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

Studyman said:

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.

Click to expand...

Soyeong said:

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.

Click to expand...

under grace1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

under grace1 said:

Extraordinary.
Here we have a plain fact, the leaders of the first century church met to decide which of the laws of Moses Gentiles be asked to follow. Only four were mentioned. Years later, the leaders of the church confirmed to Paul they were STILL(STILL) only asking gentiles to follow the same four laws.
All indisputable, however, on the internet, only one commandment matters:
''Thou shalt not admit to error''
And so, your long post trying to overturn the plain words of the bible quoted to you.
Im sure you'd prefer for the credentials of the leaders of the first century church to be questioned, rather than admit to error.
Sad

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

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.

Click to expand...

Studyman said:

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.

Click to expand...

Soyeong said:

It is absurd to interpret Acts 15 as if they were debating whether followers of Christ should follow Christ and even if that was what they were debating, then followers of Christ should follow Christ instead of them. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so we should be quicker to disregard everything that any man has said than to disregard anything that God has commanded. If you interpret the authors of the Bible as speaking against obeying what God has commanded, then you should either conclude that you were in error to interpret them as doing that or that you were in error to consider them to be servants of God, but instead instead of admitting your error you are trying to project your unwillingness to admit error onto me. I've explained why I think that the way that you are interpreting Acts 15 is in error, but instead of interacting with what I've said in order to explain why you think that it is in error you are simply accusing me of being willing to admit error. I've admitted to being in error when I've been in error, but I don't admit error to anyone who has not interacted with what I've said to explain why it is in error.

Click to expand...

Bible Highlighter said:

Not many. But that does not mean there are no believers who are not faithful. One way for a believer to overcome a particular sin they may struggle with is properly understanding 2 Corinthians 10:5.

2 Corinthians 10:5
"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"

In 2 Corinthians 10:5, the word “imaginations” comes from the Greek word λογισμούς (logismous), the accusative plural form of λογισμός (logismos), as found in the Beza 1598 Greek text. The verse reads, λογισμοὺς καθαιροῦντες (“casting down imaginations”), referring to the overthrowing of human reasoning that opposes God. The Greek word λογισμός does not primarily mean imagination in the modern sense of fantasy or creativity, but rather thoughts, reasonings, arguments, or inward deliberations of the mind. It describes mental constructions or intellectual arguments that stand in opposition to the knowledge of God, which fits the context of spiritual warfare described in the passage.

Early lexicons (Before German Rationalism in the 1700s) support this understanding. Henricus Stephanus and later Scapula both define λογισμός in terms of reasoning, computation, or deliberation. These definitions show that the word refers to rational processes of the mind, especially arguments or conclusions formed through human reasoning.

It's important to understand this because you need to ask yourself the reasons (logic) behind doing the particular sin you are doing that you want to stop. For example, say you may struggle with a particular lustful sin. You may reason in your mind in the moment that this sin is not hurting anyone, and you believe it will give you pleasure in the moment to help relieve stress, loneliness, or some challenge in your life. But it does hurt others. It hurts your family, your neighbor, and most of all God. It will hurt you in the end.

However, most there in the United States believe you can sin and still be saved, although many of them will not openly admit it.

Most verses that talk about assurance of salvation are explained by the context that a believer cannot live in sin and still be saved. It just doesn't work like that. There are also many warnings in Scripture to be faithful, but they have either ignored them or found some oddball or unnatural explanation to explain them away. This is defended by the traditional trusted English Bible, and it is defended with its underlying Hebrew and Greek.


….

Click to expand...

Soyeong said:

Only if you ignore where they did that. There are not any passages that state that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, so I did not ignore them, but there are passage that say that Gentiles do not need to become circumcised in order to become saved/justified. You are ignoring the explicit teachings of the Bible and are manipulating it in order to turn it against following Christ's example of obedience to what God has commanded.

Click to expand...

under grace1 said:

Your post is meaningless, the plain words of the chapter on the subject are what matters:
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.

Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood verse20

So as sin is the transgression of the law, it is a plain fact, if you are correct, the leaders of the first century church, including Paul, Peter and James gave gentile converts a licence to sin. It really does not matter what you write, you cannot change that fact!

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

There are also no passages prohibiting Gentiles from using tobacco, marijuana, heroin, opium, etc., etc., all of which are much more relevant than removing some skin. The fact remains that the Council in Jerusalem specifically stated that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised (nor, I will add, perform all the commands of God, most of which you, yourself, do not obey).

Click to expand...

Soyeong said:

. I also wrote a post that you ignored that showed that Acts 15:19-21 was not given as an exhaustive list in order to limit which laws that Gentiles should follow, but as as starting point in order to avoid making things too difficult for new believers.

Click to expand...

under grace1 said:

To be honest, yes I do ignore it, for you have nothing to contradict the plain words of the bible. Its not my interpretation, its what is clearly written !!
And your emboldened simply proves my point!

Click to expand...

under grace1 said:

God's applicable laws are NOT(NOT) arbitrary, you cannot pick and choose which ones you follow and which ones you ignore, you cannot pick and choose whether you commit sin or not!!

Click to expand...

under grace1 said:

So Im afraid, it is an indisputable fact, if you are correct, the leaders of the first century church, including Peter, James and Paul gave gentiles a licence to sin. It really does not matter how much you write or reason, you cannot change that fact

Click to expand...

Soyeong said:

Everyone has an interpretation of the Bible........

Click to expand...

under grace1 said:

Don't need an interpretation, a child could understand it
You believe all possible of the mosaic laws are applicable law for the believer
The Jerusalem church only asked gentiles to follow four laws, years later they repeated that to Paul
Sin is the transgression of the law
Therefore, if you are correct, the first century church leaders gave gentiles a licence to sin
As I say, a child could understand it

Click to expand...

Soyeong said:

Everything form of communication requires interpretation regardless of how easy it is to understand and even children need to interpret things.

Either Acts 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list for Gentile believers or it does not, so it is contradictory to treat it as being an exhaustive list in order to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while also treating it as being being a non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously others laws that Gentiles should follow. Even a child could see that your position is contradictory.

For example, the Law of God reveals that it is a sin to beak the Sabbath, which means that if the Jerusalem Council that Gentiles gave permission to break the Sabbath, then they gave them permission to sin, which is your position, not mine. My position is that the Jerusalem Council required Gentiles to obey the Law of God, so they did not give them permission to sin.

Click to expand...

Soyeong said:

Everything form of communication requires interpretation regardless of how easy it is to understand and even children need to interpret things.

Either Acts 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list for Gentile believers or it does not, so it is contradictory to treat it as being an exhaustive list in order to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while also treating it as being being a non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously others laws that Gentiles should follow. Even a child could see that your position is contradictory.

For example, the Law of God reveals that it is a sin to beak the Sabbath, which means that if the Jerusalem Council that Gentiles gave permission to break the Sabbath, then they gave them permission to sin, which is your position, not mine. My position is that the Jerusalem Council required Gentiles to obey the Law of God, so they did not give them permission to sin.

Click to expand...

under grace1 said:

Where the mosaic law was concerned. only those four were required, how do I know? Because that's what the council decided!! And years later they confirmed it.
I do understand, to countenance error is unthinkable, especially for those who have studied much. There is a comfort, security in believing you know the truth and have accepted it. So although Im simply giving you the plain words of the bible, that need no interpretation, you must argue against them, nothing else you can do

Click to expand...

under grace1 said:

BTW
The new covenant is a spiritual covenant, and under its core terms God Himself writes applicable law in the mind of a believer and places it on their heart. What is in your mind you in your mind must know, the law placed in your heart, must bring heartfelt consciousness of sin if you wilfully transgress it(Rom3:20) Indeed, Paul tells us, if we have never known of biblical law we can show the requirements(not some of the requirements) of the law are written in our hearts, obviously by the way we act.(Rom2:14&15) This confirms the core foundation upon which the new covenant stands.
How much of the mosaic law would you have known by instinct if you had never known of biblical law?

Click to expand...