If you trusted Christ for your salvation, for your righteousness at first and then turned to trust the law for your salvation, your righteousness, then Christ died in vain.
That is exactly what I have been saying.
As far as your understanding of the verse in Acts 15:21
For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
Acts 15:21
That doesn't mean what you said here:
The apostles were saying these are the 4 things they need to stop doing right now and they will learn the rest as they hear Moses writings being read every Sabbath. They would eventually learn all the commands from Torah, which is not for their salvation, because salvation is a free gift.
The part of that exchange of words in Acts 15 that proves your interpretation is one of eisegesis ( reading into the text) is as follows:
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
That is what they were teaching. Sounds like that is what you teach, doesn't it? In your eisegesis of vs 21 you stated:
The apostles were saying these are the 4 things they need to stop doing right now and they will learn the rest as they hear Moses writings being read every Sabbath. They would eventually learn all the commands from Torah,
You add the caveat that the Circumcision Party was making it a basis for Salvation, but from this text, that is demonstrably untrue. The gentiles had already received salvation and we're now being taught that having the Holy Spirit wasn't good enough. Now they also needed to be circumcised and keep the Torah, see vs 5 again:
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.
Peter was the first to speak up to refute the teaching of this group of Pharisees that believed. He declared that God accepted the Gentiles just as they were, uncircumcised, and proved this acceptance by giving them the Holy Spirit. He then says that if the Church commanded the Gentiles to be circumsized and keep the Law of Moses (another example of it being called this, btw, not just the Law of God, as you pointed out on a different comment.) that they would be tempting God and putting a yoke (of bodage) on the neck of the disciples (both Jew and Gentile) that neither they (Peter, James, the believing Pharisees) nor their forefathers were able to bear.
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.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? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Acts 15:7-11
The Apostle James then agreed with Peters assessment and gave his verdict. What verdict? What was the question in context again? Vs 5.
That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
The verdict was that the Gentiles didn't need to be circumsized or keep the Law of Moses. That was the question, and that was James' (and the Holy Spirit's) answer.
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Acts 15:19-21
Now, you read into vs 21 that it is saying that the disciples don't need to be circumsized now and keep the law of Moses now, but if they go to the synagogue they will be taught how to be circumsized and keep the Law of Moses later.
That can not be the right exegesis of that verse since it blatantly contradicts the answer James and Peter gave to the question asked.
Furthermore, if your interpretation of vs 21 was accurate, then what you are saying is that it was pleasing to God (the Holy Spirit) that these disciples continue to walk in disobedience to the Torah until they learn how to walk in obedience to the Torah. The Holy Spirit said it was Ok to disobey something in the short term that God wants them to obey eventually?
That interpretation is blatantly false. For James through the Holy Spirit could have put the whole question to rest by clearly teaching that
Yes, Gentiles should put on the same yoke as us and our forefathers and be circumsized right away and be taught the Law of Moses so that they are pleasing to God.
If that is indeed what God wanted that is what James and Peter would have said right then and there. Rather, they gave for guidelines that they asked the Gentiles to follow. Why? In context it was so that they didn't offend the Jews who were gathered on the Sabbaths and we're still being taught the Law of Moses.
The 4 things stipulated. Three of them are in the Law of Moses. Abstaining from things strangled isn't in the Law.
So, as I've saud, your interpretation of vs 21 can't be accurate because it violated the immediate context of the verses surrounding it. And not all 4 injunctions are found in the Law.
Just to be sure every matter is established by 2 or more testimonies, Luke, the author of Acts, repeats the sentence handed down by the Holy Spirit through James in vs 24.
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
James goes on to to relist the sentence in vs 28-29.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
To isolate vs 21 to say what you want it to say to support your presupposition ( that Gentiles need to be circumsized and obey the commandments detailed in the Torah) violates the clear understanding of the rest of the verses in the chapter.
The question once again was, after receiving the Holy Spirit, do Gentiles need to be circumsized and keep the Law of Moses? The answer, as demonstrated, is clearly NO.
However, isn't that the very doctrine and teachings that you so zealously argue for? Do you not teach that Gentiles need to be circumsized and keep the Torah? That answer is a resounding YES.
So, what makes you think that what you teach doesn't have the same affect of "Subverting souls" as the believing Pharisees did in the very beginning of the Church?
That was one verse that I asked you to help me understand if I wasnt understanding it correctly. Please take the time to exegete, not eisegete, the other verses as well.
RE: Contending for the Faith: part 1 of ?