Testimony

[Zenas]

The Catholic believes in degrees of sin like (Mortal & Veiniel .. sic). This isn't biblical IE, there are no sin categories because sin is sin.

I would be interested in knowing what you base this on because I believe scripture does teach there are different degrees of sin. 1 John 5:16-17 says:

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

A sin leading to death would be a mortal sin--that's what "mortal" means. A sin not leading to death, then, would be a venial sin. Also we see these words of Jesus in all three of the synoptics:

Beware of the scribes . . . who devour widows' houses, and for appearance's sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation.

As you read this discourse, you have to wonder why there are different levels of condemnation unless there are different levels of sin.

 

[quantumfaith]

Quantumfaith....



Would you consider me to be arrogant if I told you that you better stop walking across a busy street without looking both ways 1st?

Would I be arrogant in doing that, or would I be showing my great concern for your welfare?

As I like to say in algebra class, apple and oranges. But yes, if I could FEEL your genuine concern for my welfare, it would be foolish. But, I do not FEEL that this is often what we have here.

In reality, only YOU would know, with certainty, your motivation for the warning. (and God of course)

 

[Priscilla Ann]

I am of the same mind here:thumbs:

Two issues that bother me though. The Catholic believes in degrees of sin like (Mortal & Veiniel .. sic). This isn't biblical IE, there are no sin categories because sin is sin. Also that Act of Contrition gets you into heaven according to Catholics & to me as a Non-Catholic that is whats called "Easy Believism". Those were two of the primary issues that distressed me & made me finally break my ties with being Catholic.

I'm positive you've already had that discussion with them & if you haven't then you will do it with a loving & compassionate heart.

Jesus is Lord

Yes, this discussion with my parents is one that is ongoing. Fortunately, because we have continued to talk to each other with honesty and respect, they do now understand why I felt I had to leave the Catholic Church, even though they still disagree with me. In the first years after I left Catholicism, my mother and I had many discussions that ended with both of us in tears, each of us desperate to make the other understand. We continue to have these conversations (now without the tears and anger) and will continue to do so. In short, God knows our hearts and I trust him to work in His way and in His time...

 

[Priscilla Ann]

Competent Catholic theologions cannot deny black and white and there is nothing ambiguous in this Catechismal statement. There is no way that you, Catholic Theologions can harmonize this statement with the gospel preached by evangelical's - Impossible!

"Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitai spiritaulis ianua) and the door which gives access to other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers inher mission: 'Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word." - 1213 - Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church


Try to harmonize the above catachismal statement with the evangelical statement

"We are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works. Baptism is not a sacrament but a symbol which conveys no saving grace whatsoever but is the first outward act of obedience as a public expression of faith in gospel of Jesus Christ."

You cannot harmonize these two statements of faith as they are irreconcialable by any and all theologions.

Dr. Walter:

I don't disagree with anything you have said. In fact, this is the basic principle in all of the conversations that I have with my Catholic parents. I could not reconcile the Catholic statement (1213) you cite from the Catechism with what I know to be true from scripture. This is why I left the Catholic Church. The bible taught me that I needed to trust in Jesus Christ for my salvation (Romans 10:9-10); the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is only through the Catholic Church. I could not have it both ways, and I chose faith in Jesus Christ.

My parents are in their 70's and 80's now. They were educated by nuns in Catholic schools back in the 1940's, and they have been so indoctrinated into what the Catholic Church teaches that they truly cannot see beyond that. They were trained to believe that Catholic teaching is true because the Catholic Chuch says so, and that the Catholic Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. When I have quoted bible verses to them, they respond that "the Catholic Church gave us the bible".

I love and respect my parents, and I continue to speak to them in love about salvation through Christ alone; however, I am trusting God to do what I cannot do.

God Bless You!

Priscilla Ann

 

[Alive in Christ]

Priscilla Ann...

They were trained to believe that Catholic teaching is true because the Catholic Chuch says so, and that the Catholic Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. When I have quoted bible verses to them, they respond that "the Catholic Church gave us the bible".

Its just so very very sad that the cult or Catholicism is capable of such lies.

Of course, its so very obvious that all of the scriptures where written and considered to be the word of God long before the Catholic church came into existance.

The Catholic church should be ashamed of themselves, but I they are way beyond any semblance of shame or humility.

The CULT must be protected at all costs.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Praise God for the salvation and grace of God who rescues from all false religions and turns His chosen to faith in Christ alone and trust in Scripture Alone.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Competent Catholic theologions cannot deny black and white and there is nothing ambiguous in this Catechismal statement. There is no way that you, Catholic Theologions can harmonize this statement with the gospel preached by evangelical's - Impossible!

"Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitai spiritaulis ianua) and the door which gives access to other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers inher mission: 'Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word." - 1213 - Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church


Try to harmonize the above catachismal statement with the evangelical statement

"We are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works. Baptism is not a sacrament but a symbol which conveys no saving grace whatsoever but is the first outward act of obedience as a public expression of faith in gospel of Jesus Christ."

You cannot harmonize these two statements of faith as they are irreconcialable by any and all theologions.

Note Niether quote is scriptural. The Romans will say Baptism is a requirement because Jesus himself required it. Peter preached it and it does as it represents. The reformers will say no because Paul shows Justification is a simple declaration based on faith. Both use scripture.

Lets see how this works:
Catholic: 1 Pet 3:21-22

This prefigured Baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body, but an appeal to God for a clear conscious, through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ..."

Acts 2:38

"Peter said to them, 'Repent and be Baptized, every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'

Mark 16:16

Whoever believes and is Baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned

Reformers: Acts 10:43

43All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

Gal 23:27

43All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

titus 3:5

he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit

Romans 6:3-5

3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I would be interested in knowing what you base this on because I believe scripture does teach there are different degrees of sin. 1 John 5:16-17 says: A sin leading to death would be a mortal sin--that's what "mortal" means. A sin not leading to death, then, would be a venial sin. Also we see these words of Jesus in all three of the synoptics: As you read this discourse, you have to wonder why there are different levels of condemnation unless there are different levels of sin.

Wow Z....looks like you do have a dog in the pit! OK I will shut my mouth from now on..... have at it!

 

[Dr. Walter]

deleted and removed by author

 

[Dr. Walter]

Note Niether quote is scriptural. The Romans will say Baptism is a requirement because Jesus himself required it. Peter preached it and it does as it represents. The reformers will say no because Paul shows Justification is a simple declaration based on faith. Both use scripture.

Lets see how this works:
Catholic: 1 Pet 3:21-22 Acts 2:38 Mark 16:16

Reformers: Acts 10:43 Gal 23:27 titus 3:5 Romans 6:3-5

These texts cannot be interpreted both ways! Evangelicals do not deny that baptism ceremonially saves or remits sins. However, in keep with ceremonial rites it performs this in "shadow" not in the "very image."

As I said, you cannot reconcile the two statements any more than you can reconcile the two interpretations of the same scriptures. Where the Catholics fail in their interpretation is their failure to consider all the Biblical evidence (Heb. 10:1-4; Col 2:16; I Cor. 1:17-18; Acts 26:16-23; Romans 3-4; etc.).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

These texts cannot be interpreted both ways! Evangelicals do not deny that baptism ceremonially saves or remits sins.

What? Wow?

However, in keep with ceremonial rites it performs this in "shadow" not in the "very image."

Interesting.

As I said, you cannot reconcile the two statements any more than you can reconcile the two interpretations of the same scriptures.

It sounds like you just did.

Where the Catholics fail in their interpretation is their failure to consider all the Biblical evidence (Heb. 10:1-4; Col 2:16; I Cor. 1:17-18; Acts 26:16-23; Romans 3-4; etc.).

And certainly they would say the same of you. 1 Kings 1:39 Isaiah 44:3 Ezek. 36:25-27 John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21 Acts 8:36 Acts 10:47 Acts 22:16 Titus 3:5-6 Heb. 10:22

 

[Dr. Walter]

What? Wow? Interesting.

It sounds like you just did. And certainly they would say the same of you. 1 Kings 1:39 Isaiah 44:3 Ezek. 36:25-27 John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21 Acts 8:36 Acts 10:47 Acts 22:16 Titus 3:5-6 Heb. 10:22

There is a vast difference between saying baptism saves us LITERALLY and saying baptism saves us in FIGURE. There is a vast difference between a "shadow" and the "very image" that casts the shadow.

The bottom line distinction is spelled out by Paul in Romans 3:27-28 between two contrasting principles - the law of "WORKS" versus the law of "FAITH."

The term works whenever contrasted with faith as it is here, is essentially a contrast between what YOUR ACTIONS versus what YOUR OBJECT OF FAITH. Notice that in Romans 3;24-26 where God sets forth the propitiation/satisfaction, where God is both Just and the justifier that believing is solely in connection with CHRIST'S WORKS as its OBJECT. Paul uses the preposition "in" between faith and its object. NOTHING IN Romans 3:24-26 has faith attached or describing YOUR ACTIONS.

The law of works is all about YOU and what YOU do. The law of faith is all about CHRIST and what Christ did for you. In the former YOU ARE THE ACTOR while in the latter Christ is the lone actor and faith is "in" that and nothing else.

It is Christ, His righteousness, His actions, His faithfulness, His works that satisfy the violated law in behalf of the sinner. Thus it is Christ that makes God JUST because His law is FULLY satisified by Christ's obedience alone while it is also Christ that enables God to Justify sinners when their faith finds its sole object of hope in the Person and completed works of Christ. This is the law of faith.

Now, that faith which obtains complete and full justification IN Christ is the same faith that responds to confident expectation of salvation through love expressed in obedience to Christ. So it is faith that worketh by love. The first is the sole cause of salvation and acceptance into the beloved while the latter is the consequence and response of love. The first embraces complete and sinlesss righteousnessness as the only basis for acceptance while the latter expresses imperfect righteousness in gratittude for a wonderful gift. The first embraces perfect faithfulness while the latter expresses imperfect faithfulness which always has room for growth and improvement.

The first is the cause for entrance into heaven while the second is the cause for blessings here and now and rewards in heaven. It is the difference between Matthew 5:19 and Matthew 5:20. The first requires a righteousness that exceeds the best of men and equals the best of God while the latter allows for imperfection "in the kingdom of heaven" that only determines "greatest" to "least."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is a vast difference between saying baptism saves us LITERALLY and saying baptism saves us in FIGURE. There is a vast difference between a "shadow" and the "very image" that casts the shadow.

The bottom line distinction is spelled out by Paul in Romans 3:27-28 between two contrasting principles - the law of "WORKS" versus the law of "FAITH."

It seems you over play the Law of Works verses the Law of Faith rhetoric. Primarily because Paul is specifically mentioning the workings of the Jewish Law primarily with the Haggadah aspect which was an added complication to that law. It has nothing to do with obediance to Christ or the effectiveness of baptism in the remission of sin. You've taken a step to even say there is a "Shadow". How then do we understand your "Shadow" which by definition has effect? How? In similar vein to the Shadow used by Socrates or Plato? Paul in Roman's ( a City btw that was full of Jews which was authorized by that goverment and thus a tendency to have judiazers) is taking Haggadah as being void in process. Did Christ institute a new operation renewing the covenant for his new covenant people? I suggest that he was. Therefore, He is contrasting the supperiority of faith over Haggadah or Torah which leads to effective renewal of the covenant by other practices. Just a thought. It seems that you are indicating that Paul is refering to a...for a lack of a better term... mind game of etherial faith an acceptance of mind rather than any active faith produced by activity. Which includes participation in the new covenant.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hmmmm, interesting.

Also as a side note , I have an invitation to attend a one week ThM seminar on "The Life and Theology of Aquinas" from an older affiliation of mine. Do you think I could learn anything from it?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Hmmmm, interesting.

Also as a side note , I have an invitation to attend a one week ThM seminar on "The Life and Theology of Aquinas" from an older affiliation of mine. Do you think I could learn anything from it?

Maybe. Aquinas could be very interesting at times. The one I always had a problem with because of his discourse on whether something had the properties "whiteness" to it or something in essense was "white" was Anselm. Fortunately Aquinas isn't like that. However, in contrast to Aquinas you should read Barth as well and see what you think.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It seems you over play the Law of Works verses the Law of Faith rhetoric. Primarily because Paul is specifically mentioning the workings of the Jewish Law primarily with the Haggadah aspect which was an added complication to that law.

It does not matter what "workings" Paul has in mind as he uses the same term "law" in regard to both "deeds" and "faith" when contrasting them. His point is that what is being contrasted is the priniciple of "works" versus "faith." Whether it is the Jewish Haggadah, or the Gentiles response to pacify conscience, or Rome's system of sacraments or ANYTHING YOU DO that is in contrast to how He just used faith in verses 24-26. Again, I challenge you to find ANYTHING YOU DO related to faith in verses 24-26. In verses 24-26 the only relationship faith has is "IN" God's provision for justification.

It is not for ought that Paul chooses two terms to contrast two opposite systems for justification "DEEDS" versus "FAITH". There is the "hearing of faith" (Gal. 3:2,4) but "DEEDS" is ALWAYS defined by YOU and DOING!

It has nothing to do with obediance to Christ or the effectiveness of baptism in the remission of sin. You've taken a step to even say there is a "Shadow". How then do we understand your "Shadow" which by definition has effect? How? In similar vein to the Shadow used by Socrates or Plato?

Nowhere does the SCRIPTUES teach that a "shadow" takes effect and that is why you must go to Plato or Socrates! Scripture explicitly and flatly denies that a "shadow" has ever produced any kind of effect in regard to sin (Heb. 10:1,4) "NEVER" is the writers word to describe its effects.

Paul in Roman's ( a City btw that was full of Jews which was authorized by that goverment and thus a tendency to have judiazers) is taking Haggadah as being void in process. Did Christ institute a new operation renewing the covenant for his new covenant people? I suggest that he was. Therefore, He is contrasting the supperiority of faith over Haggadah or Torah which leads to effective renewal of the covenant by other practices. Just a thought. It seems that you are indicating that Paul is refering to a...for a lack of a better term... mind game of etherial faith an acceptance of mind rather than any active faith produced by activity. Which includes participation in the new covenant.

If Paul intended that kind of complexity, he would have clearly said that as it would be necessary to clearly say that since he was writing to Gentiles who have no background in Jewish laws. It is this kind of mental gynastics that is required to avoid the obvious and the Gentile reader would have had to have such mental gynastics fully explained to him if that was Paul's intention.

You complicate the matter because the obvious superficial reading simply condemns a WORKS RIGHTEOUSNESS by any kind of law - law of Moses or law of conscience. Since that condemns Rome, and you are the defender of Rome (you defend her whole gospel centered in baptism) then you must use mentaly gymnastics to avoid the obvious condemnation to Roman soteriology.

The simple truth is that justification is not by YOUR WORKS rather in response to Jewish law or to the law of conscience (Rom. 2:10-15).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It does not matter what "workings" Paul has in mind as he uses the same term "law" in regard to both "deeds" and "faith" when contrasting them. His point is that what is being contrasted is the priniciple of "works" versus "faith." Whether it is the Jewish Haggadah, or the Gentiles response to pacify conscience, or Rome's system of sacraments or ANYTHING YOU DO that is in contrast to how He just used faith in verses 24-26. Again, I challenge you to find ANYTHING YOU DO related to faith in verses 24-26. In verses 24-26 the only relationship faith has is "IN" God's provision for justification.

I disagree. I think like most people when writing a discourse countering another position his focus is specifically on Judaizers which are fighting to a return to Haggadah rather than a faith that leads to participation. One relies on ability. The other relies on a founded relationship but does not exlude participation.

It is not for ought that Paul chooses two terms to contrast two opposite systems for justification "DEEDS" versus "FAITH". There is the "hearing of faith" (Gal. 3:2,4) but "DEEDS" is ALWAYS defined by YOU and DOING!

Because that is how the Haggadah is set up. He's not excluding participation in a new covenant. Which is the key. He wants to get away from the formula's of if I follow step 1 then step 2 then step 3 I've made it. He wants faith which leads to participation.

Nowhere does the SCRIPTUES teach that a "shadow" takes effect and that is why you must go to Plato or Socrates! Scripture explicitly and flatly denies that a "shadow" has ever produced any kind of effect in regard to sin (Heb. 10:1,4) "NEVER" is the writers word to describe its effects.

Not entirely true that. What about the 70 elders eating in the presense of the Lord part way up the Holy mountain. What about Nahman washing himself in the Jordan. What about the Sacrifices of the temple which shadowed Christ? Are you telling me the men who sacrificed in faith were not forgiven? Indeed they were by the very same crucifixion that we are forgiven by. Their sacrifice and participation in it was effectual in the Crucifixion of our Lord.

If Paul intended that kind of complexity, he would have clearly said that as it would be necessary to clearly say that since he was writing to Gentiles who have no background in Jewish laws. It is this kind of mental gynastics that is required to avoid the obvious and the Gentile reader would have had to have such mental gynastics fully explained to him if that was Paul's intention.

He was challenging the Judaizers. Who as I've noted above wanted a returne to their haggadah. Faith leads to participation. Big difference.

You complicate the matter because the obvious superficial reading simply condemns a WORKS RIGHTEOUSNESS by any kind of law - law of Moses or law of conscience. Since that condemns Rome, and you are the defender of Rome (you defend her whole gospel centered in baptism) then you must use mentaly gymnastics to avoid the obvious condemnation to Roman soteriology

Not at all. Paul says does this faith give us a license to sin? God forbid! Then he gives examples of how we should live our lives. Again participation.

The simple truth is that justification is not by YOUR WORKS rather in response to Jewish law or to the law of conscience (Rom. 2:10-15).

Your right Justification isn't by our works. It is a positional relationship whereby we have a filial relationship with God and all the responsibilities associated with that position.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I disagree. I think like most people when writing a discourse countering another position his focus is specifically on Judaizers which are fighting to a return to Haggadah rather than a faith that leads to participation. One relies on ability. The other relies on a founded relationship but does not exlude participation.

I gave you Biblical data (Rom. 3:24-26) with specific Biblical based challenge to back up my interpretation and you give me personal opinion and philosophy!!! What about honestly dealing with the Biblical data?????? In both Romans and Galatians the phrases "the deeds of the law" and "the law" are synonmous with "MOSES" not the "haggadah." If he were speaking of the Haggadah he would say "haggadah" as he could say it as well as you can and it would be necessary for him to say "Haggadah" or it would leave the Gentile readers in complete confusion as Paul uses "MOSES" interchangably with "the deeds of the law" and "the law." Moses was not the author of the Haggadah and nowhere in Old Testament or New Testament can we find the "haggadah" EXCEPT in reference to the term "TRADITIONS". If Paul were talking about the traditional interpretations of the law he would have used the words of Jesus "You have heard it said by them of old." But when Jesus spoke of what Moses wrote he would say "thus saith the scriptures." Both Christ and Paul never refer to "traditions" of the elders as Moses but make a clear distinction. Neither use the term "law" or "deeds of the law" for the Jewish traditions but rather use the word "traditions."

Your argument is false - plain and simple. It has no scriptual basis. It is a Catholic, philosophical exercise of mental gynastics to escape the plain sense of scripture.

Not entirely true that. What about the 70 elders eating in the presense of the Lord part way up the Holy mountain. What about Nahman washing himself in the Jordan. What about the Sacrifices of the temple which shadowed Christ? Are you telling me the men who sacrificed in faith were not forgiven? Indeed they were by the very same crucifixion that we are forgiven by. Their sacrifice and participation in it was effectual in the Crucifixion of our Lord.

What ceremonial law were the elders observing?????????? Elijah performed a miracle? What ceremonial law required bathing in Jordan to be healed????????? Hebrews 10:1-4 speaks directly to the Sacrifices of the temple and explicitlys states they "NEVER" removed sin actually or literally. Your illustrations are all invalid and totally without any ceremonial laws to sustain them.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I gave you Biblical data (Rom. 3:24-26) with specific Biblical based challenge to back up my interpretation and you give me personal opinion and philosophy!!! What about honestly dealing with the Biblical data??????

Question to you. When was the book of Romans writen? See there is this thing called historical context of the writing of documents. Paul was writing in his context and his works should be considered in their context. To draw modern parallels isn't always the best interpretation of a particular work. Let me give you a for instance. Jesus healing the little girl who died of fever. Now when Jesus approached the house we see

23When Jesus entered the ruler's house and saw the flute players and the noisy crowd, 24he said, "Go away. The girl is not dead but asleep." But they laughed at him.

You might understand it as people having a party because the girl was dead based soley on the words of the text. However, this is not the cultural context of the passage.

In both Romans and Galatians the phrases "the deeds of the law" and "the law" are synonmous with "MOSES" not the "haggadah."

Again you must understand contextual use of the word law. As you've mentioned before the Law refers to the moral law, ceremonial law, the ten commandments, etc...

If he were speaking of the Haggadah he would say "haggadah"

Not necissarily as Haggadah comes from Torah. And is understood together with Torah.

leave the Gentile readers in complete confusion as Paul uses "MOSES" interchangably with "the deeds of the law" and "the law."

It is interchangeably used.

Moses was not the author of the Haggadah

But the Rabbis believed he was. And can refer to it in Exocus 12:2

"Enjoin upon them the laws and the teachings, and make known to them the way they are to go and the practices they are to follow.

as is said by this rabbi

What does that mean? If the written law is all that was given, then there is nothing more for Moses to instruct these judges. What is Moses supposed to tell them, if not the oral law [Rashbatz, ibid.]?

Certainly with the large Jewish population in Rome the Early Church would have known of these things.

and nowhere in Old Testament or New Testament can we find the "haggadah" EXCEPT in reference to the term "TRADITIONS". If Paul were talking about the traditional interpretations of the law he would have used the words of Jesus "You have heard it said by them of old." But when Jesus spoke of what Moses wrote he would say "thus saith the scriptures."

Again one flows from the Other and are used interchangably.

Your argument is false - plain and simple. It has no scriptual basis. It is a Catholic, philosophical exercise of mental gynastics to escape the plain sense of scripture.

Its not catholic at all and its not a philisophical exercise but a contextual one. A Catholic would say of romans

It is the longest and most systematic unfolding of the apostle's thought, expounding the gospel of God's righteousness that saves all who believe (Romans 1:16-17); it reflects a universal outlook, with special implications for Israel's relation to the church (Rom 9-11). Yet, like all Paul's letters, Romans too arose out of a specific situation, when the apostle wrote from Greece, likely Corinth, between A.D. 56 and 58 (cf Acts 20:2-3)...As the outline below shows, this gospel of Paul (see Romans 16:25) finds its center in salvation and justification through faith in Christ (Romans 1:16-17). While God's wrath is revealed against all sin and wickedness of Gentile and Jew alike (Romans 1:18-3:20), God's power to save by divine righteous or justifying action in Christ is also revealed (Romans 1:16-17; 3:21-5:21). The consequences and implications for those who believe are set forth (Romans 6:1-8:39), as are results for those in Israel (Rom 9-11) who, to Paul's great sorrow (Romans 9:1-5), disbelieve. The apostle's hope is that, just as rejection of the gospel by some in Israel has led to a ministry of salvation for non-Jews, so one day, in God's mercy, "all Israel" will be saved (Romans 11:11-15, 25-29, 30-32). The fuller ethical response of believers is also drawn out, both with reference to life in Christ's body (Rom 12) and with regard to the world (Romans 13:1-7), on the basis of the eschatological situation (Romans 13:11-14) and conditions in the community (Romans 14:1-15:13).

From an introduction to Romans by the USCCB.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You offer not a single solitary text from Scripture to justify your pure supposition that the Haggadah was used by WRITERS OF SCRIPTURE as a synonomous with "Moses" and "the law." NOT ONE SINGLE VERSE!

Christ's distinction between Moses and oral or non-canonical writings is clearly seen as He never once refers to the Haggadah or any other non-canonical writings as "law" or as "Moses" but ALWAYS as "tradition(s)" or "You have heard it said by them of old."

Mt 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Mt 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mt 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Mr 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.




Paul makes the same distinction and NOT ONCE does he ever refer to non-canonical writings as "MOSES" or "Law." He calls the "traditions of the elders" the law "of the fathers" NOT ONE SINGLE VERSE

Joh 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

Ga 1:14 And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

Ac 22:3 ¶ I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

The writers of Scripture REFUSE to mix "Moses" or "the law of Moses" with the oral traditions of the Fathers. They always distinguish them from Moses. They always qualify them by terms like "traditions" or "of the fathers."


If you disagree provide BIBLICAL evidence by BIBLICAL writers which supports your supposition!

Question to you. When was the book of Romans writen? See there is this thing called historical context of the writing of documents. Paul was writing in his context and his works should be considered in their context. To draw modern parallels isn't always the best interpretation of a particular work. Let me give you a for instance. Jesus healing the little girl who died of fever. Now when Jesus approached the house we see You might understand it as people having a party because the girl was dead based soley on the words of the text. However, this is not the cultural context of the passage. Again you must understand contextual use of the word law. As you've mentioned before the Law refers to the moral law, ceremonial law, the ten commandments, etc... Not necissarily as Haggadah comes from Torah. And is understood together with Torah. It is interchangeably used. But the Rabbis believed he was. And can refer to it in Exocus 12:2 as is said by this rabbi Certainly with the large Jewish population in Rome the Early Church would have known of these things.
Again one flows from the Other and are used interchangably.

Its not catholic at all and its not a philisophical exercise but a contextual one. A Catholic would say of romans From an introduction to Romans by the USCCB.