"I'm not under the law"

[Silverhand]

Does anyone have any good answers to this (besides "Oh yeah? Sez who?!)? I have a brother-in-law (almost typed "bother-in-law) who is a fundamentalist, and this is his criticism of Lenten fasts etc. A fundamentalist former co-worker even went so far as to say that the ten commandments were non-binding on him as a Christian.

Thanks and God bless…

 

[thistle]

Does anyone have any good answers to this (besides "Oh yeah? Sez who?!)? I have a brother-in-law (almost typed "bother-in-law) who is a fundamentalist, and this is his criticism of Lenten fasts etc. A fundamentalist former co-worker even went so far as to say that the ten commandments were non-binding on him as a Christian.

Thanks and God bless…

I don’t know what Lenten fasts have to do with the ten commandments. Maybe you can explain to us how they are linked.

With regard to the ten commandments:

In Matthew 19:17 in reply to the rich man Jesus said…if you wish to enter into eternal life keep the commandments…

To show there is no doubt it is the ten commandments he is talking about in verse 18 he mentions several of them.

 

[sara888]

Does anyone have any good answers to this (besides "Oh yeah? Sez who?!)? I have a brother-in-law (almost typed "bother-in-law) who is a fundamentalist, and this is his criticism of Lenten fasts etc. A fundamentalist former co-worker even went so far as to say that the ten commandments were non-binding on him as a Christian.

Thanks and God bless…

**
That would be nice if we did not have to follow the commandments of Christ as we could walk around all day and sin, yet claim we have faith and belief in Christ.

Commandments are essential to Faith, you cannot have one without the other… If we are being judged on our Faith and commandment keeping is essential to Faith then we will be judged according to our obedience to this so called Faith.

The whole NT is about Faith and keeping Gods commandments.

Jesus said “if you love me you keep my commandments.”

Jan**

 

[John-the-Seeker]

I agree that anyone who claims to be a fundamentalist and sets themselves up as the trier of fact and determiner of truth is not under the law as the word law comes from an old English archery term which means ‘help or aid to hit the target’ . They certainly are not availing themselves of all the help or aid to hit the bull’s eye.
To persuade or atempt to persuade anyone to accept or believe as you do is futile. Simply accept yourself and share with them the only two laws that you really need to know.
Logic Always Works!
Love Always Wins!

Remembering of course that Love is God and we are not Him.

 

[TimOliv]

Does anyone have any good answers to this (besides "Oh yeah? Sez who?!)? I have a brother-in-law (almost typed "bother-in-law) who is a fundamentalist, and this is his criticism of Lenten fasts etc. A fundamentalist former co-worker even went so far as to say that the ten commandments were non-binding on him as a Christian.

Thanks and God bless…

Hmm…definitely interesting, but not very unique. When we think of a “set of rules” in the bible, we typically think of the Ten Commandments. However, under Jewish Law, there are quite a few more (613 to be precise). We, as Christians (and more specifically gentiles) are not under many of the Laws by which Jews were bound.

However, scripturally, we can see why. Many of the Laws pertaining to the Jews (of the 613) were pertaining to Temple worship. For example, the prohibited activities to occur on the Sabbath, all deal with the construction of the Temple. So any law pertaining to the Temple would not affect a gentile so those are pretty much out. Peter, in a dream, is relieved from the prohibition against eating foods deamed traife (that is, not kosher) in the Acts of the Apostles, so that is another set of laws nixed for gentiles.

So while I see where your friend might be coming from with Jewish Law not being imposed on gentiles, his/her claim is, therefore, “according to scripture, I am not prohibited from killing, coveting, committing idolatry, committing adultery, stealing, lying or using the Lord’s name in vain” which, if you call yourself Christian and attempt to live a Christian life, would just be silly.

 

[Silverhand]

I guess I confused the issue a little bit by mentioning the Ten Commandments The brother-in-law basically says he doesn’t have to fast, abstain from meat, etc., because he is not “under the law”; in other words, since he is no longer “under the law” due to being “saved”, he doesn’t have to follow any of these rules. Of course this includes birth control. So, for example, when we told him we moved my son’s birthday party from Friday to Saturday so he could enjoy meat on his birthday, Bro-in-law’s response was, “I’m glad I’m not under the law.”

 

[RyanL]

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Galatians 5:1
It is for freedom that **Christ has ****set us **free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

These are two of the verses some Fundamentalists will point to in order to demonstrate that we are no longer bound by the OT laws (including the 10 Commandments, which preceded the Levitical Law). When speaking with this flavor of Fundamentalist, expect the book of Galatians to play a prominent role in the discussion.

Another key point which you can expect to be emphasized by this flavor of Fundamentalist is dispensationalism. More on the topic here, but here’s a brief synopsis:

Dispensationalism has its roots in the teaching of the English Plymouth Brethren preacher John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), but it was made most famous by the American preacher C. I. Scofield (1843-1921) who incorporated the system as part of a Bible translation in the Scofield Reference Bible. Dispensationalism teaches that God deals with man in seven dispensations in each of which man is set a specific test. This test continues as an abiding truth for successive generations. So, for example, the life of Christ is included in the period of the law, while we are now in the dispensation of the Church.

The same article goes on to state the following:

Because God’s work with man is broken down into separate “dispensations,” certain parts of the Bible are less relevant than others. So, for example, because we are now in the “Church Age,” we don’t have to obey the Law of Moses, which was only good for the “Law Age.” One of the weird results of Dispensationalist teaching is that the life and teaching of Jesus are made essentially irrelevant for modern man. It works like this: Jesus’ life was part of the Dispensation of Law. Now we’re in the Dispensation of the Church, so Jesus’ life and teachings aren’t for us.

This is the same school of thought made popular in contemporary culture by The Left Behind series of books, so expect some talk about the Rapture to ensue at some point.

In any case, you can search the www.catholic.com website for refutations of individual points, but remember that it’s very tough to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RevDrNorth]

The OT is of course full of liturgical practice and some of that continues on in the church today. It is a way for us to share in the life of the church and a way to focus on some aspect of Christ’s life and meaning. I assume he observes Christmas. As someone who briefly left a non RC liturigcal chruch for Protestantism (S. Baptist) I have to say I missed Advent and Lent. Those practices focussed and prepared me for the celbrations of Easter and Christmas and are part of a rich tradition whose practice extends from the ancient church. CHrist was an observant (Liturgical Jew).

Another thing is that Fundamentalists would not admit it but they follow a form of Liturgy as well since they have a definite order os service.

Also, he is not under the law? Hmmmm…some of the most legalistic people I have ever met were Fundamentalists (everything from what version of the bilble, to not going to movies, no secular mmusic and so on).

Lastly, watch his face if a gay Christian used the same argument on him and said, “Ohh…well…you see I am no longer under the law but under the grace of Christ and he never condemned homosexuality”. Your brother in law would go ballistic.

North

 

[Jeanette_L]

T

Another thing is that Fundamentalists would not admit it but they follow a form of Liturgy as well since they have a definite order os service.

Also, he is not under the law? Hmmmm…some of the most legalistic people I have ever met were Fundamentalists (everything from what version of the bilble, to not going to movies, no secular mmusic and so on).

Lastly, watch his face if a gay Christian used the same argument on him and said, “Ohh…well…you see I am no longer under the law but under the grace of Christ and he never condemned homosexuality”. Your brother in law would go ballistic.

North

You hit the nail on the head. They try to use this argument to refute Catholicism only, but let them grant this same freedom within their own communities. You’ve hardly met a set of more judgemental people. They talk in circles and are too desparate and blind to admit it.

Of course, if you bring up that Christ himself, and St. Peter and St. Paul mention fasting or doing good works, for instance, quite often in the gospels and epistles, they act as if it is something completely different than Catholic fasting and good works. You can’t reason with these folks!

(I come from this background, so I can speak to it from experience, unfortunately )

 

[Veritas41]

Matthew 6:16, Jesus says, “*When *you fast. . .”

Acts 13:2 “While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting. . .”

Acts 14:23 “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord.”

Obviously, Jesus expects us to fast on a somewhat regular basis, “When you fast” not “if you fast.” And the apostles practiced fasting, so it’s not a practice confined to the old covenant.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Revelation 20:12 - And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

 

[Silverhand]

Thanks for all the great responses.

I like the example of a gay Christian using the “not under the law” argument, although I expect he would refer to Paul’s condemnations.

Also, I don’t think he would condemn fasting, just the mandated type from the opressive, legalistic Roman religion

 

[DVIN_CKS]

A great book to read which delves into this issue is called “Not by Faith Alone” by Robert Sungenis. He explains exactly what Paul meant by using the term “works of the law”.

What your BIL is really objecting to is the “works” you are performing (i.e. fasting) which he mistakenly thinks you believe will “save” you (the whole “works alone” theology which Catholics are accused of embracing all the time). Until he understands the teachings of Paul in their proper context you will never be able to convince him that fasting, praying the rosary, receiving the Sacraments, etc… are NOT “works of the law” that Paul is condemning.

Context, context, context!!! Can’t stress it enough!! Get the book…you won’t be sorry!