Commandments should not be followed ...

[Teflon93]

No … you are the one being disrespectful of other opinions.

I’m sorry, but you’ll need to show me where respect for other’s opinions is required. I don’t respect falsehood; thus I am Catholic.

Paul did not feel circumcision was of any value to salvation … and said as much in scripture. The fact he allowed Timothy to undergo it does not prove he put any ‘salvation value’ in it. Paul taught he was willing to submit himself to accepting various practices of Hebrews … if it would promote the cause of Christ.

He probably believed circumcision would make Timothy’s life among the Jews less confrontational … and enable Timothy to have a greater witness among them for Christ.

Indeed, this is the reason why he did it, which St Augustine among others held.

But let’s not lose sight of the implication for the Fundamentalist argument in that reasoning.

For if St Paul on the one hand (Galatians 5) holds that circumcision binds you to the Law, and that the Law damns, but circumcises Timothy, what precisely does it mean for doctrine?

Is St Paul inconsistent?

Is he a hypocrite?

The Catholic would answer, “Neither.” We must view the Epistles in context, and drop the 19th century dispensationalist baggage.

A reminder of the ECFs on Romans:

Cyril of Alexandria ( fl 412-444):

Paul did not say that he had no sin apart from the law but rather that he was unaware of it. Therefore the law is not the cause of sin but rather the instrument which points it out, making it clear to those who did not know what it was. It did not do this in order that, once sin was made known, those who committed it should continue in what they were doing…On the contrary, its intention was to convert people to better things by making their sins known to them. (Explanation of the Letter to the Romans)

Chrysostom (fl 386-407):

Note how Paul gradually shows how the law was not merely an accuser of sin but to some extent its producer as well. This was not from any fault in it but from the disobedience of the Jews…for he has taken care to guard against the attacks of the Manichaeans, who accuse the law of being evil in itself. (Homilies on Romans 12)

The difference in the equation is not that the Commandments are null and void, but that God’s grace and the sacraments institued by Christ through his Church enable us to keep them, thereby avoiding the consequences of unrepentant mortal sin and allowing us to complete the good works for which we were created and by which we shall be judged, per Matthew 25.

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon93;3929565:

Purgatory argues for our need to be Perfect … in order to see God the Father’s Kingdom.

If one has just undergone complete confession @ Mass … and is hit by a truck on way out of Church. They will probably be ‘Perfectly forgiven’ in Christ and acceptable to God’s Heaven.

If one does the same @ Mass, but 7 days later is hit by truck on way to Mass … and has not been daily in confessions to the Lord ---------- Purgatory will be seen as needed by most Catholics, to cleanse the dead soul in Christ for the Kingdom.

We already have been saved upon entering Purgatory. The damned do not go there.

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon93;3929565:

Not true !! Read again this Parable. Both performed equally well … to 100 % of their gifts/abilities.

One started with 5 talents … and increased 2X .
One started with 2 talents … and increased 2X.

Should we be limited/satisfied with only increasing our production by 2X ? No… but, perhaps that is the minimum required of us by God.

One produced 5 talents, the other 2.

As noted, the latter was given less; the former produced more.

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon93;3929286:

Moses, Abraham, David, and all the OT prophets knew Christ and were his disciples via H.S. For the average Jew, they had temple sacrifices to meet their needs …until Christ came.

It would appear, from what Peter teaches, that the OT Jews got a special visitation from Christ following the crucifixion.

If discipleship of Christ were required, how did they who kept the Law but did not know Christ able to attain salvation?

References welcome.

 

[Teflon93]

I told you already, circumcision is not a work of the Law. It’s a sign of the unconditional covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Tell me that you at least felt the wind on your forehead when that went right over your head?

Oh, please. You have yet to make a coherent argument, much less lose me.

You have produced no Scripture to indicate circumcision was apart from the Law; St Paul in Galatians 5 says it binds one to it.

Tell me you at least felt the wind when dodging yet another question.

Paul had Timothy circumcised because Timothy had a Jewish mother. Therefore he was considered a Jew. His circumcision was not to keep the Law but, as a Jew, not to be a stumbling block when taking the gospel to fellow Jews.

Yes, this was why he did it. Since circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant, why didn’t this damn Timothy, given your line of reasoning? Per Galatians 5, didn’t it bind him to the old Law if St Paul was an ur-Fundamentalist?

The act of circumcising damns no one. In fact, Jews should still practice circumcision because the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect. It’s the Law that came to an end. So if you think you can be saved by keeping the Law (even the Decalogue), which was the intent of the Galatians, then you are severed (cut off) from Christ since the path to Christ is through faith alone.

Where does it say “faith alone” in Scripture?

How did Elijah get saved?

 

[mikeledes]

I told you already, circumcision is not a work of the Law. It’s a sign of the unconditional covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Tell me that you at least felt the wind on your forehead when that went right over your head?

Paul had Timothy circumcised because Timothy had a Jewish mother. Therefore he was considered a Jew. His circumcision was not to keep the Law but, as a Jew, not to be a stumbling block when taking the gospel to fellow Jews.

The act of circumcising damns no one. In fact, Jews should still practice circumcision because the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect. It’s the Law that came to an end. So if you think you can be saved by keeping the Law (even the Decalogue), which was the intent of the Galatians, then you are severed (cut off) from Christ since the path to Christ is through faith alone.

Let’s look at Galatians 5:1-4

1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Those who sought to be justified by the law were those who desired to be circumcised. Moreover, the ones seeking to be justified by law were not people who were never saved, who never had genuine faith. Paul is talking about Christians who started out with genuine faith:

Galatians 1:6

**6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; **

Galatians 3:3

3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Galatians 4:9-11

9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
10You observe days and months and seasons and years.
11I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

Paul is not talking about being severed from the path to Christ. He clearly says they have been severed from Christ. Why? Because as the above passages demonstrated, many Christian Galatians, having begun by the Spirit, deserted Him who called them by grace and were reverting to the Old Covenant - succumbing to the teaching of the Judaizers - and were falling into enslavement again, as in second time. This has resulted in being severed from Christ and a fall from grace.

God bless,
Michael

 

[ellammcg]

The mention of the various verses of Galatians made me curious, so I tried to reread it without presupposition (hard to do for a long-time fundamentalist Baptist ). My reading of that letter tells me that at first Paul goes on at length about not being any more under the law and that it is a mistake to try to go back under the law. So I have to wonder is he referring to the entire law (including the commandments)? Or to the ceremonial/ritual/sacrificial parts of the law? If he is referring to the whole law, then I don’t understand why he threw in:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. KJV Gal 5:19-21

Why tell people not to worry about any of the law and then say they will not inherit the kingdom of God if they violate the moral clauses of the law? Maybe I’m just missing the obvious (or not so obvious).

 

[mikeledes]

Can you show me which O.T. saint was ever told he was justified by grace through faith? Abraham believed in the Lord and it’s recorded that God reckoned it (his faith) to him as righteousness. But where was he told this by God? “THE faith” did not exist until AFTER the death, burial and bodily resurrection of Christ. “THE faith” is connected to the new covenant in Christ’s blood. “The faith” came AFTER the Law. The Law ended with Christ, hence, no Law, only FAITH. And the object of THE FAITH is the Person and finished work of Jesus Christ.

Apart from “the faith” which has now come, there is only unbelief.

If they read Genesis 15, they would know. Or how about Psalm 32, written by King David? If they read that they would know. Or are you saying that the Old Testament saints knew aboslutely nothing about divine mercy and salvation?

Are you familiar with Hebrews 11?

4By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.
5By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.
6And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
7By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
8By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going.
9By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise;
10for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
11By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised.
12Therefore there was born even of one man, and him as good as dead at that, as many descendants AS THE STARS OF HEAVEN IN NUMBER, AND INNUMERABLE AS THE SAND WHICH IS BY THE SEASHORE.
…

All of these had faith.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[pneuma07]

The believer is not under law.You fail to understand Romans six. The believer is “freed from sin.” He has died with Christ “to sin” and is now in the resurrected Christ. “The wages of sin is death.” Our sins were imputed to Christ and as a substitutionary sacrifice for sin, He died “to sin” once for all. And Paul says of the believer, we died with Him. He was raised to new life, and we were raised to new life with Him: “But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” That is, in the resurrected Christ. Every true believe is now in the resurrected Christ, the “Last Adam.”

The believer does not have to “avoid sin” TO GET eternal life. It is gifted by God being now “in Christ” resurrected. His new life is our life. It is life eternal. That’s GRACE.

Rom 6:15 ¶ What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!Yes, I understand this to be the Catholic gospel.
​

Dear Moondweller,

so I'm back  to this post, as per your  post 247  :) .

I was hoping for a self-interpretation, whether your view is that
sin is immaterial for the regenerate’s destiny.

Your quoting Rom 6:15 means you accept that sin does still exist as a possibility. Since sin is defined after a law, as its transgression, that implies the permanence of a law, even when grace has been received. ( after all law and grace coexist).

I consider that regeneration ( Romans 6 does describe baptismal regeneration in the first part, although I’m afraid you won’t follow on this ) brings remission for past sins, not
immunity from any detrimental effects of the future ones.

So I do fail to understand Romans 6, if you mean its message is that believers, freed from sin, are free to sin with impunity, although, generally speaking, “the wages of sin is death”. ( and although they should not, graciously, sin, per Romans 6:15) . This makes the believer, if he does not sin in spite of his exemption from punishment, look gracious with God !

I fail to understand that Romans teach that the a person’s future behaviour can remain without influence on his final destiny.

• 6(I) He will render to each one according to his works: 7to those who(J) by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8but for those who are self-seeking[a] and(K) do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9There will be tribulation and distress(L) for every human being who does evil, *( Romans 2)

Does this universal statement exclude regenerated people ?

Were it so, even then I’d fail to understand that the regenerate’s behaviour is without influence on his own destiny according to the Epistles.

Be it Hebrews ( *10:36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised *)

Or 1 Timothy (4: 16 Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearer)

Or 2 Timothy ( 2:12 if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us

Or Philippians (2:12 So then, my dear friends, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence but even more in my absence, continue working out your salvation with humility and dependence),

Or 1 Corinthians ( 9:27 *But I discipline my body and keep it under control,lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified. *)

Or, as mentioned, Galatians ( 6:9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. )

Every single verse here is about regenerate believers, among whom …Timothy and Paul himself. Or shall we say Paul was not a real “bac” ? ​

 

[BRB]

Cyril of Alexandria ( fl 412-444):

Paul did not say that he had no sin apart from the law but rather that he was unaware of it. Therefore the law is not the cause of sin but rather the instrument which points it out, making it clear to those who did not know what it was. It did not do this in order that, once sin was made known, those who committed it should continue in what they were doing…On the contrary, its intention was to convert people to better things by making their sins known to them. (Explanation of the Letter to the Romans)

Chrysostom (fl 386-407):

Note how Paul gradually shows how the law was not merely an accuser of sin but to some extent its producer as well. This was not from any fault in it but from the disobedience of the Jews…for he has taken care to guard against the attacks of the Manichaeans, who accuse the law of being evil in itself. (Homilies on Romans 12)

The difference in the equation is not that the Commandments are null and void, but that God’s grace and the sacraments institued by Christ through his Church enable us to keep them, thereby avoiding the consequences of unrepentant mortal sin and allowing us to complete the good works for which we were created and by which we shall be judged, per Matthew 25.

Whenever you quote the Church Fathers …you are preaching to the Choir. Adopt their ideas for your own … and we will have no disagreements

One further thing … Fundamentalism is not all bad. ‘Reasoned fundamentalism’ is desirable. Are you aware many Catholics now hold to fundamentalist views ?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I fail to understand that Romans teach that the a person’s future behaviour can remain without influence on his final destiny.

You have not failed brother. It does not teach such doctrines devoid of truth.

 

[mikeledes]

The mention of the various verses of Galatians made me curious, so I tried to reread it without presupposition (hard to do for a long-time fundamentalist Baptist ). My reading of that letter tells me that at first Paul goes on at length about not being any more under the law and that it is a mistake to try to go back under the law. So I have to wonder is he referring to the entire law (including the commandments)? Or to the ceremonial/ritual/sacrificial parts of the law? If he is referring to the whole law, then I don’t understand why he threw in:

Why tell people not to worry about any of the law and then say they will not inherit the kingdom of God if they violate the moral clauses of the law? Maybe I’m just missing the obvious (or not so obvious).

And that same letter that condemns reverting to the “works of the law” also says the following:

Galatians 6:7-10

**7Do not be deceived,God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.
10So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith. **

Again, Law of Moses (i.e. sterile external observance) versus Law of Christ (i.e. love). A man reaps what he sows. You can’t get any clearer than that. And what does he reap? Really cool rewards? That’s not what Paul says.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[BRB]

Can you show me which O.T. saint was ever told he was justified by grace through faith? Abraham believed in the Lord and it’s recorded that God reckoned it (his faith) to him as righteousness. “THE faith” did not exist until AFTER the death, burial and bodily resurrection of Christ. .

You just answered your on question … with faith evidenced by Abraham as example.

Also, out of faith Abraham was willing to offer up son Isaac. But, God held back his hand from performing sacrifice … since his faith was in evidence.

God has always desired faith over works. Recall the OT verse
" It is better to obey than to sacrifice".

 

[guanophore]

Faith functions as the means or instrument by which the blessings earned by Christ are appropriated and received (Eph 2:8). Faith is not a work, but a gift (Eph 2:8);

It’s not a work of the law, but as a matter of fact - and a very inconvenient one for some, apparently - Christ says it is a work (John 6:29)

Faith is a human characteristic/quality. In the sense that all we have, and all we are all comes from God, then yes, it is a gift. Also, since no one can come to Him unless the Father draw him, it is also the function through which the gift of grace flows to us and through us.

To the extent that placing our faith in Christ is a human action that requires our decision, it is a work. To the extent that we cannot do this apart from Grace, it is a work of God, and not ourselves.

 

[Teflon93]

The mention of the various verses of Galatians made me curious, so I tried to reread it without presupposition (hard to do for a long-time fundamentalist Baptist ). My reading of that letter tells me that at first Paul goes on at length about not being any more under the law and that it is a mistake to try to go back under the law. So I have to wonder is he referring to the entire law (including the commandments)? Or to the ceremonial/ritual/sacrificial parts of the law? If he is referring to the whole law, then I don’t understand why he threw in:

Why tell people not to worry about any of the law and then say they will not inherit the kingdom of God if they violate the moral clauses of the law? Maybe I’m just missing the obvious (or not so obvious).

This is an excellent point—St Paul clearly was not granting a license to sin, and as he notes, he would not know what sin was without the law. Indeed, as the epistles to the Corinthians demonstrate, St Paul clearly believed in the moral precepts represented by the Commandments and called upon Christians to uphold them.

Note the congruence of St Paul’s list with the Commandments.

This is another case where the Catholic understanding of grace + faith + works (good and bad) determining salvation is clear. Would St Paul bother warning the Corinthians and Galatians about such things if they weren’t in danger of losing the salvation their baptisms (the circumcision of the heart) had opened to them?

 

[Teflon93]

Whenever you quote the Church Fathers …you are preaching to the Choir. Adopt their ideas for your own … and we will have no disagreements

They happen to be my own—they are the teaching of the Catholic Church, whose Fathers they are. These men distributed and partook of the Eucharist; do you?

If not, you have some adoption to do.

One further thing … Fundamentalism is not all bad. ‘Reasoned fundamentalism’ is desirable. Are you aware many Catholics now hold to fundamentalist views ?

You would have to define the terms. The only congruence I’m aware of is that of the Nicene Creed, which even some Fundamentalists reject.

In terms of the 5 or 7 Fundamentals (whichever list is offered), you’d have to point out precisely which these Catholics hold and further how they understand them. As we have seen, the terminology may be similar but the concepts quite different.

 

[Teflon93]

You just answered your on question … with faith evidenced by Abraham as example.

Also, out of faith Abraham was willing to offer up son Isaac. But, God held back his hand from performing sacrifice … since his faith was in evidence.

God has always desired faith over works. Recall the OT verse
" It is better to obey than to sacrifice".

Notice that God always defines faith in terms of obedience. It is never simple assent.

 

[Odell]

Moondweller I found you I posted on the other thred and have not gotton a response im sure I can ask you here because it goes alon with this thred

Originally Posted by moondweller

I didn’t ask you what your rule of life is, I simply stated that if you’re going to apply the big 10 as your rule of life before God, then you MUST live by them - perfectly.

No but you obviouslly dont know my rule of life. So ill ask again do you want to know my rule of life?

My rule of life is Christ Law and that is to Love. Jesus says if you Love me you will keep the commandments

Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love” (Jn 4:7-8). In 1 John 3:14, he teaches that “Whoever does not love abides in death.”

John further speaks against loving the world, warning that if one is to do this “the love of the Father is not in him” (2:15)

If you are going to apply your rule of life without Love than your no different than the demans who believe and tremble agree?

That was a question dont avoid it

Originally Posted by moondweller

Consider what Paul wrote to the Galatians who desired Law rather than grace, works rather than faith:
Gal 3:12 "However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.”
Paul took the gospel of Jesus Christ to them to bring about “obedience OF FAITH.” Would that then include the Law with its ministry of condemnation and death through "letters engraved on stones? Impossible, since he testifies that “the Law is NOT OF FAITH.”

Right we cant live by Law you must get tired of agreeing with Catholics on this point.

You want to know what Paul had to say about** Love**?

Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:2, where he writes, “if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” This, beyond all doubt, proves that man cannot be saved by faith without love.

Christ came to fullfil the Law not to abolish it agreed?

that was quesiton # 2

some more on Paul

Paul (Rom 2:7-8) says, “Eternal life to those who seek glory, honor and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.”

Originally Posted by moondweller
The grace of God that saved me empowers me to “live by faith,” not by Law, which would be counter productive, since the Law is “not of faith” (i.e., faith based). I’ve been called under a New covenant in His blood, by which He inaugurated, having been cleansed of all sins and placed in right standing before God (“apart from the Law,” see Rom. 3:21-24) by the justification (righteousness) that is gifted to me through faith (Rom. 3:24), based on the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24).

The Grace of God that saved me empowers me to live by faith and love. Is he giveing you a different Grace?

Which is very productive because they are works God HAS prepared before hand

Ive been called under a new Law the Law of Christ that is of Love which I could not do if it was not for His blood that gives me the grace to abide in Him and to actually KNOW him not KNOW of Him to actually have a relationship with Him not to just know of Him

 

[moondweller]

Dear moondweller, you say “the believer is not under law”, and “law and grace don’t mix” . We have to understand which law we’re speaking about. See again Galatians: 6 :2-9, please. Bear one another’s burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ.

Yes, but one is not saved BY bearing another’s burdens. One is saved by grace through faith alone.

Let us not grow tired of doing good, for in due time we shall reap our harvest, if we do not give up.

As for reaping the harvest for good doing, to a degree that’s a law of cause and effect here on earth, but in this cosmos, at times people are persecuted even for doing good, but ultimately “the harvest” will be reaped when the believer stands before the judgment seat of Christ and is rewarded. This judgment does not at all determine the believer’s salvation; that was determined, once for all, upon faith alone, in Christ alone. There his works done in this body will be revealed, figuratively by fire, as to their value and rewarded accordingly (1 Cor. 3:10-15).

Can’t then we see that we have the law of Christ, “this side of the cross” ? Or shall we believe that grace cannot mix with any law ?

The true believer is never “without” law. In fact he is now “in-lawed” to Christ. For the believer there’s the law of Christ, the law of liberty and the law of love. And in this world he must still operate under such laws as civil, judicial, federal, the law of cause and effect, even the law of gravity, for that matter. Like Paul I must talk to you in extremes because you resist the obvious - grace). But none of these “laws” can save a man. In fact, only the saved, the redeemed now “in Christ” and “under grace,” can operate within the former three, and that by the power of the indwelling Spirit.

But the principle of law (which requires works) and the principle of grace (which requires faith alone), in respect to salvation, cannot ever co-exist:Rom 11:6 "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.“Grasp the contrast: John 1:17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.”

 

[guanophore]

But the principle of law (which requires works) and the principle of grace (which requires faith alone), in respect to salvation, cannot ever co-exist:Rom 11:6 "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.“Grasp the contrast: John 1:17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.”

Do you realize that you are adding the word “alone” to scripture?

Faith is NEVER alone. In fact, the Apostolic teaching is that faith is completed by works.

However, you keep posting this verse,and seem to miss the obvious word “basis” that it contains. The works that complete salvation are based on the same grace as the faith through which it flows. Neither faith or works are the “basis” of salvation, but grace. However, salvation does not happen without that faith and works. None of them are “alone” as you assert.

A faith that is alone is a dead faith, not having been completed by works. However, even a faith completed by works is not the “basis” of salvation, which is only God’s grace.