I don't get it...if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren't you a Catholic Christian?

[FantomScholar]

Nope. We follow the rules of Christ, who is the fulfillment of the Law.

Indeed…for “by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility (Eph. 2:15).”

I usually find, as demonstrated by those who wish to liberalize the teaching of the Church on issues of morality, a favorite argument is to accuse Christians of picking and choosing which rules from the Old Testament that are still binding on the Church. The answer? None of them! They are abolished in the cross of Christ.

But as regards homosexuality specifically… there’s the nagging reaffirmation of God’s design for marriage expressed by Jesus Himself (which cancels homosexuality as a legitimate practice in and of itself, without Jesus having to mention it), and the teaching of the apostle Paul in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed…for “by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility (Eph. 2:15).”

I usually find, as demonstrated by those who wish to liberalize the teaching of the Church on issues of morality, a favorite argument is to accuse Christians of picking and choosing which rules from the Old Testament that are still binding on the Church. The answer? None of them! They are abolished in the cross of Christ.

But as regards homosexuality specifically… there’s the nagging reaffirmation of God’s design for marriage expressed by Jesus Himself (which cancels homosexuality as a legitimate practice in and of itself, without Jesus having to mention it), and the teaching of the apostle Paul in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6.

Excellent, Fantom! I couldn’t have said it better me-self!. In fact I wish I had articulated it so beautifully me-self!

 

[Jimmy_B]

Brand new, but can’t read 78 pages of discussion. If the questions is “Why aren’t you Catholic,” my answer is that I’m still wrestling with the Catholic vs. Orthodox question (don’t want to debate that here and derail the thread). At the moment, I’m neither. I’m trying to determine what God wants me to do. It’s more a question of where He wants me to worship and serve than who is “right.” I want to follow in His path and adjust my mistaken theological presuppositions accordingly…

Welcome to CAF!

 

[benedictus2]

Do you and your denomination follow all of the rules of Leviticus?

Depends on what you mean by follow. And also on whether all the rules are meant to be followed.

 

[larkin31]

Depends on what you mean by follow. And also on whether all the rules are meant to be followed.

Well, I am asking. Are they meant to be followed? Do you follow them?

 

[benedictus2]

Hey, you! My faith is not superior to anyone’s; merely stating that most catholics I know put forth an air of superiority, when it comes to faith! And I don’t try to convert anyone, only the Holy Spirit can do that! I, though as a witness for Christ, can plant “seeds” of hope, and encouragement; share the Gospel with whomever God puts in my path!

Okay calm down. My question is why do you do that? Why do you share the Gospel? Now if you believe that all faith’s are equal and your religion is the same as anyone else’s why do you even bother “planting seeds”? Surely, what they believe is sufficient for salvation if all faiths are equal.

What does a pagan believe? Do they have a God? We sorta of know what Hindus believe, but I do not knock anyone’s faith.

Hey, this is not about knocking anyone’s faith. My question is very valid. Why do you evangelize? Surely if every one’s faith is of equal value, then there is no need to evangelize.

As a matter of fact, think about this. If all faiths are equal value, then that means that the religions that came is sufficient for salvation. So why did Christ have to come and die on the cross if all these religions were enough?

God has richly blessed me in my life, as well as my 43 year Christian walk!

He has indeed. Praise be to God.

But do think about my questions. I mean ponder them.

 

[FantomScholar]

Excellent, Fantom! I couldn’t have said it better me-self!. In fact I wish I had articulated it so beautifully me-self!

Thank you, PR. But you made the point first!

 

[benedictus2]

I would believe that by “most people”, you include catholics?

Oh yes! Far too many are cherry pickers. Again it really all boils down self-deification.

I was giving a talk on liberation and my team did not like what I said at all. They didn’t want to talk about sin. Someone even said Jesus did not come to liberate us from sin but from rules and the old testament

 

[benedictus2]

Brand new, but can’t read 78 pages of discussion. If the questions is “Why aren’t you Catholic,” my answer is that I’m still wrestling with the Catholic vs. Orthodox question (don’t want to debate that here and derail the thread). At the moment, I’m neither. I’m trying to determine what God wants me to do. It’s more a question of where He wants me to worship and serve than who is “right.” I want to follow in His path and adjust my mistaken theological presuppositions accordingly…

That question is what is the truth. If you find that then you find who is right. So it is good that you continue seeking Truth. That is what’s important.

Jesus said I am the Truth. Once you find Truth, then you find Him who is Truth.

 

[benedictus2]

Nope. We follow the rules of Christ, who is the fulfillment of the Law.

Brilliant!

 

[benedictus2]

I usually find, as demonstrated by those who wish to liberalize the teaching of the Church on issues of morality, a favorite argument is to accuse Christians of picking and choosing which rules from the Old Testament that are still binding on the Church. The answer? None of them! They are abolished in the cross of Christ.

This is completely wrong. Christ did not abolish the law. Christ came to fulfill the law. Christ said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”
I will write a longer explanation of what this is later on. In the meantime my lunch hour is over.

 

[FantomScholar]

This is completely wrong. Christ did not abolish the law. Christ came to fulfill the law. Christ said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”
I will write a longer explanation of what this is later on. In the meantime my lunch hour is over.

There is a distinction. The word “law” has multiple meanings in Scripture:

1. Law regulation (The Old Covenant Mosaic contract at Sinai, i.e., everything from Exod. 20 to the end of Deuteronomy).
2. Law revelation (Old Testament Scripture. Everything from Genesis to Malachi. Usually coupled with other OT writings, such as the phrase “the law and the prophets”).

Those 2 distinctions in the word “law” are clearly demonstrated in these 3 verses…

“…whatever the law says (as Old Testament revelation) it speaks to those who are under the law (as Old Covenant regulation)…” (Rom. 3:19).

“But, now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law (as Old Covenant regulation), although the Law (Pentateuch) and the Prophets (as Old Testament revelation) bear witness to it.” (Rom. 3:21).

“Tell me, you who desire to be under the law (as Old Covenant regulation), do you not listen to the law (as Old Testament revelation)?” (Gal. 4:21).

Once this distinction is understood, the verse you quoted above is clear. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (Gen. - Deut.) or the Prophets (Josh.- Mal.)”

Yes, Christ did not come to destroy the law or prophets. And, what is the meaning of the phrase “law or prophets?” It never once means “Ten Commandments, ceremonial law, civil law and prophets.” It always means the “Pentateuch and prophets,” a.k.a. “Genesis - Deuteronomy and the Prophets,” a.k.a. the “whole Old Testament.” Here Christ emphasizes both the inspiration and the enduring authority of all Scripture. He specifically affirms the utter inerrancy and absolute authority of the OT as the Word of God - down to the least jot and tittle. We should not think that the NT supplants or completely abrogates the OT but instead fulfills and explicates it. For example, all the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law are fulfilled in Christ and are no longer to be observed by Christians (Col. 2:16, 17). Yet not one jot or tittle is thereby erased; the underlying truths of those Scriptures remain.

What the NT does say, however, is that the covenant made between the Israelites and God at Mt. Sinai is abrogated and done away with by the covenant made between Christ and His people, the Church; the New Covenant. Therefore, the Christian is to live under the regulation of the New Covenant as given in the commands of Christ and His Apostles and not the Mosaic Covenant.

 

[Jimmy_B]

There is a distinction. The word “law” has multiple meanings in Scripture:

1. Law regulation (The Old Covenant Mosaic contract at Sinai, i.e., everything from Exod. 20 to the end of Deuteronomy).
2. Law revelation (Old Testament Scripture. Everything from Genesis to Malachi. Usually coupled with other OT writings, such as the phrase “the law and the prophets”).

Those 2 distinctions in the word “law” are clearly demonstrated in these 3 verses…

“…whatever the law says (as Old Testament revelation) it speaks to those who are under the law (as Old Covenant regulation)…” (Rom. 3:19).

“But, now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law (as Old Covenant regulation), although the Law (Pentateuch) and the Prophets (as Old Testament revelation) bear witness to it.” (Rom. 3:21).

“Tell me, you who desire to be under the law (as Old Covenant regulation), do you not listen to the law (as Old Testament revelation)?” (Gal. 4:21).

Once this distinction is understood, the verse you quoted above is clear. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (Gen. - Deut.) or the Prophets (Josh.- Mal.)”

Yes, Christ did not come to destroy the law or prophets. And, what is the meaning of the phrase “law or prophets?” It never once means “Ten Commandments, ceremonial law, civil law and prophets.” It always means the “Pentateuch and prophets,” a.k.a. “Genesis - Deuteronomy and the Prophets,” a.k.a. the “whole Old Testament.” Here Christ emphasizes both the inspiration and the enduring authority of all Scripture. He specifically affirms the utter inerrancy and absolute authority of the OT as the Word of God - down to the least jot and tittle. We should not think that the NT supplants or completely abrogates the OT but instead fulfills and explicates it. For example, all the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law are fulfilled in Christ and are no longer to be observed by Christians (Col. 2:16, 17). Yet not one jot or tittle is thereby erased; the underlying truths of those Scriptures remain.

What the NT does say, however, is that the covenant made between the Israelites and God at Mt. Sinai is abrogated and done away with by the covenant made between Christ and His people, the Church; the New Covenant. Therefore, the Christian is to live under the regulation of the New Covenant as given in the commands of Christ and His Apostles and not the Mosaic Covenant.

I imagine that the original Christain religion/denomination (Catholicism) that collected, translated and approved the Catholic book, the Bible, would know what was meant by the “old law” as used in that Catholic book. Therefore, I’ll defer to the Catholic Church regarding the proper interpretation here. Catholicism was here more than fifteen hundred years before the Baptist Church. The Catholic book, the Bible, was here, at least a thousand years before any Baptist denomination or any other Protestant denomination for that matter. I’m always astounded by the fact that people give the Catholic Church credibility when it comes to the accuracy of the Bible and then use the same book to try to discredit the Church who gave it to us. This doesn’t make any sense. The Catholic Church would not have approved a book to discredit itself. All of the education in the world, generally speaking, has little value if it has a bias slant that’s why I always consider the source. Context is everything.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

**1964 **The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. “The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come.” It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, “types,” and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven.

There were . . . under the regimen of the Old Covenant, people who possessed the charity and grace of the Holy Spirit and longed above all for the spiritual and eternal promises by which they were associated with the New Law. Conversely, there exist carnal men under the New Covenant still distanced from the perfection of the New Law: the fear of punishment and certain temporal promises have been necessary, even under the New Covenant, to incite them to virtuous works. In any case, even though the Old Law prescribed charity, it did not give the Holy Spirit, through whom “God’s charity has been poured into our hearts.”

There are 180 matching documents for a search of, “the law” in the Catechism (here).
This issue might be a little more complicated than a handful of Bible verses can explain. The word law is used more than 400 times in the Bible
(here).

Thank you for your post.

 

[FantomScholar]

I imagine that the original Christain religion/denomination (Catholicism) that collected, translated and approved the Catholic book, the Bible, would know what was meant by the “old law” as used in that Catholic book. Therefore, I’ll defer to the Catholic Church regarding the proper interpretation here. Catholicism was here more than fifteen hundred years before the Baptist Church. The Catholic book, the Bible, was here, at least a thousand years before any Baptist denomination or any other Protestant denomination for that matter. I’m always astounded by the fact that people give the Catholic Church credibility when it comes to the accuracy of the Bible and then use the same book to try to discredit the Church who gave it to us. This doesn’t make any sense. The Catholic Church would not have approved a book to discredit itself. All of the education in the world has little value if it has a bias slant that’s why I always consider the source.

I fail to see how the post to which I responded has anything whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church or its interpretations of Scripture. Neither the original post to which I responded… that by PRmerger (of which he/she and I were in basic agreement, he/she being Catholic), nor the following post which you quote, in reply to benedictus, had anything to do with Roman Catholicism.

I also, therefore, fail to see how it relates to the particular church that I belong to. So I must conclude that you are either seeing a quarrel over Catholicism where there is none. Or, you felt the need to criticize the church to which I belong for no reason other than to make an assertion about your own. Or, perhaps both. In any event, it isn’t relevant.

However, if you would like to debate the merit of the interpretation that I put forward without the need to engage in polemics, feel free to do so.

Otherwise, God bless.

 

[Jimmy_B]

OLD LAW
Variously known as the books of the Old Testament, the Old Covenant, or the Mosaic dispensation. The religious rites, institutions, laws, and traditional customs that prevailed among the Jews prior to the coming of Jesus Christ.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I fail to see how the post to which I responded has anything whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church or its interpretations of Scripture… .

Hello FantomScholar,

If I’m not mistaken, you were responding to benedictus2, not PRmerger.

"which rules from the Old Testament that are still binding on the Church. The answer? None of them!"
- FantomScholar

Here is your post -

Originally Posted by FantomScholar
I usually find, as demonstrated by those who wish to liberalize the teaching of the Church on issues of morality, a favorite argument is to accuse Christians of picking and choosing which rules from the Old Testament that are still binding on the Church. The answer? None of them! They are abolished in the cross of Christ.

Here is benedictus2’s post -

Originally Posted by benedictus2
This is completely wrong. Christ did not abolish the law. Christ came to fulfill the law. Christ said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”
I will write a longer explanation of what this is later on. In the meantime my lunch hour is over.

You are clearly referring to the “old Law” and interpreting its meaning, as defined by many Protestant denominations. This is a very common Protestant, anti-Catholic, talking point that I have seen many times before. We both know that the Baptist Church and Catholic Church have differing definitions and beliefs regarding the meaning of, “the old law”.

Context is everything, including, understanding posts here and I read your earlier posts. I love my Baptist, Christian, brothers and sisters, even through, as a Catholic, I may disagree with many of the beliefs held by Baptists. Please don’t mistake my defending my own faith, with “attacking” yours.

God bless

 

[FantomScholar]

Hello FantomScholar,

If I’m not mistaken, you were responding to benedictus2, not PRmerger.

I usually find, as demonstrated by those who wish to liberalize the teaching of the Church on issues of morality, a favorite argument is to accuse Christians of picking and choosing which rules from the Old Testament that are still binding on the Church. The answer? None of them! They are abolished in the cross of Christ.

This was in response to PRmerger. We both agreed on this issue. benedictus then responded to the above with a quotation from Matt. 5:17 to argue that the Mosaic Covenant is not abolished. I then responded to him by demonstrating what Jesus meant in Matt. 5:17. The topic of Catholicism did not come up.

My first response, quoted above, was in the context of larkin’s assertion that the Church picks and chooses which OT laws to follow.

You are clearly referring to the “old Law” and interpreting its meaning, as defined by many Protestant denominations.

What I was referring to as old law is the Mosaic Covenant. It is old because it is replaced by the New Covenant.

This is a very common Protestant, anti-Catholic, talking point that I have seen many times before. We both know that the Baptist Church and Catholic Church have differing definitions and beliefs regarding the meaning of, “the old law”.

I can’t possibly see how describing the Mosaic Covenant as the old law which has passed away can be interpreted as anti-Catholic. It used to be that anti-Catholicism was defined as an unreasonable hatred of the Roman Church, segregation of Catholics in the workplace, persecution of them by governments, etc. Now apparently it’s a conversation about the relationship of the Mosaic Covenant to the Church. Who’d a’thunk it?

God bless.
My prayers on the situation with your health that you posted about on another thread, Jimmy.

 

[PRmerger]

I fail to see how the post to which I responded has anything whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church or its interpretations of Scripture. Neither the original post to which I responded… that by PRmerger (of which he/she and I were in basic agreement, he/she being Catholic), nor the following post which you quote, in reply to benedictus, had anything to do with Roman Catholicism.

Right.

Basically, we are all in agreement (except for Larkin): Christians do not need to follow the Mosaic Laws, as expounded in Leviticus or other books of the OT. We follow Christ and His Church.

 

[FantomScholar]

Right.

Basically, we are all in agreement (except for Larkin): Christians do not need to follow the Mosaic Laws, as expounded in Leviticus or other books of the OT. We follow Christ and His Church.

Amen. For the Christian’s daily walk in holiness and obedience toward his Lord, he is to look to Christ and His Apostles, not Moses.

 

[larkin31]

Amen. For the Christian’s daily walk in holiness and obedience toward his Lord, he is to look to Christ and His Apostles, not Moses.

I was just curious if you felt you needed to follow those Biblical rules.

Thanks for the reply.