Faith or Law?

[James456]

It's an interesting concept.

But if D. Engelbart invented the MOUSE back in the 60's...
he most certainly will know about the mouse.

If someone TODAY wants to change the meaning...I'll trust Engelbart.
Seems reasonable to me..but whatever - this is not something to debate.

When wanting to know what Catholics teach...and they DID coin the word...
I'd go here:


From the explanation given, it is plain that the opposition between appetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption of human nature.

Nor have the inordinate desires (actual concupiscence) or the proneness to them (habitual concupiscence) the nature of sin; for sin, being the free and deliberate transgression of the law of God, can be only in the rational will; though it be true that they are temptations to sin, becoming the stronger and the more frequent the oftener they have been indulged.

As thus far considered they are only sinful objects and antecedent causes of sinful transgressions; they contract the malice of sin only when consent is given by the will; not as though their nature were changed, but because they are adopted and completed by the will and so share its malice. Hence the distinction of concupiscence antecedent and concupiscence consequent to the consent of the will; the latter is sinful, the former is not.

The first parents were free from concupiscence, so that their sensuous appetite was perfectly subject to reason; and this freedom they were to transmit to posterity provided they observed the commandment of God. A short but important statement of the Catholic doctrine on this point may be quoted from Peter the Deacon, a Greek, who was sent to Rome to bear witness to the Faith of the East: "Our belief is that Adam came from the hands of his Creator good and free from the assaults of the flesh" (Lib. de Incarn., c. vi). In our first parents, however, this complete dominion of reason over appetite was no natural perfection or acquirement, but a preternatural gift of God, that is, a gift not due to human nature; nor was it, on the other hand, the essence of their original justice, which consisted in sanctifying grace; it was but a complement added to the latter by the Divine bounty.

By the sin of Adam freedom from concupiscence was forfeited not only for himself, but also for all his posterity with the exception of the Blessed Virgin by special privilege. Human nature was deprived of both its preternatural and supernatural gifts and graces, the lower appetite began to lust against the spirit, and evil habits, contracted by personal sins, wrought disorder in the body, obscured the mind, and weakened the power of the will, without, however, destroying its freedom. Hence that lamentable condition of which St. Paul complains when he writes:

I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: but I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Romans 7:21-25)​

source: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

Yes, Rom7:14-24 is all about coveting, what goes on, on the inside of man. Concupiscence is a latin term I believe.

 

[Toknow]

The reason hes put that up is, I explained to him, if his views are correct, the leaders of the first century church, at the council of Jerusalem must have given gentiles a licence to sin as they only asked gentiles to follow four mosaic laws. He disputes that is true

James...
This is the first I'm hearing of this and am pretty perplexed.

I see what you mean and I thank you for the explanation.
I might be getting old, maybe, but I just don't see the reason to debate
silly ideas anymore.

 

[Toknow]

Yes, Rom7:14-24 is all about coveting, what goes on, on the inside of man. Concupiscence is a latin term I believe.

Hmmm.
Are you sure?
We could find out real quick these days!!

 

[James456]

It's an interesting concept.

But if D. Engelbart invented the MOUSE back in the 60's...
he most certainly will know about the mouse.

If someone TODAY wants to change the meaning...I'll trust Engelbart.
Seems reasonable to me..but whatever - this is not something to debate.

When wanting to know what Catholics teach...and they DID coin the word...
I'd go here:


From the explanation given, it is plain that the opposition between appetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption of human nature.

Nor have the inordinate desires (actual concupiscence) or the proneness to them (habitual concupiscence) the nature of sin; for sin, being the free and deliberate transgression of the law of God, can be only in the rational will; though it be true that they are temptations to sin, becoming the stronger and the more frequent the oftener they have been indulged.

As thus far considered they are only sinful objects and antecedent causes of sinful transgressions; they contract the malice of sin only when consent is given by the will; not as though their nature were changed, but because they are adopted and completed by the will and so share its malice. Hence the distinction of concupiscence antecedent and concupiscence consequent to the consent of the will; the latter is sinful, the former is not.

The first parents were free from concupiscence, so that their sensuous appetite was perfectly subject to reason; and this freedom they were to transmit to posterity provided they observed the commandment of God. A short but important statement of the Catholic doctrine on this point may be quoted from Peter the Deacon, a Greek, who was sent to Rome to bear witness to the Faith of the East: "Our belief is that Adam came from the hands of his Creator good and free from the assaults of the flesh" (Lib. de Incarn., c. vi). In our first parents, however, this complete dominion of reason over appetite was no natural perfection or acquirement, but a preternatural gift of God, that is, a gift not due to human nature; nor was it, on the other hand, the essence of their original justice, which consisted in sanctifying grace; it was but a complement added to the latter by the Divine bounty.

By the sin of Adam freedom from concupiscence was forfeited not only for himself, but also for all his posterity with the exception of the Blessed Virgin by special privilege. Human nature was deprived of both its preternatural and supernatural gifts and graces, the lower appetite began to lust against the spirit, and evil habits, contracted by personal sins, wrought disorder in the body, obscured the mind, and weakened the power of the will, without, however, destroying its freedom. Hence that lamentable condition of which St. Paul complains when he writes:

I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: but I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Romans 7:21-25)​

source: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

If someone said to a young believer, if you dwell on any impure thought you will end up in hell as you would be transgressing the TC what do you think the result would be?

 

[Soyeong]

And herewth is the problem at hand.

THERE IS NO TEMPLE.

Yes sir.
THIS is the reason why the Mosaic Law CANNOT be kept.

And there is no Sanhedrin.
WHO is enforcing the law these days?
Your Rabbi'?

See S, it's IMPOSSIBLE to keep the Mosaic Law...
even if we wanted to.

And why make such an odd statement?

There has never been a single person who were required to obey every single law, and not even Jesus obeyed the laws in regard to giving birth or to having a period, so there can be either legitimate or illegitimate reasons for not obeying a particular law. The Israelites were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there is nothing wrong with not following a law that can't currently be followed. Likewise, when the Israelites were exiled to Babylon after the destruction of the 1st Temple, then the condition for their return was to first return to obedience to the Law of Moses, which contains instructions in regard to Temple practice the they could no longer practice, so when there are laws that we can't obey, then we should nevertheless be faithful to obey the laws that we can obey.

Some of God's laws were only given to the King, the High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, those who are married, those who have servants, those who have animals, those who have crops, those who have tzaraat, those who have living in the land, and those who are strangers living among them, while others were given to everyone.

And HOW could Christ teach something different than what Christianity teaches?

In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace, which Paul also taught based on the Law of Moses (Acts 14:21-22, 20:24-25, 28:23). Christ also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6), and to be imitators of Paul as he is of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). So both Christ and Paul taught to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, but people have found ways of turning the Bible against following what they taught.

 

[Toknow]

Yes, Rom7:14-24 is all about coveting, what goes on, on the inside of man. Concupiscence is a latin term I believe.

It's Latin !
Gemini knows everything!
Who needs theology lessons anymore??

You get the prize for the day.




Good night James.
Catch you tomorrow.

 

[James456]

Hmmm.
Are you sure?
We could find out real quick these days!!

Yes Im sure. In verses 7-11 coveting is the command being broken, verses 14-24 ellaborate on that, the verses concern what goes on, on the inside of man

 

[Toknow]

If someone said to a young believer, if you dwell on any impure thought you will end up in hell as you would be transgressing the TC what do you think the result would be?

Well, impure thoughts are thoughts.
How strict do we want to be since they cross a young person's mind about every 3 minutes??

I don't dwell on this and have never dwelt on it when teaching pre-teens our faith.
I like to dwell on loving Jesus and doing our best to obey what He taught.

Am I too liberal?

 

[James456]

Well, impure thoughts are thoughts.
How strict do we want to be since they cross a young person's mind about every 3 minutes??

I don't dwell on this and have never dwelt on it when teaching pre-teens our faith.
I like to dwell on loving Jesus and doing our best to obey what He taught.

Am I too liberal?

Well Paul did give that reason as to why he could not be righteous by obeying the law, so I suppose it was a big deal to him. I guess it comes down to whether we hold the TC to the pristene level they are set at or not. Paul did, hence he termed them the letter that kills, the ministry of death and condemnation

 

[Toknow]

There has never been a single person who were required to obey every single law, and not even Jesus obeyed the laws in regard to giving birth or to having a period, so there can be either legitimate or illegitimate reasons for not obeying a particular law. The Israelites were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there is nothing wrong with not following a law that can't currently be followed. Likewise, when the Israelites were exiled to Babylon after the destruction of the 1st Temple, then the condition for their return was to first return to obedience to the Law of Moses, which contains instructions in regard to Temple practice the they could no longer practice, so when there are laws that we can't obey, then we should nevertheless be faithful to obey the laws that we can obey.

Some of God's laws were only given to the King, the High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, those who are married, those who have servants, those who have animals, those who have crops, those who have tzaraat, those who have living in the land, and those who are strangers living among them, while others were given to everyone.


In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace, which Paul also taught based on the Law of Moses (Acts 14:21-22, 20:24-25, 28:23). Christ also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6), and to be imitators of Paul as he is of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). So both Christ and Paul taught to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, but people have found ways of turning the Bible against following what they taught.

I have to leave.

But you're saying that Paul taught the law?

Paul taught against the Law.

You've MENTIONED some scripture regarding that Paul taught the Law?
Acts 14.21-22, 20:24-25, 28:23

Could you PLEASE POST SCRIPTURE so that I can reply to it?

Thanks.

 

[Soyeong]

Gentiles have a license to sin?

If it is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), then the position that Gentiles are not required to refrain from doing what God has revealed to be sin through the Law of Moses is the position that Gentiles have a license to sin.

 

[Toknow]

Well Paul did give that reason as to why he could not be righteous by obeying the law, so I suppose it was a big deal to him. I guess it comes down to whether we hold the TC to the pristene level they are set at or not. Paul did, hence he termed them the letter that kills, the ministry of death and condemnation

Gotta go ....
Are you saying that the commandments kill?
But Paul said they are good.


Romans 7:12
. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

The COMMANDMENTS are for our benefit.
NOT THE LAW OF MOSES.

Romans is most difficult to understand.

We CANNOT be righteous by following the Law
The MOSAIC LAW....which was composed of only doing good works without the help of the Holy Spirit.

We only have to follow the Law of Christ.
Romans 1:5

5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from[c] faith for his name’s sake.

We are to obey through FAITH,,,through the grace of God

NOT by THE LAW.

Paul distinguishes from The Law and good works/deeds.

 

[Toknow]

If it is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), then the position that Gentiles are not required to refrain from doing what God has revealed to be sin through the Law of Moses is the position that Gentiles have a license to sin.

I understand thanks to James, the other member.

Of course, I cannot agree.
You're saying the APOSTLES gave permission to sin
IF you're concept is correct.

So, it must not be correct.

You're forcing a choice between YOU and the APOSTLES !

 

[James456]

Gotta go ....
Are you saying that the commandments kill?
But Paul said they are good.


Romans 7:12
. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

The COMMANDMENTS are for our benefit.
NOT THE LAW OF MOSES.

Romans is most difficult to understand.

We CANNOT be righteous by following the Law
The MOSAIC LAW....which was composed of only doing good works without the help of the Holy Spirit.

We only have to follow the Law of Christ.
Romans 1:5

5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from[c] faith for his name’s sake.

We are to obey through FAITH,,,through the grace of God

NOT by THE LAW.

Paul distinguishes from The Law and good works/deeds.

The TC are indeed holy. just and good. However, they are an inflexible law. Thou shalt NOT, no wiggle room for error, perfectly obey them or stand guilty before them

 

[Toknow]

Well Paul did give that reason as to why he could not be righteous by obeying the law, so I suppose it was a big deal to him. I guess it comes down to whether we hold the TC to the pristene level they are set at or not. Paul did, hence he termed them the letter that kills, the ministry of death and condemnation

I already replied to this..but is that what Paul meant??
to be cont'd.

 

[Toknow]

The TC are indeed holy. just and good. However, they are an inflexible law. Thou shalt NOT, no wiggle room for error, perfectly obey them or stand guilty before them

My goodness.
Are you saying a person has to be perfect?

How do we NOT stand guilty before them??
are we all going to hell?

What did John mean then in 1 John chapter 1??

Must go.

 

[James456]

I already replied to this..but is that what Paul meant??
to be cont'd.

Yes

 

[James456]

My goodness.
Are you saying a person has to be perfect?

How do we NOT stand guilty before them??
are we all going to hell?

What did John mean then in 1 John chapter 1??

Must go.

No we don't go to hell, for we do not have a righteousness of obeying them

 

[Toknow]

No we don't go to hell, for we do not have a righteousness of obeying them

Tomorrow...

 

[James456]

Tomorrow...

OK, sleep well