What must a Christian believe?

That is a great point! Wouldn't that have been great if it were recorded in the Bible, the disciples asking Jesus about the need or lack of need for animal sin sacrifices?

Yes indeed. It would have answered a lot of questions.

But then what would we have to argue about???
 
Wasn't the sacrifice in Luke 2:23-24 for Mary and not the the child. As far as I can tell Jesus never offered a sacrifice other than Himself on Calvery.

Yes, that is what I meant and said. Mary did not consider herself sinless because she offered the appropriate sin offering of two turtledoves for HERself.

Thank you for bringing attention to that fact. It blew me away when I first came across Luke 2:23-24.
 
Do you mean to say the Old Testament covenant law no longer serves a purpose in the New Testament covenant? Because I think Paul said the law is used like a mirror for us to see ourselves in, so we can recognize our sinful nature and how much we NEED the Savior Jesus. What did you mean by saying, "The Law is dead to us now." I know WE are dead to the law, but I think the law is very much alive. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. I wish to be set straight.
I said the Law is dead to us, meaning we who are saved. It is alive still for all those unsaved and those who still follow the Old Cov. Scripture for this is from multiple places in Romans, it is a common theme for the book, 2 Corinthians 3:7-14, Colossians 2:14

And Ephesians 2:14-16
14 For Christ himself has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into one people when, in his own body on the cross, he broke down the wall of hostility that separated us. 15 He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups. 16 Together as one body, Christ reconciled both groups to God by means of his death on the cross, and our hostility toward each other was put to death.

Since the Law was replaced with Grace for those who accept Christ as their Savior, the Law has passed away(death). We died to the law, we are made alive by Grace and the Holy Spirit shows us right and wrong. The law condemns and we are not condemned anymore. So the Law has no hold on us anymore, hence it is dead.
 
I said the Law is dead to us, meaning we who are saved. It is alive still for all those unsaved and those who still follow the Old Cov. Scripture for this is from multiple places in Romans, it is a common theme for the book, 2 Corinthians 3:7-14, Colossians 2:14

And Ephesians 2:14-16
14 For Christ himself has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into one people when, in his own body on the cross, he broke down the wall of hostility that separated us. 15 He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups. 16 Together as one body, Christ reconciled both groups to God by means of his death on the cross, and our hostility toward each other was put to death.

Since the Law was replaced with Grace for those who accept Christ as their Savior, the Law has passed away(death). We died to the law, we are made alive by Grace and the Holy Spirit shows us right and wrong. The law condemns and we are not condemned anymore. So the Law has no hold on us anymore, hence it is dead.

Thank you, Big Moose...that makes it clearer for me. We are on the same page, we just had different ways of expressing it.
 
Honestly, I don't really understand the question - so I will answer what I think you are asking...

I think Doctrine statements are perhaps the Epitome of "Scripture by Committee".... A perfect example of why God sends his message through the anointed Prophet... Ironically, I can't find one example of bona-fide Scripture written through committee....

The thing that mystifies me most about doctrine statements is that churches spend endless time crafting a statement that isn't scripture and no on in the entire church STRICTLY believes.... As such - churches get into real trouble if they use a Doctrine Statement as anything more than a guideline and a way to reference back to the actual scripture..

The reason circumcision is not required is because it was declared as such in a committee. Specifically the Council of Jerusalem.

I suppose we can get into conflict because the scripture was "technically" written by Luke, although Luke was only detailing an historical account.

The Council of Jerusalem is supposedly the model from which the 7 (or 21 in the RCC) Ecumenical Councils were structured after.
 
Yes, that is what I meant and said. Mary did not consider herself sinless because she offered the appropriate sin offering of two turtledoves for HERself.

Thank you for bringing attention to that fact. It blew me away when I first came across Luke 2:23-24.

Two points to consider.

1) No Christian teaching has held that Mary was infallible. Therefore it is possible for her to have presented such a sacrifice unnecessarily. This would make sense since she was humble.

2) Even if she intended this, it still does not mean she had sin. Christ was baptized unnecessarily as an appropriate demonstration of humility, it is possible Mary did the same.
 
Top