Reggie,
You can have your topic back now. I apologize if I allowed the discussion to get off topic and focus on my beiliefs rather than the point of your post.
Ray 
Raymond,
A Christian lives by faith and not by sight. Therefore there is a problem if there is no doubt that you are saved. Certainty is not faith. Faith trusts despite doubt that God could really LOVE someone as weak as I am.
However the key to salvation through the Covenant of Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit, Who is the Seal of Salvation.
Ephesians 1:13 (NIV2011)
13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
If you have not received the gift of the Holy Spirit of Love as the Seal of Salvation, you are not saved. Sanctification is not growth in the ability to keep the Decalogue. It is growth in the ability to give and receive love from God and others.
I have to disagree with that, unless you only mean in a normative sense. It is the same mistake as replacing the doctrine of “Justification by Faith Alone” with the doctrine of “Justification by affirming the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.”
God will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy.
David,
Indeed God will have mercy upon whom God will have mercy. We believe that God has mercy on all, but the problem is that not all respond to God’s mercy. God has forgiven us through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (grace,) but many refuse to accept this forgiveness because they refuse to acknowledge their sins, do not feel the need for forgiveness, and/or prefer the sinful life they know to the Godly life they don’t know.
God does not compel people to be saved though faith in Jesus Christ. If people seek salvation through works, that is what they will receive, but not grace.
I won’t debate because my Calvinism will emerge like from a fire hose, and my instincts tell me (I may be wrong) that the watchers of this forum would not want such debates. We can agree, as brothers, that all who are saved are saved through God’s mercy and grace and the finished work of Christ.
I expect you are right about a discussion of Calvinism, but please give your opinion concerning the point I am making with Raymond.
I find that some evangelicals think that they are sharing in the Covenant of Christ, but are in fact sharing in a form of the Mosaic Covenant.
I think it is a theological distinction, not a salvific question. I think all the OT law, including the Decalogue, has been replaced by the more fully revealed law given by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. I have written about this here. I don’t accept the classic Reformed view that when Jesus said “You have heard it said… but I say…” that he was correcting the Pharisees. I think he was replacing the Mosaic law. When Jesus corrects the Pharisees he does it in no uncertain terms: Woe to you scribes and Pharisees… There is none of that here. Also, one replacement He makes is: You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’. (Matt 5:17) This is exactly what the commandment states, so I don’t see how it could be construed as correcting a false teaching. Jesus is replacing it. He is replacing the possible (it is possible to avoid adultery) with the impossible (no lust). If we didn’t need a savior before (of course we did, but we could kid ourselves, like the Rich Young Ruler) there is no doubt we need one now.
But of course I could be wrong.
But I will never believe this is a salvific issue.
David, thank you form contributing to this discussion and you reference to your blog, He Lives. I think we have many things to discuss, esp. Covenant Theology.
_Mark 10:17-22 (NIV2011) _
_7 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to Him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18 “Why do you call Me Good?” Jesus answered. “No one is Good—except God alone.
19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”
20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.”
22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
You referred to the story of the Rich Young Ruler and this is an excellent place to begin.
-
The man asks the question, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” which seems to indicate that this is a question of salvation. On the other hand he asks, What must I do?, which indicates a works righteousness point of view.
-
The man called Jesus, “Good Teacher (Rabbi?)” and Jesus responds, “Why call Me Good, when on one is Good --except God alone?” The important point here which most people seem to miss is that Jesus does not say, Don’t call me Good (because I am not Good or I am not God.)
Jesus asked, Why call me Good? and there are two logical answers, a) because Jesus was Good and therefore was God if no one is Good but God, or because he was lying about the goodness of Jesus in an effort butter Him up and throw Him off-guard. It would seem to be the former, particularly if the man did not bear false witness, but it appears that he was a member of the Pharisee Party.
- Jesus asks him if he has kept the Commandments, but only brings up 5-9. Jesus does not question his claim to have kept them, but says, “You lack one thing. Sell all you have, give the proceeds to the poor. Then, Follow Me.”
This too seems to be overlooked by most people. Or maybe I should say that most of us like the disciples are distracted by the question of wealth, that they don’t see the role of commitment. Jesus said one thing, and then seemed to say two things. I would say that the sale of his assets and total commitment of the man to Jesus are two sides the same thing.
- Here Jesus is revealing indirectly the New Covenant in His Body and Blood. The Mosaic Covenant is based on the Exodus, YHWH liberation of the Hebrews and all that followed. They are God’s Chosen People. The New Testament is based on the Liberation of all of God’s Children from sin and death through the gift of Eternal Life.
They are two different Covenants, even they are both from God.
Jesus called everyone to “Repent! the Kingdom of God is at hand.” Turn away from our human ideas of YHWH and follow Him. Do things His way, which is God’s way, because He is the Messiah, God’s Son.
- It is my experience that both Liberals and Evangelicals are enamored with the Decalogue. In this sense it is valid, because Commandments 5-9 can and should be the basis of "civil law’ as opposed religious law. 1-4 are clearly religious laws which cannot be legislated. Only the first applies directly to Christians and that min a different manner from the Jewish covenant.
No. 5, Honor your parents (not obey your parents) again is a good idea, but cannot be legislated. No. 10, Do not Covet! is another that cannot be legislated and I would how many people understand or care about.
- The Summary of Law as the Great Commandment to Love God and to Love others is the statement of the NT Covenant Law by Jesus. Clearly it is related to the Decalogue, but it is not the same. It is the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.
Have you ever checked out the VOICE translation? You can read it on Bible Gateway. They use “Eternal One” for YHWH. The section here on the divine name explaining their translation decisions is interesting.
1 Like
Thank you @Christy!
I have missed seeing this one. I am buying one right now! It seems to address all of the translation concerns I have been working through all by my self!
Ray
1 Like
Sorry, Ray and Christy,
I was always told that a name is a name. God’s sacred personal Name as revealed by God to God’s people is YHWH. Maybe it is better with the Hebrew letters and Jews object to the use of the Tetragrammaton, but this what the Bible says.
Please do not mess with God’s holy Name.
So your Bible translation uses YHWH? It’s still a transliteration. How is ‘The Eternal’ messing with God’s holy name, but ‘the LORD’ is not? We were discussing translation decisions. Names are translated too. Jesus wasn’t Jesus, he was Ιησούς in Greek, and ישוע in Hebrew. Neither are pronounced ‘Jesus,’ and we lose the meaning ‘God is salvation’ that was readily apparent in the original language. Translation is always ‘messing’ with something on some level.
Roger,
I am sorry to dissapoint you. Names in Hebrew ALWAYS have a meaning tied to them. This is one thing that makes Hebrew names so significant in the Bible. Every name of every person of note in the bible has a meaning as each name is composed of parts of other names or meanings.
'adam = earth, red earth, which became the name of Adam.
isaiah = Is from “ish” man, and “ishia” woman, meaning together “:mankind” with added “-ah” from Yah (YHWH). The meaning is “Mankind’s Salvation from YHWH”
For YHWH itself, the name does NOT come from prior usage in Hebrew.
In this passage the Name of YHWH is given it meaning. The useage of YHWH earlier was established prior, but at this time, YHWH is revealing his character to Moses and to all generations thereafter.
The Meaning of I AM is ETERNAL ONE.
Now, you say: [quote=“Relates, post:32, topic:36271”]
Please do not mess with God’s holy Name.
[/quote]
And yet the passage above is for “all generations?” I know you believe that since it is part of the first covenant, that it does not apply to christians. Therefore you have no problem using “The Lord” in the English translation. Yet that is an inclusion from the faulty application the Jews that was picked up by the translators of the KJV (who were totally committed to the “Divine right of Kings” and King James. How is that a proper handling of YHWH’s name for all generations?
So while I give great honor to YHWH’s name, and never-ever want to see it made empty. I recognize the Meaning behind his name. The Voice translation prefers to use Eternal One instead of “The Lord”. How does “the Lord” stack up to the Eternal One?
Please, Roger. Think before you trot out your opinion that is obviously well-learned, but not very deep.
If you take offense at my rather firm tone, it is because you have already harangued me several times. I have always responded with my continuing love for you as a “brother in Christ”. However, if you had not impugned my usage of the Holy Name of the Father, YHWH, I would not have responded.
Ray 
I would disagree with that statement. The meaning of I AM WHO I AM is that YHWH does whatever YHWH chooses to do. There is no difference between YHWH’s character and what YHWH does. This is in contrast to the fact we are not who we are.
The Hebrew word Adonai, Lord, indicates that YHWH is Sovereign, which catches some of this, but I prefer the transliteration YHWH, which to me catches some of the special nature of this Name. Some Jews and Christians use the word G-D.
YHWH is not limited by time, because YHWH is self-sufficient and thus IS WHO YHWH IS, not the other way around.
YHWH is not who we say YHWH is. YHWH is Who YHWH says YHWH is and YHWH demonstrates this most clearly by YHWH’s actions. “YHWH so loved the world that YHWH sent His only Son so that whomever believes in Him would not perish, but have everlasting life.”
When YHWH revealed God’s Name to be YHWH (It might have been revealed before as you say, but I so no clear evidence for that) it took place in the context of YHWH sending Moses back to Egypt to rescue God’s people from slavery. Therefore YHWH underlines the fact that YHWH cares about people and injustice, It has nothing to do with eternity.
You so not seem to understand my position on YHWH. I am not in favor of using LORD (and if you are going to use the OT convention, you need to use it correctly) in place of the Tretraqammon. I am in favor of using YHWH and have used it often when appropriate. The purpose is to educate, not to condemn those who disagree or are unaware.
Indeed it is.
1 Like
What about Exodus 23?
12 “Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.
13 “Pay attention to all that I have said to you, and make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let it be heard on your lips.
14 “Three times in the year you shall keep a feast to me."
These are all quotes, in quotes, as if God spoke them, and uses “I” and “me” as you said God does in first person.
Is this not God directly Himself saying rest on the literal 7th day, as He literally created the universe and everything in it in literal 6 days and rested on the 7th?
But like Jesus said, sabbath was created for man, not man for it. The sabbath is there to help us, like all His commandments. God is our provider. Sometimes He uses our work to give us money to provide for us, other times He just does. The sabbath is a rest for us from stressful work, and a reminder to refocus on Him and that He will provide. ChikFilA tests/trusts God in this. It is interesting they serve 1/7 of the time of Mcd and other fast food chains, however their profits are better than all. Using human logic and human pride, their profits should be 1/7th/14% less. But lets say their food and service and business model is better. That would just have them maybe equalize their profits, but no, they actually have better, blessings of God profits. God wants us to refocus on Him, trust He will provide, and relax from stress (which is also not good, but we are human, He created us and know how we work). He knows we need res from stress, we need to relax, and we need to refocus on Him. Jesus tells us to focus on Him daily, by giving us our daily bread. We are short minded/attention humans, the sabbath is a blessing to us, and merciful that He commanded us to, or else we might never remember to refocus on Him.
Our identity is too much in our jobs. “What do you do” is the most asked question when getting to know someone (other than their name or how they are). We identify as a doctor or one who drives a lambo, or who even gives a bunch to charity or a pastor is asked how many members of his church ect… There is nothing wrong with any of those things, but it shouldn’t be our identity, our identity is in God. Our worth is not what job we have, or how successful we are, it is in who God sees us to be. Full of so much worth that He sent His only Son to die for us.
There is no requirement of salvation to honor a sabbath, it is for our good, and God’s glory, when we are brought back to focus on Him and trust Him for being 1/7th as productive as the rest of the world. You ask a guy who has all kinds of money and houses and cars, and he says. “I worked my butt off”. God doesn’t want that, if you are to boast, boast in Him. I trusted God and He has blessed me with comforts of this world, but these are not my treasures.
The sabbath and tithing is basically You saying, I have what I have, because You gave it to me and you provided for me.
Do you think God really stopped what he was doing on the 7th day? Was he winded? Was his “poof” finger pretty well worn out? Does God have a body that wearies, like human bodies weary?
I do not believe God got tired or stopped because he needed to… I do believe God was setting a landmark/epoch (can’t find the right word) for us. Being our designer/creator and knowing how we work and knowing we need this sabbath to be our optimal physically, but also spiritually.
But I think He did stop what He was doing on the 7th day because He was done, as the 6th day He was creating man, and at the end of that, it was complete, the 7th day, completeness. It wasn’t like He took a break and rested because He was so tired, He finished everything in 6 days, and stopped because He was done. He didn’t create anything on the 8th day either, but it was completed on the 7th day, and He uses this as an example/reason for us to rest on the 7th day.
So you would agree, then, that God probably just kept on doing God-things and delivered a couple of reasons (depending on the text) for why we should honor the 7th day with rest?
The important thing is that God wanted us to follow a certain calendar . . . and we don’t have to surmise that the Earth is young to accept God’s advisories, right?
Absolutely!
I agree with you on this as well.
I think the 4th commandment makes it clear to follow this calendar, however using @Jonathan_Burke’s explanation of that being an expansion of what God said, I think Exodus 23 shows that this was a direct command quote from God, which does also verify the 4th commandment, even as expanded on my Moses or whoever wrote it.
So it would be wise/beneficial to honor this weekly calendar, but this could have nothing to do with the actual literal interpretation of Genesis and YEC,EC, or OEC. Knowing how young or old the Earth is will not change your life in any way. I just enjoy discussing it more as a hobby, or an opportunity to show a non-believer that all Christians are not just dumb, uneducated people, and also throw some gospel in there and reflect the light of God for all to see. Honoring the sabbath, however, can change your life, and God designed the sabbath for our benefit.
1 Like