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
You state this as if it is no big deal. And I have heard from others about "essentials" that must be adhered to as a test of orthodoxy. Here are two diametrically opposed views of Baptism. Both cannot be right. Both claim support from Scripture.
Found this on a Reformed website.
In baptism God promises by grace alone
to forgive our sins;
to adopt us into the Body of Christ, the church;
to send the Holy Spirit daily to renew and cleanse us;
and to resurrect us to eternal life.
When I is was an Independent Baptist, I was taught that Baptism is an external symbol of an internal reality.
How is this anything but confusion? One group says that Baptism is how we get our sins forgiven and another teaches that repenting and accepting Jesus as personal Savior is how we get our sins forgiven, and both pile Scripture upon Scripture.
That Reformed site calls Baptism a Sacrament. Baptists of my former ilk would not even use the word. They called it an ordinance (not sure if they capitalize it).
This is a Fundamental difference between Protestants and the Jews who believed in the LORD Jesus Christ in the First Century, who are the first fruits, as it were, of the holy catholic apostolic church. They loved the Law and understood it in all contexts. Then again, the Apostles, and those eligible to be Apostles, walked and lived with Jesus and his mother, the very Israel of God. The only contentious issue they faced wrt the Law was what to do with the Gentiles who received the Holy Spirit. They decided and we are bound by their decision. 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.
The Protestant view, as I see it, created a new religion in the 16th Century that continues to suffer the same sort of protestations and reformations that marked its founding. I do not believed in an orphaned church.