Jesus kept the law

[Svt4Him]

First of all, this is not a denominational forum per say. Spirit Filled people come from all denominations, including Catholics. As a result, as far as I know, there is no prohibition against discussing and debating either protestant or catholic doctrine here.

Second, I also used to be of the opinion that Catholicism was unscriptural. However as I studied, beginning with historic Christianity and what the early Christians really believed etc, I began to find out that most of my understandings of Catholic doctrines were wrong, that I had been misrepresenting what Catholics actually believed. Also I began to find out that virtually every doctrine of Catholicism had strong scriptural basis. It was simply that in many cases the interpretation of scripture was different. Eventually I came to the belief that in all the cases I saw, the Catholic interpretation was better.

Third, it is an interesting irony that Catholicism doesn't demand that all doctrine be directly represented in scripture because Catholicism believes the teaching authority of the Church itself to be authoritative and infallible (over the whole, not in specific cases necessarily). Protestantism, on the other hand does demand that all doctrine be directly represented in scripture. Yet, most if not all Catholic doctrine can be supported by scriptural teaching, while key protestant doctrines can not. Most notably the doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself, a keystone of protestantism, can't be scripturally supported, it must simply be assumed.

Fourth, there is BIG difference between having a doctrine which is not explicitly mentioned in the bible and having a doctrine which directly contradicts what the Bible says.


But, nothing I said in my previous post was exclusively Catholic. There are plenty of protestants who also deny PSA for example. There are also plenty of protestants who believe that living rightly and pursuing holiness is necessary to salvation.


I would like to clarify a point that is often misunderstood, however. The Catholic Church does not believe or teach that works are necessary to earn salvation. The Church teaches that Grace always precedes our action. In other words, we can do nothing worthy, without first receiving grace from God. What the Church does teach is that the fruit of grace, ie good works and obedience, are necessary for grace to be "alive" and effective.

Crossed a bit of a line here, and for those of us who use to be in the RCC, we could say the exact same thing from the other side of the fence. But this isn't the place for it.

 

[Simon_Templar]

heard it all before ... but sorry - better in your eyes does not truth make.

and its still does not wash ... the scriptures are inspired .. so if you cannot show me the basis of a doctrine by using plain scriptural reference - then all you are presenting is something man made - and that will not ever hold any authority .
just because a man gives another man a title a hat and a robe ..that does not validate what he teaches in the sight of God .
his words can never replace nor override what is already written .

ie- the pope is NOT infallible
he is not the mediator between man and god
praying to dead saints is not in the bible
praying to(or thru')Mary is not in the bible
midnight mass is not in the bible
praying to (or thru') angels is not in the bible
making and kissing statues is opposed to the bible
infant baptism is not in the bible
the term "queen of heaven" is opposed to the bible
there are probably so many more ..
so you found fault with protestant doctrine and followed an organisation
which practices all these things that are not even in the bible .. then you come to these forums and tell us your way is more correct ?

but based on what ? not the bible that is certain .which leaves only intellectual understanding ... and that is certainly fallible.

you say " Also I began to find out that virtually every doctrine of Catholicism had strong scriptural basis."- and then else where you were not able to show ONE SINGLE direct verse from the bible to validate so many doctrines .. not one verse which states it plain and clear ..only ambiguous external reference --
not one single direct quote from the bible.

Example:- of plain simple direct scripture
we break bread and partake of communion ..you know why? because any one can plainly show you the direct scriptures that tell us to

-"And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.-"

no ceremony , no priest , no hierarchy,no pomp .. no ambiguous interpretation required .

So... now that you've brought up all this random stuff, I suppose if I try and answer and defend myself... you'll spend the next five pages of posts accusing me of bringing it all up and accuse me of having no scriptural basis, even though I provide scriptures for my views and you don't, and acting like I'm trying to somehow force everyone to become Catholic...

 

[Simon_Templar]

Crossed a bit of a line here, and for those of us who use to be in the RCC, we could say the exact same thing from the other side of the fence. But this isn't the place for it.

So... everyone can share their views, but when I get called on out for expressing mine, because I'm catholic.. I'm not allowed to give an answer or defend myself.

Got it.

time to find another forum.

 

[Messy]

Riddle me this.... Jesus kept the law and yet he was not corrupted by keeping the law. There have been many posts on here that suggest that if a person does anything which was contained in the law such as tithing , keeping the sabbath , eating kosher or not stealing then they are under the law and not under grace. As though the two are mutually exclusive.

The false dilemma is set up as ---choose faith or choose the law. So how did Jesus keep the law and yet had perfect faith and was perfectly justified ?

On what basis was Jesus justified ? Where does his righteousness come from ?

Also Abraham , Moses and Elijah were all circumcised and yet were justified. So riddle me this . If keeping the law and doing works undermines faith and grace , then how did Jesus do the works that he did without being corrupted ?

You can only keep the law if you have a sinless nature. And this you can only get by faith.
I heard one good thing: Grace doesn't cover sin. Blood covers sin.

 

[Tobias]

So... everyone can share their views, but when I get called on out for expressing mine, because I'm catholic.. I'm not allowed to give an answer or defend myself.

Got it.

time to find another forum.

Don't leave. It happens to all of us from time to time.

 

[Svt4Him]

So... everyone can share their views, but when I get called on out for expressing mine, because I'm catholic.. I'm not allowed to give an answer or defend myself.

Got it.

time to find another forum.

Wow, a bit of an over-reaction me thinks. You can talk about the law, can talk about the topic, but you moved to talking about why you're right as a catholic and we're wrong, and you've come to see that. Sorry, there you crossed a line.

 

[Tobias]

Scholars have broken down the Law of Moses into three parts:

The Noahide Laws

The Civil Law for the nation of Israel

And the Ritualistic Law for those under the Old Covenant.


The Noahide law covers what the Jews thought were the good deeds that Noah did which saved him from the flood. Basic righteousness like not committing murder, adultery, or being a lying thief. I really don't think the Apostle Paul was condemning those who try to keep these principles as people trying to please God through "Works". Especially because he included most of these laws in his requirements for believers in the epistles.


The Civil Law applied to the early nation of Israel. Most of this law is impossible for anyone to keep, as there is no "city of refuge" to run to if you are being wrongly accused and the townspeople are trying to hunt you down to exact revenge.


The Ritual Law has to do with sacrifice and purity of lifestyle.


Which parts of the Law have been fulfilled? Which parts will never pass away? And which parts are we forbidden to try to keep (at the risk of loosing our spot in the Kingdom?) Obviously many of the civil laws have passed away, and are no longer valid. "An eye fore an eye, a tooth for a tooth" would be a civil law IMO, and something Jesus tried to correct the people's way of thinking about.

When Paul said that keeping any part of the Law meant you need to keep the whole thing, I don't think he was talking about murder. In fact, I'm sure he wasn't. Therefore whatever he was talking about meant simply a portion of the Law that he had in mind, and not the whole thing. Which portion was that? And how do we define it? Do we need to dig through history, and understand what the Law of Moses meant to the Pharisees of that time, to determine what he meant? (Paul claimed he was a Pharisee, so I imagine he was thinking along those lines).

I really can't understand how Paul separated between murder and circumcision in his own mind while he was condemning the "keeping of the Law". Both are integral parts of it. I see no divisions in scripture to separate which parts of the Law are which, even according to the three divisions mentioned above. But to condemn the keeping of the Law, the WHOLE Law, means nothing short of Satanism. (If resisting the inclination to commit murder and/or adultery is included as "Works of the Law")


As Christians, we invent these divisions ourselves. We say it is ok to keep portions of the Law (like the ten commandments), while condemning the keeping of other portions.

 

[mourningdove~]

So... everyone can share their views, but when I get called on out for expressing mine, because I'm catholic.. I'm not allowed to give an answer or defend myself.

Got it.

time to find another forum.

I can understand why you may want to leave ... and if you do ... but I do want to tell you that I've enjoyed reading your (less 'doctrinal') posts, and I feel absolutely NO animosity towards you, because you are now Catholic. In my eyes, you remain a brother in Christ, be ye Catholic or not. So, if you leave, please do not leave feeling that you are now hated or going to come under attack by everyone here for your decision to become Catholic. Those kinds of thoughts wouldn't be sourced in Truth.

When/if you talk some 'Catholic only stuff' you can expect to meet with some opposition on those things in this particular forum, but when it comes to the spiritual life and the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives, and many things of that sort, you may find that you have still have lots to share here.

Sometimes I think there may be a tendency for some of us to forget that this is a 'Spirit filled/charismatic' forum, when I see discussions here tend to go on and on and on and on about 'doctrine'. Some of those (doctrinal) things some of us will probably NEVER agree on, but when it comes to the spiritual life ... the deeper aspects of our spiritual journey, etc. ... I think those kinds of discussions can gently 'cross over' denominational lines and actually result in a beautiful fullness of one's understanding, for those of us (like me!) that are interested in that sort of thing.

If you do decide to stay, Simon, perhaps you will feel lead to contribute in threads that have less to do with 'doctrine' (which continues to be a source of ongoing strife in this forum), and more to do with the Holy Spirit and the spiritual life. In the latter kind of thread, 'doctrine' will normally be less a focus ... growing in the spiritual life, much more a focus.

And if I've said more than I should have, or presumed too much, I'm sorry. Please know I'm just meaning to perhaps be helpful in some way, as you decide whether to continue fellowshipping in this forum or not.

May God continue to bless your journey with Him.

 

[mourningdove~]

(p.s. to Yitzchak ... My apologies to you, for engaging abit in the 'off topic' discussion. I did so because I felt it was important, but nonetheless, I did go 'off-topic'. I generally don't like it much, when one of my threads start going off-topic; I hope this one will get back on tract for you soon.)

 

[murjahel]

Jesus kept the law, the same way we are to do it. We are not to need a list of 'lawful and unlawful' things... we are to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and then love our neighbor as we do ourselves, and then all that we do will naturally be the things necessary...

the 'oral' law added by the rabbis was not kept by Jesus, for He could love God and His neighbor and not have to make His disciples ceremonially wash their hands, and not need to keep them from harvesting a meal as they traveled on the Sabbath... Jesus pointed out that the levites broke Sabbath laws in working on the Sabbath, David ate from the table of showbread though not a levite... so... Jesus bound not Himself nor us to legalistic obeying of rules and laws... but to obey the GREAT and ONLY commandment will have us do the necessary things in the law of the O.T.

still eating pork and bacon... and feeling no guilt.. only thankfulness...
worshipping on Sunday... traveling farther on the Sabbath than the law allowed... not offering sacrifices on an altar in Jerusalem... yup... am breaking a lot of the now unnecessary laws... lol

 

[Yitzchak]

(p.s. to Yitzchak ... My apologies to you, for engaging abit in the 'off topic' discussion. I did so because I felt it was important, but nonetheless, I did go 'off-topic'. I generally don't like it much, when one of my threads start going off-topic; I hope this one will get back on tract for you soon.)

It is o.k.

By the way , I know it is not mine to decide , but I honestly did not mind the Catholic perspective , if that is what Simon's posts are. I felt like it tied into the topic and did not take it as proselytizing.

With regards ot the topic , I don't merely have an axe to grind about the topic. I sincerely think we can benefit by understanding this issue.