The defilement was ceremonial, and not limited to just one kind.
The purpose was to teach that sin is spiritual defilement.
Countermanding God
- Thread starter Soyeong
- Start date
The purpose was to teach that sin is spiritual defilement.
One kind refers to what God has commanded while the other kind refers to refers to a type of defilement in accordance with man-made traditions that has been added on top of what God has commanded. What was only said against following man-made traditions should not be mistaken as speaking against following what God has commanded.
What God has commanded is plain in the Scriptures, and that is to what I am referring.
What God has commanded plainly in Scripture is to refrain from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14), that we should not add to or subtract from what He has commanded (Deuteronomy 4:2), and that the way to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him even if he performs signs and wonders is if they speak against obeying what God has commanded (Deuteronomy 13:1-5), so that doesn't leave any room for God's people to follow someone who tries to countermand Him. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so Paul should not be interpreted as promoting a position that the Bereans would have flat our rejected based on Scripture.
In Romans 14:14, it uses a Greek word that specifically to a type of uncleanness that is in violation of a man-made law that is never used by the Bible to refer to eating unclean animals. This fits within the topic of the chapter in regard to discussing how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command. Yet, you are interpreting a verse that is speaking only against obeying man's opinion as if it were speaking against obeying God as though Paul had the authority to countermand God, or as if Paul were not a servant of God, and are then choosing to follow what you think Paul said instead of following what God has plainly commanded in Scripture.
So you are still under the law which apostolic teaching, authoritative to the church, is that it has been abolished (Eph 2:15).
So you simply do not believe the NT.
That explains everything.
I'm under the new covenant, not the Mosaic covenant.
No, I simply did not believe your blatant misinterpretation of the NT, so the fact that I disagree with you about how Ephesians 2:15 should be interpreted does not mean that I do not believe the truth of the Bible, but rather I believe that the whole Bible is true, which is why I do not interpret some part of the Bible as speaking against other parts. It should not make sense to you to read Ephesians 2:15 and think that it makes sense to interpret servants of God as teaching us to rebel against him and that it is a good idea to promote rebellion against God, but rather you should be quicker to think that your interpretation makes no sense and that you must have misunderstood it. Moreover, you should think that Paul did not have the authority to countermand God and that the bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man so even if your interpretation of Ephesians 2:15 were correct, you should be quicker to disregard everything that Paul taught than to disregard anything that God has commanded. If your interpretation of Ephesians 2:15 were correct, then according to Deuteronomy 13:4-5, you should consider Paul to be a false prophet who was not speaking for God.
Ephesians 2:15 uses the Greek word "dogma" and every other time that word is used by the Bible it is referring to something other than the Law of God, so you need to give justification for why it should be interpreted as referring to the Law of God in this verses, especially in light of the fact that all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160). In Ephesians 2:10, we are new creations in Christ to do good works, so it wouldn't make sense to interpret a few verses later as saying that Christ abolished God's instructions for how to do good works, especially in light of the fact that he specifically said that he came not to abolish the law and warned against relaxing the least part of it or teaching others to do the same (Matthew 5:17-19). Furthermore, Paul also confirmed in Romans 3:31 that our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds it, so you are interpreting Paul as contradicting himself. God did not make any mistakes when He gave His law, so He had no need to abolish His own law.
In regard to Ephesians 2:14, God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather His law instructs to love our neighbors as ourselves. In Ephesians 2:12-19, it is saying that Gentiles were at one point separated from Christ, alienated from Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world, but though faith in Christ all that is no longer true in that Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens, but are fellow citizens of Israel. So Gentiles are being joined to Christ, not separated from him, being joined to Israel, not rejecting citizenship of Israel, and are being joined to the covenants of promise, not rejecting them, coming to the God of Israel, not rejecting Him, which completely undermines your interpretation of Ephesians 2:15.
In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so you reject the New Covenant.
Straw man.
No interpretation, exact wording in Greek: "the law of the commandments in decrees (dogma, opinion expressed with authority) having abolished in order that the two he might create in himself into one new man making peace,"
You misinterpret text to make it fit your erroneous theology.
The "countermanding" is plainly yours.
It remains that you are interpreting that verse as referring to the Law of God while all of the other times that the word "dogma" is used it refers to something other than the Law of God. I've given you many reasons for why I consider your interpretation of Ephesians 2:15 to be erroneous while you simply claim that my interpretation is erroneous in lieu of countering them. It is absurd how you think it makes perfect sense to interpret part of God's word to be speaking against following other parts of God's word and think that objecting to this is misinterpreting the text to make it fit my erroneous theology instead of the other way around.
Indeed it does! Because it is!
And to deny that fact is demonstration of my point.
Q.E.D.
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,203
- Reaction score
- 345
- Points
- 83
re unclean, have you read the account of Peter's vision of the unclean animals in Acts? I had a Messianic Jewish friend once quit fellowship with me because they said that they approved of Peter going to Gentiles homes but did not approve of him eating their food. Kind of missed the point of the vision. And the point of much of the NT about fellowship apart from 'debatables.'
Peter could have chosen to obey God's commands in the Mosaic Law and His command in his vision by simply killing and eating one of the clean animals, so the key to correctly understanding his vision is understanding why he refused to do what the Mosaic Law permitted him to do. It should be noted that Peter did not just refuse by saying that he had never eaten anything that is unclean, but also said that he had never eaten anything that is common and God only rebuked Peter for his use of the word "common" and not his use of the word "unclean". In other words, Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly knew that he was not supposed to eat them in obedience to the Mosaic Law, but he incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. Peter interpreted his vision and three different occasions as referring to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status. In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, God did not give Himself any room to do away with any of His laws through means of a vision, so if Peter had been going around speaking against obeying God's command against eating unclean animals, then those who rejected what he said as being the words of a false prophet would be correctly acting in accordance with what God has instructed His people to do.
Man does not have the authority to countermand God, so whether followers of God should follow what God has commanded in accordance with the example that Jesus set for us to follow should not be considered to be a debatable issue. Where God has given a command, human opinion must yield, but where God has not given a command, only then are we free to follow our own debatable opinions.
I've given many reasons for why Ephesians 2:15 should not be interpreted as referring to God's law that you have ignored while you have not give any reason to think that it refers to God's law beyond insisting that it does, so you are far from proving your position.
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,203
- Reaction score
- 345
- Points
- 83
The first paragraph is verbose. I don't recognize anything.
In short it should be noted Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that is unclean, but also said that he had never eaten anything that was common. Moreover, God only rebuke Peter for his use of the word "common" and not his use of the word "unclean", yet his vision is commonly interpreted as if God had instead rebuked him for his use of the word "unclean", which completely misses the point that God was making in His vision.
The text speaks for itself, it falls to you to prove it does not mean what it clearly states: "the law of the commandments in decrees having abolished in order that the two (Jew and Gentile) he might create in himself into one new man,"
If the text spoke for itself, then there wouldn't be anyone who disagreed with how it should be interpreted. I do not deny that it says "the law of the commandments in decrees having abolished in order that the two (Jew and Gentile) he might create in himself into one new man," but rather I see no justification for thinking that this refers to the Law of God, especially given that fact that all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), and every other time the Bible uses "dogma" it refers to something other than the Law of God, and you refuse to give any beyond insisting that it refers to the Law of God. I believe that all of the Bible is true, so unlike you I don't interpret any verse as contradicting another verse.
Bob Carabbio
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2023
- Messages
- 1,005
- Reaction score
- 305
- Points
- 83
You should probably read the BIBLE to find out what it is that you're talking about.
How is your comment edifying? I quoted the Bible to support what I said, so I have read the Bible. This is a discussion board, so if you disagree with what I said, then please discuss why.
And that is where we disagree.
Words on a page do not have the ability to speak, so no text speaks for itself, but rather everyone who reads a text has an interpretation of what they think its author was intended to communicate. Even though Ephesians 2:15 could refer to any number of things, you have arbitrarily decided that it refer to the Law of God without justification while ignoring all of the reasons that I have given for why it could not be referring to the Law of God. Furthermore, even if your interpretation of Ephesians 2:15 we correct, then we should obey God rather than Paul, so we should still obey God regardless of whether or not your interpretation is correct.
