Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Acts 15 And Eternal Security/osas


thessalonian

Recommended Posts

Something has always bothered me and so I am going to start a discussion on it. When Acts 15 is discussed it is usually with regard to infallibility of the Pope. Catholics say, Peter made the decision, Protestants say na na boo boo your wrong. Well I want to have a different discussion on Acts 15. Why on God's green earth if the Gospel that the Apostles (including Paul I might add) was one of assured salvation, did they have to bring everybody together and have a big meeting in Jerusalem to discuss whether circumcision was neccessary for salvatoin or not? Why didn't Paul bring up the usual eternal security verses and just put the whole matter to rest right away? "Circumcision isn't neccessary for salvation because Jesus say he came that we might have eternal life" or something like that?

Didn't everybody know that the Gospel included assurance of salvation?

Why didn't anyone stand up and say, "oh, that's works righteousness"?

Do you catch my drift. Let's give it a go.

Have fun. I may not participate much do to personal duties.

Blessings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never thought of it from that angle, but you are correct.

But on the same token, if our salvation is assured, why does Jesus command baptism and "breaking of the bread"?

Why not just leave it at "I am the way, the truth and the life"?

And why are these traditions continued through the early Church?

Because they're necessary for salvation. Well, at least, we can be sure eternal security doesn't just come from faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The passage doesn't say anything about eternal security either way. The council was discussing how one got saved in the first place, not if one can leave the covenant. Baptism replaces circumcision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something has always bothered me and so I am going to start a discussion on it. When Acts 15 is discussed it is usually with regard to infallibility of the Pope. Catholics say, Peter made the decision, Protestants say na na boo boo your wrong. Well I want to have a different discussion on Acts 15. Why on God's green earth if the Gospel that the Apostles (including Paul I might add) was one of assured salvation, did they have to bring everybody together and have a big meeting in Jerusalem to discuss whether circumcision was neccessary for salvatoin or not? Why didn't Paul bring up the usual eternal security verses and just put the whole matter to rest right away? "Circumcision isn't neccessary for salvation because Jesus say he came that we might have eternal life" or something like that?

Didn't everybody know that the Gospel included assurance of salvation?

Why didn't anyone stand up and say, "oh, that's works righteousness"?

Do you catch my drift. Let's give it a go.

Have fun. I may not participate much do to personal duties.

Blessings

Is it just me, or am I terribly confused?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never really thought of it this way. Sometimes this happens in Mass, too, when Father is giving his homily. It's shown in a light different from how I learned it all my life and makes crazy sense!!!

Thank you very much...

^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...