• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Two Aspects of Salvation (Believers Need to Be Concerned With):

under grace1

Active Member
Jan 20, 2026
135
25
67
Worcester
✟2,454.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Maybe these 4 things the Apostles pointed out, knowing they would find God's other instructions in righteousness through Moses.........

I completely disagree with your "4 Law" philosophy, based on what is actually written in Scriptures. It would be a great topic of study for those seeking honor, glory and immortality.

I hope you might re-consider the message the Spirit of Christ was sending through Acts 15.
Im afraid I could not reconsider what is plainly written. The council was NOT discussing the moral law, but the law of Moses, of rite, ritual and ceremony. There was much debate, there would have been no debate concerning murder, adultery, stealing would there, an instant decision would have been made! Im afraid, the truth is, whether people accept it or not, as sin is the transgression of the law, if you are correct, by the leaders of the church only asking gentiles to follow four laws, it is an indisputable fact they gave gentiles a licence to sin, no way around that Im afraid
And your emboldened is proved to be false by Acts21:25 Years after the Jerusalem council the leaders of the church confirmed to Paul they were STILL(STILL) only asking gentiles to follow the same four laws, none had been added.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
31,475
14,130
74
✟449,657.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Are you arguing that Paul spoke against circumcision for any reason? Paul saying that what matters is obeying the commands of God sure does not sound like he should be interpreted as speaking against obeying the commands of God, though there is room for him to speak against obeying then for incorrect reasons.

Paul also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we obey the Law of God (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent value and its value is entirely derived from whether we obey the Law of Moses. Someone being physically circumcised is a sign of them having a circumcised heart, which is evident by their obedience to the Law of Moses, so physical circumcision only has value insofar as what it is a sign of is true.



In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message that Peter argued that Gentiles had heard and believed in Acts 15:6-7, so he was agreeing who the Pharisees from among the believers in Acts 15:5. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Law of Moses, which is in accordance with Peter arguing in Acts 15:8-9 that Gentiles had received the Spirit and had their hearts cleansed, so again he was agreeing with the Pharisees among the believers. In Psalm 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith, which is why Peter argued in Acts 15:10-11 that Gentiles are saved by grace just as we are, so again, he was agreeing with the Pharisees from among the believers. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses and word and by example and no one there was arguing that Gentile followers of Christ shouldn't follow Christ, but rather the topic that they were discussing was the means of salvation, where Peter argued in favor of Gentiles being saved by grace just as we are (Acts 15:11) against the men from Judea who are arguing that Gentiles are required to become circumcised in order to become saved (Acts 15:1).


Indeed, sin is the transgression of the Law of God, so the people who are interpreted Acts 15 as ruling that Gentiles shouldn't follow over 99% of what Christ taught are the ones who are arguing that the Jerusalem Council gave Gentiles a license to sin. The position that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded is fundamentally basic to Christianity whereas the positions that needs to be justified is interpreting servants of God in a way that turns them against obeying what God has commanded.

In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying the Law of Moses, so it is either incorrect to interpret the authors of the Jerusalem Council as doing that or they were false prophets, but either way followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to the Law of Moses. If you think that the Jerusalem Council were servants of God, then you should be opposed to interpreting them as speaking against obeying the Law of Moses, and if you think that they should be interpreted as speaking against obeying the Law of Moses, then you should be opposed to considering them to be servants of God, but Deuteronomy 13 does not leave room for anyone to take the position that the Jerusalem Council were servants of God while also thinking that they should be interpreted as speaking against obeying what He has commanded.
Thank for your curious subterfuge. The bottom line is that you do not have any New Testament scripture commanding Gentiles to be circumcised; rather you ignore the various passages which explicitly state that Gentile believers do not need to be circumcised. As for myself, I prefer to believe the explicit teachings of the Bible as opposed to those that might possibly determined by implicit manipulation of scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Studyman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
2,846
778
66
Michigan
✟538,139.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Im afraid I could not reconsider what is plainly written. The council was NOT discussing the moral law, but the law of Moses, of rite, ritual and ceremony.

I know this is what we were taught since our youth, by "Many" who come in Christ's Name. But the reason why I don't adopt this preaching, is because to do so, I would have to ignore and consider as a false teaching, "Every Word" Jesus and the entire Law and Prophets, and Paul himself taught about the Pharisees, or as Paul called it, the "Jews Religion". To believe you, I would have to completely reject the Words of Jesus I posted for your examination, that you completely ignored as if they didn't exist. I would have to believe that the Pharisees we trying to place on the necks of the Disciples as they did their fathers, God's Laws, and not the Commandments of men the Pharisees taught for doctrines, according to Jesus Himself. I would have to believe that Jesus lied about the Jews religion Paul used to partake of, when HE said they full well rejected God's Commandments that they might live by and promote their own religious traditions. I would have to believe that the "Yoke" these Jews were trying to place on the necks of the Disciples, that led their fathers astray, was not the "heavy burdens and grievous to be borne", Jesus said the Pharisees laid "on men's shoulders". But I would have to believe it was God's Laws that caused all the problems for Israel, and it was God's Laws that caused the Jews to murder the Prophets, and Jesus, and Stephen, and it was God's Laws that was being debated in Acts 15 that the Apostles rejected.

I would also have to consider a Lie, every Inspired Word of God throughout the entire Law and Prophets that taught about the Jews religion.

If I did that, and created my own religion like the Pharisees did, then I could sell a license to Sin as the Pharisees were doing, and create a huge religious business, because let's face it, a license to sin would be a great religious marketing tool to grow a religious business.

But if I don't reject or consider as a Lie, the Christ's Words, or Paul's, or the rest of the entire Bible, I would know that the debate was about the Pharisees religion, the Pharisees traditions that they claimed was the Law of Moses, but was not. I would know, because I believe in the Jesus "of the Bible", that the Jews DIDN'T believe Moses. And I would understand that the "Yoke" the mainstream preachers of that time were trying place on the Disciples shoulders, the same Yoke they placed on their fathers shoulders, was not "The Law of Moses" that Jesus said to observe and do. But were traditions, high days and judgments of men, men who despised God's Judgments, rejected His Commandments, Polluted His Sabbaths and who were going about to establish their own righteousness, having not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God".

The Pharisees had created their own religion, and with it a license to sin, no different than in Isaiah 1:7-20, or the wicked Kings of Israel. And the Jesus "of the Bible" Himself warns of a future were "Many", who call Him Lord, Lord, will still be selling license to sin.

So any religious philosophy that teaches Jesus, or Paul or Peter, or any of the Holy Scriptures were selling a license to sin, my advice for those who hear them, is to run, not walk away from this teaching, and listen to Paul's teaching to both Jew and Gentile;

Rom. 6: 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but "yield yourselves" unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

And again;

2 Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Christ came to teach people to repent from sin, and "go and sin no more", He didn't come to sell a license to sin, at least not according to Scriptures.
 
Upvote 0