Commandments should not be followed ...

[Mannyfit75]

Moondweller,

This is what we Catholics having been trying to tell you. We are under God’s Law. The Ten Commandments are God’s, we are subject to it, we are not above His Laws. You have issue with the Ten Commandments about obeying them out of love, you have a problem with God.

 

[guanophore]

How do you reconcile Rom 5:12-14 with your statement that the 10 Commandments existed before Moses?"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- (past tense, in Adam) for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.Looks to me like the Law didn’t exist until Moses. The Decalogue is an integral part of “the Law” delivered by Moses.

I don’t know if I said the 10 Commandments, but certainly the moral law. And before the 10, people sinned, even though it was not after the manner of adam and Eve. How do we know that God’s moral law is written upon the heart? Paul describes this with regard to the conscience of Pagans. We also see many sins committed before Moses, such as Cain killing his brother Abel. How did Cain know that murder was a sin?

Jacob stole his brother’s birthright. How did he know it was a sin to steal?

 

[Teflon93]

How did Cain know that murder was a sin?

Jacob stole his brother’s birthright. How did he know it was a sin to steal?

No, Guanophore—that was on the OTHER side of the cross.

Where did Jesus say post-Resurrection that murder and theft were bad?

Why do you keep trying to put us under----wait for it----THE LAW?

 

[moondweller]

Christ doesn’t say the words “my commandments” in scripture.

Sure He does. And to not understand what those Commandments are have caused an admixture of law and grace in not only Catholic soteriology but many Protestant’s as well.

Romans 15:8,9 reveals a two-fold ministry of Christ. It is imperative that these be distinguished when reading the Gospel accounts. He was first a minister to the “circumcision” (Israel) to confirm the promises made to the fathers (ancient patriarchs), and second that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy. This two-fold distinction obtains at every point in the Gospel accounts and the Epistles.

Jesus sustained a particular and unique relation to the nation of Israel: The One who fulfilled the great Messianic prophetic promises given to that people. He said “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24; cf. Matt. 10:5-7). As a Jew, born under the Law, and as a Consolation and Hope of Israel, He personally acknowledged, kept, taught and enforced the Mosaic Law (which included the Decalogue). However, as Savior of the world, He established the new manner of life and relationship with God which belongs to every true believer (Jew and Gentile) “under grace” (Rom. 6:14). For instance, when speaking to the Jewish “ruler” in Lk. 18:18-30 He answered Him true to the dispensation of Law under which he was born and required to live. But when contemplating the cross, and Himself as the bread that comes down from heaven to give life for the world, He said, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (Jn. 6:29). These opposing principles are not to be reconciled. They belong to contrasting dispensations. They indicate that fundamental distinction which must exist between those principles that obtain in an age of LAW, on the one hand, and an age of GRACE, on the other.

So what about the word “commandments” in relation to Christ in such passages as: Jn. 14:14, 21; 15:10; 1 Jn. 2:3; 3:22, 24; 5:2; Matt. 28:20; etc. It needs to be understood that when dealing with Jews in Israel He gave no commandments of His own relative to the rule of their lives. He recognized only the Law of Moses and that of the future, earthly, Messianic Kingdom. During the time of His earthly ministry they were under the covenant of Law and when asked He responded accordingly: “What do you read in the Law,” or, He asked what Moses had commanded them.

Jesus did not use the term “My commandments” until the upper room discourse, the night before His sacrificial death (Jn. chapters 13-14). That discourse was not addressed to national Israel but to those few who were clean through the Word He had spoken to them (Jn. 15:3). In this portion of Scripture the cross is treated as an accomplished fact, and that whole body of teaching is dated beyond the cross as seen by His words in Jn. 14:29: “Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.” In respect to the covenant of Law, when addressing those whom He chose as His own, He placed them outside its authority as demonstrated by His words: “But {they have done this} to fulfill the word that is written in their (not “your”) Law…” (Jn. 15:25).

The “Upper Room Discourse” is the Genesis of the Epistles of the N.T. In it, in germ form, the great doctrines of GRACE are announced. His phrase, “My commandments” is reserved until this GRACE-revelation, because this term refers to the teachings (doctrines) of grace found in the Epistles, rather than to the Law. They are uniquely distinct. 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.

 

[Mannyfit75]

moondweller,

That is a lot of contradictory theology, the Gospels. Oh, let me put it simply. The Ten Commandments are God’s Law. They are his Precepts, they are HIS Word. His Word was from the beginning. This Word became flesh and dwell amongst us. This Word is Jesus Christ.

You sure have one screwy theology concerning his commandments and grace.

And Christians are not immune to sin. They can be saved through God’s grace but the tendency to sin remains because it is our nature. The only moment we cease to sin is when we are heaven because we are saved and have been judge rightly before God.

Jesus clearly states in John 14:15, that they are HIS commandments.

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” John 14:15

The brand of theology you teach is insult to Jesus’ death and resurrection.

 

[moondweller]

I don’t know if I said the 10 Commandments, but certainly the moral law. And before the 10, people sinned, even though it was not after the manner of adam and Eve. How do we know that God’s moral law is written upon the heart? Paul describes this with regard to the conscience of Pagans. We also see many sins committed before Moses, such as Cain killing his brother Abel. How did Cain know that murder was a sin?

Jacob stole his brother’s birthright. How did he know it was a sin to steal?

It’s called conscience.Rom 1:18-19 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.” Continue in the Book of Romans and you’ll read:Rom 5:13-14 "for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam,Death reigned because men sinned up until the giving of the Law, and after it, and to this very day. The Law didn’t make murder a sin. The Law didn’t make stealing a sin, nor adultery. They always were, always will be.

When the Law was given, guanophore, those who were under it were no longer just “sinners,” they also became transgressors of LAW. The Law made sin “utterly sinful”:Rom 7:13 ¶ Therefore did that which is good (the Decalogue) become {a cause} {of} death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.The only ones who were transgressors (of law) up until the time of Moses was Adam and Eve. The rest were born sinners and sinned experientially. But with the Law, those who were under it were not only sinners, but, like Adam and Eve, became transgressors (of Law), and by the Commandments, sin became utterly sinful.

But here’s the gospel (good news), guanophore:Rom 5:17 "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Rom 5:18 “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.”

Rom 5:19 "For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Rom 5:20 “The Law came in so that the transgression (i.e., of law) would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,”

Rom 5:21 "so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign (i.e., as king) through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.Men knew they sinned before the Law, only after the Law they knew it through transgression (of Law).

And as Paul pointed out to the Corinthians, that was the ministry of the Law. It defined sin by transgressions (of law). Sin was no longer just known by the conscience, but now by “the letter” and “the letter kills.” That’s why the Decalogue is called a “ministry of condemnation and death” for those who were under it. Even Peter called it a yoke around their necks which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear (Acts 15:10).

But believes are not called under that covenant. We have nothing to do with it.

 

[moondweller]

moondweller,

That is a lot of contradictory theology,

There’s nothing contradictory about it. The contradiction occurs when men mix law and grace.

 

[moondweller]

Jacob stole his brother’s birthright. How did he know it was a sin to steal?

Just to set the record straight. Jacob didn’t steal his brother’s birthright. Esau despised it and sold it for a single meal (Gen. 25:31-34).

 

[Teflon93]

Since Moondweller’s back, perhaps he can stop evading these questions:

Which Commandments does Christ command us to ignore? (Scripture, please).

Is Christ one in being with God?

 

[sandusky]

Sure He does. And to not understand what those Commandments are have caused an admixture of law and grace in not only Catholic soteriology but many Protestant’s as well.

Romans 15:8,9 reveals a two-fold ministry of Christ. It is imperative that these be distinguished when reading the Gospel accounts. He was first a minister to the “circumcision” (Israel) to confirm the promises made to the fathers (ancient patriarchs), and second that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy. This two-fold distinction obtains at every point in the Gospel accounts and the Epistles.

Jesus sustained a particular and unique relation to the nation of Israel: The One who fulfilled the great Messianic prophetic promises given to that people. He said “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24; cf. Matt. 10:5-7). As a Jew, born under the Law, and as a Consolation and Hope of Israel, He personally acknowledged, kept, taught and enforced the Mosaic Law (which included the Decalogue). However, as Savior of the world, He established the new manner of life and relationship with God which belongs to every true believer (Jew and Gentile) “under grace” (Rom. 6:14). For instance, when speaking to the Jewish “ruler” in Lk. 18:18-30 He answered Him true to the dispensation of Law under which he was born and required to live. But when contemplating the cross, and Himself as the bread that comes down from heaven to give life for the world, He said, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (Jn. 6:29). These opposing principles are not to be reconciled. They belong to contrasting dispensations. They indicate that fundamental distinction which must exist between those principles that obtain in an age of LAW, on the one hand, and an age of GRACE, on the other.

So what about the word “commandments” in relation to Christ in such passages as: Jn. 14:14, 21; 15:10; 1 Jn. 2:3; 3:22, 24; 5:2; Matt. 28:20; etc. It needs to be understood that when dealing with Jews in Israel He gave no commandments of His own relative to the rule of their lives. He recognized only the Law of Moses and that of the future, earthly, Messianic Kingdom. During the time of His earthly ministry they were under the covenant of Law and when asked He responded accordingly: “What do you read in the Law,” or, He asked what Moses had commanded them.

Jesus did not use the term “My commandments” until the upper room discourse, the night before His sacrificial death (Jn. chapters 13-14). That discourse was not addressed to national Israel but to those few who were clean through the Word He had spoken to them (Jn. 15:3). In this portion of Scripture the cross is treated as an accomplished fact, and that whole body of teaching is dated beyond the cross as seen by His words in Jn. 14:29: “Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.” In respect to the covenant of Law, when addressing those whom He chose as His own, He placed them outside its authority as demonstrated by His words: “But {they have done this} to fulfill the word that is written in their (not “your”) Law…” (Jn. 15:25).

The “Upper Room Discourse” is the Genesis of the Epistles of the N.T. In it, in germ form, the great doctrines of GRACE are announced. His phrase, “My commandments” is reserved until this GRACE-revelation, because this term refers to the teachings (doctrines) of grace found in the Epistles, rather than to the Law. They are uniquely distinct. 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.

Very good post.

 

[Teflon93]

Moondweller seems to love Romans (well, at least St Paul’s Epistle of the same name), but he still has not addressed this point, originally raised by Mikeledes:

Let’s take a longer look at Romans 13, since Moondweller seems to ignore it every time Mikeledes posts it, and since it’s the Pauline Year in the Church:

1: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2: Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3: For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5: Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6: For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7: Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
**8: Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. **
**9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10: Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. **
11: And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
12: The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
13: Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
14: But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.

What a beautiful way to summarize St Paul’s understanding of the New Covenant and its relationship to the Old!

What a stunning refutation of the notion that Christ’s Commandments were somehow in conflict with the Ten Commandments!

And yet more reason why the proper response to any who would quote St Paul out of context in service to alien traditions is to quote still more of Paul’s words to them.

The bold passage is an interesting one for Moondweller to ignore, given his position, isn’t it?

 

[guanophore]

No, Guanophore—that was on the OTHER side of the cross.

Where did Jesus say post-Resurrection that murder and theft were bad?

Why do you keep trying to put us under----wait for it----THE LAW?

I was pointing out that God’s moral expectations of human beings have not changed, from the moment of creation to the present. These things were sins before and after the Mosaic Law was written, and after the Church determined that the Christian was not bound by Levitical law.

Your question has been answered throughly by the posts above, in which many scriptural examples of moral conduct were given, including from Jesus’ own lips (Revelation). I recommend that you scroll back through the thread. I don’t have time to find the post numbers right now, but my colleagues have done an excellent job.

No. we are not “under law” but under grace. Being under the Law of Love, and enabled to keep it by grace through the power infused in us by the HS is part of God’s salvation for our whole being. When we live under His law, we are free indeed, because we become that which He has created us to be. The fact that we are under grace does not abrogate God’s moral expectations of us. In fact, Jesus said that our righteousness had to exceed that of the pharisees.

I agree with your statement before, that one must keep the whole law. As Jesus taught, love is the fulfillment of the law, and the commandments.

 

[Teflon93]

I was pointing out that God’s moral expectations of human beings have not changed, from the moment of creation to the present. These things were sins before and after the Mosaic Law was written, and after the Church determined that the Christian was not bound by Levitical law.

Your question has been answered throughly by the posts above, in which many scriptural examples of moral conduct were given, including from Jesus’ own lips (Revelation). I recommend that you scroll back through the thread. I don’t have time to find the post numbers right now, but my colleagues have done an excellent job.

No. we are not “under law” but under grace. Being under the Law of Love, and enabled to keep it by grace through the power infused in us by the HS is part of God’s salvation for our whole being. When we live under His law, we are free indeed, because we become that which He has created us to be. The fact that we are under grace does not abrogate God’s moral expectations of us. In fact, Jesus said that our righteousness had to exceed that of the pharisees.

I agree with your statement before, that one must keep the whole law. As Jesus taught, love is the fulfillment of the law, and the commandments.

I was actually sarcastically anticipating Moondweller’s rejoinder to your post.

 

[guanophore]

These opposing principles are not to be reconciled. They belong to contrasting dispensations. They indicate that fundamental distinction which must exist between those principles that obtain in an age of LAW, on the one hand, and an age of GRACE, on the other.

Has it occured to you that this whole doctrine of “dispensations” is man made? I is not in the Bible, which is not a particular concern for Catholics, who don’t believe that the Revelation from God is confined to the Scripture (including the word Trinity). However, I would think it would be a great concern to a “Sola Scriptura” person.

God’s favor has always been obtained through faith. Even those who kept the law, and were justified under it,were justified by grace, through faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. His righteous live by faith. It is by faith that the parents of John the Baptist were justified before God. It was by faith that all the persons mentioned in Heb. 11 were justified, even mefore the law was written. There is no distinction on either side of the cross in the moral principles that God has decreed for mankind. They are immutable, as He is. What has changed is our ability to keep His commandments, as He has placed in us a new heart.

So what about the word “commandments” in relation to Christ in such passages as: Jn. 14:14, 21; 15:10; 1 Jn. 2:3; 3:22, 24; 5:2; Matt. 28:20; etc. It needs to be understood that when dealing with Jews in Israel He gave no commandments of His own relative to the rule of their lives.

This is simply not accurate. He often used the phrase “but I say to you” when adding on to their rule of life. He clarified that adultery was not only a sin, but even to look with lust.

Maybe you exclude these teachings because He did not say each time “a new commandment I give to you”?

He recognized only the Law of Moses and that of the future, earthly, Messianic Kingdom. During the time of His earthly ministry they were under the covenant of Law and when asked He responded accordingly: “What do you read in the Law,” or, He asked what Moses had commanded them.

Because Moses reflected the moral purity that Jesus expectes of us. When He says that not one word will pass away, He was not referring to his crucifixion, but the end of the age. As long as man is upon the earth, mankind will require moral principles.

Jesus did not use the term “My commandments” until the upper room discourse, the night before His sacrificial death (Jn. chapters 13-14). That discourse was not addressed to national Israel but to those few who were clean through the Word He had spoken to them (Jn. 15:3). In this portion of Scripture the cross is treated as an accomplished fact, and that whole body of teaching is dated beyond the cross as seen by His words in Jn. 14:29: “Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.” In respect to the covenant of Law, when addressing those whom He chose as His own, He placed them outside its authority as demonstrated by His words: “But {they have done this} to fulfill the word that is written in their (not “your”) Law…” (Jn. 15:25).

I can see your points in this passage, and can agree with most of them. However, nothing He said at that time abrogated the moral principles that He gave to man.

The “Upper Room Discourse” is the Genesis of the Epistles of the N.T. In it, in germ form, the great doctrines of GRACE are announced. His phrase, “My commandments” is reserved until this GRACE-revelation, because this term refers to the teachings (doctrines) of grace found in the Epistles, rather than to the Law.

They are not separated. It is not an “either/or” as you imagine. Nothing He said in the upper room contradictes what He taught the three years prior. Jesus taught about grace from day one, when He manifested HImself. He was full of grace and truth from the moment of His conception. Jesus does not distinguish Himself from God, and when He speaks of the commandments (by the keeping of which one will be saved) he is not disowning them.

Even a simple historical study of the Didache, written at or about the same time as this discourse in John, makes it clear that the Apostles and their successors understood that the moral law had not changed.

They are uniquely distinct. 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.

I think such a statement is misleading. The law was a shadow of what was to come. It prefigured the standard of righteousness. It is not right to say they are not “related”. Even though this rightousness could not be effected by the law, still the Law was an accurate pointing to Christ. In any case, the moral precepts that existed before and after the Mosaic law are completely contained in Christ, so to say they are not “related” is a division that is not appropriate.

They constitute the “law of love,” and the “perfect law of liberty.”

And, as Jesus said, the Commandments are summed up and subsumed into the law of love and liberty.

" But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sad’ducees, they came together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” Matt 22:34-40

The law of love was always present. People did not recognize it, and did not have the indwelling power to keep it.

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).

I am willing to accept this, to the extent that the reference to “Law” relating to the OT covenant. However, the moral principles that transcend that covenant are still salient for the Christian. Having a rule of live based in grace does not mean “cheap” grace. Unless we become all that He has intended, (the righteousness of God in Christ) then His sacrifice is spurned.

Also, when one violates the precepts of love, one is no longer “in Christ”, so one then becomes suject to the judgement.

Rom 2:6-11
6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.

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.

 

[Teflon93]

It should also be noted that John 6, wherein Christ commands the Eucharist, also contradicts Moondweller’s claim that Christ gave no commands of his own to the Jews.

The audience in John 6 consisted of the disciples who had been with Christ since the beginning plus a number of people who had joined him after he fed them with the miracle of the loaves and fishes at the start of John 6. Many of these, finding the Eucharist a hard teaching, left.

One simply cannot therefore say that Christ did not issue commandments of his own to Jews.

This is why false traditions of men, such as Moondweller’s, ultimately fail, as they cannot account for the whole of Scripture and invariably are contradicted by it.

 

[guanophore]

moondweller,

That is a lot of contradictory theology…You sure have one screwy theology concerning his commandments and grace.

I would like to thank moondweller, though, because this is the first time that I have ever been exposed to this line of thinking. I did get some training in dispensationalism previously, but I have never had the moral precepts of God separated from His grace to this extent. It has been very enlightening.

 

[guanophore]

But believes are not called under that covenant. We have nothing to do with it.

I agree with everything you say up to this point. The Apostles taught that the Old Covenant forshadowed the new. This is why it is not possible to understand the New Covenant when it is separated from the old. The reason that Christians keep the OT is because it all points to Christ. To have “nothing to do” with an entire world view designed to point to Christ does not make sense.

 

[guanophore]

Just to set the record straight. Jacob didn’t steal his brother’s birthright. Esau despised it and sold it for a single meal (Gen. 25:31-34).

Point taken. But he was named “deceit”, and his mother helped him with the deception.

My point is that the moral precepts required by God were in existence prior to the Mosaic Law, and subsequent to it:

Rom 2:14-15
15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them…"

You say that Catholic mix law and grace. I think you are mixing moral precepts with Mosaic Law.

 

[guanophore]

Very good post.

You answered my unspoken question! I was just reading that, wondering if you would be in agreement with the contents. Thanks!

 

[moondweller]

Point taken. But he was named “deceit”, and his mother helped him with the deception.

And yet the testimony of God is this: Rom 9:13 "Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” A hint of God’s grace.

My point is that the moral precepts required by God were in existence prior to the Mosaic Law

But not in Law form.

and subsequent to it:

But in Law form. The covenant of Law began at Sinai and ended at the cross.

Rom 2:14-15 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them…"

God doesn’t need Law to judge men. He destroyed the whole earth with water long before the covenant of Law came into existence. The Law served an altogether different divine purpose: to lead men to Christ that they may be justified by FAITH (Gal. 3:23). Divine grace leaves law in the dust. It doesn’t serve the supreme motive of God in saving men by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. That supreme motive is revealed in Eph. 2:Eph 2:7 "…so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.IOW, God’s supreme motive in saving men through Christ is nothing less than His purpose to demonstrate before all intelligences - principalities and powers - celestial and terrestrial - the exceeding riches of His grace. Throughout all the ages to come those whom He saved completely, perfectly and eternally through faith alone in Christ alone, will each be living demonstrations of the glorious attribute of God’s infinite GRACE (unmerited favor).

In the end, through man they’ll have understood the depth of sin and the utter, hopeless estate of the lost. But then they’ll behold men redeemed and saved (by grace) from that estate appearing in the highest glory - like Christ. This through pure GRACE! --of which law had nothing to do. It’s only purpose was to lead men to Christ that they would be justified (giftwise) by faith.

You say that Catholic mix law and grace.

So do some Protestants. Theologically they keep their little pinky wrapped around the Law. They can’t fully let go and completely embrace God’s revealed, infinite grace toward men through the perfect, saving work of the incarnate Son.

I think you are mixing moral precepts with Mosaic Law.

What? What I refuse to do is mix law and grace and thereby distort God’s supreme motive in saving men by grace alone - to the demonstration of His glory.