The Rise of the Papacy

Ligonier Ministries ^ | David Wells

[daniel1212]

See post 283, first quoted paragraph of the Catechism. “121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.”

More lack of perspicuity on the part of the Rome, leading to the need for interpretation which RCs point to the CCC as solving.

The upholding of the Old Testament does not translate into the Old covenant being in force, as the old covenant was part of the Old Testament, and in the book that mostly deals with this, it Scripturally refers to,

the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (Hebrews 8:9-10)

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)

The CCC only uses the term "Old Covenant" one other time on that page, and what it refers to is the entire Old Testament, versus the distinction Hebrews makes, which clearly teaches the OC was to "vanish away," most likely foretelling the to destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, which prevented the OC from being literally followed as a whole.

For it was already fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant, instituted by the atonement of Christ, which it foreshadowed, thanks be to God, and which what best defines "revoked."

[af_vet_1981]

You highlight a key distinction between the holy catholic apostolic church and the Protestant Reformation. As your comments allude, the reformed religion tends toward Preterism and replacement theology.

[daniel1212]

You highlight a key distinction between the holy catholic apostolic church and the Protestant Reformation. As your comments allude, the reformed religion tends toward Preterism and replacement theology.

What are saying, that the CCC is actually teaching that the old covenant Hebrews refers to - the Mosaic Covenant, also known as the Sinaitic Covenant - is still in force, and the Rome is the group that is most pro-Israel, and looks forward to the 1k reign of Christ and its Temple, rather than evangelicals?

We just got done with an RC who even denied that the return of Christ awaited the conversion of the Jews, despite what his own CCC teaches! e

[af_vet_1981]

What are saying, that the CCC is actually teaching that the old covenant Hebrews refers to - the Mosaic Covenant, also known as the Sinaitic Covenant - is still in force, and the Rome is the group that is most pro-Israel, and looks forward to the 1k reign of Christ and its Temple, rather than evangelicals?

The CCC is beautifully written and would benefit to you. I posted links. Read it. The Catholic Church is more loving and friendly to Jews than the reformed religious communities started by Martin Luther and John Calvin. It even welcomes those from those faith communities like you.

We just got done with an RC who even denied that the return of Christ awaited the conversion of the Jews, despite what his own CCC teaches!

Three clues:
1. No assertion of actually being Catholic
2. Public ignorance and denial if the Catechism WRT obligation to keep the Ten Commandments
3. Public denial of Vatican II

stick to the Catechism or verifiable official releases before assuming anything. Which website or link expresses your group's position on the Jews ?

[af_vet_1981]

Indeed, I have thought about that eye-plucking business many times.

1. Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
2. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
3. For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
4. My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
5. Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

[Springfield Reformer]

Um, I have a Bible.  I have no idea what your point is.  Probably because you didn't state it. I have thought that I asked my question about eye-plucking in too personal a form, that perhaps somehow it offended you. If so, that was not my intent.

I'll put my cards on the table: I don't think it's hyperbole. I think He really meant it would be the lesser of two evils to self-mutilate than to let sin in through one's eyes, or hands or anything else, and so incur the wrath of God and the condemnation of Hell. It's way more serious than "being serious about sin." He's making the much bigger point that any least sin, a drop of unjustified anger, a moment of visual lust, is an automatic ticket to Hell, in the context of the law as God intended it to be understood.

It's like CS Lewis once said. He couldn't understand folks who thought the sermon on the mount was "nice," when in reality it was more like being struck in the forehead with a sledgehammer. The sermon on the mount is where Jesus brushes back the man made cobwebs draped over and disguising the true force of the law, revealing  the full, blinding brightness of the perfect holiness of God.

Now I can picture myself sitting on that mountainside hearing this for the first time. I'm an ordinary guy, not a teacher of the law, and I've seen Jesus heal all these sick people and heard about these other amazing miracles, and I'm thinking, wow, God is revealing Himself to us through this person Jesus, and I want to lap up everything He says, because maybe there's some hope for me, if He is here. And as He starts to talk, it starts out great but it gets worse and worse as He talks about my anger and my lust and and how if I really wanted to make it into the heavenly kingdom, I couldn't even afford to keep my eyes or my hands if they led me into sin, and then He hits me right in the solar plexus:

Mat 5:20  For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

At this point, I'm putting my face in my hands and bawling like a baby, because I finally get it.  It's over.  I'm done. My goose is cooked. I'll never be that good.  These guys are the rock stars of goodness. They know the law perfectly, and keep it perfectly.  Just ask them. They'll tell you.  I can't compete with them. So, shaking like a leaf, I wander back to my local synagogue, find a seat way in the back, and beg God through my tears to have mercy on me, the lowliest and most worthless of sinners.  I can't even look up, I'm so ashamed. But I'm not above begging for His mercy, and so I do:

Luk 18:10-14  Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.  (11)  The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.  (12)  I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.  (13)  And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.  (14)  I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Mercy. Grace.  Yes, sin is serious. It's so serious it's worse than Ebola.  Everyone who gets it goes to Hell. Everyone. Unless God grants us forgiveness through Jesus' death. That is the purpose of the law. Not to qualify us for provisional remediation. But to prove the case against us, that we are unsalvagable without a miracle of grace, and that Jesus is the only one we can look to for that grace. Hence the law leads us to Christ, our only hope.

Peace,

SR

[RegulatorCountry]

My goose is cooked.

I wonder how many realize that this idiom arose due to Jan Hus being burned at the stake? "Hus" means "goose" in Czech.

[Springfield Reformer]

Huh. I did not know that. Learn somthin’ new every day.

[RedHeeler]

Are you healed?

[af_vet_1981]

I'll put my cards on the table: I don't think it's hyperbole.

I agree. It is not hyperbole. Neither do I think it and the other portions of the Sermon on the Mount are verses reserved for a later kingdon that can be safely ignored for now. I think the Holy Spirit warns believers, if we are walking in the Spirit, so that we can reject sin. If not, we have recourse to reconciliation by confessing our sins.

Of course you have a Bible, it is written in your heart.

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

[daniel1212]

What are saying, that the CCC is actually teaching that the old covenant Hebrews refers to - the Mosaic Covenant, also known as the Sinaitic Covenant - is still in force, and the Rome is the group that is most pro-Israel, and looks forward to the 1k reign of Christ and its Temple, rather than evangelicals?

The CCC is beautifully written and would benefit to you. I posted links. Read it.

So you cannot answer a question clearly, which is about the CCC not making itself clear, and instead you just give me more propaganda. No thanks.

The Catholic Church is more loving and friendly to Jews than the reformed religious communities started by Martin Luther and John Calvin. It even welcomes those from those faith communities like you.

That was not the question, but lets see how this propaganda historically fares.

• The crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection.(Pope Innocent III, “Epistle to the Hierarchy of France,” July 15, 1205)

• It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime. (St. Thomas Aquinas, “De Regimine Judaeorum”)

More

In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes,

“the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9).

In 1466,

in festivities sponsored by Pope Paul II, Jews were made to race naked through the streets of the city. A particularly evocative later account describes them: “Races were run on each of the eight days of the Carnival by horses, asses and buffaloes, old men, lads, children, and Jews. Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them, and at the same time, more amusing for the spectators. They ran from the Arch of Domitian to the Church of St. Mark at the end of the Corso at full tilt, amid Rome’s taunting shrieks of encouragement and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily. Two centuries later, these practices, now deemed indecorous and unbefitting the dignity of the Holy City, were stopped by Clement IX. In their place the Pope assessed a heavy tax on the Jews to help pay the costs of the city’s Carnival celebrations.

But various other Carnival rites continued. For many years the rabbis of the ghetto were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the streets to the jeers of the crow, pelted by a variety of missiles. Such rites were not peculiar to Rome. In Pisa in the eighteenth century, for example, it was customary each year, as part of Carnival, for students to chase after the fattest Jew in the city, capture him, weigh him, and then make him give them his weight in sugar-coated almonds.

In 1779, Pius VI resurrected some of the Carnival rites that had been neglected in recent years. Most prominent among them was the feudal rite of homage, in which ghetto officials, made to wear special clothes, stood before an unruly mob in a crowded piazza, making an offering to Rome’s governors.

It was this practice that occasioned the formal plea from the ghetto to Pope Gregory XVI in 1836. The Jews argued that such rites should be abandoned, and cited previous popes who had ordered them halted. They asked that, in his mercy, the Pope now do the same. On November 5, the Pope met with his secretary of state to discuss the plea. A note on the secretary of state’s copy of the petition, along with his signature, records the Pope’s decision: “It is not opportune to make any innovation.” The annual rites continued.

“When all is said and done, the [Roman Catholic] Church’s claim of lack of responsibility for the kind of anti-Semitism that made the Holocaust possible comes down to this: The Roman Catholic Church never called for, or sanctioned, the mass murder of the Jews. Yes, the Jews should be stripped of their rights as equal citizens. Yes, they should be kept from contact with the rest of society. But Christian Charity and Christian theology forbade good Christians to round them up and murder them.”

See more “The Popes Against the Jews,” Part 1

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 2: Roman Catholic Defenses and the Evasion of Responsibility Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 3: Positing the “Big Lie,” and getting people to believe it. Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 4: Church Councils Against the Jews Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 5: “You will recognize them by their fruits.” Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 6: The Show So Far Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com .

Of course, you were already shown this, but like the typical RC here, the propaganda must go on.

We just got done with an RC who even denied that the return of Christ awaited the conversion of the Jews, despite what his own CCC teaches!

Three clues: No assertion of actually being Catholic Public ignorance and denial if the Catechism WRT obligation to keep the Ten Commandments Public denial of Vatican II

Check out the thread yourself. I presume you are not saying i do not uphold the future conversion of the Jews, and the moral law, which is not that of being under the Old Covenant.

stick to the Catechism or verifiable official releases before assuming anything.

I did: its your catechism and your understanding of it that is the issue.

Which website or link expresses your group's position on the Jews ?

Scripture does, and this This can suffice.

[af_vet_1981]

So you cannot answer a question clearly, which is about the CCC not making itself clear, and instead you just give me more propaganda. No thanks.

Your question: "What are saying, that the CCC is actually teaching that the old covenant Hebrews refers to - the Mosaic Covenant, also known as the Sinaitic Covenant - is still in force, and the Rome is the group that is most pro-Israel, and looks forward to the 1k reign of Christ and its Temple, rather than evangelicals?"

1. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
2. The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
   
   1961 God, our Creator and Redeemer, chose Israel for himself to be his people and revealed his Law to them, thus preparing for the coming of Christ. The Law of Moses expresses many truths naturally accessible to reason. These are stated and authenticated within the covenant of salvation.
   
   1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it. The Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God's call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil:
   
   God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts.13
   
   1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a "law of concupiscence" in the human heart.16 However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.
   
   1964 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. "The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come."17 It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, "types," and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven.
   
   There were . . . under the regimen of the Old Covenant, people who possessed the charity and grace of the Holy Spirit and longed above all for the spiritual and eternal promises by which they were associated with the New Law. Conversely, there exist carnal men under the New Covenant still distanced from the perfection of the New Law: the fear of punishment and certain temporal promises have been necessary, even under the New Covenant, to incite them to virtuous works. In any case, even though the Old Law prescribed charity, it did not give the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's charity has been poured into our hearts."18
   
   1967 The Law of the Gospel "fulfills," refines, surpasses, and leads the Old Law to its perfection.21 In the Beatitudes, the New Law fulfills the divine promises by elevating and orienting them toward the "kingdom of heaven." It is addressed to those open to accepting this new hope with faith - the poor, the humble, the afflicted, the pure of heart, those persecuted on account of Christ and so marks out the surprising ways of the Kingdom.
   
   1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. The Lord's Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity.23
   
   The glorious advent of Christ, the hope of Israel
   
   673 Since the Ascension Christ's coming in glory has been imminent,566 even though "it is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority."567. This eschatological coming could be accomplished at any moment, even if both it and the final trial that will precede it are "delayed".568
   
   674 The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus.569 St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old."570 St. Paul echoes him: "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"571 The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles",572 will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all".573
   
   
3. The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God [cf. Rom. 11:29], and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her Bible. In this connection, the directives for the application of the conciliar declaration Nostra Aetate say: "The effort must be made to understand better everything in the Old Testament that has its own, permanent value . . . since this value is not wiped out by the later interpretation of the New Testament, which, on the contrary, gave the Old Testament its full meaning, so that it is a question rather of reciprocal enlightenment and explanation" [11].
   
   A second dimension of our dialogue - the true and central one - is the meeting between present-day Christian Churches and the present-day people of the Covenant concluded with Moses. It is important here "that Christians - to continue the post-conciliar directives - should aim at understanding better the fundamental elements of the religious tradition of Judaism, and learn what fundamental lines are essential for the religious reality lived by the Jews, according to their own understanding" [Introduction]. The way for this mutual knowledge is dialogue. I thank you, venerated brothers and sisters, for carrying it out, you too, with that "openness and breadth of spirit," with that "tact" and with that "prudence" which are recommended to us Catholics by the above-mentioned directives. A fruit of this dialogue and an indication for its fruitful continuation is the declaration of German bishops quoted at the beginning "on the relationship between the Church and Judaism" in April of this year. It is my eager desire that this declaration should become the spiritual property of all Catholics in Germany!
4. Pope Francis’s renewed commitment to fostering relations between Catholics and Jews and condemning anti-Semitism has drawn praise. In “Evangelii Gaudium” (The Joy of the Gospel), a 224-page document outlining his vision of the church and its mission that was released this week, Francis praised the current state of Jewish-Catholic relations and expressed regret for past – and continuing – anti-Jewish actions. “Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples,” Francis wrote in the document. “The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.” The Catholic Church, Francis wrote, holds “the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked.”

I had already posted a link that answered the question. Did you not like the answer, or was it difficult for you to read and comprehend ? I liked the link you posted and we have some views in common. I assume it is your personal website.

Check out the thread yourself. I presume you are not saying i do not uphold the future conversion of the Jews, and the moral law, which is not that of being under the Old Covenant.

I was not referring to you at all. My point was just because you assumed someone is a RC does not make someone RC;

[Springfield Reformer]

I agree. It is not hyperbole. 

OK.  Good start.

Neither do I think it and the other portions of the Sermon on the Mount are verses reserved for a later kingdom that can be safely ignored for now. 

Dispensational theory would have it so, but I am not a dispensationalist.  I am not sure why you would assign that thought to me.  I never suggested it.  In fact, I see i t the opposite way, that the teaching ministry of Christ, including the sermon on the mount, His healing ministry, everything up to the time of His death and resurrection, acts as a transition between the Old and the New Covenant.  In that sense not reserved to the future, but very relevant to what was about to, but hadn't yet happened.  He was getting us ready for Pentecost. People who would enter His kingdom would have to know they were not able to enter that kingdom by rule-keeping, because it would be driven by spiritual transformation, the new birth, initiated by God.  

You remember the many thousands who were added to the ecclesia daily in the days following Pentecost. These were souls that had seen Jesus work, heard Him teach.  They had been prepared as fallow ground being broken up by the sharp, hard edge of the law as Jesus taught it.  They had confronted their own sinfulness, and were ready to receive supernatural grace.  The Gospel is for broken souls. He came for sinners, not goody-two-shoes. Those who think they have no need of a physician will never seek one out. The sermon on the mount was preparation for surgery. The cure was a transplanted heart.  But the Doner hadn't died yet.  When He did, the promise of a cure was fulfilled, the preparation complete, and the surgery begun in earnest. It would be tragic to act as if the fulfillment had not occurred and mistakenly return the patient to the time when they were still waiting for the cure.

I think the Holy Spirit warns believers, if we are walking in the Spirit, so that we can reject sin. 

Spoken like a true Protestant.

If not, we have recourse to reconciliation by confessing our sins.

True.  If we sin, we do have a way back to fellowship, though we never lost our adoption papers:

Rom 8:14-17  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.  (15)  For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.  (16)  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:  (17)  And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

And if we are adopted, our adoption doesn't depend on the whimsies of our frail humanity, but has its source in the gritty determination of Almighty God:

Eph 1:4-6  According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:  (5)  Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,  (6)  To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Of course you have a Bible, it is written in your heart.

Well, if you're referring to natural law, your statement is oversimplified.  The law written on every heart according to Paul in Romans 2:15 is not the Bible.  It is fallible, having been corrupted by many unsavory influences. But in every heart there remains enough of it intact to ensure we can all be found guilty of willful sin against our Creator, and so all be found in need of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the Scriptures reveal more than the natural heart can know of God on it's own, and so they remain indispensable to and the supreme authority for the presentation of the Gospel of salvation and the equipping of the Christian for every aspect of the life of faith.

Peace,

SR

[af_vet_1981]

OK. Good start.

By addendum, and keeping in view Matthew 5 and 10, compare it with Jewish tradition to gain insight as to why one should obey Jesus commandments rather than ignoring or explaining them away. Three exceptional sins

There are three sins for which one is always required to die rather than transgress:

idolatry
sexual misconduct such as incest, adultery, (see sexual immorality prohibited by Torah)
murder

The above three are ruled as being exceptions by the Talmud. In tractate Sanhedrin 74a, the Talmud records: “Rav Yochanan said in the name of Rav Shimon ben Yehotzadak: ‘It was decided by a vote in the loft of the house of Nitezeh in Lod: For all the sins in the Torah, if a person is told, 'Transgress and you will not be killed,' they should transgress and not be killed, except for idol worship, sexual relations and bloodshed.’” A Jew must sacrifice his or her life rather than transgress the above-mentioned sins.

[af_vet_1981]

Well, if you're referring to natural law, your statement is oversimplified.

In your case I was referring to Jeremiah. We seem to have a habit of not intuitively understanding each other, despite our many words.

[Springfield Reformer]

Ah, that makes sense.  Except there is a distinction between having His law written on our hearts by the testimony of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to saying we have the Bible in our hearts. The Bible is both didactic and descriptive. We must accept every teaching directed at us, and we can learn from every example. But not every teaching is directed at us, most especially those things in Moses that were provisional until the time of Christ:

Heb 9:8-10  The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:  (9)  Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;  (10)  Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Therefore, as we walk by the Spirit, we would not expect the Spirit to lead us back into captivity to the things that are past:

Gal 4:9-10  But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?  (10)  Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

So I would hesitate, no, refuse, to make an uncritical equivalence between having the divine law written on our hearts through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, versus simply being able to pick any random passage in Scripture sans context and be able to claim that as the guidance of which Jeremiah spoke. I am sorry if I seem to be nitpicking, but the distinction is important. The passages in Matthew cannot be treated as independent of the remainder of apostolic holy writ. Paul informs our understanding of Jesus as much as James and Peter and the direct quotes of Jesus Himself.  

This is the Reformation principle of the analogy of Scripture, that all of it is to be considered before drawing conclusions about any one passage.  The sermon on the mount is an austere image of the power of the law before the time of Christian grace that ought to frighten us, not comfort us.  Had Jesus not died and rose again, our only hope of salvation would have been perfection under that law, at any cost, including body parts. Indeed, any self-honest person would recognize at once that even cutting off body parts would not help.  The sin that condemns us is coming from deep within, where no mortal knife can reach, and we would still be condemned. But thank God through the apostolic Gospel we learn that Jesus has fulfilled that law, and now we live not in fear but in love:

Rom 8:14-15  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.  (15)  For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

And certainly obedience to Christ's apostles cannot be construed as disobedience to Him, or minimizing His teaching. It is rather maximizing His teaching, because it is His Spirit that taught the apostles. If we refuse to learn from them, we refuse to learn from Him.

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

There is only one Rabbi in whose opinion I have any interest, Jesus, and I am not otherwise interested in the theonomic musings of failed would-be teachers of the law. If you think you have a case for New Covenant theonomy, you can try to make it from the text of Scripture. Otherwise, no sale.

Peace,

SR

[daniel1212]

Your question: "What are saying, that the CCC is actually teaching that the old covenant Hebrews refers to - the Mosaic Covenant, also known as the Sinaitic Covenant - is still in force, and the Rome is the group that is most pro-Israel, and looks forward to the 1k reign of Christ and its Temple, rather than evangelicals?"

What do you need to post over 1500 words to answer these two simple questions? I want to know what you think the CCC is teaching, as it is obvious RCs can disagree with each other.

I liked the link you posted and we have some views in common. I assume it is your personal website.

It is, but who knows what you agree with since you appear to say the old covenant is still in force, and cannot give a clear answer.

I was not referring to you at all. My point was just because you assumed someone is a RC does not make someone RC;

I will try to remember than in the next conflict with that such a party, whom i am sure will disagree with your assessment.

[af_vet_1981]

What do you need to post over 1500 words to answer these two simple questions? I want to know what you think the CCC is teaching, as it is obvious RCs can disagree with each other. ... It is, but who knows what you agree with since you appear to say the old covenant is still in force, and cannot give a clear answer.

I find your comments contentious and unprofitable so I'll leave you alone if permitted.

[af_vet_1981]

Ah, that makes sense. Except there is a distinction between having His law written on our hearts by the testimony of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to saying we have the Bible in our hearts. The Bible is both didactic and descriptive. We must accept every teaching directed at us, and we can learn from every example. But not every teaching is directed at us, most especially those things in Moses that were provisional until the time of Christ:

It seems we approach these matters differently. I'm also not persuaded of Pauline authorship of Hebrews, not that it matters as to its weight and teaching authority. There are 176 verses in Psalm 119 and, given your previous comments, I am in doubt as to whether you can bear all of them in one post. :) Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

• Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord. Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
• All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.