Sola Fide in scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Milasol
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The apostle Paul said, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Rom. 2:13). But then Paul said, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight:” (Rom. 3:20).

no wonder understanding this all can be diffic.:confused:
I think this will help…it was written by former protestants…so they know what protestants think of…chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/salvation.pdf
 
So then, how is this worked out in day to day living,…?

My ideas of the CC way, is that they may be actually trying to work their way to God,…
by living under a very stringent and hard on your conscience and fear based approach to
sin, when our life with God is supposed to be wonderful and divine and full of love and joy,…
Yes, many Catholics do become scrupulous. It’s an occupational hazard, I guess - but scrupulosity creates despair. The Church itself pushes forth the extensive mercy of God; however, God is also perfectly just. Scrupulosity and despair are temptations that come from Satan - not from God or His Church. When one starts to despair, one loses faith, and figures, “Well, I’m going to Hell anyway, so I don’t care anymore whether I’m sinning or not.” Despair is believing that God could never forgive you for what you have done, so you don’t seek forgiveness yourself. On the other hand, the “Once Saved Always Saved” motif leads to presumption, and the attitude of, “I’m saved forever, so God doesn’t care what I do! I can do whatever the heck I want!” This temptation also comes from Satan. One must never underestimate the mercy of God - nothing is unforgivable. At the same time, we must be truly ever mindful that God is just and will allow us to go to Hell should we purposefully do something to turn away from Him.

To commit a mortal sin, it must first be (a) grave matter, (b) full intent, and (c) full knowledge of the grave matter. Because of parts (b) and (c), many sins that could be mortal often are not. There are many things that reduce the gravity of a sin, such as an addiction, a mental illness, coercion, ability to reason, and ignorance. Any time we sin, we injure Jesus - any time we commit a mortal sin, we re-crucify Him.

But God will forgive even the most heinous sins - if we are truly sorry and ask Him for forgiveness in the Sacrament of Confession. We must never forget God’s mercy, shed in blood from the cross. But we must constantly be like the “good thief” who asked Jesus for forgiveness from his own cross.
but this doesn’t seem like what my Cc friend is like, in that he was very sure
to tell me re confession how important the love of God and my love for him was,…
love seemed to be the defining point, and also I found out that love was the motivation
behind him talking with me, which seemed to be real love, not ‘working for God’. I did feel that he actually loved me.(not romance)
there are some pages on this board I have read where love POURS from them,on the prayer section,…like a river of love pouring out of people, so,…this
might mean that Cs are a mixed bag, just like us P’s,…and that everyone is at a diff. place with a diff. understanding…
Yes, everyone is at a different place. I consider Jesus to not only be my Lord and Savior, but my best friend. He understands me better than I understand myself. And any time I fall, I feel, now more than ever, that I hurt the feelings of my best friend.
Anyway, getting back to Abe, Paul, the law and grace,…
so the law lost me,…
further paul writes that the law is nailed to the cross of Jesus,…(I think it includes moses’ law, the 10 )jews agree the 10 are the law.they say it,…
The commandments from “I am the LORD your God” through “Keep the Sabbath (in Christianity, we’ve changed this to “the LORD’s Day”) holy” are considered binding on all believers (I didn’t number them because Catholics, Protestants, and Jews number the 10 commandments differently). The rest of the 10 commandments are considered binding on all people, as they are part of the law that is written on the hearts of everyone. It is the rest of the law, dealing with food restrictions, sacrifices, and circumcision that Paul states Jesus’s self-sacrifice replaced.
so, following along this argument, where does that bring us, free to sin, - no
free from the law, apparently yes,…
who replaced the law with us, Jesus,
He as our husband, to be good wives, we now obey Him.
We must find out what He says and do that.
We also must understand that Jesus Himself went away,
SO THAT
Another would come In His place,.
The Spirit,…
of Truth,
He will guide, comfort, inform,
bring us,…to become
Jesus’ perfect spouse.
correct? from bible truth?
That’s actually pretty close. Who is Jesus’s bride? The Church - which He married by His Cross and Resurrection. We, the Church, must be His faithful spouse.
 
.

One can’t say that all sins are forgiven in advanced when it is not scriptural. .
By advance, I mean that Father sent Jesus to die, before the foundation of the earth, for the sins of the people, He hadn’t even created yet. Jesus was planned before creation came into being, as a remedy for the problem, before their was a problem.

Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that God was willing, before He created Adam and Eve, to forgive their sins, and had already said ‘yes’ to that.

The blood provided the means of the forgiveness and the shedding of it 2000 years ahead of when We would need it,…are a way of saying yes, I forgive you, by making the provision for us…
 
validates ten at sermon on mount?
"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.m

Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

Mathew 5:17-19

“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors,n ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’*
22
  • But I say to you, whoever is angry* with his brother will be liable to judgment,o and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you,p

leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him.q Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.

Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny."

Mathew 5:21-26

What does that say to you?

So it is faith with the gift of grace and continuous repentance in order to keep receiving that grace that we loose when we sin.

Look at it this way. Sin is a living demonic creature that uses are free will and tricks us and makes us act wrongfully. When we sin, those creatures stain our soul and cling to us enslaving us. Forgiveness takes away those creatures, however they come back as soon as we sin again.
When we die if we have those demonic creatures then we won’t go to heaven as they are not allowed there and as they prevent us from seeing God fully. Beatific vision…

Perhaps I shouldn’t have used that example of demonic creatures but I dont’ know how else to put it. However, most definitely sin is of the devil. And since we are sinners and our conversions do not exempt us from sinning again we are supposed to repent constantly in order to maintain our grace with God.

Jesus came and forgave all of our sins, but we need to accept that forgiveness with grace. And sin takes away our grace.

I really don’t know how else to explain it to you. Please at least watch the video.
 
By advance, I mean that Father sent Jesus to die, before the foundation of the earth, for the sins of the people, He hadn’t even created yet. Jesus was planned before creation came into being, as a remedy for the problem, before their was a problem.

Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that God was willing, before He created Adam and Eve, to forgive their sins, and had already said ‘yes’ to that.

The blood provided the means of the forgiveness and the shedding of it 2000 years ahead of when We would need it,…are a way of saying yes, I forgive you, by making the provision for us…
Here is a video that might help you a lot with the erroneous protestant interpretation of the Bible regarding sola fide, once saved always saved…

youtube.com/watch?v=rY0MIEsvOes

In order to believe that all of our sins in advanced are forgiven then one must eliminate more than half of the bible and it doesn’t concord with free will nor grace.
 
answer re eub, my historical church amalgamated with a diff. church than the one in the
web quote I gave you,…
Which one did you guys join? I’m interested mostly because of my history teaching for a UB school.
I understand P in how it applies to me, from the parts of Paul about Abraham and faith, Abe received righteousness because he believed God, not from any works he did.
God legally declared him to be righteous because he believed God.
This is how I understand the declaration of God over me too, according to Paul, Paul uses Abe as our example, Abe had no law. He was outside the law, and I understand Paul to put us there too, outside the law
BUT!!! ONLY AFTER THE CROSS!!! BEFORE THE CROSS, EVEN IN JESUS’ TEACHING, JESUS WAS TEACHING THE JEWS STILL ALL, INCLUDING JESUS, UNDER THE LAW.
No, that’s not what Paul says in Romans 2:12-16. Note that he describes Gentiles as not being under the Law. It looks as if by “Law” he means the Jewish Torah, not the moral law in general.
JESUS HEAPED UP THE IMPOSSIBILITES OF THE LAW, AND SHOWED THEM HOW HIGH THEY HAD TO JUMP TO GET THERE,…
That is one way to interpret it–certainly Luther’s way (though not the only way even for him). Or perhaps Jesus was showing us what the Kingdom looks like. . . .
THE LAW’S PURPOSE WAS TO BRING US TO CHRIST.
Once we are in Christ, at our going down into the water of baptism,…we die to our old husband the law, making ourselves unavailable to him through our death, dying with Jesus in baptism,…mr . law is informed,…then suddenly we come alive through resurrection with jesus, up out of the water,…into new life, and we are free to ‘marry another’ who is jesus and we become mrs jesus Christ.
paul writes we can have no further intercourse with the law, ((!!) better not, because if we do, we break our covenant of marriage with Jesus!
with Jesus we are ‘outside of the law, meaning outside of his reach, he cannot touch us anymore, nor carry on anymore with us’ we are “dead” to him.
So if the “law” here is the moral law in general, what does that say about the possibility of losing salvation. Does sin affect our relationship with God, or doesn’t it? From your earlier posts I thought you agreed that it does.
The NT or new covenant didn’t start at the beginning of Mathew MArk luke and john where the publishers put the page saying NT.
The New covenant started after the resurrection of Jesus, post CROSS.
so, things jesus said before the resurrection, have to be studied to know if they are FOR
us in the new covenant, OR IF THEY APPLY TO THE JEWS UNDER THE LAW, WHCIH IS WHERE JESUS WAS, HE WAS OBEDIENT TO THE LAW, AND TAUGHT THE PEOPLE ACCORDING TO THEIR TRUTHS,…
THIS WAS MISSION NUMBER ONE, HE HAD, SENT TO THE JEWS,…BEFORE HIS SACRIFICIAL DEATH FOR SINS,…"I AM SENT TO THE LOST HOUSE OF ISRAEL.’
This is dispensatiionalist theology. I don’t accept it for several reasons. For one thing, the Gospels were all written after the resurrection of Jesus, for Christian communities. I think it strains credulity to suggest that the teachings of Jesus which the early Christians carefully recorded were set down simply as historical records of what Jesus had taught Jews to believe and do for a few short years. Furthermore, this interpretation was unheard of until the 19th century, as far as I know. The Protestant Reformers certainly didn’t teach it. Note also that Mark begins "The Gospel. . . . . " Mark thought that his narrative about Jesus, including Jesus’ teachings and miracles before his death and resurrection, was the Gospel or a Gospel.

Edwin
 
So then, how is this worked out in day to day living,…?

My ideas of the CC way, is that they may be actually trying to work their way to God,…
by living under a very stringent and hard on your conscience and fear based approach to
sin, when our life with God is supposed to be wonderful and divine and full of love and joy,…
This is certainly a danger, especially given the “Roman” penchant for legal prescriptions. Western Catholicism inherited this cultural habit, and so there are lots of very precise rules. It’s all based on sound doctrine and on the love of God, in my opinion, but it can easily get translated into a very legalistic way of life.

However, most Catholics in my experience (and of course this is after things were “loosened up” at Vatican II) don’t seem that way. In fact, they seem a lot less fearful than I was brought up to be as a Wesleyan Holiness evangelical. One priest suggested to me once that Protestants are more fearful because if they sin it means that their whole relationship with God may be false, whereas Catholics just say, “Oops! Better to to confession and straighten that out.” (I’m paraphrasing what he said.)

As I see it, the whole approach to the faith that asks “what do I have to do to make sure that God doesn’t send me to hell” is wrong. God isn’t looking for loopholes to send us to hell. God loves us. I can trust God to take care of the hell business if I just open up and let Him work in my life. What I’m concerned about is how I can follow God with all of my heart. Luther’s teaching was supposed to be a way of getting the whole “what do I do to avoid hell” business out of the way so Christians could live joyful lives of love and service to the neighbor. And for many it has worked that way.
.this
might mean that Cs are a mixed bag, just like us P’s,…and that everyone is at a diff. place with a diff. understanding…
Indeed.
Anyway, getting back to Abe, Paul, the law and grace,…
so the law lost me,…
further paul writes that the law is nailed to the cross of Jesus,…(I think it includes moses’ law, the 10 )jews agree the 10 are the law.they say it,…
so, following along this argument, where does that bring us, free to sin, - no
free from the law, apparently yes,…
who replaced the law with us, Jesus,
He as our husband, to be good wives, we now obey Him.
We must find out what He says and do that.
We also must understand that Jesus Himself went away,
SO THAT
Another would come In His place,.
The Spirit,…
of Truth,
He will guide, comfort, inform,
bring us,…to become
Jesus’ perfect spouse.
correct? from bible truth?
Yes, but I think you’re still not explaining what “law” means. Is the Sermon on the Mount law, as Luther thought? You seem to suggest this, earlier. Does Jesus want to free us from the Sermon on the Mount? I think not.

Also, I think you (like Luther) overemphasize certain rhetorical flourishes of Paul’s about “freedom from the law” etc., and make the law sound like a bad guy. Paul of course says otherwise–the law is holy. N. T. Wright and other scholars have argued that Paul is mostly concerned with the way the Torah divided Jews from Gentiles. Early Christianity was in danger of being split into the “first-class Christians” (the Jewish believers) and the “second-class Christians” (the Gentiles). Paul is arguing against this. He isn’t arguing, in my opinion, that God’s eternal moral law is irrelevant to believers.

Edwin
 
By advance, I mean that Father sent Jesus to die, before the foundation of the earth, for the sins of the people, He hadn’t even created yet. Jesus was planned before creation came into being, as a remedy for the problem, before their was a problem.

Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that God was willing, before He created Adam and Eve, to forgive their sins, and had already said ‘yes’ to that.

The blood provided the means of the forgiveness and the shedding of it 2000 years ahead of when We would need it,…are a way of saying yes, I forgive you, by making the provision for us…
“Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that God was willing, before He created Adam and Eve, to forgive their sins, and had already said ‘yes’ to that.”

This is a major cop-out. Adam and Eve were created and given paradise. So was Lucifer (though Angels too had a trial period with free will). It is when St. Michael the Archangel distinguished himself by fighting Lucifer. Lucifer sinned with pride and took along 2/3 of all the angels with him. Mainly principalities and powers. He now roams here trying to gain souls. All souls. Hell is full of baptized Christians. Why? Because each one of us choses a master here on earth.

"No servant can serve two masters.* He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” mammon meaning the master of flesh, ie the devil disguised as money.
Jesus here talks about how we can’t serve God and the devil at the same time.
And in judgment, we go with the master we picked here. So it is a constant repentance. Unless one thinks one is perfect of course. But that is usually pride.

It is a tricky thing free will. We can have it all or have nothing. It is ultimately up to us. Because without free will we wouldn’t be able to love God as much as He wants us too. Hence that’s why He gave us free will. Or do you think it would have been better off being some sort of automated beings without being able to love God or even know Love itself.
 
“Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that God was willing, before He created Adam and Eve, to forgive their sins, and had already said ‘yes’ to that.”

This is a major cop-out. Adam and Eve were created and given paradise. So was Lucifer (though Angels too had a trial period with free will). It is when St. Michael the Archangel distinguished himself by fighting Lucifer. Lucifer sinned with pride and took along 2/3 of all the angels with him. Mainly principalities and powers. He now roams here trying to gain souls. All souls. Hell is full of baptized Christians. Why? Because each one of us choses a master here on earth.

"No servant can serve two masters.* He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” mammon meaning the master of flesh, ie the devil disguised as money.
Jesus here talks about how we can’t serve God and the devil at the same time.
And in judgment, we go with the master we picked here. So it is a constant repentance. Unless one thinks one is perfect of course. But that is usually pride.

It is a tricky thing free will. We can have it all or have nothing. It is ultimately up to us. Because without free will we wouldn’t be able to love God as much as He wants us too. Hence that’s why He gave us free will. Or do you think it would have been better off being some sort of automated beings without being able to love God or even know Love itself.
I’m starting to look at ‘automated’ but with Love included, in a whole new light, after picturing baptized people in hell…, or just hell …
 
Which one did you guys join? I’m interested mostly because of my history teaching for a UB school.

hi hope this colour works, so you can see this is from me in here, the historical church was in Canada, Evangelical United Brethren, but in Canada it amalgamated with the United Church. They were godly, but the United Church is
the one that marries homosexuals, and I think ordains them, too.

This is dispensatiionalist theology. I don’t accept it for several reasons. For one thing, the Gospels were all written after the resurrection of Jesus, for Christian communities. I think it strains credulity to suggest that the teachings of Jesus which the early Christians carefully recorded were set down simply as historical records of what Jesus had taught Jews to believe and do for a few short years. Furthermore, this interpretation was unheard of until the 19th century, as far as I know. The Protestant Reformers certainly didn’t teach it. Note also that Mark begins "The Gospel. . . . . " Mark thought that his narrative about Jesus, including Jesus’ teachings and miracles before his death and resurrection, was the Gospel or a Gospel.

Edwin
If it is dispensational, I am not aware that it is because I have never read it anywhere, before. Have you?

It is just common sense, regarding the two covenants. Its not about if the gospel writers
called their writings the gospel or not, its about what happened when.Gospel means good news.

Post cross was the only time Jesus could take his blood and present it in the heavenly temple.

This is when the New Covenant In His Blood began. (there had to ‘be’ his ‘blood’ in order for the New Covenant to start.

There are no real “Dispensations” about what I am talking about. Just simple observation,
the New Covenant started after the blood became available, hence, New Covenant, whereas, prior, Old Covenant.
Right?

All that Jesus taught prior to his blood, has to be studied in this light because Jesus came for the lost house of Israel, and He ministered to them, while on the earth, He himself was
"under the old covenant " was a better way to put it, and so were the people He preached to.

We learn that He is doing this because of what he said about the woman bowed down for many years, before he healed here. He said, 'ought not this daughter of Abraham who Satan has bound for these eighteen years, be loosed?" The criteria was, she was the daughter of Abraham. This was expressed again, when he expressed that he did not want
to heal someone, because ‘healing was the children’s bread’ and they were not
from ‘Israel,’ therefore, they were "outside the covenant.

Yes, this is about Covenant, and not about law, however, law relates to the Old Covenant, in a way that it doesn’t in the New Covenant, right? This we know.
613 plus 10, to none or you say ten in the New.

So, the Old Covenant contained thing s that the New does not, and Jesus was 'under the old covenant in everything He said and did, although this is recorded in the gospels,
as the men who witnessed it, wrote it, It Does Not mean that the division point between the two covenants isn’t important, nor that Jesus was entirely under the Old Covenant, while on earth, esp when He taught, and what He taught. isn’t an important point either, because they point to something.

The only thing we know for certain, is that his teaching at the supper was about the New Covenant, because it is expressly stated. The teaching about the resurrection that
Mary repeated to him, at Lazarus’s death, and a few other examples, these were part of
the New "Covenant in His Blood. Other things have to be combed with something fine toothed.

PS Why are you going into the CC, and what will you do there, continue teaching, or become a regular member?
 
PS Why are you going into the CC, and what will you do there, continue teaching, or become a regular member?
He is probably waiting or taking his class. The Church requires a class made specifically for converts.

Anyway, as to thinking the New covenant erases the old completely, then one can’t really believe in the new as the new really fulfills the old.

But anyhow, I just remember this that Paul said…

“So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” 1 Corinthians 13

So we have Paul saying that it is faith alone, then we have James stating that faith alone is nothing, and then we have Paul again saying that Love is the greatest of all.

Are they contradicting themselves? I think not.

Here is what the official Catholic standing is on the whole dilemma of faith alone. You will see that we don’t differ, we just put it into context and apply it.

First, Pope Benedict states there are several reasons that we cannot merit heaven. Most obviously, our Redemption by the blood of Christ is a pure gift. Moreover, and in some sense more astoundingly, heaven is a communion with God who is love (1 Jn 4:8), and a relationship of love is initiated by a free gift. If such a relationship is with the infinite, all holy God, how much more is this initiative free! So, too, any merit depends on God’s promise, though God’s promise does not exclude all merit. Finally, the reward of the just exceeds actual merit, as divine mercy tempers divine justice (Wis 11:23, Rom 8:18). Pope Benedict has these reasons and others in mind in his statement. He does not intend to deny Trent’s teaching. He does, however, put this teaching in context—in the context of personal love. We are dealing, after all, with a love story, with a Father who sent his only Son out of love for the godless.

Second, there is a reason that Pope Benedict teaches that faith alone suffices and that it always comes with charity. He means, by “true faith,” a living faith. Now, living faith by dogmatic definition includes charity, for divine faith without hope and charity does not avail (1 Cor 13:2, 1 Jn 3:14). Charity is not first a “work.” It is first of all a divine gift of love that comes down from the Father (Jas 1:17) through the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). It is by this gift of divine love that faith can realize itself in good works (Gal 5:6). Pope Benedict teaches this very thing: Charity is the soul or form of faith (Audience, Nov. 19).

Calling to mind charity as a gift, an infused virtue (not first a work), supports the truth of James’ analogy: Works are to faith as the soul is to the body (Jas 2:26). James’ Epistle would devolve into moralism and contradict Paul (see Rom 10:1-4; Phil 3:8ff; Audience Nov. 26), if it meant that merely human works are added to a dead faith to resuscitate a dead corpse. Not at all! It is living faith that realizes itself through good works, that produces good works. But I might not have opportunity to perform a work, to “realize” this living faith. Am I not saved, if I die in such circumstances? No, I am saved! Therefore, having formed faith is sufficient for salvation. This is what Pope Benedict means. Further, as he also expressly states, living faith itself will surely die if it is not expressed in concrete works, if I am capable of action and the opportunity presents itself.

Third, good works testify to justification, for they are signs of a justification already received. They are signs of gratitude for the gift already given, promised in earnest. Luther said the same thing, as did St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic saints.

Of course, more must be said—and the pope says more: “Salvation received in Christ needs to be preserved and witnessed to” (Nov. 26). This is what Trent teaches (Trent, VI, canon 24). Moreover, the pope indicates a progressive growth in communion with Christ, a progressive conformity to his life (Nov. 19). Since communion with Christ is established through faith and constitutes the essence of our “being justified,” the pope is teaching here another truth of Catholic faith—that, once justified, the Christian can surrender to God and so be increasingly sanctified unto eternal life (Rom 6:15-23). In purgatory, those who die with imperfect charity are thoroughly sanctified (see Spe Salvi, 45ff).

Finally, we must heed something not yet mentioned—the pope’s focus on the final judgment: “This idea of the Last Judgment must illumine us in our daily lives” (Nov. 26). What is the basis upon which we will be judged? The “sole criterion is love” (Nov. 19; see also, Nov. 26). Hence, “At the end of this Gospel [Mt 25], we can say: love alone, charity alone” (Nov. 19). Here, the pope is showing his deeply Augustinian character (see Augustine, De Trinitate, XV:18:32).

Love of God and neighbor is a matter of life and death (Dt 30; John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 12), for even though a person has divine faith as a free commitment to Christ, if he has not charity—and the deeds of charity where need requires and capacity exists—he cannot be saved (Mt 7:22ff; Jn 15:2; 1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:19-21; Jas 2:17; Veritatis Splendor, 68).

 
Anyway, as to thinking the New covenant erases the old completely, then one can’t really believe in the new as the new really fulfills the old.

But anyhow, I just remember this that Paul said…

“So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” 1 Corinthians 13

So we have Paul saying that it is faith alone, then we have James stating that faith alone is nothing, and then we have Paul again saying that Love is the greatest of all.

Are they contradicting themselves? I think not.

Thankyou for what you sent me in the body of what you wrote,…
the above, New Covenant ending the Old, and being different than the Old, is the way I understood it. How do you understand it and why?

The three diff. seemingly contradictory writings happens quite a bit on bible topics…:eek:

I enjoyed reading on love and faith.
 
If it is dispensational, I am not aware that it is because I have never read it anywhere, before. Have you?
I have certainly encountered the idea that the Gospels aren’t directly meant “for us” because they are Jesus’ teachings addressed to Jews. This is a key claim of full-blown dispensationalist theology, as I said.

I probably overreacted in reading what you said in that light.
It is just common sense, regarding the two covenants. Its not about if the gospel writers
called their writings the gospel or not, its about what happened when.Gospel means good news.
But the Gospels were written by and for people after Jesus had risen from the dead. The Sermon on the Mount was recorded and written down by Christians for Christians, and for 1400+ years no one thought differently about it. Then Luther suggested that it should be considered “law” rather than Gospel, because he had redefined the term “Gospel.” And then, more than three hundred years after that, the dispensationalists went a step further and said that it doesn’t apply to Christians at all.

But that doesn’t make sense. The Gospels aren’t just historical narratives about what Jesus said to Jews. They are God’s Word to us. They are, well, the Gospel.
Post cross was the only time Jesus could take his blood and present it in the heavenly temple.
This is when the New Covenant In His Blood began. (there had to ‘be’ his ‘blood’ in order for the New Covenant to start.
Jesus’ blood seals the New Covenant, sure. But you’re separating off Jesus’ death and resurrection from Jesus’ life. I think that’s a mistake. Jesus began to proclaim the New Covenant with the beginning of His ministry–indeed the angels proclaimed it when he was born. The New Covenant wasn’t fully implemented until His death, but His life was leading up to that moment.

To repeat: the Sermon on the Mount was recorded by Christians for Christians. It was divinely inspired as a Christian, post-Resurrection text. It is therefore quite accurate to say that it’s part of the New Covenant.
All that Jesus taught prior to his blood, has to be studied in this light because Jesus came for the lost house of Israel, and He ministered to them, while on the earth, He himself was
"under the old covenant " was a better way to put it, and so were the people He preached to.
We learn that He is doing this because of what he said about the woman bowed down for many years, before he healed here. He said, 'ought not this daughter of Abraham who Satan has bound for these eighteen years, be loosed?" The criteria was, she was the daughter of Abraham. This was expressed again, when he expressed that he did not want
to heal someone, because ‘healing was the children’s bread’ and they were not
from ‘Israel,’ therefore, they were "outside the covenant.
You’re understanding the “New Covenant” to be about the Gentiles and the “Old Covenant” to be about the Jews. But that’s contrary to Jer. 31, which says that the New Covenant will be made with the house of Israel. The fact that Jesus was preaching to Israel doesn’t mean that He wasn’t proclaiming the New Covenant.
Yes, this is about Covenant, and not about law, however, law relates to the Old Covenant, in a way that it doesn’t in the New Covenant, right? This we know.
613 plus 10, to none or you say ten in the New.
Obviously the ten commandments aren’t in the New Testament. But in the Catholic understanding, God’s moral law remains eternal.

You are still confusing the Torah–the specific revelation to Israel, or the “Old Covenant” in NT terms–with God’s law in a more general moral sense. I used to do that too, but I think it’s a mistake.
So, the Old Covenant contained thing s that the New does not, and Jesus was 'under the old covenant in everything He said and did, although this is recorded in the gospels,
as the men who witnessed it, wrote it, It Does Not mean that the division point between the two covenants isn’t important, nor that Jesus was entirely under the Old Covenant, while on earth, esp when He taught, and what He taught. isn’t an important point either, because they point to something.
Well, I disagree here. I think that when the Gospels were written is key. I think that by your supposition the Gospels were basically fossils when they were written.

The Gospels are, from beginning to end, about the New Covenant. The line between Old and New isn’t as sharp as you want to make it. Jesus said, “The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]; since that time the kingdom of heaven is being proclaimed” (Luke 16:16).
The only thing we know for certain, is that his teaching at the supper was about the New Covenant, because it is expressly stated. The teaching about the resurrection that
Mary repeated to him, at Lazarus’s death, and a few other examples, these were part of
the New "Covenant in His Blood. Other things have to be combed with something fine toothed.
If you want to be faithful to human tradition instead of the Word of God, sure. I know that you aren’t aware that your position is part of a 19th-century theological movement called dispensationalism, but it clearly is. These are modern ideas that arise from a desperate desire to fend off the implications of the Gospels as traditionally interpreted: a kind of hyper-Protestantism that tries to finish the job Luther started by making the dangerous Sermon on the Mount irrelevant to modern Christians. (Luther’s position on the SotM was more nuanced than many people think it, as I point out–he says pompously–in my doctoral dissertation:rolleyes:.)
 
PS Why are you going into the CC, and what will you do there, continue teaching, or become a regular member?
I am a layperson in the Episcopal Church anyway. I am not currently in any formal teaching position. Whether I will have one in the future I don’t know. If not, I will pontificate on the Internet.

As for why I’m becoming Catholic: that takes a week’s answer or none, to quote Tolkien. However, the short version is that I have felt for years that God was calling me in this direction, and intellectually here are a few of the main reasons:
  1. I believe all Christians should be one, and I believe that Catholics are right in saying that Jesus gave a special ministry of unity to Peter and that the bishops of Rome are Peter’s successors in this regard.
  2. I believe that the Protestant Reformers were right in saying that you should only divide from other Christians if they have totally perverted the Word and the Sacraments (this is particularly clear in Calvin), but wrong in thinking that the Catholic Church had done so. Hence, Protestantism is illegitimate as a separate branch of Christianity. Nothing short of apostasy would have justified it, and apostasy hadn’t happened.
  3. Based on these two considerations and many other things, I have reached the point where I am ready to accept the claim of the Catholic Church that, whatever its grave faults as a human institution, it has preserved the truth once delivered to the saints and will preserve it to the end of time, so that (back to point 1) Christians can and should find unity in full communion with the successor of Peter.
Edwin
 
I am a layperson in the Episcopal Church anyway. I am not currently in any formal teaching position. Whether I will have one in the future I don’t know. If not, I will pontificate on the Internet.

As for why I’m becoming Catholic: that takes a week’s answer or none, to quote Tolkien. However, the short version is that I have felt for years that God was calling me in this direction, and intellectually here are a few of the main reasons:
  1. I believe all Christians should be one, and I believe that Catholics are right in saying that Jesus gave a special ministry of unity to Peter and that the bishops of Rome are Peter’s successors in this regard.
  2. I believe that the Protestant Reformers were right in saying that you should only divide from other Christians if they have totally perverted the Word and the Sacraments (this is particularly clear in Calvin), but wrong in thinking that the Catholic Church had done so. Hence, Protestantism is illegitimate as a separate branch of Christianity. Nothing short of apostasy would have justified it, and apostasy hadn’t happened.
  3. Based on these two considerations and many other things, I have reached the point where I am ready to accept the claim of the Catholic Church that, whatever its grave faults as a human institution, it has preserved the truth once delivered to the saints and will preserve it to the end of time, so that (back to point 1) Christians can and should find unity in full communion with the successor of Peter.
Edwin
Excellent reflection.

Don’t wait to celebrate the liturgy among angels and saints with the Holy mass. Don’t wait to receive the Eucharist any longer.

Here is one of the videos that made me go back to church. I never understood it before and wow when I understood it, I could no longer miss it.

youtube.com/watch?v=OfGw8G9P4_Y
 
).

If you want to be faithful to human tradition instead of the Word of God, sure. I know that you aren’t aware that your position is part of a 19th-century theological movement called dispensationalism, but it clearly is. These are modern ideas that arise from a desperate desire to fend off the implications of the Gospels as traditionally interpreted: a kind of hyper-Protestantism that tries to finish the job Luther started by making the dangerous Sermon on the Mount irrelevant to modern Christians. (Luther’s position on the SotM was more nuanced than many people think it, as I point out–he says pompously–in my doctoral dissertation:rolleyes:.)
Is it possible that you could give me a kind of ‘nutshell version’ of what the CC teaches in place of the way I put those things together, kind of condensed, but including the Kingdom of God . I assume they aren’t dispensational,…but maybe the answers you gave are the CC ideas, since you are on this site.

The things Jesus taught ie. cut off your hand or pluck your eye, does CC teach this is Jesus teaching literally for ie.,…these are harsh…the sermon on the mount, blessed are you when,…you said these were ?commandments, the ten?

You have written much to me,…and I see more clearly…It isn’t easy to see how everything fits together in the bible.

Can you give me the CC overview? Do you know the CC overview? Are you truly a P. even tho on this site you are defending CC ideas?
 
Is it possible that you could give me a kind of ‘nutshell version’ of what the CC teaches in place of the way I put those things together, kind of condensed, but including the Kingdom of God . I assume they aren’t dispensational,…but maybe the answers you gave are the CC ideas, since you are on this site.

The things Jesus taught ie. cut off your hand or pluck your eye, does CC teach this is Jesus teaching literally for ie.,…these are harsh…the sermon on the mount, blessed are you when,…you said these were ?commandments, the ten?

You have written much to me,…and I see more clearly…It isn’t easy to see how everything fits together in the bible.

Can you give me the CC overview? Do you know the CC overview? Are you truly a P. even tho on this site you are defending CC ideas?
"Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”*

He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

The young man said to him, “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?”

Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Mathew 19:16-21
 
"Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”*

He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

The young man said to him, “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?”

Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Mathew 19:16-21
that’s pretty clear
 
Is it possible that you could give me a kind of ‘nutshell version’ of what the CC teaches in place of the way I put those things together, kind of condensed, but including the Kingdom of God . I assume they aren’t dispensational,…but maybe the answers you gave are the CC ideas, since you are on this site.
I am not willingly violating any of the teachings of the Catholic Church, although I’m also shaped (to my great joy and gratitude) by my heritage as a Wesleyan evangelical and by contact with Christians of many other traditions.
The things Jesus taught ie. cut off your hand or pluck your eye, does CC teach this is Jesus teaching literally for ie.,…these are harsh…the sermon on the mount, blessed are you when,…you said these were ?commandments, the ten?
I don’t think I said that. You may be thinking of the fact that I said that Luther regarded the Sermon on the Mount as a restatement of the Law rather than as part of the Gospel.

The Catholic position is that Jesus’ teachings and the teachings of the apostles constitute a “New law,” or “law of the Gospel.” See the official discussion of this in the Catechism.

As you can see from that link, Catholics hold that some things in the “New Law” are necessary for everyone, and some things are “counsels of perfection.” Specifically, the three traditional “counsels” are poverty, chastity, and obedience. The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on the subject is helpful, although bear in mind that this is a scholarly reference source from a century ago, not itself an official statement of Catholic teaching. I myself have problems with the paragraph opposing “earth” and “heaven”–that’s how Christians of all traditions have often tended to think, but I think there are problems with that way of putting it.

The specific example you gave is a good example of a “counsel”–in fact it’s one of the clearest examples in the NT, since it’s obviously not a command given to everyone but a conditional. . .“if your hand or eye causes you to stumble. . . .” Obviously this isn’t a literal command, and no one things it is (i.e., no one thinks Jesus is commanding self-mutilation). It would rather refer to cutting off something in our lives that hinders us following Jesus. So, for instance, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong in owning a business and making money. But a businessman who was consumed by the love of money might need to “cut off” that part of his life by giving up all his property and becoming a monk. Another businessman might choose to do so (as St. Francis did) not because it was necessary but because he wanted to follow Jesus and give himself totally in love to God and to other people.

Similarly, the historic Catholic view is that not everyone has to be a pacifist–just war is possible. But nonviolence is the more perfect way. And so on.
Can you give me the CC overview? Do you know the CC overview? Are you truly a P. even tho on this site you are defending CC ideas?
I have been circling around Catholicism for many years. It has been some time now since I obstinately denied any Catholic teaching (though I do question some teachings, and particularly how some folks on this forum defend/explain them). I have been an Episcopalian for sixteen years, and we’re pretty close to Catholicism in a lot of ways. I am currently once again trying to become Catholic, but I have to start the long, slow process from scratch all over again, it would seem, and every time in the past I’ve tried to do this I’ve gotten cold feet at some point:o

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top