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

[Rev Randy]

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 think if you check, the two who posted those votes also posted a vote in every category.

 

[Sophrosyne]

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.

 

[VictorC]

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 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:

Salvation is by Jesus and His Ten commandments, if you have a problem with that take up with Jesus Himself.

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:

Maybe we can come to a consensus at the end of the exercise.

How likely does anyone think a consensus actually is with a soteriology foreign to Christianity?

 

[Elder 111]

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?

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?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

A portion of an Orthodox Christian's preperation for confession. Preparation for Holy Confession — Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

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?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by VictorC

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?
​

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?


.

 

[Rev Randy]

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.

Won't it be nice when we can say no to all those questions?
God be merciful to me a sinner.

 

[VictorC]

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?

This is a prime example of a reaction written without reading anything you replied to.

 

[VictorC]

What do you think about that?

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.

 

[Rev Randy]

This is a prime example of a reaction written without reading anything you replied to.

That kinda hit me as an odd reply as well. Seems he read the reverse of what you said.

 

[Sophrosyne]

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.

I call it Old Covenant 1.1

 

[Elder 111]

Originally Posted by VictorC

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?
​

Originally Posted by Elder 111

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?
​

This is a prime example of a reaction written without reading anything you replied to.

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.

 

[Elder 111]

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.

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!

 

[VictorC]

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.

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.

 

[VictorC]

How can one who supports the keeping God 's law be accused of dismissing it?

Something is very wrong with your reading comprehension.
Your dismissal of the Law isn't based on your feigned keeping of it, but rather your rejection of what the Law actually says. Go back and read what I posted again.

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!

Between my posts and those written by others, you have been pressed to show us where God ever told us to keep the sabbath at least 20 times. You have yet to deliver anything to support your fabricated claim. The sabbath wasn't ever given to the Gentiles during its tenure, and it isn't given to God's adopted children who have entered into His rest after the sabbath's tenure. Yet you continue to lie each time you make this claim without a shred of Biblical evidence.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Hbr 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

What law changed? Some people fail to ever see this and yet Rome is accused of making the change from keeping Saturday to keeping Sunday as The Lord's day. Well that wasn't Rome.

If you can't tell me what other thing changed then...

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Elder 111]

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?

 

[VictorC]

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 should have read the citation before you posted a reply. For it says "Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free"."
It has everything with who the Law applies to within the limited jurisdiction specified in the Law itself - which you have shown no acceptance of. You merely contradict what Jesus taught Peter, and to us via Matthew's account.

To repeat what I wrote before:

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.

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.

BTW, Paul teaches the same thing Jesus did in Galatians 4:1-7. The whole Gospel can be summed up in a few verses from this epistle.

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Why does the verbal tense show the Law's tenure in the past by stating Jesus' purpose as "to redeem those who were under the law"?

Continue to the very end of this same chapter. It concludes that those retained by the Law have no claim to eternal life: "the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman".

 

[Nanopants]

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?

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. -Rom 2:28,29

 

[from scratch]

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?

Could it be your use of the phrase "children of God" is causing a problem?