Commandments should not be followed ...

[JustaServant]

Boggles the mind. And what does one do with “nothing impure can enter heaven”?

Since there is no mechanism within fundamentalism that resembles the Rite of Confession, they tend to be obsessed with sin…
One group becomes very legalistic (‘don’t smoke, don’t chew, dont go with girls who do’). The other group picks and chooses what is sin by a means of situational ethics (antinomian).
Fundamentalists bounce back and forth from these two like ping pong balls.

 

[sandusky]

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.

Good answer!

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Is this true of all dispensationalists? I have not gotten this impression from moondweller or sandusky. I have read in their posts that they both espouse a lifestyle of godly conduct.

Thank you for noticing that.

 

[guanophore]

The above in the blue which you state is not a commandment to the Jews is in fact, according to Jesus, written in the law in Lev 19, and, it was a lawyer in the Mosaic Law who recited it back to the Lord (Lk 10:23).

Yes, I agree. However, it was not stated this way in the Decalogue of Deut.

That is the view of the “antinomian,” thus the designation; however, just as all Catholics are not “cafeteria,” neither are all protestants “antinomian.”

I am very relieved to hear this!

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for noticing that.

Thank you for such a positive reflection of Catholic teaching!

 

[mikeledes]

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.”

Since Zechariah and Elizabeth are described as being righteous before God, they have obviously been delivered from a purely carnal state and are in a state of grace. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be righteous before God.

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

They were not “under the Law” in the way Paul uses that term. Paul understands “under the Law” to mean the Mosaic Law, but he also understands it to mean man devoid of God’s mercy, grace, and Spirit. So while the righteous of the Old Testament lived under the Old Covenant, they were not “under the Law” in the sense that I indicated above. Living under the Old Covenant, however, they had to obey the moral and cermonial laws of the Mosaic Law.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[moondweller]

Dear Moondweller,

   you raise  several momentous questions.

Correct me where I’m misinterpreting:

-The Decalogue is abolished as the whole of the mosaic Law.

Although abolished, it must be respected, its violation being sin
(as per Rom 6:15)

Rom 4:15 "for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violationThe believer is not under law.

22
But now that you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit that you have leads to sanctification, 5 and its end is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So, for believers in the new dispensation sin is possible, and it leads to death. If so, believers have to avoid sin to get eternal life. It appears a necessity. Then the Decalogue has always much to do with salvation, at least in negative terms.You fail to understand Romans six. The believer is “freed from sin.” He has died with Christ “to sin” and is now in the resurrected Christ. “The wages of sin is death.” Our sins were imputed to Christ and as a substitutionary sacrifice for sin, He died “to sin” once for all. And Paul says of the believer, we died with Him. He was raised to new life, and we were raised to new life with Him: “But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” That is, in the resurrected Christ. Every true believe is now in the resurrected Christ, the “Last Adam.”

The believer does not have to “avoid sin” TO GET eternal life. It is gifted by God being now “in Christ” resurrected. His new life is our life. It is life eternal. That’s GRACE.Rom 6:15 ¶ What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!

Even if you want to forget completely the works of the “ancient” law, even if you want to consider only the “real NT”, you have to do the works of the law. Christ’s law ., and we shall reap only what we sow.

Yes, I understand this to be the Catholic gospel.

 

[Teflon93]

Since we’ve now been accused of “not understanding” Romans 6 (perhaps you’d care to comment on the ECFs reading of Romans 7:7 I posted, Moondweller), let’s take a look at that in context:

Romans 6:

1: What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2: God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3: Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4: Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5: For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7: For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8: Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10: For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11: Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12: Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13: Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14: For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15: What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16: Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
**17: But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18: Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19: I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. **20: For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21: What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22: But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

First off, let me note that St Paul is praising the Romans. The Roman Church was known from the earliest time to be a bulwark against the heresies which afflicted other churches, particularly in the East. The Catholic knows that the reason why Rome, of all places, became the handmaiden of orthodoxy is that the Holy Spirit protected St Peter and his successors through the charism of infallibility. Fundamentalists who revel in anti-Catholicism must feel some twinge of discomfort seeing their favored apostle praise the Romans (of all people!) for anything.

Notice in the bolded portion what St Paul says it means to be servants of righteousness rather than sin: to obey from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered to you.

Two things must immediately be noted contra Moondweller’s arguments above:

1. St Paul emphasizes not simple belief but obedience (his epistles to the Corinthians in particular demonstrate that there were those who believed but did not obey.)
2. The doctrine had already been delivered to them. But how can this be if the epistles are the vehicles for the doctrine and not the Gospel? Did the Romans receive the Letter to the Romans before they received it? St Paul described himself as a preacher of the Gospel first and foremost. That is whence the doctrine came, not the Epistles.

We’ll see what the ECFs had to say shortly, and thereby whether Moondweller much cares about the Early Church.

 

[Teflon93]

While we’re at it, Moondweller claims that Romans 4:15 means that the believer is not under the law.

Let’s use our patented READ THE WHOLE THING approach and first see if this bears any resemblance to what Moondweller’s manmade tradition says.

Romans 4:

1: What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2: For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3: For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4: Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5: But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6: Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7: Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9: Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10: How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11: And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
13: For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14: For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16: Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17: (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18: Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations; according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
19: And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb:
20: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21: And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22: And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23: Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24: But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25: Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Where is the reference to the Commandments in this passage?

I see plenty of discussion of circumcision, but none of the Commandments.

 

[moondweller]

Where is the reference to the Commandments in this passage?

None, thank you! It’s all about belief and justification. Even about Him who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. And the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, “his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”

“For this reason it is by faith, that it be in accordance with grace…” (4:16) - not law! Faith and grace kiss each other.

 

[mikeledes]

Yes, I understand this to be the Catholic gospel.

If reaping what you sow is the Catholic gospel, then it is also the Gospel of Christ as taught by Saint Paul:

Galatians 6:7-10

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

A principle originally stated by Christ Himself:

John 5:28-29

28"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

Reiterterated in a post-Resurrection post Ascenion appearance:

Revelation 2:26

**26’He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; **

And reaffirmed by Paul in:

Romans 2:5-10

**5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. **

And what does James say about the “law of liberty?”

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.

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.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Teflon93]

So what did the ECFs make of Romans 4:15? Did they believe it meant that the Commandments were no longer applicable?

Origen:

Paul says that the law brings wrath in order to underline his point [made in the previous verse], that it is not the pathway to the inheritance of the promise.

The law which brings transgression cannot be the law of Moses, because there was plenty of transgression before that came into force. Rather, it is the law which dwells in our members and leads us into sin. This is the same law which the apostle says brings wrath. For without a doubt it brings wrath when it leads its captive into sin. But where the law of sin does not obtain, then of course there is no transgression. (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans)

Ambrosiaster:

In order to show that no man can be justified before God by the law, nor can the promise be given through the law, Paul says that “law brings wrath.” It was given in order to make transgressors guilty. But faith is the gift of God’s mercy, so that those who have been made guilty by the law may obtain forgiveness. Therefore faith brings joy. Paul does not speak against the law but gives priority to faith. It is not possible to be saved by the law, but we are saved by God’s grace through faith. Therefore the law itself is not wrath, but it brings wrath, i.e., punishment, to the sinner, for wrath is born from sin. For this reason Paul wants the law to be abandoned so that the sinner will take refuge in faith, which forgives sins, that he may be saved.

Paul says that “where there is no law there is no transgression” because once the guilty have been removed from the power of the law and given forgiveness, there is no transgression. For those who were sinners because they have transgressed the law are now justified. For the law of works has ceased, that is, the observance of sabbaths, new moons, circumcision, distinction of foods, and the expiation by a dead animal or the blood of a weasel. (Commentary on Paul’s Epistles)

Chrysostom:

The law works wrath and makes those who are under it liable for their transgressions, which is a curse not a promise!..But when faith comes it brings grace with it, and so the promise takes effect. Once punishment is removed and righteousness takes hold from faith, there is no obstacle to our becoming heirs of the promise. (Homilies on Romans 8)

Augustine:

This applies to the second state of man, when he is under the law. (Augustine on Romans 23)

Augustine:

Paul said this because God’s wrath is more severe toward a transgressor who knows sin by the law and still commits it. (Grace and Free Will 10.22)

Pelagius:

The law brings wrath because is was ordained for the unrighteous, and it weighed sinners down rather than set them free…Where there is no law there is nothing which can be broken. Or perhaps this means that there is nothing to be punished where the law is not necessary. (Pelagius’ Commentary on the Romans)

Note the distinction made between what Moondweller deems the law (the Ten Commandments) and what the ECFs deem the law (the Levitical laws as Ambrosiaster most clearly delineates).

This is why we say that Fundamentalism rests on a faulty interpretation of what St Paul means by the Law.

When Moondweller accuses me of wanting to “go back under the Law”, he in fact transgresses the Commandment of bearing false witness against one’s neighbor, since I have claimed no such thing. I just completed a non-Kosher meal for lunch; I will not be going to Confession as it is no sin for me not to keep the Levitical law per Scripture.

In bearing false witness, Moondweller has sinned—he has broken a Commandment. Lacking the sacrament of penance, how will he remove this sin?

Does committing such a sin mean Moondweller “wasn’t really saved” in the first place, since being saved means being “dead to sin”?

Or does it mean nothing, because God no longer cares whether or not we bear false witness?

 

[guanophore]

Since Zechariah and Elizabeth are described as being righteous before God, they have obviously been delivered from a purely carnal state and are in a state of grace. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be righteous before God.

I think this is true. I think they were righteous by God’s grace, through faith, just as people are righteous on “this side” of the cross. I don’t think that the Law made them righteous, or even following it blamelessly, but grace, through faith.

They were not “under the Law” in the way Paul uses that term. Paul understands “under the Law” to mean the Mosaic Law, but he also understands it to mean man devoid of God’s mercy, grace, and Spirit. So while the righteous of the Old Testament lived under the Old Covenant, they were not “under the Law” in the sense that I indicated above. Living under the Old Covenant, however, they had to obey the moral and cermonial laws of the Mosaic Law.

God Bless,
Michael

What is interesting is that they were able to do this. Peter says “why place upon them a weight that neither we or our fathers have been able to bear”. Obviously, there were some that could bear it.

Elijah was in such a state of grace that he was taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot…

 

[guanophore]

Rom 4:15 "for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violationThe believer is not under law.

You are inserting things that are not there, moon. You are doing the same thing you did with faith and works. You say that we are justified apart from works, but add on that there is no place for works, instead of accepting the Apostolic Teaching that faith is completed by works.

Just because works are not the basis of salvation, that does not mean they are not included in it. In the same way, the fact that the believer is no “under law” does not nullify the Law. We are under grace, but the Law did not disappear. You have been given many passages to demonstrate this, and it is also clear in the Early Church Fathers. Paul upholds the law. The law is good, and right. The believer does not use it for a rule of life, since our life is ruled by the Law of Christ (love). This Law is the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law. It does not nullify it, but completes and fulfills it.

You fail to understand Romans six. The believer is “freed from sin.” He has died with Christ “to sin” and is now in the resurrected Christ. “The wages of sin is death.” Our sins were imputed to Christ and as a substitutionary sacrifice for sin, He died “to sin” once for all. And Paul says of the believer, we died with Him. He was raised to new life, and we were raised to new life with Him: “But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” That is, in the resurrected Christ. Every true believe is now in the resurrected Christ, the “Last Adam.”

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

However, the Apostolic teaching is that one can, from this pure state, fall from grace, commit new sins, and crucify the Son of God afresh.

The believer does not have to “avoid sin” TO GET eternal life. It is gifted by God being now “in Christ” resurrected. His new life is our life. It is life eternal. That’s GRACE.Rom 6:15 ¶ What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!

I agree, we enter into eternal life without any consideration of our own deeds. However, to retain that which we have been given, we must lead a life worthy of the calling to which we have been called. A failure to do so reflects an evil, unbelieving heart, and such a person will fail to enter God’s rest.

 

[Teflon93]

I think this is true. I think they were righteous by God’s grace, through faith, just as people are righteous on “this side” of the cross. I don’t think that the Law made them righteous, or even following it blamelessly, but grace, through faith.

What is interesting is that they were able to do this. Peter says “why place upon them a weight that neither we or our fathers have been able to bear”. Obviously, there were some that could bear it.

Elijah was in such a state of grace that he was taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot…

Indeed, this was the point of a question I asked earlier (but which Moondweller didn’t answer) concerning whether anyone born before the 1st century A.D. is in heaven.

The implication of Moondweller’s theology would be, “No.” They could not have been because they were on “the far side of the Cross”.

Of course, that contradicts Scripture, in Elijah’s case in particular, but also in Moses’ case given his presence at the Transfiguration in Matthew 17.

It also doesn’t bode well for the salvation of children who die before attaining “the age of reason.”

 

[Teflon93]

I agree, we enter into eternal life without any consideration of our own deeds. However, to retain that which we have been given, we must lead a life worthy of the calling to which we have been called. A failure to do so reflects an evil, unbelieving heart, and such a person will fail to enter God’s rest.

Be careful—Matthew 25 clearly indicates that what we do matters, both positively (good works) and negatively (refraining from sin).

This is why the Church stresses holiness and good works—that we do not fail to put the grace given us to the use for which the Lord intended.

When Christ says “Well done, thou good and faithful servant”, “good and faithful servant” requires obedience and service. This goes well beyond mere belief.

 

[sandusky]

So what did the ECFs make of Romans 4:15? Did they believe it meant that the Commandments were no longer applicable?

Origen:

Paul says that the law brings wrath in order to underline his point [made in the previous verse], that it is not the pathway to the inheritance of the promise.

The law which brings transgression cannot be the law of Moses, because there was plenty of transgression before that came into force. Rather, it is the law which dwells in our members and leads us into sin. This is the same law which the apostle says brings wrath. For without a doubt it brings wrath when it leads its captive into sin. But where the law of sin does not obtain, then of course there is no transgression. (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans)

Ambrosiaster:

In order to show that no man can be justified before God by the law, nor can the promise be given through the law, Paul says that “law brings wrath.” It was given in order to make transgressors guilty. But faith is the gift of God’s mercy, so that those who have been made guilty by the law may obtain forgiveness. Therefore faith brings joy. Paul does not speak against the law but gives priority to faith. It is not possible to be saved by the law, but we are saved by God’s grace through faith. Therefore the law itself is not wrath, but it brings wrath, i.e., punishment, to the sinner, for wrath is born from sin. For this reason Paul wants the law to be abandoned so that the sinner will take refuge in faith, which forgives sins, that he may be saved.

Paul says that “where there is no law there is no transgression” because once the guilty have been removed from the power of the law and given forgiveness, there is no transgression. For those who were sinners because they have transgressed the law are now justified. For the law of works has ceased, that is, the observance of sabbaths, new moons, circumcision, distinction of foods, and the expiation by a dead animal or the blood of a weasel. (Commentary on Paul’s Epistles)

Chrysostom:

The law works wrath and makes those who are under it liable for their transgressions, which is a curse not a promise!..But when faith comes it brings grace with it, and so the promise takes effect. Once punishment is removed and righteousness takes hold from faith, there is no obstacle to our becoming heirs of the promise. (Homilies on Romans 8)

Augustine:

This applies to the second state of man, when he is under the law. (Augustine on Romans 23)

Augustine:

Paul said this because God’s wrath is more severe toward a transgressor who knows sin by the law and still commits it. (Grace and Free Will 10.22)

Pelagius:

The law brings wrath because is was ordained for the unrighteous, and it weighed sinners down rather than set them free…Where there is no law there is nothing which can be broken. Or perhaps this means that there is nothing to be punished where the law is not necessary. (Pelagius’ Commentary on the Romans)

Note the distinction made between what Moondweller deems the law (the Ten Commandments) and what the ECFs deem the law (the Levitical laws as Ambrosiaster most clearly delineates).

I don’t think this supports your position at all; in fact, you give zero explanation as to how it supports your position except to insist that it does.

Teflon93:

When Moondweller accuses me of wanting to “go back under the Law”, he in fact transgresses the Commandment of bearing false witness against one’s neighbor, since I have claimed no such thing. I just completed a non-Kosher meal for lunch; I will not be going to Confession as it is no sin for me not to keep the Levitical law per Scripture.

In bearing false witness, Moondweller has sinned—he has broken a Commandment. Lacking the sacrament of penance, how will he remove this sin?

Does committing such a sin mean Moondweller “wasn’t really saved” in the first place, since being saved means being “dead to sin”?

Or does it mean nothing, because God no longer cares whether or not we bear false witness?

How ridiculous.

But there’s no law against that.

 

[mikeledes]

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.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 warnings against Law, moondweller, was not only applicable to the Decalogue. Nor is the Decalogue “the Law” Since the Decalogue is a part of the Law, he naturally refers to it as the Law. For example, in Romans 3:10-19, Paul refers to a whole series of quotes from the Book of Psalms as “the Law.” The warnings Paul gives to believing Jews and Gentiles is that they should not revert to the Mosaic Law/ Old Covenant. In Galatians 5:1-3, Paul states:

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

Earlier he stated:

Galatians 4:9-11

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

The days, months, seasons, and years are a reference to the New Moons and all the other days and seasons associated with the Old Law (Colossians 2:16). This clearly indicates that when Paul is warning against reversion to “the Law”, he understands the Law as meaning more than just the Decalogue. Paul is warning against reversion to the Old Covenant, with its circumcision, dietary laws, new moons, etc. as a means of obtaining divine mercy.

He also says in Galatians 6:13-15

13For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.
14But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and (I to the world.
15For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

That last verse is similar to 1 Corinthians 7:19

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

What commandments is Saint Paul referring to? He can only be referring to the moral law of God (Decalogue), which is summarized in the command to love.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Teflon93]

Indeed, Michael, a major theme of St Paul’s work was that Christianity should not be viewed as additional requirements of Jews—in other words, that one did not need to follow all of the requirements of Judaism in order to be a Christian. This was why he fought the circumcision issue as he did—it was important that circumcision, the dietary laws, etc NOT become requirements of the Christian faith. The circumcision party was employing these requirements of the Law to discourage Gentiles from becoming Christians, a wound to the unity of the Church.

Thus, Romans 6 goes on and on about circumcision. St Paul was not referring to the moral law, which preexisted even the Ten Commandments (written on our hearts), but to the Levitical law.

St Paul surely never anticipated a time when his words would be used by schismatics seeking to condemn Christian tradition.

It seems that St Paul’s calls for unity fall on deaf ears, while his calls to reject the legalities of Judaism get extended well beyond his intent.

It must also be added that St Paul was nowhere near as dogmatic on this as the Fundamentalists would have us believe—notice we have yet to hear a response as to why St Paul had Timothy circumcised in Acts 6 given his passionate disdain for Christians engaging in the practice to appease the Jews.

 

[Pax]

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.

Why are you attempting to superimpose the OT law on our view? You simply know better than this; it seems that you find it necessary to tickle your doctrinal-strawman funny bone.

References in the NT concerning grace as the foundation of our belief and salvation do not eliminate the law of Christ. We are, indeed under law. We are simply not under the old law and the old covenant. We are under the new covenant and the new covenant law of Christ.

Romans 8:2-17 summarizes our position. It says:

"For the **law **of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh–for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.