I also wanted to mention that in Ray Comforts "Answers from the Evidence Bible - Freedom from Keeping the Sabbath" there is this argument:
"Acts 15:5–11, 24–29 was God’s opportunity to make His will clear to His children. All He had to do to save millions from damnation was say, "Remember to keep the Sabbath holy," and millions of Christ-centered, God-loving, Bible-believing Christians would have gladly kept it. Instead, the only commands the apostles gave were to "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication."
Using the same logic as expressed above then had the Jerusalem Council mentioned, "Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not covet, etc, etc, then by extension millions of Christ-centered, God-loving, Bible-believing Christians would have gladly kept them. But is that true?
What the argument here is really making is that since the Jerusalem Council did not admonish newly minted Christians from murdering, stealing or coveting then those must be perfectly fine to do! But who would buy that argument? Who would even make such an argument and still keep a straight face? Even more interesting is that this very council of consisting of new Christians from Jewish backgrounds made it known that these new Christians were to keep certain aspects of the Mosaic health laws, 1) Not to eat blood, and 2) Not to eat anything strangled or that died on it's own.
Clearly, a confused, nonsensical argument should be rejected whenever logic based on the perfect law of God and clear Biblical evidence is used to dismiss it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment