Acts 15:11 and Sola fide

[Gmsod]

Hello,
So i just have a question about this particular passage, Acts 15:11, which reads:

“but, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, even as also they.” (Young’s literally translation)
or
“But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also.“ (Douay Rheims)

Before anyone says anything, I do realize that both Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants believe in salvation solely as a gift of GOD by grace. My confusion is in the context of the passage.
Peter has been discussing with the other Apostles and elders about how the Pharisees have been telling Gentile converts that they must be circumcised in order to be saved. In response he says that they are trying to put a yoke on the gentiles that neither they nor their fathers could bare. He then says what was said previously in Acts 15:11.
It seems like his reasoning for discounting the requirement to be circumcised to be saved is that we are instead saved by GOD’s grace through JESUS. I have no confusion that that is true, but why he says it makes it seem as if the reason they didn’t have to be circumcised was because all they needed was GOD’s grace, which albeit doesn’t equate to faith alone, but at least appears to say that requiring someone to do actions is an unnecessary condition for salvation because we are saved by GOD’s grace.

From my readings of the Bible and Church fathers and reason itself I can see that faith alone seems wrong, but this passage and it’s context has been bugging me still because I haven’t been able to think of or find an explanation.

All help is appreciated. Thank y’all for reading for and GOD bless!

 

[pianistclare]

From Haydock’s commentary:

In the historical sense he is speaking of the prosperity of the house of Juda, in the reign of Ezechias, or their return from captivity. But in this respect, it is certain that the prophecy never had its entire accomplishment. The passage in the text is cited from the Septuagint. The Hebrew is, “I will raise up the house of David…that it may possess all the nations,” &c. Now it is true that the nations never were subject to the house of David, or known by the name of the people of God; but by their vocation to the gospel, as St. James explains it. (Calmet)

 

[po18guy]

This may help:

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/confraternity/id116.html

 

[Gmsod]

So this is speaking of works of the Mosaic Old Covenant Law and we are under the new covenant now, right? Still, my confusion is in his reasoning behind Acts 15:11. He is saying it to disprove that we need to do the rituals of the OT to be saved and he doesn’t cite that JESUS did away with them by fulfilling them, instead he says this because we are saved by grace, which seems like it could apply in a Sola Fide sense, even if what he was talking about wasn’t as general. Not sure if my question makes much sense, please tell me if I need to be clearer. Thanks for the reply!

GOD bless

 

[ErraticFaith]

Works are the manifestation of faith.

You hardly believe in anything, by just saying you do and sitting on your backside for the rest of you life.

With a ‘faith alone’ approach, God might as well have just shut up shop and closed the Universe after Jesus said it was ‘finished’.

You might need God to enter heaven but assuming you have free permit to do as you please until that point makes the world about as sensical as caster sugar sailing boats.

 

[rcwitness]

Pretty much.

And St Paul certainly agrees with you.

Philippians 1
Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ…For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict which you saw and now hear to be mine.

 

[ErraticFaith]

What more is there, than following the example given by the Lord in order to better the world he created and all creation upon it.

One would think, excluding the minds of the selfish, that it would be self apparent.

 

[rose321]

James 2:24 says that faith without works is dead. I’m sure you know that. But just remember that the Scriptures do not contradict each other. If two verses from Scripture seem to contradict each other, then they probably don’t mean what you think they mean!

Respectfully in pondering on, when searching Scripture and in what you have stated James 2:24 says> faith without works is dead, James is not contradicting himself either and continues to flow in what is Written, >>>what James states Acts 15:1-21 Acts 15: 22-35 does it not flow with what is said in James 2:24 faith without works is dead?

What was required for the gentles to enter the fold of Faith, instructions were given which requires work on the believers part by the 4 Laws given, by observing such, obedience to and agreed upon, accepted by all at the Jerusalem Council who All gathered on the issue of Circumcision>> the Elders, James, St Peter, St Paul, Barnabas, Apostles, who all met together to consider this matter of circumcision?

Acts 15-22-29 The Jerusalem Council sends a Letter to the Gentle Believers with the consent of the whole church, Apostles and Elders to Antioch Syria, Cilicia greetings instructions Gentles>> do not need to be circumcised, but have to accept live by>>observe and obey the 4 Laws given to enter the fold of Faith?

Where Acts 15:13-21>>James is the last to speak after hearing all, he stands and gives instructions to where all agreed on>> Gentles do not have to be circumcised but gentles wanting to enter the fold of Faith> must abstain from
Forbidden Fornication
Forbidden what has been sacrificed to Idolatry
Forbidden to eat strangled animals with blood within
And from Blood?
Would that not be works, obedience observing such being Faithful to and in Believing in his Spoken Word?

Isaiah taught us how to read scripture, line upon line, pretext upon pretext line upon line, continuing reading maybe thus will find the whole of what is being said, discussed. instead of just picking out a verse? Answer is within the whole chapter?

To say one has faith in HIM, then we believe and live by His Spoken Word, instructions> Laws given? Confused why this is still an issue today on circumcision or faith without works is dead stated by James? Peace

 

[rose321]

Works are the manifestation of faith.

Agree why also maybe Jesus repeats the Sermon on the Mount from OT? Gives us the Ten Commandments and why also Jesus, while in the flesh, lived by observing in obedience to the Laws and instructions given?

Our Works manifest our Strong Faith and Belief in HIM and in His Spoken Word? Not just lip service?

Faith without Works is dead>>continues to flow with other Written Scripture? Where instructions is given to those who Believe in Him, does it not?

Example maybe?>>The whole Sermon on the Mount, because of our Belief and Faith in>>>>>actions>>>are needed on our part, believers? Is it not God asking theses questions to us?
When I had no place to lay my head (God) did you take me in? (God)
When I was ill ( God) did you care for me (God)?
When I ( God)was naked did you cloth me (God)?

Continues to flow in Scripture?>>>>>What ever you do to the least of my brother, that you have done unto ME ( God)?

But I called you Lord, Lord, get away from Me I know you not?
James stating such? Faith without works is dead? Flows with the teaching of Jesus and continues to flow in Written Scripture like in Acts and in Matthew does it not etc? Peace

 

[MT1926]

It seems like his reasoning for discounting the requirement to be circumcised to be saved is that we are instead saved by GOD’s grace through JESUS. I have no confusion that that is true, but why he says it makes it seem as if the reason they didn’t have to be circumcised was because all they needed was GOD’s grace, which albeit doesn’t equate to faith alone, but at least appears to say that requiring someone to do actions is an unnecessary condition for salvation because we are saved by GOD’s grace.

The simplest explanation in my mind is that what St. Peter is saying is we are saved by the free gift of God’s grace, and circumcision (the old covenant law) was not a means of grace.

That’s it nothing else, the verse has nothing to say on the matter of faith or works or Baptism or the other Sacraments. It doesn’t even speak of how one acquires (freely given, for the sticklers on wording) this grace for salvation.

Now as for Grace…

The Church teaches that there is a difference between actual grace and sanctifying grace. An easy way to understand actual grace is to remember that it enables us to act. It is the strength that God gives us to act according to his will. Sanctifying grace is a state in which God allows us to share in his life and love. When we speak of being in the state of grace, we mean the state of sanctifying grace. There is no mortal sin in us. This grace comes to us first in baptism and then in the other sacraments.

Sometimes just reading the words on the page and not trying to get an entire theological picture is the best way to go.

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[rose321]

So i just have a question about this particular passage, Acts 15:11, which reads:

Taking and lifting only one verse out of the Whole of Chapter> Acts 15>>>Acts 15:11
Respectfully pondering on, leads me to this question.

Titled also in the Bible as " The Council at Jerusalem" Acts Chapter 15 >>>>>there is a meeting taking place in Jerusalem, naming also all who are present and who have come to gather before the Jerusalem Council Meeting, on their concerns, what to do with Gentles who are not circumcised, who are seeking to enter the fold of the Faithful?

Who speaks first to present their case before the Jerusalem Council?
Who is the last to speak?
What was agreed by All who were present at the Jerusalem council meeting, in the end?
What were the 4 Laws given for the gentles to observe and live by if wanting to enter the fold of the Faithful, and >>>yes all agreed 1st gentles do not have to be circumcised>>>>>> BUT then 4 Laws are given to the Gentles to be observed and obeyed to enter the fold of the Faithful>>> is this not written again >>even in St Paul’s own letters >>he himself>>>>mentions this Jerusalem Council meeting and what was all agreed upon, for the Gentles to enter the fold of the Faithful,does he not?

Stand to be correct how one learns, just pointing out what is written. Just do not understand why there is still confusing on this issue still today? Peace

Flows with James >>Faith without Works is dead>>4 Laws given?

Also flows with Jesus teaching of the Sermon on the Mount? Obey the Commandments? Defend the orphans, widows, outcasts>stand up for righteousness as Jesus showed and taught us?

Actions is needed to observe and live by? For our Actions manifest our Faith do they not? Peace

 

[guanophore]

at least appears to say that requiring someone to do actions is an unnecessary condition for salvation because we are saved by GOD’s grace.

While it is true that the Mosaic Law was considered by the Apostles to be a custodian that was to lead Israel to Christ, the saving faith they understood was a faith that worked. One can see in all of the writings, including Peter’'s, that there is an expectation that a person whose faith had led them to saving grace in Christ would manifest this saving faith in their actions, beginning with Baptism. It is not so much “adding” to saving faith, as it is the nature or quality of the faith that saves. As James wrote;

You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
James 2:24

14What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

James was also present at this same discussion, which took place before he wrote this epistle.

 

[rose321]

James was also present at this same discussion, which took place before he wrote this epistle.

Respectfully and what continues to flow in context in what is written is Chapter Acts 15 the whole of chapter Acts 15 and the 4 Laws given and agreed by all present at the Jerusalem Council for what Gentles must observe, obey and live by >>1st Gentles do not have to be circumcised, along with the 4 Laws given for Gentles to observe live by, in Faithfulness to, to enter the fold of the Faithful?

Which is repeated, mentioned written by St Paul in his own epistle >>>what took place and agreed upon by All at the Jerusalem Council for Gentles to observe, in order to enter the fold of the Faithful?

And again written and flows in context>> in James writes in his own epistle that>> Faith without works is dead>>Peace

 

[rose321]

The simplest explanation in my mind is that what St. Peter is saying is we are saved by the free gift of God’s grace, and circumcision (the old covenant law) was not a means of grace.

Respectfully in pondering on >Circumcision was not a covenant made with the Gentles? Did the Jerusalem Council>> all not search the Scriptures in what is written>>> to come to this decision when it came the the Law of Circumcision and whom this Covenant was made with? But with the Hebrew Israelites? Was not Timothy circumcised by St Paul?

Thus Gentles not being Jews or Hebrew Israelites did not need to obey this covenant then? And is circumcision still being observed today by some Jews still till this day?

Note also St Peter, St Paul, Barnabas, Elders, Apostles who gathered, the whole of the Jerusalem Council agreed that Gentles do not need to be circumcised but all are forgetting>>there was 4 Laws given to the Gentle to be observed, obeyed and lived by if they choose to enter the Fold of the Faithful? But for the Jews present did it still remain a Law for them?

Speaking about Gentles who are not circumcised>>are they not? Is there a place written in Chapter Acts 15, stating this applies also for Jews and non Jews>Gentles>.no longer need to be circumcised or just dealing with Gentles? Peace

 

[MT1926]

Respectfully in pondering on >Circumcision was not a covenant made with the Gentles?

That was not the point of my post. My point was that St. Peter was saying the act of circumcision is not a means of grace.

Note also St Peter, St Paul, Barnabas, Elders, Apostles who gathered, the whole of the Jerusalem Council agreed that Gentles do not need to be circumcised but all are forgetting>>there was 4 Laws given to the Gentle to be observed, obeyed and lived by if they choose to enter the Fold of the Faithful?

Yes I understand what you are saying. Not sure why this point is so important to you that you are posting it to every response?

I think the point you are missing here is these 4 Laws were not given for the Gentiles to enter the fold. These 4 laws were set forth by James as a pastoral initiative to promote fellowship and preempt foreseeable friction between Jewish and Gentile believers coming together in the Church. These four laws weren’t given to the Gentiles to enter the fold of Faith they were given to appease the Jews who abhorred these practices and it was to help the Gentiles break away from these ritual observances of paganism.

The council of Florence in 1442 affirmed that this apostolic decree was only a temporary measure to facilitate unity among the Jews and Gentiles in the early Church. The binding force of the food restrictions was relaxed once the ethnic circumstances that made them necessary passed away.

Was not Timothy circumcised by St Paul?

Yes for the very same reason, to keep the peace.

Some even say when St. Peter ate with the Jews, when St. Paul rebuked him, St. Peter’s response to St. Paul is not recorded so we do not know St. Peter’s reasoning behind his actions.

God Bless

 

[Bon_Croix]

Baptism replaced circumcision.

Is the sacrament of baptism required for being saved?

According to CCC, the answer is “no”.

Faith is a grace. Is faith necessary to be saved?

According to the Bible, yes?

Does the Bible imply that all those with faith are saved?

No.

 

[rose321]

That was not the point of my post. My point was that St. Peter was saying the act of circumcision is not a means of grace.

Opinion respectfully agree with you on what St Peter saying.

I think the point you are missing here is these 4 Laws were not given for the Gentiles to enter the fold. These 4 laws were set forth by James as a pastoral initiative to promote fellowship and preempt foreseeable friction between Jewish and Gentile believers coming together in the Church. These four laws weren’t given to the Gentiles to enter the fold of Faith they were given to appease the Jews who abhorred these practices and it was to help the Gentiles break away from these ritual observances of paganism.

This is where I get confused, forgive me, just seeking out all truths and want to understand. Then in all one is saying. So James only did so, to mislead, appease those by which James himself is a member of>>> those who already belonged to the community of the Faithful, through which the Gentles want to enter into the fold of Faith?

And James known as the brother of the Lord, himself, did not obey or follow being a Jews? James would accept those who committed Fornication? Idolatry? So the 4 Laws that were given then was to bring about Good, to stop such pagan practices? Sorry your reply confuses me greatly now.

Does God not mention in many Biblical verses many many times, those who commit Fornication? Those who commit Idolatry? To stop such observances of pagan rituals <>> which then would clearly define, separate the Christians from the pagans right?

Exactly why the 4 Laws were given to the gentles from following pagan rituals beliefs etc, to stop such transgressions etc? Peace

 

[fhansen]

Hello,
So i just have a question about this particular passage, Acts 15:11, which reads:

“but, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, even as also they.” (Young’s literally translation)
or
“But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also.“ (Douay Rheims)

Before anyone says anything, I do realize that both Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants believe in salvation solely as a gift of GOD by grace. My confusion is in the context of the passage.
Peter has been discussing with the other Apostles and elders about how the Pharisees have been telling Gentile converts that they must be circumcised in order to be saved. In response he says that they are trying to put a yoke on the gentiles that neither they nor their fathers could bare. He then says what was said previously in Acts 15:11.
It seems like his reasoning for discounting the requirement to be circumcised to be saved is that we are instead saved by GOD’s grace through JESUS. I have no confusion that that is true, but why he says it makes it seem as if the reason they didn’t have to be circumcised was because all they needed was GOD’s grace, which albeit doesn’t equate to faith alone, but at least appears to say that requiring someone to do actions is an unnecessary condition for salvation because we are saved by GOD’s grace.

From my readings of the Bible and Church fathers and reason itself I can see that faith alone seems wrong, but this passage and it’s context has been bugging me still because I haven’t been able to think of or find an explanation.

All help is appreciated. Thank y’all for reading for and GOD bless!

Even faith is an act, because we aren’t forced to believe, although Calvinists might argue that point with their doctrine of election. But the Christian faith teaches that man’s will is involved, otherwise God would simply either give grace to some and not others, or salvation would be universal, with all men receiving grace. But that’s not so. We can accept or reject God’s gift of faith, as we can with any gift of grace. And from there it’s not finished. As the Church teaches, faith is the beginning, root and foundation of our justification, and therefore of our salvation. It’s the basis of being justified because it establishes relationship or communion between man and God, ‘apart from Whom we can do nothing’, but ‘with Whom all things are possible’. And this is a communion we must maintain, remain faithful to, following Christ as He leads us.

It’s all grace in the end, with our accepting and cooperating with it rather than rejecting it.

 

[rose321]

I think the point you are missing here is these 4 Laws were not given for the Gentiles to enter the fold.

Respectfully opinion only, still confused in all one has stated, pondering on. What is so different with what the Jerusalem Council, James, St Peter, St Paul Elders all agreed to with the 4 Laws given for Gentles to observe? What must anyone do, believe in, fully accept as Truth, obey, to enter the Catholic Church and to remain within? Believe in? Observe? Can just anyone receive Holy Communion not being a Catholic belonging to the community of the Faith? See I am confused now in all what one has said.

And in the Apostles time, those who did not observe or live by those 4 Laws, would they not be seen at some point within the community of the Faithful, by those of the Community of the Faithful and brought before the Jerusalem Council, like why St Paul also had to do the Nazrite Vow, why? Even Jesus had to go before the Jerusalem Council when they thought he broke the Sabbath Laws?

Sorry need help and understanding of what one is stating, want to learn. Respectfully toward Peace

 

[catholic1seeks]

I think you are reading a 16th century (Catholic-Protestant) controversy into the text that knew nothing of the sort. The council is declaring that God’s blessing and salvation comes via Jesus Christ, and therefore following the precepts of the Old Law is not necessary in order to be considered God’s People.

As you yourself admit, the Bible as a whole indicates that salvation is much more than simply a one-time belief in Christ.