Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is obvious that merely quoting from the 10 does not necessarily mean that the 10 are still in force! How is this not obvious?Why would Paul quote from the Ten saying it was the law if that wasn't the case.
You can't have it both ways, this is the law of God that you keep saying is "retired" despite the apostles and Jesus all saying otherwise. I agree it is an absurd position to think the law of God is retired and that we are free to break these laws that God personally wrote for us.A gross mischaracterization of my position as any objective reader will know.
Please stop with your repeated false attributions - by now you have to know that my position does not entail commitment to such an absurd position.
Basically what you appear to be saying what the apostles and Jesus was teaching was not meant for our benefit, the scriptures are multiple choice or what we feel like is meant for us.It is obvious that merely quoting from the 10 does not necessarily mean that the 10 are still in force! How is this not obvious?
Even if Paul praises the 10 - as he does in Romans 7 - this does not mean they are still in force.
I can praise the merits of a law from the past without implying it remains in force.
Well... I would say that specifically the old Covenant is the one that God made with the Israelites when he brought them out of Egypt.
In Jeremiah 31 (and Hebrews 8), God says he's going to make a new covenant with the Israelites. It's not like the covenant he made when they came out of Egypt.
So we have two covenants: the new covenant, and the Coming out of Egypt covenant. If one is called 'new" what's a good shorthand for the other one? And I think that's where "old covenant" comes in.
Hundreds of years ago when the Catholic bishops and also the church of England were translating the Bible into English, the word "testament" had an overlapping meaning with the word "covenant".
And Yes it's true that today, we still use Old Testament and New Testament to refer to sections of the Bible.
Rome too...
Oh no you di'en't!
You just busted Orthodoxy on me didn't you? LOL
Good to see you my Eastern brother! Keep the faith. lol
Yes, there are older covenants. This is a newer covenant, but not as new as the New CovenantI see what you're saying. You're saying that in common vernacular the term "Old Covenant" should point to the Mosaic Covenant since that is the covenant that was directly replaced by the New Covenant. And I can agree with that. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that the OT does contain descriptions and history relating to even older covenants.
The promises of God’s Word tells us something different….
John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
We are promised the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey God. John 14:15-18, Acts 5:32
Jesus out of His own mouth said not to keep traditions of man over the commandments of God. Matthew 15:3-9, Mark 7:7-8 and we should not change one dot of God’s laws which especially include the Ten Commandments that God personally wrote with His own finger.
The problem with man thinking they have equal or greater over authority over the scripture is they start to change a little of God’s Word here or a little there and pretty soon, its nothing like what the scriptures teach. Only the Word of God is pure and we are called to worship Him in both Spirit and Truth. John 4:23-24
God bless!
Please forgive me but I do not believe you. I prefer the scriptures shared with you.
The teachings of Jesus and the "inner voice" of the Holy Spirit.
I believe that Paul is saying that if we love we will automatically fulfill the Law - we have no need to refer to a "list" of do's and don'ts". So we can say the law is "retired" in the sense that we do not need it to guide our actions - as Paul says, if we love, we have done all we need to do.
Yes I did...we always keep the faith.
Yes, there are older covenants. This is a newer covenant, but not as new as the New Covenant
From Numbers 25:
Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I didn’t consume the children of Israel in my jealousy. 12 Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace. 13 It shall be to him, and to his offspring after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.
What do you think? Is this Covenant still in force? It says it's an everlasting Covenant. But I've also heard that the Hebrew for "everlasting" can also mean "time indefinite".
It has bearing on the thread topic, since the old Covenant (or at least parts of it) are referred to the same way, I think.
Surely you know that I believe that the Spirit guides us with respect to what is sin or not. I have repeated this many times.You can't have it both ways, this is the law of God that you keep saying is "retired" despite the apostles and Jesus all saying otherwise. I agree it is an absurd position to think the law of God is retired and that we are free to break these laws that God personally wrote for us.
I can claim that all elements of the Law of Moses - including the 10 - are "retired" and not be forced into the position of saying there no sinners.
For example, we need to follow Jesus's teachings - if I fail to follow them, I am a sinner. Likewise, I need to respond to the promptings of the indwelling Spirit. If I reject the leading of the Spirit, I am sinning.
I agree with the Scriptures you presented. However, you're making a mistake, a logical fallacy of argumentation. Let me explain...
You quoted John 14:26...
John 14:26
New Catholic Bible
26 However, the Advocate, the Holy Spirit,
whom the Father will send in my name,
will teach you everything
and remind you of all
that I have said to you.
This was spoken by Christ and recorded by the Apostle John in His Gospel between 90 and 100 AD. Here Jesus PROMISES that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things and remind us of all Jesus has taught us. This means Jesus PROMISED that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the Nicene Fathers, the Post Nicene Fathers, the Greek Fathers, the Latin Fathers, the Councils, and the Bishops of the Church (historically known as the Magisterium). Remember, Christ founded the Church on Peter's delegated authority, and promised this Church would prevail over all powers resisting her, and that she'd exist in continuity from the very time of her founding until Christ's Parousia.
The church Jesus founded is on based Christ, not on a man. Christ is our Rock, not a man.Matthew 16:17-19
New Catholic Bible
17 Then Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my heavenly Father. 18 And I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
IF the Holy Spirit was and is guiding the Church Christ founded in the NT as Christ promised... we ignore Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to our own detriment.
Again the church are those who follow the Word of God, not the Catholic Church. You can believe in traditions over the commandments, but for me I will follow the instructions of Jesus Christ who said out of His own mouth you are worshipping in vain by obeying traditions over the commandments of God. Matthew 15:3-9. Mark 7:6-7.One thing non-Catholics forget is... the Church predates them. The doctrinal language commonly used by non-Catholics, and even the Canon of Scripture they draw from, is a product of the Catholic Church and our Councils. The Church founded by Christ Himself, an actual tangible, REAL, ecclesiastical body, and has existed in Catholic hands, a Church honoring the Seat of Peter, from the beginning. If Christ was telling the truth, and He was, we can be assured that our Sacred Traditions and the teachings of the Magisterium are led of the Holy Spirit.
Sin is defined by breaking the law. The commandments just points out what sin is so we know what not to break. 1 John 3:4, Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7, breaking one commandment is like breaking them all James 2:10-12 and the Spirit is given to obey the commandments John 14:15-18 and to those who obey Act 5:32. We have time right now, to repent and turn to Christ and walk in obedience to Him, but we are warned to those who know the truth and willingly sin. Hebrews 10:26-30.Surely you know that I believe that the Spirit guides us with respect to what is sin or not. I have repeated this many times.
So whether you agree with me on this or not, you know that I do not believe that we are free to sin.
Matthew 14: 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
This is Jesus speaking to the apostles, but also speaking to us. 1 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
With this type of thinking we would need to delete the majority of the Bible if we did not have spiritual lessons and instruction for God's Word that is applicable yesterday, today and tomorrow. God's Word is addressed to whomever will not harden their hearts and follow the scripture. What I don't see added in this scripture is this is addressed to the Catholic church. Of course, everyone is invited to follow the Word of God. Also God's Church in scripture is not the Catholic Church- God's Chruch are those who follow His Word. Christ is the head of the Church and those whom are in Christ make up the body.
he church Jesus founded is on based Christ, not on a man. Christ is our Rock, not a man.
1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
Again the church are those who follow the Word of God, not the Catholic Church. You can believe in traditions over the commandments, but for me I will follow the instructions of Jesus Christ who said out of His own mouth you are worshipping in vain by obeying traditions over the commandments of God. Matthew 15:3-9. Mark 7:6-7.
Lets get this thread back on topic, this thread is not about the history of the church, its about the laws and what ended if any when Christ died for the forgiveness of our sins and sanctification. So I am asking you kindly to please stay on topic. Thanks and God bless!
And precisely why should we believe that the tradition and historical teaching is beyond error?I guess this is why I take issue with people saying, "I can claim..." or "I believe..." or "I take the Scripture as saying..." It's like... hey... there's over 20 centuries of theology, teaching, and tradition, on these things guys. lol
One of the misrepresentations we see in this thread is the insistence those who believe the 10 are retired therefore believe we are free to commit murder, adultery, etc.
This is, of course, false.
Whether you like it or not, our position does not force us into such a position no matter how much that would serve your agenda.
The reason is simple and cannot be misunderstood: we believe that the indwelling Spirit as well as the teachings of Jesus give us a moral compass.
You are free to disagree with what we believe to be the case about where one gets moral guidance. But you are most certainly not free to tell us that we believe something that we do not - that it is acceptable to sin.
It is an abject and pernicious falsehood to claim that we think its OK to sin.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?