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

under grace1 · 2026-02-09T00:45:58-0600

Soyeong said:
I have no problem with admitting to error when I am shown to be in error, but the way to show that I am in error is not by ignoring my arguments.

The following, more than once has been addressed and proved incorrect:

'''''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.''''''

As I have the plain text, and you do not regarding the verses, I do not feel obliged to go down rabbit holes so you may avoid what is plainly written

under grace1 · 2026-02-09T00:49:14-0600

Soyeong said:
In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so if someone does not want to obey the Mosaic Law, then they also do not want to come under the New Covenant. In Romans 2:14-15, Paul notably did not tell us that if we have never known of biblical law we can show the requirements of the law are written on our hearts, but rather it says in regard to believing Gentiles that they will be nature be doers of the Mosaic Law even though they don't have physical possession it.

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) Rom2:14&15

You cannot hide from, or be in ignorance of law placed in your most inward parts, law that is in your heart and mind. And such law will carry far more conviction than an external law written in ink ever will

under grace1 · 2026-02-09T00:52:28-0600

Bible Highlighter said:
So your claim is that you do not have to keep the commands from Jesus and His followers and that you can sin and still be saved all because you are saved by a belief alone on Jesus?

....

Don't you understand the new covenant?
'been on another website, some sadly continually make ''pat statements'' that bear no reflection to theirs or anyone elses lives. That's a shallow form of christianity, and one that does not speak of understanding the truth of the message, it could also be called hypocrisy

Bible Highlighter · 2026-02-09T01:19:50-0600

under grace1 said:
Don't you understand the new covenant?
'been on another website, some sadly continually make ''pat statements'' that bear no reflection to theirs or anyone elses lives. That's a shallow form of christianity, and one that does not speak of understanding the truth of the message, it could also be called hypocrisy

My question was really simple. You can either say "yes," or "no."
There is no need to get defensive and assert anything about what I believe or know.
I was asking a question to figure out what you believe so I know how to answer you with Scripture.
If that is not your thing and you prefer to play the mystery card, then that is on you.

Side Note:

Oh, and I merely ask this question because that is what many Christians believe on some level here in the United States.

...

under grace1 · 2026-02-09T01:24:39-0600

Bible Highlighter said:
My question was really simple. You can either say "yes," or "no."
There is no need to get defensive and assert anything about what I believe or know.
I was asking a question to figure out what you believe so I know how to answer you with Scripture.
If that is not your thing and you prefer to play the mystery card, then that is on you.

Side Note:

I merely ask this question because that is what many Christians believe on some level in the United States.

...

Oh Im not getting defensive at all, only your question speaks of not understanding the new covenant
Under its core terms, God writes the law in your mind and places it on your heart/applicable law. Meaning, in a believers mind they know how God wants them to live and in their heart they want to live that way
So, if they have no righteousness of obeying the law, they have no licence to sin do they!
And I don't think you addressed my point.
No one faultlessly obeys the letter of thou shalt NOT, we all stand guilty before that letter, the law Paul termed the letter that kills the ministry of death and condemnation
Neither have I ever met one person who even tried to obey each and every literal command of Christ in the gospels
So if you were to say, we must obey all of Christ's commands and nine out of ten of the TC if we wish to attain to Heaven, you yourself will be held accountable to that standard on judgement day(Matt7:2)

Humble-Servant · 2026-02-09T04:22:29-0600

Bible Highlighter said:
While technically there are four aspects of salvation (Provisional Atonement, God’s grace, Sanctification, and Glorification - See here) there are only two aspects of salvation we as believers need to be primarily concerned with in this life.

For the Bible teaches:

1st aspect of salvation:

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

2nd aspect of salvation:

2 Thessalonians 2:13-14
13 “…God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel,…”

This is not Calvinism by any means. Man has free will to either accept or reject God, but this happens when God illuminates the truth to a person at the right time or times in their life (Under the drawing of Christ and the conviction of the Spirit). For even Lydia’s heart was opened to understand Paul’s message. In other words, a person cannot believe without the working of God in their life to make that happen. But a person will know of the truth at the right time God chooses them to know the truth. It is up to the individual if they accept or reject the truth (See: 2 Thessalonians 2:10).

But there is only two steps we need to be concerned with (According to the Bible).
Grace and Sanctification (Which are by faith).

Side Note:

We are washed of our sins when we are first saved by God’s grace.
But we must be washed a second time.

Leviticus 13:58
”And the garment, either warp, or woof, or whatsoever thing of skin it be, which thou shalt wash, if the plague be departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and shall be clean.”

Revelation 7:14
”And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”

That's quite a long list of requirements for salvation, it's almost like trying to memorise a Microsoft excel formular. The gospel message is very simple, believe on the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved.

Soyeong · 2026-02-09T09:10:24-0600

under grace1 said:
The following, more than once has been addressed and proved incorrect:

'''''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.''''''

As I have the plain text, and you do not regarding the verses, I do not feel obliged to go down rabbit holes so you may avoid what is plainly written

No, you have have consistently ignored my argument and that I am in complete agreement with the plain text.

under grace1 said:
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) Rom2:14&15

You cannot hide from, or be in ignorance of law placed in your most inward parts, law that is in your heart and mind. And such law will carry far more conviction than an external law written in ink ever will

The Law of Moses written on our hearts has the same content as the Law of Moses written on stone.

under grace1 · 2026-02-09T09:32:05-0600

Soyeong said:
No, you have have consistently ignored my argument and that I am in complete agreement with the plain text.

The Law of Moses written on our hearts has the same content as the Law of Moses written on stone.

Really?

'''''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.''''''

My response:
''''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!!
And your argument fails anyway, as I keep telling you, for years later 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!"
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''''

You wrote:

''''The Law of Moses written on our hearts has the same content as the Law of Moses written on stone.''''

Therefore, if you understood the outworking of the new covenant at its core, no one could be in a saved state unless they had heartfelt consciousness of sin at failing to follow what you believe is applicable law, IF
(IF) you were correct

Soyeong · 2026-02-09T14:54:13-0600

under grace1 said:
Really?

'''''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.''''''

My response:
''''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!!
And your argument fails anyway, as I keep telling you, for years later 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!"
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''''

Indeed, that still being the starting point for new believers is perfectly in accordance with my position. Do you think that it is an exhaustive list for mature believers?

under grace1 · 2026-02-09T15:32:55-0600

Soyeong said:
Indeed, that still being the starting point for new believers is perfectly in accordance with my position. Do you think that it is an exhaustive list for mature believers?

Its an exhaustive list of the Mosaic law! And I had better add, most differentiate between the mosaic law, often termed the legalistic law of rite, ritual and ceremony, and the moral law, mainly of the two greatest commandments and the ten commandments.
But as that is your starting point, as sin is the transgression of the law, it is an indisputable fact, if you are correct, the leaders of the first century church gave gentiles a licence to sin. And I repeat, you have no way around that.
And BTW, in 1Cor ch8 Paul said there is nothing wrong with eating food offered to idols, one of the four laws given, confirming what most believe, three of the laws were only given to bring unity at the meeting

Soyeong · 2026-02-09T16:17:12-0600

under grace1 said:
Its an exhaustive list of the Mosaic law! And I had better add, most differentiate between the mosaic law, often termed the legalistic law of rite, ritual and ceremony, and the moral law, mainly of the two greatest commandments and the ten commandments.

The Mosaic Law has 613 commandments, ten of which are the Ten Commandments and two of which are the greatest two commandments, so you have no grounds of separating them out. The Bible makes not attempt to list which laws are part of the ceremonial law or the moral law and never even refers to those as being categories of law, so that's just a nebulous grey area for you to pick and choose which laws should still be followed in addition to the four things listed in Acts 15:19-21. Again, it is contradictory to treat Acts 15:19-21 as being an exhaustive in order to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while also treating it as being an exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow, so pick one or the other, but you can't pick both.

under grace1 said:
But as that is your starting point, as sin is the transgression of the law, it is an indisputable fact, if you are correct, the leaders of the first century church gave gentiles a licence to sin. And I repeat, you have no way around that.

For example, in James 2:1-11, he criticized them for committing the sin of favoritism, which is not one of the Ten Commandments or the greatest two commandments. My position is that the leaders of the first century church required Gentiles to obey the Law of Moses, which means that they were not permitted to commit the sin of favoritism. However, your position that Act 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list for mature believers means that the leaders of the first century church permitted Gentiles to commit favoritism, which is a license to sin. I have no idea why you keep insisting that my position where they gave Gentiles a license to sin when it is so plainly false.

under grace1 said:
And BTW, in 1Cor ch8 Paul said there is nothing wrong with eating food offered to idols, one of the four laws given, confirming what most believe, three of the laws were only given to bring unity at the meeting

The Book of 1 Corinthians is especially difficult to parse because had delivered to them the Jerusalem degree and he was getting push back from them. Paul was quoting things that he heard that they were saying in order to give rebuttal but the Greek does not contain quotation marks, but it is often difficult to discern exactly where he stopped quoting and started giving rebuttal even when you're look for it. Paul also said a number of things indicate the use of sarcasm, which is difficult in itself to parse. We also don't have the content of what the Corinthians were saying or the issues that they were dealing with or all of the correspondence between them and Paul, so it Is not good book to base doctrine on, especially if what you think Paul was saying is contrary to other parts of Scripture.

under grace1 · 2026-02-09T16:35:24-0600

Soyeong said:
The Mosaic Law has 613 commandments, ten of which are the Ten Commandments and two of which are the greatest two commandments, so you have no grounds of separating them out. The Bible makes not attempt to list which laws are part of the ceremonial law or the moral law and never even refers to those as being categories of law, so that's just a nebulous grey area for you to pick and choose which laws should still be followed in addition to the four things listed in Acts 15:19-21. Again, it is contradictory to treat Acts 15:19-21 as being an exhaustive in order to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while also treating it as being an exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow, so pick one or the other, but you can't pick both.

For example, in James 2:1-11, he criticized them for committing the sin of favoritism, which is not one of the Ten Commandments or the greatest two commandments. My position is that the leaders of the first century church required Gentiles to obey the Law of Moses, which means that they were not permitted to commit the sin of favoritism. However, your position that Act 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list for mature believers means that the leaders of the first century church permitted Gentiles to commit favoritism, which is a license to sin. I have no idea why you keep insisting that my position where they gave Gentiles a license to sin when it is so plainly false.

The Book of 1 Corinthians is especially difficult to parse because had delivered to them the Jerusalem degree and he was getting push back from them. Paul was quoting things that he heard that they were saying in order to give rebuttal but the Greek does not contain quotation marks, but it is often difficult to discern exactly where he stopped quoting and started giving rebuttal even when you're look for it. Paul also said a number of things indicate the use of sarcasm, which is difficult in itself to parse. We also don't have the content of what the Corinthians were saying or the issues that they were dealing with or all of the correspondence between them and Paul, so it Is not good book to base doctrine on, especially if what you think Paul was saying is contrary to other parts of Scripture.

Favouritism would be covered by showing love to your neighbour!
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 1Cor8:4-11

You do run into a lot of trouble with the plain word don't you!

It is not only I who seperate them out, back to the Jerusalem council

Soyeong · 2026-02-09T16:47:00-0600

under grace1 said:
Favouritism would be covered by showing love to your neighbour!

It's good that you understand that. Everything in the Law of Moses is covered by the greatest two commandments, which is why they are the greatest two commandments and why Jesus said that all of the other commandments hang on them, so the position that Gentiles should obey the greatest two commandments is also the position that Gentiles should obey the rest of the Law of Moses.

under grace1 · 2026-02-09T16:54:21-0600

Soyeong said:
It's good that you understand that. Everything in the Law of Moses is covered by the greatest two commandments, which is why they are the greatest two commandments and why Jesus said that all of the other commandments hang on them, so the position that Gentiles should obey the greatest two commandments is also the position that Gentiles should obey the rest of the Law of Moses.

Must be hard for you, Paul plainly states in 1Corch 8, as I quoted, believers may eat food sacrificed to idols for an idol is nothing, it simply does not exist, but they should not do so if it causes trouble for a brother.
So one of the four laws given, according to Paul does not have to be followed!!
Then of course, you have to keep ignoring the fact God's applicable laws are not arbitary, you don't get to pick and choose whether you commit sin or not. Maybe you're antinomian at heart!
Then Paul tells us if we do not have the law we can show the requirements of the law are written in our hearts, obviously by the way we act. I wonder, if you did not have the law/know of it, how much of the mosaic law you would by instinct follow
Then Paul twice states in Rom 14 ALL(ALL) food is clean, confirmation of the view of the Jerusalem council, so that's more plain scripture you will have to seek to turn on its head isn't it!!
But you carry on

Soyeong · 2026-02-09T17:12:09-0600

under grace1 said:
Must be hard for you, Paul plainly states in 1Corch 8, as I quoted, believers may eat food sacrificed to idols for an idol is nothing, it simply does not exist, but they should not do so if it causes trouble for a brother.

Again, you're ignoring that Paul was quoting what he head heard the Corinthians saying in order to give rebuttal, that he was using sarcasm, and that you are lacking context.

1 Corinthians 10:14-22 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

under grace1 said:
So one of the four laws given, according to Paul does not have to be followed!!

No, Paul should not be interpreted as going against the ruling that he was implanting.

under grace1 said:
Then of course, you have to keep ignoring the fact God's applicable laws are not arbitary, you don't get to pick and choose whether you commit sin or not. Maybe you're antinomian at heart!

Again, unlike you I haven't done any arbitrary picking and choosing.

under grace1 said:
Then Paul tells us if we do not have the law we can show the requirements of the law are written in our hearts, obviously by the way we act. I wonder, if you did not have the law/know of it, how much of the mosaic law you would by instinct follow

Paul said in regard to believing that Gentiles would be nature be doers of the Law of Moses. In Romans 2:13, Paul said that only the doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified, and in Romans 2:25, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 30:6),

under grace1 said:
Then Paul twice states in Rom 14 ALL(ALL) food is clean, confirmation of the view of the Jerusalem council, so that's more plain scripture you will have to seek to turn on its head isn't it!!
But you carry on

In Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no commands, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted as speaking against following God, and if you insist that that is how Romans 14 should be interpreted, then you should follow God instead of Paul.

It still stands that if Acts 15:19-21 is a non-exhaustive list that allows room for the greatest two commandments, then that includes the rest of the Mosaic Law.

childeye 2 · 2026-02-09T17:15:16-0600

Bible Highlighter said:
So your claim is that you do not have to keep the commands from Jesus and His followers and that you can sin and still be saved all because you are saved by a belief alone on Jesus?

....

I think the poster was indicating this:

Luke 6:37

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”

under grace1 · 2026-02-09T17:19:56-0600

Soyeong said:
Paul said in regard to believing that Gentiles would be nature be doers of the Law of Moses. In Romans 2:13, Paul said that only the doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified,

In Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no commands, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted as speaking against following God, and if you insist that that is how Romans 14 should be interpreted, then you should follow God instead of Paul.

Lets just take two:
and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Yep, if you are under the law your righteousness is obeying it:
However:
For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law but under grace Rom6:14

For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[e] just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”[f] Rom1:17

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. Rom3:20-22

Yet Im sure you believe gentiles were righteous in Acts, yet they were only asked to follow four laws!!

Really, God gave no commands as to avoiding the levitical unclean foods, seriously?

Soyeong · 2026-02-09T18:01:27-0600

under grace1 said:
Lets just take two:
and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Yep, if you are under the law your righteousness is obeying it:
However:
For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law but under grace Rom6:14

Being judged by the law is certainly preferable to perishing.

Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law other than the Law of God, such as with the law of sin and works of the law, so it is important to discern which law he was referring to as us not being under. For example, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin and contrasted the Law of the Spirit with the law of sin and death, and in Romans 8:3-7, he said that Jesus freed us from the law of sin so that we might be free to meet the righteous requirement of the Law of God and he contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God.

In Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which does not describe the Law of God, but rather that I the role of the law of sin. In Romans 6:15, being under of grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in Romans 7:7, the Law of God is not sinful but how we know what sin is, so we are still under the Law of God and are not under the law of sin, which the Law of the Spirit has free us from (Romans 8:2).

under grace1 said:
For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[e] just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”[f] Rom1:17

In Habakkuk 2, it does not present the righteous living by faith as being an alternative way of living that is not obedience to the Law of God. In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on who heart is the Law of God, and in 1 John 3:4-7, everyone who is a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of God is righteous, so again the righteous living by faith does not refer to alternative manner of living that is not in obedience to the Law of God, but rather it is describing the way that the righteous live in obedience to it.

under grace1 said:
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. Rom3:20-22

Yet Im sure you believe gentiles were righteous in Acts, yet they were only asked to follow four laws!!

The one only way for someone to become righteous is through faith apart from being required to have first done enough righteous works in order to earn it as the result, but what it means to be righteous is to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of God(1 John 3:4-7), so it would be contradictory for someone to become righteous apart from becoming a doer of righteous works. This is why the faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works also upholds the Law of God (Romans 3:27-31). Everyone who has faith will be declared righteous and everyone who has faith is a doer of the Law of God, which is how Paul can deny in Romans 4:1-5 that we can earn our righteousness as the result of our works while also affirming in Romans 2:13 that only the doers of the law will be declared righteous. In other words, we become someone who has faith, someone who will be declared righteous, and someone who is a doer of the law all at the same time and anyone who is not one of those things is also not the others, but we do not earn our righteousness as the result of our obedience to the Law of God.

under grace1 said:
Really, God gave no commands as to avoiding the levitical unclean foods, seriously?

God commanded to refrain from eating unclean animals.

under grace1 · 2026-02-09T18:05:39-0600

Soyeong said:
God commanded to refrain from eating unclean animals.

I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. Rom14:14

Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. ALL(ALL) food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble Rom14:20

Over to you to overturn the plain words of the bible

Soyeong · 2026-02-09T18:16:07-0600

under grace1 said:
I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. Rom14:14

Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. ALL(ALL) food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble Rom14:20

Over to you to overturn the plain words of the bible

The Greek words "akathartos" and "koinos" both refer to a type of defilement, but the Bible never uses them interchangeably. The Bible uses "akathartos" in the context of unclean animals and uses "koinos" in the context of the opinions or traditions of men (Mark 7, Matthew 15). So it is equivocation for both words to be translated into English as "unclean" and then to interpret the author's use of "koinos" as if they had said "akathartos" instead. Again, the topic of Romans 14 is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted in a way that turns it against obeying God.

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 what He has commanded, so it is either incorrect to interpret Paul as doing that or he was a false prophet, but either way followers of Christ should follow his example of refraining from eating unclean animals. If you agree that Paul was a servant of God, then you should be opposed to interpreting him as speaking against obeying what He has commanded and if you think that Paul should be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God has commanded, then you should be opposed to considering him to be a servant of God, but Deuteronomy 13 does not leave room for you to consider Paul to be a servant of God while also thinking that he should be interpreted as speaking against obeying what GOd has commanded.

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):

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Active Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Luke 6:37​

Active Member

​

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Luke 6:37