Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sorry, no I didn't miss your question.. I am still working on you answering the Lords.
You still have not answered the Lord's question... which the rich man was able to do to get to the second part which you are focused on.
Byfaithalone1 said:Must I sell everything I have in order to obtain or maintain salvation?
So while this answer is the correct and standard answer, which I have no argument. If it wasn't for the fact that the young rich man had at least a faith that he was to keep the commandments, he could not have been convicted that his possessions were his stumbling block, his idol. You have to believe that the commandments are the foundation, or you can not build the spiritual house that the Lord is wanting you to be.The rich man said that he had kept the commandments since he was a boy. Jesus told him to sell what he had and give to the poor in order to demonstrate that the was not, in fact, keeping the commandments. He was in violation of the First Commandment because his posessions were more important to him than God. His sorrowful reaction to Jesus' instructions were proof of this. His posessions had become a stumbling block to him, and anything in our lives that comes between us and God, then it has become an idol, and we are to get rid of. If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out.
That depends. Do you trust in what you own more than you trust in God?
AmenVisionary has presented a very sound argument here. Soldier of the King has unpacked the context nicely.
Jesus was trying to prove to the young ruler that he was not obedient to the law as he claimed, by challenging him to sell his stuff. When the young ruler failed to do so he showed himself to be in violation of the first commandment by making his wealth his god.
If the young ruler really loved God, he would not mind selling his wealth.
This brings us back to my Roman example set by Paul and that is faith and love will drive us to keep the law not to ignore it as BFA argue. No man can claim to love God when he does not keep the law.
"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1Jn 2:4
"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we
stablish the law." Rom 3:31
This brings us back to my Roman example set by Paul and that is faith and love will drive us to keep the law not to ignore it as BFA argue. No man can claim to love God when he does not keep the law.
Number 1A rather low blow, DND. The issue is not ignoring the law. The issue is understanding why the law was added, who it was for and what it was intended to do.
"The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come." Galatians 4I am reminded of the following:
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." 1 John 1:8Clearly, no man can claim that he keeps the law. In the very passage we are discussing (Luke 18), why does Christ indicate that there is only One who is good?
If we are to view Jesus' comments to the rich young ruler as applying to all men, then all of us must sell everything we have. Have you done that?
I noticed that you view Visionary as being capable of producing something immaculate. Is any human capable of producing something that is immaculate? Is the law established through faith in divine obedience or through human obedience?
BFA
Not every man has the same sin issue as the rich young man so we will each be called to understand our own particular weakness and God's solution.
You need to understand what has been added... "430 years ago" was the Laws of Moses, those that were written on parchment.
You can not have eternal life built on a law "430 years ago" therefore the law that is in relationship to eternal life is an eternal law.
Isaiah 24:5
The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
It can nnot be everlasting righteousness unless it is an eternal law.. way before the "430 years ago" law of Moses.
were not the Jews tested before the Law was given on tables of stone?Why then do you believe that Luke 10 supports your conclusion that the ten commandments have been given to Gentiles?
you knoe the answer to that.. what the real question is.. are they not the eternal law?When were the letters engraved on stones given to men?
No, I am not ignoring it, because we all know only one who is good. What you are failing to mention how can He be declared good.. because He did a good job of keeping the commandments. that goodAgain, you ignore the context of Luke 10. Only One is good.
you do realise you are talking to a Messianic who keeps the feasts, and expects to keep the feasts for all eternity.. as appointed times the Lord has set aside for memorials. Some of which are yet to be fulfilled. Just as the spring feasts were fulfilled with His first coming, so also will the fall feasts be fulfilled with His second coming.Please review the ordinances that are listed in Leviticus 23 as "lasting" (specifically see Verses 14, 21, 31 and 41). In light of your perspective on "everlasting," do you also observe (and insist that others must observe) the Feast of Firstfruits, the Feast of Weeks, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles?
about what?/So you find Paul to be in error?
shabbat shalom
were not the Jews tested before the Law was given on tables of stone?
what the real question is.. are they not the eternal law?
No, I am not ignoring it, because we all know only one who is good.
What you are failing to mention how can He be declared good.. because He did a good job of keeping the commandments.
that good you do realise you are talking to a Messianic who keeps the feasts, and expects to keep the feasts for all eternity..
Sin is defined by the law... can't sin until there is a broken law.Because the Spirit convicts men regarding sin and righteousness and judgment, sin exists in the absence of law. It existed before the law was added. It exists since the Seed came.
again.. you are pointing out the law of moses. Now we will have to wait until we see the Lord in Heaven to ask Him how long as He been keeping the sabbath.No, the law is not eternal. Galatians 3-5 is quite clear on this point. Romans 7 is as well. To suggest that something is eternal, we must conclude that it had no beginning. One would be hard pressed to argue that convocations such as the weekly sabbath and the feasts had no beginning.
Good. Then you know that you don't earn eternal life by keeping the commandments.[/quotes] that has never been the question. Commandments are the kept because of the love for God and His Kingdom and obedience to His Will, and salvation is only offered through Yeshua.Salvation is not earned, but a gift. Keeping the Commandments is only something that God puts in the in the hearts of His followers to do, showing who is King and whose kingdom they belong to.He did. I did not. That's why I need a Savior. That's why salvation is a free gift and not one that I earn by keeping the commandments. Luke 10 (among many other passages) confirms that this is true.acknowledging that it is true that no one can keep the law without Christ it truth. but at the same time, you should also acknowledge that by the Holy Spirit it is possible.I question whether anyone truly keeps the law. After all, any man who claims that he does not sin has no truth in him. Further, any man who stumbles in the least point of the law is guilty in breaking all of it.I am also an x-sda an thus as a "former" and have extensive knowledge of SDA positions... "former" which is where we are discussing this.. and the part "feasts" that you do not want to discuss is the part you brought up.With that said, we are both posting in a forum that relates to SDA issues. I trust that we will be able to frame our discussion within the context of SDAism. There are other forums in which Messianic issues can be discussed.
BFA
JonMiller
Yes you're right in saying BFA has some abnormal views on the Law. However it goes beyond that.
I've been trying to show him the most obvious fact, and that is love will drive us to honour the law not ignore the law which is what Crib and BFA say.
I will warn you that BFA has a different definition of law than anyone else I have ever talked to.
JM
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?