What have you understood about the charcater of The Ten Commandments?? (2)

[Elder 111]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "What have you understood about the charcater of The Ten Commandments??"

 

[from scratch]

Squint,

I don't have a lifestyle of sin.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Squint,

I don't have a lifestyle of sin.

Christians shouldn't focus on sin but on the Lord..... the Law IMO is a huge distraction from focusing on the Lord I think its purpose is more akin to focusing on not being sinful for the most part as even atheist Jews that were born under the Law kept them and I am sure even if they kept all of them BUT the love God part.... they would be rejected by God.

 

[VictorC]

It is clear from the above that our theology in relation to the Ten Commandments of God is very flawed.
How can over 50% of us admit that God gave us the ten Commandments
Now that is stupid. Or simply from Hell.
Will someone please explain to me, how can we be judge by the laws of the Ten commandments and still it has no jurisdiction over us? It's a mystery!

By deleting the extraneous verbiage, one post can explain why the Biblically literate don't take the seventh-day Adventist church seriously. Their members tend to play a numbers game siding with poll responses made in error, postulating a Investigative Judgment scenario that permeates their whole theology, denial of God's redemption in Jesus Christ, and for these reasons the Gospel remains a mystery to them.

A new thread closes the 'poll', which was never edited to remove the 6 errors written into it by its author. Many of us were never able to respond to it.

 

[squint]

Christians shouldn't focus on sin but on the Lord..... the Law IMO is a huge distraction from focusing on the Lord I think its purpose is more akin to focusing on not being sinful for the most part as even atheist Jews that were born under the Law kept them and I am sure even if they kept all of them BUT the love God part.... they would be rejected by God.

There is zero sense resisting the conclusions of Law. The only thing you are really rejecting is their feigned compliance, but I doubt that you have issues with the Law proving mankind (inclusive of christians) as sinners?

Those who resist that conclusion of law, that people are sinners, aren't going to change the conclusion by casting away the law.

It is meant to be held up FOR that conclusion.

s

 

[Sophrosyne]

By deleting the extraneous verbiage, one post can explain why the Biblically literate don't take the seventh-day Adventist church seriously. Their members tend to play a numbers game siding with poll responses made in error, postulating a Investigative Judgment scenario that permeates their whole theology, denial of God's redemption in Jesus Christ, and for these reasons the Gospel remains a mystery to them.

A new thread closes the 'poll', which was never edited to remove the 6 errors written into it by its author. Many of us were never able to respond to it.

I refused to respond to a poll that doesn't define anything but confusion in its choices. Like the choice of the Poll the 10 commandments belong to Moses, that would be correct in that when you are "given" something it becomes YOURS and thus in that send BELONGS to you. The 10 commandments belongs to Israel with God as the Giver of them and unless God takes them back as akin to an "Indian Giver" to equate they "belong" to God doesn't quite make logical sense in it all as that would obligate God to instantaneously be a man as another scripture says talks about one of the commands was "given to man" making only man obligated to it. I think the word "Keep" here is ominous as if one is given a gift they have two choices: 1) Reject the Gift or 2) KEEP the Gift.

 

[squint]

Squint,

I don't have a lifestyle of sin.

I have no issues with holding up the law for the honest conclusion that we are sinners.

That doesn't change by throwing away the law. I like to be told the truth and to be honest about it.

Why that offends any of your pack remains strange to me.

 

[Sophrosyne]

There is zero sense resisting the conclusions of Law. The only thing you are really rejecting is their feigned compliance, but I doubt that you have issues with the Law proving mankind (inclusive of christians) as sinners?

Those who resist that conclusion of law, that people are sinners, aren't going to change the conclusion by casting away the law.

It is meant to be held up FOR that conclusion.

s

The conclusion of the Law was that prior to its being given to man people had relationships with God.... WITHOUT IT. I have serious issues with the Law proving Christians are sinners.... because Christians cannot sin according to the Law it has no bearing upon them according to the Bible one MUST be circumcised (Become a JEW) for the Law to have bearing upon them otherwise they are like a foreigner in a land keeping laws of their foreign country and when a policeman tells them that they are not required to do something because there is no law against them not doing it they argue with the legal agent of the Law itself.
Christians are not under the Law and arguing based upon the Law when it comes to Christians is like importing a policeman and judge from MARS to try and convict us of breaking Martian Laws on the Earth...

 

[from scratch]

There is zero sense resisting the conclusions of Law. The only thing you are really rejecting is their feigned compliance, but I doubt that you have issues with the Law proving mankind (inclusive of christians) as sinners?

Those who resist that conclusion of law, that people are sinners, aren't going to change the conclusion by casting away the law.

It is meant to be held up FOR that conclusion.

s

I detect a PEBKAC error in the programing. It's most difficult to fix.

 

[squint]

I detect a PEBKAC error in the programing. It's most difficult to fix.

If you are going to bother tossing acronym charges you could at least state what they mean.

 

[squint]

The conclusion of the Law was that prior to its being given to man people had relationships with God.... WITHOUT IT.

The First Law God gave in the garden effectively and intentionally severed man's relationship with God.

I have serious issues with the Law proving Christians are sinners....

Well well. Now we are getting to the heart of the matters.

Do you have issues with the Law PROVING that we are factually sinners?

You do understand that most of christianity do not shirk that conclusion nor do most think we avoid that conclusion by casting aside the law.

As soon as anyone says they have no sin they are in trouble.

So on this ground most of you guys go into waffle territory.

because Christians cannot sin according to the Law it has no bearing upon them according to the Bible one MUST be circumcised (Become a JEW) for the Law to have bearing upon them otherwise they are like a foreigner in a land keeping laws of their foreign country and when a policeman tells them that they are not required to do something because there is no law against them not doing it they argue with the legal agent of the Law itself.

It has been pointed out to you MANY MANY times that you are merely holding up your own carnal notions of LAW in the solely EXTERNAL senses and views of same.

Contrary to what you think, scripture does provide legitimate view of the LAW beyond that imposed limitation. You are arguing against your own strawman of the law.

Every time this is brought up you all land directly back on top of your own strawman of the law.

You could all at least admit you are arguing against your own imposed strawman.

Christians are not under the Law and arguing based upon the Law when it comes to Christians is like importing a policeman and judge from MARS to try and convict us of breaking Martian Laws on the Earth...

The law remains against all sin and evil in whomever it is found. Whether by Law revealed or not, the fact remains.

We are all sinners. Regardless of that fact hurting our precious theological constructs and positive confessions at the expense of a truthful conclusion.

The reward of the LAW is to walk away from it with AN HONEST CONCLUSION.

s

 

[Sophrosyne]

The First Law God gave in the garden effectively and intentionally severed man's relationship with God.

I wouldn't consider the commandment given in the Garden a "Law" and I wouldn't say that God was responsible for severing man's relationship which is what your wording implies here. Man severed the relationship by breaking the commandment.

Well well. Now we are getting to the heart of the matters.

Do you have issues with the Law PROVING that we are factually sinners?

Yes I have issues because the Law isn't for Christians in the first place we cannot sin using the Law as a standard. We can sin and our sins can be at times against parts of the Law but we cannot sin against ALL parts of the Law therefore using the Law as a general rule isn't valid.

You do understand that most of christianity do not shirk that conclusion nor do most think we avoid that conclusion by casting aside the law.

As soon as anyone says they have no sin they are in trouble.

So on this ground most of you guys go into waffle territory.

It has been pointed out to you MANY MANY times that you are merely holding up your own carnal notions of LAW in the solely EXTERNAL senses and views of same.

Contrary to what you think, scripture does provide legitimate view of the LAW beyond that imposed limitation. You are arguing against your own strawman of the law.

Every time this is brought up you all land directly back on top of your own strawman of the law.

You could all at least admit you are arguing against your own imposed strawman.

No strawman applies to Christians as Grace isn't a strawman the the Law isn't applicable to be knocked down.

The law remains against all sin and evil in whomever it is found. Whether by Law revealed or not, the fact remains.

We are all sinners. Regardless of that fact hurting our precious theological constructs and positive confessions at the expense of a truthful conclusion.

The reward of the LAW is to walk away from it with AN HONEST CONCLUSION.

s

So according to your logic if someone doesn't break any of the commandments except refusing to keep the Sabbath they are a sinner. If someone ONLY breaks the dietary law then they are sinnner... If someone ONLY breaks the law requiring wearing of certain fabrics they are a sinner... If someone ONLY breaks the law requiring certain cleanliness rituals then they are a sinner. I can go on and on with this and if you only ONCE agree one doesn't sin according to the Law then your argument falls flat.

 

[Elder 111]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

The Sabbath is the test. The tree in the mist of the Garden. That person have to decide on.
​

This is very troubling. Why would a Command given in the middle of the list be the test. The test, if their is one, would be upon the first. The Sabbath was made for man so it is not the test of our love fore God. It may be a test of our love of self.

You see all of us profess a love for God but do we really love Him is the question. So the test can not be our professing of love but in obedience. There is no questioning of God's Ten Commandments except for the Sabbath.

 

[Elder 111]

Originally Posted by from scratch

First I wish to thank you for your admission by using the word our. Secondly your poll is very slanted and ill stated to prove your point and not the truth.
​

I think a lot of the more serious people refused to take part in such a poll like me. I mean let's face it "principles of the 10 commandments? That is meaningless to me as the Law was not about the principle of it all but deadly obligation and obedience. There is little room for principles when you are commanded to stone someone to death it matters none at all what your "principles" are you MUST do it or ELSE.

What you think going to happen when Christ comes again? life to every man?

 

[squint]

I wouldn't consider the commandment given in the Garden a "Law"

Well of course it was. Do not is clearly a command, even with a penalty for disobedience attached to it, that being death.

and I wouldn't say that God was responsible for severing man's relationship which is what your wording implies here. Man severed the relationship by breaking the commandment.

You just said it wasn't a LAW. It obviously was a command with a penalty attached aka A LAW.

The LAW is a command and it has PENALTIES for violation, that being death.

Yes I have issues because the Law isn't for Christians in the first place we cannot sin using the Law as a standard.

Every believer who 'obeys' the law does so as a sinner. And every believer who dodges the law does so as a sinner.

We can sin and our sins can be at times against parts of the Law but we cannot sin against ALL parts of the Law therefore using the Law as a general rule isn't valid.

However you arrive at a truthful conclusion really doesn't matter nor does the 'volume of evidence rule' apply. A single violation in thought is sufficient to prove us all sinners.

I've pointed this out to SDAist's many times. That merely thinking about not wanting to do the Sabbath, even while DOING SO is still a sin. And I would be quite surprised if every last one of them were not committing that sin internally, as that is what sin does. It RESISTS the law and causes SIN.

There is no way to make indwelling sin NOT sin. Law merely exacerbates indwelling sin to do what it does.

->You seem to recognize this principle from time to time.

No strawman applies to Christians as Grace isn't a strawman the the Law isn't applicable to be knocked down.

No mans indwelling sin/evil present is under grace either. Every last one of you on both sides of the aisle admit sinning and also that sin is not under Grace, i.e. OKEY DOKEY. It's NOT OKEY DOKEY under Grace either.

IN the final analysis there is no excuse for sin available on either side of the aisle and it is foolish to try to make that happen anyway.

So according to your logic if someone doesn't break any of the commandments except refusing to keep the Sabbath they are a sinner.

Believers under grace are still sinners. Believers trying to be legally obedient are still sinners.

Embrace your factual commonality and you'll all stop arguing about it because the equation of being a factual sinner isn't going to change for either side of this debate.

If someone ONLY breaks the dietary law then they are sinnner... If someone ONLY breaks the law requiring wearing of certain fabrics they are a sinner... If someone ONLY breaks the law requiring certain cleanliness rituals then they are a sinner. I can go on and on with this and if you only ONCE agree one doesn't sin according to the Law then your argument falls flat.

Whether sin is proven by law or not is irrelevant to the final conclusion. There is no falling apart for the only HONEST conclusion available.

s

 

[GenemZ]

I have no issues with holding up the law for the honest conclusion that we are sinners.

That doesn't change by throwing away the law. I like to be told the truth and to be honest about it.

Why that offends any of your pack remains strange to me.

We don't throw away the law. It is for those who walk in their flesh to let them know that they are walking in the flesh.

Those who walk in the Spirit are not Law conscious. They do not need to be. They are pre-occupied with Christ and his plan for their life.

On the other dirty hand..


You are VERY sin and Law conscious. Something is very wrong with your thinking. On top of that, you keep wanting to drag us down to your level of sinful thinking. We are to be Christ conscious, not obsessed like you are, about Law and sin.

Hebrews 10:1-2Amplified Bible

For since the Law has merely a rude outline (foreshadowing) of the good things to come
—instead of fully expressing those things—it can never by offering the same sacrifices
continually year after year make perfect those who approach [its altars].

For if it were otherwise, would [these sacrifices] not have stopped being offered? Since the
worshipers had once for all been cleansed, they would no longer have any guilt or consciousness of sin.


​

Your posts indicate possibly that you are very jealous of Christians who are benefiting from the spiritual way of Life. The Life that one can find in Christ if your heart is made right before God. Instead, you keep trying to drag us back to what we have been delivered from.. As if you are wishing we are to join your company.

Romans 8:2

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.


Galatians 5:17-18

For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.


​

Get out of that self imposed sin-swamp and get washed off by the Water of the Word. Stop denying it. Do the math. You're being sin conscious, not Christ conscious.

Merry Christmas Squint. May the new year bring you deliverance from your apparent self loathing that you keep trying to project onto others here.

We know what sin is. We know what the Law is. The real question is... Do you know who and what Christ is? What he has done in regards to the Law and sin? You need to get that stink off of you. Washed. You need to find some solid teaching for a change. Anti-depressants will not work. Only the Truth will make you free.

If you do not take anti-depressants.. Problem is, you post as one who does. No joy in any of your posts to be had. That is what sin obsession produces in a soul outside of the filling of the Spirit.

Wishing you well.

 

[Elder 111]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

The ten Commandments belong to God

20 57.14% The Ten Commandments belong to Moses.

6 17.14% The principles of the Ten commandments are restricted to a time period.

4 11.43% The principles of the Ten Commandments are/were for all times.

25 71.43% Jesus/God wrote the Ten Commandments.

25 71.43% Moses wrote the Ten Commandments

6 17.14% All men will be judged by the principles of the Ten Commandments.

18 51.43% Only the Jews will be judge by the principles of the Ten Commandments.

4 11.43% The principles of the Ten Commandments is what Jesus meant will not change. Mat 5:17-19.

15 42.86% A Christians can be saved without living up to the principles of the Ten Commandments

21 60.00% Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 35.
It is clear from the above that our theology in relation to the Ten Commandments of God is very flawed.
How can over 50% of us admit that God gave us the ten Commandments, that they stand for all times, and that we will be Judge by them with another 42.86% saying that Jesus stated in Mathew 5 that they will stand until heaven and earth pass and yet 60% of us still want to believe that we can live without obedience to God in respect of the said same Ten Commandments.
Now that is stupid. Or simply from Hell. It reminds me of the garden of Eden, when, Eve after telling the serpent that she should can not even touch the tree was still able so see that it was good for food. Why?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Will someone please explain to me, how can we be judge by the laws of the Ten commandments and still it has no jurisdiction over us? It's a mystery!
​

First I wish to thank you for your admission by using the word our. Secondly your poll is very slanted and ill stated to prove your point and not the truth.

Am I to take it that my poll is responsible for the ignorance of God people? That is extreme don't you think?

 

[Elder 111]

I refused to respond to a poll that doesn't define anything but confusion in its choices. Like the choice of the Poll the 10 commandments belong to Moses, that would be correct in that when you are "given" something it becomes YOURS and thus in that send BELONGS to you. The 10 commandments belongs to Israel with God as the Giver of them and unless God takes them back as akin to an "Indian Giver" to equate they "belong" to God doesn't quite make logical sense in it all as that would obligate God to instantaneously be a man as another scripture says talks about one of the commands was "given to man" making only man obligated to it. I think the word "Keep" here is ominous as if one is given a gift they have two choices: 1) Reject the Gift or 2) KEEP the Gift.

In this case we reject God or accept Him as we reject or accept His Ten Commandments.

 

[Elder 111]

By deleting the extraneous verbiage, one post can explain why the Biblically literate don't take the seventh-day Adventist church seriously. Their members tend to play a numbers game siding with poll responses made in error, postulating a Investigative Judgment scenario that permeates their whole theology, denial of God's redemption in Jesus Christ, and for these reasons the Gospel remains a mystery to them.

A new thread closes the 'poll', which was never edited to remove the 6 errors written into it by its author. Many of us were never able to respond to it.

Why don't you construct the correct poll?

 

[Nanopants]

From the other thread:

Common christian fantasy.

The enemy/resistor of Christianity is a reality.

I bring this matter up in relation to LAW and GRACE primarily to show that neither are strictly 'man only' subjects.

I can assure you that the evil present with Paul, the messenger of Satan in his flesh, the temptation in his flesh was neither LEGAL or under GRACE.

And despite having a messenger of satan to buffet him, what was he told? "My grace is sufficient for you."

This matter is a matter of DIVISION. It is only when we try to BLANKET the entirely of ourselves do we get into trouble, and hence the divisions that are caused over the subject matter.

It is comforting to know that the LAW is against evil and sin. It is equally comforting that there are scriptural explanations about why these things exist. Why the LAW is important to PROVE men sinners.

Paul exhibited the primary function of law, as an instrument that he DIED through in order to LIVE unto Christ.

That was not a 'one time' matter, but a daily one.

It is only uncomfortable when one has to honesty deal with the facts of their own SIN and EVIL PRESENT in relationship to the DEVIL.

Let's go back to the subject of serpents. Christ said that we would be able to pick them up and not be harmed, but the Jews in the desert were bitten by serpents and overcome. Which example best describes the effect the devil has on you?

I'm not preaching ignorance. I'm preaching the importance of a faith on Christ which overcomes the devil's hold on you; how else are you supposed to turn from darkness to light, from the power of satan to God to receive the forgiveness of sins?