Are we are under the commands of the first 5 books

[good samaritan]

Acts 15:5
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Acts 15:10
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

The plainly written word

[good samaritan]

You are at liberty to legalistically keep the law and there are even benefits for the law is righteous. At the same time it is not commanded for the disciples of Christ. We are to follow the teachings of Christ and his apostles and understand that Christ fulfilled the whole law.

Sin exist outside of the law:

Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Sin existed before the law.

The law of Moses identified sin in practical application of the era in which it was given. Note, that a large % of Moses laws where in relation to agriculture. That is something that may not even relate to many people today but the principle contained our spiritual.

1 Corinthians 9:9-10
9......For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10......Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

We have the law in our hearts. It isn’t a carbon copy of the Decalogue, but it is the Spirit of God and his righteousness.

Romans 2:14-15
14......For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15......Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Do you really think that Paul was saying that by nature, gentile believers where observing as Saturday Sabbath? Yet Paul said they do by nature the things contained in the law.

Romans 8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Acts 15:5
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Acts 15:10
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

The plainly written word

If this means we can forgo the Fourth Commandment then it means we can forgo any and all commandments.

Your refusal to see that is telling.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Sin exist outside of the law:

Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

WHOSOEVER commits sin transgresses also the law, because sin IS the transgression of the law.

Sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Thus, according to you, since the law is done away with, there is no such thing as sin anymore. Congratulations, you are now a universalist.

[Esaias]

Gill:
but sin is not imputed when there is no law. This looks like an objection, that if there was no law before Moses's time, then there was no sin, nor could any action of man be known or accounted by them as sinful, or be imputed to them to condemnation; or rather it is a concession, allowing that where there is no law, sin is not imputed; but there was a law before that law of Moses, which law was transgressed, and the sin or transgression of it was imputed to men to condemnation and death, as appears from what follows.

(end of quote)

Therefore, it is obvious that God's law has been around from the beginning. This law was the law that people transgressed prior to Sinai, it is this law which was encoded as a Covenant at Sinai, and it is this law which is written in the hearts and minds of all genuine New Covenant believers.

Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
(Rom 4:15)

The antinomian proclaims the law has been done away with. Well then, there is no transgression possible anymore, nobody COULD sin even if they wanted to, because whatever action they engage in, it would not be accounted as SIN (which is transgression of the law). Thus antinomianism leads logically and inexorably towards universalism.

"But I am no universalist!" exclaims the antinomian. Well, just because you are completely inconsistent with your own doctrines does not make you right. (Are you kidding me? If anything it shows the antinomian hasn't a clue what they are talking about.)

The law of God was written on tables of stone but is now written in the heart of genuine Christians. Thus, genuine Christians seek to obey all that God desires for them, and is not running around seeking which commandment they may break.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

WHOSOEVER commits sin transgresses also the law, because sin IS the transgression of the law.

Sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Thus, according to you, since the law is done away with, there is no such thing as sin anymore. Congratulations, you are now a universalist.

1 John 3:23
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

Context is key!!!

You are getting covenants mixed up. As I have already said the law of God is not a carbon copy of the mosaic law. John sums it for us and it the law of the land for the child of God believe and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ and love one another.

[Esaias]

The two Greatest Commandments are Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18:

And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
(Deu 6:5)

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
(Lev 19:18)

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
(Mat 22:35-40)

All the revealed Word of God, all of God's instruction to us, what theonomists call "God's Law", is based upon those two commandments. All of God's moral demands upon mankind are expressions in various circumstances of those two commands, to love God supremely and your neighbour as yourself.

This rules out selfishness. Sin is at its core selfishness, it is a refusal to love God supremely and to love one's neighbour as oneself. God's entire moral law can be summed up as "Love God with all you've got and love your neighbour as yourself." Since sin is transgression of the law, it necessarily follows that sin is selfishness and self centeredness. It is to love oneself above one's neighbour and above God. It is manifested by seeking one's own interests at the expense of God and others.

Many people think that because "love" is the greatest commandment, and that because "love is the fulfilling of the law", they may "love" God and others while dispensing with God's commandments. But this of course is nonsense. And in fact they themselves don't believe it. They themselves prove the lie, because they readily admit that for example loving your neighbour implies not stealing their property, or murdering them, or coveting their stuff. So they accept that the various commands of God are simply the ways to fulfill the command to love God and your neighbour, depending on the context and situation. Or to put it another way, the various commandments of God are simply expressions of HOW to love God and your neighbour in various situations and relations.

But as soon as one of those commandments interferes with their own personal wants and supposed interests, all of a sudden they find every possible way to NOT obey the command. As long as loving God and their neighbour is fulfilled in a way suitable to their own perceived self interests, all is well. But when the command requires them to deny themselves and take up their cross as it were, lo and behold "loving God and your neighbour" becomes some kind of SUBSTITUTE for the Divine instruction! How strange that loving God and one's neighbour is to be carried out by refusing to love God and one's neighbour in the context and in the manner deemed expedient by God!

So the antinomian exclaims "Oh! But I DO obey God! See here and here and there and there!" But do they really? No, they simply happen to obey God when it is convenient and when God's will just happens to align with their own. But as soon as God's will and their own depart, who do they follow? Their own will. So any obedience on their part is simply a matter of "coincidence".

[Esaias]

There is no stated abrogation or repeal of the Fourth commandment or of the Decalogue, in fact NT Scripture teaches the perpetuity and continuity of the Decalogue into the new covenant era. There is no stated "new law" whereby it is made clear that God's law has been repealed and a new law has been instituted. The NT Scriptures never make a claim about themselves that the reconstructionists/new law proponents make. "Love" is too generic a term that requires definition in terms of righteous behaviour, otherwise one could love while stealing their neighbour's stuff.
The standard of righteousness cannot be defined by some nebulous personal opinion as to what "common sense" would affirm. This is essentially a rationalisation for lawlessness while trying to avoid charges of antinomianism.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

1 John 3:23
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

Context is key!!!

Yes, context is key. So what is the context?

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
(1Jn 3:1-10)

Clearly, the "whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law" is NOT "whosoever doesn't love his brother transgresses the law of loving your brother without there being any reference to any other commandments". Rather, the CONTEXT is in fact SIN, as a general term, applying to the transgressing of any commandment of God. The verse you cited is part of the NEXT CONTEXT. Verse 10 provides the segue as it introduces the idea of loving one's brother (which by the way is out of Leviticus).

And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
(1Jn 3:22-24)

And that is the immediate context of the verse you provided. Here we see first of all that those who dwell in God through Christ keep His commandments (plural) and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. This is pretty much the same thing that Jesus said:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
(Mat 7:21-23)

That word "iniquity" is anomos, and means "lawlessness". Those who practice lawlessness are those to whom He will say "depart from me". Lawlessness is a term that refers to transgressions of the law of God. (Jesus wasn't talking about those who violate some civil law, but the Divine Law.) Lawlessness is contrasted with doing the will of God. The law reveals the will of God in regards to human behaviour. Those who do the will of God are those who do what is pleasing in His sight, those who keep His commandments. Their supposed spirituality doesn't matter, supernatural or ecstatic happenings aren't going to cut it if they are DISOBEDIENT TO GOD'S COMMANDMENTS.

We see second of all that there is a distinction between commandments (plural) and commandment (singular). There is not just one singular commandment, that we are to believe in Jesus and love one another AS IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMANDMENTS. If you take that verse to mean "see? we don't have to keep the fourth commandment because all we have to do is believe in Jesus and love one another" then your position allows for sodomites to continue being sodomites as long as they "believe in Jesus and love one another".

You are getting covenants mixed up. As I have already said the law of God is not a carbon copy of the mosaic law. John sums it for us and it the law of the land for the child of God believe and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ and love one another.

I am not getting covenants mixed up. I am pointing out that the new covenant involves the writing of God's laws into the minds and hearts of His people so that they do in fact obey Him. The old covenant did not and could not do that. You keep saying there is some other set of laws which are written in the heart, but have provided no evidence of that. Nowhere does the Bible say or teach or even imply that God has two sets of laws - one for Jews under the old covenant, and another set for gentiles under the new covenant. You keep saying it but never show it.

I just demonstrated ONCE AGAIN that your supposed proofs of this new legislation do not and in fact cannot be saying what you say they mean. I already demonstrated how loving God and loving your neighbour ARE DEFINED BY THE VARIOUS COMMANDMENTS OF GOD. Love is NOT A REPLACEMENT of those commandments. And in fact YOU AGREED TO WHAT I SAID!!!! (How soon you forget...) But then you turn around and pretend it never happened and JUST LIKE I SAID ON THE OTHER THREAD you circle around back to your revolving door of already refuted claims as if they were never addressed or dealt with.

This is why my posts in response to your statements aren't really directed toward you (although I hope and pray you would read them and consider and finally understand). Rather, my posts are for those reading this discussion.

[Esaias]

And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
(Act 17:10-12)

What scriptures did they search, to verify Paul's doctrine was in fact correct?

Obviously, what we call "the old testament", since that was the only scripture available to them and which they would have recognized as authoritative.

So, this indicates that Paul's Christian doctrine can be supported by the old testament. With that in mind, can anyone find the old testament scriptures which support the idea that the fourth commandment had been abrogated, done away with, or repealed?

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
(2Ti 3:15-17)

Obviously, the scripture being referred to here is once again what we call the "old testament". So, here the old testament is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be PERFECT and thoroughly equipped unto all good works. With that in mind, can anyone show from the old testament Scriptures the teaching (doctrine) that under the new covenant there is no more fourth commandment, that those obeying the fourth commandment need to be reproved and corrected (from those same scriptures), and instructed in righteousness to the point of abandoning and not obeying the fourth commandment?