Commandments should not be followed ...

[Teflon93]

Regarding circumcision, why did St Paul have Timothy circumcised?

Acts 16:

“1”: Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:

“2”: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.

“3”: **Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. **

Did he seek Timothy’s damnation, circumcision being a work of the Law?

 

[moondweller]

Oh, I don’t think the Reformists (or should I call them Paulists?)

Not unless they claim to be “of Paul,” or they believe Paul died for their sins.

think the parables “don’t mean anything”. What I understand is that they are not salient to create a biblical doctrine of salvation, because he does not use the terms justification, imputation, sanctification and glorification, as do the epistles of Paul.

The parable teach, and are restricted to, specific lessons.

The doctrines of salvation by grace, like redemption, justification, sanctification, imputation and the believer’s glorification with Christ, are not taught in the Gospel accounts. They’re connected directly to the cross and were entrusted to His Apostles to teach through the Holy Spirit, after He rose from the dead. The Gospels give us an historical account of the crucifixion, but what it accomplished is revealed by the writers of the Epistles, especially Paul’s Epistles (who wrote most of them).

That’s not hard to understand, is it?

 

[Teflon93]

Not unless they claim to be “of Paul,” or they believe Paul died for their sins.The parable teach, and are restricted to, specific lessons.

The doctrines of salvation by grace, like redemption, justification, sanctification, imputation and the believer’s glorification with Christ, are not taught in the Gospel accounts. They’re connected directly to the cross and were entrusted to His Apostles to teach through the Holy Spirit, after He rose from the dead. The Gospels give us an historical account of the crucifixion, but what it accomplished is revealed by the writers of the Epistles, especially Paul’s Epistles (who wrote most of them).

That’s not hard to understand, is it?

You’ve excluded Acts of the Apostles, which is not an epistle and which contains the history of the early Church.

Is there a reason for excluding this?

 

[Teflon93]

He did not—I asked where in Scripture Christ tells us to ignore the Commandments, and which ones specifically we are to ignore. He has had no response.

I also asked whether Christ and God are one in being. He has not answered that one either.

The latter is important because if Christ and God are one—as Christians maintain they are, as articulated in the Nicene Creed—then the answer to his question is Exodus 20, which I’ve posted several times now.

If the answer to the latter question is “No”, then Moondweller is a non-Trinitarian, which further calls into question the interpretation.

Let’s see how long before we get a definitive response from Moondweller.

Still waiting.

 

[moondweller]

Does this mean that the Christian may now murder, steal, covet, idolate, and cheat on their spouse?

Rom 6:15 “*What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!”*Since you self-impose the Law, Tef., does that mean you may now do anything not specifically mentioned in the Law? Or, on the other hand, working on the Sabbath day (Saturday) was punishable by death - stoning in fact. Have you ever gone to work on Saturday? If so, report immediately to your priest and congregation for stoning.

 

[Teflon93]

Rom 6:15 "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!"Since you self-impose the Law, Tef., does that mean you may now do anything not specifically mentioned in the Law? Or, on the other hand, working on the Sabbath day (Saturday) was punishable by death - stoning in fact. Have you ever gone to work on Saturday? If so, report immediately to your priest and congregation for stoning.

Do the Ten Commandments define what is, and what is not, sin?

If they are no longer in force, how could they define sin?

Have you committed any sins since being saved, big or small?

Please provide examples.

In my case, I have properly confessed my sins by availing myself of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation. We are commanded to confess to others, and so I do.

Thank you for responding in some fashion to my question, although you still have not enumerated which of the Ten Commandments no longer apply.

 

[moondweller]

You’ve excluded Acts of the Apostles, which is not an epistle and which contains the history of the early Church.

Is there a reason for excluding this?

Acts is an historical account of GREAT value indeed (some doctrinal), but as I said, the doctrines of grace, directly related to what Christ accomplished perfectly and completely on the cross for the believer, are predominately taught and expanded upon in the Epistles. The gift of justification through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus could not be taught as an established fact until His redemptive work was “finished” (Rom. 3:24). That makes perfect sense, doesn’t it, Tef.?

 

[Teflon93]

Acts is an historical account of GREAT value indeed (some doctrinal), but as I said, the doctrines of grace, directly related to what Christ accomplished perfectly and completely on the cross for the believer, are predominately taught and expanded upon in the Epistles. The gift of justification through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus could not be taught as an established fact until His redemptive work was “finished” (Rom. 3:24). That makes perfect sense, doesn’t it, Tef.?

Not exactly.

Which doctrines in Acts are you referring to?

Since the epistles contain a wealth of doctrinal information, I presume St James epistle is of particular value regarding salvation?

 

[guanophore]

If what you say above is correct, then I’d have to say that such persons would be more correctly termed, Paulians, than Christians.
I do not mean this in an unChristian sense, but If one places greater emphasis on teachings other than Christ’s, how can they properly claim the term Chriatian?

Peace
James

It is not that they place more emphasis than Christs, I think they agree that the HS is speaking through Paul, so the teaching comes from the same divine and inspired Source. It is just that the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels do not apply to Christians the way they do to Jews, because we belong to a different “dispensation.” Jesus teaches about salvation, but not the doctrines of salvation, because he had not yet been crucified. I am sure that MD will correct me if I misunderstood this.

 

[moondweller]

Do the Ten Commandments define what is, and what is not, sin? If they are no longer in force, how could they define sin?

They can still define sin without being “in force.” For almost 1500 years Israel was under that Law, and NONE could keep it. Nor could it impart life. For LIFE it pointed to Jesus Christ that a man might be “justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24). This is all clearly explained in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians who also wanted to self-impose the Law.

In my case, I have properly confessed my sins by availing myself of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation. We are commanded to confess to others, and so I do.

The Law demanded animal sacrifice, not merely confession of it. But the violation of working on the Sabbath day, however, required death by stoning.

Thank you for responding in some fashion to my question, although you still have not enumerated which of the Ten Commandments no longer apply.

Guanophore answered for me: NONE!!! Believers are not under law but under GRACE. Oh that you would read the Epistles, especially Paul’s.

 

[guanophore]

We are commanded to love one another, i.e., fellow believers. A natural family response which always need encouragement. Paul teaches to excel in it (1 Thess. 4:9).

Wow. I was told that you did not believe we are commanded to love others, except or the ones that believe as you do. Now it is here made explicit.

I think this another testimony that what Jesus had to say about loving one’s neighbor is discounted by the Paulians, because He was clearly speaking about people who had other beliefs.

 

[mikeledes]

His "*new commandment*" in Jn. 13:34 is in reference to those who will make up His church which He would build after His bodily resurrection and ascension back into glory - upon the foundation of the Apostles.  The ones who would be baptized into the "*body of Christ*" upon belief in Him; recipients of divine grace. The commandments of Christ are not related to the Law or any aspect of it.  They constitute the "*law of love*," and the "*perfect law of liberty*."  They enter into the doctrines of GRACE set forth by Christ to His Apostles whom He gave authority and commandment, and are found in the Epistles which are addressed to His church.

Well there’s your answer, folks. The true believer, during this church age, has nothing to do with Law, or any aspect of it (e.g., the Decalogue). The believer’s rule of life before God, now “in Christ,” is that of GRACE (unmerited favor) alone: “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1; cf. Jn. 5:24).

Grace is prostituted when mixed with Law in any way. Both Catholic and Protestants err in thinking the only relationship God can have with men is one that is based on Law.

Christ’s command to love, however, represents a summary of the Decalogue. These are not my words, they are the inspired words of Paul himself:

Romans 13:8-9

**8Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is SUMMED UP in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” **

The Decalogue is summed up in Christ’s command to love. Hence, when we practice love, we fulfill the Decalogue. However, what is difference between being under Law and being under grace? Being under Law, man is devoid of Grace and the Holy Spirit. Man under Law is in a carnal state and is unable to truly love God and neighbor and is thus unable to truly serve or please God. Consequently, man must first be delivered from this carnal state. Paul’s point is that man cannot obtain pardon from God and be delievered from this state by mere observance of the Old Covenant (i.e. ceremonial laws, the Decalogue, etc.). In fact, the Mosaic Law only exposed our own sinfulness and the futility of trying to overcome this sinfulness and atone for it through our own weak and imperfect efforts. The only one who can deliver us is God through Christ, and hence we must turn to Divine Mercy for deliverance. Once we are transferred from being under Law to being under grace, we are now able to serve God and bear fruit in Christ.

Under grace, therefore, man has been granted the gifts of faith and love and filled with the Holy Spirit of God. This enables us to keep the commandments of God. Being under grace means we are also under “law”, but not under the obsolete Mosaic Law, but the perfect Law of Christ. As Christians, we are obligated to adhere to this New Law:

James 1:25

**25But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. **

For by this law we shall be judged:

James 2:12-13

**12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.
13For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. **

We are to speak and act as those who will be judged by the Law of Liberty. It doesn’t say who may be judged or as if you were going to be judged, it says are to be judged. In other words, we will be held accountable.

So the Decalogue is not completely abolished in the New Covenant. Rather, it given new life. Under Law, fulfillment of the Decalogue is purely external. Under grace and the Law of Christ, the fullfillment of the Decalogue is the fruit of an internal principle - love - that is a gift of God. Besides, Paul himself says:

1 Corinthians 7:19

**19Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. **

And we know from Romans 13 which commandments he’s referring to.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[guanophore]

Not unless they claim to be “of Paul,” or they believe Paul died for their sins.

It seems that this teaching, be it Reformed or Calvanist or Paulist or whatever description is most appropriate, coming from Paul to the exclusion of the rest of the Scripture, certainly is “of Paul”.

The parable teach, and are restricted to, specific lessons.

And which verse explains this to you?

The doctrines of salvation by grace, like redemption, justification, sanctification, imputation and the believer’s glorification with Christ, are not taught in the Gospel accounts. They’re connected directly to the cross and were entrusted to His Apostles to teach through the Holy Spirit, after He rose from the dead. The Gospels give us an historical account of the crucifixion, but what it accomplished is revealed by the writers of the Epistles, especially Paul’s Epistles (who wrote most of them).

That’s not hard to understand, is it?

Yes, it is. It seems clear to me when I read the gospels that there is a great deal on these subjects.

Of course, if I had to exclude parts of the gospels to support my theology, it would be easier, or if I could set some parts aside by saying that they don’t apply to Christians, yes, it would be easier.

Rom 6:15 "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!"Since you self-impose the Law, Tef., does that mean you may now do anything not specifically mentioned in the Law? Or, on the other hand, working on the Sabbath day (Saturday) was punishable by death - stoning in fact. Have you ever gone to work on Saturday? If so, report immediately to your priest and congregation for stoning.

We do not “self-impose” the Law. The moral precepts of God were imposed by God, and written into our hearts. Maybe you can help me understand this. You have already cited the scripture where Paul states that he would not have know sin apart from the Law. Yet, you not point out that we are not to sin because we are under grace. How is the believer to learn what is a “sin”, since we throw out the Books of Moses?

Does everyman decide in his own eyes what is right and wrong?

 

[moondweller]

Not exactly.

Which doctrines in Acts are you referring to?

No time to go through the whole Book. You can read it for yourself. But a couple of examples are 4:12 and 16:30-31.

Since the epistles contain a wealth of doctrinal information, I presume St James epistle is of particular value regarding salvation?

James mentions the doctrine of justification, but he is notoriously misunderstood. Chapter two has been hashed over many a times on this forum.

If you call us “Paulists,” are Catholics then “Jamists?”

 

[guanophore]

Acts is an historical account of GREAT value indeed (some doctrinal), but as I said, the doctrines of grace, directly related to what Christ accomplished perfectly and completely on the cross for the believer, are predominately taught and expanded upon in the Epistles. The gift of justification through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus could not be taught as an established fact until His redemptive work was “finished” (Rom. 3:24). That makes perfect sense, doesn’t it, Tef.?

No, this does not make sense either. Jesus taught a great many things that were not properly understood until later. To say that the complete revelation of God in Christ was constrained by His humanity from teaching the full truth does not make sense to me at all!

 

[moondweller]

Wow. I was told that you did not believe we are commanded to love others, except or the ones that believe as you do. Now it is here made explicit.

Hey spin doctor, read John 13:34-35;

I think this another testimony that what Jesus had to say about loving one’s neighbor is discounted by the Paulians, because He was clearly speaking about people who had other beliefs.

Keep up the spinning Guanophore. You do realize God knows the motives of the heart, right?

 

[guanophore]

They can still define sin without being “in force.”

So, they can be “followed” with regard to definitions, so long as they are not followed as a “rule of life”?

For almost 1500 years Israel was under that Law, and NONE could keep it.

Perhaps you can shed some light on this passage:

Luke 1:5-7
5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years.

Did Luke mispeak himself by saying that they were righteous and blameless before God?

Did he make a mistake in saying that they walked in all the commandments and ordinances?

Nor could it impart life. For LIFE it pointed to Jesus Christ that a man might be “justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24). This is all clearly explained in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians who also wanted to self-impose the Law.The Law demanded animal sacrifice, not merely confession of it.

Do you think that people that came before Christ and lived under the Law were not justified by faith? Were they not justified at all? No, that can’t be right, because even you would admit that Abraham was justified by faith. What about all those in Heb. 11? Were they saved, or were they only ministered death by the Law?

But the violation of working on the Sabbath day, however, required death by stoning.Guanophore answered for me: NONE!!! Believers are not under law but under GRACE. Oh that you would read the Epistles, especially Paul’s.

We read them. We just read them through the lenses of those that wrote them, and therefore, come out with a different understanding. From the beginning of Christendom, the Commandments have been used as a guide to right conduct.

 

[guanophore]

Christ’s command to love, however, represents a summary of the Decalogue. These are not my words, they are the inspired words of Paul himself:

Romans 13:8-9

8Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is SUMMED UP in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”

I think moondweller only considers his “neighbors” as those who are members of his same faith tradition, and believe as he does. These are “family” apparently, and worthy of love, but the rest of us are just riff raff, I think, predestined to perdition.

Paul’s point is that man cannot obtain pardon from God and be delievered from this state by mere observance of the Old Covenant (i.e. ceremonial laws, the Decalogue, etc.). In fact, the Mosaic Law only exposed our own sinfulness and the futility of trying to overcome this sinfulness and atone for it through our own weak and imperfect efforts. The only one who can deliver us is God through Christ, and hence we must turn to Divine Mercy for deliverance. Once we are transferred from being under Law to being under grace, we are now able to serve God and bear fruit in Christ.

Do you think Luke made a mistake, or if not, then were Zechariah and Elizabeth delevered from the carnal state? If so, then how?

Luke 1:5-7
“In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.”

Under grace, therefore, man has been granted the gifts of faith and love and filled with the Holy Spirit of God. This enables us to keep the commandments of God. Being under grace means we are also under “law”, but not under the obsolete Mosaic Law, but the perfect Law of Christ.

What do you think of the persons in Heb. 11? Were they “under law”?

 

[Teflon93]

Since Romans 7:7 was quoted by Moondweller, it might be interesting to see what the Early Church Fathers had to say on the passage.

Tertullian (fl 197-222):

The apostle refrains from any criticism of the law…What high praise of the law we get from the fact that by it the latent presence of sin becomes manifest! It was not the law which led me astray but sin. (Against Marcion 5.13)

Origen (fl 200-54):

What Paul is really saying here is this: “Understand what law this is which I am talking about, which if it did not exist, no one would recognize sin.” Was it by the law of Moses that Cain recognized his sin…or Pharaoh? … This it the law which we have often spoken, which is written in men’s hearts not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, and which teaches everyone what he should and should not do. This is the law by which a man recognizes his sin. Here Paul says openly that the natural law was unknown to us until we were old enough to know the difference between good and evil and to hear our conscience tell us what it was.

It is not that we did not have sin in us before this, but we did not know what it was. But when natural law and reason implanted itself in us as we were growing up, it began to teach us what was good and forbid us to do what was bad. Thus, when it said, “Do not covet,” we learned what we did not previously know, viz., that covetousness is wrong." (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans)

Diodore (d 394):

It is clear from Romans (2:14) that even without the law the Gentiles knew what was required of them. It must therefore be accepted that they knew, although they did not know everything. For there are things which some Gentiles regard as good and proper while others reject them as bad and unlawful. Therefore the giving of the law was necessary to define for us what should and should not be done, outlining for us and showing us what the behavior of a righteous person is. (Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church)

Ambrosiaster (fl 366-84):

Paul shows us that the law is not sin but the yardstick of sin. For Paul demonstrated that sins lie dormant in us and that they will not go unpunished by God. When a man finds this out he becomes guilty and thus does not thank the law. For who would be grateful to someone who tells him that he is running the risk of punishment? But he gives thanks to the law of faith, because the man who was made guilty through the law of Moses has been reconciled to God by the law of faith, even though the law of Moses is just and good in itself (because it is good to show that danger is near)…

Paul takes on a particular role in order to expound a general principle. For the law forbids covetousness, but because it is a matter of desire it was not previously thought to be sin. For nothing could be easier than to covet something which belongs to a neighbor; it is the law which called it sin. For to men of the world nothing seems more harmless and innocent than desire. (Commentary on Paul’s Epistles)

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)

More

 

[guanophore]

No time to go through the whole Book. You can read it for yourself. But a couple of examples are 4:12 and 16:30-31.James mentions the doctrine of justification, but he is notoriously misunderstood. Chapter two has been hashed over many a times on this forum.

If you call us “Paulists,” are Catholics then “Jamists?”

We do interpret all the passages of scripture to be of equal value, and understand soteriology in such a manner that does not exclude or overlook any. We would certainly not claim that Jesus did not have much to say on the doctrines of salvation!

Do you think our insistence that faith is completed by works makes us “Jamists”?