Is the gospel just grace?

[slateblue]

Modern churches have turned the Gospel into a 'Grace Card' for people to downsize and continue to live in sin. The gift of Jesus death and the gift of repentance has been terribly trampled. He went to great lengths to get you saved. His death and repentance is a precious and costly gift. Sin is serious. the bible states that God is a Holy God. And He HATES sin. Be fervent and get it out of your life. Because of sin, Jesus died a horrific and brutal death. Sin is not to be taken lightly.

The true gospel is faith+repentance. People misinterpret what faith is. We need to correctly define it. Faith is not just an intellectual belief. In James it states, " Even the demons believe, and tremble." But they are not going to Heaven, are they? Faith is a knowing and trust so strong it produces action. In James it says, "Faith without deeds is dead." Faith is a special word, it's a spiritual word, and goes so far above just having an intellectual belief. For the Christian, it means a relationship with Christ. Jesus says, "If you love me, you will know me. And you love me by keeping the commands."

if you are going to a church where sin is not recognized at all and not treated as horrific you may be being fed false doctrine. We are living in the times of false doctrines being widespread- this is a direct attack from satan. Remember daily, we are in a spiritual battle. The battle is satan trying to get you to sin and your own sinful desires. Sinning is wickedness and is crime against God, which is a very serious situation. All sin will be punished. beware of Christian 'cliches" or mottos, most likely they are deceptive or false doctrines. What needs to be done is you getting alone quietly in your room, without any interruptions, and getting out that book, the Bible, and reading it yourself. Christian books, mottos, sermons and your own thoughts can only go so far. Find out the truth for yourself in the Bible.

Believe in Jesus and repent of your sins (continually repent, not just once like you did 5 years ago when you first got saved) and you will escape God's wrath.

Paul Washer teaches Gods holiness and mans depravity and desperate need to repent.

 

[pathfinder777]

Yeah... they've done studies in the past and found when politics and religion collide in the US, politics wins out over religion. Politics has become an idol for many people with mythologies created by Washington think-tanks, with the rhetoric of Christianity paying lip service to that. At the heart of this is the narcissistic cult of individual sovereignty, nobody ever having the right to tell you what to do or what to think. So the conscience gets shaped by political power instead of religious conviction. Religious conviction is then shaped by politics after the fact.

In a way, this goes back to some of the things Bonhoeffer was writing about in his theology. The sin of the modern age is idolatry, whether it's the state or the individual, we have a desire to set up something else as God other than the crucified Savior.

You articulated my thought much better than I did....thanks

 

[Soyeong]

Acts 15 is pretty clear in its teaching that Gentile converts to Christianity were not to be expected to observe the Torah. St. Paul makes this pretty clear in his epistles also.

I'd disagree, a better understanding of the Jewish cultural context gives a different interpretation. To start with, the Torah never instructs all Gentiles to become circumcised or to become Jewish proselytes, or even how to become Jewish proselytes, so by rejecting what the circumcision group was asking in Acts 15:1, they were ruling against man-made traditions and upholding the Torah. As I said before, if the Torah had instructed all Gentiles to become circumcised, then the Jerusalem Council had no authority to countermand God. They couldn't add to or subtract from God's law (Deuteronomy 4:2), but only had the authority to make interpretations about how it was intended to be obeyed, and they upheld the Torah by correctly ruling that it did not intend for all Gentiles to become circumcised.

The Jews had an oral law or traditions of the elders (Mark 7:3-4), which consisted of traditions and rulings for how to keep the written law of the Torah and fences around it to protect it from being accidentally broken. For instance, when God commanded them not to do their work on the Sabbath, they had many rulings for what did and did not count as work, such as how far someone could walk. They traced the command for this back to Moses and they reasoned that you couldn't keep the Sabbath if you didn't have their traditions for how to keep the Sabbath, so they gave a greater importance to their own traditions than to the commands of God, which Jesus criticized them for (Mark 7:6-9). They would never have considered teaching someone how to keep the Sabbath without teaching their traditions for how to keep it, so all of this was wrapped up in their concept of what it meant to live according the custom of Moses (Acts 15:1). If you think about it, the Israelites would certainly have asked Moses for clarification for how to obey many of the laws out of the desire to obey in the right way, so Moses would have to had made rulings and started traditions for how to obey it. Whether the traditions that they had are the same ones that Moses started is a separate issue, but the point is that the Jews thought their traditions traced back to Moses.

So Paul was rejecting both that Gentiles had to follow their traditions and that they had follow the law in order to be saved, but he was not rejecting God's holy, righteous, and good law. He said our faith does not abolish the law, but rather that it upholds it (Romans 3:31). The heavy burden was their mountain of traditions for how to follow God's laws, not God's laws themselves. Jesus said his yoke or interpretation for how to follow the law easy and his burden was light and God said in Deuteronomy 30:11 that His commands were not too difficult for them. You can't find anywhere in the OT where anyone thought that God's laws were a heavy burden, but just the opposite. The Psalms are full of high praise for the law, especially 119, and considered the law to be a delight. The Jews frequently gave thanks to God for giving them the Torah as instructions for life, so they would never have considered it to be a heavy burden.

Scripture is pretty clear, both the Old Testament and New Testament are clear that the Torah was given to the Jewish people as part of the covenant God made with them at Mt. Sinai and that Gentiles were under no expectations to ever observe them. Judaism and Christianity don't agree on many things, but this is one of the few things where there is agreement between the two religions.

God gave the Torah to His chosen people, Israel, but Ephesians 2:12 and 2:19 say that Gentiles were once alienated from Israel, but are now fellow citizens. In 1 Peter 2:8-9, it says that Gentiles are no counted among God's chosen people, a holy nation, and a royal priesthood, so they should conduct themselves accordingly in compliance with God's instructions. In 1 Peter 1:13-16, it says that Gentiles should have a holy conduct, so how can Gentiles be a holy nation and have a holy conduct if they aren't supposed to follow any of God's instructions in the law for how to do that?

Jesus did not come to start a new religion, but rather he was born a Jew, became a Jewish rabbi, had Jewish disciples, and was the Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Jesus brought fullness to Judaism by teaching how to obey the Torah, by demonstrating through perfect sinlessness how it should be obeyed, by providing a means for salvation, and by including the Gentiles.

 

[FireDragon76]

You articulated my thought much better than I did....thanks

Just consider that in terms of how most Christians in the US think of how the God relates to the state, its no different than how the Nazi's thought of things, in a positive sense that God rules both the "two kingdoms" (as Luther put it). Without the understanding, however, that Christ is the true ruler of this world but this world has rejected and crucified him, that theology can take us down a dangerous abyss. The Nazi's easily confused God with the "will of the people", the volk, and created an elaborate quasi-Christian pantheism based on that (there are even propaganda posters with the Swastika in the sky showering down rays of "grace" upon Germany).

That's the same mistake that the Federalist author is making criticizing the Pope. He assumes that God's Word applies purely to a spiritual sphere, an unearthly sphere, unconcerned with earthly affairs. It's true that Luther tries to deal with the world realistically (rather than the idealism of Calvin), but it's important not to lose sight of the reality that we live in a world awaiting an eschatological fulfillment of the Kingdom of God, that the political order of things is not as it should be, not under submission to Christ, and thus the political sphere cannot claim some autonomy from Truth, including scientific truths. In short justice, including environmental justice, is a religious issue, a "Gospel issue".

See this article for more information on the "two kingdoms" and the issues about the relationship between the Gospel and the state: https://gudribassakums.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/2005-two-kingdoms-nessen.pdf

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'd disagree, a better understanding of the Jewish cultural context gives a different interpretation. To start with, the Torah never instructs all Gentiles to become circumcised or to become Jewish proselytes, or even how to become Jewish proselytes, so by rejecting what the circumcision group was asking in Acts 15:1, they were ruling against man-made traditions and upholding the Torah. As I said before, if the Torah had instructed all Gentiles to become circumcised, then the Jerusalem Council had no authority to countermand God. They couldn't add to or subtract from God's law (Deuteronomy 4:2), but only had the authority to make interpretations about how it was intended to be obeyed, and they upheld the Torah by correctly ruling that it did not intend for all Gentiles to become circumcised.

Any Gentiles. I agree that the Judaizers were in disagreement with Judaism--as Judaism quite explicitly teaches that Torah is for the Jews and only for the Jews. What he council does, however, is make clear that Torah observance doesn't apply to Gentile converts; why? because Torah observance was--indeed--never intended for Gentiles.

The Jews had an oral law or traditions of the elders (Mark 7:3-4), which consisted of traditions and rulings for how to keep the written law of the Torah and fences around it to protect it from being accidentally broken. For instance, when God commanded them not to do their work on the Sabbath, they had many rulings for what did and did not count as work, such as how far someone could walk. They traced the command for this back to Moses and they reasoned that you couldn't keep the Sabbath if you didn't have their traditions for how to keep the Sabbath, so they gave a greater importance to their own traditions than to the commands of God, which Jesus criticized them for (Mark 7:6-9). They would never have considered teaching someone how to keep the Sabbath without teaching their traditions for how to keep it, so all of this was wrapped up in their concept of what it meant to live according the custom of Moses (Acts 15:1). If you think about it, the Israelites would certainly have asked Moses for clarification for how to obey many of the laws out of the desire to obey in the right way, so Moses would have to had made rulings and started traditions for how to obey it. Whether the traditions that they had are the same ones that Moses started is a separate issue, but the point is that the Jews thought their traditions traced back to Moses.

But what is happening in Acts 15 has nothing to do with the Oral Torah/Mishna. It has to do with Christians who, falsely, believe Gentiles should become Torah-observant in order to be full fledged members of the Church; by insisting that Gentiles receive circumcision and abide by the mitzvot of Torah: that is, that Gentiles become Jews. The Judaizers went further by insisting that Torah-observance, including circumcision, was necessary for salvation, a topic St. Paul tackles directly in his epistle to the Galatians.

So Paul was rejecting both that Gentiles had to follow their traditions and that they had follow the law in order to be saved, but he was not rejecting God's holy, righteous, and good law. He said our faith does not abolish the law, but rather that it upholds it (Romans 3:31). The heavy burden was their mountain of traditions for how to follow God's laws, not God's laws themselves. Jesus said his yoke or interpretation for how to follow the law easy and his burden was light and God said in Deuteronomy 30:11 that His commands were not too difficult for them. You can't find anywhere in the OT where anyone thought that God's laws were a heavy burden, but just the opposite. The Psalms are full of high praise for the law, especially 119, and considered the law to be a delight. The Jews frequently gave thanks to God for giving them the Torah as instructions for life, so they would never have considered it to be a heavy burden

Read what Peter says in Acts 15:6-11. The "yoke" Peter refers to is not Oral Torah, but Torah. At no point is Oral Torah part of what is going on, it is specifically what the Judaizers are expecting of Gentile Christians: That they receive circumcision and observe Torah, that they observe kashrut, the feasts, sabbath, etc. Peter stands up and says that, no, the Gentiles should not be expected to observe these things, saying that even "our ancestors" had trouble with all these things. Again, the things spoken about aren't what would eventually be written down in the Mishna, but what is written in the Pentateuch.

God gave the Torah to His chosen people, Israel, but Ephesians 2:12 and 2:19 say that Gentiles were once alienated from Israel, but are now fellow citizens. In 1 Peter 2:8-9, it says that Gentiles are no counted among God's chosen people, a holy nation, and a royal priesthood, so they should conduct themselves accordingly in compliance with God's instructions. In 1 Peter 1:13-16, it says that Gentiles should have a holy conduct, so how can Gentiles be a holy nation and have a holy conduct if they aren't supposed to follow any of God's instructions in the law for how to do that?

Because there are things God expects of all people, not just Jewish people. Murder isn't wrong only for the Jews, it's wrong for everyone. Murder isn't wrong because of the mitzvah that says "Do not murder", but because murder is wrong. Abraham was not lawless, though he lived without the Torah, lived before the Torah, and lived outside of the Torah. In fact Paul makes a big deal about Abraham's faith being reckoned to him as righteousness and addressing Abraham's righteousness apart from the Law, that is, the Torah. Did God make commandments that applied to Abraham and the Patriarchs? Yes, and yet Torah was not given until Moses. There is, therefore, much more to God's Law than simply Torah. Torah is God's specific instructions to the Jewish people as part of the covenant He established with them at Mt. Sinai; but God's Law--that is, His righteous commandments, are far bigger and larger than Torah itself. For example Torah never says, "I tell you love your enemy" and also "A new commandment I give you, love one another as I have loved you" but these commandments, given by Jesus Christ, are indeed Law. By which we will be judged and held accountable on the Day of Judgment (Matthew 25).

Jesus did not come to start a new religion, but rather he was born a Jew, became a Jewish rabbi, had Jewish disciples, and was the Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Jesus brought fullness to Judaism by teaching how to obey the Torah, by demonstrating through perfect sinlessness how it should be obeyed, by providing a means for salvation, and by including the Gentiles.

The Christian conviction is not that Jesus came to improve Judaism or to add Himself to Judaism. The Christian conviction is that the very uncreated Logos, the Word that brought the universe into being, has come down to encounter a world of sin and, take hold of that world, and renew, redeem, and restore it. Christianity is the religion that proclaims the God-Man. For early Christians the reality that the Christ had come, and that He was Jesus, was profoundly bigger than the kinds of expectations most had for the Christ. There would be no warrior Messiah who, militantly, drives the occupation from the land and sit on a throne in Jerusalem as the Son of David; instead the Messiah--the Christians came to understand--was the One who would be crucified and then be raised up after three days. The Messiah did not ascend to an earthly throne, but to the Throne that is above all thrones, taking up His seat as the Son of David as King of kings and Lord of lords at the right hand the Father, with all things subject to Himself. Having overcome and defeated every power, every principality, and every dominion. And, as Lord of All, He sits enthroned until the Day He comes, to judge the quick and the dead, and bringing the everlasting kingdom, world without end. We're talking something profoundly bigger than just Judaism 2.0.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Berean777]

The following is an article about the Pope's environmental encyclical, Laudato Si:

Pope Francis Doesn’t Get The Gospel
By telling people their spirituality is measured by what they do, Pope Francis in his recent encyclical rejects the central message of the gospel: grace.
​

I find this an absolutely appalling oversimplification (probably due to anti-catholic myopia). Yes, the heart of the gospel is Christ's atonement and salvation by grace, but that isn't the whole story. There is a lot in the new testament about obedience and refraining from sin. And how can we refrain from sin when we are not taught what sin is?

The essence of the mistake this evangelical author makes is that there is no place in his gospel for teaching right and wrong. Thank goodness the Pope believes differently. In an age where so many species are dying out, when resources are becoming scarce and contaminated by pollution, when our future is threatened by Climate Change, how are we to address this as Christians? What under these new circumstances is right and what is wrong? At least the Pope is on task trying to teach us.

A covenant is a conditional contractual agreement that is tied to obedience. A contractual agreement can be made null and void if any person rejects the author of that covenant, who is God.

The bible narrative is summarised in three distinct words:

1) False Accusations the devil makes against God and man.
2) The spiritual conflict that ensues where God is left no choice but to defeat satan by silencing his false accusations being made against him
3) Purpose driven covenant that must be adhered to so that the false accusations are silenced by defeating them by the blood covenant and not by force.

Accusations ----->. Conflict -----> Contract/Covenant to resolve conflict

If a person doesn't stay within the conditional stipulates of the contractual blood covenant/agreement, then that person is left open to these flying accusations and therefore has condemnation upon their heads by the ideas brought forth by the false accuser satan.

God has given his very own blood as a seal of protection against all the devil's accusations and has silenced him forever, as long as people stay within his blood covenant of protection.

God will charge anyone NOT abiding in his contractual blood covenant as siding with satan. This charge is laid upon those who don't abide in it.

It is clear that satan lies by bringing false accusations against God and uses man as an excuse to attack God's character with a false idea arising from satan's putrid selfishness. This selfishness manifests into the murder of man, because satan speaks of his own, meaning his own desires of his heart by using man to attack the righteousness of God through false ideas that were seeded in the first recipients Adam and Eve and continue to this very day.

Man can be satan's advocate by also seeking and speaking their OWN hearts desires and therefore leaves them open to being charged by God as either being satan or satan's children.

Matthew 16:23
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns

The bible is a story of accusations leading to the great conflict between God and man which satan instrumented and resulting in the blood covenant that was necessary to silence satan once and for all times.

Anyone that doesn't have the covering of blood just like the people of Egypt during ancient Israel, then God must destroy them, maybe not in this life to be seen of men as a physical lesson to be taught, but rather that they will be sent into outer darkness after their physicial body dies.

To not adhere to God's blood covenant is a definite death sentence for the soul. There is no grace nor protection against those outside of this contractual blood covenant/agreement and anyone trying to bypass this covenant/agreement is becoming a recipient of the charge made by Jesus:

Jesus turned and said to WHOEVER, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.

The OP quote below is a human concern/idea, nothing to do with the question of faith:

"In an age where so many species are dying out, when resources are becoming scarce and contaminated by pollution, when our future is threatened by Climate Change, how are we to address this as Christians? What under these new circumstances is right and what is wrong? At least the Pope is on task trying to teach us."

It is not the question of being right or wrong as the OP claims:

"The essence of the mistake this evangelical author makes is that there is no place in his gospel for teaching right and wrong"

OP said:

"many species are dying out, when resources are becoming scarce and contaminated by pollution, when our future is threatened by Climate Change, how are we to address this as Christians?"

Christians care for faith and to upholding the contractual agreement / covenant signed in God's blood.

The world at large is either in contract with God or are satan's tools for using false arguments in his selfish pursuit in attacking God's character.

Just like when you are employed within a company you are employed under contract and you can't decide to bring others in your work place if they have not entered employment by the contract of the employer.

What exactly are people advocating here?

Bringing others alongside Christianity without them needing to be in contract with God.

This would be lawlessness to the extreme!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I would agree that that is problematic for those who say that Jews should follow Christ in a different way than Gentiles. Christ kept the law perfectly to set an example for us to follow and as God's chosen people, we should all follow that example.

Jesus fulfilled the law, this is a different activity that observing the law, Jesus said through trusting .. we will do more than this because He goes to the Father.

 

[Frogster]

You didn't answer my question, so I'll try again. Was it a mistake for Paul and the other apostles to teach their congregations right from wrong?

but was law the answer?

as far as your OP title, it is called the gospel of????
Acts 20:24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.

 

[Frogster]

I was just talking yesterday about how there is too much focus on justification and not enough focus on sanctification. Justification is just the beginning of the Christian walk, whereas sanctification is how we live out the rest of it as we are made to be more like Christ in how he thought and acted in obedience to God.

and law sanctification does not work, in fact if one uses law, they are perfecting in the flesh. Since the law did not justify, how could it sanctify?

Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

 

[Frogster]

As a Hebrew Catholic who keeps Torah as well as my Catholic obligations, I say he should feel right at home.

you keep some torah....

Under the law they had to do ALL , all that applied to them, do you do all, or can you do all?

 

[Frogster]

I'm not sure about your screenname there, but I have said the the Sabbath is required, not circumcision. And just Messianic Judaism is fine.



Roughly 80% of males in the US are circumcised and the majority of them are Gentiles, so does that me that Christ is of no value to them? No, the problem was not with circumcision, but with the reason why they were becoming circumcised, namely that they were trying to become justified be becoming circumcised and keeping the law. By trying trying to become justified by a means other than by faith in Jesus they were rejecting what he did for them and thus he was of no value to them. It was an important distinction that we need to keep the law because we are justified, not in order to become justified.

well..obviously when we say circumcision in the text, it means conversion to Judaism, and one must keep the whole law.

Gal 5:3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

 

[Frogster]

I have no problems with those verses. Just as faith without works is dead, works without faith are futile. And neither faith nor works would be worth a cent if it weren't for God's grace.

In the verses you are quoting, Paul is advising Gentiles that they do not need to observe Mosaic law. I agree. Mosaic law was given to Jews, not to gentiles. I follow Torah as a Jew, not because I can be saved apart from grace, but because the only appropriate response to that grace is a life of trust and obedience.

The Jewish Christians in Antioch were not living ad Jews under Torah.

Peter said it was a yoke for the Jewish fathers in Acts 15, and he was in the "we". Why was peter putting himself in the "we"?

10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

you keep some torah....

Under the law they had to do ALL , all that applied to them, do you do all, or can you do all?

Perhaps the SDA and MJs can enlighten us ignorant Christian gentiles on that......

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-is-the-whole-law.7552108/
what is the whole law?

Galations 5:3 I am testifying yet again to every man circumcising, that debtor he is whole the law to do.

James 2:10 For whosoever whole the law should be keeping should be stumbling yet in one has become of all liable.

In the context of that discussion the person who posted that Paul was keeping "the law" was referring to the entire Israelite law (in this case Acts 21 was in view which included vows, sacrifices, etc.)

Adventists on the other hand generally advocate the ten commandments, but not all the law of Moses as something still to be kept. Some may also include food and hygeine laws. They do not however keep feasts, new moons, etc.

There are a minority of Adventists who do keep feasts,but they are not the norm.


When dealing with conversations that involve both MJ and SDA it is sometimes necessary to remind the SDA that they are not of the same position as the Messianics in regards to the law. So when a Messianic posts that Paul kept the law, and an SDA says "amen", they are often saying "amen" to something different than they first thought.

Adventists often think of the 10 commandments as enduring moral law, and make a vast distinction between the 10 on stone and the book of Moses.

But then when Adventists see "the law" they tend to read back in only the ten commandments. That is often not accurate.


For instance, Adventists may often quote Matthew 5 to demonstrate that the law has not passed away. But in doing so they overlook that Jesus quotes not just from the 10 commandments, but other sections of the law.

Yes, Jesus references the commandments about murder and adultery. But He also talks about oaths, eye for eye, etc.

 

[Frogster]

Of course there is a big difference. Soyeong, this is something you and I are just going to have to disagree about. I don't believe that Gentiles are required to keep the 613 laws that Moses received for Israel. Gentiles are required to keep the universal laws, or "natural law." The basics. Isn't that enough? The church struggles to get Christians just to keep the 10 commandments and you want to burden Gentiles with 613 laws like not wearing clothing made of both linen and wool?

some in the Hebrew roots movement think it sin to eat lobster, crab, pork, catfish, shrimp, etc, and think we must keep Jewish feasts too.

 

[Frogster]

Perhaps the SDA and MJs can enlighten us ignorant Christian gentiles on that......

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-is-the-whole-law.7552108/
what is the whole law?

Galations 5:3 I am testifying yet again to every man circumcising, that debtor he is whole the law to do.

James 2:10 For whosoever whole the law should be keeping should be stumbling yet in one has become of all liable.

In the context of that discussion the person who posted that Paul was keeping "the law" was referring to the entire Israelite law (in this case Acts 21 was in view which included vows, sacrifices, etc.)

Adventists on the other hand generally advocate the ten commandments, but not all the law of Moses as something still to be kept. Some may also include food and hygeine laws. They do not however keep feasts, new moons, etc.

There are a minority of Adventists who do keep feasts,but they are not the norm.


When dealing with conversations that involve both MJ and SDA it is sometimes necessary to remind the SDA that they are not of the same position as the Messianics in regards to the law. So when a Messianic posts that Paul kept the law, and an SDA says "amen", they are often saying "amen" to something different than they first thought.

Adventists often think of the 10 commandments as enduring moral law, and make a vast distinction between the 10 on stone and the book of Moses.

But then when Adventists see "the law" they tend to read back in only the ten commandments. That is often not accurate.


For instance, Adventists may often quote Matthew 5 to demonstrate that the law has not passed away. But in doing so they overlook that Jesus quotes not just from the 10 commandments, but other sections of the law.

Yes, Jesus references the commandments about murder and adultery. But He also talks about oaths, eye for eye, etc.

heyyyyyy bro! Good to see ya! I was thinking boutcha the other day a few times!

 

[Frogster]

If there's a big difference, then the verse doesn't say what you said it did. In Ephesians 2:12 and 2:19, it says that Gentiles were once alienated from Israel, but are now fellow citizens. In 1 Peter 2:8-9, it says that Gentiles and now included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, and a royal priesthood, so Gentiles should conduct themselves accordingly. In first Peter 1:13-16, it says Gentiles are to have a holy conduct, so how does it make sense for Gentiles to be told to have a holy conduct if they don't need to obey any of God's instructions for how to have a holy conduct? The Bible makes no distinction about only universal or natural laws being sins while other laws are not and being under grace does not permit Gentiles to sin. The Ten Commandments is a good start, but it's not about what I want or think is enough, but about what God has commanded. Jesus said his yoke was easy and his burden was light.

you are forgetting that in Eph 2, it says the one new man was created after Jewish law abolishment. And as far as how to "conduct ourselves", our Jewish friends can learn from gentiles.

Rom 9:30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.

They have to walk as pre circumcised Abraham did, the way of the Gentiles.

Rom 4:12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Peter also showed in 1 Peter 2 what Paul hows in Rom 9, that the Jews stumbled because of the law.

 

[Frogster]

I would agree that that is problematic for those who say that Jews should follow Christ in a different way than Gentiles. Christ kept the law perfectly to set an example for us to follow and as God's chosen people, we should all follow that example.

he said he had to redeem the slaves from the law.

Gal 4:7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

 

[Frogster]

Acts 15 was about whether Gentiles had to follow Jewish traditions, not about whether they had to obey God - obedience to God was a given. The Jerusalem Council had no authority to countermand God, so they could not and did not rule against Gentiles obeying His laws. The list of four laws in Act 15 does include all of the Noahide laws and contains a law that is not found in the Noahide laws, so this was a specific list for a specific purpose, not an exhaustive list of everything that would be ever be required of Gentiles. If you hold hard to it being an exhaustive list, then that would exclude the commands of Jesus, but if you say it is not an exhaustive list and that other commands were obviously included, then I'd agree with you.

An employer doesn't want to make it too difficult for a new employee by teaching them everything they would ever need to know about doing their job up front, but rather they teach them the basics with the understanding that they will learn how to do the rest on the job. That's the same thought that's being expressed in Acts 15:19-21. Paul did not want to make it too difficult for new Gentiles coming to faith who were unfamiliar with God's laws, so he started them off with the basics, and excused it by saying that they would continue to learn how to obey the laws of Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues, which at the very least implies that they were already keeping the Sabbath.

Red above,, there is not one hint of oral law in Acts 15.

Why would Paul want his converts in synagogues, the same Jewish environment that he went to ward off in Acts 15?

They went to the CHURHES with the letter after the meeting, glad they did not have to live full blown torah, they did not go to synagogues. The Synagogues by Acts 15, 49 AD would not want Paul's Jesus praising gentiles in their synagogues, it was now hostile territory, so your interp of Acts 15:21 is incorrect.

 

[Frogster]

N.T. Wright is correct in pointing out that the Bible emphasizes that our covenant relationship to God and the final judgment is what is important (and not our individual justification), and in the end it is a judgment of our faithfulness, a "whole life lived" as Wright puts it (just look at the parable of the talents, for instance). Our immediate justification has to do with how we know we are in a right relationship with God, but that relationship requires repentance when we sin, it is not "once saved always saved". So how we live has everything to do with our salvation.

well NT Wright is wrong to make the "badge" the primary, and make justification the secondary. If he said both were issue fine, there was Jewish boasting, Rom 2:17, and 2:23, and other verses, but justification was primary.

 

[Frogster]

I'd disagree, a better understanding of the Jewish cultural context gives a different interpretation. To start with, the Torah never instructs all Gentiles to become circumcised or to become Jewish proselytes, or even how to become Jewish proselytes, so by rejecting what the circumcision group was asking in Acts 15:1, they were ruling against man-made traditions and upholding the Torah. As I said before, if the Torah had instructed all Gentiles to become circumcised, then the Jerusalem Council had no authority to countermand God. They couldn't add to or subtract from God's law (Deuteronomy 4:2), but only had the authority to make interpretations about how it was intended to be obeyed, and they upheld the Torah by correctly ruling that it did not intend for all Gentiles to become circumcised.

The Jews had an oral law or traditions of the elders (Mark 7:3-4), which consisted of traditions and rulings for how to keep the written law of the Torah and fences around it to protect it from being accidentally broken. For instance, when God commanded them not to do their work on the Sabbath, they had many rulings for what did and did not count as work, such as how far someone could walk. They traced the command for this back to Moses and they reasoned that you couldn't keep the Sabbath if you didn't have their traditions for how to keep the Sabbath, so they gave a greater importance to their own traditions than to the commands of God, which Jesus criticized them for (Mark 7:6-9). They would never have considered teaching someone how to keep the Sabbath without teaching their traditions for how to keep it, so all of this was wrapped up in their concept of what it meant to live according the custom of Moses (Acts 15:1). If you think about it, the Israelites would certainly have asked Moses for clarification for how to obey many of the laws out of the desire to obey in the right way, so Moses would have to had made rulings and started traditions for how to obey it. Whether the traditions that they had are the same ones that Moses started is a separate issue, but the point is that the Jews thought their traditions traced back to Moses.

So Paul was rejecting both that Gentiles had to follow their traditions and that they had follow the law in order to be saved, but he was not rejecting God's holy, righteous, and good law. He said our faith does not abolish the law, but rather that it upholds it (Romans 3:31). The heavy burden was their mountain of traditions for how to follow God's laws, not God's laws themselves. Jesus said his yoke or interpretation for how to follow the law easy and his burden was light and God said in Deuteronomy 30:11 that His commands were not too difficult for them. You can't find anywhere in the OT where anyone thought that God's laws were a heavy burden, but just the opposite. The Psalms are full of high praise for the law, especially 119, and considered the law to be a delight. The Jews frequently gave thanks to God for giving them the Torah as instructions for life, so they would never have considered it to be a heavy burden.



God gave the Torah to His chosen people, Israel, but Ephesians 2:12 and 2:19 say that Gentiles were once alienated from Israel, but are now fellow citizens. In 1 Peter 2:8-9, it says that Gentiles are no counted among God's chosen people, a holy nation, and a royal priesthood, so they should conduct themselves accordingly in compliance with God's instructions. In 1 Peter 1:13-16, it says that Gentiles should have a holy conduct, so how can Gentiles be a holy nation and have a holy conduct if they aren't supposed to follow any of God's instructions in the law for how to do that?

Jesus did not come to start a new religion, but rather he was born a Jew, became a Jewish rabbi, had Jewish disciples, and was the Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Jesus brought fullness to Judaism by teaching how to obey the Torah, by demonstrating through perfect sinlessness how it should be obeyed, by providing a means for salvation, and by including the Gentiles.

Red above, again, please show oral law in Acts 15. Other than 1 reference from Paul it is all about the law, unless you can show me an oral law argument from Paul in any of his writings.

When we first argued this, you said Paul was always fighting oral law, then you started to say written law too.

By the way, yes, the Torah did not command gentiles to convert, but if they wanted to keep feasts, they had to convert.

Exodus 12:48
When a stranger sojourning with you wishes to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.