If you relax the Law, you will be least in the kingdom of heaven?

tonychanyt said:

Mat 5:


The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 decided that there was no need for Christians to get circumcised. Did they not relax the circumcision law?

Click to expand...

The whole of Scripture is applicable context. (Which point, I'm sure, you will be getting to )

tonychanyt said:

An example of such Calvinism logical flaw is double predestination. Try to prove that double predestination is true strictly by FOL and you will see.

Click to expand...

As I'm guessing you are going to say that the flaw is in the lack of precision, and I'm guessing that the flaw in Calvinism's conclusion involves that lack of precision in meaning. Not sure FOL is needed to see that, but, ok. I'm curious to see how it falls out.

To be fair, I don't know what Calvinism teaches concerning double predestination. All I've heard are protests against what it might mean, and the discarding of the whole baby with the bathwater.

tonychanyt said:

Mat 5:


The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 decided that there was no need for Christians to get circumcised. Did they not relax the circumcision law?

Click to expand...

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 Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect purpose. The Jerusalem Council did not have the authority to countermand God, so they should not be interpreted as ruling against requiring circumcision for the purposes for which God commanded it, such as in Genesis 12:48, a Gentile is required to become circumcised in order to eat of the Passover lamb. If the Jerusalem Council had ruled against Gentiles becoming circumcised for the purposes for which God commanded, then that would have been an example of relaxing the least part of the law that Jesus warned against doing.

tonychanyt said:

Do you believe that God inspired the Book of Acts?

Click to expand...

Indeed.

tonychanyt said:

Mat 5:


The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 decided that there was no need for Christians to get circumcised. Did they not relax the circumcision law?

Click to expand...

What Paul says about circumcision of the heart ...

A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person's praise is not from other people, but from God.

EVERYTHING is fulfilled through Jesus and one being in Him receives everything He did as a gift ... and HE kept all laws perfectly. We are guilty but being in Christ we will be deemed not guilty (even though we are not) ... fully pardoned through Him.

tonychanyt said:

Acts 15: 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

Did the apostles countermand God in the above?

Click to expand...

No, though those verses are commonly interpreted as the Apostles doing that. If I interpreted a servant of God as saying that we should rebel against Him, then I should be quicker to think that I must have misunderstood them or to call into question whether they are a servant of God than to think that it is a good idea for me to promote rebellion against God. In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, so if the Apostles did that, then according to God we should consider them to be false prophets. Likewise, the Spirit does not have the role of leading us to rebel against the Father, but rather the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), so if the Apostles were teaching us to rebel against God, then that would be the clearest indication that their claim to have the approval of the Spirit was false. So if we are to believe that Acts was inspired by God, the we must reject the interpretation of those verses that they are speaking against obeying what God has commanded.

We should keep in mind that Acts 15:28-29 is obviously not an exhaustive list that limits which laws Gentiles should follow to only those four things because there are clearly other laws that Gentiles should follow, such as those listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, and Titus 3:1-3, the rest of the Ten Commandments, and the greatest two commandments. Moreover, if Gentiles should obey the greatest two commandments, then Gentiles should also obey all of the commandments that hang on them, so the position that Gentiles should obey the greatest two commandments is the position that Gentiles should obey the Mosaic Law.

In Acts 15:19-21, it makes it clear that it was not intended as an exhaustive list for mature Gentile believers, but rather it states that it was a list intended to avoid making things too difficult for new believers, which they excused by saying that Gentiles would continue to learn how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues. In other words, in order to avoid overwhelming new believers by holding them accountable to follow a large list of laws on day one they got everyone on the same page about which things should be taught right away and which things should be taught over time as they matured in their faith.

tonychanyt said:

reference?

Click to expand...

The is the way that I’ve seen people most commonly interpret it. For some reason it makes sense to people to interpret God’s word as speaking against following other parts of God’s word.

tonychanyt said:

So, you don't have a scholarly reference to support your claim: "those verses are commonly interpreted as the Apostles doing that."

Click to expand...

I'm speaking from my personal experience of spending decades discussing theology. I don't need to cite a scholarly source to speak about what has been a common experience.

tonychanyt said:

Let's focus. You claimed: "Those verses are commonly interpreted as the Apostles doing that."

Is your claim valid? This is the 2nd time I have asked. Who needs surveys and scholarly articles, right? My personal decades of experience is proof enough, right?

In your next reply, try not to overgeneralize based on your personal experience and jump to a kangaroo conclusion from your echo chamber if you can help it.

Click to expand...

That has been my experience, so my claim that that has been my experience is valid. I don't need surveys or scholarly articles to support my claim about what I've experienced. I'm not jumping to a kangaroo conclusion and I don't have an echo chamber, but rather I am simply speaking about what I have experienced.

tonychanyt said:

What about the Jerusalem Council? What did they say about circumcision?

Click to expand...

First practice of circumcision ... the penis was the part of the body Abraham was trusting instead of God’s promise. Confidence in the flesh had to be cut out so all Abraham believed in was God’s promise. In the New Testament Jesus went to the cross and crucified all of our flesh, so that we could live by faith in His promises and not in our self confidence.

For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Romans 8:3-4 NKJV

Click to expand...

When we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior and walk according to the teachings of Jesus ... EVERYTHING He did will be imputed unto us. We do get circumcised .... circumcision of the heart.

Romans 2

25Circumcision [the sign of the covenant of Abraham] is indeed of value if you practice the Law; but if you habitually break the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision [it is meaningless in God’s sight]. 26So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded [by God] as circumcision? 27Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps [the spirit of] the Law will judge you who, [l]even though you have the written code and circumcision, break the Law. 28For he is not a [real] Jew who is only one outwardly, nor is [true] circumcision something external and physical. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and [true] circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by [the fulfillment of] the letter [of the Law]. His praise is not from men, but from God.

The spirt of the law...

Love does not do away with the commandments. It is because we love God and others that we keep the commandments. I can’t say I love my neighbor if I lie about him/her and steal from him/her. Love fulfills the Spirit of the law ... love and consideration for God and others, while a sense of self preservation and selfishness fulfills only the letter of the law (futile).

We follow Jesus and His ways out of Love and for no other reason and that is the spirit of the law. Love is the motivation.

The clergy of the day focus was on written law (of which was impossible for them to keep ... same with us) .... they were not focusing on the true motivator ... which is Love .... they trusted in the system and themselves.

One can choose to be physically circumcised or not .... it has no bearing on salvation ... all is fulfilled in Christ.​

​