Commandments should not be followed ...

[Teflon93]

Circumcision is not a work of the Law. It was seal (sign) of the unconditional Abrahamic covenant made with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob, 430 years prior. I covered this in an earlier post. :tiphat: The Law itself was righteous and good. See if you can understand this important differentiation:Gal 3:10 "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.”

This still makes no sense whatsoever.

St Paul inveighs continuously against circumcision as a work of the Law.

Following your logic, St Paul clearly bound Timothy to the WHOLE of the Law per the passage you quoted.

Please post evidence from Scripture indicating that circumcision is no work of the Law.

 

[BRB]

The contention by the non-Catholics on this thread that we are saved “by faith alone” has become a mantra. It is a repeated contention without foundation.

Paul never says that we are saved by faith alone.

Paul would never have stated his teachings the way he did if he meant to say that we are saved by “faith alone.” Paul would have simply made the statement.

It seems rather odd that the proponents of the “faith alone” doctrine would attempt to make the NT’s most prolific author say something that he clearly does not say, and then insist that it be so. This becomes even more egregious when we have another inspired author, James, that did use the words “faith” and “alone” together. This inspired author said that a "man is saved by faith and works, and not by “faith alone.”

.

Paul says we are saved by faith. Not by works, lest any man boast. He makes himself perfectly clear on this w/o having to use the word ‘alone’.

Paul also later tell us that once saved by faith … we need to demonstrate fruits c/w our belief. Evidence of our ‘faithbased salvation’ is a must. James agrees with Paul … and emphasizes fact that if one claims to be Christian there needs be fruitful works to support their claims.

So … what is needed is a Protestant/Catholic merging of beliefs to arrive at the full truth. Protestants teach the accurate idea on initial salvation … Catholics better teach the correct need of Fruitful Works ‘ever thereafter’ in ones life.

 

[mikeledes]

Through faith. But those under the Mosaic Law were obligated to abide in it. It was their rule of life before God. No righteous Jew of faith shunned the Law (Rom. 9:30-32).Gal 3:21-24 "Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we (Jews) were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith."Notice Paul says that the Jews were shut up to THE FAITH that was LATER to be revealed. “The faith” he is referring to is FAITH ALONE in Christ ALONE. The gift of eternal life through faith alone was not realized until after the cross. It is connected to the new covenant not the old.“Christ is the end of law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4).The end of law - that leaves us with FAITH ALONE. The Law was the Jew’s tutor (child-conductor) to lead them to Christ to be justified by faith alone - not Law. Not faith plus law, but faith (in Christ) alone.

No O.T. saint lived with the confident reality of possessing eternal life. That reality came only after the substitutionary, sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and through “the faith” which is in Him alone.

For this reason all who reject “the faith” (in Christ alone) have no confidence in now possessing the gift (promise) of eternal life. Life which cannot be lost (eternal). Why? Because they refuse to believe in Christ alone. They’re still trying to be justified by a law that says: DO in order to be blessed, rather than BELIEVE and be blessed.

So the Mosaic Law was their rule of life before God, despite the fact that they had been justified by grace through faith? Moreoverm besides this lack of “confidence” and observance of the Mosaic Law, there is no fundamental difference between the just of the Old Covenant and the just of the New Covenant.

Regarding eternal life and its loss, I don’t believe in OSAS precisley because it contradicts the words of Christ and what Paul teaches in his epistles. But that’s the subject of another thread.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Teflon93]

Circumcision is not a work of the Law. It was seal (sign) of the unconditional Abrahamic covenant made with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob, 430 years prior. I covered this in an earlier post. :tiphat: The Law itself was righteous and good. See if you can understand this important differentiation:Gal 3:10 "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.”

You need to read the rest of Galatians.

Galatians 5:

“1”: Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

“2”: Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

“3”: **For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. **

**“4”: Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. **

“5”: For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

“6”: For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

What have you to say to this, Moondweller?

Did St Paul damn Timothy by circumcising him?

 

[BRB]

] Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but **if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. **
18: He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, **Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19: Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. **
20: The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21: Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22: But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
.

Where in Scripture does it say that in the New Covenant we are now free to murder, free to steal, free to fornicate, free to covet?

It doesn’t … but, as the above shows, keeping the 10 commandments alone is not enuf. One has to have faith in Christ, and agree to be his disciple. When one becomes his disciple, fruitful works [the only ones that count] will be demonstrated in ones life.

 

[Teflon93]

It doesn’t … but, as the above shows, keeping the 10 commandments alone is not enuf. One has to have faith in Christ, and agree to be his disciple. When one becomes his disciple, fruitful works [the only ones that count] will be demonstrated in ones life.

You need to read the passage. Christ answers the question “What must I do to enter into eternal life” with “Keep the Commandments.” Was he lying to the rich man?

When the rich man replies that he has kept them, what else to do? Christ says “If you would be perfect…” He does not set perfection as a requirement for eternal life, but just exposed that the rich man had not in fact kept the Commandments—his unwillingness to depart with material things point toward covetousness and greed.

The trouble with the Commandments was not the Commandments (Fundamentalists who believe the Commandments themselves to be evil are Manichaeans) but sinful man refusing to obey them.

But thank you for exposing the pure spectacle of ignoring Christ’s words in favor of a misinterpretation of St Paul’s. It’s useful to have examples where fundamentalists elevate the tradition they don’t cop to having over the Scripture they claim to follow.

 

[BRB]

You need to read the passage. Christ answers the question “What must I do to enter into eternal life” with “Keep the Commandments.” Was he lying to the rich man?

When the rich man replies that he has kept them, what else to do? Christ says “If you would be perfect…” He does not set perfection as a requirement for eternal life, but just exposed that the rich man had not in fact kept the Commandments—his unwillingness to depart with material things point toward covetousness and greed.

QUOTE]

I don’t think you understand Christ’s answer. His answer doesn’t imply the rich young man was lying.

It reflects that keeping the law is not all that is needed to be perfect.

Christianity demands discipleship. This is what the rich man was unwilling to accept.

 

[BRB]

.

The trouble with the Commandments was not the Commandments (Fundamentalists who believe the Commandments themselves to be evil are Manichaeans) but sinful man refusing to obey them.

But thank you for exposing the pure spectacle of ignoring Christ’s words in favor of a misinterpretation of St Paul’s. It’s useful to have examples where fundamentalists elevate the tradition they don’t cop to having over the Scripture they claim to follow.

No … the real issue for Paul was that those pious Hebrews who thought they were able to obey them and find eternal life via obedience to the law.

What spectacle are you exposing ??

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon93;3929217:

You need to read the passage. Christ answers the question “What must I do to enter into eternal life” with “Keep the Commandments.” Was he lying to the rich man?

When the rich man replies that he has kept them, what else to do? Christ says “If you would be perfect…” He does not set perfection as a requirement for eternal life, but just exposed that the rich man had not in fact kept the Commandments—his unwillingness to depart with material things point toward covetousness and greed.

QUOTE]

I don’t think you understand Christ’s answer. His answer doesn’t imply the rich young man was lying.

It reflects that keeping the law is not all that is needed to be perfect.

Christianity demands discipleship. This is what the rich man was unwilling to accept.

I don’t think that’s correct. It certainly isn’t the plain reading of the passage. If keeping the Commandments were not sufficient to enter into eternal life, then no one prior to the Christian error could enter into it, as they could not be disciples of Christ or his successors.

You have presumed that perfection is what is required for salvation; Christ says no such thing—see Matthew 25.

The ECF passages posted above display a view of the Commandments which is quite different than your take of the Commandments themselves being insufficient. It is our obedience which lacks, and makes keeping the Commandments difficult (but not impossible) to do.

Christ kept the Commandments perfectly. Beyond his divine knowledge, he was in the perfect position to judge whether the rich man had in fact kept them as he claimed. Had he been so righteous as to have done so (which in itself required grace), he would not have hesitated to do as Christ commanded, per the first Commandment. Indeed, Scripture is rife with examples of men who did just that.

The problem was not with the Commandments, but with our concupiscence.

 

[Teflon93]

No … the real issue for Paul was that those pious Hebrews who thought they were able to obey them and find eternal life via obedience to the law.

What spectacle are you exposing ??

The inability of the non-Catholic to read, reckon, or reason, which exposes the need for Magisterium and Tradition in addition to Scripture.

Notice that every response here contra Catholic teaching, when not evasive, has rested solely on personal interpretation, a Magisterium of one.

We Catholics have offered considerable passages of Scripture, in proper context, the writings of the ECFs, passages from the Catechism, and clear arguments.

What we get in response is simply a weak tea of wishful thinking augmented by a dose of snideness.

Thus, when I point out that St Paul had Timothy circumcised, post the passage from Acts where this is recounted, and ask how this squares with the Fundamentalist interpretation of St Paul that the Law damns those who attempt to follow it, after considerable evasion Moondweller claims “Circumcision isn’t the Law”.

Note here the complete lack of any attempt to understand St Paul’s view of circumcision—as we see in Galatians 5 he took it not only to be a mere sign, but a binding covenant obligating the circumcised to follow the whole of the Law—simply an attempt to justify the manmade tradition to which Moondweller already adheres.

We see this time and again with non-Catholics: first, take your tradition, then justify it with as many disparate verses from Scripture as can possibly be stretched to do so.

It is this dishonest reading of Scripture which we continually expose in this thread. Conflicting passages are ignored or at best “novelly” interpreted. No attempt is made to reconcile the whole of Scripture, which after all is intended to be a cohesive whole. Much extra-Scriptural tradition is shoehorned in (“dispensations” and the like) without the honesty of admitting its provenance (late 19th century).

And still we have no clear answer as to which Commandments Christians are no longer obligated to follow.

 

[BRB]

BRB;3929251:

You have presumed that perfection is what is required for salvation; Christ says no such thing—see Matthew 25.

.

Perfection is required for the Kingdom. Christ clearly taught this.

Problem is — pious people think they can be ‘near perfect’ via law alone. Paul once thought this in error … til Christ showed him the truth.

James was very Just. But, even he realized he was lacking in necessary righteousness.

Paul, James, King David … you / I, … we all need Grace of Christ to make us truly Justified before Holy Father. No sinner makes the Kingdom … thus we all need the perfection of Christ. God views sinful man via Cross of Christ.

And if we turn back from faith to ‘venial’ sin again … there is always Purgatory

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon93;3929286:

Perfection is required for the Kingdom. Christ clearly taught this.

Not here he didn’t:

Matthew 25

1: Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
2: And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
3: They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:
4: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
5: While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
6: And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
7: Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
8: And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.
9: But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
10: And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
11: Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
12: But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
13: Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
14: For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15: And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16: Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17: And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18: But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
19: After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20: And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21: His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22: He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23: His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24: Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26: His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28: Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29: For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30: And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
31: When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34: Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37: Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38: When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39: Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40: And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41: Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44: Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45: Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46: And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

While we clearly need to use the grace God has granted us, Christ doesn’t reject the goats on the basis of doing so imperfectly, but on the basis of not doing so at all. Likewise, note that one servant didn’t perform as well as another (in the sense that one earned 5 and another 2, having been granted less), and yet both were saved for both did something good with what had been given them.

Problem is — pious people think they can be ‘near perfect’ via law alone. Paul once thought this in error … til Christ showed him the truth.

The heresy of Pelagianism. The trouble is that it doesn’t recognize the need for grace and thus presumes the call to righteousness to be a discipline exclusively rather than a gift of God.

James was very Just. But, even he realized he was lacking in necessary righteousness.

Paul, James, King David … you / I, … we all need Grace of Christ to make us truly Justified before Holy Father. No sinner makes the Kingdom … thus we all need the perfection of Christ. God views sinful man via Cross of Christ.

And if we turn back from faith to ‘venial’ sin again … there is always Purgatory

But Purgatory argues agains this notion. Truly, unrepentant mortal sin damns in the normal course, but souls in Purgatory are saved. We are not perfect at the time of our death; we will only become perfect in the presence of God. Christ alone can lay claim to the title of “perfect man”—we aspire to sainthood, not perfection for this reason.

 

[BRB]

We Catholics have offered considerable passages of Scripture, in proper context, the writings of the ECFs, passages from the Catechism, and clear arguments.

What we get in response is simply a weak tea of wishful thinking augmented by a dose of snideness.

Thus, when I point out that St Paul had Timothy circumcised, post the passage from Acts where this is recounted, and ask how this squares with the Fundamentalist interpretation of St Paul that the Law damns those who attempt to follow it, after considerable evasion Moondweller claims “Circumcision isn’t the Law”.

Note here the complete lack of any attempt to understand St Paul’s view of circumcision—as we see in Galatians 5 he took it not only to be a mere sign, but a binding covenant obligating the circumcised to follow the whole of the Law—simply an attempt to justify the manmade tradition to which Moondweller already adheres.

We see this time and again with non-Catholics: first, take your tradition, then justify it with as many disparate verses from Scripture as can possibly be stretched to do so.

.

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

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

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

 

[BRB]

BRB;3929438:

But Purgatory argues agains this notion. Truly, unrepentant mortal sin damns in the normal course, but souls in Purgatory are saved. We are not perfect at the time of our death; we will only become perfect in the presence of God. Christ alone can lay claim to the title of “perfect man”—we aspire to sainthood, not perfection for this reason.

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

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

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

 

[BRB]

BRB;3929438:

note that one servant didn’t perform as well as another (in the sense that one earned 5 and another 2, having been granted less), and yet both were saved for both did something good with what had been given them.

.

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

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

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

 

[mikeledes]

Circumcision is not a work of the Law. It was seal (sign) of the unconditional Abrahamic covenant made with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob, 430 years prior. I covered this in an earlier post. :tiphat: The Law itself was righteous and good. See if you can understand this important differentiation:Gal 3:10 "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.”

So circumcision is not a work of the Law? Although circumcision preexisted the Law, it became incorporated into the Law and thus became a work of the Law. Again, if we are going to interpret Romans and Galatians, you must place it in its context. What did Paul mean by “works of the Law” and what was the controversy he was addressing. Acts 15 gives us context:

1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
5But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."

So the context is the Judaizers attempt to impose circumcision on the Gentiles. In Romans and Galatians, Paul is addressing this doctrinal challenge. If you read Romans 4 and Galatians, you will see that while mentioning works of the Law, he places special emphasis on circumcision. Since the issue he’s addressing is the imposition of circumcision on the Gentiles, then he is obviously identifying circumcision as a “work of the Law.”

Paul makes it quite clear the distinction between Old and New Covenants, between the Mosaic Law and the Law of Christ. Immediately after his warning against reversion to the Old Law as the means of obtaining divine mercy, Paul states in Galatians 5:6:

6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

Compare that with:

1 Corinthians 7:19

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

Once again, Paul makes the distinction between the Law (represented by circumcision) and the moral law of God. And regarding this moral law of God, the Bible is very clear:

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

We are to speak and act in accordance with the law of liberty, namely love. We see this judgement in action in Matthew 25:31-46

**31"But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
32"All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
33and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.
34"Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35’For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’
37"Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?
38’And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?
39’When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’
40"The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’
41"Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’
44"Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’
45"Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’
46"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." **

As stated in James 2:13, judgment was certainly merciless on those who failed to show mercy (i.e. love).

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Teflon93;3929565:

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

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

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

I don’t understand the point of contention between you and Teflon.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[moondweller]

So the Mosaic Law was their rule of life before God, despite the fact that they had been justified by grace through faith? Moreoverm besides this lack of “confidence” and observance of the Mosaic Law, there is no fundamental difference between the just of the Old Covenant and the just of the New Covenant.

Regarding eternal life and its loss, I don’t believe in OSAS precisley because it contradicts the words of Christ and what Paul teaches in his epistles. But that’s the subject of another thread.

God Bless,
Michael

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

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

 

[BRB]

BRB;3929251:

If keeping the Commandments were not sufficient to enter into eternal life, then no one prior to the Christian error could enter into it, as they could not be disciples of Christ or his successors.

.

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

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

 

[moondweller]

What have you to say to this, Moondweller? Did St Paul damn Timothy by circumcising him?

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

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

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