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.
Wait, what?
Jesus said you needed to follow 7 commandments to get to heaven.
But that got changed to 2?
So that's it? If I love God and love my fellow humans I go to heaven? If not, then I'm toast?
All you need is love?I ask tons of atheists...what is your objection to Jesus' central message? That you love your fellow human the way you would want to be loved, respected, ...."tolerated"? That you ought to acknowledge the worth of your fellow humans is (ostensibly) a function of the fact that those humans aren't yours - they're autonomous beings whose existence is worth something ≥ yours?
In secular terms, Jesus' message is so uncontroversial.
It's sorta hard to love someone if you have no evidence that they exist.How does atheism stop you from agreeing with Jesus' two great commandments?
Isn't it an insult to your fellow humans to posit an argument that your neighbors are purple elephants?Isn't it an insult to your fellow humans to posit an (atheist) argument that those neighbours aren't worthy of your respect/love because they weren't 'created'?
I don't think anyone, with any integrity, would say that they can obey the ten commandments. We by nature see rules as there to be broken.When asked "which" he listed 7.
Are there more? Which commandments does one need to inherit eternal life?
Jesus said, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: " Was that not true?
Was he really saying, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and then do a whole lot of other things, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven"?
Why did Jesus leave out the fine print?
The question is whether one needs to sell all that he has to go to heaven. Rich people like Abraham, Job, and Solomon were never told that. Is that fair to make up a new commandment out of thin air for this man?
Do we or do we not need to sell all that we have to get to heaven?
And there is no way around it?
Everybody who breaks one of the laws of Moses burns in hell forever? [1.] There is no "get out of hell free" card? [2.] You will not come back and tell us that some people have an exemption?[3.]
If all must do 100%, and none of us humans do it, then none of us will go to heaven.
Sir, you said "keeping the entire law of Moses is required to get to Heaven,"
Which one of his laws are moral, and which aren't?
You say this in response to:The Ruler asserted that he already did a "whole lot of other things" and kept them all from his youth.
If Jesus had said "don't hoard wealth" we would all agree. But Jesus did not say that. He said, "sell that thou hast, and give to the poor."You can't assume that rich people like Abraham, Job, and Solomon were hoarding wealth. Only Marxists assume that all rich people hoard wealth.
You say this in response to, "Do we or do we not need to sell all that we have to get to heaven?"Yes.
Full stop.The only way around it is admitting your failure to keep the Law and surrendering to Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
You are responding to: "Everybody who breaks one of the laws of Moses burns in hell forever? "[1.] Yes.
So now you are back on your exception.[2.] Not apart from salvation by grace through faith in Christ, no.
[3.] The only exception is salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
Where does the Bible say the moral law applies and the ceremonial law does not? I couldn't even find the words "moral law" and "ceremonial law" in my version of the Bible.Sir, we are not going to play petty "gotcha" games today. This is not a good faith discussion if you're not allowing me to clarify myself. The moral law applies to non-Jews. The Temple has been destroyed, along with the ceremonial law. If you read the Bible and knew a bit of history, you should know that.
Neither link shows anywhere in the Bible where some laws are said to be moral, some ceremonial, and some civil. Both links simply impose it on the Bible without any verses to back them up.Here you go. Isn't it fun to learn new things?
Citation #1.
What is the difference between the ceremonial law, the moral law, and the judicial law in the Old Testament? | GotQuestions.org
Citation #2.
What are the main divisions of the Old Testament Law? | carm.org
The problem is that Jesus taught that one needs to keep certain commandments to get to heaven. This goes against Calvinistic teaching. Your efforts to resolve that dilemma are not looking very good.
It's not your fault. The problem is that your position is hopeless.
I see that you totally evaded the question.
The point is that you seem to be adding in the fine print (which does not appear in the Bible). It appears that you insert this fine print into the Bible to make the verse work for you. You can't do that. You need to go by what the Bible actually says.
But sorry, if you read Matthew, that fine print is in no way implied.
If Jesus had said "don't hoard wealth" we would all agree. But Jesus did not say that. He said, "sell that thou hast, and give to the poor."
So your answer seems to be:
Yes, we do need to sell all that we have, but there is an exception, so no we don't really need to sell all that we have.
You just negated everything you said above about needing to keep the law to get to heaven.
You just admitted you think there is a way to get to heaven without keeping the law. Which contradicts everything you said about needing to keep the law.
Why do you say yes when you mean no?
Does salvation by grace include surrendering to Jesus as Lord, and thus doing everything he commands? In that case, it is not actually an exception from needing to follow these laws.
If we only need to follow the "moral" laws, and your links lists these as civil laws that "expired with the demise of the Jewish civil government", then are kidnapping, murder, and robbery now permitted?
Paulomycin,
The problem is that Jesus taught that one needs to keep certain commandments to get to heaven. This goes against Calvinistic teaching. Your efforts to resolve that dilemma are not looking very good.
It's not your fault. The problem is that your position is hopeless.
You say this in response to:
Was he [Jesus] really saying, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and then do a whole lot of other things, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven"?
I see that you totally evaded the question. The point is that you seem to be adding in the fine print (which does not appear in the Bible). It appears that you insert this fine print into the Bible to make the verse work for you. You can't do that. You need to go by what the Bible actually says.
In addition to that fine print, you also refer to an exception which you didn't mention here. So you really seem to have Jesus saying:
"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and then do a whole lot of other things, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, but there is a different way to get to heaven without doing any of that.
But sorry, if you read Matthew, that fine print is in no way implied.
If Jesus had said "don't hoard wealth" we would all agree. But Jesus did not say that. He said, "sell that thou hast, and give to the poor."
If he sold half, would he be completely following this? No, he would still have some stuff, and would need to sell more. And if he sold half again? He still has stuff. Does he need to keep on selling until he has no more stuff?
You say this in response to, "Do we or do we not need to sell all that we have to get to heaven?"
But then later you say we don't need to keep all the commandments to go to heaven.
So your answer seems to be:
Yes, we do need to sell all that we have, but there is an exception, so no we don't really need to sell all that we have.
So your answer appears to be "no", even though you say "yes".
Full stop.
You just negated everything you said above about needing to keep the law to get to heaven.
You just admitted you think there is a way to get to heaven without keeping the law. Which contradicts everything you said about needing to keep the law.
Some people teach that this "way around it" involves absolutely no demand on what we do. Others say it puts immense burden on what we do, because we need to surrender to Jesus as Lord. Surrendering to Jesus as Lord must surely mean doing everything he commands. And since he commands to keep the whole law, then this "exception" really ends up putting you back to needing to keep the whole law.
Some see this problem, and say "lordship salvation" is a heresy.
You are responding to: "Everybody who breaks one of the laws of Moses burns in hell forever? "
And once more, it appears you really mean "Everybody who breaks one of the laws of Moses burns in hell forever, but there is an exception, so no, you won't necessarily burn in hell if you break a law. "
Why do you say yes when you mean no?
So now you are back on your exception.
Does salvation by grace include surrendering to Jesus as Lord, and thus doing everything he commands? In that case, it is not actually an exception from needing to follow these laws.
So is it an exception from the need to follow all these laws or isn't it?
Where does the Bible say the moral law applies and the ceremonial law does not? I couldn't even find the words "moral law" and "ceremonial law" in my version of the Bible.
If some laws are "moral laws" and some are "ceremonial laws" where does the Bible explain which is which?
Neither link shows anywhere in the Bible where some laws are said to be moral, some ceremonial, and some civil. Both links simply impose it on the Bible without any verses to back them up.
Your second link actually lists laws as moral, ceremonial, or civil. The list of laws that are not listed as "moral" include kidnapping, murder, and robbery.
If we only need to follow the "moral" laws, and your links lists these as civil laws that "expired with the demise of the Jewish civil government", then are kidnapping, murder, and robbery now permitted?
The question before us is whether one that receives this "Substitute for Sin" still needs to keep the commandments to get to heaven.The "Calvinistic teaching" here is so basic that it's simply The Doctrines of Grace.
- One needs to keep the moral law perfectly.
- One cannot keep the moral law at all.
- Thus, a Substitute for Sin is necessary.
Once again, you evade this question:My failing to answer in a way you can directly predict and/or control is not evasion.
I didn't ask if you can do it on your own.No, because "you" don't get there on your own. You don't do it.
That is an ad hominem attack on the person.Because you don't really care about what I think and you're just trying to push an agenda.
I am not asking if it is earned or merited.I can only conclude by this statement you're contradicting yourself. "Salvation by grace" by definition is never earned, nor merited.
No, it is not about "getting" anybody.Okay, you "got" me. How delighted are you now? You refuse to admit that you were only referring to ceremonial laws as the exceptions, but I can't get out of that now because you "caught" me referring to only the moral laws instead of the civil laws. Now you're going to play stupid to enjoy watching me struggle. Oh, the drama. I hope you had your bit of fun.
Per my 1st link:
The Westminster Confession adds the category of judicial or civil law. These laws were specifically given for the culture and place of the Israelites and encompass all of the moral law except the Ten Commandments.
The division of the Jewish law into different categories is a human construct designed to better understand the nature of God and define which laws church-age Christians are still required to follow.
Many believe the ceremonial law is not applicable, but we are bound by the Ten Commandments.
OK, so I take it you are not going to tell us whether you think this "Substitute for Sin" eliminates the need to keep the commandments to get to heaven. You seem to be stating it both ways.My failing to answer in a way you can directly predict and/or control is not evasion.
Yes, I have heard that. The phrase "The Ten Commandments" appears only 3 times in the Bible and never says it is specifically referring to the 10 we know. It appears that the phrase actually refers to the 10 in Exodus 34, which are bizarre.There also seems to be another set of ten commandments....
Exodus 34
The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain. No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain.”
So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the Lord had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands.
.........Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast....
....Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk...
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.
Understood, those are commonly called The Ten Commandments, but the Bible never specifically calls them The Ten Commandments.The Ten Commandments appear twice.
Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21
The question before us is whether one that receives this "Substitute for Sin" still needs to keep the commandments to get to heaven.
You seem to be arguing both sides of that question. Which way is it?
Once again, you evade this question:
Is this what Jesus meant?Was he [Jesus] really saying, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and then do a whole lot of other things, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven"?
I didn't ask if you can do it on your own.
I asked if the "Substitute for Sin" means you no longer need to keep the commandments to get to heaven.
That is an ad hominem attack on the person.
Ah, you questioned if I had really read the Bible, since I did not understand which laws apply. But now it turns out your source for which laws apply is the Westminister Confession and documents like that.
The last I checked, the Westminster Confession is not in the bible.
A human construct? Well at least they admit it.
Many believe that? OK, fine, but I am not asking which laws many believe we are bound to. I am asking if you can tell me which laws I actually need to keep to go to heaven.
The issue for this thread is that nobody seems to understand which commandments God requires you to follow to get to heaven. Do you know?
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?