Commandments should not be followed ...

[guanophore]

There has never been any disagreement with respect to the necessity of grace in salvation.

The disagreement is over the sufficiency of grace…by grace you have been saved…, and nothing else.

Catholicism teaches that we are saved by grace. Only grace can save us. Nothing else can.

 

[Teflon93]

In sum, then, the Catholic response is, “We are to follow ALL Ten Commandments—these are fundamental obligations of Christians, as they have been written on the human heart and commanded by God. Christ, far from destroying them, confirmed them. It is our duty to follow them.”

 

[Teflon93]

Catholicism teaches that we are saved by grace. Only grace can save us. Nothing else can.

A teaching which was confirmed in denouncing the Pelagian heresy, which held that man could attain salvation completely through his own actions.

It should be noted, however, that while grace is absolutely necessary for salvation and absolutely a gift of God, we may yet not attain salvation depending upon what we do with the grace given.

This is Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 25, which I will keep posting and keep referencing until sufficient numbers of people have read it and said, “Enough! We get it!”

 

[JRKH]

Moondweller and others who hold to the idea of Faith alone, or grace alone can always come up with this and that verse of scripture to support their view. Just as others can come up with scripture to contradict this view.

What I would ask any and all persons calling themselves Christians to do is to establish their doctrines strictly upon the totality of the direct teachings of Christ in the Gospels.
What did Christ Himself tell us to do?
Don’t burden me with this or that quote from this or that apostle until you can show me that Christ definitively taught your particular “Sola”.
Don’t try to make me understand what or how God may or may not have chosen to perform or provide the salvic process. That is God’s business and beyond what I need to know.
The Bottom line question is what did Jesus Christ Himself ask of us? What has Jesus Himself laid out for us to do that is profiable to our Salvation?

I am a Christian and I will be taught, first and foremost, by Christ.

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

Jesus did not change the Commandments, he changed the Levitical laws. In Matthew 19, for example, he tells the rich man to keep the Commandments if he is to receive eternal life.

I had this argument on another thread with a fundamentalist.

Matt 19:17-22
If you would enter life, keep the commandments." 18 He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.

Even if it were true that the young man did indeed keep all the commandments from his youth, there is no where that the Commandments state that one must “love one’s neighbor as himself”. In fact, this is not how most of the Jews understood the commandments. Jesus’ teaching on this point, that love is the fullfimment of the law, was a major change in how the commandments were understood and taught. I agree that this is not a “change”, as it is clear in reading the OT that this was God’s intention from the beginning. Perhaps it might be clearer to say that he changed the understanding of how they were to be kept. He certainly pushed beyond them by teaching that the thoughts and attitudes of the heart were as much a transgression as behavior.

As we see in St Paul’s summary in Romans 13, Christ’s commandment that we love one another is simply a summation of the Commandments. It is not a license to steal, or murder, or commit adultery, etc as these by definition invariably involve treating a neighbor in an unloving fashion.

I agree, but this is not visible in the Decalogue.
“Love your neighbor as you love yourself” is not one of them. And, I think understood by only a minority of Jews.

What we have in this thread is the Fundamentalist trying to stretch and distort what is meant by the Law which St Paul condemns to extend to everything God had given man before Good Friday. They do this to justify their heretical dispensation theology, which came about more than 1,800 years too late for Pentecost.

It has been a fascinating introduction to “another gospel”. It has even stretched beyond the boundaries of Reformed education I have had into new venues.

 

[guanophore]

What I would ask any and all persons calling themselves Christians to do is to establish their doctrines strictly upon the totality of the direct teachings of Christ in the Gospels.
What did Christ Himself tell us to do?
Don’t burden me with this or that quote from this or that apostle until you can show me that Christ definitively taught your particular “Sola”.
Don’t try to make me understand what or how God may or may not have chosen to perform or provide the salvic process. That is God’s business and beyond what I need to know.
The Bottom line question is what did Jesus Christ Himself ask of us? What has Jesus Himself laid out for us to do that is profiable to our Salvation?

I am a Christian and I will be taught, first and foremost, by Christ.

Peace
James

It has already been admitted by all the Reformed posters here that this cannot be done. They say that the understanding of salvation by grace through faith was not evident on “the other side of the cross”, and that the real doctrines about the nature of salvation can be found most purely in the writings of Paul.

I think these postings summarize that position, and I am sure moon and sandy will correct me if I am wrong:

The doctrines of salvation are not found in, or built upon, parables - not even Christ’s. They’re found in the post-cross teachings of the Epistles. The parables Christ presented to the Jews, prior to His sacrificial death and bodily resurrection, did not necessarily take His atoning work on the cross into consideration. His parables taught, in a limited way, a specific lesson by example, but they are not salvation doctrines based on and rooted in His atoning work on the cross. For these you must go to the Epistles.

"apophasis:

Jesus did not teach salvation in the context of the cross, since that event was yet future when He taught the parables. For this reason, if you want to truly understand salvation, this side of the cross, and in light of it, you must turn to the Epistles - especially Pauline. By divine revelation Paul was given great insight into this “mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:3-5).

The doctrines of salvation, in light of the historical, finished work of Christ on the cross, are presented and fully explained in the Epistles, not Christ’s parables.

Can you show me where Jesus teaches specifically about justification, redemption, propitiation, identification, sanctification, etc. in the parables?

Why would Jesus give Paul insight into the mystery of Himself if He’d already disclosed it all to Israel? And why would he teach these post-cross mysteries to unbelievers? Truths that are addressed to faith and concern only believers.

I’m not saying Jesus didn’t teach about salvation. In fact He spoke a lot about eternal life through faith in Him alone. And He specifically presented Himself as the object of salvation faith. But He did not disclose to them the “doctrines of salvation” which could only be presented and fully understood AFTER His sacrificial, substitutionary death, burial, bodily resurrection and ascension. ALL on which the “doctrines of salvation” are based.

It’s when you try to build salvation doctrines on Christ’s parables that you error. How is it that you claim to fully understand His parables but yet fail to grasp His straight teachings on eternal life through faith in Him alone?

The Old Covenant with its Commandments (even the Decalogue) and its sacrificial system ended at the cross. We have entered an age of FAITH (see Gal. 3:21-25). True Christianity is not a “new and improved” form of Judaism. Levitical priests have not been replaced by Catholic priests. The Mosaic Law has not been replaced by canon law. “Bloody” sacrifices have not been replaced by an “unbloody” sacrifice. Nor has Jerusalem been replaced by Rome. This side of the cross the saved are to be committed to Christ alone through faith alone. They’re to give themselves over completely to trusting in what He has done, once for all, on their behalf. And by that “saving faith” they rejoice in those four glorious words found in God’s Word: “you have been saved.”

Jesus taught many things to the Jews who were under the Law or as His subjects of the Kingdom prior to the cross that do not directly apply to the believer (this side of the cross) who has been forever cleansed by His sacrificial blood - through faith.He died that you might be made right with God through Him. God has made it that way - to His glory. It’s men who complicate it.

 

[Teflon93]

Even if it were true that the young man did indeed keep all the commandments from his youth, there is no where that the Commandments state that one must “love one’s neighbor as himself”. In fact, this is not how most of the Jews understood the commandments. Jesus’ teaching on this point, that love is the fullfimment of the law, was a major change in how the commandments were understood and taught. I agree that this is not a “change”, as it is clear in reading the OT that this was God’s intention from the beginning. Perhaps it might be clearer to say that he changed the understanding of how they were to be kept. He certainly pushed beyond them by teaching that the thoughts and attitudes of the heart were as much a transgression as behavior.

That is true, and confirmed by the Catechism, but to the point of this discussion “fulfilling” doesn’t mean “abolishing”, a distinction Christ made. As I noted earlier, Christ calls us to a higher duty—to honor the spirit of the Commandments as well as their letter.

Moondweller implies that we are not to keep the Commandments since they are remnants of the Old Covenant. Nowhere does Christ say this is so; indeed, as we have seen in Matthew 19, he says the opposite. He says in Matthew 5 he is not come to abolish the Law. Perhaps Moondweller believes Christ lied in both places.

Indeed, anyone can see from reading the Commandments that keeping Christ’s commandments to love God and love one another is completely compatible with keeping them; indeed, one cannot claim to be keeping Christ’s commandments while breaking the Ten Commandments even if one were a non-Trinitarian who somehow believes the Ten Commandments were issued contrary to Christ. I cannot claim to love you if I murder you. I cannot claim to love God if I worship Ba’al.

Just as rainbows endure as a sign of God’s covenant with Noah long after it was replaced by His covenant with Abraham, so too do the Ten Commandments endure. If we need evidence that they were indeed written upon our hearts, we need only note how reticent Moondweller is to tell us which of the Commandments Christians may now break with impunity.

 

[Teflon93]

It has already been admitted by all the Reformed posters here that this cannot be done. They say that the understanding of salvation by grace through faith was not evident on “the other side of the cross”, and that the real doctrines about the nature of salvation can be found most purely in the writings of Paul.

I think these postings summarize that position, and I am sure moon and sandy will correct me if I am wrong:

All of which is just another way of saying their interpretation of St Paul trumps even the words of Christ.

Still, it cuts down on the Scripture reading to stick only to St Paul’s epistles, doesn’t it?

Of course, there is the matter of his reference to the Eucharist—better cut St Paul down to only a handful of quoted passages just to be safe.

 

[guanophore]

All of which is just another way of saying their interpretation of St Paul trumps even the words of Christ.

Still, it cuts down on the Scripture reading to stick only to St Paul’s epistles, doesn’t it?

Of course, there is the matter of his reference to the Eucharist—better cut St Paul down to only a handful of quoted passages just to be safe.

I think this is exactly what has happened. I am often amazed at how many passages and whole books are set aside in order to maintain a theology. In fact, although I think it has been a year since I first read the posts of Apophasis, I am still appalled when reading them. :bigyikes:

 

[Teflon93]

I think this is exactly what has happened. I am often amazed at how many passages and whole books are set aside in order to maintain a theology. In fact, although I think it has been a year since I first read the posts of Apophasis, I am still appalled when reading them. :bigyikes:

It certainly begs the question as to what the purpose of the parables was at all—after all, if they weren’t meant to instruct regarding salvation, what were they for?

Today’s Gospel reading was on this very point (Matthew 13):

“1”: The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.

“2”: And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.

“3”: And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

“4”: And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

“5”: Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

“6”: And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

“7”: And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

“8”: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

“9”: Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

“10”: And the disciples came, and said unto him, **Why speakest thou unto them in parables? **

“11”: He answered and said unto them, **Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. **

“12”: For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

“13”: Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

“14”: And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

“15”: **For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. **

“16”: **But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. **

“17”: For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

Jesus thus spoke in parables not to tell falsehoods, or nice-sounding stories, but to describe the Kingdom of Heaven and how to attain it in ways that the faithful would discern but the unfaithful fail to understand.

Has interesting implications when somebody claims the parables don’t mean anything, no?

 

[guanophore]

Has interesting implications when somebody claims the parables don’t mean anything, no?

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

 

[Teflon93]

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

So when Christ spoke to St Paul, he used theological terminology?

This creates a conundrum re: sola scriptura, doesn’t it?

After all, wouldn’t this imply that there were things Christ said regarding salvation which were not faithfully recorded in Scripture (they should have replaced the parables) which then were translated by St Paul into his own words?

I presume that Christ’s words would consider greater authority than St Paul’s, would they not?

They would have to, if St Paul’s were to be somehow considered to be a greater authority than St James, or St Jude, or St Peter, or St John, the authors of those “other” epistles.

 

[JRKH]

It has already been admitted by all the Reformed posters here that this cannot be done. They say that the understanding of salvation by grace through faith was not evident on “the other side of the cross”, and that the real doctrines about the nature of salvation can be found most purely in the writings of Paul.

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

 

[Teflon93]

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

They’re not orthodox Paulians either. 1 Corinthians:

1: Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2: Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
3: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
4: I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
5: That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
6: Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
7: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
8: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9: God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
10: **Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11: For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12: Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13: Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14: I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15: Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16: And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17: For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18: For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19: For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20: Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21: For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22: For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24: But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25: Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26: For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28: And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29: That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30: But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. **

What was the gospel preached by St Paul?

Was it not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Are these not rife with Christ’s parables?

Did St Paul consider any of his Epistles to be of more value than the words of Christ?

Not if this passage is any indicator.

 

[Teflon93]

And of course, you can’t be a Paulian without the Eucharist:

23: For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25: After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26: For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28: But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29: For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30: For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

 

[moondweller]

What do you precisely mean here by “the Law” ? I see it includes the Decalogue in your view.

Yes. The Mosaic Law, given to the descendants of Jacob (Israel) at Sinai consisted of (1) The Commandments, of which the Decalogue was the center. They revealed God’s righteous will for the nation (Ex. 20:1-17. (2) The Judgments, which related to the social life of Israel (Ex. 21:1 - 24:11) and (3) The Ordinances, which related to the religious life of Israel (Ex. 24:12 - 31:18). It was a whole system of government for the people and constituted them a theocratic nation. It is the ONLY earthly nation God personally dealt with in such a manner: by covenant, albeit, a covenant of works. The three divisions of the system were interrelated and interdependent. It had its own instruction as to what was good and prohibitions against that which was evil, or, an abomination before God. For the wrong committed it provided prescribed sacrifices. IOW, it was one packaged deal (covenant) called “The Law.”

The whole Mosaic system (covenant), including the Decalogue, with its resounding “Thou shalt not…” has given way to a reign of grace, through faith, by the “once for all” sacrificial work and bodily resurrection of the incarnate Son, to Whom it pointed, even for its fulfillment (Rom. 5:20-21; Matt. 5:17). By His sacrificial blood He inaugurated a “NEW” covenant. He Himself being the divine “planned obsolescence” of the “old.” (Heb. 8:13). No believer today, Jew or Gentile, is brought into right standing with God under the Mosaic Covenant, a covenant of Law/works. Christ was the end (or “goal”) of the Law (Rom. 10:4).

Of course there are those who still make the erroneous claim that Christ fulfilled only the ceremonial aspect of the Law. Catholics here call it the “Levitical Law.” Others, even Protestants, refer to it as a separate “Moral Law.” But such a notion is not Biblically accurate. The answer to this is clear and conclusive. Not only is the Decalogue included and embedded in the O.T. statement of the “LAW,” but, in the N.T. the Decalogue is distinctly said to be “the Law.” Paul wrote about the tendency of his own heart toward sin in Romans chapter seven:Rom 7:7 "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin (i.e., by transgression) except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet."He refers to the tenth commandment of the Decalogue as “the Law.” Notice that the Law did its work with Paul by causing him to flee to Christ (Rom. 7:24-25).

Also, it impossible for any believing Jew or Gentile to keep the ceremonial Law (sacrificial aspect of the Law), so, therefore, the warnings against Law observance (keeping the Law), found in the N.T. Epistles, are of necessity applicable only to the Decalogue.

Consider, moreover, the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. The issue was about mosaic law there. Yet, the only specific matters we see quoted before or after the debate are circumcision and some dietary norms.
Should we imagine that while the abolition of circumcision was a grave concern in the apostolic Church, explicitly recorded in Scripture, such a momentous decision as supposedly abolishing the Ten Commandments passed without any recorded concern?

The issue of circumcision covered the whole aspect of Law observance. Circumcision was not actually a part of the Law of Moses itself, but was the seal (sign) of the promise of the Abrahamic covenant made with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob, 430 years prior. But in those days receiving circumcision meant converting to Judaism and the obligation of Law keeping. The real issue at the Jerusalem council was not, should Christians celebrate Briss? But Law keeping. Is it by faith or works, Grace or Law? Peter testified that by his mouth the Gentiles were to hear the gospel and BELIEVE. And through faith (in Christ) they received the Holy Spirit just as they themselves previously did at Pentecost, and making no distinction between Jew and Gentile He (God) cleansed their hearts "BY FAITH (Acts 15:9).Acts 15:11 "But we believe that we are saved through THE GRACE of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."The N.T. Epistles may make reference to the Decalogue but it NEVER makes reference to it as a means of salvation or abiding in it as a means of sanctification or justification. It was, and still is, with its resounding, “Thou shalt not…,” a ministry of “condemnation” and “death.” As Peter pointed out very early in church history: the hearts of men are cleansed “by faith,” and Paul pointed out that the Law is “not of faith,” i.e., faith based (Gal. 3:12). Hence, no heart can be cleansed by Law keeping - including the Decalogue. From the beginning of this church age it was all of grace through faith alone.

But what do you mean stating that believer’s rule of life before God, now “in Christ,” is that of GRACE (unmerited favor) alone ? Does unmerited favor constitute the rule of life

Yes, the believer’s rule of life before God.

or rather does it permit to follow the rule?

Rom 4:15: “for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.” The believer is not “under” law but “under” grace. “Under” is in reference to his rule of life before God. God places the believer, now “in Christ,” “under grace.” Like oil and water, Law and grace cannot, do not, mix.

Isn’t the specifically christian rule the commandment of LOVE?

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). But salvation itself is always by grace through faith.

 

[Teflon93]

Still waiting for my responses, Moondweller.

 

[moondweller]

I think he did answer this when he said that nothing in the Law pertains to the Christian whatsoever.

Thank you, guanophore. “For you are not under law but under grace.”

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon’s Fundamental Number One is “Never let somebody quote a passage of Scripture absent its full context.”

So let’s see what St Paul was saying in Romans 7, shall we?

1: Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2: Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3: Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4: The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5: Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6: But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7: For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8: I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
**9: But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
10: And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: **
**11: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. **
12: But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13: And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15: But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
**16: For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? **
17: But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
**18: Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. **
**19: Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. **
**20: Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. **
21: Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
22: For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.
23: Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
24: Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
25: Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
26: I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
**27: Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. **
**28: But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. **
29: But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
30: And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
31: And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
32: But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
34: There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35: And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
36: But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
37: Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
38: So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
39: The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
40: But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

So a long passage on sexual morality and marital fidelity here, wherein St Paul takes pains to note where he is speaking his opinion and where he is sharing the Lord’s.

First, let us note that St Paul refers to the Lord’s injunction against divorce.

The Catholic upholds this teaching; does the Fundamentalist?

Indeed, St Paul indicates that being married to an unbeliever is not sufficient cause to leave the marriage.

The Catholic upholds this teaching; does the Fundamentalist?

And yet note what’s missing here:

Where does St Paul say that Christians are now free to commit adultery, since that Commandment no longer exists, as Moondweller implies?

Moondweller, is the Christian now allowed to commit adultery?

 

[Teflon93]

Thank you, guanophore. “For you are not under law but under grace.”

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