Strivings about the Law

[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?


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

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.

The fact that he is "still" having to rebuke the judaizers is proof that this problem had not vanished prior to his letter to the Galatians.

It is unlcear how that point is serving your argument. Especially as I pointed out - this problem is still lingering even in Acts 21 - and in Paul's efforts to address the issue - he is arrested.

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.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1554755&postcount=17

That wild speculation was already debunked on an earlier thread -

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.


18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised.

Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.


22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.


Here Paul addresses the issue of Jewish Christian vs Gentile Christian

He also addresses the issue of Christian slave vs Christian free-man.

In this case the "calling of God" is a reference to the Gospel coming to the lost and to their being saved. Paul speaks of their remaining in the condition in which they were saved - through the Gospel of Jesus Christ and sweeping all those conditions aside (Jew vs Gentile for example) he simply says "but what MATTERS is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

For those wishing to shoehorn marriage into every comment Paul makes in 1Cor 7 - we note:

Paul is not saying that "marriage is slavery"

or that "marriage is for both circumcised and uncircumcised".

Or that "circumcised people need a marriage license"

or that "slaves need to go get a marriage license"

or that "slaves should be married"

or that "only slaves should say married once they become Christians" etc.

The wid notion of trying to shoehorn every verse into "get a marriage license" - fails horribly.



He is addressing the state in which a person comes to Christ
- married to an unbliever,
or Jew
or Gentile,
or slave
or free.

The "Calling" in 1Cor 7 is not "a CALL to get married" as some so rashly speculate in a wild sacrifice-all defense of man-made-traditions..

Paul argues the "remain in the state in which you were called" into the Gospel

- if married stay married (even if your spouse is an unbeliever)

- if Gentile stay gentile,

- if free stay free.

 

[BobRyan]

1Cor.7:19 Maybe the "commandments of God" refers to getting a marriage license.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1554755&postcount=17

Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mark 7:8-9
8. ”Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.
9. He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

1 John 5:2
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.

Luke 1:6
They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

Revelation 12:17
So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.


Revelation 14:12
Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.




Interesting to note that even D.L.Moody affirms the Commandments of God.

Fundamental Baptist Institute
http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The_TenCommandments_Text.html

 

[steaver]

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 -

AND to keep the law of Moses. Do you comprehend this?

For some odd reason you water down Acts 15 to the point of the physical act of circumcision. Is this what you call exegesis?

Circumcision was a SIGN, an OATH, to "keep the law of Moses".

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.

Here it is...

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.

Show us where in Acts the Pharisees which believe were claiming the Gentile Christians needed to;

1) accept the Bible as the Word of God

2) accept the Gospel of the Kingdom and worshipping the One True God of creation.

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

AND "keep the law of Moses". The very thing the SDA claims today.

 

[steaver]

Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mark 7:8-9
8. ”Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.
9. He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

1 John 5:2
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.

Luke 1:6
They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

Revelation 12:17
So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.


Revelation 14:12
Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.




Interesting to note that even D.L.Moody affirms the Commandments of God.

Fundamental Baptist Institute
http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The_TenCommandments_Text.html

Interesting to note that not one proof text you provided states "keep the commandments and be saved"

Can you provide a word from Moody where he states commandment keeping provides salvation or preserves salvation?

 

[BobRyan]

Steaver - I enjoy your efforts to circle back to the condition of the lost as they stand condemned by the Law of God - and to observe that the Lost have no way of being saved by "law keeping".

In your constant efforts to go back to the view of the lost (as Paul calls it in Heb 6 - "laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works") - you make that part of the discussion clear.

But you need to take the next step and stop ignoring the Romans 6 example Paul gives - the one where he speaks of the Law of God with respect to the saved saint.

This will be an important step for your position.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Steaver - I enjoy your efforts to circle back to the condition of the lost as they stand condemned by the Law of God - and to observe that the Lost have no way of being saved by "law keeping".

In your constant efforts to go back to the view of the lost (as Paul calls it in Heb 6 - "laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works") - you make that part of the discussion clear.

But you need to take the next step and stop ignoring the Romans 6 example Paul gives - the one where he speaks of the Law of God with respect to the saved saint.

This will be an important step for your position.

in Christ,

Bob

You will note that the discussion in Acts 15 (brought into this thread by you btw) was not about "the condition of the lost". Rather it was about whether or not the "saved" needed to ADD "the keeping of the law of Moses" in order to "truly be saved".

I did not go to Acts 15, this was your leading. So why say that I am circling back to the "lost"? The "lost" is not the subject spoken of in Acts 15. It is the "Saved" who is the center of the Acts 15 debate.

My question to you, which you have avoided, is do you comprehend that Acts 15 is rebuking those Pharisees which believed for desiring to ADD the "keeping of the law of Moses" as a REQUIREMENT for salvation?

Do you see this? Or do you ignore this? Or do you simply reject this?

This isn't about the lost being condemned by the law. Acts 15 is about the "saved" and their responsibility to "the keeping of the law of Moses".

Can you see this difference? I am not "circling" to the "lost". I am directly pointed on the saved spoken of in Acts 15.

 

[DHK]

You will note that the discussion in Acts 15 (brought into this thread by you btw) was not about "the condition of the lost". Rather it was about whether or not the "saved" needed to ADD "the keeping of the law of Moses" in order to "truly be saved".

I did not go to Acts 15, this was your leading. So why say that I am circling back to the "lost"? The "lost" is not the subject spoken of in Acts 15. It is the "Saved" who is the center of the Acts 15 debate.

My question to you, which you have avoided, is do you comprehend that Acts 15 is rebuking those Pharisees which believed for desiring to ADD the "keeping of the law of Moses" as a REQUIREMENT for salvation?

Do you see this? Or do you ignore this? Or do you simply reject this?

This isn't about the lost being condemned by the law. Acts 15 is about the "saved" and their responsibility to "the keeping of the law of Moses".

Can you see this difference? I am not "circling" to the "lost". I am directly pointed on the saved spoken of in Acts 15.

It is a very good point Steaver.
The point that is emphasized is that the Gentile believers were not under the law. They were in no way bound to the law. They did not have to keep the law. That was the decision that was made in Acts 15.

 

[BobRyan]

source texts Steaver's argument needs to ignore -

Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mark 7:8-9
8. ”Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.
9. He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

1 John 5:2
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.

Luke 1:6
They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

Revelation 12:17
So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.


Revelation 14:12
Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.




Interesting to note that even D.L.Moody affirms the Commandments of God.

Fundamental Baptist Institute
http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The_TenCommandments_Text.html

And the response - given as a reason for ignoring these texts

Interesting to note that not one proof text you provided states "keep the commandments and be saved"

I never argue that the lost keep the commandments to become saved.

Steaver - I enjoy your efforts to circle back to the condition of the lost as they stand condemned by the Law of God - and to observe that the Lost have no way of being saved by "law keeping".

In your constant efforts to go back to the view of the lost (as Paul calls it in Heb 6 - "laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works") - you make that part of the discussion clear.

But you need to take the next step and stop ignoring the Romans 6 example Paul gives - the one where he speaks of the Law of God with respect to the saved saint.

This will be an important step for your position.

You will note that the discussion in Acts 15 (brought into this thread by you btw) was not about "the condition of the lost". Rather it was about whether or not the "saved" needed to ADD "the keeping of the law of Moses" in order to "truly be saved".

I did not go to Acts 15, this was your leading.

I did not bring up Acts 15 in response to the list of texts at the top here - that point to Paul's view of the Law for the saved saint.

I brought it up to address Paul's comments about those who "strive" over issues in the law - to show just what he was talking about "from the bible".

So why say that I am circling back to the "lost"? The "lost" is not the subject spoken of in Acts 15.

Again - had you read the text first it would have helped your argument.

Acts 15:1 1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

1. The NT council argues that the lost do not become saved by becoming Jews.

2. The NT council argues that there was never a requirement for gentiles to become Jews - or to be circumcised - no not even in "scripture".

3. The NT council then affirms Lev 17:10 (no eating animals that are strangled), No eating meat sacrificed to idols, and no committing adultery.

But they did not mention "Love God with all of your heart" Deut 6:5,
Nor did they mention "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18.

This is because as James pointed out in 21 - the scriptures were already being read every Sabbath in the synagogues - and as Acts 13 points out - the believing gentiles were already in the synagogues listening - Sabbath after Sabbath.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The point that is emphasized is that the Gentile believers were not under the law. .

You yourself admitted to the 1John 3:4 text stating that sin is transgression of the Law.

So now for your snippet reference above from Romans 6

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.

 

[steaver]

Again - had you read the text first it would have helped your argument.

Acts 15:1 1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

These men from Judea are NOT the council or at the council- had you read the text first you would not have made this mistake.

Let's read on to see who is at the council spoken of and what was ACTUALLY said,

Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

So we see that they left these men and went up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders.

Then what happened?

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.


A sect of Pharisees which believed saying That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.

Now, does it say anywhere in the text...

1. The NT council argues that the lost do not become saved by becoming Jews.

I noticed that you did not place a reference verse with this comment. Why? Maybe because it is not found anywhere in the text?

You will not find it because the council is not arguing for the lost but for the saved.

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?

A "disciple" is not a "lost" person as you would want us to believe.

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

The council made no such argument as you believe about the lost. The council is speaking about the saved only and as to the issue of them being required to "keep the law of Moses".

2. The NT council argues that there was never a requirement for gentiles to become Jews - or to be circumcised - no not even in "scripture".

AND the NT council argues that the "believers" need not "keep the law of Moses". An inconvienent detail you like to cut out of your reading.

3. The NT council then affirms Lev 17:10 (no eating animals that are strangled), No eating meat sacrificed to idols, and no committing adultery.

Yes, immediately AFTER just decalring that the Gentile "believers" need not "keep the law of Moses" as part of their salvation.

Where does that leave the law of Moses? Not for any part of a believers salvation (never speaking of the lost here in Acts 15) but as Paul later affirms...

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


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

But they did not mention "Love God with all of your heart" Deut 6:5,
Nor did they mention "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18.

What did they "mention"? Believers need NOT "keep the law of Moses" as part of their salvation.

You keep trying to spin this into a council about the lost. This is not about the lost as I clearly pointed out in the text.

You never did answer...

My question to you, which you have avoided, is do you comprehend that Acts 15 is rebuking those Pharisees which believed for desiring to ADD the "keeping of the law of Moses" as a REQUIREMENT for salvation?

Pay special ATTENTION, The council is NOT addressing the LOST but rather the SAVED.

Stop circling back to the lost.

 

[BobRyan]

So why say that I am circling back to the "lost"? The "lost" is not the subject spoken of in Acts 15.

And the response - given as a reason for ignoring these texts

I never argue that the lost keep the commandments to become saved.

I did not bring up Acts 15 in response to the list of texts at the top here - that point to Paul's view of the Law for the saved saint.

I brought it up to address Paul's comments about those who "strive" over issues in the law - to show just what he was talking about "from the bible".

Again - had you read the text first it would have helped your argument.

Acts 15:1 1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

1. The NT council argues that the lost do not become saved by becoming Jews.

2. The NT council argues that there was never a requirement for gentiles to become Jews - or to be circumcised - no not even in "scripture".

3. The NT council then affirms Lev 17:10 (no eating animals that are strangled), No eating meat sacrificed to idols, and no committing adultery.

But they did not mention "Love God with all of your heart" Deut 6:5,
Nor did they mention "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18.

This is because as James pointed out in 21 - the scriptures were already being read every Sabbath in the synagogues - and as Acts 13 points out - the believing gentiles were already in the synagogues listening - Sabbath after Sabbath.

Thus the context is explicitly stated in Acts 15 to be one of "who is saved" and the fact that some claimed that gentiles could NOT be saved if they did not become Jews.

Obviously.

These men from Judea are NOT the council or at the council-

There is no evidence at all that these men did NOT come to the council to debate their views. In fact Acts 15 states that there was AT the concil - hot debate on this issue. Acts 15:7 "and when there had been MUCH DEBATE on this issue".

2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

Thus the reason AND context for the debate in Act 15 is stated explicitly.

1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ""Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.''

Every rabbit trail you have tried in that regard has failed to get off the ground.

had you read the text first you would not have made this mistake.

You will not find it because the council is not arguing for the lost but for the saved.

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?

A "disciple" is not a "lost" person as you would want us to believe.

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

The disciples argue that the gentiles that turn to God are saved but some Jews argue that they were not saved and could not be saved without becoming Jews.

The point remains.

Could not be any simpler.

AND the NT council argues that the "believers" need not "keep the law of Moses".

The NT decision is that Moses is read to the gentiles in the synagogues "every Sabbath" as James points out in Acts 15 and as we SEE happening "SABBATH AFTER SABBATH" in Acts 13.

The NT decision upholds "scripture" as we see in Acts 17:11 "They studied the SCIRPTUREs daily to see IF those things were so"

The NT decision upholds "scripture" as we see in 2Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is inspired by God AND is to be used for doctrine and reproof".

the NT decision upholds "scripture" as we see in Acts 15's appeal to the Lev 17:10 law against eating meat that is filled with blood.

The NT decision upholds the "Commandments of God" as we see in 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" as compared to the issue of gentiles being circumcised.

An inconvienent detail you like to cut out of your reading.

Steaver - a fun game as always.:type:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Thus the context is explicitly stated in Acts 15 to be one of "who is saved" and the fact that some claimed that gentiles could NOT be saved if they did not become Jews.

Obviously.

AND TO COMMAND THEM "keep the law of Moses", a detail you like to cut out of your reading of the text.

Thus the reason AND context for the debate in Act 15 is stated explicitly.

1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ""Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.''

AND TO COMMAND THEM the part you like to ignore in your reading -

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.

The disciples argue that the gentiles that turn to God are saved but some Jews argue that they were not saved and could not be saved without becoming Jews.

AND TO COMMAND THEM without "keeping the law of Moses" - a detail you have refused to add in this post for the third time now.

The point remains.

Could not be any simpler.

Indeed it does, until you answer my question thus far avoided -

My question to you, which you have avoided, is do you comprehend that Acts 15 is rebuking those Pharisees which believed for desiring to ADD the "keeping of the law of Moses" as a REQUIREMENT for salvation?

Still waiting.....

The NT decision upholds the "Commandments of God" as we see in 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" as compared to the issue of gentiles being circumcised.

There is your error. You refuse to read ALL that was said by the Pharisees which believed. This isn't merely about a knife to the foreskin.

Look at your argument, from a man who is constantly boasting of "details", "context", "reading the WHOLE text". You are making yourself look desperate to salvage a doctrine that has been dealt a deadly blow.

Here is what your statement would say if you were to truthfully record exactly what was said by the Pharisees....

The NT decision upholds the "Commandments of God" as we see in 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" as compared to the issue of gentiles being circumcised and commanded to keep the law of Moses.

Now you can see how contradictive your pov is when the full text is honestly quoted.

What is the issue we find at this council?

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.
Act 15:6¶And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

The honest sincere bible student will not cut this Word of God from their study. The issue is clear - That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.

Collaborating that this is the issue at hand we have this Word of God....

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?

Circumcision of the flesh is NOT the "yoke upon the neck" but rather the "keeping of the law of Moses" is. The fathers were circumcised in the flesh, they bore that part, they could not bear the "keeping of the law of Moses".

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Trouble them with WHAT? What is the issue? That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses. As needful for justification unto salvation. "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.''

We must read ALL the text. Cutting out parts will only lead to false doctrines.

An inconvienent detail you like to cut out of your reading.

Now who is shown to be "cutting out inconvienent details"? I have covered all points. I haven't seen one post of yours thus far that mentioned the Pharisees insisted believers needed to be commanded to keep the law of Moses. Why is that?

 

[DHK]

You yourself admitted to the 1John 3:4 text stating that sin is transgression of the Law.

So now for your snippet reference above from Romans 6

And what does this rabbit trail of Romans 6 have to do with Acts 15.
You quoted me in reference to Acts 15 and then took a convenient detour to get yourself out of a corner.

What did I say:
Acts 15 is written to Gentile Believers. These Gentile Believers are not under the law, were not to be put under the law. This was the decision made in Acts 15. Gentile Believers are not under the law. Take your argument up with the apostles and the inspired Word of God. It is there in Acts 15.

 

[BobRyan]

In this section Paul points out that "not under the law" does not release us to continue to violate the law - for sin is transgression of the law as John points out 1John 3:4 - and here Paul argues that we are not to sin under the excuse "we are not under law" (under law as a lost person would be - who is under condemnation until they accept Christ).

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.

And what does this rabbit trail of Romans 6 have to do with Acts 15.
You quoted me in reference to Acts 15 and then took a convenient detour to get yourself out of a corner.

What did I say:
Acts 15 is written to Gentile Believers. These Gentile Believers are not under the law, were not to be put under the law. This was the decision made in Acts 15.

Paul address the "not under law" teaching of the NT - which you widly label as "a rabbit trail" after you yourself bring the "not under law" subject up to start with!

Your transparently flawed tacic is more apparent to the reader than you appear to have at first imagined.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 15:1 1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

1. The NT council argues that the lost do not become saved by becoming Jews.

2. The NT council argues that there was never a requirement for gentiles to become Jews - or to be circumcised - no not even in "scripture".

3. The NT council then affirms Lev 17:10 (no eating animals that are strangled), No eating meat sacrificed to idols, and no committing adultery.

But they did not mention "Love God with all of your heart" Deut 6:5,
Nor did they mention "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18.

This is because as James pointed out in 21 - the scriptures were already being read every Sabbath in the synagogues - and as Acts 13 points out - the believing gentiles were already in the synagogues listening - Sabbath after Sabbath.

Thus the context is explicitly stated in Acts 15 to be one of "who is saved" and the fact that some claimed that gentiles could NOT be saved if they did not become Jews.

Obviously.

There is no evidence at all that these men did NOT come to the council to debate their views. In fact Acts 15 states that there was AT the concil - hot debate on this issue. Acts 15:7 "and when there had been MUCH DEBATE on this issue".


Thus the reason AND context for the debate in Act 15 is stated explicitly.


1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ""Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.''

Every rabbit trail you have tried in that regard has failed to get off the ground.

had you read the text first you would not have made this mistake.



The disciples argue that the gentiles that turn to God are saved but some Jews argue that they were not saved and could not be saved without becoming Jews.

The point remains.

Could not be any simpler.



The NT decision is that Moses is read to the gentiles in the synagogues "every Sabbath" as James points out in Acts 15 and as we SEE happening "SABBATH AFTER SABBATH" in Acts 13.

The NT decision upholds "scripture" as we see in Acts 17:11 "They studied the SCIRPTUREs daily to see IF those things were so"

The NT decision upholds "scripture" as we see in 2Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is inspired by God AND is to be used for doctrine and reproof".

the NT decision upholds "scripture" as we see in Acts 15's appeal to the Lev 17:10 law against eating meat that is filled with blood.

The NT decision upholds the "Commandments of God" as we see in 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" as compared to the issue of gentiles being circumcised.

An inconvienent detail you like to cut out of your reading.

What is the issue we find at this council?

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.
Act 15:6¶And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

The honest sincere bible student will not cut this Word of God from their study. The issue is clear - That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.

Collaborating that this is the issue at hand we have this Word of God....

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?

Circumcision of the flesh is NOT the "yoke upon the neck" but rather the "keeping of the law of Moses" is. The fathers were circumcised in the flesh, they bore that part, they could not bear the "keeping of the law of Moses".

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Trouble them with WHAT? What is the issue? That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses. As needful for justification unto salvation. "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.''

We must read ALL the text.

Which is where your argument consistently fails.

In the "all text" context - the issue is that Gentiles cannot be saved unless they become Jews.

Acts 15:1 1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

1. Your constantly circling back to "yes but becoming a Jew means keeping all the customs and Laws of Moses" -- does not change this point. Surely you knew that.

2. In the conclusion to the letter to the Gentiles from Acts 15 - the appeal is made to keeping the Law of Moses - in Lev 19:10 regarding the eating of meat with blood in it.

They also appeal to the Law of Moses in Exodus 20 regarding Adultery.

3. In the discussion they argue that the gentiles are hearing Moses preached every Sabbath in the Synagogues (just as we see in Acts 13 - Sabbath after Sabbath) and thus there is no mention here of Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" because they know that the reading of Moses in the Synagogue will cover those points.

Hence Paul can right without contradiction after this point - 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God".

For as it turns out - "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration from God AND is profitable for doctrine" 2Tim 3:16 -- according to Paul.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Acts 15:1 1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

1. The NT council argues that the lost do not become saved by becoming Jews.

Wrong. That was not the issue. The issue was circumcision and keeping the law, which was not necessarily becoming a Jew. The two stated requirements of the Judaizers were forcing believers to become legalists. They wanted them to believe on Christ, (i.e., be Christians), and at the same time be circumcised and keep the law at the time. It was a type of synergism. It wasn't the simple message of the gospel.

2. The NT council argues that there was never a requirement for gentiles to become Jews - or to be circumcised - no not even in "scripture".

Becoming a Jew was never up for discussion. Your understanding of this entire passage is wrong. They wanted believers to do more than just believe the gospel in order to be saved. If you want a NT parallel look at the COC. Instead of salvation by faith alone, they claim there are five steps to salvation. It is faith plus four more steps (including baptism) before one can be saved. That is the legalism that Paul, in Acts 15, was fighting against. Nothing can be added to the salvation message.

3. The NT council then affirms Lev 17:10 (no eating animals that are strangled), No eating meat sacrificed to idols, and no committing adultery.

And in doing so it affirms that the Sabbath, a sign of the covenant for the nation of Israel need not be kept.

But they did not mention "Love God with all of your heart" Deut 6:5,
Nor did they mention "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18.

That is because Christ emphasized this as commands elsewhere in the Bible.

This is because as James pointed out in 21 - the scriptures were already being read every Sabbath in the synagogues - and as Acts 13 points out - the believing gentiles were already in the synagogues listening - Sabbath after Sabbath.

Why not try rightly dividing the word of truth instead of deceitfully butchering it?
Here is the verse you referred to: Acts 15:21

Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
--James refers to the time of Moses when the Jews in every city on the Sabbath, as the JEWS read in the sabbath today.
The Gentiles were to respect the Jewish practice and that is all. They were not bound to it. There is no mention of them being bound to the Sabbath law here. They were to give respect to the Jewish customs and ceremonies for they would run into them. But they were not under the law to keep the Sabbath.
Here is what they were under:

Acts 15:28-29 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 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.
--There is no Sabbath mentioned there.
You deceitfully use the Word of God to your own advantage. It is wrong Bob, absolutely wrong.

 

[steaver]

In the "all text" context - the issue is that Gentiles cannot be saved unless they become Jews.

Peter said at the Jerusalem council;

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?

BobRyan, you declare that this "yoke upon the neck" is "becoming a Jew by circumcision".

Peter said, neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.

Do you wish for us to believe that "the fathers", Peter, Paul and the rest of the apostles, were not able to bear becoming a Jew by circumcision?

Is this your argument?

Then by your argument, the "fathers" and the Apostles were not Jews.

Two points given for us in this council which you have yet to deal with in any of your post;

1)
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?

2) 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.

Let's plug in your suggested interpretation and have you explain for us how the "fathers" and the Apostles were not able to bear "becoming a Jew".

I think everyone here believes that they were Jews, but go ahead and give us your explanation as to why they were not able to bear becoming a Jew.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Acts 15:1 1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

1. The NT council argues that the lost do not become saved by becoming Jews.

Wrong. That was not the issue. The issue was circumcision and keeping the law, which was not necessarily becoming a Jew.

Well your view is not correct if reader is willing to believe Paul instead of you on that point.


Eph 2
11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "" Uncircumcision'' by the so-called "" Circumcision,'' which is performed in the flesh by human hands
12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.


The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 15:1 1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

1. The NT council argues that the lost do not become saved by becoming Jews.

2. The NT council argues that there was never a requirement for gentiles to become Jews - or to be circumcised - no not even in "scripture".

3. The NT council then affirms Lev 17:10 (no eating animals that are strangled), No eating meat sacrificed to idols, and no committing adultery.

But they did not mention "Love God with all of your heart" Deut 6:5,
Nor did they mention "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18.

This is because as James pointed out in 21 - the scriptures were already being read every Sabbath in the synagogues - and as Acts 13 points out - the believing gentiles were already in the synagogues listening - Sabbath after Sabbath.

Peter said at the Jerusalem council;

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?

BobRyan, you declare that this "yoke upon the neck" is "becoming a Jew by circumcision".

indeed I argue that is all the ceremonies and traditions that would be binding on the Jews - and the sign for accepting that entire obligation was circumcision.

So that in Acts 16 (that would be the very next chapter) when Paul "requires" that Timothy be circumcised - he is asking Timothy to perform all the obligations that come along with that.

Peter said, neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.

Do you wish for us to believe that "the fathers", Peter, Paul and the rest of the apostles, were not able to bear becoming a Jew by circumcision?

Is this your argument?

No it is not. To do so is to argue that Paul doomed Timothy to hell in Acts 16. (obviously).

My argument is that the Judaizers were called that because they wanted Gentiles to become Jews as a means of salvation.

The Acts 15 council rejected that idea as righteousness by works - something that would never have worked for the Jews OT or NT - nor would it work for Timothy in Acts 16.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

indeed I argue that is all the ceremonies and traditions that would be binding on the Jews - and the sign for accepting that entire obligation was circumcision.

And your argument would be wrong, and without basis in Scripture.
Basically you saying: this is my argument, doesn't make your argument true. You have to give something to back it up with. Opinions are not worth much.

So that in Acts 16 (that would be the very next chapter) when Paul "requires" that Timothy be circumcised - he is asking Timothy to perform all the obligations that come along with that.

It was not required of Timothy. It was (one might say "strongly suggested"). And it had nothing to do with salvation. It was not caving into the Judaizer's demands. Timothy was a Jew by birth--the birth of his mother, but not the birth of his father. But even so he should have been circumcised at birth. To be effective in the ministry Paul suggested that he be circumcised (as he should have been), for then he could lawfully enter into the synagogues and even into the Temple without any question or dispute. Paul said "I became all things to all men that I might win some." That was the principle involved here.

No it is not. To do so is to argue that Paul doomed Timothy to hell in Acts 16. (obviously).

The fact that Timothy was a Jew and not circumcised did not condemn him.
The fact that Timothy was a Jew, converted to Christianity and not circumcised did not condemn him.
The fact that Timothy was a Jew, converted to Christianity and then was circumcised did not condemn him either.
What does 1Cor.7:19 say: Circumcision is nothing.
It had no bearing on one's salvation whatsoever; just like keeping the Sabbath does not have any bearing on one's salvation.

My argument is that the Judaizers were called that because they wanted Gentiles to become Jews as a means of salvation.

That is your argument. Where do you get it from? It is not from the Bible. The Bible gives no such suggestion. This is entirely your opinion and nothing more.

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
--These Judaizers were trying to teach believers (brethren) that they needed to be circumcised. It doesn't say anything more than that, except here:

Acts 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.
--Even here, this sect believed on Christ. But they insisted on being circumcised and keeping the law. It says nothing of becoming a Jew.

The Acts 15 council rejected that idea as righteousness by works - something that would never have worked for the Jews OT or NT - nor would it work for Timothy in Acts 16.

Bob

They rejected legalism. They declared that the gospel was a simple message of grace by faith alone. They declared that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcised nor did they have to keep the law, including the Sabbath. Your understanding of Timothy's situation is woefully lacking.