The Ten Commandments is important in the absolute sense!

"The law was not spoken at this time exclusively for the benefit of the Hebrews. God honored them by making them the guardians and keepers of His law, but it was to be held as a sacred trust for the whole world. The precepts of the Decalogue are adapted to all mankind, and they were given for the instruction and government of all. Ten precepts, brief, comprehensive, and authoritative, cover the duty of man to God and to his fellow man; and all based upon the great fundamental principle of love." E.G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 305.

"The Decalogue was the charter of freedom which Yahweh had presented to his people delivered from Egypt. The people received it not as a burden, but as a gift, which was seen as a privilege and as an occasion for thanks." J.J. Storm, M.E. Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent Research, pp. 113-114.

So important did David see God's Law to be that he said:

"The proud have had me greatly in derision: yet have I not declined from thy law." Psalms 119:51.

"The bands of the wicked have robbed me: but I have not forgotten thy law." (Verse 61)

"The proud have forged a lie against me: but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart. Their heart is as fat as grease; but I delight in thy law. It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes. The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver." (Verses 69-72)

"Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold." (Verse 127)

Evangelicals have found themselves against the Law of God, they are thus anti-nomians. Read the following and see what the preach:

"Thirdly, Paul demonstrates the incompatibility of faith and law, faith and law appear as two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive principles." Ronald Y.K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (N.I.C.N.T.), pp. 145-146.

"Since law and grace are opposed to each other at every point, it is impossible for them to co-exist, either as the ground of acceptance before God or as the rule of life. Of necessity, therefore, the Scriptures of the New Testament which present the facts and scope of grace, both assume and directly teach that the law is done away. Consequently, it is not in force in the present age in any sense whatsoever. This present nullification of the law applies not only to legal code of the Mosaic system and the law of the kingdom, but to every possible application of the principle of law . . . That the law, in the widest three-fold meaning of the term, is now set aside, is revealed as a fundamental fact in the divine economy of grace. That law has now ceased even in its widest meaning, should be considered with unprejudiced attention . . . These actual written commandments, either of Moses or the kingdom, are not the rule of the believer is life under grace, anymore than these systems are the basis of his salvation." Lewis Sperry Chafer, Grace, pp. 215-216.

Antinomianism in the Evangelical world have even descended to unprecedented lowness, read this great Evangelical scholar:

"On the plan of salvation - history the coming of faith coincides with the appearance of Christ, in whom the parenthetic age of law was displaced by the age of faith . . . To be 'under law' is in practice to be 'under sin' - not because law and sin are identical, but because law, while forbidding sin, stimulates the very thing that it forbids." F.F. Bruce, Commentary On Galatians (N.I.G.T.C.), pp. 181-182.

Again another writer asserts: "The conclusion must be that the law itself as law, for the Christian, has been "abolished." No one can read II Corinthians and with an unprejudiced attitude and not see that the writer is discussing the very center of the law of God with its "tables of stone" (v. 3)." Alva J. McClain, Law and Grace, p. 46.

Even the Watchtower Society are antinomians, here is what they say: See: You Can Live Forever in Paradise Earth, pp. 205-206.

A new concept called "situation ethics" has arisen from anti-nomianism and is prevalent in the world today. What is situation - ethics?

"The position that every significant moral decision has to be taken in the light of the circumstances." . . . There can be no absolute invariable moral rules which govern all situations; even so brief a law as "Thou shalt not kill did not apply equally to murders, adulterers, war, sacrifices, or food. Circumstances alter cases, it is said, and from this it is an easy step to pronounce all moral codes out of date in a world come of age . . . Where love is, no other precepts are requisite, enshrines the theme of situation ethics . . . Jesus had no rules or system of values; revered principles, even the Ten Commandments, may be thrown aside if they conflict with love. . . There are no prescribed rules - only love." Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, pp. 1019-1020.

That situation ethics stems from anti-nomianism is seen:

". . . there are no norms whatsoever, at least no objective ones. That is, we are literally without law (anti - nomos) to guide meaningful ethical actions. . . Norman Geisler, Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, p. 28.

"Despite their dissimilarities, there is a basic agreement among the antinomian views discussed above. They are unanimous in their affirmation that ultimately what a man "ought" to do is individualistically and subjectively determined. There are no objective moral prescriptions universally binding on all men." Ibid., p. 43.

But where did anti-nomianism come from? Here is the answer; it came through the Reformation by a man named Johannes I. Agricola: See E.F. Kevan, The Grace of Law, p. 23.

Here is Agricola's teaching: ". . . Agricola renewed his assault, maintaining that repentance should be taught as produced, not by the law, but by the gospel. There is no need whatever, he held, for the preaching of the law. "The decalogue belongs to the hall of justice, not the pulpit." Reinhold Seeberg, The History of Doctrine, vol. 2, p. 251.

From Agricola others in the time of the Reformation took up his ideas and began to propagate it; this was from the 16th century. "At the Synod of Eisenach, Amsdorf had proposed the thesis: "Good works are, even in the forum of the law and in the abstract not necessary to salvation . . . Anton Otto advanced to cross Antinomianism, affirming that there is no "third use of the law;" that the new obedience belongs not to the kingdom of Christ but to the world, as to Moses and the supremacy of the Pope; that the Christian is "above all obedience." We should pray God that we may remain steadfast to our end in to our end in faith without any works. It was the old ideas of Agricola which were thus continually reappearing, although Luther had refused to countenance them." Ibid., p. 366.

But the Law of God is absolutely important for many things that relate to our salvation. Many things would collapse if the Law was indeed abolished. Even all realms of theology. See E.F. Kevon, The Grace of Law, pp. 21-22. These are the seven points of Systematic Theology: Proverbs 9:1.

a. The Godhead b. The Depravity of man c. Providential Grace/Merits d. Conviction e. Justification f. Sanctification g. Investigative Judgement.

Each points of Systematic Theology proves that the Law could not have been abolished, for if it were abolished then Systematic Theology would cease to exist.

a. The first point of the GODHEAD shows us that the Law exists. The Law is a transcript of God's Nature, if the Law has been abolished, then it would mean that God's Nature had to be abolished first, this would mean God ceasing to be God, but God does NOT change.

(I) God is Righteousness. Jer 12:1; Jer 23:6.

(ii) The Law is Righteousness thus reflecting God. Psalms 119:172.

(iii) Righteousness is forever. Isa 51:8.

(iv) God cannot change, thus the Law still exists. Mal 3:6.

b. The second point DEPRAVITY OF MAN shows that the Law exists. Man's depravity is his transgression of the Law; if the Law was abolished then man would no longer be depraved. (Rom 3:9-20; Rom 7:8).

c. The third point is PROVIDENTIAL GRACE/MERITS, this is the death of Christ the gift of His life to us, this life is obedience to the Law.

(I) Christ died for our sins. I Cor 15:3.

(ii) Sin is transgression of the Law. I Jn 3:4.

(iii) If the Law was abolished there would be no sin (thus Christ died for nothing). Rom 4:15.

(iv) Christ gave His life for sin. Matt 20:28.

(v) His life was in harmony or obedience to the Law. Jn 15:10.

(vi) If the Law was abolished Christ had nothing to give.

d. The fourth point is CONVICTION. God uses the Law to convict us of sin and of Righteousness. If the Law were abolished; that would mean no Law, no conviction at all, thus the Law exists. Rom 7:7,9,13; Rom 3:19,20.

e. The fifth point is JUSTIFICATION. This is making us Righteous; for Justification brings us into keeping God's Law. Now if the Law is abolished then Justification is non-effective and vain. Rom 3:28,31.

(f). The sixth point is SANCTIFICATION. This is walking in obedience to God's Law. If the Law is abolished then there is nothing for us to obey. (I Thes 4:3,4; I Jn 5:2,3).

(g). The seventh and final point is the INVESTIGATIVE JUDGEMENT. And it is the Law we are judged by, thus if no Law, then there is no ability to judge. Jam 2:8-12.

(I) In this Judgement, it is obedience to the Law that determines our reception of the final Justification (thus no Law, no passing in this Judgement). Rom 2:13,16.

Other points proving that the Law could not have been abolished. Those who do the Law enter into the new kingdom (no Law no entrance into the new holy city etc). Rev 22:14. The Law converts us when it is put in our hearts (no Law then would mean no conversion, nothing to put in us). (Ps 19:7; Heb 10:16). What sense is there in abolishing the Law and replacing it with Love when Love is still keeping the Law? Thus love proves the Law was not abolished. Rom 13:8-10; Deut 5:10; Deut 11:22.

The Elijah Messenger

siracus@idirect.com