Strivings about the Law

[steaver]

Tts 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Tts 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Tts 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Tts 3:8 [This is] a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
Tts 3:9¶But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
Tts 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Tts 3:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.


Paul speaking on behalf of the Holy Spirit states that those who "strive about the law" and do not repent after one or two admonitions are to be rejected as one being "subverted and sinneth".

The question would be;

Is Paul speaking of one who is arguing that the law is a means of salvation or proof of salvation?

Or

Is Paul speaking of one who is arguing that the law is not a means of salvation or proof of salvation?

One should ask, Has Paul ever argued that the keeping of the law is needed for salvation or for the proof of salvation?

Since Paul never argued that one should be observing the law for salvation or for the evidence of salvation, then Paul must have been speaking of those who were arguing that the keeping of the law is a must for salvation or a must as the evidence of salvation.

Thoughts?

 

[BobRyan]

Paul said -



1 Cor 7
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [b]what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.


Rom 3:31 NASB
"Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law"[/b] Rom 3:31 NASB

Heb 8
6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

8 For finding fault with them, He says, "" BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
…
10 "" FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: [b]I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD[/b], AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.





Romans 6
Believers Are Dead to Sin, Alive to God


1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so thatwe would no longer be slaves to sin;
7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.


10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead,
13 -and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.


14For sin shall not be master over you[/b], for you are not under law but under grace.
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
17But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you
became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

Now before we look at what John said on the same subject - it is helpful to remember that "some" might say that even to quote Paul on this subject is to "strive about the Law" as if some portion of Paul's writings are not "permitted".

Surely no one here would do that - but "someone" -- maybe just "someone in your pew" as that TV evangelist says.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

>Since Paul never argued that one should be observing the law for salvation or for the evidence of salvation, then Paul must have been speaking of those who were arguing that the keeping of the law is a must for salvation or a must as the evidence of salvation.

Since Paul never specifies which law he is referring to it is impossible to know what he is talking about. The Noahic Law obligated all humans. The Mosaic Law obligated all Jews. The NT Law obligates all Christians.

On the other hand, then either the mere asking Jesus to save a person obligates God to regenerate them and thus most Catholics and Mormons are regenerate and their salvation must be taken at face value OR "asking Jesus" does not obligate God to regenerate the person and we must come up with an alternative means of OKing a person to join us in communion. I can't think of a 3rd alternative.

 

[BobRyan]

As even DHK admits - 1John 3:4 says that transgression of God's Law is what sin - is.

As Paul states just one chapter away from Romans 6 (That would be Romans 7) the Law is the place where we find the Ten Commandments -

7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "" YOU SHALL NOT COVET.''
8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;
11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
13 Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.


As Paul states in 2Cor 3 the Law is "written on tablets of stone".

As Paul says in Eph 6:1-4 the 5th commandment is the first commandment in that unit of TEN - with a promise - and God's Commandments as we see in 1Cor 7:19 are still binding.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

D.L Moody's sermon on the TEN Commandments is in perfect keeping with what Paul wrote --

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
By DWIGHT L. MOODY

The Ten Commandments:

http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The_TenCommandments_Text.html


Exodus 20:2-17

BINDING TODAY

Some people seem to think we have got beyond the commandments. What did Christ say?
"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18)
The commandments of God given to Moses in the Mount at Horeb are as binding today as ever they have been since the time they were proclaimed in the hearing of the people. The Jews said the law was not given in Palestine (which belonged to Israel), but in the wilderness, because the law was for all nations.

Jesus never condemned the law and the prophets, but He did condemn those who did not obey them. Because He gave new commandments, it does not follow that He abolished the old. Christ's explanation of them made them all the more searching. In His Sermon on the Mount, He carried the principles of the commandments beyond the mere letter. He unfolded them and showed that they embraced more, that they are positive as well as prohibitive. The Old Testament closes with these words:
"Remember ye the Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the Statutes and Judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the Earth with a curse." (Malachi 4:4-6)
Does that look as if the law of Moses was becoming obsolete?

The conviction deepens in me with the years that the old truths of the Bible must be stated and restated in the plainest possible language. I do not remember ever to have heard a sermon preached on the commandments. I have an index of two thousand five hundred sermons preached by Spurgeon, and not one of them selects its text from the first seventeen verses of Exodus 20. The people must be made to understand that the Ten Commandments are still binding, and that there is a penalty attached to their violation. We do not want a gospel of mere sentiment. The Sermon on the Mount did not blot out the Ten Commandments.

====

 

[DHK]

What D.L. Moody says is of no consequence.

 

[steaver]

Now before we look at what John said on the same subject - it is helpful to remember that "some" might say that even to quote Paul on this subject is to "strive about the Law" as if some portion of Paul's writings are not "permitted".

Bob

That could not be true in any sense unless one does not accept all of the Bible as inspired by God.

So what does God's word mean to you Bob when Paul says do not strive about the law?

Is Paul speaking of one who is arguing that the law is a means of salvation or proof of salvation?

Or

Is Paul speaking of one who is arguing that the law is not a means of salvation or proof of salvation?

Or

You have another interpretation.

 

[steaver]

>
Since Paul never specifies which law he is referring to it is impossible to know what he is talking about. .

That really is outside the accepted Christian principle that...

2Ti 3:16All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Paul wrote the command on behalf of God so it cannot be "impossible" to know. This is an imperative and God does not give imperatives carrying an impossiblility to carry out.

On the other hand, then either the mere asking Jesus to save a person obligates God to regenerate them and thus most Catholics and Mormons are regenerate and their salvation must be taken at face value OR "asking Jesus" does not obligate God to regenerate the person and we must come up with an alternative means of OKing a person to join us in communion. I can't think of a 3rd alternative.

And this has what to do with this thread? You lost me on this one.

 

[BobRyan]

That could not be true in any sense unless one does not accept all of the Bible as inspired by God.

So what does God's word mean to you Bob when Paul says do not strive about the law?

Is Paul speaking of one who is arguing that the law is a means of salvation or proof of salvation?

Paul is not arguing against Christ's Matt 7 "by their fruits you shall know them" (speak of GOOD trees)

Paul is not arguing against his own statement in Rom 2:6-7 regarding the need to "persevere in doing good"


Paul is not arguing against his own statement in Romans 6 that those who claim to be enslaved to sin are not servants of God.

He is talking about the Act 15 problem "instead".

Thus Paul can make strong affirmations about the Law of God - as we saw here -

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1554197&postcount=2

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

[/SIZE]
He is talking about the Act 15 problem "instead".

Thus Paul can make strong affirmations about the Law of God - as we saw here -

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1554197&postcount=2

in Christ,

Bob

No, he isn't Bob.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

The Jerusalem Council, in Acts 15, took place in 45 A.D. All the disputes that were brought up at that time were settled. There was nothing more to "strive about."
Now Paul is writing 20 years later to Titus in 65 A.D. He is not referring to those matters which were settled twenty years previously. We know that for sure. James gave an answer. It was settled. The answer was given to Paul and Barnabas to spread to the churches. Again, the matters in Acts 15 were resolved. 20 years later there was nothing to "strive about," that was discussed at that meeting. On this point you are wrong.
Please go back to the drawing board, and reconsider Steaver's question.

 

[steaver]

[/SIZE]

Paul is not arguing against Christ's Matt 7 "by their fruits you shall know them" (speak of GOOD trees)


Paul is not arguing against his own statement in Rom 2:6-7 regarding the need to "persevere in doing good"


Paul is not arguing against his own statement in Romans 6 that those who claim to be enslaved to sin are not servants of God.

in Christ,


Bob

I would add that Paul is not arguing against love thy neighbour either.

He is talking about the Act 15 problem "instead".

I believe DHK is right on this one. Paul would not be speaking about the Acts 15 problem that was solved and settled 20 years prior.

Think about it some more, pray about it, and let me know what you come up with.

Maybe one of these two answers is a correct answer...

Is Paul speaking of one who is arguing that the law is a means of salvation or proof of salvation?

Or

Is Paul speaking of one who is arguing that the law is not a means of salvation or proof of salvation?

Afterall, Paul invested a HUGE amount of time preaching justification through faith alone. As he stated in this same passage before he commanded us to not strive about the law.

 

[BobRyan]

[/SIZE]

Paul is not arguing against Christ's Matt 7 "by their fruits you shall know them" (speak of GOOD trees)


Paul is not arguing against his own statement in Rom 2:6-7 regarding the need to "persevere in doing good"


Paul is not arguing against his own statement in Romans 6 that those who claim to be enslaved to sin are not servants of God.


He is talking about the Act 15 problem "instead".


Thus Paul can make strong affirmations about the Law of God - as we saw here -


http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1554197&postcount=2

I would add that Paul is not arguing against love thy neighbour either.

True - he is firmly in favor of the Lev 19:18 command to love your neighbor - and so also is James as we see in James 2 - as also does Christ affirm this in Matt 22 - pre-cross (even the Jews agree).

I believe DHK is right on this one.

Well -- then that is where you have a problem.

Paul would not be speaking about the Acts 15 problem that was solved and settled 20 years prior.

It takes a lot of myth and fiction to imagine that they did not have the Acts 15 problem to deal with in the gentile-Jew Christian churches after Acts 15 - since the whole point of Acts 15 meeting was to GO and tell everyone what was decided.

Notice that the first thing Paul does after the Acts 15 council - is require that Timothy be circumcised.

That should be a bit of a 'hint'.

In the mean time we have that link mentioned above - were we see what Paul "really says" about the Law of God.

================

Paul said -



1 Cor 7
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [b]what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.


Rom 3:31 NASB
"Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law"[/b] Rom 3:31 NASB

Heb 8
6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

8 For finding fault with them, He says, "" BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
…
10 "" FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: [b]I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD[/b], AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.





Romans 6
Believers Are Dead to Sin, Alive to God


1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so thatwe would no longer be slaves to sin;
7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.


10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead,
13 -and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.


14For sin shall not be master over you[/b], for you are not under law but under grace.
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
17But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you
became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It is instructive that in Gal 5 Paul is still dealing with the Acts 15 issue and in Acts 22 Paul actually gets arrested over his efforts to clarify the Acts 15 issue.

Where then this fiction that the Acts 15 issue does not come up again in the NT?

Why go to such extremes?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

It is instructive that in Gal 5 Paul is still dealing with the Acts 15 issue and in Acts 22 Paul actually gets arrested over his efforts to clarify the Acts 15 issue.

Where then this fiction that the Acts 15 issue does not come up again in the NT?

Why go to such extremes?

in Christ,

Bob

After going back to Acts 15 and giving it a fresh read, you may have a point. For this is where the notion of "keeping the law of Moses" as a requirement for salvation was first rebuked.

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.


Although circumcision was one part of the law of Moses, the scripture clearly declares that these Pharisees which believed wanted all believers to "keep the law of Moses". Circumcision was commanded as a sign that one AGREED to the "keeping of the law of Moses".

Peter has this to say in Acts 15...

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Clearly, circumcision was not the "yoke", the fathers had no problem whacking off the foreskin. It was the "yoke" of the keeping of the law that the fathers "were not able to bear". It is this "keeping of the law of Moses" in association with salvation or grace that was rejected by the Apostles.

Paul made this same fact clear in Galatians;

Gal 5:1¶Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Getting circumcised was not the yoke. Circumcision was a one time act with a knife, it wasn't something one "kept" on doing. Circumcision was a "sign" of loyalty to the keeping of the law, ALL of it. But no one could bear it. In keeping the law they thought they had favor with God, but it only revealed unto them their condemnation.

Back to Peter;

Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Act 15:24 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:

The Apostles made it clear that "keeping the law" is not a command that brings salvation. It is by grace ye are saved.

So this brings us back to the questions;

A) Is Paul speaking of one who is arguing that the law is a means of salvation or proof of salvation?

Or

B) Is Paul speaking of one who is arguing that the law is not a means of salvation or proof of salvation?

According to Acts 15, to start, Paul would have to be speaking of those who are arguing as these Pharisees were. It would have to be "A".

Those arguing that the "keeping of the law" plays any part in salvation are the ones "striving about the law" and are rebuked by Paul in the letter to Titus.

Good eye Bob!

You have eyes to see Bob, but do you see? Have you entangled yourself again with the yoke that Jesus freed you from?

Paul said, "Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."

 

[BobRyan]

Paul is dealing with the Acts 15 problem. In Acts 15 the issue is a few Christian (Jewish Christians other than Paul and the disciples etc) were claiming that gentile Christians would need to become Jews through circumcision as well as accepting the Bible as the Word of God, accepting the Gospel of the Kingdom and worshipping the One True God of creation.

I simply point out a list of texts regarding his strong affirmation of God's Law and the fact that "Keeping the Commandments of God is what matters" to Paul 1Cor 7:19.

Paul's view of the topic was not as myopic as some would like to imagine.

He condemns the Acts 15 problem while at the same time upholding and affirming the Law of God.

It is another "BOTH AND" solution for Paul.

Rom 3:31 NASB
"Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law" Rom 3:31 NASB

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Paul is dealing with the Acts 15 problem.

I simply point out a list of texts regarding his strong affirmation of God's Law and the fact that "Keeping the Commandments of God is what matters" to Paul 1Cor 7:19.

Paul's view of the topic was not as myopic as some would like to imagine.

He condemns the Acts 15 problem while at the same time upholding and affirming the Law of God.

It is another "BOTH AND" solution for Paul.

Rom 3:31 NASB
"Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law" Rom 3:31 NASB

in Christ,

Bob

Paul condemns the teaching that believers must keep the law of Moses as part of their justification for salvation. Do you disagree with this?

Paul upholds the law for the moral value it contains for Christian living.

The law CANNOT add to nor take away from the promise of salvation through faith. Do you disagree with this?

1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully;

From what I have read of your post and what I have heard from listening to SDA preachers, the SDAs are not using the law "lawfully", but rather are using it as these Acts 15 Pharisees were which is to bring their followers under a yoke of fear. "Turn or Burn" theology.

 

[DHK]

Paul is dealing with the Acts 15 problem.

After 45 A.D. Paul never had to deal with the Acts 15 problem, per se. It had already been settled. For example, when he came to the churches in Galatia who had been influences he rebuked them for having been influenced by these same Judaizers, and he rebuked the Judaizers. He said that anyone that would bring to them another gospel (such as the Judiazers') is accursed. Strong words! Paul wasn't "dealing" with them. He had not disputes to settle. He had to set them straight doctrinally because these false teachers had led them astray.

In Acts 15 the issue is a few Christian (Jewish Christians other than Paul and the disciples etc) were claiming that gentile Christians would need to become Jews through circumcision as well as accepting the Bible as the Word of God, accepting the Gospel of the Kingdom and worshipping the One True God of creation.

And that matter was settled. After the Apostles came together, James came and declared his decision. He was the pastor of the church in Jerusalem.

I simply point out a list of texts regarding his strong affirmation of God's Law and the fact that "Keeping the Commandments of God is what matters" to Paul 1Cor 7:19.

You simply take Scripture out of context.
1Cor.7:19 speaks specifically about marriage. Maybe the "commandments of God" refers to getting a marriage license. But it is not the law of God that you are referring to. You take it out of context to fit your own preconceived ideas. It ain't there Bob.

Paul's view of the topic was not as myopic as some would like to imagine.

Your view is that the same phrase or word means the same thing everywhere in the Bible regardless of context. That is the wrong way to interpret things Bob. Only the context can give the true interpretation of a word or phrase. And that is where you go wrong.

He condemns the Acts 15 problem while at the same time upholding and affirming the Law of God.

Again, the law that you are referring to is not the law that is referred to in Acts 15. You have a one-track mind.

It is another "BOTH AND" solution for Paul.

Hardly.

Rom 3:31 NASB

"Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law" Rom 3:31 NASB

The law had been established as our school teacher to bring us to Christ.
It was never established as a part of our salvation.

 

[steaver]

Paul is dealing with the Acts 15 problem. In Acts 15 the issue is a few Christian (Jewish Christians other than Paul and the disciples etc) were claiming that gentile Christians would need to become Jews through circumcision as well as accepting the Bible as the Word of God, accepting the Gospel of the Kingdom and worshipping the One True God of creation.


Bob

As per your edit; Absolutely False!

Where did you ever get that idea from the scripture?

Christians accept the Bible (OT) as the Word of God.

Christians accept the Gospel of the Kingdom and worshipping the One True God of Creation.

The Pharisees which believed said NOTHING of this sort. They wanted the Gentile believers to "keep the law of Moses". Circumcision was like baptism, a sign of a commitment that one would "keep the law".

 

[BobRyan]

Paul is dealing with the Acts 15 problem. In Acts 15 the issue is a few Christian (Jewish Christians other than Paul and the disciples etc) were claiming that gentile Christians would need to become Jews through circumcision as well as accepting the Bible as the Word of God, accepting the Gospel of the Kingdom and worshipping the One True God of creation.

I simply point out a list of texts regarding his strong affirmation of God's Law and the fact that "Keeping the Commandments of God is what matters" to Paul 1Cor 7:19.

Paul's view of the topic was not as myopic as some would like to imagine.

He condemns the Acts 15 problem while at the same time upholding and affirming the Law of God.

It is another "BOTH AND" solution for Paul.

Rom 3:31 NASB
"Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law" Rom 3:31 NASB

So I gave two parts to that equation.

The "applies to all Christians part" was stated as

1. as well as accepting the Bible as the Word of God, accepting the Gospel of the Kingdom and worshipping the One True God of creation.

The "special feature being demanded by some Jewish Christians" in Acts 15 was stated as
2. gentile Christians would need to become Jews through circumcision

Surely - there is no simpler way to state this -

As per your edit; Absolutely False!

Where did you ever get that idea from the scripture?

Step 1 - identify something that is clearly false.

Step 2. - show the evidence that would support your wild charge.


This is really not that complicated.

Christians accept the Bible (OT) as the Word of God.

Christians accept the Gospel of the Kingdom and worshipping the One True God of Creation.

Wonderful repeat of the part that would apply to all Christians.

But it is Christian Jews in the case of Acts 15 that are arguing that gentile Christians need to become Jews to be saved.

So far your "that is false" is floundering.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
For by grace are ye saved through faith and not of works, lest any man shall boast.

Salvation is by grace through faith.
Salvation is in Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone.
The object of our faith is Christ and Him alone.

Having laid that foundation, which was settled in Acts 15, we conclude that:
As a believer is not required to be circumcised, neither is he required to keep the Sabbath. There is no command for him to keep either one. In fact both are signs of different covenants. Paul says concerning circumcision:
1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing,
--The value of the ceremonial law today is "nothing."
The value of circumcision today is nothing.
The value of the Sabbath today is nothing.