If the Bible is infallible, why do so many Christians disagree on theology?

[PeaceByJesus]

But there is no mention that circumcision would be abolished and the apostles only taught that salvation doesn’t come by obedience to the law my friend.

Actually that salvation doesn’t come by obedience to the law my friend is no more new than circumcision not being required, as Romans 3 explains, and circumcision was part of the old covenant, and was not from the beginning. Thus there is still no overruling of Scripture, but discerning of the promised institution of the New Covenant in the light of what God was doing.

However they did still teach that obedience to the law is still greatly encouraged.

In correct. They taught that saving faith is that which seeks to keep the universally applicable moral law in its full intent, while understanding ceremonial laws, as regards "meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath day(s)," (Colossians 2:16) "and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation" (Hebrews 9:10) to be typological, shadows of Christ. For which literal observance is abrogated, though the intent of such is to be obeyed, "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)

My point is that they reached this decision overruling the necessity of circumcision without any direct reference from the scriptures.

And which hermeneutic is false, including under historical teaching of SS. Direct reference from the scriptures is not the only basis for doctrine, but the collective weight of indirect Scriptural substantiation can suffice if without any actual contradiction. Where must consider covenantal differences, as well as immutable unchanging laws.

That Abraham (for one) was justified by faith before circumcision serves as a foundation for others of Abrahamic faith being saved by effectual faith as well.

If it were written in the OT scriptures there would’ve been no need to meet together to reach their decision.

Wrong also. The need to meet was because of missing revelation, but because of a failure to discern that what Scripture spoke of was now a reality. Thus James could invoke Scripture as being fulfilled.

Likewise in Acts 2, the debate btwn devout Jews was not because of missing revelation, but because of a failure to discern that what Scripture spoke of was now a reality, that Christ was risen and shed forth what they were seeing as the beginning of the prophesied latter days.

The same was done with the Saturday Sabbath a few centuries later in the same manner. Thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit the church leaders determined that both circumcision and the Saturday Sabbath were not necessary for salvation and also not necessary in order to honor God.

Wrong again. The abrogation of observance of the Saturday Sabbath did not take place "a few centuries later in the same manner," but had already been recognized by the Lord rising on the 1st day and meeting many times with the disciples on the same. And thus the only specific day that the NT is mentioned meeting on is the 1st day, and the only one of the 10 commandments that are not repeated or reiterated is the 4th. Which is consistent with the abrogation of literal observance of of "an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath." See LAWVSGRACE2.html

The ecumenical councils have always met together with the intention of honoring God in the highest. That is their highest priority always.

The motive was right, though motive does not make right.

I don’t understand why it seems that so many people look upon these men as evil greedy men with the intention of misleading the church into apostasy. They really don’t deserve this type of criticism as they are our brothers in Christ who have devoted their lives to serving God more than most of the Christians who persecute them

Which is a strawman based in what i saw here. Who has described them as "evil greedy men with the intention of misleading the church into apostasy?
.

Honestly if anything they deserve our respect for their devotion to bringing God’s word to us as we know it today. We shouldn’t criticize them having almost no knowledge at all of who they were and their level of devotion to God. I believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

If the veracity of the very apostles of Christ was subject to testing by Scripture, the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (in which Catholic distinctives are not manifest ) how much the more uninspired "fathers."

 

[Erik Nelson]

Orthodox Christians believe in primacy, but not in the way its been defined in Rome. The filioque is false doctrine. The way in which it was derived was not theology proper, but rational philosophy. Theology as practiced in most of western Christianity ever since is not Theology proper, which comes from the direct revelation of God through the Word and in the Holy Spirit, but rather, it has been the product of abstract reasoning on passages of Scripture by flawed human beings, who very often produce theological doctrines which are every bit as flawed as they themselves are.

There are very few who carry the title "Theologian" in the Church. The holy Apostle John, "the Theologian" is one such person. John's Gospel records Christ as saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Christ is never recorded as saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. In the Holy Trinity, all three agree in one, because all three are one. What the Father is doing the Son and the Holy Spirit are doing: The Son being eternally generated by the Father and the Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father, working together in unison, not one "before" the other, as in us fallen beings who proceed (Holy Spirit) to intentionally do something only after being convinced to do it in our thoughts (logos). In the Godhead, the Holy Spirit already agrees with the Father, without the need of the pronouncement of the Divine Logos. The Word and Spirit are generated by and proceed from the Father at once, in unison. There is no Hierarchy in the Trinity except for that of the Father, who generates His Word and Whose Spirit proceeds from Him.

i understand the RCC has clarified its position, noting a difficulty of translation between Greek and Latin

i understand that clarification to mean, that while the HS is generated by the Father, it proceeds wholly completely entirely 100% through, via, by way & means of, and utterly subject to the direction of the Word = Son = Christ

if so, there is no dispensation of HS outside of Christ

if not so, there could possibly in principle be dispensations of HS outside of, external to, and beyond the bounds of Christ

who is correct, according to Scripture?

John 14:6

the HS must necessarily draw all men to Salvation, and the one and only path to Salvation is Christ...

ipso facto, Christ the Son is in complete control of the dispensation of HS (according to the Will and Grace of the Father)... Nobody can claim they are receiving HS while denying Jesus Christ

the HS proceeds from the Son... Once we note the translation issue, the apparent difficulty in Latin of differentiating between "generative procession straight from" and "directed procession through and then from"

which is more likely, that the human Church fathers missed a minor nuance the first time around... Or that God in heaven miscalculated initially, and might need the flexibility of dispensing HS directly, straight from Himself, to humans on earth outside of Christ, bypassing the Church in so doing?

 

[redleghunter]

I would suggest that if we had the original manuscripts as written by the original authors then I would be fine with calling it infallible, but alas we don't have the originals we only copies of copies of translations of translations. So the one in your hands right now is most likely fallible.

I believe that is the inerrancy argument and not the infallibility argument.

Good discussion here:

https://www.theopedia.com/inerrancy

 

[truefiction1]

i understand the RCC has clarified its position, noting a difficulty of translation between Greek and Latin

i understand that clarification to mean, that while the HS is generated by the Father, it proceeds wholly completely entirely 100% through, via, by way & means of, and utterly subject to the direction of the Word = Son = Christ

if so, there is no dispensation of HS outside of Christ

if not so, there could possibly in principle be dispensations of HS outside of, external to, and beyond the bounds of Christ

who is correct, according to Scripture?

John 14:6

the HS must necessarily draw all men to Salvation, and the one and only path to Salvation is Christ...

ipso facto, Christ the Son is in complete control of the dispensation of HS (according to the Will and Grace of the Father)... Nobody can claim they are receiving HS while denying Jesus Christ

the HS proceeds from the Son... Once we note the translation issue, the apparent difficulty in Latin of differentiating between "generative procession straight from" and "directed procession through and then from"

which is more likely, that the human Church fathers missed a minor nuance the first time around... Or that God in heaven miscalculated initially, and might need the flexibility of dispensing HS directly, straight from Himself, to humans on earth outside of Christ, bypassing the Church in so doing?

Christ was talking about God's involvement with creation (or ikonomeia), which is outside of His eternal Trinitarian existence. There is no eternal procession "through and then from" the Word. The procession is "from the Father". All three know what the Others are about, eternally, so there need be no procession from the Son. The Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father, knows the Father and knows the Word. The Spirit does not proceed from the Word, eternally, but works with the Word in the acts of creation and in all of God's acts outside of God's eternal existence.

It is easy to confuse How the Trinity brings things about (creates and orchestrates) in time, with the manner of relationships between the three persons in their eternal state of being. In God's eternal state, the only directional hierarchy is the Word being generated by and the Spirit proceeding from the Father.

 

[gordonhooker]

I believe that is the inerrancy argument and not the infallibility argument.

Good discussion here:

https://www.theopedia.com/inerrancy

Not really because if it is in error then it possible it is being read and interpreted in the wrong way which would mean it is fallible.

fallible/ˈfalɪb(ə)l/
▶adjectivecapable of makingmistakes or beingwrong:experts can be fallible.

 

[redleghunter]

Not really because if it is in error then it possible it is being read and interpreted in the wrong way which would mean it is fallible.

fallible/ˈfalɪb(ə)l/
▶adjectivecapable of makingmistakes or beingwrong:experts can be fallible.

Article 6 of the 39 Articles of your church does proclaim the Holy Scriptures as an article of faith and by below infallible teachings:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,
Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,
Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,
Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

Anglicans Online | The Thirty-Nine Articles

Once again I think your church sees the Holy Scriptures as infallible but don’t see a statement on inerrancy.

Inerrancy is claimed by Evangelicals such as JI Packer (Anglican) through textual criticism which he and others (DA Carson et. al.) taking thousands of manuscripts can determine with 98% confidence what the original autographs contained. That would be the examination of inerrancy. Which means scholars such as Packer would see we cannot have a separation between inerrant and infallible. They can be differentiated but not separated.

See Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy:

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

I believe the OP defined Biblical infallibility to mean there are no errors in the teachings coming from the Bible as they are inspired.

But I will admit too many do not really dig into these terms on chat sites and assume a lot.

 

[gordonhooker]

Article 6 of the 39 Articles of your church does proclaim the Holy Scriptures as an article of faith and by below infallible teachings:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,
Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,
Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,
Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

Anglicans Online | The Thirty-Nine Articles

Once again I think your church sees the Holy Scriptures as infallible but don’t see a statement on inerrancy.

Inerrancy is claimed by Evangelicals such as JI Packer (Anglican) through textual criticism which he and others (DA Carson et. al.) taking thousands of manuscripts can determine with 98% confidence what the original autographs contained. That would be the examination of inerrancy. Which means scholars such as Packer would see we cannot have a separation between inerrant and infallible. They can be differentiated but not separated.

See Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy:

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

I believe the OP defined Biblical infallibility to mean there are no errors in the teachings coming from the Bible as they are inspired.

But I will admit too many do not really dig into these terms on chat sites and assume a lot.

What is your point?

Of course the Bible contains all things necessary for salvation. That does not mean that what we have today is infallible.

 

[redleghunter]

What is your point?

I think I forgot?

I’ll remember tomorrow.

Other than I think we are just scratching the surface on how textual scholars determine “x” manuscripts matching determines “y” reliability which brings us to inerrancy.

 

[gordonhooker]

I think I forgot?

I’ll remember tomorrow.

Other than I think we are just scratching the surface on how textual scholars determine “x” manuscripts matching determines “y” reliability which brings us to inerrancy.

No worries we must not be on the same page.

 

[JoeP222w]

See title. See, like if it was just a thing here or thing there...this probably wouldn't bother me...but no, it's like on every single biblical teaching people are divided over...EVEN LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF....About the only one the vast majority of Christians agree on is Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected to save you from your sins...but after that...there is virtually no unity on theology...so how can anyone believe when nobody is sure of the correct belief, while still teaching it as flawless?

The premise is faulty. The Bible is not true because of unity in belief or understanding of it. The Bible is true because it is the word of God and it is based in Him, He is truth.

How man twists scripture has no bearing on the truth of God.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Actually that salvation doesn’t come by obedience to the law my friend is no more new than circumcision not being required, as Romans 3 explains, and circumcision was part of the old covenant, and was not from the beginning. Thus there is still no overruling of Scripture, but discerning of the promised institution of the New Covenant in the light of what God was doing.

There was still no OT scriptural basis to reach the conclusion that circumcision and Holy days were not to be observed and kept. They came to that conclusion collectively thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Nowhere in the OT does it say circumcision and the holy days would be abolished.

Wrong again. The abrogation of observance of the Saturday Sabbath did not take place "a few centuries later in the same manner," but had already been recognized by the Lord rising on the 1st day and meeting many times with the disciples on the same. And thus the only specific day that the NT is mentioned meeting on is the 1st day, and the only one of the 10 commandments that are not repeated or reiterated is the 4th. Which is consistent with the abrogation of literal observance of of "an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath.

The Sabbath was still kept for the first 300 years of Christianity by the church. They met on the Sabbath and on The Lord’s day.

 

[Erik Nelson]

There was still no OT scriptural basis to reach the conclusion that circumcision and Holy days were not to be observed and kept. They came to that conclusion collectively thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Nowhere in the OT does it say circumcision and the holy days would be abolished.

Jewish Christians Have kept the whole law for 2000 years.

The only exception ever. Has been Gentile Christians? Gentile Christians. are children of Noah. And so must obey the laws God gave to Noah in Genesis 7 through 9.

But they are not children of Jacob, they are not children of Israel They are not. Children of those to whom the laws of Moses were given. As Gentiles. and not Israelites. They and theirs are not and have never been under Mosaic law.

The Jerusalem Council in 50 A D Per acts 15 rules that Gentiles did not have to convert 2 full judaisme in order to be members of the church For the very same gentiles had already been baptized by Holy Spirit from God in heaven as Gentiles.

So as God. Validated. So the church accepted. GENTILES have never been required to submit themselves to mosaic law Whereas JEWISH Christians have always had to keep the same.

The Sabbath was still kept for the first 300 years of Christianity by the church. They met on the Sabbath and on The Lord’s day.

Are you sure would you please cite a source? But probably not a bad idea. Nonetheless.

 

[BNR32FAN]

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

If the veracity of the very apostles of Christ was subject to testing by Scripture, the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (in which Catholic distinctives are not manifest ) how much the more uninspired "fathers."

The early church father’s writings were not necessarily deemed as uninspired most of them were written after the canonization of the scriptures and many writings that were not canonized we’re still held in high regards such as the protoevangelium of James, Adversus Haeresus, and many more. For example the proto of James was used as evidence to support Mary’s perpetual virginity.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Jewish Christians Have kept the whole law for 2000 years.

The only exception ever. Has been Gentile Christians? Gentile Christians. are children of Noah. And so must obey the laws God gave to Noah in Genesis 7 through 9.

But they are not children of Jacob, they are not children of Israel They are not. Children of those to whom the laws of Moses were given. As Gentiles. and not Israelites. They and theirs are not and have never been under Mosaic law.

The Jerusalem Council in 50 A D Per acts 15 rules that Gentiles did not have to convert 2 full judaisme in order to be members of the church For the very same gentiles had already been baptized by Holy Spirit from God in heaven as Gentiles.

So as God. Validated. So the church accepted. GENTILES have never been required to submit themselves to mosaic law Whereas JEWISH Christians have always had to keep the same.



Are you sure would you please cite a source? But probably not a bad idea. Nonetheless.

Sabbath - Wikipedia

Look under Christianity.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

There was still no OT scriptural basis to reach the conclusion that circumcision and Holy days were not to be observed and kept. They came to that conclusion collectively thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That is absolutely absurd, being both false and a false either/or dilemma, as if being led by the Holy Spirit means having no OT scriptural basis to reach the conclusion - which James justifies by Scripture! Is this what exalting tradition leads to?!

God justifies Abraham before requiring circumcision, and only after that does God makes a covenant with him (Genesis 17:10-14) in which circumcision is the external sign, and with not being circumcised meaning being cut off from his people. (Genesis 17:14 ) And which requirement is affirmed under Moses, (Leviticus 12:3) while later calling for the circumcision of the foreskin of their hearts, (Deuteronomy 10:16) which is what the prophet Jeremiah calls for. (Jeremiah 4:4)

And who prophesies of of a new covenant, (Jeremiah 31:31-34) which is distinctly said to be "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt," and which requires the death of the testator to take force. (Hebrews 9:16,17)

Also prophesied is the coming of the Messiah, who is revealed as being that Testator. Seeing then that the Testator died and rose again, then a new covenant is in force, and in what was it is different is progressively revealed, such as rather than cutting of uncircumsied souls, washing, sanctifying and justifying those who simply believed, (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:11; Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) ) like as Abraham was - as the Holy Spirit guided them into what Scripture taught, versus having no OT scriptural basis to reach the conclusion that circumcision (etc.) no longer needed to be literally observed!

Nowhere in the OT does it say circumcision and the holy days would be abolished.

It did not need to detail in what ways the new covenant would not be according to the Mosaic covenant, but the very fact that it is distinctly said to be "not according to the covenant" made then, and that Abraham was justified by faith before circumcision, but that there was required circumcision of the heart, and that the Gentiles would be gathered in, provides a solid basis for justifying not requiring circumcision in the light of what God had done in confirming such as sanctified children of God, or the Israel of God.,

Now if God did not manifest that the new covenant was instituted, then they could not have been justified in their conclusion, but could be justified in teaching that this could come to pass once it was instituted, based on what Scripture taught.

The Scriptures also teach of the Lord reigning for a 1,000 years, but not all He will do, but it will be Scriptural. The very fact that some types of laws can be changed is Scriptural, as is that others cannot.

The Sabbath was still kept for the first 300 years of Christianity by the church. They met on the Sabbath and on The Lord’s day.

By now it should be obvious that what the post-apostolic church did simply does not necessarily mean that this is what the NT church had come to believe. The fact is that the only specific day that the NT church, as a church, is mentioned meeting on is the 1st day, and the only one of the 10 commandments that are not repeated or reiterated is the 4th. Which is consistent with the abrogation of literal observance of of "an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath."

That it took 300 years for Catholicism to recognize what the NT church evidentially had much earlier does not testify to former wholly following the guidance of the Spirit into Scriptural Truth.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That is absolutely absurd, being both false and a false either/or dilemma, as if being led by the Holy Spirit means having no OT scriptural basis to reach the conclusion - which James justifies by Scripture! Is this what exalting tradition leads to?!

God justifies Abraham before requiring circumcision, and only after that does God makes a covenant with him (Genesis 17:10-14) in which circumcision is the external sign, and with not being circumcised meaning being cut off from his people. (Genesis 17:14 ) And which requirement is affirmed under Moses, (Leviticus 12:3) while later calling for the circumcision of the foreskin of their hearts, (Deuteronomy 10:16) which is what the prophet Jeremiah calls for. (Jeremiah 4:4)

And who prophesies of of a new covenant, (Jeremiah 31:31-34) which is distinctly said to be "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt," and which requires the death of the testator to take force. (Hebrews 9:16,17)

Also prophesied is the coming of the Messiah, who is revealed as being that Testator. Seeing then that the Testator died and rose again, then a new covenant is in force, and in what was it is different is progressively revealed, such as rather than cutting of uncircumsied souls, washing, sanctifying and justifying those who simply believed, (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:11; Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) ) like as Abraham was - as the Holy Spirit guided them into what Scripture taught, versus having no OT scriptural basis to reach the conclusion that circumcision (etc.) no longer needed to be literally observed!

It did not need to detail in what ways the new covenant would not be according to the Mosaic covenant, but the very fact that it is distinctly said to be "not according to the covenant" made then, and that Abraham was justified by faith before circumcision, but that there was required circumcision of the heart, and that the Gentiles would be gathered in, provides a solid basis for justifying not requiring circumcision in the light of what God had done in confirming such as sanctified children of God, or the Israel of God.,

Now if God did not manifest that the new covenant was instituted, then they could not have been justified in their conclusion, but could be justified in teaching that this could come to pass once it was instituted, based on what Scripture taught.

The Scriptures also teach of the Lord reigning for a 1,000 years, but not all He will do, but it will be Scriptural. The very fact that some types of laws can be changed is Scriptural, as is that others cannot.

By now it should be obvious that what the post-apostolic church did simply does not necessarily mean that this is what the NT church had come to believe. The fact is that the only specific day that the NT church, as a church, is mentioned meeting on is the 1st day, and the only one of the 10 commandments that are not repeated or reiterated is the 4th. Which is consistent with the abrogation of literal observance of of "an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath."

That it took 300 years for Catholicism to recognize what the NT church evidentially had much earlier does not testify to former wholly following the guidance of the Spirit into Scriptural Truth.

There is plenty of evidence that the apostles ministered to people on the Sabbath and didn’t only met on the first day my friend.

“Paul and Silas then traveled through the towns of Amphipolis and Apollonia and came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As was Paul’s custom, he went to the synagogue service, and for three Sabbaths in a row he used the Scriptures to reason with the people. He explained the prophecies and proved that the Messiah must suffer and rise from the dead. He said, “This Jesus I’m telling you about is the Messiah.””
‭‭Acts of the Apostles‬ ‭17:1-3‬

“Paul and his companions then left Paphos by ship for Pamphylia, landing at the port town of Perga. There John Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem. But Paul and Barnabas traveled inland to Antioch of Pisidia. On the Sabbath they went to the synagogue for the services. After the usual readings from the books of Moses and the prophets, those in charge of the service sent them this message: “Brothers, if you have any word of encouragement for the people, come and give it.” So Paul stood, lifted his hand to quiet them, and started speaking. “Men of Israel,” he said, “and you God-fearing Gentiles, listen to me.”
‭‭Acts of the Apostles‬ ‭13:13-16‬

“Now when the synagogue broke up, many of the Jews and of the devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas; who, speaking to them, urged them to continue in the grace of God. And the next sabbath almost the whole city was gathered together to hear the word of God.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭13:43-44‬ ‭

“From there we reached Philippi, a major city of that district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. And we stayed there several days. On the Sabbath we went a little way outside the city to a riverbank, where we thought people would be meeting for prayer, and we sat down to speak with some women who had gathered there.”
‭‭Acts of the Apostles‬ ‭16:12-13‬

“There he became acquainted with a Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently arrived from Italy with his wife, Priscilla. They had left Italy when Claudius Caesar deported all Jews from Rome. Paul lived and worked with them, for they were tentmakers just as he was. Each Sabbath found Paul at the synagogue, trying to convince the Jews and Greeks alike.”
‭‭Acts of the Apostles‬ ‭18:2-4‬

These are only a few of the many examples. The churches the apostles established observed the sabbath just like the apostles did and many Eastern churches still to this day observe the sabbath. It doesn’t make any sense that the churches that the apostles established were taught not to observe the sabbath then later began observing it again then later again stopped observing it. That makes no sense my friend. These churches observed the sabbath to honor God although some later came to the idea that it wasn’t necessary to honor God on any specific day according to Romans 14 so long as they do set aside one day each week to honor Him. Some simply chose to honor Him on both days. And concerning circumcision just because our hearts are circumcised doesn’t mean that circumcision of the foreskin must be abolished. Both could’ve easily been instituted so just because Jeremiah said we will receive circumcision of the heart still doesn’t mean that circumcision is to be abolished. The apostles collectively came to that conclusion thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit just as the ecumenical council has always decided such matters.

 

[redleghunter]

“Paul and Silas then traveled through the towns of Amphipolis and Apollonia and came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As was Paul’s custom, he went to the synagogue service, and for three Sabbaths in a row he used the Scriptures to reason with the people. He explained the prophecies and proved that the Messiah must suffer and rise from the dead. He said, “This Jesus I’m telling you about is the Messiah.””
‭‭Acts of the Apostles‬ ‭17:1-3‬

That's quite simple. If you wanted to preach the Gospel to Jews the best place to do that was on the Jewish Sabbath when they had the scrolls out. That they went to the synagogue did not endorse that is how the Christian church worshiped. It was a matter of effective use of an audience to preach the Gospel.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

PeaceByJesus said: ↑The fact is that the only specific day that the NT church, as a church, is mentioned meeting on is the 1st day, and the only one of the 10 commandments that are not repeated or reiterated is the 4th. Which is consistent with the abrogation of literal observance of of "an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath."

There is plenty of evidence that the apostles ministered to people on the Sabbath and didn’t only met on the first day my friend.

“Paul and Silas then traveled through the towns of Amphipolis and Apollonia and came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As was Paul’s custom, he went to the synagogue service, and for three Sabbaths in a row he used the Scriptures to reason with the people. He explained the prophecies and proved that the Messiah must suffer and rise from the dead. He said, “This Jesus I’m telling you about is the Messiah.””
‭‭Acts of the Apostles‬ ‭17:1-3‬

“Paul and his companions then left Paphos by ship for Pamphylia, landing at the port town of Perga. There John Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem. But Paul and Barnabas traveled inland to Antioch of Pisidia. On the Sabbath they went to the synagogue for the services. After the usual readings from the books of Moses and the prophets, those in charge of the service sent them this message: “Brothers, if you have any word of encouragement for the people, come and give it.” So Paul stood, lifted his hand to quiet them, and started speaking. “Men of Israel,” he said, “and you God-fearing Gentiles, listen to me.”
‭‭Acts of the Apostles‬ ‭13:13-16‬

“Now when the synagogue broke up, many of the Jews and of the devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas; who, speaking to them, urged them to continue in the grace of God. And the next sabbath almost the whole city was gathered together to hear the word of God.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭13:43-44‬ ‭

“From there we reached Philippi, a major city of that district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. And we stayed there several days. On the Sabbath we went a little way outside the city to a riverbank, where we thought people would be meeting for prayer, and we sat down to speak with some women who had gathered there.”
‭‭Acts of the Apostles‬ ‭16:12-13‬

“There he became acquainted with a Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently arrived from Italy with his wife, Priscilla. They had left Italy when Claudius Caesar deported all Jews from Rome. Paul lived and worked with them, for they were tentmakers just as he was. Each Sabbath found Paul at the synagogue, trying to convince the Jews and Greeks alike.”
‭‭Acts of the Apostles‬ ‭18:2-4‬

These are only a few of the many examples. The churches the apostles established observed the sabbath just like the apostles did and many Eastern churches still to this day observe the sabbath. It doesn’t make any sense that the churches that the apostles established were taught not to observe the sabbath then later began observing it again then later again stopped observing it. That makes no sense my friend. These churches observed the sabbath to honor God although some later came to the idea that it wasn’t necessary to honor God on any specific day according to Romans 14 so long as they do set aside one day each week to honor Him. Some simply chose to honor Him on both days. And concerning circumcision just because our hearts are circumcised doesn’t mean that circumcision of the foreskin must be abolished. Both could’ve easily been instituted so just because Jeremiah said we will receive circumcision of the heart still doesn’t mean that circumcision is to be abolished. The apostles collectively came to that conclusion thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit just as the ecumenical council has always decided such matters.

Wrong argument mine adversary. Where did I ever say the apostles never ministered to people on the Sabbath and didn’t only met with such on the first day? Instead, I distinctly said "that the only specific day that the NT church, as a church, is mentioned meeting on is the 1st day," [1 Corinthians 16:2; Acts 20:7] which is the reality. Acts ‭17:1-3‬; 13:13-16‬; ‭13:43-44‬; ‭18:2-4‬ are all synagogue services, not churches of believers, and Acts ‭16:12-13‬ is that of Jewish women meeting for prayer, not believers.

Jews worshiping on the Sabbath or praying is simply not that of a NT church, as a church, specifically meeting on is the 7th day. Supplemental: Early Christians always met on the First day (Sunday) and never kept the sabbath!

These are only a few of the many examples.

Rather, you have no actual examples and thus attempted to move the goal posts.

It doesn’t make any sense that the churches that the apostles established were taught not to observe the sabbath then later began observing it again then later again stopped observing it. That makes no sense my friend.

Sense? You mean doing what the NT church as a church is nowhere shown specifically doing? Since when did it make sense to come up with things like prayer to created beings in Heaven when Scripture does not even provide one example of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven except the Lord? Even despite the Holy Spirit inspiring the recording of over 200 prayers by believers , and in instruction teaches to address the Lord, and states that the only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man is the Lord Jesus, (1 Tim. 2:5), while the Holy Spirit in believer's heart cries out "Abba, Father," (Gal. 4:6) not "Mama, Mother?"

And concerning circumcision just because our hearts are circumcised doesn’t mean that circumcision of the foreskin must be abolished. Both could’ve easily been instituted so just because Jeremiah said we will receive circumcision of the heart still doesn’t mean that circumcision is to be abolished.

Which is what I said, that unless God had manifest in what ways the new covenant was different then they could not have judged that circumcision was not necessary. And both that there would be a new covenant and souls being washed, justified and sanctified without being circumscribed (or even baptized) was Scriptural.

The apostles collectively came to that conclusion thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit just as the ecumenical council has always decided such matters.

Indeed, as shown and said, as the Holy Spirit guided them into what Scripture taught, versus having no OT scriptural basis to reach the conclusion, which was your demonstrably false change.

You are now starting to waste my time with sophistry and repeated indefensible fallacious arguments for a church falsely claiming to uniquely being the one true church.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's quite simple. If you wanted to preach the Gospel to Jews the best place to do that was on the Jewish Sabbath when they had the scrolls out. That they went to the synagogue did not endorse that is how the Christian church worshiped. It was a matter of effective use of an audience to preach the Gospel.

So they attended in the synagog on the sabbath an refrained from worship?

 

[redleghunter]

So they attended in the synagog on the sabbath an refrained from worship?

Paul went to where unconverted Jews were on the Sabbath to present the Gospel. That's the point.