Fixed it
I get the general impression (not from you, although I have no clue how a Baptist can be a reformed Protestant), that many use the surviving writings of Paul to try to work around the recorded teachings of Jesus. I think this is a particular trend among Protestants and Evangelicals. Catholics have different problems, but seem not to have this problem.
The writings of Paul are consistent with the teaching of Christ regarding the fulfilment of the law by Christ. It is not an effort to work around the law passages in the Gospels, but to understand them as having served their purpose, which purpose was not yet complete during the ministry of Christ, but IS complete upon His death and resurrection.
The reason, as I understand it, that Catholicism does not see this break between the covenants the way most Protestants do is because they have an a priori commitment to a sacerdotal priesthood, despite the discontinuation of such by God’s own act of installing Jesus Christ as our high priest, which is not accounted for under the Mosaic covenant, and so renders it obsolete for Christians, per Hebrews 7.
Furthermore, this a priori sacerdotalism is not a function of sound Biblical doctrine, but the historical elevation of key misunderstandings of Scripture to a position of power and influence. That is not a sufficient reason to accept it as true.
Nor is it necessary to confuse the official statement of the Jerusalem Council, which did not state a position on whether Moses was still obligatory for Jewish Christians, versus the followup narrative, which is valid as history, but is not given as formal apostolic teaching. We know from Paul elsewhere he was willing to accommodate Jewish custom to the extent necessary to be “all things to all men” that he might win them to Christ.
That does not rise to a formal apostolic teaching, and in many places where Paul IS doing direct, God-breathed teaching, he would have us all be “one new man” in Christ. There is hardly a better recipe for schism than to promote two sets of rules for believers, based on mere genetics. What an odious notion! Which is at least one reason why it was necessary for God to intervene directly and dismantle the temple system, which He never would have done if it was actually necessary for Christian Jewery.
As for reformed Baptists, we share most beliefs in common with the confessionally reformed, excepting the baptism of infants, which is exampled nowhere in Scripture, and appears contrary to the testimonial function of water baptism. Nevertheless, we are family in Christ with all those whose trust is in the Lord, and His work of sacrificial love on our behalf, and not at all in the self-deceiving heart, or the false goodness of sinful humanity. Soli Deo Gloria.
Peace,
SR