What are the signs of a saved person?

[Nathan@work]

It also requires OUR efforts, with the Help of the Holy Spirit only when we WANT to obey. We must make choices- its not as simple as I believe in God so therefore I can't sin. God gives us free will so we can choose to keep His Sabbath Holy or go shopping, we can choose to lie about something or tell the truth. God will give us the Holy Spirit to help point out sin and help to keep us from sinning when we ask, but it still requires OUR actions to do what's right or wrong on a daily basis.

Not our effort, our obedience. If it is our effort then that is of the flesh. If you obey according to the flesh you are not pleasing God.

We make a choice. It is the choice to follow the Spirit.

In the flesh, you do not know how to keep the Sabbath Holy. You defile the Sabbath when you are keeping it in the flesh. Only by the leading of the Spirit can you keep the Sabbath.

The Spirit does not 'point out sin' to us. He leads us in the way of righteousness.

Your concern is your sin, but God's concern is your righteousness.

Only in the Spirit will you put to death the deeds of the flesh.

[Rom 8:16 ESV] The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

 

[Soyeong]

Your responses here are scripturally refuted by Paul's teaching that the new covenant is by GRACE, THROUGH FAITH, ... and explicitly NOT OF WORKS.

Ephesians 2

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.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus TO PERFORM GOOD WORKS, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Your salvation formulation has WORKS in the wrong place in the NEW COVENANT ... we are saved by GRACE through FAITH, ... and explicitly NOT BY WORKS, ... but to perform WORKS.

The SAVING comes BEFORE any WORKS, ... which is perfectly consistent biblically ... since it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God (in any way) without FAITH.

OTOH, ... FAITH ... pleases God ... and is counted for RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Romans 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

While I spoke in favor of needing to obey the Mosaic Law, I said nothing about needing to obey it in order to earn our salvation, so you are burning a straw man, and this is even after I explicitly said this to you:

"Works can be done for reasons other than trying to earn our salvation, so the fact that we do not earn our salvation by our works does not mean that our salvation does not require works for some other reason, such as faith. This is why Paul said in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified while denying in Romans 4:4-5 that our justification is something that can be earned. Doing good works is an inherent part of Jesus saving us from not doing good works."

In Ephesians 2:8-10, it is an example of this, where we do not earn our salvation by our works, but we have been made new creations in Christ in order to do good works, so choosing to do good works through faith is nevertheless still an inherent part of our salvation. In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, which is what the Mosaic Law was given to instruct us how to do, so God graciously teaching us to obey it again itself part of the content of God's gift of salvation. It notably does not say that we need to do those things before we can become saved or that we will do those things after we have become saved, but that our salvation is being trained by grace to do those things. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so being trained by grace to do good works in obedience to God's law through faith is what it looks like to receive the gift of Jesus saving us from living in transgression of God's law.

Your line of thought is EXACTLY why the letter was written to the HEBREW believers ... because they were tempted to GO BACK to the following of the MOSAIC LAW to access God's salvation. The letter clearly shows that following the MOSAIC LAW is futile as a way of accessing God's salvation ... because we cannot sufficiently attain perfection (God's behavior standard) in the keeping of the Law.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend on one point, he is guilty of all.

Even if someone managed to live in perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law, then they still would not earn their salvation by obeying it because it was never given as a means of doing that and our salvation is not something that can be earned as a wage (Romans 4:4-5). In Romans 3:21-22, it does not say that the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through perfect obedience, but that it comes through faith in Christ for all who believe, so this has always been the one and only way to become righteous. The fact that we do not earn our righteousness by obeying God does not mean that we don't need to obey God for some other purpose.

In James 2:1-11, he was speaking to people who had sinned by showing favoritism, so he was not telling them that they needed to have perfect obedience because that would have already been too late, and he was not discouraging them from trying to obey the law, but rather he was encouraging them to repent and to do a better job of obeying the law more consistently. Repentance does change the fact that we have already failed to have perfect obedience, so the fact that repentance has value demonstrates that perfect obedience was never the requirement for becoming righteous.

Also, the LAW was not given to SAVE US, ... it was given to TEACH US ... to SHOW US our failure and weakness in following and meeting God's expectations. Such recognition can then LEAD US to the true source of God's salvation ... JESUS CHRIST, through Whom salvation is gifted to ALL who believe on His name.

Galatians 3:24 "Wherefore the LAW was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be JUSTIFIED BY FAITH."

While I agree that the law was not given to save us, nowhere does the Bible say that it was given to show us our failure and weakness in following and meeting God's expectations. Earthly fathers don't given instructions to their children for that purpose, and this is that much more true of our Heavenly Father, who gave His law as a precious gift for our own good in order to bless us and teaching us how to rightly live (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13).

John 1

10 He (Christ) was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

For believers in Christ, the LAW has done what it was purposed to do (i.e. to bring us to Christ), ... and we can now go on to follow God in the SPIRIT.

The way to receive Jesus is not by rejecting the laws that were given to testify about him, which he taught by word and by example. The law brings us to Christ because it teaches us how to grow in a relationship with him, but does not lead us to Christ so that we can refuse to follow him and go back to living in sin. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law.

Galatians 5

16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

P.S. Every good Bible student knows that the general expression "The Law" always refers to the Mosaic Law. So much so that any use of the phraseology to mean any other law ... is CLEARLY delineated in scripture. So, ... as you say ... "the law of sin" ...

Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law, such as the Law of God, works of the law, and the law of sin, so if you assume that he was always speaking about the Mosaic Law, then you are guranteed to misunderstand him. For example, in Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, and in Romans 7:25, he contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin. In Romans 7:7, the Law of God is not sinful, but is how we know what sin is, and when our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease, however, the law of sin stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto do death, so it is sinful and causes sin to increase, so it is the opposite of the Mosaic Law. So verses that speak about a law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders us from obeying God's law are referring to the law of sin, such as Romans 5:20, Romans 6:14, 1 Corinthians 15:56, Galatians 2:19, and Galatians 5:18.

In Galatians 5:16-18, Paul spoke about the desires of the flesh causing us not to do the good that we want to do, which is how he described his struggle with the law of sin in Romans 7, so Galatians 5:18 is referring to the law of sin, not to the Law of Moses. The Spirit not opposed to the Father, but rather the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey His law, so it wouldn't even make sense to interpret Galatians 5:18 as referring to the Law of Moses. Furthermore, in Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Law of Moses, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are aspects of God's nature that are in accordance with it.

 

[Soyeong]

The people in Acts 15:1 were of the same opinion as those in Acts 15:5 - both demanded that Gentile believers be Circumcised and Keep the Law. The Jerusalem Council ruled against those groups in the Jerusalem Decree (Acts 15:23-29).

The Jerusalem Council disagrees with you. Even though Peter heard everything Christ preach including "keep all things I have commanded you", he agreed with contents of the letter to the Gentiles in saying:

Acts 15:10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?​

​

The people speaking in Acts 15:1 were promoting a false works-based salvation, which is not a position of faith, whereas the people speaking in Acts 15:5 were described as believers, so they were speaking from a position of faith and were promoting a faith-based salvation, and this distinction was a major issue for early Christians, and the Jerusalem Council ruled against works-base salvation. The purpose for which God commanded circumcision was never in order to provide a means of earning our salvation, so the Jerusalem Council was upholding the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against requiring what God has commanded, as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God.

In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said that His law is not too difficult to obey, so if the Jerusalem Council had been referring to God's law as being a heavy burden that no one could bear, then they would have been in direct disagreement with God and would therefore have been wrong. Jesus set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and in Matthew 11:28-30, he was inviting people to learn from him and he describe his yoke as easy and his burden light, which is consistent with Deuteronomy 30:11-14, so interpreting Acts 15:10 as referring to God law would also be in disagreement with the words of Jesus. Likewise, in 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commandments, which are not burdensome.

The Psalms contain extremely high praise for the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of it, then we will share it, as Paul did (Romans 7:22), while the view that the Mosaic Law is a heavy burden that no one could bear is also incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. Jews have traditionally said prayers where thanked God every day for giving them the Torah, so we should not superimpose a negative view of the Torah onto Jews, especially those who consider the Psalms to be Scripture. So in Acts 15:10, they were referring to the works-based salvation being promoted in Acts 15:1, not ruling against Gentiles following Christ's example in obedience to God. Furthermore, they continued to support the faith-based salvation of the second group in Acts 15:6-18.

In Acts 15:19-21, the Jerusalem Council softened the position taken by the second group by recognizing that no one learns how to follow the Mosaic in a day, but rather it is an ongoing process, just as Christians are taught a sermon each week. So they started Gentiles off with the basics with the understanding that they would continue to learn about Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues.

Later addition: Jesus did not put stock in many Jewish traditions going forward - so these traditions should not be conflated with His commandments. John 4:21-24 is an excellent example where He says "How" not "Where" you worship is important. If "where" you worship is not important, then why would "when" you worship be crucial (Saturday or Sunday)? Again, notice that the Jerusalem Decree makes no mention of the Sabbath. Jesus puts no importance on dietary laws in Matthew 15:10-11.

John 4:21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”​

Notice that the Jerusalem Decree does not demand Gentiles refrain from eating unclean foods (like bacon). This is supported in Peter's vision in Acts 10:9-15.

The Israelites have worshiped God on every day, which included obeying His command to keep the Sabbath holy. God's laws are His instructions for how to worship Him, so the way to worship God does not involve refusing to submit to His laws. In Matthew 15:1-9, Jesus criticized the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so verse 10 should not be interpreted as Jesus turning around and and even more hypocritically doing what he just finished criticizing the Pharisees for doing. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so if Jesus had been expressing disagreement with what the Father has commanded, then he would have sinned and disqualified himself from being our Savior. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, so if Jesus had done that, then his critics would have for once had a legitimate reason to stone him and they wouldn't have needed to find false witnesses at his trial, but this incident was never even brought up, and one even seemed to have noticed that he had made such a radical statement against God. At the end of the conversation in Matthew 15:20, Jesus was still speaking against the man-made tradition of being made common by eating with unwashed hands, so he never jumped topics to speaking against obeying God.

In Acts 10:9-15, Peter could have obeyed God's command to kill and eat by simply killing and eating one of the clean animals and his refusal to do that was entirely the point that God was making to him in his vision. He did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had not eaten anything that was common, however, God did not rebuke him for his use of the word "unclean", but only rebuked him for his use of the word "common". In other words, Peter had correctly identified the clean animals as unclean and had correctly declined to eat them in obedience to God's commands in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, but he had incorrect identified the clean animals as common and had incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill at eat, so God rebuked him because he was disobeying God in order to obey man. Peter interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with that. Furthermore, according to Deuteronomy 4:2 and 13:4-5, God did not leave any room for His people to follow Peter if he had been saying that we can eat clean animals.

 

[John Mullally]

The people speaking in Acts 15:1 were promoting a false works-based salvation, which is not a position of faith, whereas the people speaking in Acts 15:5 were described as believers, so they were speaking from a position of faith and were promoting a faith-based salvation, and this distinction was a major issue for early Christians, and the Jerusalem Council ruled against works-base salvation. The purpose for which God commanded circumcision was never in order to provide a means of earning our salvation, so the Jerusalem Council was upholding the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against requiring what God has commanded, as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God.

Both groups in Acts 15:1 & Acts 15:5 demanded the Gentiles keep the Mosaic Law. The Jerusalem Council does not condemn Jewish believers for keeping the Law - they only tell the Gentiles that they are not commanded to do so - but, only keep the limited set of rules stated in Acts 15:29. You are reading a lot into the text that is not there.

The Psalms contain extremely high praise for the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of it, then we will share it, as Paul did (Romans 7:22), while the view that the Mosaic Law is a heavy burden that no one could bear is also incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. Jews have traditionally said prayers where thanked God every day for giving them the Torah, so we should not superimpose a negative view of the Torah onto Jews, especially those who consider the Psalms to be Scripture. So in Acts 15:10, they were referring to the works-based salvation being promoted in Acts 15:1, not ruling against Gentiles following Christ's example in obedience to God. Furthermore, they continued to support the faith-based salvation of the second group in Acts 15:6-18.

Acts 15 is not talking about the subject of salvation - much less contrasting Works or Faith based salvation. You are reading a lot into the text.

In Acts 15:19-21, the Jerusalem Council softened the position taken by the second group by recognizing that no one learns how to follow the Mosaic in a day, but rather it is an ongoing process, just as Christians are taught a sermon each week. So they started Gentiles off with the basics with the understanding that they would continue to learn about Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues.

Acts 15:19-21 records James speech to the Council. Peter and Paul's speeches had been recorded earlier in the chapter. In Acts 15:21, James, who was prominent among Jewish Christians, said "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day". Although that is a statement of fact to be considered by the council, the letter to the Gentiles (Acts 15:23-29) certainly did not command the Gentiles to hear about the Mosaic Law every Sabbath, nor Keep the Sabbath, nor abstain from OT Unclean foods. Acts 15:23-29 is the final judgment from that council - and its not renegotiable.

Acts 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.​

In Acts 10:9-15, Peter could have obeyed God's command to kill and eat by simply killing and eating one of the clean animals and his refusal to do that was entirely the point that God was making to him in his vision. He did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had not eaten anything that was common, however, God did not rebuke him for his use of the word "unclean", but only rebuked him for his use of the word "common". In other words, Peter had correctly identified the clean animals as unclean and had correctly declined to eat them in obedience to God's commands in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, but he had incorrect identified the clean animals as common and had incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill at eat, so God rebuked him because he was disobeying God in order to obey man. Peter interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with that. Furthermore, according to Deuteronomy 4:2 and 13:4-5, God did not leave any room for His people to follow Peter if he had been saying that we can eat clean animals.

In the Acts 10:10-16 trance, God showed Peter all manner of animals, clean and unclean, and commanded Peter to "Rise, Kill, and Eat". When Peter refused, God corrected him. This was repeated three times. If God was conveying to Peter that it was still forbidden to eat unclean animals, God would not have shown him unclean animals in the first place.

 

[Soyeong]

Both groups in Acts 15:1 & Acts 15:5 demanded the Gentiles keep the Mosaic Law. The Jerusalem Council does not condemn Jewish believers for keeping the Law - they only tell the Gentiles that they are not commanded to do so - but, only keep the limited set of rules stated in Acts 15:29. You are reading a lot into the text that is not there.

Two groups presented their position and the Jerusalem Council arbitrated between them, without any group presenting the position that Gentiles don't need to obey the Mosaic Law. Again, the Jerusalem Council didn't have the authority to countermand God even they thought leading people away from obeying what God has commanded was a good idea.

Acts 15 is not talking about the subject of salvation - much less contrasting Works or Faith based salvation. You are reading a lot into the text.

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.”

Acts 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

The topic stated in the first verse is in regard to the manner in which Gentiles are saved, and both of the above verses are related to what was said in verse 10. The purpose that God commanded circumcision was never in order to become saved, so do you grant that this was a man-made requirement and that it is possible that what they were ruling against was this man-made requirement? Do you agree that we should be careful not to mistake something that was only said against obeying man as being against obeying God? Do you see the problem of interpreting Acts 15:10 as being against obeying what God has commanded, when there are other verses like Deuteronomy 30:11-14, 1 John 5:3, and the book of Psalms that are contrary to God's law being a heavy burden that no one could bear?

Acts 15:19-21 records James speech to the Council. Peter and Paul's speeches had been recorded earlier in the chapter. In Acts 15:21, James, who was prominent among Jewish Christians, said "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day". Although that is a statement of fact to be considered by the council, the letter to the Gentiles (Acts 15:23-29) certainly did not command the Gentiles to hear about the Mosaic Law every Sabbath, nor Keep the Sabbath, nor abstain from OT Unclean foods. Acts 15:23-29 is the final judgment from that council - and its not renegotiable.

Acts 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.​

​

Do you consider those four laws to be an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required of a mature Gentile believer? So for example, do you think that Gentiles are free to dishonor their parents, lie, steal, covet, kidnap, get drunk, show favoritism, and don't need to love God or their neighbor? If not, then the list does not limit which laws Gentiles should follow.

To use analogy, employers don't want to make things too difficult for new employees by requiring them to memorize everything that they will ever need to know about how to do their job on day one, but rather they start with just the basics with the understanding that they will continue to learn how to do the rest over time on the job, and this is the same line of thought being expressed in Acts 15:19-21. It seems obvious to me that it is not an exhaustive list of mature believers, but as stated, it was a list intended not to make things difficult for new believers, and Gentiles would continue to learn how to obey other laws over time, which was the point of Acts 15:21. If not, then what do you think was the point being made in that verse?

In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes keeping God's Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3) and refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45). In 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are include as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, which are terms used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so Gentiles also have the delight of getting to obey the laws that God gave for how to fulfill those roles. It is contradictory for Gentiles to want to become part of a holy nation while wanting nothing to do with following God's instructions for how to live as part of a holy nation. Likewise, it is contradictory for Gentiles to want to follow Christ while not wanting to follow his example of obedience to God's laws.

In the Acts 10:10-16 trance, God showed Peter all manner of animals, clean and unclean, and commanded Peter to "Rise, Kill, and Eat". When Peter refused, God corrected him. This was repeated three times. If God was conveying to Peter that it was still forbidden to eat unclean animals, God would not have shown him unclean animals in the first place.

If Peter's vision had been about now being free to eat unclean animals, then Peter should have just objected by saying that he had never eating anything unclean without adding that he had never eaten anything that was common, and God should have corrected Peter by saying not to call unclean what He had made clean, but Peter said both and God only corrected Peter for calling common what He had made clean. Peter interpreted his vision three times and with no other vision in the Bible do we reinterpret to mean something other than its given interpretation. The sheet was held up by the four corners, so all of the animals were bundled together at the center of the sheet, so the unclean animals were there just to convey the status of common to the clean animals by being in contact with them. Again, Peter could obeyed God's command by simply killing and eating one of the clean animals, so why else do you think that he objected to doing what the Mosaic Law permitted him to do?

 

[A_Thinker]

"Works can be done for reasons other than trying to earn our salvation, so the fact that we do not earn our salvation by our works does not mean that our salvation does not require works for some other reason, such as faith.

Galatians 3

1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?

3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain?

5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
...
10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”

While I agree that the law was not given to save us, nowhere does the Bible say that it was given to show us our failure and weakness in following and meeting God's expectations.

Romans 3

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 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.

Romans 7

7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

 

[Soyeong]

Galatians 3

1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?

3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain?

5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
...
10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”

In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith. Likewise, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Mosaic Law, so again it is of faith. In Romans 3:10-12, Paul was speaking about works of the law, which are not of faith, and contrasting it with the Book of the Law, which is of faith. He associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 with a quote from Leviticus 18:5, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as those who are living in obedience to the Mosaic Law, while no one is justified before God by works of the law because they are not of faith in God. In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is the Mosaic Law, so the righteous living by faith does not refer to a manner of living that is not in obedience to the Mosaic Law. God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7) and a law that is not trustworthy can't come from a God who is trustworthy, so to put our faith in the Mosaic Law is to put our faith in the Lawgiver, while to deny that it is of faith is to deny the faithfulness of the Lawgiver. Christ taught obedience to the Mosaic Law both by word and by example, so Paul's problem in Galatians was not with those who were teaching Gentiles how to follow Christ, but with those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified.

Romans 3

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 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.

Romans 7

7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

You would be right if it weren't for repentance, but the purpose of the law revealing our sin is to lead us to repent and to teach us how to have success and strength in meeting God's expectations. God can be trusted to set us up for success, not for failure.

 

[John Mullally]

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.”

Acts 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

The topic stated in the first verse is in regard to the manner in which Gentiles are saved, and both of the above verses are related to what was said in verse 10. The purpose that God commanded circumcision was never in order to become saved, so do you grant that this was a man-made requirement and that it is possible that what they were ruling against was this man-made requirement?

Obviously Acts 15 does not cover everything that was said at the Jerusalem Council. And pertaining the Jerusalem Council one can postulate endlessly on what all the considerations not clearly stated in Acts 15 were (as you do) - and they are just guesses. The bottom line is that the demand for Gentiles to be Circumcised and Keep the Law was replaced with the limited list in Acts 15:29. Although most of the list in Acts 15:29 pertained to dietary laws, it does forbid eating OT unclean foods. And Acts 15:29 makes no demand on Keeping the Sabbath.

Do you consider those four laws to be an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required of a mature Gentile believer?

No paying close attention to the clearly stated context, Acts 15 is saying that Gentile Christians don't need to keep Jewish traditions (festivals and Sabbaths) and almost all of their dietary laws. Far more than just the RCC recognize this.

So for example, do you think that Gentiles are free to dishonor their parents, lie, steal, covet, kidnap, get drunk, show favoritism, and don't need to love God or their neighbor? If not, then the list does not limit which laws Gentiles should follow.

There are plenty of NT scriptures against those kinds of activity.

In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes keeping God's Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3) and refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45).

Based upon 1 Peter 1:16 that you quote and the content of the Jerusalem Decree (Acts 15:23-19) that Peter approved, it is logical to deduce that Peter does not consider that Keeping the Sabbath and refraining from eating unclean animals continue to have anything to do with Holiness. Why should that be surprising? God tore the curtain in the Holy of Holies in two when Christ was crucified. News Flash: We are under a new covenant.

If Peter's vision had been about now being free to eat unclean animals, then Peter should have just objected by saying that he had never eating anything unclean without adding that he had never eaten anything that was common, and God should have corrected Peter by saying not to call unclean what He had made clean, but Peter said both and God only corrected Peter for calling common what He had made clean. Peter interpreted his vision three times and with no other vision in the Bible do we reinterpret to mean something other than its given interpretation. The sheet was held up by the four corners, so all of the animals were bundled together at the center of the sheet, so the unclean animals were there just to convey the status of common to the clean animals by being in contact with them. Again, Peter could obeyed God's command by simply killing and eating one of the clean animals, so why else do you think that he objected to doing what the Mosaic Law permitted him to do?

By God showing Peter unclean animals and saying "Rise, Kill, and Eat" and then repeating that three times, it is clear that eating unclean animals is no longer forbidden. As Peter knows, when God repeats something three times you need to listen. This seems consistent with the demand for Circumcision, keeping Jewish Feasts, and performing Jewish OT animal sacrifices having also been lifted.

 

[Soyeong]

Obviously Acts 15 does not cover everything that was said at the Jerusalem Council. And pertaining the Jerusalem Council one can postulate endlessly on what all the considerations not clearly stated in Acts 15 were (as you do) - and they are just guesses. The bottom line is that the demand for Gentiles to be Circumcised and Keep the Law was replaced with the limited list in Acts 15:29. Although most of the list in Acts 15:29 pertained to dietary laws, it does forbid eating OT unclean foods. And Acts 15:29 makes no demand on Keeping the Sabbath.

No paying close attention to the clearly stated context, Acts 15 is saying that Gentile Christians don't need to keep Jewish traditions (festivals and Sabbaths) and almost all of their dietary laws. Far more than just the RCC recognize this.

There are plenty of NT scriptures against those kinds of activity.

Saying that there are laws that we don't need to follow because they were not included in the list only works if it is an exhaustive list, while saying that there a laws not included in that list that we still need to follow only works if it is not an exhaustive list, so you can't have it both ways. You need to drop one of the two positions in order to avoid contradicting yourself, so which is it?

Acts 15 says nothing in particular to exclude the Sabbath, but rather the expectation was that Gentiles would be continuing to learn about Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues (Acts 15:21).

Based upon 1 Peter 1:16 that you quote and the content of the Jerusalem Decree (Acts 15:23-19) that Peter approved, it is logical to deduce that Peter does not consider that Keeping the Sabbath and refraining from eating unclean animals continue to have anything to do with Holiness. Why should that be surprising? God tore the curtain in the Holy of Holies in two when Christ was crucified. News Flash: We are under a new covenant.

While I agree that we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same eternal nature and therefore the same eternal laws for how to testify about His nature. For example, the way to testify about God's holiness is straightforwardly based on God's eternal holiness, not on any particular covenant, and God's holiness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to do that are eternally valid. If the way to testify about God's holiness were to change when the New Covenant was made, such as refraining from eating unclean animals no longer having anything to do with God's holiness, then God's holiness would not be eternal. The Bible does not state that the tearing of the curtain caused any of God's eternal laws to end, and laws for how to testify about God's nature can't be ended without first ending God. When you need to disagree with God in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and consider parts of Scripture to no longer be true in order to maintain your interpretation, then you should find that rather problematic and really reconsider your interpretation.

By God showing Peter unclean animals and saying "Rise, Kill, and Eat" and then repeating that three times, it is clear that eating unclean animals is no longer forbidden. As Peter knows, when God repeats something three times you need to listen. This seems consistent with the demand for Circumcision, keeping Jewish Feasts, and performing Jewish OT animal sacrifices having also been lifted.

Peter could have obeyed God's commands in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 and God's command in his vision by simply rising, killing, and eating one of the clean animals, so there is there is nothing about his vision that implies that eating unclean animals are no longer forbidden, especially when Peter interpreted his vision three times without hinting at that being no longer forbidden. Even if Peter had gone around telling people that eating unclean animals is no longer forbidden, then we are instructed by God to reject what He said (Deuteronomy 13:1-5), so God did not leave Himself any room to end any laws through a vision or through any other means. All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so none of them will ever be lifted. In 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul did not conclude that we should no longer observe Passover because it has been lifted, but rather he concluded that we should therefore continue to keep the Feast. To keep God's Feasts is to testify that what they say about God is true while to refuse to keep them is to deny that what they say about God is true. Even if God had simply announced instructions for how to walk in His ways in accordance with His nature without making any covenants with man, then we would still be eternally obligated to obey them.

 

[John Mullally]

Saying that there are laws that we don't need to follow because they were not included in the list only works if it is an exhaustive list, while saying that there a laws not included in that list that we still need to follow only works if it is not an exhaustive list, so you can't have it both ways. You need to drop one of the two positions in order to avoid contradicting yourself, so which is it?

The Jerusalem Council was formed to address a controversy over whether the Gentiles believers are required to keep the OT Ceremonial laws (like Circumcision) - there was no controversy over Moral Laws (as Romans says that even the heathen understand them). Later in the NT, Paul again addressed this controversy over keeping OT Ceremonial Laws multiple times as it continued to rage. I have explained the meaning of the Jerusalem Decree (Acts 15:23-29) - which is commonly shared among all but a few Christian sects. So what is your understanding of Acts 15:23-29? It was included in the NT for some reason.

Acts 15 says nothing in particular to exclude the Sabbath, but rather the expectation was that Gentiles would be continuing to learn about Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues (Acts 15:21).

Mention of the Sabbath, Observance of Feast Days, and Eating Unclean Animals prohibition are conspicuous by their absence in the Letter of instruction to the Gentile Believers in Acts 15:23-29. The Judaizers listed in Acts 15:1 and 15:5 would have the Gentile Believers also convert to Judaism - which the Council opposed.

Peter could have obeyed God's commands in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 and God's command in his vision by simply rising, killing, and eating one of the clean animals, so there is there is nothing about his vision that implies that eating unclean animals are no longer forbidden, especially when Peter interpreted his vision three times without hinting at that being no longer forbidden.

What then is the significance of God showing Peter unclean animals before issuing the command to "Rise, Kill, and Eat", and that being repeated 3 times? If eating OT unclean animals continued to be forbidden under the New Covenant, why would God include unclean animals in the command to "Rise, Kill, and Eat"?

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so none of them will ever be lifted. In 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul did not conclude that we should no longer observe Passover because it has been lifted, but rather he concluded that we should therefore continue to keep the Feast. To keep God's Feasts is to testify that what they say about God is true while to refuse to keep them is to deny that what they say about God is true. Even if God had simply announced instructions for how to walk in His ways in accordance with His nature without making any covenants with man, then we would still be eternally obligated to obey them.

1 Corinthians 5 talks about gathering for a feast - it doesn't mention if it was an OT feast or even on the Sabbath. Nowhere in the Epistles are believers commanded to keep the OT feasts or the Sabbath. If Gentile Believers were expected to keep the OT feasts or the Sabbath, Paul would certainly not have stated the following:

Colossians 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Galatians 4:10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.​

Some people believe going to church on Sunday instead of the Sabbath is equivalent to taking the Mark of the Beast. Colossians 2:16-17 destroys that.