Replies

[On the Jerusalem Council:] It was +Paul who (together with +Barnabas, and apparently Titus, an uncircumcised Greek), but under +Paul's initiative, who argued that circumcision, "Jewish baptism," can be dispensed with! This is equivalent to someone telling you that one does not have to be baptized to become a Christian. I don't know about Protestants, but the Orthodox Church would not consider those people Christian even if their theology was identical to the EO theology (save for Baptism). So, in effect, +Paul was arguing to introduce something that was fundamentally against the Jewish Law.

Even as a Southern Baptist I know that baptism is not required to be Christian. Of course, God commands it, and so all Christians should be baptized, but it is not salvific. Paul appears to recognize this, but as before, Paul is still very pro-baptism. Paul is correcting all those who believe that ritual is required to enter Heaven.

But one thing is clear: the purpose of the account in the so-called 'Council' of Jerusalem was to provide scriptural 'justification' initiated by +Paul to dispense with God's Laws given to Moses so as "not to burden" the Gentiles when Christ never explicitly or implicitly gave such permission or even mentioned such a possibility.

Christ said He came to fulfill the Law, and He gave His revelation to Paul personally. Paul speaks of the fulfillment that Christ promised.

Even as a Southern Baptist I know that baptism is not required to be Christian

It's not?

Of course, God commands it

There's a clue...

so all Christians should be baptized, but it is not salvific

It washes away our sins. If we die immediately after Baptism we should go straight to heaven.

It's an act of adoption into the Body of Christ. What could be more salvific than that?

For Judaism, circumcision is not an 'option.' If you wanted to convert to Judaism (and Christianity in those days was Judaism), you had to meet the requirements.

What +Paul was suggesting was some new and yet unknown kind of covenant with God which was not Judaism.

Paul is correcting all those who believe that ritual is required to enter Heaven.

Right, he was re-inventing Judaism in the eyes of those present. I have news for you: Judaism was a liturgical religion with "rituals." If that is what +Paul was saying, then he is clearly in conflict with the Church, because these "rituals" are considered sacraments.

Of course, you can say they are only rituals, and I can say the Bible is only a book. The Jews followed the Law (of Moses given to him by God). The Law required "rituals." Observant Jews could not agree with +Paul, as his suggestion was contrary to God's Law. Being a Pharisee, I doubt that +Paul had problems with "rituals."

Christ said He came to fulfill the Law, and He gave His revelation to Paul personally

And God gave the Law to Moses. Please don't tell me Christ personally told +Paul to break the Law God gave to Moses.