Did Christ at the cross end all the laws?

[Christopher0121]

This is from Chrysostom's Homily 54 on Matthew:

"What then says Christ? You are Simon, the son of Jonas; you shall be called Cephas. Thus since you have proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begot you; all but saying, As you are son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father. Else it were superfluous to say, You are Son of Jonas; but since he had said, Son of God, to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begot Him, therefore He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession."

It is clear from reading the text that the rock is the confession, not Peter, this is why even St. John Chrysostom explains it this way, Chrysostom being a native Greek speaker.

This interpretation is also the only one consistent with the rest of Scripture that makes clear that Christ is the cornerstone.

- "This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone." - Acts 4:11

- "For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." - 1 Corinthians 3:11

- "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." - Ephesians 5:23

I think Chrysostom makes an excellent point. However, this point is only part of the story. Theologians and Councils have pointed out and affirmed that it was PETER who was given the Keys to the Kingdom and authority to bind and loose in the Church as a result of his confession. Therefore Peter was indeed appointed head of the Church and is the "Rock" Jesus speaks of in double meaning after renaming him "Peter"... or... "Rock". A confession wasn't given the keys to the Church and the Kingdom of Heaven, a person was. And that person was... Peter.

And so... if Christ is truly the Cornerstone... we do well to recognize the authority He has appointed.

 

[Christopher0121]

Oh well... my over all point is that those without any final authority who each claim they are self-styled led of the Holy Spirit will debate this endlessly with each endlessly disagreeing with the one before them and after them.

However, historically speaking, THE CHURCH has ruled that the 10 Commandments serve to define sin, express God's holiness, condemn sin, and reveal man's need for a Savior. And so they are still very much still applicable even today.

 

[Nj_]

Being Catholic I believe that the Scripture is a part of Sacred Tradition. Remember, our Councils compiled, translated, and established the Canon you're reading to me at the end of the Fourth Century. We compiled Scripture to serve as a final authority on the nature Christ in the midst of all the growing Christological controversies. Scripture wasn't produced to replace Bishops, Deacons, or oral tradition. It has a purpose, to be the final word on Christology. It is but one piece of a single divine puzzle.

Paul put it this way back when Sacred Scripture was first being written...

2 Thessalonians 2:15
New Catholic Bible
Therefore, stand firm, brethren, and hold fast to the traditions that you have been taught, whether by word of mouth or by a letter of ours.​

Protestants certainly recognize the letters (Epistles). However, what traditions and teachings do these Protestants keep that was delivered orally??? What are they? Well, many are referred to in the writings of the Church Fathers, and many were ruled upon and embraced by the Councils. The Catholic Church is so old, Western Civilization is founded upon our ideals. Even the very Calendar used today is Catholic. This is because we've kept all written and spoken traditions dating back to Christ and the Apostles.



But sadly as the TWENTY THOUSAND different non-Catholic theologies have proven... the Bible without historic foundation can be made to say anything. You see... I was a Pentecostal for over 30 years. I've been on many forums and I can tell you... all non-Catholics will debate until they are blue in the face disagreeing with each other not even realizing the problem is that no one has a final authority. Everyone is merely leaning on their own understanding... and the only thing they agree on is... rejecting the Catholic Church. lol And most are quoting and arguing with the Bible we produced! LOL



Amen! I'm thankful to hear that you believe in the Creeds and Confessions. These Creeds are products of our Church. We even have the minutes and records of deliberations held during those Councils that established the Creeds. The Holy Spirit who leads and guides into all truth was certainly present and guiding the Church.

I can only stress that one keep the Bible in perspective. First, we must avoid worshiping the Bible. Jesus didn't die to provide a book. Jesus didn't die to provide a glorified book club. Jesus died to establish and sanctify unto Himself a CHURCH, a body. It was this body, this CHURCH that produced the Bible. And we produced the Bible to serve as a final authority on the actual writings of the Apostles and a sure foundation for Christology. It isn't designed to be the only weapon or source of truth in the Church's arsenal. As the Holy Spirit has led and guided the Church many other sources exist. For example, holy icons. Yes, these are pictures and statues. However, they predate the Bible. These images were used to help a largely illiterate population learn Scripture and theological truths. They are NOT to be worshipped. They are mere wood, paint, and stone. However, they serve as windows into Heavenly realities and aid in devotional contemplation and meditation during prayer. Thing of them as the Bible painted... in fact, iconographers are said to "write" holy icons, not paint them. It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words... well... to us icons are expressions of divine truth as much as the Scriptures are. The icon in my Avatar, it depicts Christ's two natures. This is why the image of Christ's face isn't balanced or equal. We used this icon to teach Christ's two natures in hypostatic union, which is a purely biblical truth. So, these icons are very much based on Scripture. Like the codex we know as Scripture they too are expressions of divine truth but in imagery. When I became Catholic and learned the history of all these things I never understood I was blown away. Today, I'm saddened when I hear non-Catholics berate, condemn, or deride such things. Because they do so outside of historical and cultural context. And they ignore the very biblical and Christian purpose of such things. Before I became Catholic, I'd call an icon an idol. However, after becoming Catholic I can pray before an icon and like a sermon in paint it speaks and preaches to my soul. Often, I can't help but weep before the icon. Why? It depicts the Word of God or truths about the Word of God in such a historical way. I am also comforted knowing my devotional practice dates back to the first and second centuries, a tradition that is painted and produced along the walls of the catacombs and earliest church buildings. I rejoice in that if I had a time machine... I can find my Church and most of my practices at any point within the past 2,000 years, for it is the actual Church that can trace its existence back to Christ and the Apostles.



Eh, we disagree on some things, but we both love Jesus and strive to keep Him central to our lives. You're good with me, brother. I might have some ancient traditions and practices that seem alien to you. And... that's okay! I mean, my Church is 2,000 years old. lol

One (not so) small issue though, the Catholic Church hasn't remained the same for 2,000 years, you can't even really claim it was started 2,000 years ago by Jesus Christ Himself because His teachings are often times opposed by the teachings of your Church, and some of the foundational beliefs of the Catholic Church such as Papal Primacy weren't accepted widespread until way later, besides, there's really no evidence of Peter being the first Pope.

You say we have the Canon thanks to the Catholic Church, I'd like to share this quote. This was said by Cyprian in one of the Synods of the Councils of Carthage (Which reaffirmed the Canon of the Synod of Hippo): "For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." This doesn't really look like something an allegedly Roman Catholic Bishop would say in an allegedly Roman Catholic Synod, does it? It appears to actually go against the Roman Catholic teaching of Papal Primacy.

Ironically enough, Augustine of Hippo, whom I assume you're aware was present in some of the Synods of Hippo (also responsible for the Canon), also affirmed that Peter was not the rock in his works.

I have to agree that most self-proclaimed Protestants are insane, especially those who get their doctrine from Televangelists, however, there are also some big debates within your Church, especially nowadays on issues regarding the TLM and the NO mass, so even within your Church there exist very big divisions. I do think that saying that all Protestants agree only on one point - Opposing the Catholic Church - is a bit dishonest though, after all, an Eastern Orthodox could claim Protestants, Catholics, and Oriental Orthodox disagree on everything except opposing the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Is he technically wrong? Well, yes and no, is it a good argument though? No.

I understand that because of your experience with Pentecostalism you're careful when it comes to Protestantism, however, I'd invite you to read into the Lutheran and (particularly) Reformed Traditions, which you'll soon notice are way more grounded in Scripture and (reliable, consistent with Scripture) Tradition than most other Protestant sects.

Again though, these Creeds are not the product of the Roman Catholic Church, many of the Bishops who attended the Councils thanks to whom we even have these Creeds disagreed with what the Roman Church would eventually go on to teach, and regarding the Confessions, I hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith, this one was not made by the Roman Church, but I'm sure no Catholic disagrees with me on this last one.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You are dancing. Let me try to "force" the issue. Forget other texts for the moment. Surely you have to agree that Paul did not write these words for no purpose whatsoever. So what, exactly, is Paul saying here: But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

This was already addressed elsewhere your taking a single scripture from it's contexts around Romans 6:1-23; Romans 7:1-25 and Romans 8:1-13 and trying to apply an interpretation to fit a teaching of lawlessness (without law) which is not biblical or supported in the scriptures. There is no where in the entire bible that teaches that God's 10 commandments are abolished. It is a teaching that has Paul in contradiction with Paul when he says faith does not abolish Gods' law it establishes Gods' law in Romans 3:31 or that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God in 1 Corinthians 7:19 or elsewhere when Paul shows that we love our neighbor as ourselves by being obedient to those commandments from Gods' law that show us how we love our fellow man in Romans 13:8-10.

Paul also shows in Romans 8:1-4 that the righteousness (moral right doing - Psalms 119:172) of the law is fulfilled in us as we walk not in the flesh but in Gods' Spirit (see also Galatians 5:16). Paul does not teach a teaching of lawlessness or that Gods' 10 commandments are abolished anywhere in the bible. He teaches they are established by faith and are a part of Gods 'new covenant promise *Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiah 31:31-36 and Ezekiel 36:24-27. It is Paul not me that says that God's law is holy, just and good in Romans 7:12 and that it is God's law that gives us the knowledge of what sin is when broken that is defined as breaking Gods' law in Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 and that the purpose of Gods' law is to show us we are all sinners in need of Gods' grace that we can receive through faith as shown in Romans 2:4-29 to Romans 3:1-23 and that faith does not abolish Gods' law, but establishes Gods' law in the lives of all those who believe what Gods' Word says.

Your interpretation of a single scripture in Romans 7:6 taken away from it's context to apply a meaning that Gods 10 commandments have been abolished has Paul in contradiction with Paul and the rest of the bible. Here let's prove this and add all the context back in first by looking at the previous verse your disregarding. We can have a look at the whole chapter if your interpreted and their connection with Romans 6:1-23 through to Romans 7:1-25 and Romans 8:1-13 in another post if your interested that says the same thing that is being shared with you here, but let's simply start with the immediate scripture context your disregarding again if it might be helpful. Romans 7:1-7 is building on what Paul was talking about in Romans 6:1-23 where he contrasts baptism and the death of the old man of sin or dying to our sinful nature and walking in newness of life. Romans 8:1-13 is building on both Romans 6 and Romans 7 contrasting walking in the Spirit and not in the old man of the flesh that has died so that we can be married to another in Christ. This is all context your disregarding that does not agree with your interpretation of Romans 7:6.

Take a look...

Romans 7:1-7
[1], Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
[2], For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
[3], So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
[4], Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
[5], For when we were in the FLESH <G4561 Carnal mind or sinful human nature>, the motions of SINS, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit to death.
[6], But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
[7], What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust,3 except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
​

FROM THE SCRIPTURES ABOVE

• Paul is speaking to those who understand the law - Romans 7:1
• The law has dominion over a man as long as we live - Romans 7:1
• Example of marriage and a woman being bound to her husband as long as she lives - Romans 7:2
• If the husband dies then she is free to marry another - Romans 7:2-3
• We are to become dead to the law (of our first husband) by the body of Christ - Romans 7:2-4
• For when we were in the flesh (first husband sinful nature) the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death - Romans 7:5
• We are to die to what has bound us which is sin - Romans 7:5-6
• Dying to that which has bound us (sin and death) we can serve in newness of life of the Spirit - Romans 7:6 compare Galatians 5:16 with Romans 8:1-4 and Romans 8:13.
• It is through the law of God we have the knowledge of what sin is - Romans 7:7

The context your disregarding here is that Paul is talking to those who know the law and is saying that before we come to Christ we (those who know the law) are married to the law of sin and death which is working in our members. That is Gods' law reveals sin to us and gives us the knowledge of what sin is when broken. This first husband (sinful nature) must die before we can be married to Christ to walk in His Spirit in newness of life. This agrees with what Paul is talking about already in Romans 6:1-23 where he is talking about the true meaning of "baptism" and dying to the old man of sin so we can walk in newness of life.

Romans 6:1-7
[1], What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
[2], God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? [3], Know you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
[4], Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
[5], For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
[6], Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that from now on we should not serve sin.
[7], For he that is dead is freed from sin.
[8], Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
[9], Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dies no more; death has no more dominion over him.
[10], For in that he died, he died to sin once: but in that he lives, he lives to God.
[11], Likewise reckon you also yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
[12], Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in the lusts thereof.
[13], Neither yield you your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin: but yield yourselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
[14], For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace.
[15], What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
[16], Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness?
[17], But God be thanked, that you were the servants of sin, but you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
[18], Being then made free from sin, you became the servants of righteousness.​

FROM THE SCRIPTURES ABOVE

• We are not to continue in sin - Romans 6:1-2
• We are to be dead to sin - Romans 6:2
• We baptized into Christs death - Romans 6:3
• We are buried into Christs death through baptism - Romans 6:4
• We are to walk in newness of life - Romans 6:4-5
• Our old man of sin and death is crucified with Christ - Romans 6:6
• Our old man of sin and death is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that from now on we should not serve sin - Romans 6:6
• Our old man of sin and death is dead in Christ so we can be freed from sin - Romans 6:6-7
• Our old man of sin and death is dead with Christ so that we can live with Christ (married to another - Romans 7:1-7) - Romans 6:8
  
• We are to reckon ourselves dead indeed to sin, but alive to God through Jesus - Romans 6:11
• We are not to let sin (breaking God's law) reign in our bodies any longer - Romans 6:12
• We are to yield ourselves to God as those being alive from the dead - Romans 6:13
• Sin (breaking Gods' law) is no longer to have dominion over us - Romans 6:14
• We are made free from sin to become servants of right doing - Romans 6:18

................

CONCLUSION: It is that which binds us that we are released from which is sin that we are to die to not the law that gives us a knowledge of what sin is, so that we can be married to Christ and walk in His Spirit. We are released from the condemnation of sin and death through faith in Gods' Word and by walking in Gods Spirit in newness of life (Romans 8:1-4). So nope Romans 7:6 does not teach anywhere that Gods' 10 commandments are abolished. It is teaching that we must be released from the sin (breaking God's law) that has bound us to be married to another (Christ) to walk in newness of life not of the letter but of the Spirit of God. Every time you read the word "sin" above you can substitute it to breaking Gods' law and not believing Gods' Word *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; James 2:10-11 and Romans 14:23. If there is no law then we have no knowledge of what sin is.

May God bless you as you receive his Words of correction.​

 

[Nj_]

This was already addressed elsewhere your taking a single scripture from it's contexts around Romans 6:1-23; Romans 7:1-25 and Romans 8:1-13 and trying to apply an interpretation to fit a teaching of lawlessness (without law) which is not biblical or supported in the scriptures. There is no where in the entire bible that teaches that God's 10 commandments are abolished. It is a teaching that has Paul in contradiction with Paul when he says faith does not abolish Gods' law it establishes Gods' law in Romans 3:31 or that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God in 1 Corinthians 7:19 or elsewhere when Paul shows that we love our neighbor as ourselves by being obedient to those commandments from Gods' law that show us how we love our fellow man in Romans 13:8-10.

Paul also shows in Romans 8:1-4 that the righteousness (moral right doing - Psalms 119:172) of the law is fulfilled in us as we walk not in the flesh but in Gods' Spirit (see also Galatians 5:16). Paul does not teach a teaching of lawlessness or that Gods' 10 commandments are abolished anywhere in the bible. He teaches they are established by faith and are a part of Gods 'new covenant promise *Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiah 31:31-36 and Ezekiel 36:24-27. It is Paul not me that says that God's law is holy, just and good in Romans 7:12 and that it is God's law that gives us the knowledge of what sin is when broken that is defined as breaking Gods' law in Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 and that the purpose of Gods' law is to show us we are all sinners in need of Gods' grace that we can receive through faith as shown in Romans 2:4-29 to Romans 3:1-23 and that faith does not abolish Gods' law, but establishes Gods' law in the lives of all those who believe what Gods' Word says.

Your interpretation of a single scripture in Romans 7:6 taken away from it's context to apply a meaning that Gods 10 commandments have been abolished has Paul in contradiction with Paul and the rest of the bible. Here let's prove this and add all the context back in first by looking at the previous verse your disregarding. We can have a look at the whole chapter if your interpreted and their connection with Romans 6:1-23 through to Romans 7:1-25 and Romans 8:1-13 in another post if your interested that says the same thing that is being shared with you here, but let's simply start with the immediate scripture context your disregarding again if it might be helpful. Romans 7:1-7 is building on what Paul was talking about in Romans 6:1-23 where he contrasts baptism and the death of the old man of sin or dying to our sinful nature and walking in newness of life. Romans 8:1-13 is building on both Romans 6 and Romans 7 contrasting walking in the Spirit and not in the old man of the flesh that has died so that we can be married to another in Christ. This is all context your disregarding that does not agree with your interpretation of Romans 7:6.

Take a look...

Romans 7:1-7
[1], Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
[2], For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
[3], So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
[4], Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
[5], For when we were in the FLESH <G4561 Carnal mind or sinful human nature>, the motions of SINS, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit to death.
[6], But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
[7], What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust,3 except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
​

FROM THE SCRIPTURES ABOVE

• Paul is speaking to those who understand the law - Romans 7:1
• The law has dominion over a man as long as we live - Romans 7:1
• Example of marriage and a woman being bound to her husband as long as she lives - Romans 7:2
• If the husband dies then she is free to marry another - Romans 7:2-3
• We are to become dead to the law (of our first husband) by the body of Christ - Romans 7:2-4
• For when we were in the flesh (first husband sinful nature) the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death - Romans 7:5
• We are to die to what has bound us which is sin - Romans 7:5-6
• Dying to that which has bound us (sin and death) we can serve in newness of life of the Spirit - Romans 7:6 compare Galatians 5:16 with Romans 8:1-4 and Romans 8:13.
• It is through the law of God we have the knowledge of what sin is - Romans 7:7

The context your disregarding here is that Paul is talking to those who know the law and is saying that before we come to Christ we (those who know the law) are married to the law of sin and death which is working in our members. That is Gods' law reveals sin to us and gives us the knowledge of what sin is when broken. This first husband (sinful nature) must die before we can be married to Christ to walk in His Spirit in newness of life. This agrees with what Paul is talking about already in Romans 6:1-23 where he is talking about the true meaning of "baptism" and dying to the old man of sin so we can walk in newness of life.

Romans 6:1-7
[1], What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
[2], God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? [3], Know you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
[4], Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
[5], For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
[6], Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that from now on we should not serve sin.
[7], For he that is dead is freed from sin.
[8], Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
[9], Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dies no more; death has no more dominion over him.
[10], For in that he died, he died to sin once: but in that he lives, he lives to God.
[11], Likewise reckon you also yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
[12], Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in the lusts thereof.
[13], Neither yield you your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin: but yield yourselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
[14], For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace.
[15], What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
[16], Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness?
[17], But God be thanked, that you were the servants of sin, but you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
[18], Being then made free from sin, you became the servants of righteousness.
​

................

CONCLUSION: It is that which binds us that we are released from which is sin that we are to die to not the law so that we can be married to Christ and walk in His Spirit. We are released from the condemnation of sin and death through faith in Gods' Word and by walking in the Spirit in newness of live (Romans 8:1-4). So nope Romans 7:6 does not teach anywhere that Gods' 10 commandments are abolished. It is teaching that we must be released from the sin (breaking God's law) that has bound us to be married to another (Christ) to walk in newness of life not of the letter but of the Spirit of God.

May God bless you as you receive his Words of correction.​

Would you agree that we are still to follow the Moral Law (The 10 Commandments), but not the Ceremonial and Judicial Law of the OT?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Would you agree that we are still to follow the Moral Law (The 10 Commandments), but not the Ceremonial and Judicial Law of the OT?

Yes absolutely Nd. All the ceremonial laws for remission of sins and animal sacrifices under the old covenants earthly Sanctuary system are shadow laws pointing to the coming of Jesus as Gods sacrifice for the sins of the world once and for all *John 1:29; 36; Hebrews 10:10 and the work of Jesus in the new covenant as our great high Priest who now ministers on our behalf in the heavenly Sanctuary to appear in the presence of God for us who ministers on our behalf based on better promises (see Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22)

 

[Nj_]

Yes absolutely Nd. All the laws for remission of sins and animal sacrifices under the old covenants earthly Sanctuary are shadow laws pointing to the coming of Jesus as Gods sacrifice for the sins of the world once and for all who now ministers on our behalf in the heavenly Sanctuary to appear in the presence of God for us who ministers on our behalf based on better promises (see Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22)

Wait, don't SDA keep kosher though? That's what I've heard, so I might be wrong.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Wait, don't SDA keep kosher though? That's what I've heard, so I might be wrong.

We do not eat unclean foods and follow Gods' dietary laws according to the scriptures. It is probably off topic for this discussion though. Please feel free to PM me if you want to discuss it further. Happy to share with you from the scriptures why we follow Gods' original diet for man.

God bless.

 

[Nj_]

We do not eat unclean foods and follow Gods' dietary laws according to the scriptures. It is probably off topic for this discussion though. Please feel free to PM me if you want to discuss it further. Happy to share with you from the scriptures why we follow Gods' original diet for man.

God bless.

I'm not sure what PM is, but I would actually like to discuss it further, in good faith and in a civilized manner, of course.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I'm not sure what PM is, but I would actually like to discuss it further, in good faith and in a civilized manner, of course.

Sorry Nd. PM short for "Private Message". If you click on my avatar you will see "Start a conversation" button. Just click on this.

 

[Nj_]

Sorry Nd. PM short for "Private Message". If you click on my avatar you will see "Start a conversation" button. Just click on this.

I don't see the option, it may be because of how young this account is.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I don't see the option, it may be because of how young this account is.

That could be true. Once you hit on anyones Avatar (I am using yours as an example) you will see something like this on the left side of your Avatar picture.

Ndjt
New Member
Male, from Colombia
Profile Page Start a Conversation Gift Follow Ignore

You hit the "Start a Conversation" link. If you cannot I will open a conversation for you.

Just a sec

 

[Christopher0121]

One (not so) small issue though, the Catholic Church hasn't remained the same for 2,000 years, you can't even really claim it was started 2,000 years ago by Jesus Christ Himself because His teachings are often times opposed by the teachings of your Church, and some of the foundational beliefs of the Catholic Church such as Papal Primacy weren't accepted widespread until way later, besides, there's really no evidence of Peter being the first Pope.

You're making a common error. You're using the term "Catholic" as though it is the name of a denomination. Most Protestants make this error. The term "Catholic" merely means "universal". So, when I say "Catholic", I'm speaking about the historic universal Church dating back to Christ and the Apostles. It is a "living faith" and so yes it is a living, evolving, developing, body. It is the Church of the Church Fathers, the Church of the Councils, and the Church of the Magisterium. And we see these developments as part of our identity. And so we learn them and know them as our history. Let's say I travel backwards in time in a time machine... I can find a Church I'm familiar with, a Church that is a part of my Church's own history and development. Sure, I might go back before the Latin Liturgy, but the Greek Divine Liturgy being practiced is still a part of our history and something I'm familiar with. I might go backwards in time to before the office of the Papacy was formally established... but again... that too was a chapter in our history. Many of our Churches are built over the graves of the Saints and Apostles. Our Churches maintain these relics and have protected them for millennia. Protestants see things very fixed. Like things never develop or evolve. Like the sacred is frozen in time or something. We don't see the faith that way. So yes... my Church goes back to Christ and the Apostles themselves. The nature of the Sacred never changes. However, expressions of the Sacred do.

You say we have the Canon thanks to the Catholic Church, I'd like to share this quote. This was said by Cyprian in one of the Synods of the Councils of Carthage (Which reaffirmed the Canon of the Synod of Hippo): "For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." This doesn't really look like something an allegedly Roman Catholic Bishop would say in an allegedly Roman Catholic Synod, does it? It appears to actually go against the Roman Catholic teaching of Papal Primacy.

You're comparison is outside of historical context. First, there were many going back to the first century who recognized Peter's office and the one seated in Peter's office was regarded as the "first among equals" for many centuries. However, when the Roman Pope endorsed the Filioque in the Creed the issue of authority rose to the forefront. Those who deny that Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and authority to bind and loose stood in opposition, claiming he overstepped his boundaries. However, to Western Christians who embraced the clear teaching that Christ appointed Peter Prince of the Apostles and issued him the Keys to the Kingdom emphasized this authority was indeed of God. This caused the Great Schism between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Prior to this... all were simply a part of the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church", as it is called in the Creed.

Ironically enough, Augustine of Hippo, whom I assume you're aware was present in some of the Synods of Hippo (also responsible for the Canon), also affirmed that Peter was not the rock in his works.

As mentioned before, the early Church regarded the Seat of Peter as being "first among equals". It really wasn't until the Great Schism that the authority of the Seat of Peter in relation to the rest of the Church really came into focus. But again... there was far more unity in those centuries also. As political power began to be put to bear upon Rome vs. Constantinople many "issues" relating to authority in the Church pitched East against West.

I have to agree that most self-proclaimed Protestants are insane, especially those who get their doctrine from Televangelists, however, there are also some big debates within your Church, especially nowadays on issues regarding the TLM and the NO mass, so even within your Church there exist very big divisions. I do think that saying that all Protestants agree only on one point - Opposing the Catholic Church - is a bit dishonest though, after all, an Eastern Orthodox could claim Protestants, Catholics, and Oriental Orthodox disagree on everything except opposing the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Is he technically wrong? Well, yes and no, is it a good argument though? No.

That's a fair point. Personally, I am but a hair's breadth from counting the Eastern Orthodox Churches as a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. After all... before the issue relating to the Filioque we were one body. I do pray that Peter and Andrew one day reconcile.

Protestantism isn't a monolithic body. It is a general term for a swath of different churches that own their existence to their "protest" against the Catholic Church (hence the term "Protest-ant"). And while there is debate within the Catholic Church on various issues, we are a single monolithic body. And we have a means of Apostolic authority that can be brought to bear to resolve such differences. This power isn't used flippantly and so to some degree debate is permitted and even encouraged. Within Protestantism it is each church start up claiming its truth above all others. It gets worse when one factors in the cults and non-denominational Evangelicals. It's a theological mosh pit of confusion and chaos.

I understand that because of your experience with Pentecostalism you're careful when it comes to Protestantism, however, I'd invite you to read into the Lutheran and (particularly) Reformed Traditions, which you'll soon notice are way more grounded in Scripture and (reliable, consistent with Scripture) Tradition than most other Protestant sects.

I took some time and road with the Reformed Baptists for a while. My favorite work at that time was, Systematic Theology, by Wayne Grudem. I wakened to the reality that one cannot shop for a Church. One must actually take a deep breath and surrender to historical truth. There's only one Church that was founded by Christ and the Apostles. Only one Church hailing from the Fathers and the Councils. One Church that recognizes the authority Christ invested in the Seat of Peter. And that Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. What I prefer, what I think, what I understand, what I might want doesn't matter. It's a matter of surrendering to what is. And I've found peace and assurance in the Catholic faith... a faith that predates Reformed Christianity by roughly 1,500 years.

If a Church predates a second church, it isn't possible that the second church originated with Christ and the Apostles. One can argue that they believe the Church founded by Christ and the Apostles apostatized (as most Protestants believe) but that flies in the face of Christ's promise that the gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against the Church He was founding and appointing Peter authority over.

Again though, these Creeds are not the product of the Roman Catholic Church, many of the Bishops who attended the Councils thanks to whom we even have these Creeds disagreed with what the Roman Church would eventually go on to teach, and regarding the Confessions, I hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith, this one was not made by the Roman Church, but I'm sure no Catholic disagrees with me on this last one.

The Creeds are the product of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Out of that Church we have Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Churches, etc. Since Jesus appointed Peter Prince of the Apostles and gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom to bind and loose on earth... out of all of these Churches only one, the Roman Catholic Church, still holds to the authority appointed by Christ.

That's ultimately what it boils down to. Authority. Which Church has the authority? Which Church recognizes Christ's appointed authority over the Church? And at the end of the day that single point leads one to the Catholic faith, for it was Peter whom Jesus gave the keys to.

Now, this isn't to say the Church has always lived up to her calling. I often tell people that we'd not have the Schism nor Protestants if the Church had always lived up to her ideals. In a very real way, all this division is the fault of the Church. It is a Church in human hands. No Church is absolutely perfect. However, love us or hate us... having lived up to our ideals or not... we're the Church Christ founded holding to the authority Christ appointed.

I would like to go on record and say that I'm not a big fan of this Pope. I'm far more conservative. But at this time Francis is the man of the hour over Christ's Church. And so my highest respect is for the office, though I disagree with the man in said office. It's much like a President. I'm not a big fan of some Presidents. However, I am an 8 year Army veteran...the President, agree with him or not... is still my President.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

There's also the concept of AUTHORITY and IDENTITY. There have been good Popes and bad Popes. Down through the ages the Church has not always lived up to the ideals she's called to live up to. But... she's still the very Church Christ founded. And we can be assured she'll overcome all challenges from within and without.

Like I said... I can build a time machine and travel back to any point within the past 2,000 years and find my Church. And keep in mind... we're the largest Church on earth with 1.3 BILLION believers. We also run more hospitals, charities, shelters, schools, etc. than any other organization on earth. You can travel to any city in the free world... and find our Churches.

Yes... we're the target of many. And it was foretold...

Acts 20:30
New Catholic Bible
30 Even from your own ranks men will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them.​

Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, etc. all founded after the teachings of a man... and even more so when we see these Charismatic types who start concert style churches in their garages.

I draw much comfort knowing the Church I'm a part of is the same Church that held the Councils and has the minutes and deliberations of those Councils recorded. We are... the Church.

​

We have never been told in scripture to take the wide path, the path is narrow and the way there is to only follow the Word of God, not deviate with traditions that lead to breaking the commandments of God.

 

[Christopher0121]

We have never been told in scripture to take the wide path, the path is narrow and the way there is to only follow the Word of God, not deviate with traditions that lead to breaking the commandments of God.

The narrow path isn't a denomination or church start up. It's the path of righteousness. Within the Body of Christ the path is narrow for those aspiring to holiness.

Such mischaracterizations are part and parcel of the cults. They justify their lack of historic existence or their ineffectual numbers with the narrow path claim. If that's the case... one can start their own church and never leave their living room and be on the narrowest path possible. lol

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Oh well... my over all point is that those without any final authority who each claim they are self-styled led of the Holy Spirit will debate this endlessly with each endlessly disagreeing with the one before them and after them.

However, historically speaking, THE CHURCH has ruled that the 10 Commandments serve to define sin, express God's holiness, condemn sin, and reveal man's need for a Savior. And so they are still very much still applicable even today.

The final authority is the Word of God, period. The scriptures are our only safeguard to God’s Truth. The devil deceives the whole world, we protect ourselves through the shield of Christ and only His Word is pure and we are told not to change one Word. Proverbs 30:5-6

The Church are those who follow the Word of God, not those who follow a church.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The narrow path isn't a denomination or church start up. It's the path of righteousness. Within the Body of Christ the path is narrow for those aspiring to holiness.

Such mischaracterizations are part and parcel of the cults. They justify their lack of historic existence or their ineffectual numbers with the narrow path claim. If that's the case... one can start their own church and never leave their living room and be on the narrowest path possible. lol

I never said the narrow path is a denomination, the narrow path is not deviating from the scriptures to follow man’s authority and not God’s.

 

[Christopher0121]

The final authority is the Word of God, period. The scriptures are our only safeguard to God’s Truth. The devil deceives the whole world, we protect ourselves through the shield of Christ and only His Word is pure and we are told not to change one Word. Proverbs 30:5-6

The Church are those who follow the Word of God, not those who follow a church.

Jesus died to sanctify a Church unto Himself... not to provide a book... not to found a book club. A CHURCH. What makes the Scripture Sacred is that it is the product of... the Church. It's about people, living Epistles, living stones. Some have made a greater idol of the Scriptures than most Catholics have of the Saints. lol

 

[Nj_]

You're making a common error. You're using the term "Catholic" as though it is the name of a denomination. Most Protestants make this error. The term "Catholic" merely means "universal". So, when I say "Catholic", I'm speaking about the historic universal Church dating back to Christ and the Apostles. It is a "living faith" and so yes it is a living, evolving, developing, body. It is the Church of the Church Fathers, the Church of the Councils, and the Church of the Magisterium. And we see these developments as part of our identity. And so we learn them and know them as our history. Let's say I travel backwards in time in a time machine... I can find a Church I'm familiar with, a Church that is a part of my Church's own history and development. Sure, I might go back before the Latin Liturgy, but the Greek Divine Liturgy being practiced is still a part of our history and something I'm familiar with. I might go backwards in time to before the office of the Papacy was formally established... but again... that too was a chapter in our history. Many of our Churches are built over the graves of the Saints and Apostles. Our Churches maintain these relics and have protected them for millennia. Protestants see things very fixed. Like things never develop or evolve. Like the sacred is frozen in time or something. We don't see the faith that way. So yes... my Church goes back to Christ and the Apostles themselves. The nature of the Sacred never changes. However, expressions of the Sacred do.



You're comparison is outside of historical context. First, there were many going back to the first century who recognized Peter's office and the one seated in Peter's office was regarded as the "first among equals" for many centuries. However, when the Roman Pope endorsed the Filioque in the Creed the issue of authority rose to the forefront. Those who deny that Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and authority to bind and loose stood in opposition, claiming he overstepped his boundaries. However, to Western Christians who embraced the clear teaching that Christ appointed Peter Prince of the Apostles and issued him the Keys to the Kingdom emphasized this authority was indeed of God. This caused the Great Schism between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Prior to this... all were simply a part of the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church", as it is called in the Creed.



As mentioned before, the early Church regarded the Seat of Peter as being "first among equals". It really wasn't until the Great Schism that the authority of the Seat of Peter in relation to the rest of the Church really came into focus. But again... there was far more unity in those centuries also. As political power began to be put to bear upon Rome vs. Constantinople many "issues" relating to authority in the Church pitched East against West.



That's a fair point. Personally, I am but a hair's breadth from counting the Eastern Orthodox Churches as a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. After all... before the issue relating to the Filioque we were one body. I do pray that Peter and Andrew one day reconcile.

Protestantism isn't a monolithic body. It is a general term for a swath of different churches that own their existence to their "protest" against the Catholic Church (hence the term "Protest-ant"). And while there is debate within the Catholic Church on various issues, we are a single monolithic body. And we have a means of Apostolic authority that can be brought to bear to resolve such differences. This power isn't used flippantly and so to some degree debate is permitted and even encouraged. Within Protestantism it is each church start up claiming its truth above all others. It gets worse when one factors in the cults and non-denominational Evangelicals. It's a theological mosh pit of confusion and chaos.



I took some time and road with the Reformed Baptists for a while. My favorite work at that time was, Systematic Theology, by Wayne Grudem. I wakened to the reality that one cannot shop for a Church. One must actually take a deep breath and surrender to historical truth. There's only one Church that was founded by Christ and the Apostles. Only one Church hailing from the Fathers and the Councils. One Church that recognizes the authority Christ invested in the Seat of Peter. And that Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. What I prefer, what I think, what I understand, what I might want doesn't matter. It's a matter of surrendering to what is. And I've found peace and assurance in the Catholic faith... a faith that predates Reformed Christianity by roughly 1,500 years.

If a Church predates a second church, it isn't possible that the second church originated with Christ and the Apostles. One can argue that they believe the Church founded by Christ and the Apostles apostatized (as most Protestants believe) but that flies in the face of Christ's promise that the gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against the Church He was founding and appointing Peter authority over.



The Creeds are the product of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Out of that Church we have Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Churches, etc. Since Jesus appointed Peter Prince of the Apostles and gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom to bind and loose on earth... out of all of these Churches only one, the Roman Catholic Church, still holds to the authority appointed by Christ.

That's ultimately what it boils down to. Authority. Which Church has the authority? Which Church recognizes Christ's appointed authority over the Church? And at the end of the day that single point leads one to the Catholic faith, for it was Peter whom Jesus gave the keys to.

Now, this isn't to say the Church has always lived up to her calling. I often tell people that we'd not have the Schism nor Protestants if the Church had always lived up to her ideals. In a very real way, all this division is the fault of the Church. It is a Church in human hands. No Church is absolutely perfect. However, love us or hate us... having lived up to our ideals or not... we're the Church Christ founded holding to the authority Christ appointed.

I would like to go on record and say that I'm not a big fan of this Pope. I'm far more conservative. But at this time Francis is the man of the hour over Christ's Church. And so my highest respect is for the office, though I disagree with the man in said office. It's much like a President. I'm not a big fan of some Presidents. However, I am an 8 year Army veteran...the President, agree with him or not... is still my President.

I understand that Catholic means Universal, and I believe in the Catholicity of the Church (Just not your Church), which is why I almost always wrote Roman Catholic (I realized I forgot to add the Roman in the first sentence), I just don't believe that the Roman Church is the true Church, and I don't believe it is the Catholic Church in that sense either, but that's what it's often called at this point.

Also, the fact that you agree that the doctrine of Papal Primacy was formally established after Peter is pretty problematic, especially since there's only one verse from where you get this doctrine, and it is a verse you misinterpret. As for the first among equals, we both know that the teaching of Rome is that the Pope is not merely primus inter pares, but that he actually is in a position of supreme authority over all other Bishops which is why the Great Schism happened. You're essentially subscribing to a doctrine with no biblical support, that started way after the death of Peter, and that is contradicted by the very same Church fathers you claim are a part of your tradition.

I don't have a problem with changing how the Church does things as long as its in accordance with Scripture, but one of the central doctrines upon which your Church is built changing overtime is pretty problematic

 

[Christopher0121]

I never said the narrow path is a denomination, the narrow path is not deviating from the scriptures to follow man’s authority and not God’s.

Since the Scriptures weren't compiled into what you know today as the Bible until the late 300's... what guided the Church for nearly 400 years? What was the test of truth? And... what part does that play in the Church's compilation and canonization of the Bible you regard so highly?