The Universal Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter lanman87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lanman87 said:
40.png
steve-b:
The analogies are types.
Click to expand...
So to are the analogies of Mary being the Ark.
Click to expand...
And the analogy is true.
 
Here is a broader answer from Professor Michael Horton article “Yes, God Required Obedience for Salvation”

Are Christians under the Ten Commandments or are we only responsible to keep New Testament commands?​

There are two ways of being “under” the 10 Commandments. The first is being under the moral law as the basis for our salvation. This is the principle of “Do this and you will live; break it and you will die.” But Christ fulfilled this law in our place perfectly. When we place our faith in Christ, we are given his status as the faithful law-keeper even though we are far from it ourselves. That’s why the New Testament tells us that we are no longer under the law but under grace (Rom 6:14).

In the gospel, we’re told not only that Christ lived and died for us but that he rose again for us and that we are baptized into his victory over sin’s guilt and tyranny. He sent his Spirit to us to give us a new heart and to unite us to Christ through faith, which itself is his gift. So we’re not under the law as a way of being accounted righteous before God. It can’t condemn us. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1).

There’s a second sense of being “under the law” and that’s being obligated to what the law requires. Jesus taught that we’re still obligated to the law: loving God and our neighbor is the summary of the Ten Commandments (Mat 22:40). Paul similarly teaches that the “law of Christ” is this command to love (Gal 6:2). But now this comes to us as those who are justified, free of the terrors of the law, who now spontaneously—from the heart—long to love God and our neighbor. The content of God’s moral will for our lives hasn’t changed. The Ten Commandments still summarize that moral will. Now the moral law can’t condemn us but it does guide us. It still tells us what God requires even though it’s no longer the taskmaster telling us, “Do or die!” for Jesus has done and died for us.
 
lanman87 said:
40.png
steve-b:
So IOW, you don’t have to obey the one who died on the cross?
Click to expand...
I don’t have to, I get to. There is a big difference.
Click to expand...
Addressing the first part of your answer "Don’t have to"

Allow me to use

The acronym
QPQ

QPQ = quid-pro-quo = do this or else = a must be done statement

I personally am not opposed to QPQ statements that are true. Afterall, such QPQ statements are all over the scriptures.

Example:

Jn 6:
53…“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him…

IOW, if one doesn’t do what Jesus said to do,

THEN
  1. One has no life in them
  2. doesn’t have eternal life, as in won’t go to heaven, they go to Hell
    ergo Jesus won’t raise THEM on the last Day for heaven, they go down instead to Hell
  3. Ergo, Jesus doesn’t abide in then nor do they abide in Jesus
That’s a massive QPQ statement… agreed?

To the 2nd part of your statement " I get to"

As a Catholic I do BOTH.
 
Last edited:
lanman87 said:
Here is a broader answer from Professor Michael Horton article “Yes, God Required Obedience for Salvation”

Are Christians under the Ten Commandments or are we only responsible to keep New Testament commands?​

There are two ways of being “under” the 10 Commandments. The first is being under the moral law as the basis for our salvation. This is the principle of “Do this and you will live; break it and you will die.” But Christ fulfilled this law in our place perfectly. When we place our faith in Christ, we are given his status as the faithful law-keeper even though we are far from it ourselves. That’s why the New Testament tells us that we are no longer under the law but under grace (Rom 6:14).

In the gospel, we’re told not only that Christ lived and died for us but that he rose again for us and that we are baptized into his victory over sin’s guilt and tyranny. He sent his Spirit to us to give us a new heart and to unite us to Christ through faith, which itself is his gift. So we’re not under the law as a way of being accounted righteous before God. It can’t condemn us. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1).

There’s a second sense of being “under the law” and that’s being obligated to what the law requires. Jesus taught that we’re still obligated to the law: loving God and our neighbor is the summary of the Ten Commandments (Mat 22:40). Paul similarly teaches that the “law of Christ” is this command to love (Gal 6:2). But now this comes to us as those who are justified, free of the terrors of the law, who now spontaneously—from the heart—long to love God and our neighbor. The content of God’s moral will for our lives hasn’t changed. The Ten Commandments still summarize that moral will. Now the moral law can’t condemn us but it does guide us. It still tells us what God requires even though it’s no longer the taskmaster telling us, “Do or die!” for Jesus has done and died for us.
Click to expand...
Reading his Bio

it seems Michael Horton, has been all over the map within Protestantism. And apparently favors the flavor of Calvinism. And his way of interpretation of scripture, seems to follow Calvin.

Re: the emphasized underlined text.

His take obviously follows a big portion of Protestantism, which in itself is NOT the Christianity of history which in itself is a problem according to scripture
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
You just answered your own question.

Mary wasn’t corrupt in any of that
Click to expand...
Not really. Jesus drew from her flesh, not her heart, mind and soul.

So was Jesus corrupted when Joseph first held him, or when he first walked on fallen soil, or ate her fruit?

I dont think He would have had a problem conceived in flesh He created, fallen yet justified and sanctified as a Jewish maiden. Fitting for His mission of literally taking on sin (evil as you call it), all of it, even becoming it.
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
We were talking about Mary
Click to expand...
Yes, and I showed you were people in the Early Church said the Ark represented Christ. My question is why does the Ark represent Mary and not Christ? As both typologies were taught. That the Ark was Christ seems to have been taught earlier and that the Ark was Mary seems to have been taught later.
 
lanman87 said:
40.png
steve-b:
So you know it is a must do and not just some suggestion to do.
Click to expand...
Yes, I eat the Body of Christ continually.
Click to expand...
You say you’re a Protestant. Nowhere in Protestantism is there valid ordinations…ergo no valid consecrations…ergo no valid Eucharist.

Ergo, you can’t say or believe you actually eat His body… in Protestantism.
 
lanman87 said:
40.png
steve-b:
We were talking about Mary
Click to expand...
Yes, and I showed you were people in the Early Church said the Ark represented Christ. My question is why does the Ark represent Mary and not Christ? As both typologies were taught. That the Ark was Christ seems to have been taught earlier and that the Ark was Mary seems to have been taught later.
Click to expand...
You were denying Mary was the ark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top