Are The Ten Commandments Relevent In This Age Of Grace?

[prisonchaplain]

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS

HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS OBSERVE THEM?

All of the great religions that proclaim belief in one God submit to the 10 Commandments. Yet, how do we, as Christians, understand and obey these so-called Jewish commandments?

Please read Exodus 20:1-17

For the Christian, the 10 Commandments are more stringent, yet more achievable, than Jewish practice demanded. How is the Christian understanding of the 10 Commandments more stringent, and why can we more easily achieve them? We shall first consider the stringency of Christian obedience to the Commandments. The first commandment reads: YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. The ancient Jews understood this to mean they must worship the God of Israel, and no other. Likewise, modern Judaism’s mission is to protect the spiritual life and practice of Jewish people. There is no mandate to reconcile non-Jews to the one true living God. Jesus also says to worship no other gods. But he goes further, calling his followers to a rigorous mission of proclaiming the Good News to all peoples. Jesus says in John 14:6 that He is the only way to reconciliation with God the Father. Additionally, in the Great Commission he tells us to make and train his disciples.

The second commandment reads: YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF AN IDOL. Ancient Israel focused on the literal making of idols, because false idolatrous religion was so common then. Today one could be certain to find prohibitions in Judaism against religious statues and the like. Jesus took this one step further. He said that we must not let family become an idol. You had better be willing to hate–or abandon–your parents and siblings rather than compromise your love for God. Jesus also said we must not let our possessions become an idol. We cannot serve God and money.

The third commandment reads: YOU SHALL NOT MISUSE THE NAME OF THE LORD YOUR GOD. Ancient Israel hesitated to use the name of God at all. This is why you so often see the terms “GOD” and “LORD” in the Bible, rather than YAHWEH. Today, the more conservative Jews even hesitate to use the title God. In their writings they write G-d instead. Jesus teaches that we can use the name of God–in power. He still insists that the name be revered however. Jesus says that in his name you shall heal the sick, cast out devils, and do works greater than he has done. Many shall say to Jesus, “Did we not do great works in your name?” And He will respond saying, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” Recall that the seven sons of Sceba used the name of Jesus to deliver a man from demons. Yet, they did not know Jesus. The demons left the man–but attacked those who would disrespect Jesus name by using it in ignorance.

REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY BY KEEPING IT HOLY. Ancient Jews had numerous rules about what could and could not be done on the Sabbath. Modern Jews have those same rules and volumes of commentary on how they can be applied with today’s technology. As an example, in the heavily Jewish neighborhoods in South Miami Beach the elevators in condominiums automatically stop on each floor during the Sabbath. This way, no Jew is “creating work,” by pressing buttons or causing power surges in the elevators’ mechanisms. Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore, it is okay to heal on the Sabbath. It is okay to work at getting food, so as not to go hungry, on the Sabbath. Finally, it is okay to have special days or to treat every day the same, so long as the glory and honor go to God.

HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER. Ancient Israel had specific laws about how you were to honor your parents. So long as your treatment towards them complied with the laws, you were okay. Modern Jews continue to pay general homage to the need to honor parents, and comply with religious guidelines on how to do so. Jesus said we have to honor our parents with our hearts and spirits, as well as our mere compliance. Corban meant you could give money to the Church (Temple) that should have gone to your parents. Jesus says you must not use the Church as an excuse not to care for your parents. Jesus also says that parents must not drive their children to anger through harsh treatment.

YOU SHALL NOT MURDER. Ancient and modern Jewish practice would take this literally. You should not kill people. Jesus said that to angrily denounce someone is a murderous act. He said we are to love our enemies.

YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. Ancient and modern Jews would take this literally–you must not have sex with somebody other than your spouse. Jesus said that to even lust after another woman is adultery.

YOU SHALL NOT STEAL. Ancient and modern Jews would take this to mean that we must not take what is not ours. Jesus said that we must obey our bosses–even when they are unreasonable. Otherwise, we “steal” what belongs to them.

YOU SHALL NOT GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR. Ancient and modern Jews said that it is wrong to lie with the purpose of hurting a neighbor. But, they tolerated promises that were sometimes less than fully honest. Jesus said, “Let your yes be yes, and your no no.”

YOU SHALL NOT COVET. Ancient and modern Jews say it is wrong to try to get what belongs to your neighbor. Jesus said we should not worry about money or “the cares of this world.” Paul said we are to be content whether we are wealthy or poor.

Transition: Compliance with these Commandments seems all but impossible. How can we obey them?

The power source that allows Christians to obey the 10 Commandments is the Holy Spirit. Not by might nor by power but by my Spirit says the Lord. (Zecharia 4:6). Jesus also promised that we shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon us. (Acts 1:8)

Jesus says we are to be perfect even as he is perfect. (Matthew 5:48). We do this by love. We are to love God and our neighbor. We accomplish this by power from the Holy Spirit. Galations 5:22-23 list several characteristics–or fruits–of the Holy Spirit. The first of these is love. Some commentators have even suggested that love is the fruit, and all the other characteristics are aspects of love.

We conclude by noting that Jesus did do away with some of the superficial, man-made customs surrounding the 10 Commandments. However, he strongly endorsed the spirit of the Commandments–even raising the standards his disciples were to obey. Nevertheless, it is possible to live in obedience to the Commandments–If the Spirit of God empowers you! Do you love God? Jesus says that if you do you will obey his commands (John 14:23).

[Prend1]

Good post! Thx for the reminder

[Guest Syble]

My answer to your question is NO. We do not live the law more. We live a spiritual law which is higher than the 10 commandments which are physical.

The higher laws were laws which actually lived so much higher than the lower laws that the people were freed from them. These scriptures teach about this process better than I can describe. If you want a really good insight to this process read all of them in their entire context.

Rom. 3: 19

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Rom. 6: 14

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Rom. 6: 15

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Rom. 7: 14

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

1 Cor. 6: 12

12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Gal. 3: 10

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Gal. 3: 23

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Gal. 4: 4

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Gal. 4: 5

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Gal. 4: 21

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Gal. 5: 18

18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

1 Tim. 1: 7

7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

Heb. 7: 11

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Heb. 10: 28

28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Mosiah 3: 15

15 And many signs, and wonders, and atypes, and shadows showed he unto them, concerning his coming; and also holy prophets spake unto them concerning his coming; and yet they hardened their hearts, and understood not that the law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his blood.

Mosiah 13: 32

32 And now, did they understand the law? I say unto you, Nay, they did not all understand the law; and this because of the hardness of their hearts; for they understood not that there could not any man be saved except it were through the redemption of God.

Alma 10: 26

26 For behold, have I testified against your law? Ye do not understand; ye say that I have spoken against your law; but I have not, but I have spoken in favor of your law, to your condemnation.

3 Ne. 1: 24

24 And there were no contentions, save it were a few that began to preach, endeavoring to prove by the scriptures that it was no more expedient to observe the law of Moses. Now in this thing they did err, having not understood the scriptures.

3 Ne. 12: 46

46 Therefore those things which were of old time, which were under the law, in me are all fulfilled.

3 Ne. 15: 2

2 And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new.

Morm. 9: 3

3 Then will ye longer deny the Christ, or can ye behold the Lamb of God? Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a consciousness of your guilt? Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws?

[prisonchaplain]

My answer to your question is NO. We do not live the law more. We live a spiritual law which is higher than the 10 commandments which are physical.

The higher laws were laws which actually lived so much higher than the lower laws that the people were freed from them. These scriptures teach about this process better than I can describe. If you want a really good insight to this process read all of them in their entire context.

Although you answered "NO," we actually agree. But rather than simply responding negatively, are you not ultimately saying, "By obeying the higher laws of Christ, we fulfill the law and the prophets."

[Guest Syble]

<div class='quotemain'>

My answer to your question is NO. We do not live the law more. We live a spiritual law which is higher than the 10 commandments which are physical.

The higher laws were laws which actually lived so much higher than the lower laws that the people were freed from them. These scriptures teach about this process better than I can describe. If you want a really good insight to this process read all of them in their entire context.

Although you answered "NO," we actually agree. But rather than simply responding negatively, are you not ultimately saying, "By obeying the higher laws of Christ, we fulfill the law and the prophets."

The word 'fulfill' is the key here. This is a different concept than simply being obeyed. So, though it may appear that we are on the same page, we really are not, until you concede this point.

[prisonchaplain]

Prisonchaplain says: Although you answered "NO," we actually agree. But rather than simply responding negatively, are you not ultimately saying, "By obeying the higher laws of Christ, we fulfill the law and the prophets."

Syble responds: The word 'fulfill' is the key here. This is a different concept than simply being obeyed. So, though it may appear that we are on the same page, we really are not, until you concede this point.

I'll concede the point, IF, you'll concede that the "Law and the Prophets" is both ALREADY FULFILLED by Christ, and that it is BEING FULFILLED as we obey Christ's 'higher laws' (i.e. Matthew 22:37-40, 1 Corinthians 13).

Bargaining and compromise can be enlightening and refining.

[Ray]

Perhaps some will find this enlightening: LAW OF MOSES

[Guest Syble]

<div class='quotemain'>

Prisonchaplain says: Although you answered "NO," we actually agree. But rather than simply responding negatively, are you not ultimately saying, "By obeying the higher laws of Christ, we fulfill the law and the prophets."

Syble responds: The word 'fulfill' is the key here. This is a different concept than simply being obeyed. So, though it may appear that we are on the same page, we really are not, until you concede this point.

I'll concede the point, IF, you'll concede that the "Law and the Prophets" is both ALREADY FULFILLED by Christ, and that it is BEING FULFILLED as we obey Christ's 'higher laws' (i.e. Matthew 22:37-40, 1 Corinthians 13).

Bargaining and compromise can be enlightening and refining.

ABSOLUTELY!

[Aristotle]

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS CASES

On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States decided two critically important cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments. Both cases were decided by a deeply divided court with votes of 5-4. In the Texas case (Van Orden v. Perry) the Justices upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles displayed outside the state capitol some 40 years ago. In the Kentucky case (McCreary County v. ACLU) the high court concluded that posting the Commandments inside a courthouse was unconstitutional.

Justice Stephen Breyer played a pivotal role in both cases. He voted against the display in Kentucky and cast the deciding vote in the Texas case which will keep thousands of monuments in place across America. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion which was vital in keeping the Fraternal Order of Eagles Ten Commandments monument constitutional. The Supreme Court may have tests for religion cases, but, in reality, it interprets the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise clause on a case by case basis, and does not always follow case law. Therefore, it often appears to contradict itself. In Van Orden, the display of the Ten Commandments on the state capitol is constitutional, but in McCreary, the portrait of the Ten Commandments inside the courthouse is unconstitutional. The words and the message appear to be identical. How is it possible the Supreme Court found one legal and one illegal?

This contradiction is the irony Justice Antonin Scalia discusses in his McCreary dissent. He feels the Supreme Court, and the United States Government, moreover, should follow its own precedent and historical traditions. Rightfully so, Justice Scalia thinks the current Supreme Court jurisprudence, with respect to religious cases, is inconsistent with the intentions of the America Constitution. Justice Scalia wonders how the Thanksgiving Proclamation, IN GOD WE TRUST, One Nation Under God, the inaugural prayer, and prayers to open legislative sessions are upheld and acceptable, yet the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courtroom are unconstitutional.

From Justice John Paul Stevens:

“Though this Court has subscribed to the view that the Ten Commandments influenced the development of Western legal thought, it has not officially endorsed the far more specific claim that the Ten Commandments played a significant role in the development of our Nation’s foundational documents (and the subsidiary implication that it has special relevance to Texas). Although it is perhaps an overstatement to characterize this latter proposition as ‘idiotic,’ see Tr. of Oral Arg. 34, as one Member of the plurality has done, at the very least the question is a matter of intense scholarly debate. Compare Brief for Legal Historians and Law Scholars as Amicus Curiae in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., O. T. 2004, No. 03-1963, with Brief for the American Center for Law and Justice as Amici Curiae. Whatever the historical accuracy of the proposition, the District Court categorically rejected respondent’s suggestion that the State’s actual purpose in displaying the Decalogue was to signify its influence on secular law and Texas institutions. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-32.”

From Justice Stephen Breyer:

“One must refer instead to the basic purpose of those [Religious] Clauses. They seek too ‘assure the fullest possible scope of religious liberty and tolerance for all’. They seek to maintain that ‘separation of church and state’ that has long been critical to the ‘peaceful dominion that religion exercises in this country,’ where the ‘sprit of religion’ and the ‘spirit of freedom’ are productively ‘united,’ ‘reign[ing] together’ but in separate spheres ‘on the same soil.’”

“Government must ‘neither engage in nor compel religious practices,’ that it must ‘effect no favoritism among sects or between religion and nonreligion,’ and that it must ‘work deterrence of no religious belief,’”

“The government must avoid excessive interference with, or promotion of, religion.”

“But the Establishment Clause does not compel the government to purge from the public sphere all that in any way partakes of the religious. Such absolutism is not only inconsistent with our national traditions, but would also tend to promote the kind of social conflict the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.”

“Neither can this Court’s other tests readily explain the Establishment Clause’s tolerance, for example, of the prayers that open legislative meetings; certain references to, and invocations of, the Deity in the public words of public officials; the public references to God on coins, decrees, and buildings; or the attention paid to the religious objectives of certain holidays, including Thanksgiving.”

“If the relation between government and religion is one of separation, but not of mutual hostility and suspicion, one will inevitably find difficult borderline cases. And in such cases, I see no test-related substitute for the exercise of legal judgment.”

“While the Court’s prior tests provide useful guideposts – and might well lead to the same result the Court reaches today—no exact formula can dictate a resolution to such fact – intensive cases.”

“The case before us is a borderline case.”

“In certain contexts, a display of the tablets of the Ten Commandments can convey not simply a religious message but also a secular message (about proper standards of social conduct). And in certain contexts, a display of the tablets can also convey a historical message (about a historic relation between those standards and the law).”

“Here the tablets have been used as part of a display that communicates not simply a religious message, but a secular message as well. The circumstances surrounding the display’s placement on the capitol grounds and its physical setting suggest that the State itself intended the latter, nonreligious aspects of the tablets’ message to predominate.”

“The group that donated the monument, the Fraternal Order of Eagles, a private civic (and primarily secular organization), while interested in the religious aspect of the Ten Commandments, sought to highlight the Commandments’ role in shaping civic morality as part of that organization’s efforts to combat juvenile delinquency.”

“The tablets, as displayed on the monument, prominently acknowledge that the Eagles donated the display, a factor which, though not sufficient, thereby further distances the State itself from the religious aspect of the Commandments’ message.”

“It (together with the display’s inscription about its origin) communicates to visitors that the state sought to reflect moral principles, illustrating a relation between ethics and law that the State’s citizens, historically speaking, have endorsed.”

“As far as I can tell, 40 years passed in which the presence of this monument, legally speaking, went unchallenged.”

“Those 40 years suggest that the public visiting the capitol grounds has considered the religious aspect of the tablets’ message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage.”

“For these reasons, I believe that the Texas – display serving a mixed but primarily non-religious purpose, not primarily ‘advanc[ing] or ‘inhibit[ing] religion’ and not creating an ‘excessive government entanglement with religion’—might satisfy this Court’s more formal Establishment Clause tests.”

“At the same time, to reach a contrary conclusion here, based primarily upon the religious nature of the tablets’ text would, I fear, lead the law to exhibit a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions. Such a holding might well encourage disputes concerning the removal of longstanding depictions of the Ten Commandments from public buildings across the Nation. And it could thereby create the very kind of religiously based divisiveness that the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.”

From Justice Antonin Scalia:

"On September 11, 2001 I was attending in Rome, Italy an international conference of judges and lawyers, principally from Europe and the United States. That night and the next morning virtually all of the participants watched, in their hotel rooms, the address to the Nation by the President of the United States concerning the murderous attacks upon the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, in which thousands of Americans had been killed. The address ended, as Presidential addresses often do, with the prayer ‘God bless America.’ The next afternoon I was approached by one of the judges from a European country, who, after extending his profound condolences for my country's loss, sadly observed ‘How I wish that the Head of State of my country, at a similar time of national tragedy and distress, could conclude his address ‘God Bless _____.’ It is of course absolutely forbidden.’"

“A model spread across Europe by the armies of Napoleon, and reflected in the Constitution of France, which begins “France is [a]…secular…Republic.” Religion is to be strictly excluded from the public forum. This is not, and never was, the model adopted by America. George Washington added to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art, II sec. 1, cl. 8 of the Constitution, the concluding words ‘so help me God.’”

“Nor have the views of our people on this matter significantly changed. Presidents continue to conclude the Presidential oath with the words ‘so help me God.’ Our legislatures, state and national, continue to open their sessions with prayer led by official chaplains. The sessions of this court continue to open with the prayer God Save the United States and this Honorable Court. Invocation of the Almighty by our public figures, at all levels of government remains commonplace. Our coinage bears the motto IN GOD WE TRUST and our Pledge of Allegiance contains the acknowledgment that we are a Nation Under God. As one of our Supreme Court opinions rightly observed, We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being:”

“The same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate.”

“Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality.”

“[W]ith all of this reality (and much more) staring it in the face, how can the Court possibly assert that ‘the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and non religion.’”

“Today’s opinion forthrightly (or actually, somewhat less than forthrightly) admits that it does not rest upon consistently applied principle.”

“If religion in the public forum had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. If the opinions of the Supreme Court were consistent in its neutrality between religion and non religion, One cannot say the word ‘God,’ or ‘the Almighty,’ one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs.”

“As bad as the Lemon test is, it is worse for the fact that, since its inception, its seemingly simple mandates have been manipulated to fit whatever result the Court aimed to achieve.”

American Center for Law and Justice

Washington D.C.

[Guest Syble]

The principle underlying the separation of church and state is this: That no church become the governing power and no governement rules over the churches.

It never did advocate or intend advocating the elimination of all things Godly or moral from the podiums of our government.

The issue which bothers me now adays is this: The proposal of eliminating the tax-free status of churches. Does this begin an era where churches are supporting a governement? Does this not cut at the very grass roots of the doctored and manipulated view created by the non-religious groups of separation of church and statem meaning the elimination of God in all things governmentally occupied?

[Aristotle]

In the future, it may be necessary for our Church to withdraw its 501©(3) tax exempt status, since we are one of the few churches that does not advocate gay rights.

In my opinion, I support the American Center For Law & Justice in their position to keep The Ten Commandments displayed in public buildings, especially on courtroom walls. Its principles unite us and remind us that we are not barbarians.

[Guest Syble]

In the future, it may be necessary for our Church to withdraw its 501©(3) tax exempt status, since we are one of the few churches that does not advocate gay rights.

In my opinion, I support the American Center For Law & Justice in their position to keep The Ten Commandments displayed in public buildings, especially on courtroom walls. Its principles unite us and remind us that we are not barbarians.

I pay into their fund as well. They are doing a great job.

[Sugarbay]

It really boils down to "who's country tis of thee" anyway?

B)

[prisonchaplain]

In the future, it may be necessary for our Church to withdraw its 501©(3) tax exempt status, since we are one of the few churches that does not advocate gay rights.

Sorry, but I beg to differ with you here. The LDS' 12 million is nothing for politicians to ignore, but the Southern Baptist Convention's 17 million, the Assemblies of God's 3 million, and indeed the National Association of Evangelical's nearly six million...and I could go on, make up a much larger chunck of American Christianity than you suppose. The LDS is hardly alone on this issue. On the other hand, Aristotle, you seem to be one of the ones most willing at this site to align yourself with organizations like the ACLJ, which is predominantly evangelical. Kudos to you.

[Aristotle]

Sorry, but I beg to differ with you here. The LDS' 12 million is nothing for politicians to ignore, but the Southern Baptist Convention's 17 million, the Assemblies of God's 3 million, and indeed the National Association of Evangelical's nearly six million...and I could go on, make up a much larger chunck of American Christianity than you suppose. The LDS is hardly alone on this issue. On the other hand, Aristotle, you seem to be one of the ones most willing at this site to align yourself with organizations like the ACLJ, which is predominantly evangelical. Kudos to you.

That is good news, indeed! Thanks for sharing that information. And yes, check out my Belief-o-matic 2006 score. LOL

[prisonchaplain]

The issue which bothers me now adays is this: The proposal of eliminating the tax-free status of churches. Does this begin an era where churches are supporting a governement? Does this not cut at the very grass roots of the doctored and manipulated view created by the non-religious groups of separation of church and statem meaning the elimination of God in all things governmentally occupied?

At the age of about 16 I wrote a high school editorial OPPOSING the IRS' threat to withdraw tax-exempt status from Bob Jones University. The government said that BJU's rule against interracial dating was in opposition to policy, and so the IRS could pull the tax-exemption.

Now, I found the BJU policy repulsive. If you doubt that, consider that about fifteen years later I married a Korean national. Nevertheless, the idea that the government could distinguish religion as good or bad (tax exempt or not) was even more repulsive to me. Few other voices came to BJU's defense. Next it was Grove City College. This Presbyterian school prided itself on its independence, refusing to take government grants, etc. The IRS demanded documentation that the school does not discriminate on the basis of sex. The school responded that since it does not accept government monies, and is a private, religious institution, it was not obligated to provide such documentation. The government responded, that since its students used government-back loans and grants, the school did indeed take "government money." So, Grove City had to choose between remaining independent, but only being accessible to the rich and upper middle class, or give up its independence.

I've not yet heard serious proposals to remove tax-exempt status from churches, based on social policy. However, the recent moves to deny churches the right to voice political positions concerns me. Additionally, there have been numerous letters to the editor and columns that suggest pulling the tax exemption.

We continue to fight the good fight, and to look forward to the ever-closer return of our Savior and Master, Jesus, the Christ. Hallelujah!

[Aristotle]

Interesting that you should mention Bob Jones University, prisonchaplain. When I homeschooled, I purchased materials from BJU. On my order, I was told by a fellow homeschooler to list myself as "Christian" instead of "Mormon"; otherwise, BJU would classify me as a non-Christian and refuse to sell me their materials!

[Traveler]

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS

HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS OBSERVE THEM?

All of the great religions that proclaim belief in one God submit to the 10 Commandments. Yet, how do we, as Christians, understand and obey these so-called Jewish commandments?

Please read Exodus 20:1-17

For the Christian, the 10 Commandments are more stringent, yet more achievable, than Jewish practice demanded. How is the Christian understanding of the 10 Commandments more stringent, and why can we more easily achieve them?

The third commandment reads: YOU SHALL NOT MISUSE THE NAME OF THE LORD YOUR GOD. Ancient Israel hesitated to use the name of God at all. This is why you so often see the terms “GOD” and “LORD” in the Bible, rather than YAHWEH. Today, the more conservative Jews even hesitate to use the title God. In their writings they write G-d instead. Jesus teaches that we can use the name of God–in power. He still insists that the name be revered however. Jesus says that in his name you shall heal the sick, cast out devils, and do works greater than he has done. Many shall say to Jesus, “Did we not do great works in your name?” And He will respond saying, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” Recall that the seven sons of Sceba used the name of Jesus to deliver a man from demons. Yet, they did not know Jesus. The demons left the man–but attacked those who would disrespect Jesus name by using it in ignorance.

The ideas of how someone uses the name of G-d has always been of great concern to me. Any time his name is used without respect and reverence it is done in both error and misunderstanding. But this has even greater meaning to me. I believe that this commandment also means that we should not take upon ourselves the name of G-d and then desecrate it with ung-dly behavior. Nor should we take upon ourselves his name and consider it lightly or deny where using his name leads. To take upon us the name of G-d is a covenant not unlike marriage and is the first step that man takes toward G-dhood. It is done only with the deepest respect and recognition that in truth G-d is our master and we are his apprentices.

The Traveler

[Guest Syble]

The ideas of how someone uses the name of G-d has always been of great concern to me. Any time his name is used without respect and reverence it is done in both error and misunderstanding. But this has even greater meaning to me. I believe that this commandment also means that we should not take upon ourselves the name of G-d and then desecrate it with ung-dly behavior. Nor should we take upon ourselves his name and consider it lightly or deny where using his name leads. To take upon us the name of G-d is a covenant not unlike marriage and is the first step that man takes toward G-dhood. It is done only with the deepest respect and recognition that in truth G-d is our master and we are his apprentices.

The Traveler

Here Here! I have written a paper on this very thing using many scriptures. I will have to find that thing and see if it sounds as good as I remember. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Interesting that you should mention Bob Jones University, prisonchaplain. When I homeschooled, I purchased materials from BJU. On my order, I was told by a fellow homeschooler to list myself as "Christian" instead of "Mormon"; otherwise, BJU would classify me as a non-Christian and refuse to sell me their materials!

That's okay, Aristotle. They probably would not sell them to Pentecostals either, since our tongues-speech is of the devil, in their not-so-humble opinion. As Bill Clinton once said, "I feel your pain."

[prisonchaplain]

The ideas of how someone uses the name of G-d has always been of great concern to me. Any time his name is used without respect and reverence it is done in both error and misunderstanding. But this has even greater meaning to me. I believe that this commandment also means that we should not take upon ourselves the name of G-d and then desecrate it with ung-dly behavior. Nor should we take upon ourselves his name and consider it lightly or deny where using his name leads. To take upon us the name of G-d is a covenant not unlike marriage and is the first step that man takes toward G-dhood. It is done only with the deepest respect and recognition that in truth G-d is our master and we are his apprentices.The Traveler

Perhaps the reason it has become so difficult to share the gospel is that the Lord's name or title is used so flippantly. Quite frankly, I'm less offended by a nonbeliever who utters the F-word than I am one who calls down a curse from God as a matter of emphasis, rather than true prayer.

This brings up a matter that might deserve another string, but I'll throw out the idea here. The Old Testament concept of prophet was such that few would be brave enough to apply. He was the one who spoke for God, usually to political leadership, and then to the people. His words carried the authority of "Thus saieth the Lord," and usually offered words of warning, judgement-to-come, and a last call for a wicked generation to turn from their ungodly ways.

Quite often these men were reluctant messengers. Consider Jonah. Also, who was it that said he tried not to speak, but the words burned within him? All this to say, that in an age in which God is love, and judgment is...well "judgmental," it would be no wonder if prophets in the near future end up jailed for their "intolerant utterances."

[Aristotle]

That's okay, Aristotle. They probably would not sell them to Pentecostals either, since our tongues-speech is of the devil, in their not-so-humble opinion. As Bill Clinton once said, "I feel your pain."

LOL... Amen, prisonchaplain!

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

The ideas of how someone uses the name of G-d has always been of great concern to me. Any time his name is used without respect and reverence it is done in both error and misunderstanding. But this has even greater meaning to me. I believe that this commandment also means that we should not take upon ourselves the name of G-d and then desecrate it with ung-dly behavior. Nor should we take upon ourselves his name and consider it lightly or deny where using his name leads. To take upon us the name of G-d is a covenant not unlike marriage and is the first step that man takes toward G-dhood. It is done only with the deepest respect and recognition that in truth G-d is our master and we are his apprentices.The Traveler

Perhaps the reason it has become so difficult to share the gospel is that the Lord's name or title is used so flippantly. Quite frankly, I'm less offended by a nonbeliever who utters the F-word than I am one who calls down a curse from God as a matter of emphasis, rather than true prayer.

This brings up a matter that might deserve another string, but I'll throw out the idea here. The Old Testament concept of prophet was such that few would be brave enough to apply. He was the one who spoke for God, usually to political leadership, and then to the people. His words carried the authority of "Thus saieth the Lord," and usually offered words of warning, judgement-to-come, and a last call for a wicked generation to turn from their ungodly ways.

Quite often these men were reluctant messengers. Consider Jonah. Also, who was it that said he tried not to speak, but the words burned within him? All this to say, that in an age in which God is love, and judgment is...well "judgmental," it would be no wonder if prophets in the near future end up jailed for their "intolerant utterances."

The LDS doctrine concerning your point is the doctrine of "Agency". Most LDS do not understand this doctrine but when we take upon ourself anothers name we do so as an empowered agent. We believe Peter was given this power when Jesus refered to "Power" to seal on earth what would be in heaven. The LDS doctrine also indicates that if we do not become an agent of the L-rd we will, by default, become an agent of the devil. Many LDS think of agency as any choice - like choosing to be a teacher or lawyer and they miss the main point.

The Traveler