ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 His Ecclesia
 The New Covenant
 What is the New Covenant?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic 
Page: of 6

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 14 Sep 2015 :  14:51:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Wait... being "social" with family, friends and strangers,
without being forced, is NOT the socialism we see in every
form of government around the hemisphere. They might
call themselves Christians, Muslims, Torah, Hindu etc.,
but it is NOT what the doctrines of their Ways
are supposed to be. Indeed, it is totally contrary, and I will say, peculiar
to what goes on all over.

When one thinks about it, many people do His Will, when they
help family, friends and strangers, giving (through their very own
patience, work, wealth), not asking or worse -demanding
something in return. So in a way, it is a great gift which is inherent,
but has been hidden, and substituted by the likes of, lets say - "Control Freaks"



Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 15 Sep 2015 :  14:22:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yes Manuel,

And thus the importance of distinguishing between the THEORY and the PRACTICE!

Or, forget all the modern "isms" and endless debates over terminology, definitions, interpretations, philosophies, ideologies, and similar distractions. Instead, just open your Bible and DO WHAT IT SAYS!

What you describe is the fact that everyone you know wakes up on Monday morning and goes to work because they "need" the money. But by Friday the paycheck has come in, and they have some spare time and/or other resources on their hands.

So they then open their Bible, read what it says about giving freely, and do just that with any excess they have left over once their own necessities of life have been taken care of.

That is a good start, as many people don't even get that far. But it is not what Jesus taught, nor what the Apostles implemented. The Gospel is an all-or-nothing deal, as Jesus made painfully clear on multiple occasions.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 15 Sep 2015 :  17:06:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Caleb,
I am not sure about how you ended your last response:
"But it is not what Jesus taught, nor what the Apostles implemented. The Gospel is an all-or-nothing deal, as Jesus made painfully clear on multiple occasions."

From my understanding, Jesus was teaching about free will, and
not being yoked with systems of governments which took by force,
and furthered unrighteousness falling unto tribute.

Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 16 Sep 2015 :  00:44:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yes, the New Covenant is completely voluntary. It comes from the heart, and not from any outside coercion or threat.
This is the difference between "written on the heart" and "written on stone".
The Law of the Spirit is done out of Love.
The Law of the fleshly nature does not come naturally from the heart, and must be imposed and enforced from outside of us.

See if this doesn't bring crystal clarity:

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
Leviticus 20:10

Need I say more? Is the error of James S. not immediately apparent? Here is the most draconian enforcement of one of the Ten Commandments possible. A hundred thousand proof-texts cannot obscure this simple fact, that it is imposed and enforced from outside of ourselves. Thus it does not spring naturally from the heart, and CANNOT be part of the New Covenant.

When you speak of being "yoked with systems of governments", you speak of man's Govt., which is precisely what Samuel warned Israel against when they demanded a King. By contrast, Isaiah foretold that a time would come when this would change:

"And the Government shall be upon his shoulders."
"Of the increase of His Government and of peace, there shall be no end."

This is the Government of Christ, whose yoke is easy and burden is light. There is a radical difference. Even the King James translators understood this, as they never once used the word "government" as referring to man's Govt.

If you read the Queen's Coronation Oath and Ceremony, you will see that the English monarchy claims no right to govern on its own. It is very explicit that her authority rests solely on her oath to uphold the Law AND the Gospel (Old and New Covenants), and thus her government on earth claims to be the Government of Christ.

And before you object that this government uses force, let me just stop you and say that you are speaking too soon, and speaking out of ignorance. Like the people of Israel, WE have demanded a King. If we wish to live under the New Covenant, we must do two things that we are not doing at present:
1) Obey the straightforward commands of Christ
2) Follow the correct procedure for changing the status of our PERSON.

Since we have yet to get through point #1, I simply cannot begin to discuss point #2. All I can do is to tell you that you continue to live under the Old Covenant and the Govt. of man, due to choices made OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 16 Sep 2015 :  11:22:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Caleb,
Yes, I understand, and constantly striving to seek
His Kingdom, where as He reminded "Ye are all kings."

It is a tough road, and narrow is The Way. I am reminded
of "separation anxiety" :)

Blessings to you and love ones,
Manuel
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 16 Sep 2015 :  13:17:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
You've got the picture Manuel,

Now you just need to know just how real this is.

Here's a hint:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_P0gBqN4kY

"We can be the Kings and Queens of anything if we believe."

"A world where you and I belong.
Where Faith and Love will keep us strong."

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 17 Sep 2015 :  12:48:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Beautiful Caleb,
A Tale of Two Cities
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair,
we had everything before us, we had nothing before us,
we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct
the other way - in short, the period was so far like the
present period, that some of its noisiest authorities
insisted on its being received, for good or for evil,
in the superlative degree of comparison only."

Blessings,
Manuel

Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2015 :  10:06:43  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Caleb wrote:
It's time to cut to the chase. The truth is simple to understand:
1) In the beginning, God created a perfect world.
2) Man has been trying to improve on it ever since.
3) We know the result, and it is not good.
4) The goal is nothing more or less than a return to that state of perfection that God created in the beginning.

Questions:
1) Have I stated the goal correctly? If not, what is our goal?
2) How many commandments were there in the Garden of Eden?
3) Who invented money? God, or man?
4) Was there debt in the Garden of Eden?

There is really nothing else to discuss. All other arguments simply take us down unprofitable rabbit trails to nowhere.

1) In the beginning, God created a perfect world.
If this were true, how did it become corrupt? Was Adam and Eve perfect? If so how did they fall? Were they immortal, if so how did they die? I believe God is bringing in a better world than that of Adam and Eve, and it is not to go to heaven. The process by which that comes about is supernatural, not natural. It will not come about by the “Christians” doing better and better until Utopia happens.

2) Man has been trying to improve on it ever since.
Only Adam and Eve were in that world. No one else has experienced that, therefore are not trying to improve on it.

3) We know the result, and it is not good.
True, but results of man going against the principles of God, going their own way, doing “what is right in their own eyes.” It is SIN that is the problem. This is socialism at it best.

4) The goal is nothing more or less than a return to that state of perfection that God created in the beginning.
No, this is not the goal. That goal is way too low.

1) Have I stated the goal correctly? If not, what is our goal?
No you have not state the goal correctly. Adam and Eve were created mortal, subject to death. This is shown clearly by, “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, (Gen 3:22-23 KJV) If they had immortality they could not die, and immortality was denied to them at that time by being expelled.

After becoming a true Christian by the grace of God, and the blood of Christ, not of works, lest any man should boast, our goal is to mold our character (renew our minds Eph 4:23-24) by the power of the Holy Spirit to become like our brother, Jesus Christ that when Messiah returns we will either be raised to incorruptibility or changed in a twinkling of an eye. This mortal must put on immortality. This is expressed in “… the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing SEEK FOR glory and honour and IMMORTALITY, ETERNAL LIFE: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, (Rom 2:5-8 KJV) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality (1Co 15:53 KJV) Then the renovation of the world begins.

Monetary debt, while a bad thing, is a minor thing spiritually.

It is obvious that man invented money. Another pertinent question to ask is, “Who used money?” Who paid tax? Did Abraham use money? Did Jesus use money? Do you use money? Did the Apostles use money? Does “socialism” use money?

You have consistently ignored this verse. What does it mean?
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Rom 3:31-1 KJV)

For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (Rom 10:3-4 KJV)

The “righteousness” defined by man denies submission to the righteousness of God. The end of the law to produce righteousness is now in effect, this comes by grace, but it is the righteousness defined by the New Covenant terms. "…ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law;” (Isa 51:7 KJV) Jesus “…condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Rom 8:3-4 KJV) This is the righteousness defined by the law, not "out of" or produced by observance of the law.

Caleb seems to be denying that righteousness is defined by the Law of the New Covenant. He says to Love is the only command. Love will cause obedience to God, this by being obedient to "the word that they had from the beginning" because the word is written in our hearts and we obey out of our love for God. But we obey. We obey the word.



James Snyder

Edited by - jsnyder3395 on 19 Sep 2015 10:09:41
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 20 Sep 2015 :  04:26:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
James,

You are propping up the theology that I was taught in church for 30 years, and which obviously was doing no one any good. It simply tells everyone to sit on their hands and do nothing, because:
1) There is nothing to be done (no goal)
2) It is impossible to fix this broken world
3) God's plan, and thus "real" life, begins after we die

It doesn't matter how you phrase it, the overwhelming message is:
"Don't move. In fact, don't even breathe, because you only risk making things worse than they already are."

We are told in church that the ONLY good things we can do in this life are:
1) Read your Bible (but ignore taking action on anything it says)
2) Pray (with the understanding that your purpose here is to convince God to fix things. This is the safest position, because while you are praying at least you can be assured that you are not doing anything that will have any effect on the world yourself, and thus there is no risk of you making things worse)
3) Tell others to convert to this wonderful system of doing nothing for God's sake.

The conversion process has been refined to three very easy steps:
1) Walk the aisle (or raise your hand)
2) Pray a magic prayer
3) Sit on your hands and do nothing for the rest of your life

Apparently you, James, are allowed to do a fourth "good" thing, which is to go online to shamelessly defend a failed system of belief that actively works to NOT "turn the world upside down."

You summed this position up perfectly when you cited some nice spiritual sounding proof-texts as "the goal", and ended with:
"Then the renovation of the world BEGINS."

So, just to help you along, let me advise you to remove one short prayer from your repertoire, as it could be found to run contrary to your stated goal. You will hardly miss it.

"Thy Kingdom come,"

Well, actually No Lord. Sit down for my 45 minute sermon where I explain to you why this is NOT supposed to happen now, or any time in the near future. In fact, 2000 years is far too soon. Never would be better, but as long as it happens after some 14 Billion of us have wasted our entire life on earth, and you have killed us ALL, then I suppose it might be Ok.

"Thy will be done, in Earth ..."

I see you missed the point of the first sermon. Ok, sit down and listen this time. You see, this is Earth. Earth is bad. Earth is cursed. Life here on earth is harsh. Really, it is not harsh enough. See how I'm busy doing nothing at all? That's because the only power I have, is the power to make things WORSE. Far worse. You have no idea just how bad, worse.

I am evil. I am a son of Satan. I have a heart of darkness. I am a sinner (saved by grace), but I don't know what the grace or the saved part are about, so let's just stick with the "sinner" bit, Ok? I understand that part, and so should you. Sin, sinner, sinister, sinnerliest. When you SIN, sin boldly, and just make sure you are sin-cere about it, because that is your purpose here.

That is all we are able to do here. When we wake up, we sin. When we open our mouth, we sin. When we use our eyes, we sin. If we are still in our bodies, we can only sin. But if we kill ourselves, which might sound like the logical thing to do so as to get through this nightmare faster, that is actually sin also. That is a special kind of sin that sends you straight to Hell, whereas if you try your best not to do too many sins, because you are sincerely trying to do nothing at all, then those sins actually send you to Heaven. They are the currency that gets you into Heaven. You just show them to Jesus, and he converts them into this stuff called "righteousness". He's the heavenly money-changer, and he can't help you if you don't bring a whole great big pile of sins for him to convert.

So we are on earth so we can collect enough sins. Nothing about any Kingdom, and certainly nothing about impossible stuff like doing God's will. Who came up with that stupid prayer anyway?

"Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors"

Now this is going to take an entire sermon series. This is complex stuff. You see, debt here really isn't debt. It's more like green slime. None of us like green slime, so when you see green slime on someone else, just pretend that it isn't there. And hope that they will do the same for you. That's it. Debt is no big deal.

Contracts and money are absolute necessities in this life. So ignore the fact that those automatically put you into debt. Or just redefine debt, as I have done above. See? Simple! So debt is no big deal. Or, as the great Bible scholar James Snyder so eloquently puts it:
"Monetary debt, while a bad thing, is a minor thing spiritually."

You can find this theme repeated throughout scripture. For example, Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, told us that:
"He who is surety for another", to him it is no big deal.
and
"The borrower is servant to", his own whims and desires.
Don't mind the paraphrasing here. Solomon had so much to say about debt precisely because he wanted to firmly drive home the point that it is no big deal.

So while here on earth, it is your sworn duty as a good sinner to enter into debts and to be extremely selective should it seem like a good idea to forgive one, if ever. I sense that you remain not quite convinced on this point, which is why this was only the first sermon in a VERY LONG series that will once and for all settle this "minor" issue for you.

"Lead us not into temptation"

Here is where we can see just how completely loopy the author of this prayer was. The ONLY reason we are here on earth is to be tempted. If we were not tempted, we would not sin, and if you recall, if you don't collect enough sins, you can't do business with the heavenly money-changer.

In fact, it is safe to say that God created this world just so he could tempt us, and the moment we are no longer tempted, is the moment we are no longer on earth, or earth no longer exists. Know the goal, and know your purpose here: Temptation, sin, money-changing. Never lose sight of these critical guides to your faith.

"But deliver us from Evil"

This is kind of getting repetitive now. See above. While we are here, we are the embodiment of evil. Evil is all around us. We only have the power to make the evil worse. And if we are delivered from evil, then it means we are no longer here on earth, which means we must be dead, which is a good thing. But it is a bad thing if you have any role in making it happen sooner than God decides that it should happen. Do not put the Lord your God to the test.

So do not try to convince God to deliver you from this evil world sooner. It could possibly result in your being sent to Hell if he decided to answer your prayer. We can't be completely sure about this, but understand the logic of the situation. Just as it is best not to step out in front of a bus, so it is also best to put up with all the evil this world can throw at you, and to collect the necessary quota of sins while being careful to do nothing meaningful with your entire life.

Yes, that was repetitive, but it made for a good summary as well, and since this was probably a lot to take in, you probably needed to hear it more than once anyway. And don't worry, just go to church this coming Sunday, any church, and they will tell you the exact same deeply fulfilling spiritual truths in their own words. But now you will be able to advise them to remove this one prayer from their church service, if indeed they are still mouthing such vain repetitions.

Honi soit qui mal y pense

Edited by - Caleb on 20 Sep 2015 04:35:33
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 20 Sep 2015 :  14:24:50  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
The message from the prayer is obvious. Thy kingdom come means thy kingdom come. Does it mean that we should create the kingdom by promoting debt free socialism?

Hello again, without sarcasm,

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1Jo 3:4 KJV)

Since sin IS breaking (transgressing) the law, which means that they are synonymous, the following statements are obviously at odds.
Caleb wrote
He is trying to hit us between the eyes with this simple truth: It is IMPOSSIBLE to keep the Law! 11 Jul 2015
John clearly was writing with the notion that it was possible to NO LONGER sin. 17 Jul 2015

Perhaps there is a redefinition of sin that could make these contradictory statements harmonize.

Caleb wrote:
Even though Matthew uses "debts" and Luke uses "trespasses", every Christian you will ever discuss this with will tell you that these are merely synonyms for "Sins". Nothing could be further from the truth. IN FACT, THIS FLAGRANT LIE, [sic] that ALL Christians believe with their whole heart, is probably the single greatest reason why none of them understand the New Covenant! They read a FAITHFUL TRANSLATION OF THE EXACT WORDS OF CHRIST, and their mind immediately CHANGES THE PLAIN meaning of the words into another meaning THAT CHRIST NEVER INTENDED. …For now it will suffice to say that the word "debt" and the concept of forgiveness of debt is an incredibly precise description of a particular commercial state and a potential remedy for that state. 13 Jul 2015
Caleb wrote:
Debt in the broader sense CAN REFER TO ANY OBLIGATION. The definition of the original Greek shows that it does indeed apply in this wider sense. 12 Sep 2015

This statement of Caleb's is quite condemning. It is interesting that with the admission that the Greek can (and does) refer to sin as any obligation, you condemn those who use that definition.

In Eden, there was no use of force. Adam and Eve were commanded nothing that they didn't already want to do. 19 Jul 2015
Going back to Eden, there was ONE command. Only one, not ten. There was no use of force, but the penalty for breaching the command was quite severe. 20 Jul 2015

The day that theft is no longer punished, we know that the Law has been done away with. So long as we agree to punish theft, we agree to live under the Law. 07 Sep 2015

So Caleb’s view again is in contradiction. In Eden it was the New Covenant, no law, he says, but his word reveal the inconsistency he promotes. If there is penalty then you are under law, but in Eden the penalty “was quite severe.” Which is it?

There are many other blatant contradictions. If these are not enough, then follow on. Caleb would like to have you believe his "loving God and loving each other (you neighbor) is something that the churches do not teach.

listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UWU0C09ILY

But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity (lawlessness). 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. (Luk 13:27-29 KJV)

Greek definition of lawlessness: anomia {an-om-ee'-ah} Meaning: 1) the condition of without law 1a) because ignorant of it 1b) because of violating it 2) contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness.

Perhaps being "above the law" is ok!?

JESUS WILL RETURN!

That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (2Th 2:2-3 KJV)

Review the scripture that Caleb has refused to reply to over and over again. Why? Because his doctrine does not match the plain teaching of scripture. This forum is done for me. If any want to communicate regarding the information processed in this blog, my username @gmail.com will reach me.

Thank you for the communication. The sarcasm of the post is enough. Perhaps there is one more thing that should be mentioned besides Love God, love your neighbor, perhaps we can add love your enemy! (Oh! no we can't, it is not part of the only command in the New Covenant-pardon the sarcasm)



James Snyder

Edited by - jsnyder3395 on 20 Sep 2015 15:20:49
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 21 Sep 2015 :  00:45:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
James, your goal here remains obvious: to obscure the truth as much as possible, and especially to discredit the messenger.

Nevertheless, your efforts are backfiring, as your apparent "contradictions" only serve to highlight the substantive differences between the Old and New Covenants, which is the entire purpose of this thread.

Sin is indeed the transgression of the Law. And I did indeed make both "contradictory" statements.

Under the OLD Covenant, "It is IMPOSSIBLE to keep the Law!"
Under the NEW Covenant, it is "possible to NO LONGER sin."

This cuts to the very core of WHY a NEW Covenant was necessary.

Hebrews 7:
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Does Hebrews not say here all that I have been saying? Perfection is impossible to attain under the Law, therefore a NEW law is needed. How about a law under which it is possible NOT to sin?

So grasp the key difference here. I did NOT say it was possible to keep the Law. First, there must be a "change ... of the law", and THEN it is possible to no longer sin.

James, by contrast, has contended all along that under the New Covenant we are somehow magically able to perfectly keep the Law. Or at least that we get credit for trying. This is the religion of the Pharisees, and it is alive and well today.

16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Hebrews doesn't think very highly of your commandments, does it? They are "unprofitable" and they make nothing perfect. But the New Covenant does make things perfect!

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

The New Covenant is a better deal, specifically because it solves the problem caused by the Law.

And just to touch on your confusion about the Garden of Eden:
I asked how many commandments there were in the Garden, because the answer is: Only ONE, and this parallels the New Covenant.

Unlike your contention that this is a state of lawlessness, there is still a law, and it is very important. If you fail to keep that law, the whole deal falls over. Nothing works.

The "punishment" for failing to follow that one law is simply the consequence that naturally follows. While it may seem harsh, it is the result of your own free choice, and not imposed externally by the use of force.

Adultery may have many negative consequences that naturally follow, but being stoned to death is not one of them. That is an externally enforced punishment imposed by Law.

This should be enough to show that the "contradictions" listed by James are only contradictions to those who cannot see the sharp distinction between the Old and New Covenants. If you believe that they are essentially the same thing, as James S. and all the Protestant churches teach, then my statements will indeed make little sense. Indeed, your entire New Testament will make little sense, which is why you will need to listen to a series of sermons that (wrongly) explain Hebrews 7 to you, since otherwise it is completely baffling.

Finally, let me repeat that we are still wrestling with the Old Covenant, and why it needed to be replaced. This should be clear by now, but if not, more can be shown from Scripture.

What we have yet to do is to fully describe the New Covenant. We have seen glimpses, and yet what has not yet been detailed is exactly WHY it is possible not to sin under the New Covenant. The reason is actually quite simple to grasp, and will shed further clarity on why under the Old Covenant commandments it was impossible to attain perfection.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

lostandfound
Occasional Poster

USA
6 Posts

Posted - 24 Sep 2015 :  17:11:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Not socialism, more like christian anarchy is what i find to be more on target.Maybe just semantics, but i like the word better. >

http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/part9.html



This seems pertinent to this thread, a subject that keeps appearing and is in contention.>

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/antinomianism.shtml
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 25 Sep 2015 :  15:46:53  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Hello all,

I could not let some mis-information stand. Perhaps this really is the end of my part of the discussion.

Caleb wrote:
[ Sin is indeed the transgression of the Law. And I did indeed make both "contradictory" statements.
Under the OLD Covenant, "It is IMPOSSIBLE to keep the Law!"
Under the NEW Covenant, it is "possible to NO LONGER sin."
This cuts to the very core of WHY a NEW Covenant was necessary.

Hebrews 7:
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Does Hebrews not say here all that I have been saying? Perfection is impossible to attain under the Law, therefore a NEW law is needed. How about a law under which it is possible NOT to sin? ]

Conflation of ideas causes confusion. Caleb has conflated the Law administered by Melchizedek (New Covenant) and that by Aaron (Old Covenant). The point is that they are different both in content and in spiritual implementation. Abraham, who gave tithes to Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, had also been given “my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” directly by God and as part of the Covenant. (Gen 26:5 KJV) Circumcision was (is) part of the Covenant of Abraham, or the New Covenant. The New Covenant was prior to Aaronic priesthood and remains after it. It is easy to point to Moses’ law and say see! What about ANY of the Ten Commandments? Show how it is permissible by God to violate any of these Ten. These are the epitome of love. Love God (first four) and Love you neighbor (next six). Jesus said so, James said so. (Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5, Matthew 12:8)

The difference is in the administration of the principles of love. These principles are now (and originally intended to be) written on the heart, and are motivate by and define love. If you have no definition of love, how can you sin? Sin is transgression of the law. Where no law is, there is no transgression. The idea that love is the only command is in some semblance correct, but by definition it is two, Love God, Love you neighbor, then by four of the ten and six of the ten. Love fulfills the law BECAUSE Love works no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom 13:10 KJV) This statement means that you are able to fulfill the obligations of love.

Fulfill does not mean disappear! "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well;" (Jam 2:8 NKJ) Fulfill does not mean disappear. If so, Love your neighbor as yourself is gone!

Caleb wrote: [ So grasp the key difference here. I did NOT say it was possible to keep the Law. First, there must be a "change ... of the law", and THEN it is possible to no longer sin. ]
What is sin, by God’s definition? Symantec changes are not proper teaching. To no longer sin is to observe the law, because sin is transgression of the law. You cannot sin without law. If you do not sin, you observe the law. Even if you take Caleb’s definition, that there is only one command, and if one sins, he violates the law.

Caleb wrote: [ James, by contrast, has contended all along that under the New Covenant we are somehow magically able to perfectly keep the Law. Or at least that we get credit for trying. This is the religion of the Pharisees, and it is alive and well today. ]

I, James, have NEVER made the statement Caleb attributes to me above. Caleb has written this in previous posts and here attributes it to me.

Caleb wrote [ 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, … For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Hebrews doesn't think very highly of your commandments, does it? They are "unprofitable" and they make nothing perfect. But the New Covenant does make things perfect! ]

It is true that the Law of Moses was a tutor to bring us to Christ. NO LAW makes things perfect. The New Covenant law (whether the ten or the one) does NOT make things perfect. The bringing in of a better hope, provided by the blood of Jesus is what makes things perfect. This is Christ in you, the hope of Glory. You cannot “love” your way, you cannot “work” your way to righteousness. Only the grace of God implemented by faith and obedience brings one to right relationship to God. “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13 Looking for that blessed hope…” (Tit 2:11-13 KJV)

Caleb wrote: [ 22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
The New Covenant is a better deal, specifically because it solves the problem caused by the Law.]
It would be wise to understand here what a surety of the Covenant is.

Caleb wrote: [ And just to touch on your confusion about the Garden of Eden:
I asked how many commandments there were in the Garden, because the answer is: Only ONE, and this parallels the New Covenant. ]
To clarify Caleb’s position, his “one command in Eden” reiteration does not disclose what he has penned.
Caleb wrote : [ Let's take a great example from Scripture: Was there a law in Eden?
The first "command" from God to man was, "Be fruitful, multiple, fill the earth, and subdue it."
Did God have to enforce this command? Did Adam and Eve have be persuaded to have sex? ]

Caleb’s point was that there was no force, no penalty enFORCED by God. That this is just a natural consequence of your own free choice, he says.

The following scripture shows two things. 1. That Caleb’s “one command” was not true, that we know that there are two listed in the scripture (with the ramifications). The one Caleb quotes above and 2. That God drove out the man. This is not a “consequence that naturally follows.” The angel with the flaming sword is not a “consequence that naturally follows” either.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Gen 2:17 KJV) This command was broken and the penalty was the sentence of death, AND expulsion from the Garden of Eden. “Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he DROVE OUT THE MAN; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (Gen 3:23-24 KJV)

Caleb wrote: [ Unlike your contention that this is a state of lawlessness, there is still a law, and it is very important. If you fail to keep that law, the whole deal falls over. Nothing works.

The "punishment" for failing to follow that one law is simply the consequence that naturally follows. While it may seem harsh, it is the result of your own free choice, and not imposed externally by the use of force.

Adultery may have many negative consequences that naturally follow, but being stoned to death is not one of them. That is an externally enforced punishment imposed by Law. ]

First, the idea that if you fail to love, “the whole deal falls over,” is total reliance on what you do. The New Covenant is implemented by grace without works, even works of love. Second, It is true that the Law of Moses has been abrogated by the death and resurrection of Christ, yet, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” (Heb 13:4 NKJ) As in the Garden of Eden, God will JUDGE. This is not the “naturally following consequences.”

Caleb wrote: [ Finally, let me repeat that we are still wrestling with the Old Covenant, and why it needed to be replaced. This should be clear by now, but if not, more can be shown from Scripture. ]

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Rom 13:9 KJV) The idea of "briefly comprehended" demonstrates that this is a SUMMARY of the law and not the whole of it.

None of the following scriptures can be construed to refer to only ONE Command.
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life (Rev 22:14 KJV)
Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. (Rev 14:12 KJV)
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. (1Jo 5:3 KJV)
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (1Jo 2:4 KJV)
"This is that Moses who said to the children of Israel,`The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear.' 38 "This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the LIVING ORACLES TO GIVE TO US, 39 "whom our fathers would not obey, but rejected. And in their hearts they turned back to Egypt, (Act 7:37-39 NKJ)

This is the New Covenant, rejected by the people of Israel at Sinai, “the fathers who would not obey,” and is being rejected, and has been rejected by the protestant churches, along with those who would remove the truth of the Living Oracles, the Ten Words, written on our heart.

“…who received the LIVING ORACLES to give to us…” Was this “to give to us” so we can just pretend that they are not for us? Or were these actually not supposed to be “Given to us at all?”

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 DO WE THEN MAKE VOID THE LAW THROUGH FAITH? CERTAINLY NOT! ON THE CONTRARY, WE ESTABLISH THE LAW. What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."" (Rom 3:28-3 NKJ)

Again I ask, what does "we establish the law" mean?



James Snyder

Edited by - jsnyder3395 on 25 Sep 2015 17:52:26
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 26 Sep 2015 :  03:57:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"The other guy is wrong"

Put your spin on some proof-texts.

Rinse and repeat

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 26 Sep 2015 :  08:21:14  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
"Don't confuse the issue with facts, my mind is already made up."

It is easiest to simply ignore the scripture presented.

Last emphasis.

the one who received the LIVING ORACLES TO GIVE TO US, whom our fathers would not obey, but rejected. And in their hearts they turned back to Egypt, (Act 7:37-39 NKJ)
DO WE THEN MAKE VOID THE LAW THROUGH FAITH? CERTAINLY NOT! ON THE CONTRARY, WE ESTABLISH THE LAW.(Rom 3:28-4:3 NKJ)

Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD'S servant? Seeing many things, but thou observe not; opening the ears, but he hears not. The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; HE will MAGNIFY THE LAW AND MAKE IT HONORABLE. (Isa 42:19-21 KJV)

Exposing error is required to reveal truth.
I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. (Act 26:17-18 KJV)





James Snyder
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 26 Sep 2015 :  10:42:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
And thus we witness the total and abject failure of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

James S. obviously had his mind made up from his very first post here. He just showed up out of the blue to give "the facts". His facts.

Such is the dishonesty that this forces upon its adherents that they must hide in the shadows and not disclose whose particular twist on the Bible they are an adherent of. This is what we have seen with James S. He will not disclose his denominational affiliation, or whose theology has provided him the foundation for his views, for they are not unique and they are definitely not his own. And he takes a peculiarly strong stance on the importance of the Ten Commandments, reminiscent of the SDAs or Herbert W Armstrong. For while most denominations keep their followers firmly under bondage to the Law, few spell it out in such stark terms, going so far as to claim that Abraham already had the Ten Commandments, for example.

Rather, what happens is that each Protestant claims that they have simply opened the Bible and started reading, and the Holy Spirit made it immediately obvious to them what it meant. So what's wrong with the rest of you? The implication is that only they can correctly read scripture, and they may well be the first true Christian in the past 2000 whom the Holy Spirit has found worthy to guide into all truth.

And where does one turn in the face of such competing claims? Inward. You are left rudderless, and with nothing to guide you but your own ability or lack thereof to make sense of what is being said. For no one else's opinion counts. Otherwise the Bible is no longer "alone".

And so we end up with theology on the basis of who is the best salesman. The SDAs are far from that, thankfully. But any attempt to discern deeper truths quickly descends into this bickering match of competing interpretations, with each side claiming the high ground, quite often on the basis of who quotes the most Bible verses. This is clearly the game that James S. is playing.

I started this thread to provide a view that you will never hear in your Protestant churches. You won't hear it on Sunday morning in the catholic church either. I am only trying to show the coherence of the whole picture, and indeed, to allow each one of you to make up your own mind. Honest questions are Ok. Even spirited discussion is welcome.

But James S. has hijacked this thread for the purpose of putting forth his own view, which has the very obvious aim of keeping people in bondage to the Law. His purpose is further to obscure my points, and to cast as much doubt as possible. He is not here to contribute meaningfully to the discussion in any way. And he also will not go away, even though he keeps saying he will. But he has also run out of ammunition, as he just keeps repeating the same few proof-texts in his last posts.

By contrast, I am just getting warmed up.

This entire disagreement can be summarized by what Peter said in Acts 15:10 regarding the gentiles keeping the Law of Moses:

"Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

Of course James S. will say that this ONLY applies to all that "other stuff" that Moses wrote, and not to the Ten Commandments, because they were written by God and existed before the Law of Moses, etc.

However, what James S. cannot show us is ANY church that has any appreciable success with getting its people to obey the Ten Commandments in a way that does NOT make them a burden. Rather, what we hear are a lot of excuses, and an ultimate concession of defeat where one and all proclaim the "good news" that it is impossible to be perfect (and obey God) until you die. Now let's sing a clappy song and get excited about this deep scriptural truth.

Having the law written on your heart works in practice, once you understand the "change of the law". Until that happens, the yoke is NOT easy, nor the burden light that James S. proposes you bear. But every Christian is simply too ashamed to admit this. They think it is magically easy for others and that they are the only failures here, because they hear the same lies that James S. has been peddling from their own church pulpits on a regular basis.

For you die-hard Protestants, this is salvation by works, pure and simple. The works of the law are what Paul spoke against time and again, and no one will be justified or attain the New Covenant reality by obeying a set of rules. I am very sure that James S. is a Sabbatarian, and considers this commandment absolutely essential in the life of every believer. But I am also sure that he will not admit this to us either.

I welcome any of you to prove me wrong and James S. right by using the standard set by Jesus. All you have to do is tell me that since Jesus came into your heart, and wrote his law there, that you have never again looked at a woman with lustful thoughts. And that this is easy because the temptation is simply gone. Then tell us how many of your male friends testify to this same "New Covenant reality". I will definitely be joining your church so I can learn your secret!

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 26 Sep 2015 :  23:21:27  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
I came to this blog believing that there was an honest inquiry into “What is the New Covenant.”

Caleb wrote: James S. obviously had his mind made up from his very first post here.

It is true. I have an understanding. Caleb asked for an answer to the question above. How is this dishonest? I have been searching and inquiring for years, yet Caleb says it is dishonest (it is so in Caleb’s mind) to assert what I understand from the scriptures. I never said I did not have an opinion. I do. I have said so from the beginning.

Character assassination is the answer when you have no answer.

Caleb wrote: I started this thread to provide a view…But James S. has hijacked this thread for the purpose of putting forth his own view.

If Caleb did not want another view, my own view, why ask the question? Just express that the Pope has all the answers, and speaks with the authority of God on earth, and is never wrong. (Unless you read history.)

Caleb wrote: …as he just keeps repeating the same few proof-texts in his last posts.

It is true. Caleb, however, ignores all the scripture. He refuses, or cannot respond with a scriptural understanding that is different than mine, so he ignores the scripture.

Caleb has “secret knowledge” that he will share, eventually. He is just getting warmed up, you know. Secret Knowledge is what Gnosticism is all about.

Caleb states: All you have to do is tell me that since Jesus came into your heart, and wrote his law there, that you have never again looked at a woman with lustful thoughts.

Is temptation sin? Temptation is NOT sin.

Jesus "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." (Heb 4:15-16 KJV)

It is true that I have an understanding that I have attempted to provide.

The question was: What is the New Covenant?
Caleb wrote: This is a question that I have never heard a satisfactory answer to. And so before I answer it, I want to see if anyone else has a good answer. And if not, why not? Is this not a central theme of Scripture?

So the truth is that Caleb, to this point still has not answered it. He really did not want a satisfactory answer from the scripture but an answer that is satisfactory to HIS understanding.

What denomination does Caleb represent? Has he made that clear in this blog? I should quote him, “…Such is the dishonesty that this forces upon its adherents that they must hide in the shadows…”

He is quite forthcoming about that! He is also forthcoming about his definition of the New Covenant. It is still a secret.

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Mat 5:27-28 KJV)

Caleb penned: ALL men should read these words of Jesus and laugh. Instead, we get told by others to take seriously a standard that they themselves CANNOT live up to.

According to Caleb, here we should discard the words of Jesus with laughter. Jesus really did not mean what He said. We should make fun of, laugh at, and discard the Words of our Lord. Jesus was just illustrating, according to Caleb, that you cannot do what he asks.

Listen to the Word of Caleb, however!

Think about this: Is not committing adultery a burden? Is having no Gods before Him a burden? Is not coveting your neighbor’s stuff or wife a burden? Is not murdering a burden? Is not making an idol a burden? Is not taking the Lord’s name in vain a burden? Is working six days and resting the seventh a burden? Is not stealing a burden?

Do I, OUT OF LOVE and the POWER OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD follow the New Covenant in being obedient to the Word of God in the things listed above? Of course I do. So should you. Jesus said so when he said, “…! "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Mat 19:17-19 KJV) JESUS SAID SO.

Caleb says NO, it is a burden.

Out of love for God and my fellow man, by His spirit I do. It is written on my heart. Has my mind been fully renewed? No. But it is much more renewed than last year. "Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; LOOKING FOR THAT BLESSED HOPE…" (Tit 2:12-13 KJV)

I am looking for that blessed hope! I see God performing that in me and others. Do others, have others kept the commandments of the Lord? “…"And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." (Exo 20:6 KJV) Perhaps we should laugh at this also as Caleb has instructed.

If I fail, I have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous. He has paid for my sin and if I confess my sin, He is faithful and just to forgive my sin, and to cleanse me from all unrighteousness.

DO NOT LISTEN TO AND OBEY --- BUT LAUGH AT --- JESUS' WORDS IN THE SCRIPTURE!

INSTEAD LISTEN TO CALEB.


James Snyder
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 27 Sep 2015 :  00:47:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi James,

Still here. Still won't tell us your denomination.

I am a catholic. I was an Evangelical Protestant for 30 years, with early influence from the Baptist tradition and later influence from the Reformed tradition. I have shared some of my testimony of conversion on another thread on these forums. I am happy to share more, if requested.

If I state my view, and you can show me where the catholic church says I am wrong, I will correct the error of my ways. I will agree with the church unless I am able to give an extremely well considered reason why I see a problem. Thus far I have not come across a conflict between the truth I learned by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and what the Church teaches.

Thank you for playing the Protestant power game IN ALL CAPS. A rather funny thing on these forums, for reasons you wouldn't understand. Just because you claim "the POWER OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD" does not and cannot change the fundamental facts of your position:

1) You have answered the question of "What is the New Covenant?" with an unequivocal: It is the Old Covenant. Yes, you follow this with the nonsense about it being now written on our hearts and so we have some magic power to finally obey it.

And yet you admit that we are still tempted. You love to keep citing Romans 3:31. You are making faith void through the law.

2) You advocate that we remain in bondage under the Law, and therefore in bondage to Sin.

What you propose has been tried and found wanting. I can be told the same thing, just absent your thoroughness, in almost any Protestant church I care to set foot in. And I was. I tried it. I lived it. It is a lie. And most other Christians live this lie, trying to measure up to the standard set by the Law, because they don't know any other way.

This yoke is heavy. It led me into deep depression. I am free from that now, but not by descending into lawlessness as you contend. I found the high road described by Jesus, which fulfills the Law, and does indeed write it on the heart in a way that removes the burden. Until this has happened to you, it can be hard to even understand why it works. But it does work, and far better than most would dare to imagine.

You cite Jesus' interaction with the Rich Young Ruler from Matthew 19, and that is very instructive. It fits perfectly with all that I have said. The young man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, and Jesus cited the Ten Commandments, naming half of them explicitly.

The young man answered that he had kept these since his youth. His answer reveals his own sense of the inadequacy of obedience to the Law. He sensed that there must be more. So Jesus gave him the more. Having just recited the Old Covenant requirements, Jesus then gives him the New Covenant requirement:
"If you would be PERFECT, go sell all that you have, give the money to the poor, and come follow me."

Here then is the answer to how we can achieve that perfection spoken of in Matthew 5. But note that churches endlessly hand out the same advice as you have: the Old Covenant answer which "made NOTHING perfect" (as we saw in Hebrews 7). They then turn around and devote the balance of the sermon to explaining away Jesus' New Covenant answer and assuring their faithful that there is no need to rush out and do this second part. The explanations of this story are some of the most strained interpretations of scripture you will ever hear.

NO ONE takes the words of Jesus literally here. Except of course, the catholic church, which requires its priests, monks and nuns to take a Vow of Poverty, which directly corresponds to these words. It just does not demand that all members to so, and this is why Protestants don't realize just how seriously the catholic church takes these instructions. Never will you hear the catholic church explain away this story so as to render it void.

You, James, cited the first half and then simply stopped, after you Old Covenant position was stated. You did not finish the story, because then there would be a lot more explaining away to do. But Matthew told it as a complete story for a reason. As with any story, the punch line is at the end. The young man thought he was keeping the Old Covenant standard, even though he could not (as I'm sure you will agree). But he would not consider the New Covenant standard. It demanded something of him that was unthinkable.

And we see this exact same thing today. People will listen to sermons about obeying the Ten Commandments, and they will try their darnedest to measure up to that standard. But preach about giving up all their possessions and you will empty the church. You will be branded a Socialist or worse. You may even be burned at the stake. NO CHRISTIANS that you know practice these instructions of Jesus. They are unanimous in rejecting the demand of the New Covenant that would lead them to perfection.

I may find Jesus' words in Matthew 5 humorous, but the Protestant churches OPENLY MOCK Jesus' instructions to the Rich Young Rule.

You James, are here to defy and to deny the very core teaching of Christ, and to mock the messenger who tries to bring it to the fore. And to reassure the faithful that they can continue their present sinful ways if they just return to bondage under the Law.

Why the need to hard-sell a lie that everyone has already bought? Is the truth THAT dangerous?

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 27 Sep 2015 :  12:29:30  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote

Caleb, et. al.

I am sorry for your experience in the Protestant churches. There are hypocrites everywhere. Look to the scandals in the Catholic Church. Does this condemn the whole church?

Caleb wrote: If I state my view, and you can show me where the catholic church says I am wrong, I will correct the error of my ways. I will agree with the church unless I am able to give an extremely well considered reason why I see a problem.

Following is a "sermon" on the Ten Commandments that should hold at least some sway in your mind.

The following stated positions copied verbatim, in a large part mimic what I have presented. I have capitalized areas I would like to point out.

IN BRIEF

"What good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" - "If you would enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:16-17).

By his life and by his preaching JESUS ATTESTED TO THE PERMANENT VALIDITY OF THE DECALOGUE.

The gift of the Decalogue is bestowed from within the covenant concluded by God with his people. God's commandments take on their true meaning in and through this covenant.

In fidelity to Scripture and in conformity with Jesus' example, the tradition of the CHURCH HAS ALWAYS ACKNOWLEDGED THE PRIMORDIAL IMPORTANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DECALOGUE.

The Decalogue forms an organic unity in which each "word" or "commandment" refers to all the others taken together. To TRANSGRESS ONE COMMANDMENT IS TO INFRINGE THE WHOLE LAW (cf. Jas 2:10-11).

The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law. It is made known to us by divine revelation and by human reason.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, IN THEIR FUNDAMENTAL CONTENT, STATE GRAVE OBLIGATIONS. However, obedience to these precepts also implies obligations in matter which is, in itself, light.

What God commands he makes possible by his grace.

In fidelity to Scripture and in conformity with the example of Jesus, the tradition of the CHURCH HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE PRIMORDIAL IMPORTANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DECALOGUE.

Ever since St. Augustine, the Ten Commandments have occupied a predominant place in the catechesis of baptismal candidates and the faithful. In the fifteenth century, the custom arose of expressing the commandments of the Decalogue in rhymed formulae, easy to memorize and in positive form. They are still in use today. The catechisms of the Church have often expounded Christian morality by following the order of the Ten Commandments.

The division and numbering of the Commandments have varied in the course of history. The present catechism follows the division of the Commandments established by St. Augustine, which has become traditional in the Catholic Church. It is also that of the Lutheran confessions. The Greek Fathers worked out a slightly different division, which is found in the Orthodox Churches and Reformed communities.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS STATE WHAT IS REQUIRED IN THE LOVE OF GOD AND LOVE OF NEIGHBOR. The first three concern love of God, and the other seven love of neighbor.

As charity comprises the two commandments to which the Lord related the whole Law and the prophets . . . so the Ten Commandments were themselves given on two tablets. Three were written on one tablet and seven on the other.27

The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten COMMANDMENTS ARE OBLIGATORY FOR CHRISTIANS and that THE JUSTIFIED MAN IS STILL BOUND TO KEEP THEM;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."29

The unity of the Decalogue

The Decalogue forms a coherent whole. Each "word" refers to each of the others and to all of them; they reciprocally condition one another. The two tables shed light on one another; they form an organic unity. To transgress one commandment is to infringe all the others.30 One cannot honor another person without blessing God his Creator. One cannot adore God without loving all men, his creatures. The Decalogue brings man's religious and social life into unity.

The Decalogue and the natural law

The Ten Commandments belong to God's revelation. At the same time they teach us the true humanity of man. They bring to light the essential duties, and therefore, indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human person. The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law:

From the beginning, God had implanted in the heart of man the precepts of the natural law. Then he was content to remind him of them. This was the Decalogue.31

The commandments of the Decalogue, although accessible to reason alone, have been revealed. To attain a complete and certain understanding of the requirements of the natural law, sinful humanity needed this revelation:

A full explanation of the commandments of the Decalogue became necessary in the state of sin because the light of reason was obscured and the will had gone astray.32

We know God's commandments through the divine revelation proposed to us in the Church, and through the voice of moral conscience.

The obligation of the Decalogue

Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, GRAVE OBLIGATIONS. They are FUNDAMENTALLY IMMUTABLE, and they OBLIGE ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE. NO ONE CAN DISPENSE FROM THEM. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.

Obedience to the Commandments also implies obligations in matter which is, in itself, light. Thus abusive language is forbidden by the fifth commandment, but would be a grave offense only as a result of circumstances or the offender's intention.

"Apart from me you can do nothing"

Jesus says: "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing."33 The fruit referred to in this saying is the holiness of a life made fruitful by union with Christ. When we believe in Jesus Christ, partake of his mysteries, and keep his commandments, the Savior himself comes to love, in us, his Father and his brethren, our Father and our brethren. His person becomes, through the Spirit, the living and interior rule of our activity. "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."34

This is from the Vatican Catechism Archives!




James Snyder
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 27 Sep 2015 :  15:23:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yes James,

And it doesn't contradict anything I have said. Nor does it say anywhere that the the Ten Commandments are the New Covenant.

Funny enough, if this were a different discussion, you would condemn this very same "sermon" as "Salvation by works!" When misunderstood by Protestants, that is all they can see in the catholic teaching.

And you still have not disclosed your own affiliation. Not that I would expect to find them teaching anything different to what you have already shared. Merely in the interest of honesty and full disclosure.

I note that your very first thought was to use my openness against me. I find Protestantism replete with this lack of integrity. You just go fishing for anything that tickles your ears. Rather than the whole counsel of scripture, you just want what "proves" your immediate point, and you don't really care who says it, so long as you think it agrees with you.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic   
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.52 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000