Was Christ's Preaching under the "Old Covenant"?

[JRKH]

I have heard before from protestants that Christ’s teachings in the gospels was mainly to the Jews and since it was before the Cross it was under the old covenant. That being the case, they tend to filter it through the writings in the Epistles which were giving teachings under the new covenant.

I don’t understand this idea because teh ealiest Gospel was written AFTER many of the Epistles. Why on earth would a Gospel writer want to spend valuable time and parchment writing things for the “New Faithful” that did not apply to them. This does not make sense to me.

I guess the reason it bothers me is because I often see Protestant theology built upon the writings of Paul with Jesus in support of what Paul wrote. It seems to me it should be the other way around. Any theology, in order to be called Christian, should be based upon the teaching of Jesus and supported by others.

Am I nuts?

Peace
James

 

[Nita]

No, you’re not nuts; you’re right on.

 

[Howie01]

Any theology, in order to be called Christian, should be based upon the teaching of Jesus and supported by others.

Begs the questions: From where did “Paul’s” Gospel come?

Did any of the apostles not support “Paul’s” Gospel?

 

[JRKH]

Begs the questions: From where did “Paul’s” Gospel come?

Did any of the apostles not support “Paul’s” Gospel?

For Clarification - Are you refering to the letters Paul wrote that are in the NT?

Peace
James

 

[SHW]

I have heard before from protestants that Christ’s teachings in the gospels was mainly to the Jews and since it was before the Cross it was under the old covenant. That being the case, they tend to filter it through the writings in the Epistles which were giving teachings under the new covenant.

Any theology, in order to be called Christian, should be based upon the teaching of Jesus and supported by others. Peace
James

James, you are correct.

Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant law of Moses, the prophecies of the prophets, and the prophecies of the psalms by His death (and His resurrection and ascension). (“It is finished.”)

Luke 24:44 “Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

John 19:30 “So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.”

Matthew 26:29 "But I say to you,** I will not drink of this fruit of the vine** from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

When does Jesus’ kingdom begin? It begins when He drinks the sour wine (fruit of the vine) on the cross and, of course, Jesus also gives us His Body and Blood at the Last Supper in anticipation of His sacrifice on the cross.

Luke 16:16 “The law and the prophets were until John (the Baptist). Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.”

Isaiah 40:3 “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “ Prepare the way of the LORD; Make straight in the desert A highway for our God.”

Luke 1:76-77 “And you, child, (John the Baptist) will be called the prophet of the Highest; For you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, 77 To give knowledge of salvation to His people, By the remission of their sins,”

Luke 3:4 “as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying:
“ The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘ Prepare the way of the LORD;
Make His paths straight.”

John the Baptist first prepares the way of the Lord. Then, Jesus starts preaching the kingdom of God: His New Covenant teachings.

Jesus does not keep the Saturday Sabbath worship laws in His commandments for His New Covenant:

Matthew 19:16-19 “Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Mark 12:28-31 “Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?” 29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. 30 And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. 31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Jesus knew that the Apostles would change the formal day of Christian worship to Sunday in honor of His resurrection. Jesus did not keep the Saturday Sabbath day worship commandment in His New Covenant commandments.

Hebrews 8:13 “In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

A “New Covenant” means a new priesthood, a new sacrifice, and a new day of worship, etc.

Where is this “kingdom of God?”

Luke 17:20-21 “Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’** For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you**.”

How is the kingdom of God within us?

2 Timothy 1:13-14 “Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.”

1 Corinthians 3:16-18 “Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.”

We become temples of the Holy Spirit through Baptism:

1 Corinthians 6:11 “But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”

Baptism makes us holy so that the Holy Spirit may dwell within us. The kingdom of God is within us.

John 14:23 “Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.”

The kingdom of God is indeed within us!

SHW

 

[Howie01]

For Clarification - Are you refering to the letters Paul wrote that are in the NT?

Peace
James

Who taught Paul the gospel he preached?

Did any of the apostles disagree with him?

 

[JRKH]

Who taught Paul the gospel he preached?

Did any of the apostles disagree with him?

Both are good questions.
Frankly I don’t know who was Paul’s earthly mentor - If he had one.

As far as the Apostles disagreeing with Paul or even with each other, the Church has always been a bit messy. Just look at the Council in Jerusalem in Acts. Obviously not everyone was in perfect agreement over the issues raised regarding observance of the mosaic law.

I am sure that Paul did, in fact, teach the same Good news that was being proclaimed by the other Apostles. This is really not my question.

Let me give you an example of what I mean.
I once started a thread asking which “Sola” Jesus taught. I asked people to provide only quotes from Jesus own words to support their position. The upshot was that no one could do it. Why? Because Jesus did not teach any “Sola”. At least not any of the “Sola” that are bandied about here. No Sola Scriptura - No Sola Fide - none. Yet we continually are distracted by some theology pulled primarily from Paul’s epistle and agrue back and forth between Paul - James - Peter et al about faith/works/justification etc instead of looking at the teachings of Christ Himself.

So getting back to my origianl question, which you did not address, was the teaching os Christ as recorded in the Gospels and written after many of the epistles, intended only for those under the old covenant? Or rather were his teachings intended for ALL of His followers through ALL time.

Peace
James

 

[Howie01]

JRKH:

Both are good questions.
Frankly I don’t know who was Paul’s earthly mentor - If he had one.

** Galatians 1:11-12For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.

For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.**

JRKH:

I guess the reason it bothers me is because I often see Protestant theology built upon the writings of Paul with Jesus in support of what Paul wrote. It seems to me it should be the other way around. Any theology, in order to be called Christian, should be based upon the teaching of Jesus and supported by others.

Protestant theology is based upon the Gospel as revealed by the writers of Scripture.

Clearly Paul was taught the Gospel by Christ, according to scripture.

Because Christ revealed the Gospel to Paul, his writings are both a support, and an expansion of Christ’s teaching in a style that is more pedagogic, or dogmatic than Christ’s style of teaching which was more didactic.

Nevertheless, this much is true: Paul’s doctrine is Jesus’ doctrine, and Jesus’ doctrine is Paul’s doctrine, and none of the apostles contradicted either Paul’s teaching, or the teaching of any other apostle.

JRKH:

So getting back to my origianl question, which you did not address, was the teaching os Christ as recorded in the Gospels and written after many of the epistles, intended only for those under the old covenant? Or rather were his teachings intended for ALL of His followers through ALL time.

It was intended for those who were alive to hear, and those who would hear it in the future.

 

[JRKH]

** Galatians 1:11-12**For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.

For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.Protestant theology is based upon the Gospel as revealed by the writers of Scripture.

Clearly Paul was taught the Gospel by Christ, according to scripture.

Thanks for the quotes.

Because Christ revealed the Gospel to Paul, his writings are both a support, and an expansion of Christ’s teaching in a style that is more pedagogic, or dogmatic than Christ’s style of teaching which was more didactic.

Nevertheless, this much is true: Paul’s doctrine is Jesus’ doctrine, and Jesus’ doctrine is Paul’s doctrine, and none of the apostles contradicted either Paul’s teaching, or the teaching of any other apostle.

It was intended for those who were alive to hear, and those who would hear it in the future.

I’m glad to see that you are not one of those who hold to the idea that Christ was teaching under the old covenant and therefore much of what he said, as recorded in the Gospels, is not directly relevant to the "New covenant " Christian.
And this much is also true.
That Christ never taught a “Sola” such as is ascibed to by some protestants today. That what Christ taught, and what Paul and others expanded upon, was a fully integrated and internalized “Commandment” written upon the hearts of His disciples. A commandment to Love God above all and to Love our neighbor as ourselves.
Such a commandment, as Jesus says sums up all the moasaic law and prophets.
Furthermore, such a commandment requires the full integration of Grace, Faith, Works, Hope, Charity, Prayer, Humility etc. etc. etc. None of these can be seen as “Sola” since we can not dispense with any one and make any real spiritual progress.
Oh we may discuss HOW they interrelate, but we cannot dispense with any.

Sorry - Getting off track here.
So essentially you seem to be saying the same thing that I am. That Christ’s teachings are just as relevant in the new covenant as in the old and that those who hold otherwise are mistaken. In other words, when they take a theology based in Paul, but not supported in the Gospels, that theology is flawed.

Peace
James

 

[Howie01]

JRKH:

I’m glad to see that you are not one of those who hold to the idea that Christ was teaching under the old covenant and therefore much of what he said, as recorded in the Gospels, is not directly relevant to the "New covenant " Christian.

That’s not what I said; what I said is that Jesus’ message is for those who heard, and those who would hear.

Jesus clearly was teaching under the old covenant, as the new covenant, instituted in his blood, was not in effect while he was alive.

There are only two principles relating to the way God saves people—grace and law. Throughout history, God has saved by His grace (Eph 2:8-9; Ps 103:10-12; Gen 6:8; 15:5-6; Rom 4:1-5, 16; 11:5-6). Under the principle of grace, God deals favorably with sinful people in a way they don’t deserve. The other principle by which God can deal with people is law, or works. That principle requires God to deal with people in a way they do deserve. Sinners deserve death and hell, and they can’t be delivered from that penalty by the works principle (Rom 3:20; 8:3; Gal 2:16; 3:10-12; Heb 7:18-19.

The two principles, grace and law, are opposite both in the way they operate, and their results (Rom 11:6; 4:4-5).

JRKH:

So essentially you seem to be saying the same thing that I am. That Christ’s teachings are just as relevant in the new covenant as in the old and that those who hold otherwise are mistaken. In other words, when they take a theology based in Paul, but not supported in the Gospels, that theology is flawed.

The old covenant, that of law, or works, is gone.

Once again, Jesus’ teaching is Paul’s teaching, and vice versa. There’s no contradiction between the two.

 

[PJM]

I have heard before from protestants that Christ’s teachings in the gospels was mainly to the Jews and since it was before the Cross it was under the old covenant. That being the case, they tend to filter it through the writings in the Epistles which were giving teachings under the new covenant.

I don’t understand this idea because teh ealiest Gospel was written AFTER many of the Epistles. Why on earth would a Gospel writer want to spend valuable time and parchment writing things for the “New Faithful” that did not apply to them. This does not make sense to me.

I guess the reason it bothers me is because I often see Protestant theology built upon the writings of Paul with Jesus in support of what Paul wrote. It seems to me it should be the other way around. Any theology, in order to be called Christian, should be based upon the teaching of Jesus and supported by others.

Am I nuts?

Peace
James

Dear Bother James,

The good news is that you are not:whacky:

But, then neither are the Protestants you speak of. They are simply lacking truth and understanding.

Everyone who works in any way in our Lords vineyard, desires to share the truth. The problem is that any single issue there can be “only one truth.” **

On all matters of FAITH (includes the Bible) and or Morals, that single truth is found in the RCC, as is God’s plan and desire.**

At issue here is why did Jesus become “man?” The answer is to Redeem us! Was that the only reason? No, it is (not was) is not! Christ also came to enable us all to cooperate with God’s plan for our possible Salvation.

Get your dictionay out and look up “redemption” and “salvation”. The first is an accomplised fact, the second is a “work in progress.”

The second reason God “became man” was to radify a new Covenant. Part of this radification process was the establishment of His (ONE) Church. And all that jesus did, all that Jesus taught,all that Jesus accomplished leads directly to this goal. It was and is God’s desire not to abandon us and let us backslide, without more than sufficient assistance from God. That is why He actually, Really remains present to us through His Seven sacramants, and especially the sacrament that Really is Jesus, CatholicHoly Communion.

John Chapter 6:40-60. READ IT! God can’t lie!

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

*Romans 6: "12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. 13 Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but (now) under grace. **

One can see that the Covenant was Radified by the Death and Rwssurection of Christ, but ir was formulated and written by His Life.By His actions Christ served Samerians, Gentiles, Romans… Jesus was not a “God only to the the Jews,” Jesus was God FIRST to the Jews.

One cannor conviently put aside that Jesus was and is God. There is but ONE God who has ONE DIVINE NATURE, shwen to us through three Entities; fater, Son, and Holy Spirit. But at all times there was only ONE God who “died for all.”

2 Cor. 5: "14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised."

One cannot seperate His Life from His death. Nor His Life AND death with His New Covemant!

Christ life was the procees of setting up the New Covenant, which was then ratified in His Blood!

James my friend this is not aimed at you, but rather those who do not have the truth!

Love and prayers,

 

[JRKH]

That’s not what I said; what I said is that Jesus’ message is for those who heard, and those who would hear.

Jesus clearly was teaching under the old covenant, as the new covenant, instituted in his blood, was not in effect while he was alive.

There are only two principles relating to the way God saves people—grace and law. Throughout history, God has saved by His grace (Eph 2:8-9; Ps 103:10-12; Gen 6:8; 15:5-6; Rom 4:1-5, 16; 11:5-6). Under the principle of grace, God deals favorably with sinful people in a way they don’t deserve. The other principle by which God can deal with people is law, or works. That principle requires God to deal with people in a way they do deserve. Sinners deserve death and hell, and they can’t be delivered from that penalty by the works principle (Rom 3:20; 8:3; Gal 2:16; 3:10-12; Heb 7:18-19.

The two principles, grace and law, are opposite both in the way they operate, and their results (Rom 11:6; 4:4-5).

The old covenant, that of law, or works, is gone.

Once again, Jesus’ teaching is Paul’s teaching, and vice versa. There’s no contradiction between the two.

I guess I am confused then on your position. You said Christ’s teachings are fro those who would hear them (future tense). This is the same position that I hold.
You say that Christ’s teachings and Paul’s teachings cannot contradict. I also agree, as does the Church.
So I don’t see the problem with my response to your post.

Maybe you could clarify a couple of things then:

1. If Christ’s Teachings are for those who “would hear” (That is us) doesn’t that mean we are to follow them?
2. If those who believe in a “Sola” based upon their readings of Paul Which of the “Sola’s” did Christ Teach, and which did the other apostles support in their epistles? (remember that, since sola means alone, there really can’t select more than one)

1 Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)​

2 Sola fide (“by faith alone”)​

3 Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)​

4 Solus Christus (“Christ alone”)​

5 Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)​

I don’t want this to become a debate on any of the Sola’s as that is not the intent of my OP. If you’d like to look HERE. This is the thread I had started some time back. If you’d like to comment there please do.
Rather the question here is, since the NT cannot contradict itself, then in order for a any “Sola” to be correct it must be supported throughout the NT. I don’t see such a thing, but rather an integrated approach built upon the first two commandments and ivolving many aspects.

Peace
James

 

[Howie01]

JRKH:

Maybe you could clarify a couple of things then:

If Christ’s Teachings are for those who “would hear” (That is us) doesn’t that mean we are to follow them?

Yes we should; however, I don’t believe that keeping the commandments is what saves. That was the old covenant—law, or works.

JRKH:

Rather the question here is, since the NT cannot contradict itself, then in order for a any “Sola” to be correct it must be supported throughout the NT. I don’t see such a thing, but rather an integrated approach built upon the first two commandments and ivolving many aspects.

I know. What bothers you most is how to tie in the idea of solas fide and gratia with all the commands about what you must do to obtain eternal life, correct. And, the why of sola scriptura.

It all boils down to authority; for the SS it’s scripture, for the RC, its scripture and tradition, interpreted by the claimed teaching authority of the Church. Authority, authority, authority.

If you’d like, I’ll give you some links to read.

 

[JRKH]

Yes we should; however, I don’t believe that keeping the commandments is what saves. That was the old covenant—law, or works.

I believe you misunderstand me.
I don’t think I ever used the word “Law” anywhere in my posts. Maybe I accidentally implied it, I dunno. Anyway - I am not implying a “Law” based or “works” based salvation any more than Jesus was. Instead it is an intigrated system of internalized features that revolve around those two great commandments. Remember how Jesus derided the Pharasees about how legalistic they were while missing the “Intent” of the Law entirely. This what Jesus is teaching, Not “Law” as in external rules, but “Law” written on our hearts in Love of God and neighbor. This fits beautifully with the things Paul teaches.

Also we need to remember that, a reason that Paul and others had to talk more about faith was that those they were converting and baptizing never new Christ in the Flesh. They had to take more on faith than the Original Apostles did. This underlying faith however does not negate the other items that Jeus taught. Fatih is the begining of the journey for sure, and we cannot continue the journey without it, but it remains but one piece of the whole picture.

I know. What bothers you most is how to tie in the idea of solas fide and gratia with all the commands about what you must do to obtain eternal life, correct. And, the why of sola scriptura.

What bothers me is the idea of trying to preach any “Sola” theology when it is so obviously NOT what Jesus taught. It really smacks of “Another Gospel” that Paul warned against.

It all boils down to authority; for the SS it’s scripture, for the RC, its scripture and tradition, interpreted by the claimed teaching authority of the Church. Authority, authority, authority.

The Problem with SS authority being scripture is that no document or book can authenticate itself. Using Scripture to prove scripture reduces it to the same level as the Koran or the BOM, both of which authenticate themselves also.
The Authority for the Bible, comes through The Church who assembled it, copied it, translated it, protected it, spread it, taught from it, and interpreted it for 1000 years before anyone ever even thought of seperating it from the Authority of The Church.
Your right - It all boils down to Authority.
It also boils down to consistancy of teaching
The Catholic Church’s teaching is consistant and Biblically supported.
The non-catholic SS teaching is not consistant, yet each claims biblical support as well.
The Catholic Church has been at it since 33 AD
Non-catholics have been at it since about1530 AD.
Both claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
One must decide if they wish to believe in a Holy Spirit who tells one “SS Christian community” one thing and another “SS Christian community” the opposite on the same issue, or does one wish to believe that the Holy Spirit has guided and protected the Church from the beginning as promised.
That the teaching of the Holy Spirit will be consistant across the board, and those who wish to follow Jesus will conform to the teachings of an authoritative Church or follow their own interpretation.

If ou’d like, I’ll give you some links to read.

If I could do them justice I would welcome them.
Unfortunately I have halth issues here that preclude me being able to devote the kind of time I would like to study.
If you’d like to post them for others please feel free.

Currently I am involved in reading a wonderful book called “The Fulfillment of All Desire”. I highly recommend it regardless of whether one is Catholic or not. It is subtitled, “A guidebook for the journey to God based upon the wisdom of the Saints”. What is of particular interest is the way that all of the Saints quotes are tied directly back into Scripture. I’m sure you would find it fascintating.

Peace
James

 

[Howie01]

JRKH:

I believe you misunderstand me.

I don’t think I ever used the word “Law” anywhere in my posts. Maybe I accidentally implied it, I dunno. Anyway - I am not implying a “Law” based or “works” based salvation any more than Jesus was.

That’s what Catholics always say, however, it’s my experience that the concept of law and works are always embedded within the Catholic framework.

JRKH:

Also we need to remember that, a reason that Paul and others had to talk more about faith was that those they were converting and baptizing never new Christ in the Flesh. They had to take more on faith than the Original Apostles did. This underlying faith however does not negate the other items that Jeus taught.

The reason the apostles taught greatly on faith is that without it, no one will be saved.

Also what other things that Jesus taught did you have in mind?

JRKH:

Fatih is the begining of the journey for sure, and we cannot continue the journey without it, but it remains but one piece of the whole picture.

What’s the rest of the picture?

JRKH:

What bothers me is the idea of trying to preach any “Sola” theology when it is so obviously NOT what Jesus taught. It really smacks of “Another Gospel” that Paul warned against.

OK

JRKH:

The Problem with SS authority being scripture is that no document or book can authenticate itself.

SS is not concerned with a self-authenticating book, but with the canon of Scripture.

JRKH:

Using Scripture to prove scripture reduces it to the same level as the Koran or the BOM, both of which authenticate themselves also.

The scripture makes internal claims about what it is; you can’t deny that.

Nevertheless, the early church, by God’s grace, knew which writings were authentic, and kept record of that identity. Therefore, an external authentication was in place as well.

JRKH:

The Authority for the Bible, comes through The Church who assembled it, copied it, translated it, protected it, spread it, taught from it, and interpreted it for 1000 years before anyone ever even thought of seperating it from the Authority of The Church.

That’s as false, as false can be.

Don’t be fooled; the writings are authoritative because they’re the word of God. They would be authoritative, even if there were no church.

The Church does not confer authority on the writings; the writings are the authority.

 

[SHW]

Don’t be fooled; the writings are authoritative because they’re the word of God. They would be authoritative, even if there were no church.

The Church does not confer authority on the writings; the writings are the authority.

Persons pick up the Koran and claim that it is the writings of Allah (or God). How is this any different than persons picking up a Bible and claiming that it is the writings of God?

SHW

 

[Howie01]

Persons pick up the Koran and claim that it is the writings of Allah (or God). How is this any different than persons picking up a Bible and claiming that it is the writings of God?

SHW

The difference is, the latter is right.

 

[JRKH]

That’s what Catholics always say, however, it’s my experience that the concept of law and works are always embedded within the Catholic framework.

So what you are saying is that your interpretation of my words based upon your experience with catholics results in a concept that I never stated or implied. As a result you have erred in your interpretation of my words. It is an error on two fronts. First it is an error in interpreting what I stated, and second it is an error to assume that “your experience” with other catholics reflects what the Church actually teaches.

The reason the apostles taught greatly on faith is that without it, no one will be saved.

Absolutely right and perfectly in line with Church teaching. Well Said!!

Also what other things that Jesus taught did you have in mind?

Frankly I don’t have anything specific in mind. I don’t try to discect Jesus’ teaching. I try to look at it as He intended it to be - As a whole.

What’s the rest of the picture?

Well let’s start with this.
What did Jesus teach us about the greatest commandment(s)? Love God and Love neighbor. Does this apply to us today or not? Did Jesus not say that upon these two laws (of Love) ALL of the Law and Prophets are based?
Did Paul support this “Law of Love” in his “new conenant” writings? He certainly did when he said, “…of Faith Hope and Love the greatest of these is Love”.
So right here we have an Item that is ranked above Faith by Paul and is shown to be a keystone teaching by Christ.
What was the commandment that Jesus Gave His apostles? That they Love one another as He has loved them

What did Jesus say about Faith? Did he not say that if we had Faith the size of a mustard seed we could order a mountain to be cast into the sea? How many of us can lay claim to such a faith - That is to a faith the size of a mustard seed? So how can we be sure we have faith sufficient to save us? Now St James refers us to a faith that produces works as a way of “proofing” our faith. Thus we have Jesus telling us about what faith should be capable of, Paul expounding upon the need for faith as being key, and James method a method for us to gage/express our faith.
But since Paul himself ranks Love above faith, doesn’t that shoot down the idea of “Faith Alone”?

What did Jesus teach about Works? That they should be done privately and not for notice by others. That we should be willing to do ALL and more… That we should even Love our Enemies.
Jesus taught that we should give and do and love and believe and trust and so forth.

Jesus even told us we must be “Perfected” as the Heavenly Father is Perfect. -
This is a hard saying. Does this apply only to the Old covenant? I think not.
Being “perfected” is a long and difficult process it involves dying to ourselves so that we may live more fully in Christ. It is a call to Holiness. It is a call to become a saint.

What all of this is NOT is a quick - one time dunking and “Accepting of Jesus” as those who espouse the Faith alone or the OSAS theologies try to pass off.

I don’t really believe that you are one of these. Your posts, while opposing us, contain much that is worthwile.
The trick is to get people to realize that “Solas” by there very nature are a “Different Gospel” since they inherently truncate the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

(continued below)

 

[JRKH]

(continued from above)

SS is not concerned with a self-authenticating book, but with the canon of Scripture.

So how do you know that the canon of Scripture is correct? On what authority do you accept these books and not others? How did the canon come about? What Church did the people who assembled the canon of scripture belong to?

The scripture makes internal claims about what it is; you can’t deny that.

Nor can I deny that the Koran makes internal claims, or that the BOM makes internal claims. The question is how does one discern which to accept? No Document, or Book can be sued to authenticate itself because every one of them will.

Nevertheless, the early church, by God’s grace, knew which writings were authentic, and kept record of that identity. Therefore, an external authentication was in place as well.

Absolutely correct. Thank you. And the mechanism by which God’s Grace worked was the magisterial (that is, teaching) authority of The Church at that time. The Bishops who headed the various churches in communion with each other and with the Bishop of Rome. That is precisely the Church you are talking about.
Thus we have confidence that, by God’s Grace and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, THE early and ONLY Christian Church at the time, properly assembled protected and passed on the full deposit of faith. That Church has been in in continual operation since that time and we know where it is.

That’s as false, as false can be.

Don’t be fooled; the writings are authoritative because they’re the word of God. They would be authoritative, even if there were no church.

Believe me my friend I am not fooled. I accept the Bible on the same authority you do. You just don’t recognize the mechanism by which God is working.

The Church does not confer authority on the writings; the writings are the authority.

This is really a discussion for another thread. As a matter of fact, a quick search will show a number of threads where this very thing is thrashed out many times.

For the purposes of this thread, the simple fact remains that Christ’s teachings were not, “just under the Old covenant”; and Christ did not preach any of the “Sola’s” as expressed by some today.
Since Christ did not teach such a thing, Paul could not teach such a thing. Christ and the Apostles’ message was a full blown call to holiness involving every facet of our being and requiring a true and life long commitment.

Peace
James

 

[Howie01]

JRKH:

So what you are saying is that your interpretation of my words based upon your experience with catholics results in a concept that I never stated or implied. As a result you have erred in your interpretation of my words. It is an error on two fronts. First it is an error in interpreting what I stated, and second it is an error to assume that “your experience” with other catholics reflects what the Church actually teaches.

You’re right, but it wasn’t a misinterpretation, but a presumption, a “jumping to the wrong conclusion.”

JRKH:

Well let’s start with this.
What did Jesus teach us about the greatest commandment(s)? Love God and Love neighbor.

Does this apply to us today or not? Did Jesus not say that upon these two laws (of Love) ALL of the Law and Prophets are based?

Did Paul support this “Law of Love” in his “new conenant” writings? He certainly did when he said, “…of Faith Hope and Love the greatest of these is Love”.

What was the commandment that Jesus Gave His apostles? That they Love one another as He has loved them

Believers are to love their enemies, and their neighbors

JRKH:

So right here we have an Item that is ranked above Faith by Paul and is shown to be a keystone teaching by Christ.

But no one is saved because they love. So there must be a reason for Paul saying that Love is greater than faith and hope. As you agreed above, no one is saved without faith, but many who don’t love, are saved by faith TO love.

JRKH:

What did Jesus say about Faith?

The believing ones will be saved.

JRKH:

What did Jesus teach about Works?

Those who abide in Him will have works because they are saved to do works prepared beforehand for them to walk in.

JRKH:

Jesus even told us we must be “Perfected” as the Heavenly Father is Perfect. -
This is a hard saying. Does this apply only to the Old covenant? I think not.
Being “perfected” is a long and difficult process it involves dying to ourselves so that we may live more fully in Christ. It is a call to Holiness. It is a call to become a saint.

OK.

JRKH:

So how do you know that the canon of Scripture is correct?

I trust God to preserve his word.

JRKH:

On what authority do you accept these books and not others?

It’s not a question of authority for me. The church has always been in possession of the scriptures, given to them by the writers through the Spirit.

JRKH:

How did the canon come about?

By the church’s recognition that the writings were authentic as to their authorship and use.

JRKH:

What Church did the people who assembled the canon of scripture belong to?

The Christian Church.