Endurance Of The Ten Commandments (incl. Sabbath)

[Byfaithalone1]

Sorry, no I didn't miss your question.. I am still working on you answering the Lords.

Christ's command to the rich young ruler included a command that he sell all that he had. Does that command apply to me? Does it apply to you.

If you would like to address what Christ said to the rich young ruler, let's address everything that He said (not just a sound bite).

BFA

 

[visionary]

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]

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.

I believe that I have answered the question. However, it seems that you don't like my answer.

You describe Luke 18 as though one should view Verse 20 in a vacuum, without exploring the relevant context. When we consider the surrounding verses, we notice statements such as the following:

Luke 18:19 "No one is good—except God alone." From this statement, should we conclude that commandment keeping is the basis of one's salvation? What is Jesus really saying here?
​

In making His point, Jesus indicated that the rich young ruler should sell all that he had:

Luke 18:22 "Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."
​

You seem to assume that Jesus' comments to the rich young ruler are intended to apply to all people. In evaluating your assumption to determine whether it is accurate, I cannot rip Verse 20 away from Verses 19 and 22 and pretend that the context does not matter. In order to understand the full context, I've asked the following question:

Q: Must I sell everything I have in order to obtain or maintain salvation?
​

I look forward to your answer.

BFA

 

[visionary]

You seem to think that the rich man's answer is wrong.. but the Lord did not rebuke him for what he got right so far, but called his attention as to what more he should be doing. For you however, you need to get to first base with God, and be able to at least answer as the rich man.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

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.

Must I sell everything I have in order to obtain or maintain salvation?

That depends. Do you trust in what you own more than you trust in God?

 

[visionary]

The rich young man acknowledged first that obedience to God's commands which in his mind he was doing, that is the first step, God will work on the details in the heart of the believer to see that they are not perfect, and they need more work... just as Yeshua did that day with the rich young man.

In this case, when it was presented to Byfaithalone1, along with millions of others who hold the same position, it was very difficult to get an acknowledgement of the need for obedience to God's commands. Thus the Lord in working on the heart has yet to establish the commandments in the heart, so it will be even harder to work on the detail of application of the commandments and their influence on the life of a believer.

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.

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.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

That depends. Do you trust in what you own more than you trust in God?

It's a great question. In order for the passage to be read with symmetry, we should also ask: "Do I trust in my own obedience more than I trust in God?"

BFA

 

[dragNdrop]

Visionary 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

 

[visionary]

Visionary 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

Amen

 

[Byfaithalone1]

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.

A 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 4
​

I 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 1:8
​

Clearly, 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

 

[visionary]

A 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 4
​

I 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 1:8
​

Clearly, 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

Number 1

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.

Number 2

You need to understand what has been added... "430 years ago" was the Laws of Moses, those that were written on parchment.

Luke 10:25
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

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.

Psalm 119:142
Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.

It can nnot be everlasting righteousness unless it is an eternal law.. way before the "430 years ago" law of Moses.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

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.

Why then do you believe that Luke 10 supports your conclusion that the ten commandments have been given to Gentiles?

You need to understand what has been added... "430 years ago" was the Laws of Moses, those that were written on parchment.

When were the letters engraved on stones given to men?

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.

Again, you ignore the context of Luke 10. Only One is good.

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.

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?

It can nnot be everlasting righteousness unless it is an eternal law.. way before the "430 years ago" law of Moses.

So you find Paul to be in error?

BFA

 

[Avonia]

So you find Paul to be in error?

(Although not addressed to me.)

Very much so. And very much "in truth" as well.

 

[visionary]

Why then do you believe that Luke 10 supports your conclusion that the ten commandments have been given to Gentiles?

were not the Jews tested before the Law was given on tables of stone?

When were the letters engraved on stones given to men?

you knoe the answer to that.. what the real question is.. are they not the eternal law?

Again, you ignore the context of Luke 10. Only One is good.

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

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?

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.

So you find Paul to be in error?

about what?/

BFA

shabbat shalom
Vis

 

[Byfaithalone1]

were not the Jews tested before the Law was given on tables of stone?

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.

what the real question is.. are they not the eternal law?

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.

No, I am not ignoring it, because we all know only one who is good.

Good. Then you know that you don't earn eternal life by keeping the commandments.

What you are failing to mention how can He be declared good.. because He did a good job of keeping the commandments.

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.

that good you do realise you are talking to a Messianic who keeps the feasts, and expects to keep the feasts for all eternity..

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.

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

 

[visionary]

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.

Sin is defined by the law... can't sin until there is a broken law.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

BFA

 

[JonMiller]

I will warn you that BFA has a different definition of law than anyone else I have ever talked to.

JM

 

[dragNdrop]

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.

 

[Cribstyl]

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.

The obvious facts are what the texts are saying. I dont know why your brothers wont help you to understand what is written here. The texts teaches that love is the "fulfilling" not the "driving factor" that causes you to honor the law.

Rom 13:8Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled {the} law.
Rom 13:9For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
Rom 13:10Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of {the} law.
Rom 13:11{Do} this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed.


What does the text teach?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The law exist, but we're not under the law.
The law is fulfilled if we love our neighbors.

It's questionable to argue that "the 10 commandments commands love", when it does not.
Words does have meanings.
"Thou shalt not kill", does not mean to love your neighbor, but YES, if you love your neighbor, you'd rather suffer loss rather than to have a reason kill him.

This is how love fufills the law.....not the other way arround.

In other threads, there are arguments about which laws are fulfilled. These text makes it clear which laws are fulfilled. All of it.

My understanding about the law is that it condemns sin. So if we're going to be judged by the law we will all die.

The truth we need to believe and understand is that, when we arrive at our moment of judgment.(Rom 3:4) The question from the throne will be "What have you done with my Son?" Not what have you done with my law?
Paul declared But NOW.... being righteous with God is done without the law showing up to judge us. "thus we're not under the law"

Rom 3:20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;


CRIB

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I will warn you that BFA has a different definition of law than anyone else I have ever talked to.

JM

If you've only spoken to SDAs, then I can understand why my perspective is so surprising to you. How do I define law? How does my definition differ from yours?

BFA