Faith alone is required for salvation & You're not under Mosaic law!

FaithWillDo said:

Dear Thuycidides,
We are justified by faith and that faith is proven when Christ performs "works" of faith through us. And as you said, we are not yet fully saved. To be fully saved, we must be justified by FAITH, sanctified by TRUTH and GLORIFIED with a spiritual body like Christ's. That is a long process and takes up until we are resurrected from sleep (the grave).

However, in God's eyes, we are saved after receive the Latter Rain of the Spirit BECAUSE God calleth things that are not as though they were.

Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

God can do this because His word that goes out from His mouth will not come back void. For God, once He says anything, it is certain to happen.

Here is another teaching from Christ on the Early and Latter Rain. This teaching is how the Early and Latter Rain relate to when a believer comes out from under the Law.

John 8:3-10 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

Isa 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

From the very start of Adam’s creation, his marriage relationship with God was based upon faith. However, Adam was created spiritually weak, spiritually blind & carnal. Because of these flaws, Adam soon sinned by committing adultery with Satan (believing Satan instead of God). Rather than going to God in faith and asking for forgiveness, Adam turned to the ways of Satan and tried to hide (apron of fig leaves, filthy rags) his adultery through his own “works”. If Adam would have come to God in faith and simply asked for forgiveness, he would have been forgiven and the marriage relationship would have been restored. But Adam turned to his own works and strayed from approaching God by faith alone. Because of Adam’s adultery with Satan, the marriage ended and God cast him out of the Garden. Ever since that time, God has been working to restore His marriage relationship with mankind.

In the story from John 8:3-10, the woman represents Adam (all mankind). When Christ first writes in the earth it represents the time when He writes His law in our hearts.

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

It is the time of the Early Rain when we are “called out” by Christ to be restored to the Father by faith. However, Satan quickly comes to us and deceives us because we remain spiritually blind. Because of his deception, we fall away from faith alone and mix in our own works. This is the sin that leads to death and we remain under the Law. Because this happens, the Pharisees do not drop the stones after Christ first writes in the earth. The Law is still accusing us.

Then in verse 8, Christ stoops down a second time and writes His Law upon our hearts a second time (the Latter Rain). It is at this point that Christ heals our spiritual blindness and we come out from Satan’s deception. We begin to walk by faith alone and as a result, the Law can no longer accuse us. After this change from Law to Faith, the Pharisees drop their stones and leave. The Law is no longer accuses the woman (mankind) and we are restored to God.

Joe

Click to expand...

Thuycidides said:

"As I showed, Hebrews 7:12 is speaking about a change in the law in regard to its administration, not in regard to its content."

When I read in Scripture that the law is changed, because the priesthood is changed, under which that law was received, because the Covenant was changed, by which that priesthood was made,...then I see the whole law being changed with the whole priesthood under that law and the whole Covenant by that law.

Nevertheless: "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." (Gal 5)

Whether you want to parse difference in 'content' and 'admin' of law of Moses or not, you are still debtor to do the whole law, both 'content' and 'admin', which means every single carnal ordinance, as well as priestly sacrifice.

Now, if the 'whole law' does not mean the whole law, but can be likewise parsed into pieces thereof, be my guest.

God always has a way by Scripture of confounding the false and only confirming the true.

Click to expand...

Not to be picky or anything, but I am a stickler for accuracy where Scripture is concerned, and it was not the Mosaic Covenant, but the Covenant of God with Israel, having the law of Moses therein. And the Covenant of Christ has the law of Christ therein.

I think you are exposing yourself with a little too much Mosaic tapestry when reading the Scriptures. (2 Cor 3:13-15)

You need to get rid of his vail from over your face and see Jesus, His faith, His Covenant, and His law only.

Click to expand...

"

I.e. God's righteousness and true holiness never changes, because He changes not.

However, His law pertaining to righteousness does and has changed. To break any law of Moses, not matter in what point, was to break all of it, as is the case with the law of Christ. (James 2:10)

Therefore, all the law of God by Moses was His righteousness written down for His Covenant. To violate any point was to be judged an unrighteous transgressor before God according to the law.

God's law pertaining to priestly temple service and worship had everything to do with His righteousness. That 'content' of law of priestly service was written specifically to ensure the people of God that had sinned would obtain mercy.

If they did not sacrifice as prescribed by law, they were not justified with God. They were counted as sinners without mercy. So much so, that the one who illegally touched the ark was killed by God, even as a wicked man is killed. (2 Sam 6)

All the law of Moses, the whole law of Moses was worthy of the label of 'content of righteousness'.

There is absolutely no scripture to suggest otherwise. It is construct of your own making. The whole law of Moses was changed for the whole law of Christ, to say otherwise is to say God's law is not whole. God's law is whole and complete and righteous altogether (Psalms 19), and He changed His whole law of Moses for His whole law of Christ.

And if you declare the law of circumcision by the law of Moses to be still law of God, then you are debtor to do the whole law of Moses.

The Judaizers cared nothing for the salvation of the souls they were persuading to keep the law of Moses as they. They only cared about keep company with 'Mosaic' law keepers, if they were to have anything to do with them in the Covenant of God.

For if they did care for their souls in the faith and blood of the Lamb, then they would not have been trying to compel them into falling from grace of God by Christ Jesus.

You are playing the part of Christian Judaizer insisting on law of Moses to still be law of God, in any part, and so we must keep it as such, but just don't think it is saving you. And since you are the one who knows difference between 'moral content' and 'admin only' parts, then we need you to tell us exactly which is which.

Right.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in the Bible that states that Jesus establish his own set of laws after the resurrection."

"Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen." (Acts 1)

Why give commandments to His apostles, if they were already written in the law of Moses.

Jesus' doctrine was given by Him to His apostles personally to give to us as the foundation of Christ in the New Covenant (1 Cor 3:11). It is the apostles' doctrine we are to be steadfast in, not that of Moses. (Acts 2:42)

"If God was free to change His law on whim..."

And so the crucifixion of His only begotten Son on the cross to redeem mankind from sin, was a whim...

You see, your own words condemn you, as you try and push a Judaism that is not true.

This is a plain example of how many people today think Jesus' crucifixion so long ago in matter of years, was merely a blip on the video-screen of man's history.

Oh yes, and God is free to do anything He wants, so long as He does not violate His own Word, promise, and law that is still in effect.

He could become a man if He wanted to, and he did. Your refusal to be done with Mosaic tapestry over your face is akin to the refusal of some to even consider God the Son, rather than the son being created to do some good things on earth, and then to be deified and rewarded with immortality afterward.

Click to expand...

Soyeong said:

Laws for how to testify about God's nature is straightforwardly based on God's nature, not on a particular covenant or priesthood, so any number of priesthoods or covenants could be changed, but as long as God's nature remains the same, then all of God's laws for how to testify about His nature will also remain the same. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law both by word and by example, so Galatians 5 should not be misinterpreted as Paul warning us against following Christ, but rather his problem was with Judaizers who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified, which was the whole law that he was referring to. God's laws are not carnal, but rather they are spiritual (Romans 7:14), while it is the carnal works that are against them. For example, in Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have carnal minds who refuse to submit to God's law, and in Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as carnal work that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic Law, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it. God's law is truth (Psalms 119:142) and nothing in Scripture should be interpreted as speaking against following the truth.



That's a common naming convention that essentially means the same thing as what you said.

Everything that Christ taught by word and by example was how to obey the Law of Moses, so it wouldn't make sense to think that the Law of Christ was referring to something other than what Christ taught. Likewise, Christ is one with the Father, so it is contradictory to think that the Law of Christ is something other than the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses.

The veil was preventing Jews who read the Mosaic Law from seeing that the goal of everything in it was to testify about how to have a relationship with Christ, though it is a veil that is still preventing Gentiles from seeing the same thing. In Joh 5:39-40, Jesus said that they searched the Scriptures because they think that in them they will find eternal life, and they testify about him, yet they refuse to come to him that they might have life. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments, so eternal life can be found in the Scriptures and they were correct to search for it there, but they needed to realize that the goal of everything in Scripture was to testify about how to have a relationship with Christ and come enter into a relationship with him for eternal life. In Romans 9:30-10:4, they had zeal for God, but it was not based on knowledge because they did not understand that a relationship with Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith, so they failed to attain righteousness because they pursue the law as though righteousness were by works in an effort to establish their own instead of pursuing the law as though righteousness were by faith in Christ. In John 17:3, eternal life is knowing God and Christ, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell worker of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so again a relationship with Christ is the goal of the Mosaic Law. In Philippians 3:8, Paul had been in the same boat where he had been keeping the law, but without having a focus on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law and counted it all as rubbish.



It is contradictory to say that laws for how to testify about God's righteousness can change while God's righteousness never changes. If we break any law and become a lawbreaker, then we need to repent and to return to obedience through faith, which is what James 2:1-11 was encouraging them to do. I agree that all the law of Moses is worthy of the label of 'content of righteousness' and have said nothing contrary to that. The Law of Christ is simply the way that Christ taught how to obey the Law of Moses.

In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. So the Jerusalem Council upheld the Law of Moses by correcting ruling against that requirement, and ruling that was only against something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against circumcision being part of the Law of God. I completely agree with Paul's stance against the Judaizers and have never stated that we need to become circumcised in order to become saved.

In Isaiah 45:17, it says that all Israel will be saved, which led some Jews to think that Gentiles needed to become circumcised in order to become Jews in order to become part of Israel in order to become saved, so they wanted Gentiles to become circumcised precisely because they wanted Gentiles to become saved, so while they were mistaken in thinking that circumcision is a requirement for Gentiles to become saved, you are also mistaken in thinking that they cared nothing for the salvation of of those who they were trying to persuade the obey the Law of Moses. Our salvation is from sin and the Mosaic Law is how we know what sin is, so it is contradictory for someone to think that they need salvation from living in transgression of the Mosaic Law while also thinking that they don't need to live in obedience to it. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, so that is what it means to be under grace, not the way to fall from grace. It would be absurd to think that David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from grace, but rather teaching against obeying the Law of Moses is teaching leading people to fall from grace.

I have said nothing about the moral content being different from the admin only content. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of the Law of Moses are inherently moral laws.



There is nothing that states that the commandments that he gave them in Acts 1:2 were different from what he commanded during his ministry or that they were a completely different set of laws. In Acts 2:38, when Peter told his performantly Jewish audience to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, the Mosaic Law was how they knew what sin is, so Acts 2:42 is not referring to teaching something other than the Mosaic Law. I did not say that the crucifix of His only begotten Son on the cross to redeem mankind from sin was on whim, so those are not my words, and they do not condemn me. God's law is truth (Psalms 119:142), Jesus is the same truth (John 14:6), and this is the truth that I teach. I have said nothing to diminish the significance of the resurrection or of God the Son.

Click to expand...

Soyeong said:

Laws for how to testify about God's nature is straightforwardly based on God's nature, not on a particular covenant or priesthood, so any number of priesthoods or covenants could be changed, but as long as God's nature remains the same, then all of God's laws for how to testify about His nature will also remain the same. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law both by word and by example, so Galatians 5 should not be misinterpreted as Paul warning us against following Christ, but rather his problem was with Judaizers who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified, which was the whole law that he was referring to. God's laws are not carnal, but rather they are spiritual (Romans 7:14), while it is the carnal works that are against them. For example, in Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have carnal minds who refuse to submit to God's law, and in Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as carnal work that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic Law, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it. God's law is truth (Psalms 119:142) and nothing in Scripture should be interpreted as speaking against following the truth.



That's a common naming convention that essentially means the same thing as what you said.

Everything that Christ taught by word and by example was how to obey the Law of Moses, so it wouldn't make sense to think that the Law of Christ was referring to something other than what Christ taught. Likewise, Christ is one with the Father, so it is contradictory to think that the Law of Christ is something other than the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses.

The veil was preventing Jews who read the Mosaic Law from seeing that the goal of everything in it was to testify about how to have a relationship with Christ, though it is a veil that is still preventing Gentiles from seeing the same thing. In Joh 5:39-40, Jesus said that they searched the Scriptures because they think that in them they will find eternal life, and they testify about him, yet they refuse to come to him that they might have life. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments, so eternal life can be found in the Scriptures and they were correct to search for it there, but they needed to realize that the goal of everything in Scripture was to testify about how to have a relationship with Christ and come enter into a relationship with him for eternal life. In Romans 9:30-10:4, they had zeal for God, but it was not based on knowledge because they did not understand that a relationship with Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith, so they failed to attain righteousness because they pursue the law as though righteousness were by works in an effort to establish their own instead of pursuing the law as though righteousness were by faith in Christ. In John 17:3, eternal life is knowing God and Christ, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell worker of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so again a relationship with Christ is the goal of the Mosaic Law. In Philippians 3:8, Paul had been in the same boat where he had been keeping the law, but without having a focus on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law and counted it all as rubbish.



It is contradictory to say that laws for how to testify about God's righteousness can change while God's righteousness never changes. If we break any law and become a lawbreaker, then we need to repent and to return to obedience through faith, which is what James 2:1-11 was encouraging them to do. I agree that all the law of Moses is worthy of the label of 'content of righteousness' and have said nothing contrary to that. The Law of Christ is simply the way that Christ taught how to obey the Law of Moses.

In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. So the Jerusalem Council upheld the Law of Moses by correcting ruling against that requirement, and ruling that was only against something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against circumcision being part of the Law of God. I completely agree with Paul's stance against the Judaizers and have never stated that we need to become circumcised in order to become saved.

In Isaiah 45:17, it says that all Israel will be saved, which led some Jews to think that Gentiles needed to become circumcised in order to become Jews in order to become part of Israel in order to become saved, so they wanted Gentiles to become circumcised precisely because they wanted Gentiles to become saved, so while they were mistaken in thinking that circumcision is a requirement for Gentiles to become saved, you are also mistaken in thinking that they cared nothing for the salvation of of those who they were trying to persuade the obey the Law of Moses. Our salvation is from sin and the Mosaic Law is how we know what sin is, so it is contradictory for someone to think that they need salvation from living in transgression of the Mosaic Law while also thinking that they don't need to live in obedience to it. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, so that is what it means to be under grace, not the way to fall from grace. It would be absurd to think that David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from grace, but rather teaching against obeying the Law of Moses is teaching leading people to fall from grace.

I have said nothing about the moral content being different from the admin only content. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of the Law of Moses are inherently moral laws.



There is nothing that states that the commandments that he gave them in Acts 1:2 were different from what he commanded during his ministry or that they were a completely different set of laws. In Acts 2:38, when Peter told his performantly Jewish audience to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, the Mosaic Law was how they knew what sin is, so Acts 2:42 is not referring to teaching something other than the Mosaic Law. I did not say that the crucifix of His only begotten Son on the cross to redeem mankind from sin was on whim, so those are not my words, and they do not condemn me. God's law is truth (Psalms 119:142), Jesus is the same truth (John 14:6), and this is the truth that I teach. I have said nothing to diminish the significance of the resurrection or of God the Son.

Click to expand...

Thuycidides said:

"Laws for how to testify about God's nature is straightforwardly based on God's nature, not on a particular covenant or priesthood, so any number of priesthoods or covenants could be changed, but as long as God's nature remains the same, then all of God's laws for how to testify about His nature will also remain the same."

So you are saying though there has been a change in the Covenant of God from the Old to the New, and of the priesthood of God from the Levitical to that of Jesus and His saints, but there has been no change of His eternal law, which is of Moses in the Old, also called of Christ in the New?

Click to expand...

Thuycidides said:

"In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. So the Jerusalem Council upheld the Law of Moses by correcting ruling against that requirement"

Clarify please:

God never commanded circumcision as a requirement for future salvation in Christ?

Judaizers were therefore mistakenly demanding circumcision in order to be accepted as fellow believers and citizens in the commonwealth of Israel, i.e. to be saved by their Messiah?

Which error the apostles corrected by declaring circumcision unnecessary for salvation?

"and ruling that was only against something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against circumcision being part of the Law of God."

However, they still upheld the law of Moses, because they were not saying circumcision was not law of Moses?

I.e. Circumcision is law of Moses, which ought be obeyed as all law of God, but is not requirement for salvation in Christ Jesus, as is not any law of God, which would be salvation by works?

Click to expand...

Soyeong said:

Correct.



Salvation by works is the idea that we can earn our salvation by our obedience to God's law, however, there can be reasons for obeying God's law other than trying to earn our salvation, especially because God's law was never given as a means of doing that, so verses that speak against that should not be mistaken as speaking against our salvation requiring our obedience to God's law for some other reason, such as faith. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law, so only those who have faith will obey it and will be justified by the same faith, which is why Paul could say in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified while also denying in Romans 4:4-5 that our justification is something that can be earned.

God commanded circumcision as a sign of the Abraham Covenant, not as a means of earning our salvation. Some Jews mistakenly understood Isaiah 45:17 as saying that they were saved simply because they were circumcised and therefore part of Israel, however, in Romans 2:25-29, Paul countered this position by saying that circumcision has value if we obey God's law, that if they don't keep the law, then their circumcision becomes uncircumcision, that the way to recognize that a Gentile has circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to God's law, that Gentiles who keep the law will condemn those who are physically circumcised, but don't keep the law, and that Jews need to be both outwardly and inwardly circumcised. Speaking against circumcision being required for the wrong reason is not speaking against circumcision being part of the Law of Moses.

Click to expand...

Soyeong said:

Correct.



Salvation by works is the idea that we can earn our salvation by our obedience to God's law, however, there can be reasons for obeying God's law other than trying to earn our salvation, especially because God's law was never given as a means of doing that, so verses that speak against that should not be mistaken as speaking against our salvation requiring our obedience to God's law for some other reason, such as faith. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law, so only those who have faith will obey it and will be justified by the same faith, which is why Paul could say in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified while also denying in Romans 4:4-5 that our justification is something that can be earned.

God commanded circumcision as a sign of the Abraham Covenant, not as a means of earning our salvation. Some Jews mistakenly understood Isaiah 45:17 as saying that they were saved simply because they were circumcised and therefore part of Israel, however, in Romans 2:25-29, Paul countered this position by saying that circumcision has value if we obey God's law, that if they don't keep the law, then their circumcision becomes uncircumcision, that the way to recognize that a Gentile has circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to God's law, that Gentiles who keep the law will condemn those who are physically circumcised, but don't keep the law, and that Jews need to be both outwardly and inwardly circumcised. Speaking against circumcision being required for the wrong reason is not speaking against circumcision being part of the Law of Moses.

Click to expand...

Soyeong said:

Correct.



Salvation by works is the idea that we can earn our salvation by our obedience to God's law, however, there can be reasons for obeying God's law other than trying to earn our salvation, especially because God's law was never given as a means of doing that, so verses that speak against that should not be mistaken as speaking against our salvation requiring our obedience to God's law for some other reason, such as faith. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law, so only those who have faith will obey it and will be justified by the same faith, which is why Paul could say in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified while also denying in Romans 4:4-5 that our justification is something that can be earned.

God commanded circumcision as a sign of the Abraham Covenant, not as a means of earning our salvation. Some Jews mistakenly understood Isaiah 45:17 as saying that they were saved simply because they were circumcised and therefore part of Israel, however, in Romans 2:25-29, Paul countered this position by saying that circumcision has value if we obey God's law, that if they don't keep the law, then their circumcision becomes uncircumcision, that the way to recognize that a Gentile has circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to God's law, that Gentiles who keep the law will condemn those who are physically circumcised, but don't keep the law, and that Jews need to be both outwardly and inwardly circumcised. Speaking against circumcision being required for the wrong reason is not speaking against circumcision being part of the Law of Moses.

Click to expand...

RickReads said:

By the act of Circumcision, the Galatians had become Proselytes of the Jews who were corrupting them.
They had in fact committed themselves to the law of Moses. That was the Galatian error not the act of circumcision itself.

Click to expand...

Soyeong said:

Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he still would have taught full obedience to it by example even if he had said nothing, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). Furthermore, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel message, which was a light to the Gentiles (Matthew 4:15-23), and which he prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14). So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and Galatians should not be interpreted as Paul warning them against following Christ, but rather Paul's problem was with those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified.

For example, in Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man-made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. So the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded, as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God. It should be ridiculous to think that the Galatian error was that they were being corrupted by obeying God's commands in accordance with the example that Christ set for them to follow, especially when all throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to His commands. God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7, Nehemiah 9:13).

Click to expand...

RickReads said:

Save this one for Christians who don`t know their Bible or their history. I don`t think I can respond to these remarks without breaking a few of the rules that are protecting you from the criticism you deserve.

Click to expand...

Soyeong said:

God's word should not be interpreted as speaking against obeying God's word.

Click to expand...