Freedom of Conscience

[reen12]

The following paragraph, in the CCC, seems to address men and
women, in terms of moral behavior:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1782.htm

Where, in the catechism, is the issue of freedom
of conscience, in terms of “belief,” addressed?

Additionally, is the term “properly formed” conscience
to be understood as:

a conscience formed soley under the auspices of
the RCC?

Thanks, :tiphat:

reen12

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

reen12:

The following paragraph, in the CCC, seems to address men and
women, in terms of moral behavior:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1782.htm

Where, in the catechism, is the issue of freedom
of conscience, in terms of “belief,” addressed?

Try these:​

2:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 33 (406 bytes ) preview document matches
with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness,
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/33.htm

3:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1784 (434 bytes ) preview document matches
and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1784.htm

4:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1907 (571 bytes ) preview document matches
vocation, such as “the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion.”
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1907.htm

5:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1749 (256 bytes ) preview document matches
9 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1749.htm

Additionally, is the term “properly formed” conscience to be understood as:

a conscience formed soley under the auspices of
the RCC?

Thanks, :tiphat:

reen12

IMHO, no - because it is impossible to exclude the activity of God in this - and where God is, there is the possibility of the unforeseen and unimagined.​

A properly-formed conscience is one which is responsive to God - this may be inconvenient for the CC, but such a conscience is formed to respond to God, in His way, not to any lesser entity: not even a Church - not even the CC. God is not the lap-dog of the Church, nor any man’s lap-dog: God is God - God is greater and better than the Church: we manifest Him inadequately, so it as well that He is. ##

 

[reen12]

quote: Gottle of Gear

A properly-formed conscience is one which is responsive to God - this may be inconvenient for the CC, but such a conscience is formed to respond to God, in His way, not to any lesser entity: not even a Church - not even the CC.

Thanks for the references in your post. I’ll look them up
on Monday morning.

As to your quote, above:

My own view is that a knowledge of the Ten Commandments,
the Hebrew Scriptures, and a reading of the Synoptic Gospels,
equip a person adequately, in terms of a “well formed” conscience.

If “properly formed” conscience includes necessarily
acknowleding the authority of the CC - as sole and
infallible interpreter of what God demands - I’d have to
politely dissent.

What I can assent to, while maintaining intellectual
integrity, is:

quote: Gottle of Gear

God is greater and better than the Church: we manifest Him inadequately, so it as well that He is.

Having said that, I am grateful that the Church provides
guidance on issues where I am not “morally certain.”

quote: Gottle of Gear

A properly-formed conscience is one which is responsive to God - this may be inconvenient for the CC…

“inconvenient” is le seul mot juste.

Thank you for your kind and informative reply,

reen12 :tiphat:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

reen12:

If “properly formed” conscience includes necessarily acknowleding the authority of the CC - as sole and infallible interpreter of what God demands - I’d have to
politely dissent.

I’m not sure it does - I don’t think that talking of “the authority of the CC” is always terribly illuminating: not because the CC and its authority is unimportant (I don’t think it is unimportant), but because the CC is not man’s ultimate end. In addition, there is far more to the CC than authority (in the sense the word “authority” has come to have; which is a much diminished one).​

Thank you for the kind remarks ##

 

[NotWorthy]

I think our freedom of conscience ends as soon as we make a decision to the following question: Do I love Jesus and wish to obey his words? If so, then all I want to do is to please Him. I know that He left me a Church. I know that the Holy Spirit inspired men to write the New Testament (and, of course, the Old Testament). I know that he instructed His Church to guide and teach me.

So how do I know that something is right or wrong, and it’s not apparently obvious, i.e. stem cell research? I look to the Church to guide me.

Notworthy

 

[NotWorthy]

reen12:

My own view is that a knowledge of the Ten Commandments,
the Hebrew Scriptures, and a reading of the Synoptic Gospels,
equip a person adequately, in terms of a “well formed” conscience.

Why just the Synoptic Gospels - why not the Gospel of John? Why not Acts or all of the Epistles? Any reason for the Hebrew Scriptures and not the Septuagint - which is what Jesus seemed to have referred to the most?

Case in point: Jesus gave us only one commandment - “To love one another as I have loved you”. And this, I believe, was only found in John.

Notworthy

 

[reen12]

quote: NotWorthy

Why just the Synoptic Gospels - why not the Gospel of John? Why not Acts or all of the Epistles? Any reason for the Hebrew Scriptures and not the Septuagint - which is what Jesus seemed to have referred to the most?

Case in point: Jesus gave us only one commandment - “To love one another as I have loved you”. And this, I believe, was only found in John.

There once was a man who told people that - if a

someone could explain the Torah to him - standing

on one foot, that he would embrace Judaism.

The first tzadik that he asked said:

"I couldn’t possibly do that! Why, my boy, there

are* volumes* that we’d have to go thru, in order for

you to understand the Torah, and what G-d

demands of us."

The second tzadik thought for a moment, stood

on one foot, and said:

"Do not do to another, what you would not have done

to you. In that is the whole of the Torah. The rest

is commentary."

The man asked to be taught the faith.

---

While it’s gratifying to know where this quote of

Jesus comes from, and additionally gratifying to

know the distinction between the Hebrew Scriptures

and the Septuagint, I look to Jesus, "standing on

one foot", saying:

"Love the Lord your God with your whole mind,

heart and strength, and love your neighbor as

yourself. In this is the whole of the Law and the

Prophets."

His new commandment is implict in the Synoptics -

for those who have eyes to see, and ears to hear

• in my experience.

Best,

reen

 

[Matt16_18]

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?
Jeremiah 17:9

reen12:

Additionally, is the term “properly formed” conscience to be understood as: a conscience formed soley under the auspices of the RCC?

Yes, of course.

All men are born with defective consciences in need of formation. Where then, is the temporal authority that men can look to for the formation of their consciences? They can’t look to themselves since all men have corrupt consciences, as the Prophet Jeremiah points out.

One of the reasons God the Son became incarnate and founded the Catholic Church is the fact that all men have corrupt consciences. God will not allow His church to become a source of moral error, because if that ever happened, men would be adrift in a sea of moral confusion. The moral teaching found in Protestantism is ample proof that men apart from Christ’s Church quickly drift into corrupt moral teaching – and it doesn’t matter if these Protestants are sincere and well meaning either. They fall into error because Christ did not promise that men separated from His church would possess the charism of infallibility in promulgating moral doctrine.

If a person does accept the moral teaching of the Catholic Church, that does not prove that they are right and the Church is wrong. It only proves that they are in need of conscience formation. If one had a perfectly formed conscience, one could NEVER disagree with what the Church teaches about morality, since she can teach no error on this matter. Catechism of the Catholic Church
**THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE

1783 ** Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

**ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790** A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

 

[Matt16_18]

Gottle of Geer:

A properly-formed conscience is one which is responsive to God - this may be inconvenient for the CC, but such a conscience is formed to respond to God, in His way, not to any lesser entity: not even a Church - not even the CC.

I am sorry, but this is Protestant rubbish.

The Catholic Church is the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” and she is the church that God founded. In her ALONE is found the fullness of truth. God will not allow His church to teach error in matters of morality and become of tool of Satan that teaches lies. A person that listens to what God teaches will necessarily listen to God’s church, since God speaks to his people through his church.

God is not the lap-dog of the Church, nor any man’s lap-dog: God is God - God is greater and better than the Church: we manifest Him inadequately, so it as well that He is.

No matter how inadequately we serve God, God’s church will NEVER teach error on matters of faith and morals. Unless you accept this truth, you cannot be a member of the Catholic Church, since rejection or obstinate doubt about the Catholic Church’s teaching about infallibility brings automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church.

 

[Matt16_18]

Arggghhh… my post #8 should read:If a person does not accept the moral teaching of the Catholic Church, that does not prove that they are right and the Church is wrong. It only proves that they are in error and in need of conscience formation.

 

[NotWorthy]

reen12:

"Do not do to another, what you would not have done

to you. In that is the whole of the Torah. The rest

is commentary."

That’s a great story! I think you just summed up the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament: The Message went from “Don’t do to others as you wouldn’t have them do to you”, to “Love one another as I have loved you”. I know, I know, there is a great reason for that (another thread, huh?).

reen12:

His new commandment is implict in the Synoptics -

for those who have eyes to see, and ears to hear

• in my experience.

I just really love the Gospel of John. To look past it, IMHO, is to miss out on one of the most Beautiful Books in the Bible. But, we are all certainly entitled to our opinions. Sorry to have taken the thread off-kilter.

God Bless!

Notworthy

 

[Matt16_18]

NotWorthy:

I think you just summed up the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament: The Message went from “Don’t do to others as you wouldn’t have them do to you”, to “Love one another as I have loved you”.

I don’t understand what you are saying. The OT gave us the great commandements of love. Christ gives us the ability to keep those commandments. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might
Deuteronomy 6:5

You shall love your neighbor as yourself
Leviticus 19:18

I the Lord, am your God. And you shall make and keep yourselves holy, because I am holy.
Leviticus 11:44

Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment which you had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard. Yet I am writing you a new commandment, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still. He who loves his brother abides in the light, and in it there is no cause for stumbling. But he who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
1John 2:7-8

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan to a lawyer who asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. After Jesus confirms that love of God and love of neighbor is the key, the lawyer makes an inquiry concerning the fine print: “And who is my neighbor?” (Lk. 10:29)

Embodying Mercy

The road that ran from Jerusalem to Jericho provided ample opportunity for bandits to ambush an unsuspecting traveler, such as the man in the story. He’s beaten and stripped and left for dead by the side of the road. “Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side” (Lk. 10:31-32). Why do a priest and a Levite, both of whom were coming down from Jerusalem where they probably just served in the Temple, pass by the poor wounded man? Both the priest and the Levite were well trained in the Torah and the rigorous ritual regulations of the Temple and, according to the law, any contact with the dying man would have made them ritually unclean (cf. Num. 19:11), which would automatically bar them from the Temple. They would have to go through a series of ritual prescriptions in order to be cleansed. By sidestepping the situation, they preserve their notion of holiness, but at a price. Is this the holiness that Yahweh yearns for? But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him (Lk. 10:33-34)

The Samaritan has compassion on the Jewish man who was left for dead. Let’s take a look at Jewish culture to understand this. The Samaritans were hated by Jews. The Samaritans did two things that made them anathema to the Jews: They mixed their bloodline and their worship with the Gentiles. Such assimilation was the opposite of the separation that constituted holiness in the Jewish mindset. The Samaritans were viewed not simply with distrust, but disgust; they embodied the abandonment of holiness and the politics of separation. So after the priest and the Levite leave the man for dead, the astonishing part of the story is that a Samaritan is the one who has compassion on the Jewish man who lies dying. The Samaritan embodies the Father’s mercy. According to the old law, one’s neighbor was limited to “the sons of your own people”. Jesus then poses the question: “Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" The lawyer said, "The one who showed mercy on him” (Lk. 10:37).

What’s ironic is that the priest and Levite were the literal kinsmen (neighbor) of the man, not the Samaritan. The politics of holiness had restricted the notion of neighbor, but mercy knew no limits. Jesus’ teaching on holiness as mercy was a potent new wine, and it burst the old wineskins of holiness.

Notworthy

Continued

 

[NotWorthy]

One of the principles of the old law was the lex talionis: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This was meant to prevent an escalation of violence. This law instilled order through fear: “And the rest shall hear, and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity; it shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut. 19:20-21). The law of lex talionis is simple, what you sow is what you will reap. Jesus takes this principle but reapplies it in a radically new way: Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back (Lk. 6:37-38). Jesus refocuses the principle of lex talionis. Whereas in the old law the way was, “as you get, so you give back,” the new law of Jesus makes the standard, “as you give, so will you be given.” In the old law, this was a horizontal relationship between two people. But in the new, it is not simply a matter between two persons, one getting back what they dished out, for a third party is involved. Now the relation is vertical: “What you do to others is what God will do to you”. So if you show mercy, then God will show mercy to you. If you forgive others, God will forgive you. The model for morality is no longer how others treat you, but how you want to be treated by the Father. This is drilled in every time we pray the Our Father, for we petition the Father to “forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who are indebted to us.” The word “as” is the key, for it reminds us that “the measure you give will be the measure you get back” (Lk. 6:38).

On the Cross, Jesus embodies forgiveness; even though He is despised and rejected, the icon of the Father’s mercy cries out from the Cross, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34). The road to imitating the Father is by imitating the Son.

It was Moses who came down from the mountain and delivered the old law. Now, Luke shows us, it is Jesus who comes down from the mountain, and delivers the new law, which will be the beginning of Jesus’ New Covenant. This new law maps out the way to beatitude, to full human flourishing. It does not simply dictate a code for kingdom citizenship, but points to the way of life which makes one a son or daughter of the divine Father. Jesus is the new Moses, and His kingdom teaching is the new Torah. Jesus teaches that real holiness is not only a matter of separating oneself from sin, but also of cleaving to the merciful heart of the Father. The model is mercy, and such covenantal love - hesed - is to be given to all.

Whereas the Old Covenant was limited to ethnic Israel, the New Covenant is open to all people; it is universal (Catholic). One is now bound to show mercy to all. Thus, Jesus takes the old notion of covenantal love and broadens it to fit into the New Covenant kingdom. This explains the astonishing call to love even the Romans, for they too are invited to the kingdom. Far from seeking to chase the Gentiles and Romans out of Israel. Jesus could beat them, but He would rather have them join Him, as children of the Father.

Notworthy

 

[reen12]

quote: NotWorthy

That’s a great story! I think you just summed up the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament:…

Seeing the “use” that you have made - of such an
account - sums up more than that for me, NotWorthy.

reen12 :tiphat:

 

[Matt16_18]

NotWorthy:

Luke shows us, it is Jesus who comes down from the mountain, and delivers the new law …

You have overlooked the fact that the so-called “old” law contained these commandments from God: You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might
Deuteronomy 6:5

You shall love your neighbor as yourself
Leviticus 19:18

I the Lord, am your God. And you shall make and keep yourselves holy, because I am holy.
Leviticus 11:44

Did Christ do away with these OT commandments and establish a “new law” where these commandments are no longer binding upon Christians? Absolutely not. We are still required to observe these OT commandments, and unless we do, we will not be saved.

… one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he [Jesus] answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answered, “The first is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he; and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”
Mark 12:28-34

“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.”
Matt. 5:17

 

[NotWorthy]

Matt16_18:

You have overlooked the fact that the so-called “old” law contained these commandments from God: You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might
Deuteronomy 6:5

You shall love your neighbor as yourself
Leviticus 19:18

You did not read my post if you think that. Jesus redefines who your neighbor is, not just the Jews, but all Gentiles.

After Jesus confirms that love of God and love of neighbor is the key, the lawyer makes an inquiry concerning the fine print: “And who is my neighbor?” (Lk. 10:29)

According to the old law, one’s neighbor was limited to “the sons of your own people”. Jesus then poses the question: “Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" The lawyer said, "The one who showed mercy on him” (Lk. 10:37).

What’s ironic is that the priest and Levite were the literal kinsmen (neighbor) of the man, not the Samaritan. The politics of holiness had restricted the notion of neighbor, but mercy knew no limits.

Matt16_18:

I the Lord, am your God. And you shall make and keep yourselves holy, because I am holy.
Leviticus 11:44

I didn’t have enough room to post this the first time, but here goes Christ’s teaching on holiness vs. OT holiness:
At the heart of Jesus message, is the central part of the new kingdom ethic: “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Lk. 6:36). This summarizes Jesus’ exhortations. His explanation is strikingly similar to the one used in the Law of Moses. In the Torah, in what is known as the Holiness Code, the reason for the entire moral code is summed up on the phrase: “You shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2). In replacing the word “holy” with “merciful”, Jesus is not downplaying the need for holiness; He is clarifying it. Jesus opposes the Israel view of holiness during His time, especially the Pharisees.

**The Politics of Holiness **

You see, the party of the Pharisees was the party of holiness. The term “holy” in Hebrew (Qodesh) literally means “set apart”, separated. In fact, the name “Pharisee” literally means “separated” or “holy” one. The Pharisee party separated themselves from all that was unclean and non-Jewish, practicing a religion of quarantine to contain the unclean. They believed that imitating God’s holiness meant separating oneself from everything unclean, especially sinners, tax collectors and Gentiles. Jesus recognized that this separateness caused a dangerous nationalism. Thus he would later warn His disciples, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees” (Lk. 12:1). Jesus, on the other hand, had a different view of God and ethics. The key to imitating God’s holiness was mercy. The term for mercy in Hebrew, hesed, is a covenantal term. It was the steadfast and undying love for those bound in a covenant; a love as strong as death, ******* for only death could annul a covenant *******. The Old Law demanded mercy, but only for those who were within the covenant: “You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:18). Jesus, however, radically redefined the boundary: Now He was saying, you must show mercy (hesed) to all, even Gentiles. The contrast between holiness as hesed and holiness as separation is the primary point behind the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Matt16_18:

Did Christ do away with these OT commandments and establish a “new law” where these commandments are no longer binding upon Christians? Absolutely not.
“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.”
Matt. 5:17

Yes, correct, I agree 100%!!! But I hope I’ve shown what Christ meant when he said he would “fulfil them”.

God Bless!

Notworthy

 

[Matt16_18]

NotWorthy:

You see, the party of the Pharisees …

The Gospels show Jesus in confrontation with the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the scribes and the Herodians. Among these different groups were men that had corrupted the Law through private interpretation of scriptures, just as modern day Protestants have corrupted Christianity through their private interpretation of scriptures.And he said to [the Pharisees and the scribes], “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' **You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men**." And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother’; and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die'; but you say, If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God) – then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do.”
Mark 7:6-13

The politics of holiness had restricted the notion of neighbor, but mercy knew no limits.

If you want to argue that the private interpretations of men had corrupted God’s commandments to Israel, then you will get no argument from me. But it is one thing to assert that some Jews had a mistaken understanding of what is written in the OT, and quite another thing to assert that the moral Law that is found in the Torah is corrupt and that Jesus was altering the moral Law. The Jews received the moral law through God the Son. God the Son became incarnate and explained to the Jewish authorities that they were confused in their understanding of the divine revelation that they possessed.

The topic of this thread is “freedom of conscience”. Maureen wants the freedom to define right and wrong with herself as the final temporal authority as to what constitutes moral behavior. Maureen is only doing what Protestants do – asserting a mistaken belief in the autonomy of conscience. There is nothing in scriptures that supports this mistaken belief – on the contrary, it is quite clear that in both the OT and the NT that God gave authority to men of his own choosing to teach in God’s name, and to bind in heaven and earth.And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Matt. 16:18-19

 

[NotWorthy]

I stand by what I said:

“You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:18).

Gentiles were not part of the covenant, so they did not need to be loved.

“And the rest shall hear, and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity; it shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut. 19:20-21).

. Whereas in the old law the way was, “as you get, so you give back,” the new law of Jesus makes the standard, “as you give, so will you be given.” In the old law, this was a horizontal relationship between two people. But in the new, it is not simply a matter between two persons, one getting back what they dished out, for a third party is involved. Now the relation is vertical: “What you do to others is what God will do to you”.

Don’t get me wrong. I love the Old Testament. I think the New Testament is just a shell of itself without the Old Testament. But God’s Plan was not fully revealed until the fulness of time, in the New Testament.

Notworthy

 

[Matt16_18]

NotWorthy:

Gentiles were not part of the covenant, so they did not need to be loved.

Noah was a Gentile.Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, "Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your descendants after you …
Gen. 9:8-9