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.
Let us look at another poll question.
The principles of the Ten commandments are restricted to a time period.
How could this be? Two persons have voted for this but we all know that that is ridiculous.
When would stealing not a sin or when will it not be a sin?
When would it be OK to have Idol instead of worshiping the living God?
The Ten Commandments can not be limited by time.
I didn't vote because the way the post was worded there was really not much way to put down what I really thought about it all. The poll was written in a way to limit the truth that people are debating about to help support the pro law position.I think if you check, the two who posted those votes also posted a vote in every category.
I didn't vote because the way the post was worded there was really not much way to put down what I really thought about it all. The poll was written in a way to limit the truth that people are debating about to help support the pro law position.
Salvation is by Jesus and His Ten commandments, if you have a problem with that take up with Jesus Himself.
Maybe we can come to a consensus at the end of the exercise.
Having no other God is foreign to Christianity?I didn't vote because the OP's author had posted this on another thread, just before he decided to leave it and start another thread pretending to be a poll:
I also didn't vote because there isn't a way to reduce the covenant from Mount Sinai to list of "principles". It was a binding covenant with compliance requisite for life and entrance into the promised land (Deuteronomy 30:15-16). Changing the Law into a list of suggestions strips the Law of its Holiness and extracts its purpose in driving us to our Redeemer (Galatians 3:19-25).
Yet feigned compliance to the old covenant God committed all its recipients disobedient to (Romans 11:32) is integral to the soteriology the OP's author has already expressed. The OP finished with this line:
How likely does anyone think a consensus actually is with a soteriology foreign to Christianity?
The Ten Commandments
I am the Lord your God, and you shall have no other gods before me.
Has God been the source, center and hope of my life? Have I put myself, others or things before God? Have I failed to trust in God's existence, love and mercy? Have I failed to pray to God, to worship Him and to thank Him for His blessings? Have I tried to serve God and keep His commandments faithfully? Have I murmured or complained against God in adversity? Have I praised and glorified God through my words and deeds?
You shall not make for yourself a graven image in order to worship it.
Have I valued anyone or anything above God? Have I given to anyone or anything the love, honor and worship that belongs to God alone? Have I made and idol of any person, idea, occupation, or thing?
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Have I blasphemed God's holy name in any way? Have I sworn a false oath? Have I broken any solemn vow or promise? Have I entered into an agreement, promise or contract against God's law? Have I cursed or used foul language?
Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
Have I worshiped regularly on Sundays and major feast days and have I helped others to do the same? Have I worked unnecessarily on Sundays or major feast days or caused others to do so? Have I spent the Lord's Day in a wholesome and edifying ways?
Honor your father and mother
Have I loved and respected my parent s as I should? Have I neglected them or failed to help them? Have I disobeyed them, deceived them or caused them pain by my words or deeds? Have I treated all my family members with patience and love?
Thou shall not kill.
Have I caused the harm, injury or death of anyone? Have I wished my own or anyone's harm or death? Have I been cruel to animals or destroyed any life unnecessarily?
You shall not commit adultery.
Have I committed any immoral acts alone or with others? Have I caused others to commit immoral acts? Have I committed immoral acts in my heart?
You shall not steal.
Have I taken anything that was not mine from anyone or from anywhere? Have I cheated anyone? Have I caused others to steal or cheat? Have I tried to find the owners of lost things I have found? Have I damaged or destroyed anything that belonged to another? Have I defrauded anyone of rightful wages? Have I paid my debts? Have I given to the poor and to philanthropic causes in proportion to my means?
You shall not bear false witness.
Have I given false testimony against anyone? Have I spoken evil, told lies or spread rumors about anyone? Have I disclosed to anyone the sins and faults of another? Have I made careless statements or done anything else to harm the name and reputation of another? Have I engaged in idle gossip?
You shall not covet.
Have I looked with envy jealousy or hatred toward the possession talents or achievements of others? Have I desired the downfall or loss of others out of evil intent that I might benefit? Have I grieved that God has bestowed greater blessings on others than on me?
Originally Posted by VictorC
I also didn't vote because there isn't a way to reduce the covenant from Mount Sinai to list of "principles". It was a binding covenant with compliance requisite for life and entrance into the promised land (Deuteronomy 30:15-16). Changing the Law into a list of suggestions strips the Law of its Holiness and extracts its purpose in driving us to our Redeemer (Galatians 3:19-25).
Yet feigned compliance to the old covenant God committed all its recipients disobedient to (Romans 11:32) is integral to the soteriology the OP's author has already expressed. The OP finished with this line:
How likely does anyone think a consensus actually is with a soteriology foreign to Christianity?
What do you think about that?Having no other God is foreign to Christianity?
Which is it? A covenant for life and entrance to the promise land or a holy law?
A portion of an Orthodox Christian's preperation for confession. Preparation for Holy Confession — Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
God be gracious to me a sinner.
Having no other God is foreign to Christianity?
Which is it? A covenant for life and entrance to the promise land or a holy law?
What do you think about that?
I call it Old Covenant 1.1I think Elder111 has dismissed the Holiness of the Law. That's why we're confronted with constant examples of old-covenant 'Christianity', which as you know is a oxymoron that doesn't really exist.
Are you 100% percent certain of that? Or is it that you can not make up your mind as to whether God's law is Holy or a contract for the Jews? If it is Holy why are we who are God's holy children excluded? Just because you say so?This is a prime example of a reaction written without reading anything you replied to.
How can one who supports the keeping God 's law be accused of dismissing it?I think Elder111 has dismissed the Holiness of the Law. That's why we're confronted with constant examples of old-covenant 'Christianity', which as you know is a oxymoron that doesn't really exist.
Are you 100% percent certain of that? Or is it that you can not make up your mind as to whether God's law is Holy or a contract for the Jews? If it is Holy why are we who are God's holy children excluded? Just because you say so?
I can not be party to you r partial regard for God's word.
How can one who supports the keeping God 's law be accused of dismissing it?
God says keep the Sabbath, it is holy, He has blessed it and sanctified it and you say no, get rid of it and the accused me of dismissing it? Tremendous!
Hbr 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Maybe you don't get where I am coming from, refuse to or just can't.I am certain of what I wrote. I did the best I could to clearly convey your thread's intent to strip the Law of its holiness - which you did when you attempted to reduce it to a mere list of 'principles' six times in your poll questions. Another member observed that your reply doesn't seem to comprehend what I wrote, so the fault is in your reading, and not in my writing. There is no either-or selection between the Holiness of God's covenant to the children of Israel and your self-imposed rejection of that covenant. This is a fallacy of your own making.
Jesus taught Peter about the limited jurisdiction a given law has on the intended recipients in Matthew 17:24-26. It is not given to the children of the King, as we enjoy the same Sovereignty that He naturally has as the Law's Creator. Maybe the principle thrust of John's Gospel account was lost on you because your church ignores it: But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Maybe you don't get where I am coming from, refuse to or just can't.
As with the above. You are quoting a text that have nothing to do with the who the law applies to: but would use it to imply, it seems, that the children of God are free from the law. That argument, if I read you correctly, is flawed. For one only have to asked, were not the Jews children of God? Were they not His chosen?
The Jews were accounted as the children of Israel prior to God's adoption of His elect; it is only in God's redemption that they are accounted as the children of the Living God.VictorC said:Maybe the principle thrust of John's Gospel account was lost on you because your church ignores it: But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Maybe you don't get where I am coming from, refuse to or just can't.
As with the above. You are quoting a text that have nothing to do with the who the law applies to: but would use it to imply, it seems, that the children of God are free from the law. That argument, if I read you correctly, is flawed. For one only have to asked, were not the Jews children of God? Were they not His chosen?
Maybe you don't get where I am coming from, refuse to or just can't.
As with the above. You are quoting a text that have nothing to do with the who the law applies to: but would use it to imply, it seems, that the children of God are free from the law. That argument, if I read you correctly, is flawed. For one only have to asked, were not the Jews children of God? Were they not His chosen?
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?