grace.

  • Grace

    An excellent passage of Scripture, both verses:

    7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

    8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
    Galatians 6

  • Grace

    An excellent passage of Scripture, both verses:

    7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

    8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
    Galatians 6

  • fws

    Grace:

    Yes. I fear God. And I do believe that if I respond to persons here with sarcasm or in a condescending way, or lecture them without really attempting to understand their viewpoint in a friendly way, that God will punish me for that.

    And I fail often at doing the goodness and mercy and love God would have me do towards you and others.

    Therefore it would not be hard to find places here, more than a few,where I have both appologized and repented and resolved to do better.

    The very last thing I would ever do as a Lutheran christian would be to question your faith in our dear Lord Jesus Grace.

    That would be a horrible sin to commit against you or anyone who professes to be a believer in Christ. Christ Himself forbids us to do this. He reserves the sorting of wheat from looks-like-wheat, goats from sheep and soil analysis for himself at the end of the age.

    So IF I had committed such a grave sin, I would need to repent, ask for forgiveness of that other person, and resolve to stop doing that.

    And you, of course, would need to do the same. But you seem quite incapable of personally repenting for anything at all Grace.

    Repent Grace. God is not mocked.

  • fws

    Grace:

    Yes. I fear God. And I do believe that if I respond to persons here with sarcasm or in a condescending way, or lecture them without really attempting to understand their viewpoint in a friendly way, that God will punish me for that.

    And I fail often at doing the goodness and mercy and love God would have me do towards you and others.

    Therefore it would not be hard to find places here, more than a few,where I have both appologized and repented and resolved to do better.

    The very last thing I would ever do as a Lutheran christian would be to question your faith in our dear Lord Jesus Grace.

    That would be a horrible sin to commit against you or anyone who professes to be a believer in Christ. Christ Himself forbids us to do this. He reserves the sorting of wheat from looks-like-wheat, goats from sheep and soil analysis for himself at the end of the age.

    So IF I had committed such a grave sin, I would need to repent, ask for forgiveness of that other person, and resolve to stop doing that.

    And you, of course, would need to do the same. But you seem quite incapable of personally repenting for anything at all Grace.

    Repent Grace. God is not mocked.

  • fws

    Tom

    Can I suggest that Bob was merely responding in kind to Grace’s earlier (and often repeated ) comments on this blog that is heavily populated with Lutheran Christians?

    Maybe he should not have done that. At the same time, I am not seeing that he was making a comment that had to be turned into something personal directed towards his state of faith.

    Tom: what Grace asked was a question from satan. Asking someone to doubt their faith in their Savior is not something that is of God.

  • fws

    Tom

    Can I suggest that Bob was merely responding in kind to Grace’s earlier (and often repeated ) comments on this blog that is heavily populated with Lutheran Christians?

    Maybe he should not have done that. At the same time, I am not seeing that he was making a comment that had to be turned into something personal directed towards his state of faith.

    Tom: what Grace asked was a question from satan. Asking someone to doubt their faith in their Savior is not something that is of God.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank, I agree it was wrong for Grace to question Bob’s faith. Not his theology. His salvation. But I saw it – or something like it – coming when I first read Bob’s comment @ 57. What good did it do the discussion for Bob to fire the first shot in this thread? All Grace had said here, up to that point, was “amen” to “a good commentary should not take the place of the Bible.”

  • Tom Hering

    Frank, I agree it was wrong for Grace to question Bob’s faith. Not his theology. His salvation. But I saw it – or something like it – coming when I first read Bob’s comment @ 57. What good did it do the discussion for Bob to fire the first shot in this thread? All Grace had said here, up to that point, was “amen” to “a good commentary should not take the place of the Bible.”

  • fws

    Yeah ok. I stand corrected.

  • fws

    Yeah ok. I stand corrected.

  • fws

    dang Tom.

    You are becoming so nice. I am going to need to work to keep up with your progress there pawdner. Excellent.

    I need to try harder to show Grace and everyone else goodness , mercy and love. I am pond scum. at least at times. well, most of the time. ok. ok. ALL of the time. Thank God for Jesus.

    You are the Law aimed right at me. But you are also one of the best friends I have (n)ever met. Law. death, goodness and mercy all that the same time.

    What a guy you are Tom.

  • fws

    dang Tom.

    You are becoming so nice. I am going to need to work to keep up with your progress there pawdner. Excellent.

    I need to try harder to show Grace and everyone else goodness , mercy and love. I am pond scum. at least at times. well, most of the time. ok. ok. ALL of the time. Thank God for Jesus.

    You are the Law aimed right at me. But you are also one of the best friends I have (n)ever met. Law. death, goodness and mercy all that the same time.

    What a guy you are Tom.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank, your troubled conscience shows what a nice guy you are. So you’re a much better person than I am.

    Let’s stop now before we make other people hurl their supper.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank, your troubled conscience shows what a nice guy you are. So you’re a much better person than I am.

    Let’s stop now before we make other people hurl their supper.

  • Zach

    Manage your anger really

  • Zach

    Manage your anger really

  • Zach

    Some of you are smart but

  • Zach

    Some of you are smart but

  • Zach

    Asses

  • Zach

    Asses

  • Zach

    They child proofed it for dumb asses like
    some people

  • Zach

    They child proofed it for dumb asses like
    some people


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X