Circumcision

[Soyeong]

In our Tradition, we understand the Apostolic council to not require Gentiles to keep the Mosaic Law.

Is it your tradition that the Jerusalem Council had greater authority than God, that they could freely countermand Him, and that were they disagreed with what God commanded that we should follow their commands instead of God's? Do you agree that according to Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to tell that someone is a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught them against obeying what He had commanded them, even they performed signs and wonders?

Acts 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Can you show me where God's Law requires all Gentiles to become circumcised or even where God required Jews to become circumcised for the expressed purpose of becoming saved? If not, then is it reasonable to conclude that what they considered to observing the Law of Moses included laws created by men that were more things than just what God had commanded? Furthermore, would it then be reasonable to consider whether they were only rejecting what was commanded by man and not what was commanded by God?

In Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked about why his disciples broke the traditions of the elders and Jesus responded by asking them about why they broke the command of God for the sake of their tradition. He then went on to say that for the sake of their tradition they made void the Word of God (Matthew 15:6), he quoted Isaiah to say that they worshipped God in vain because they taught as doctrines the commands of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and he called them hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions (Mark 7:6-9). In Matthew 23:2-4, Jesus compared the traditions of the Pharisees to placing a heavy burden on the people, so is it possible that in Acts 15 that what the Pharisees had in mind was requiring Gentiles to follow the Law of Moses according to all of their many traditions, and that Peter was simply expressing the same opinion of their traditions being a heavy burden that Jesus had expressed?

 

[All4Christ]

Is it your tradition that the Jerusalem Council had greater authority than God, that they could freely countermand Him, and that were they disagreed with what God commanded that we should follow their commands instead of God's?

Our tradition teaches that the entire New Testament is inspired by God and is authoritative, including the decisions made by the apostles - through God's guidance - as documented in the book of Acts. The Jerusalem Council doesn't countermand God; rather, it countermands your interpretation of Scripture.

 

[prodromos]

Jesus gave His apostles the authority to bind and loose, did He not?

 

[Soyeong]

Our tradition teaches that the entire New Testament is inspired by God and is authoritative, including the decisions made by the apostles - through God's guidance - as documented in the book of Acts. The Jerusalem Council doesn't countermand God; rather, it countermands your interpretation of Scripture.

I also agree that the entire NT was inspired by God and that the difference is a matter of interpretation. There is a theme throughout the Bible that we must obey God rather than man, so we must be careful not to mistake something that was only against following the laws of men as being against following the Laws of the God that we follow, and we should let no man deprive us of the divine privilege and the delight of doing what is holy, righteous, and good in obedience to God's Law by faith. However, if you interpret the Jerusalem Council as saying that Gentiles are not required to obey God's Law, then you have interpreted as effectively countermanding God and you are letting man keep you from obeying God. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's Law, so if you interpret the Jerusalem Council as trying to subtract all but four Laws, then you should consider them to have sinned and been in need of repentance. Furthermore, according to Deuteronomy 13:4-5, someone teaching God's people against obeying what He has commanded is a sign that they are a false prophet, so if your interpretation is correct, then you should consider the Jerusalem Council to be false prophets and dismiss what they said in favor of obeying God instead. My interpretation of Acts 15 does not involve the Jerusalem Council speaking against Gentiles obeying any of God's Laws, so I am trying to keep you from having to reject the Jerusalem Council.

 

[Soyeong]

Jesus gave His apostles the authority to bind and loose, did He not?

Indeed, Jesus gave them the Apostles the authority to bind and loose, but this did not involve giving them more authority than God, so it did not grant them the authority to speak against anyone obeying any of God's Laws, but rather it gave them the authority to interpret how to correctly obey God's Laws.

 

[miknik5]

Indeed. According to Paul, circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and circumcision has no value, what matters is keeping the Mosaic Law (1 Corinthians 7:19), so the value of circumcision is entirely dependent on whether someone keeps the Law (Romans 2:25). The way to tell that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Mosaic Law (Romans 2:26), which is the same way to tell that a Jew has a circumcised heart (Deuteronomy 30:6).

Does the Word of GOD already state none are righteous. That there is no one who does right and does not sin?

 

[miknik5]

How will one justify themselves by the law since the very word of GOD already declares all have sinned

 

[Soyeong]

Does the Word of GOD already state none are righteous. That there is no one who does right and does not sin?

There are number of people that the Bible specifically describes as being righteous, such as Noah (Genesis 6:9), Zechariah, and his wife (Luke 1:6). In Proverbs and Psalms, they frequently refer to a category of people who are "the righteous", which would not make sense if there was no one who belonged to that category. Rather, Romans 3:10 is referring quoting from Psalms 14:1-3 and Psalms 53:1-3, where they are referring to the wicked not being righteous. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but that does not mean that there is no one who repents and does what is right by faith.

 

[miknik5]

Wasn't everyone (Jew and some Gentiles) waiting for THE PROMISE?

Wasn't THE PROMISE the whole point?

A righteousness of GOD made known

Didn't David prophecy of this:
Blessed the man whose sins are covered?

And THE PROMISE to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations: didn't this PROMISE come before Abraham was circumcised

 

[~Anastasia~]

Let's please remember the Statement of Purpose for this forum. Please read it, and if you have any questions, please ask.

This is not for debating who is right and who is wrong. It is for discussing topics as they relate to Traditional Theology.

Tradition by definition includes that which was handed down to us by the Apostles, so if you don't agree with that, then this is not the place to argue against it.

 

[miknik5]

Let's please remember the Statement of Purpose for this forum. Please read it, and if you have any questions, please ask.

This is not for debating who is right and who is wrong. It is for discussing topics as they relate to Traditional Theology.

Tradition by definition includes that which was handed down to us by the Apostles, so if you don't agree with that, then this is not the place to argue against it.

Maybe you should review @Soyeong and @All4Christ discussion

It does appear that you don't want me here

As soon as I post you appear to already think I'm trying to prove something

I'll leave but you should be looking at others as well

 

[Soyeong]

How will one justify themselves by the law since the very word of GOD already declares all have sinned

I have said nothing to suggest that we become justified by the Law, but rather than has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of why it was given.

Wasn't everyone (Jew and some Gentiles) waiting for THE PROMISE?

Wasn't THE PROMISE the whole point?

A righteousness of GOD made known

Didn't David prophecy of this:
Blessed the man whose sins are covered?

And THE PROMISE to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations: didn't this PROMISE come before Abraham was circumcised

Indeed, justification is only by faith in the promised redeemer.

 

[Soyeong]

Maybe you should review @Soyeong and @All4Christ discussion

It does appear that you don't want me here

As soon as I post you appear to already think I'm trying to prove something

I'll leave but you should be looking at others as well

I don't think that was specifically directed at you, but to everyone, so no hard feelings. This subforum has rules about not teaching against they theology, but rather are only for learning about their theology. It is easy to miss if you are not constantly watching which subforum you are in, so my mistake as well. I think the forum policy does more to stifle conversations than it helps, but I don't get to make the rules.

 

[All4Christ]

Yes, I believe the comment was directed to everyone, as a reminder of the purpose and rules.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Maybe you should review @Soyeong and @All4Christ discussion

It does appear that you don't want me here

As soon as I post you appear to already think I'm trying to prove something

I'll leave but you should be looking at others as well

It was directed at the discussion in general ... I did not quote your post? I apologize that you feel this way.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't think that was specifically directed at you, but to everyone, so no hard feelings. This subforum has rules about not teaching against they theology, but rather are only for learning about their theology. It is easy to miss if you are not constantly watching which subforum you are in, so my mistake as well. I think the forum policy does more to stifle conversations than it helps, but I don't get to make the rules.

I actually wish we could have an area for debate, as we do in TAW. But that isn't possible with the way TT was set up. The reason we have dozens of forum areas is so that each purpose can be supported, and TT would be a mirror of GT if there was no rule in place preventing arguing against Tradition.

 

[Joshua_5]

Look at Moses who didn't circumcise his son along the WAY

GOD wasnt very happy about it
And look at his wife's response when she in obedience circumcised their son

Look what she said:

Are you not a bridegroom of blood to me

You could say that Moses was saved by the skin of his teeth...

 

[Big Drew]

If god doesn't want children to have a foreskin then why does he make them with one and command the parents to cut it off?

That was only a sign of the Old Covenant. It does not apply to those who are saved under the New Covenant. In fact, it's predominantly a western practice to have a baby circumcised nowadays outside of Judaism. There's no religious call or medical reason for it.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I actually wish we could have an area for debate, as we do in TAW. But that isn't possible with the way TT was set up. The reason we have dozens of forum areas is so that each purpose can be supported, and TT would be a mirror of GT if there was no rule in place preventing arguing against Tradition.

Admin Hat...

Thanks Anastasia, for trying to keep this on track. While debating against TT is not acceptable here, it is in GT; likewise, If we can not stay on topic for this forum, I can move the tread to GT and open it up to everyone. As you pointed out, arguing that the Ecumenical Counsels; Jerusalem being one of them, are anything other than the Church exercising it's authority given by Jesus Christ (in the response to the Confession of St. Peter) and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, is against the forum statement of purpose. If members desire to do this, then need to either start a thread in GT or let me know, and I will move this one.

I don't want to stifle discussion, but there are places for specific topics.

Mark
CF Admin

 

[Joshua_5]

If god doesn't want children to have a foreskin then why does he make them with one and command the parents to cut it off?

First of all, it was the mark of the covenant between God and Abraham's descendants. But also a symbol - as the circumcision of the foreskin removes something obstructive and unhealthy from the male, so it illustrates the necessity of the removal of the "foreskin" (the sinful nature) from our hearts - something even more obstructive and unhealthy spiritually.

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Although the symbol was not required for women for obvious anatomical reasons, I do find it interesting how they were still included in the covenant, as their hearts still needed circumcising, although their flesh did not.