What have you understood about the charcater of The Ten Commandments??

[from scratch]

Paul just means that the law is righteous, holy, and good-spiritual-as he tells us in rom 7. We're not saved by conscious observance of the law but we'll be judged by it nonetheless. The law tells us what righteousness is; it just can't effect it.

Please explain this in light of - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Since The Christian can't come into condemnation and has already passed into life, what judgment are you talking about. All who stand in the judgment will be condemned to death because they are going to be judged by the law.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Please explain this in light of - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Since The Christian can't come into condemnation and has already passed into life, what judgment are you talking about. All who stand in the judgment will be condemned to death because they are going to be judged by the law.

This is why the Law had to be done away with for the standard of righteousness since nobody could keep it ALL that were under it were condemned to death by it.

 

[fhansen]

Please explain this in light of - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Since The Christian can't come into condemnation and has already passed into life, what judgment are you talking about. All who stand in the judgment will be condemned to death because they are going to be judged by the law.

Faith without works is dead. Even demons believe. If you remain in Me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

.. The whole bible, in context.

 

[Elder 111]

Don't play this game on me, just because we do things that are equivalent to some of the 10 commandments doesn't mean we are indeed and in principal keeping them. It is when you are in a foreign country and based upon the laws of the country you came from at a 4 way stop you gave right of way. If you were in a country like England it may be Left of Way but in other countries they may have right of way also. Are you keeping their laws intentionally or the laws of your own country. In principle you are keeping the laws of your own country and it just happens their laws are the same.
Does this mean you are now a citizen of that foreign country because you incidentally kept one of its laws properly and now are obligated to keep all of them properly when you are back home in your own country? NO.
The Sabbath command is a foreign command to Christians and not of their country but of Israel.

Let's get particular. Thou should have no other god. We observe this idea of the law but we don't keep keep the law. Is that your point?
You are obsessed with the Sabbath. So the Sabbath originated with and from Israel?

 

[Elder 111]

As soon as some one says they keep the Ten Commandments or even the commandments of God you're going to work it to the Sabbath. So why can't we cut to the chase?

It is not that at all. The problem with the objections against the Ten Commandments is the Sabbath. So James was correct, offend in one, guilty of all. Rejection of the Sabbath has projected a rejection of the whole Ten Commandments. In principle can the Ten commandments be rejected? Everyone back peddles when there is a direct question relating to stealing etc. You can't steal but thou shall not steal does not exist. Folly!

 

[Elder 111]

I just voted for every option. Why? Because the wording was so ambiguous that every single one could be true in some way.

Youu don't know what you believe?

 

[Elder 111]

This actually goes against your argument here. When someone is talking about Christians both Jews (lawkeeping still) and Gentiles and relating to one group keeping the Law and the other not and both considered righteous then you have this formula:
Jews..........saved + law = righteous
Gentiles.....saved + nothing = righteous
we can see by logic that the law is NOTHING to righteousness when someone can be considered such without. Pauls arguments are for the Jew here who is still struggling hanging on to the Law to accept Gentiles who do not bother with it.

So God has two means of salvation?

 

[Elder 111]

This is why the Law had to be done away with for the standard of righteousness since nobody could keep it ALL that were under it were condemned to death by it.

If this is the case, the why did God give it?

 

[Frogster]

If this is the case, the why did God give it?

it says so right here, why the law was given, clear as day..


20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

 

[Frogster]

Rom 7:4 - For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

law is spiritual.

Rom 7:22 - For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

Inward man, delights in the law of God

What law of God?

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

The law which included Thou shalt not Covet, Ex 20.

Rom 8:4 - Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

R u subject 2 that law of God? Yes/no?

gee..yu quote rom 7, but leave out 7:5, sinful passions came by law, 7:8, SIN USED THE COMMAND, and 7:11, SIN USED THE LAW..


7:8, sin is dead APART...APART from the law.....

lol..the whole point of rom 7 was to show how the law made sin get real loud, not take it away..


oh, and you also left out 7:4, DIED TO LAW....

please, lets have posts that do not prooftext, thanks! frog.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Youu don't know what you believe?

I know what I believe. I just think the poll is really poorly worded, and you could fairly interpret (almost) every single option in a favorable, orthodox light.

 

[from scratch]

Faith without works is dead. Even demons believe. If you remain in Me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

.. The whole bible, in context.

You didn't respond about the verse I quoted nor did you answer the question.

 

[from scratch]

Let's get particular. Thou should have no other god. We observe this idea of the law but we don't keep keep the law. Is that your point?
You are obsessed with the Sabbath. So the Sabbath originated with and from Israel?

And so did the law.

 

[Frogster]

You didn't respond about the verse I quoted nor did you answer the question.

yep....

 

[from scratch]

It is not that at all. The problem with the objections against the Ten Commandments is the Sabbath. So James was correct, offend in one, guilty of all. Rejection of the Sabbath has projected a rejection of the whole Ten Commandments. In principle can the Ten commandments be rejected? Everyone back peddles when there is a direct question relating to stealing etc. You can't steal but thou shall not steal does not exist. Folly!

I know what you're saying and why you're saying it. I also know that you don't accept all the Bible as correct truth.

Please show me where I've back peddled.

 

[from scratch]

So God has two means of salvation?

No not at all.

 

[Sophrosyne]

So God has two means of salvation?

I wouldn't call being judged by the Law and found guilty and denied access to heaven salvation. The bible says that those whose standard of righteousness is the Law will be judged by that standard and those whose standard is Jesus and what he did including his sinless life and the cross will be judged AS if they were Jesus themselves and found righteous. I have a feeling that only a very few will be allowed in heaven via the Law as God may be merciful and let some by even though in reality they did fail to keep it. To take that chance against tremendous odds when you have a guaranteed way through Christ is foolish IMO.

 

[Sophrosyne]

If this is the case, the why did God give it?

It was a bandaid on the bleeding wound festering on mankind called sin until the doctor (Jesus) could make a way for us to be healed of it. In other words it was better than nothing as mankind had very few (Abraham) men that would faithfully follow him so the Law was created to force men to not do evil. People who had faith in God didn't need the Law in reality but because it was given to Israel as a nation they too had it forced upon them.

 

[fhansen]

It was a bandaid on the bleeding wound festering on mankind called sin until the doctor (Jesus) could make a way for us to be healed of it. In other words it was better than nothing as mankind had very few (Abraham) men that would faithfully follow him so the Law was created to force men to not do evil. People who had faith in God didn't need the Law in reality but because it was given to Israel as a nation they too had it forced upon them.

Scripture, along with historical Christian teaching, maintains that the law was actually given as a teacher, a dramatic demonstration of mans inability to keep the law/refrain from sin-until a new and better covenant came along.

 

[Rev Randy]

Scripture, along with historical Christian teaching, maintains that the law was actually given as a teacher, a dramatic demonstration of mans inability to keep the law/refrain from sin-until a new and better covenant came along.

I note that was not a choice in the rather bazaar list of options in the poll. Albeit it's the one I would have chosen.