What is different in Acts 15 and Acts 21?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The difference between Acts 15 and Acts 21:

When we read acts 15:1 we see that some Judaizers (Jewish believers in Jesus) came down from Judea teaching the GENTILES "Unless they are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, they cannot be saved."

Because of this, Paul went to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles (James and the elders) for clarification of the truth between them. James said that the Gentiles DID NOT have to be circumcised or keep the Law of Moses. ---- HOWEVER, James never said that the Jews did not have to keep the Law of Moses. ---- In the end of that meeting Paul was given the hand of fellowship and that was the end of it.

But that is NOT what Acts 21 is about. In Acts 21 the problem is that Paul was teaching that the JEWS did not have to be circumcised or keep the Law of Moses either. The end of that meeting was not the same as the first. Paul’s teachings of God’s grace outside of the Law of Moses upset the believing Jews who were zealous of the Law of Moses).

This further proves the point that from Act 1 to Acts 21 James and the elders were still teaching the gospel of the kingdom which was, and will be, under the Law of Moses. They were NOT teaching salvation by God's grace based on what God did on the cross alone as Paul was teaching.

In addition, the rift between the Jews and Paul was further shown in what Paul said in Gal 2.Gal 2:1-16

1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),
5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6 But from those who seemed to be something — whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man — for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

No Return to the Law

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
NKJV
 
  • Like
Reactions: FHII

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This further proves the point that from Act 1 to Acts 21 James and the elders were still teaching the gospel of the kingdom which was, and will be, under the Law of Moses. They were NOT teaching salvation by God's grace based on what God did on the cross alone as Paul was teaching.

That is incorrect. Peter says the following in the midst of the Jerusalem Council:

Act 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,
Act 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

We can plainly see here that there was no disagreement between Paul and the Jerusalem Council. However, in this time of transition, it was necessary to deal with believing Jews differently than believing Gentiles. In Acts 21 we have James and the elders attempting to diffuse a volatile situation. With that said, I'm going to copy a very good commentary on this topic. I usually don't like lengthy posts, but there is a lot of good information and observations here. Apparently I have to present this in more than one post.


20. When they heard this, they began to glorify God and said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have come to believe, and all of them are zealous for the law.”

We make two observations:

a. Glorify. Hearing about the tremendous growth of the church in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, Rome, and Illyricum and about Paul’s intention to go to Spain, James and the elders keep on shouting hallelujah. They praise God for his marvelous work among the Gentiles and see the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures that speak about the Gentiles coming to know the Lord. They are thankful that the negative reports they have heard about Paul and his work among the Gentiles are incorrect. Nevertheless, they feel constrained to inform Paul about the sentiments of numerous Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.

b. Alert. Paul comes to the elders to promote the unity of the church and expects them to accept Gentile Christians from abroad on a par with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. But the converse is also true, namely, that Paul pay due attention to those Jewish Christians who zealously keep the law. James and the elders involve Paul directly by saying to him, “You see, brother.” The verb to see means to perceive something and thus to reflect and ponder. The word brother intimates that James and the elders consider Paul a brother in Christ. And they also distance themselves from those Jewish Christians who in their zeal have voided the decisions of the Jerusalem Council (15:19–21, 23–29).
James showed wisdom by inviting only the elders to come and listen to Paul. He wanted to maintain peace in the church and avoid any rift that might result from Paul’s report of his work among the Gentiles. James also wished to alert Paul to the thinking and practices of the many thousands of Jewish believers. He desired that Paul would clear himself of the suspicions the Jewish Christians had, for Paul could not abandon all these people who, with the Gentile believers, formed the body of Christ.

Multitudes of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and Judea strictly observed the law and expected all believers to do the same. They were like the Judaizers who opposed Paul and Barnabas at the conclusion of their first missionary journey to Cyprus and Asia Minor (15:1, 5). Because of its zeal for the law the Jerusalem church had lost its zeal for missions. Whereas Paul had forged ahead by preaching the message of salvation to the Greco-Roman world, the Jews who came to faith in Christ sought to merit salvation by keeping their Jewish traditions and by observing the Mosaic law. In all fairness, we note that the decisions of the Jerusalem Council addressed Gentile Christians but allowed Jewish Christians to continue their adherence to the time-honored customs and rituals of Judaism.

We presume that the expression thousands includes all the Jewish Christians who lived in Palestine. After the persecution following the death of Stephen, the believers were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria (8:1). More, the church in Jerusalem in the course of time began to grow, so that literally thousands of believers resided in the city and countryside.

21. “They have been informed concerning you that you are teaching all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children and not to keep our traditions. 22. What shall we do? In fact, they will hear that you have arrived.”

a. “You are teaching all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to abandon Moses.” While Paul proclaimed the gospel in Ephesus, news concerning his labors reached Jerusalem. The people in Jerusalem interpreted this news from their perspective, which differed considerably from that of Paul in Ephesus. The Christian Jews in Jerusalem placed the gospel within the context of Mosaic law and traditions, but Paul in Ephesus taught Gentile Christians that they were not obligated to abide by Mosaic regulations. Paul told the Gentiles about the decisions of the Jerusalem Council, which instructed them “to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from strangled animals, and from fornication” (15:29). He taught the Jews in Ephesus the gospel of God’s grace (20:24) and showed them that faith in Jesus Christ overshadowed Mosaic laws and customs (Gal. 3:25).

In Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, Paul preached the gospel to both Jews and Greeks (20:21). To the Jew he was a Jew and to the Gentile he became a Gentile so that he might gain them both for Christ (1 Cor. 9:20–22). Paul fully realized the difficulty he faced in preaching the gospel to two groups of people, yet his conscience was clear. He called both Jews and Greeks to repentance. Among the Jews in dispersion were those who disagreed with Paul’s approach (see vv. 27–29). They registered complaints to the Jews and Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and said that Paul told all the Jews not to observe Jewish laws and customs.

b. “[You tell] them not to circumcise their children and not to keep our traditions.” The Christian Jews in Jerusalem heard reports concerning Paul’s mission activities and saw serious flaws in his work. On the basis of the reports they had received—that Paul did not require the Jews in dispersion to circumcise their children and observe Jewish customs—they considered Paul outside the mainstream. Although James and the elders knew that Paul applied the decisions of the Jerusalem Council, the multitude of Jewish Christians wanted Paul to stress circumcision and Jewish laws. They refused to realize that Gentiles had become more numerous than Jews in the church, and that they themselves would have to promote the unity of the body of Christ.

To Paul’s credit, we should note that in his work and life he demonstrated his loyalty to the Jews by adhering to Jewish customs. For instance, he had Timothy circumcised at the very time when he was delivering the letter of the Jerusalem Council to the churches in Galatia (16:3–4). Next, he himself had taken a Nazirite vow that required cutting his hair and appearing at the Jerusalem temple before a specified date (18:18). And last, in his epistles, he never forbids Jews to circumcise their children.

c. “What shall we do? In fact, they will hear that you have arrived.” The Majority Text has an expansion, shown in italics: “What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come.” The intent is obvious, for the difference between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians could be resolved only in an assembly. Even though the addition appears to be original, scholars hesitate to include it in their translations.

James and the elders supported Paul in his work and teachings, but they had to find a way to defuse the volatile atmosphere in Jewish Christian circles. If the Christian Jews in Jerusalem had a strong prejudice against Paul, “the non-Christian Jews were enraged in the highest degree.” With numerous Jews violently opposed to Paul, the situation was grave indeed. And the news of Paul’s arrival in the city could not be kept secret, especially not when the Jewish Christians met the delegates from the Gentile churches (see vv. 17–19).

Continues in next post...
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
continued from previous post...

23. “So do what we tell you. There are four men who have taken a vow. 24. Take these men, be purified with them, and pay their expenses, so that they will shave their heads. Then everyone will know that the things they have heard about you are not true, but that you yourself adhere to and keep the law.”

We make these observations:

a. Advice. The elders of the Jerusalem church offered a prudent proposal to Paul. They knew of four men, Christian Jews, who had taken a vow. We presume that they took a Nazirite vow prior to the feast of Pentecost. At the end of the month-long period of the vow, they were unable to pay the expenses involved with fulfilling the vow. According to Numbers 6:14–17, the Nazirite had to offer three animals (a male and a female lamb, and a ram), a grain and a drink offering, and a basket of bread. The cost for the individual Nazirite was high but served as an expression of his undivided commitment to God.

b. Vow. During the period of his vow, a Nazirite might not use a razor on his head and had to let his hair grow. But when the period was over, he shaved off his hair, dedicated it to the Lord, and burned it together with the sacrifice for the fellowship offering (Num. 6:18).

c. Rites. James and the elders advised Paul to take these four men, join in their purification rites, and pay their expenses. We should understand that James himself was acquainted with the Nazirite vow. Church historian Eusebius quotes from a book written by Hegesippus, who belonged to the generation that succeeded the apostles. In the quote, Hegesippus portrays James as a Nazirite.

Although the four men had taken the Nazirite vow, Paul himself evidently had not. Therefore, the purification rites for the Nazirites and for himself could not be the same. Paul had come to Jerusalem from Gentile territory and was ceremonially unclean. He had to submit to Levitical purification before he could be the benefactor for the four Nazirites and participate in their ceremonies. For him, the prescribed days of purification lasted one week. On the third day of the week, he was sprinkled with atonement water (v. 26); a second sprinkling took place on the seventh day (v. 27). Afterward, when the sacrifices were scheduled to be offered, Paul would then defray the expenses of the four Nazirites. He could take part in the ceremonies only when he himself was Levitically clean. On the seventh day of Paul’s cleansing, the time of abstentions for the Nazirites also had ended (compare Num. 6:3). And if Paul sought to obtain ceremonial cleansing in a one-week period, he would not need to shave his hair.

d. Proof. By paying the expenses for four Nazirites, by going to the priest with them to set the time for the sacrifices, and by participating in the purification rites, Paul demonstrated that he was a law-abiding Jew. A discernible display of his integrity as a Jew would be much more effective than an extended explanation. He applied the old adage: “A picture is worth a thousand words.”
The leaders of the church and Paul expected that the Christian Jews in Jerusalem would be able to see that the reports they had received about Paul’s teaching were false. To pay the expenses for four Nazirites was considered an act of piety. The leaders anticipated that Paul’s participation in the ceremonies, even if he himself were not a Nazirite, would convince the Christian Jews that Paul was a traditional son of Abraham. In brief, Paul’s association with four Nazirites should be overwhelming evidence that he was a Jew dedicated to keeping the law of God in very respect.

25. “Concerning the Gentile believers, we have sent our decision that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from strangled animals, and from sexual immorality.”

a. Translation. The Western text both adds and deletes material in this verse. The added words (in italics) are intended to show the difference between Jewish and Gentile Christians: “Concerning the Gentile believers, they [that is, the Jewish Christians] have nothing to say to you, for we sent and decreed that they should observe nothing of the kind, except to keep themselves from what is offered to idols, from blood and from sexual immorality.” The expansion adds nothing to the meaning of the text and appears to be a paraphrase. For this reason, scholars delete the augments and adopt the shorter version. Conversely, the Western text has omitted one of the stipulations of the Jerusalem Council: to abstain from eating the meat of strangled animals. For a discussion on this omission, see the Textual Note on 15:20.

b. Intent. James and the elders of the Jerusalem church wanted to avoid any misunderstanding about the issue at stake. They knew that the matter involved Jewish Christians who lived in the Dispersion, not Gentile Christians. Nonetheless, the elders thought it wise to repeat the decisions made by the Jerusalem Council so that everyone would realize that Gentile Christians were not required to observe Jewish ceremonial laws and customs. The repetition was not meant to instruct the Gentile Christian delegates. They already had been instructed by Paul, were acquainted with the prescribed rules, and enjoyed their freedom in Christ. The leaders of the Jerusalem church reiterated the stipulations to imply that they had settled the Gentile Christian question but not the Jewish Christian question. Indeed, the church would have to convene another meeting to debate the matter of freedom in Christ for the Jewish believers.


Doctrinal Considerations in 21:20–25

Strengthened by the decisions of the Jerusalem Council, Paul returned to the Greco-Roman world on his second and third missionary journeys. He was determined to preach the gospel of Christian liberty to every Gentile who would listen to him. He instructed the Gentile that he would not have to become a Jew, for Christ had fulfilled the ceremonial laws of Judaism.

But in Jerusalem, Paul willingly accepted the advice of the Jerusalem elders to pay for sacrifices offered by four Nazirites and to submit to Levitical purification rites. Did Paul compromise his own teachings and beliefs? Should he have rejected the advice of the elders? No, not really. Paul maintained that Gentile Christians would sin if they were to observe Jewish ceremonial laws and customs, and Jewish Christians would sin if they kept the law for the purpose of meriting salvation. Observing the Jewish ceremonies in itself is not sinful. Paul himself remained a Jew and continued to observe Jewish customs. Thus, he had made a vow in Cenchrea and had traveled to Jerusalem to fulfill it (18:18). In his defense before Governor Felix, Paul stated that he had come to Jerusalem to present offerings (24:17).

Paul’s purpose for going to Jerusalem was to promote the unity of the church. He wanted to bring together representatives of the Gentile Christian churches abroad and those of the Jewish Christian church in Jerusalem. He himself would do everything in his power to maintain that unity, even if he had to undergo purification rites and pay for sacrifices.


Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953–2001). Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles (Vol. 17, pp. 757–762). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
continued from previous post...

snipe ---

But in Jerusalem, Paul willingly accepted the advice of the Jerusalem elders to pay for sacrifices offered by four Nazirites and to submit to Levitical purification rites. Did Paul compromise his own teachings and beliefs? Should he have rejected the advice of the elders? No, not really. Paul maintained that Gentile Christians would sin if they were to observe Jewish ceremonial laws and customs,

and Jewish Christians would sin if they kept the law for the purpose of meriting salvation.
.

Very good but not completely true. Show me where you got the statement about the Jewish Christians sinning.

What you fail to see is that the believing Jews were only mad at Paul. Since, as some say, Paul and the 12 were teaching the same gospel, why were they only mad at Paul????? ---- If James was teaching that the Jews did not have to keep the law of Moses then common sense says the Jews would have wanted to kill him too. If the Jewish Christians (those that believed Jesus was their Messiah and King) knew that they did not have to keep the law to be saved why was it a reason to want to kill Paul?

The 12 never preached the gospel of grace.

It is telling, to me, that God did not let Paul complete the purification rites but I see that you missed that.

You wrote, "Paul’s purpose for going to Jerusalem was to promote the unity of the church. He wanted to bring together representatives of the Gentile Christian churches abroad and those of the Jewish Christian church in Jerusalem. He himself would do everything in his power to maintain that unity, even if he had to undergo purification rites and pay for sacrifices.

This is just your rationalization. Paul soon gave up preaching to the Jews in Acts 13.

Acts 13:44-51
44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.
45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said,"It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.
47 For so the Lord has commanded us: 'I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.'"
48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
49 And the word of the Lord was being spread throughout all the region.
50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region.
51 But they shook off the dust from their feet against them, and came to Iconium.
NKJV
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Nomad, You wish to say that James was preaching the same gospel as Paul. But James and Paul differed on salvation:

The most serious area of disagreement between James and Paul is their explanation of salvation. James indicates that good works must be added to faith to produce salvation.

James 2:17-20
17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe — and tremble!
20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
NKJV

Paul gives a different explanation of salvation. Paul not only teaches that works are unnecessary for salvation, he specifically excludes works from the salvation process.

Paul said:
Gal 2:16 "knowing that a man is ""not justified by the works"" of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

There is no way to harmonize or blend the two statements above. Nor is there any reason to want to. In both cases it is being justified before God, not man. Both statements cannot be true unless there is a reason. To try and make them saying the same thing is to ignore that reason.

Acts 15:22-25
22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
23 They wrote this, letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" — to whom we gave no such commandment —
25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
NKJV

We see in the above that James had no problem with the Gentiles not keeping the law but he didn't say the Jews did not have to keep it. We see this in Acts 21. James is bragging about the Jews keeping the law.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The 12 never preached the gospel of grace.

That's absurd. While the teaching of 10 of the Apostles was not recorded, Peter and John certainly did. There's no indication that the others didn't follow suit. Here are a few examples:

Act 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,
Act 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."


1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.



It is telling, to me, that God did not let Paul complete the purification rites but I see that you missed that.

You assume too much. If God intervened to stop Paul in Acts 21, why didn't he intervene when Paul had Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews" in Acts 16. I see that you missed that.

Act 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

You wrote, "Paul’s purpose for going to Jerusalem was to promote the unity of the church. He wanted to bring together representatives of the Gentile Christian churches abroad and those of the Jewish Christian church in Jerusalem. He himself would do everything in his power to maintain that unity, even if he had to undergo purification rites and pay for sacrifices.

This is just your rationalization.

My rationalization? Is it? Again, Paul had Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews." Paul also says the the following:

1Co 9:19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.
1Co 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
1Co 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
1Co 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
1Co 9:23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

Nope, not my rationalization.

Nomad, You wish to say that James was preaching the same gospel as Paul. But James and Paul differed on salvation:

No they didn't. There is no contradiction between James and Paul. Observe:

Jas 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Faith is the root, works are the fruit.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That's absurd. While the teaching of 10 of the Apostles was not recorded, Peter and John certainly did. There's no indication that the others didn't follow suit. Here are a few examples:

Act 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,
Act 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."


1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.





You assume too much. If God intervened to stop Paul in Acts 21, why didn't he intervene when Paul had Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews" in Acts 16. I see that you missed that.

Act 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.



My rationalization? Is it? Again, Paul had Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews." Paul also says the the following:

1Co 9:19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.
1Co 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
1Co 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
1Co 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
1Co 9:23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

Nope, not my rationalization.



No they didn't. There is no contradiction between James and Paul. Observe:

Jas 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Faith is the root, works are the fruit.
Nomad

The way I see it, you are right about John and Peter but wrong about James.

John and Peter do speak of grace through faith. But they spoke of it after Paul delivered that message. I believe the message of grace is what Peter was referring to when he said Paul was hard to be understood. Paul said he spoke with great plainess of speech. It wasn't his verbage that was hard to understand. It was his mesaage.

James couldn't understand it. You even put it in bold print... James was looking to show his faith by works. Hebrews 11 says faith is the evidence of rhe unseen and even Jesus said certain things aren't to be shown to men. Giving... Praying... Fasting.... You aren't supposed to show them to anyone.

Eph w says wr are HIS workmanship. Not our own. Jesus did the work in us. We don't do the work. We were created in Christ unto good works (and I believe therre is a difference between our works amd good works) and we should walk in the good works that Jesus did.

I underatand thats a bunch of heavy doctrine... But consider that the verse you quoted comes a coyple of verses after Paul said we were saved by grace and not of works.

Besides fruit ts are of the spirit, not the flesh. Eph 5 says they are of goodness, righteousness and truth. Yes, I know Galatians also talks of fruits... But in context, why wouldn't you stick to ephisians to explain ephiseans?

James was a great man of God... But no. He was not on the same page as Paul was concerning grace. Acts 15 and 21 prove that.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
John and Peter do speak of grace through faith. But they spoke of it after Paul delivered that message.

Not true. The Jerusalem Council took place circa 50 AD, which made Peter's declaration contemporaneous with the preaching of Paul. Peter made it clear that the Jews were saved by grace just like Gentiles.

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

Even though John's writings came later, he reports that Jesus said the following:

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Unless you want to accuse John of putting words in Jesus' mouth way after the fact, I think it's safe to say that all of the Apostles were familiar with salvation by grace through faith.

James couldn't understand it. You even put it in bold print... James was looking to show his faith by works.

James was addressing a particular situation. He compared a bare profession of faith with a profession of faith evidenced by works, the fruit of faith. In other words, James is saying to put your money where your mouth is. Faith always bears the fruit of good works. If your "faith" does not produce fruit, it is not true saving faith. This is 100% commensurate with what Paul taught.

Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,
Jas 2:16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?
Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.


Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.


There is no contradiction here whatsoever.
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Not true. The Jerusalem Council took place circa 50 AD, which made Peter's declaration contemporaneous with the preaching of Paul. Peter made it clear that the Jews were saved by grace just like Gentiles.

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

Even though John's writings came later, he reports that Jesus said the following:

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Unless you want to accuse John of putting words in Jesus' mouth way after the fact, I think it's safe to say that all of the Apostles were familiar with salvation by grace through faith.



James was addressing a particular situation. He compared a bare profession of faith with a profession of faith evidenced by works, the fruit of faith. In other words, James is saying to put your money where your mouth is. Faith always bears the fruit of good works. If your "faith" does not produce fruit, it is not true saving faith. This is 100% commensurate with what Paul taught.

Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,
Jas 2:16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?
Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.


Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.


There is no contradiction here whatsoever.
***
Seems to me that if the 12 (including Peter) was teaching the same gospel as Paul they would have said that under grace no one had to keep the law since Jesus kept it for us. It also seems to me that the gospel of the kingdom was all about the promised kingdom for the Jews and all the 12 were doing is to tell that to the Jews.

Well, since you know more about it than I do perhaps you can tell me why, in Acts 21, the Jews were wanting to kill Paul for what he was teaching the Jews and no problem with what James was teaching the Jews since it was the same teaching.
 
Last edited:

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Not true. The Jerusalem Council took place circa 50 AD, which made Peter's declaration contemporaneous with the preaching of Paul. Peter made it clear that the Jews were saved by grace just like Gentiles.
It is contemporary only because they were all alive and active at the time. But WHO preached it first? Paul did. Peter said correctly that he opened the door in verse 7. God however, gave the job to Paul. Remember, the council was about circumcision. Who was it who first preached this message of grace in that gentiles don't need to be circumsized? Paul did.

Concerning verse 11... Peter is acting as an advocate for Paul and his ministry. He is not in charge. He is not convincing Paul or himself. He is convincing the Pharisees in attendance, James, the apostles in attendance and the elders (I say that not because you, Nomad, said otherwise.... I say it for the benefit of others who believe Peter was in charge).

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

At the CURRENT time, was it true that they believed the true message of grace that Paul was ALREADY preaching? No. Otherwise the wouldn't have been a council. The council was a debate and thus, there was at the time a difference in beliefs. It was Paul's message of grace through faith without the law vs. Grace with the law. Peter just realized that Paul was doi g a great job and he wasn't requiring circumcision.

So yes, they were contemporaries . but at any time did Peter preach grace through faith without works before Paul did? That he went to Cornellius and the Italian band yes. But he went kicking and crying about it. And he never preached the full message of grace to them.

It isn't just about circumcision. Peter realized in acts 11 that Jesus was calling the gentiles too. Paul preached that works and faith don't mix.

As for John... His writing style is confusing in that he doesn't stick to a solid timeline format in his epistle like Matthew and Luke. But concerning John 3:16... Jesus was talking to a jew and doesn't directly reference grace through faith nor the gentiles. Even Jesus's words don't follow the timeline IF you are trying to include Paul's message in it. Jesus hadn't given his life at that point. At THAT particular time, Jesus was still seeking the Jews.

James was addressing a particular situation. He compared a bare profession of faith with a profession of faith evidenced by works, the fruit of faith. In other words, James is saying to put your money where your mouth is.

Yes. Exactly! That is the problem. James believed you had to prove your daith by works. This is NOT the doctrine of Paul. It isn't really the doctrine of Jesus because he admitted the Pharisees had "righteousness" but they lacked much. They were prideful, arrogant looked down on people and worst of all, rejected him as the Christ.

Personally, I have no problem with "works" or the Law. I think you should do them. But I like Paul and like Jeaus don't believe they prove ffaith and don't believe they earn grace.Yes, do them! It makes you a "good" person. But the minute you point to them as evidence as to your faith, it no longer has anything to do with faith! Its still nice... But it puts the glory on you and not God... Even if you give the glory to God.

This is why Jeaus said to give, pray and fast in secret.

In closing... Compare these two verses:

James 2:18 KJV
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Romans 4:2 KJV
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

James sought glory from men. He haf glory... But not before God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: H. Richard

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
People can say that Paul and James were teaching the some gospel of grace but in order to do it they must turn blind eyes to the truth.

Acts 21:20-21
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;
21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
NKJV

Did Paul teach that the Jews did not have to keep the law of Moses?? Yes he did but obviously James did not.

Gal 5:1-6
5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
NKJV --- working through Jesus' love he has for us.

Gal 6:12-13
12 As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.
NKJV

Col 3:10-12
10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
Character of the New Man 12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering;
NKJV
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In 2 Cor 3 Paul called the law-even the 10 Commandments- the ministry of death and condemnation. He said it was abolished and done away with. He said it was glorious, but the New Testament IS glorious. He said that if you are still following the law, your heart is blinded..

Hmmm...
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@FHII @H. Richard

Again, there is one Gospel for Jew and Gentile. I can provide explicit Scripture references for this fact. Salvation through faith in Christ was preached from the very beginning. Not only do we find it in the Gospel of John, we see Peter preach the Gospel to Jews on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. But the sticking point is that the one true Gospel was going out to 2 completely different cultures. The Jews were going to be more difficult. The Mosaic economy was part and parcel of their culture -- their very ethnic identity. And again, as I said in my first post in this thread:

"However, in this time of transition, it was necessary to deal with believing Jews differently than believing Gentiles." What is different in Acts 15 and Acts 21?

In this time of transition, the Apostles found it necessary to figure out how to deal with each of the two cultures. It wasn't perfect. It was messy -- and God in his sovereign providence allowed it to be so. Sorry to burst bubbles here. Events such as witnessing the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles and Peter's vision helped them along. But still temporary concessions had to be made. As I demonstrated very clearly, even Paul made certain concessions with regard to the Jews so as to not cause unnecessary offence. However, there would be a time to come when the entire Mosaic economy, along with Jerusalem and the Temple, would be destroyed, making it impossible for Jews to cling to their old ways.

Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

So why were the Jews angry with Paul and James? Because they heard wrong about Paul. It's as simple as that, (see Acts 2:24).

As for the Epistle of James, his teaching was 100% correct and not in conflict with Paul in the least. James and Paul both make it abundantly clear that good works are the fruit of faith. If there is no fruit, there is no faith. Faith without works is dead. No fruit = a false profession. Jesus was speaking of false prophets, but the principle he enunciated certainly applies here:

Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@FHII @H. Richard

Again, there is one Gospel for Jew and Gentile. I can provide explicit Scripture references for this fact. Salvation through faith in Christ was preached from the very beginning. Not only do we find it in the Gospel of John, we see Peter preach the Gospel to Jews on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. But the sticking point is that the one true Gospel was going out to 2 completely different cultures. The Jews were going to be more difficult. The Mosaic economy was part and parcel of their culture -- their very ethnic identity. And again, as I said in my first post in this thread:

"However, in this time of transition, it was necessary to deal with believing Jews differently than believing Gentiles." What is different in Acts 15 and Acts 21?

In this time of transition, the Apostles found it necessary to figure out how to deal with each of the two cultures. It wasn't perfect. It was messy -- and God in his sovereign providence allowed it to be so. Sorry to burst bubbles here. Events such as witnessing the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles and Peter's vision helped them along. But still temporary concessions had to be made. As I demonstrated very clearly, even Paul made certain concessions with regard to the Jews so as to not cause unnecessary offence. However, there would be a time to come when the entire Mosaic economy, along with Jerusalem and the Temple, would be destroyed, making it impossible for Jews to cling to their old ways.

Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

So why were the Jews angry with Paul and James? Because they heard wrong about Paul. It's as simple as that, (see Acts 2:24).

As for the Epistle of James, his teaching was 100% correct and not in conflict with Paul in the least. James and Paul both make it abundantly clear that good works are the fruit of faith. If there is no fruit, there is no faith. Faith without works is dead. No fruit = a false profession. Jesus was speaking of false prophets, but the principle he enunciated certainly applies here:

Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

***

I disagree with you and still want to know how you deal with the fact that the Jews were only mad at Paul. If, as you say, they were teaching the same gospel why were the Jews only mad at Paul. You have not answered this question and only wish to make them teaching the same thing.

ONLY ONE GOSPEL, yes, in this age of God's grace Jesus gave Paul a new gospel not based on the old one that had the law of Moses in it. There was an age of the gospel of the kingdom promised to the Jews ONLY and it contained the Law of Moses.. But the Jews rejected it so God had a hidden gospel of grace and He gave it to Paul for the whole world.

Under the kingdom gospel salvation was obtained by the works of the Law. Under grace salvation is obtained by faith in Jesus' work on the cross. What you are doing is blending them together so you can support your religion and IMO sending many to a place they will have earned by rejecting Jesus' work on the cross.

But you and many others, refuse to see that Paul's gospel was different from the gospel of the kingdom which the Jews rejected.

Gal 1:1-20
1 This letter is from Paul, an apostle. I was not appointed by any group of people or any human authority, but by Jesus Christ himself and by God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead.
2 All the brothers and sisters here join me in sending this letter to the churches of Galatia.
3 May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.
4 Jesus gave his life for our sins, just as God our Father planned, in order to rescue us from this evil world in which we live.
5 All glory to God forever and ever! Amen.

There Is Only One Good News

6 I am shocked that you are turning away so soon from God, who called you to himself through the loving mercy of Christ. You are following a different way that pretends to be the Good News
7 but is not the Good News at all. You are being fooled by those who deliberately twist the truth concerning Christ.
8 Let God's curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News than the one we preached to you.
9 I say again what we have said before: If anyone preaches any other Good News than the one you welcomed, let that person be cursed.
10 Obviously, I'm not trying to win the approval of people, but of God. If pleasing people were my goal, I would not be Christ's servant.

Paul's Message Comes from Christ

11 Dear brothers and sisters, I want you to understand that the gospel message I preach is not based on mere human reasoning.
12 I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.
13 You know what I was like when I followed the Jewish religion—how I violently persecuted God's church. I did my best to destroy it.
14 I was far ahead of my fellow Jews in my zeal for the traditions of my ancestors.
15 But even before I was born, God chose me and called me by his marvelous grace. Then it pleased him
16 to reveal his Son to me so that I would proclaim the Good News about Jesus to the Gentiles. When this happened, I did not rush out to consult with any human being.
17 Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to consult with those who were apostles before I was. Instead, I went away into Arabia, and later I returned to the city of Damascus.
18 Then three years later I went to Jerusalem to get to know Peter, and I stayed with him for fifteen days.
19 The only other apostle I met at that time was James, the Lord's brother.
20 I declare before God that what I am writing to you is not a lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FHII

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@FHII @H. Richard

Again, there is one Gospel for Jew and Gentile. I can provide explicit Scripture references for this fact. Salvation through faith in Christ was preached from the very beginning. Not only do we find it in the Gospel of John, we see Peter preach the Gospel to Jews on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. But the sticking point is that the one true Gospel was going out to 2 completely different cultures. The Jews were going to be more difficult. The Mosaic economy was part and parcel of their culture -- their very ethnic identity. And again, as I said in my first post in this thread:

"However, in this time of transition, it was necessary to deal with believing Jews differently than believing Gentiles." What is different in Acts 15 and Acts 21?

In this time of transition, the Apostles found it necessary to figure out how to deal with each of the two cultures. It wasn't perfect. It was messy -- and God in his sovereign providence allowed it to be so. Sorry to burst bubbles here. Events such as witnessing the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles and Peter's vision helped them along. But still temporary concessions had to be made. As I demonstrated very clearly, even Paul made certain concessions with regard to the Jews so as to not cause unnecessary offence. However, there would be a time to come when the entire Mosaic economy, along with Jerusalem and the Temple, would be destroyed, making it impossible for Jews to cling to their old ways.

Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

So why were the Jews angry with Paul and James? Because they heard wrong about Paul. It's as simple as that, (see Acts 2:24).

As for the Epistle of James, his teaching was 100% correct and not in conflict with Paul in the least. James and Paul both make it abundantly clear that good works are the fruit of faith. If there is no fruit, there is no faith. Faith without works is dead. No fruit = a false profession. Jesus was speaking of false prophets, but the principle he enunciated certainly applies here:

Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

***
No. they didn't hear wrong!!! Paul was teaching the Jews that they did not have follow the Law of Moses. Why did you indicate that he didn't???

Did Paul teach that the Jews did not have to keep the law of Moses?? Yes he did but obviously James did not.

Gal 5:1-6
5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
NKJV --- working through Jesus' love he has for us.
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Paul was very clear that we must keep the law also, HR, so i'm still not getting why you think otherwise
***

This is true for you but not for me. The law kills, it does not save because no man/woman can keep them. Jesus kept them for us. If He didn't then we are still condemned. Paul is very clear that no one can be saved by keeping the Law. If a person places their faith in the works of the law to save, or keep, them saved then they are placing it in the wrong place.

Gal 5:1-6
5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

I am amazed that since I do not believe in keeping the law those of religion are saying I must want to sin. Nothing could be more wrong. I live daily with the knowledge of my sins in the flesh. But unlike the religious I know Jesus loved me so much that He took care of them. I am like Paul in that I understand what he, Paul, said in Romans 7 and it applies to me also. But since Jesus took care of it I can say, as Paul did,

Rom 7:23-25
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25 I thank God — through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

NKJV


But the religious do not thank Jesus for delivering them from their sins of the flesh because they don't believe He did. therefore they are busy trying to do it for themselves.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
The law kills, it does not save because no man/woman can keep them.
i didn't say that keeping the law would save you Heb; i said you have to keep the law anyway. I'd Quote it from Christ's lips again but what would be the point
Jesus kept them for us.
obviously something is off there right, or Jesus would not have told you that you still have to keep the law
If He didn't then we are still condemned.
not if you follow Him, and pick up your cross. Confess your sin, and be saved (confession leads to salvation). Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Law is intrinsic to both of these principles, right.
Paul is very clear that no one can be saved by keeping the Law.
yes, i agree, i didn't say keeping the law would save you, the law is insufficient
but Paul was also very clear that you still have to keep the law. You have to do more than that, actually; you have to practice Grace
If a person places their faith in the works of the law to save, or keep, them saved then they are placing it in the wrong place.
see, what you are doing here is changing the subject. i--nor they--did not say "put your faith in the law to save you or keep you saved." The law is insufficient, the law is inadequate, etc, which means that if you cannot do more than the law you are doomed--it doesn't mean "don't even try to keep the law."

Grace is a higher standard, not a lower one
 
Last edited:

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
I live daily with the knowledge of my sins in the flesh.
boy, not me. I do my best to confess them in real time, to the air if no one else is around

it's one of my laws.

i don't live with those puppies for a second if i can avoid it.
i would spit lobster out to confess a sin now lol
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Truth

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
But unlike the religious I know Jesus loved me so much that He took care of them.
hmm, you don't think "the religious" struggle with this too?
Jesus loved you so much He provided a path, but that path does not violate
No Son of Man may die for another's sins
HR, and i tell you this from the heart ok.
and i am a raging Anarchist, you gotta believe i would be all over this "you don't have to keep the law" thing if i could be.
I am like Paul in that I understand what he, Paul, said in Romans 7 and it applies to me also.
obviously something is not being understood if what else Paul said has to be ignored for your concept to float, right?
Paul is not advocating serving the flesh there ok, he is making a confession:
24 O wretched man that I am!
see
and you just have to scroll down a bit further to read the solution, which did not make it into your Quote. (and never does, fwiw)
But the religious do not thank Jesus for delivering them from their sins of the flesh because they don't believe He did.
i would say that that is "their" biggest problem myself, "many will cry Lord, Lord,"
and i would have to ask you to Quote this "Jesus delivering them from their sins of the flesh" bc wadr this is the closest thing i could find,

What Does the Bible Say About Sins Of The Flesh? - OpenBible.info
What Does the Bible Say About Sins Of The Flesh?
Bible verses about Sins Of The Flesh. ... Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.

so i'll wait for your Quote and we'll work off that i guess
but there is no Quote coming, see.
the Quote is down a bit lower there in Romans 7 i guess

i mean no offense here ok, i understand that the concept has been deliberately confused.
 
Last edited: