***UPCI's Anthony Langston's New Book: Holier Than God ***

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I think that "holding the ancient landmarks" is a timeless principle. To suggest that this scripture speaks specifically of the 3500 year old landmarks, and not the recent "landmarks" is itself a form of "legalism". One is defining words in a litiguous manner to conclude whatever is appropiate for them. This principle appeals to the the "ancient landarks" of recent history in the same way it appeals to the "ancient landmarks" of antiquity.

I would agree with the writer of the article that the ancient landmarks are the ones laid down by the apostles.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by tv1a

How did we find out about if he didn't write about it?

Paul didn't have to disfellowship because he realized legalism is a spirit and confronted the spirit. It just so happened the guy with the "keys" happend to be influenced by that spirit. Once Peter realized the direction he was heading, he made a change that even effected his writing. Peter's epistles were a far cry for the legalistic venom he espoused in the book of Acts.

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I am truly rolling on the floor laughing at this!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by tv1a

Are Galatians 2 and Acts 15 missing in your Bible?

It's funny, because in Acts it seems Peter was arguing for grace.... not legalism!

[tv1a]

It was James who was the spokesman.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

It's funny, because in Acts it seems Peter was arguing for grace.... not legalism!

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by tv1a

It was James who was the spokesman.

Acts 15:7-11
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

These were PETER'S words. Peter was arguing for grace here. There was NO rampant "legalism" from Peter as you suggested. Also when Paul withstood Peter, it wasn't for his "legalism", it was for his hypocrisy-for acting one way when the Jews were not around, and then acting another way when the Jews showed up on the scene.

[tv1a]

According to some commentaries Paul was speaking about the events described in Acts 15 in his writings to the Galations. It is obvious Peter had a change of heart from legalism to grace. The timeline may be debated but the facts are Peter in favor of legalism.

Acts 15:13-29
13 When they had finished, James stood and said, "Brothers, listen to me.
14 Peter has told you about the time God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people for himself.
15 And this conversion of Gentiles agrees with what the prophets predicted. For instance, it is written:
16'Afterward I will return, and I will restore the fallen kingdom of David. From the ruins I will rebuild it, and I will restore it,
17 so that the rest of humanity might find the Lord, including the Gentiles-- all those I have called to be mine. This is what the Lord says,
18 he who made these things known long ago.'
19 And so my judgment is that we should stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,
20 except that we should write to them and tell them to abstain from eating meat sacrificed to idols, from sexual immorality, and from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals.
21 For these laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations."
The Letter for Gentile Believers
22 Then the apostles and elders and the whole church in Jerusalem chose delegates, and they sent them to Antioch of Syria with Paul and Barnabas to report on this decision. The men chosen were two of the church leaders--Judas (also called Barsabbas) and Silas.
23 This is the letter they took along with them: "This letter is from the apostles and elders, your brothers in Jerusalem. It is written to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Greetings!
24 "We understand that some men from here have troubled you and upset you with their teaching, but they had no such instructions from us.
25 So it seemed good to us, having unanimously agreed on our decision, to send you these official representatives, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 So we are sending Judas and Silas to tell you what we have decided concerning your question.
28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these requirements:
29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell."
NLT

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Acts 15:7-11
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

These were PETER'S words. Peter was arguing for grace here. There was NO rampant "legalism" from Peter as you suggested. Also when Paul withstood Peter, it wasn't for his "legalism", it was for his hypocrisy-for acting one way when the Jews were not around, and then acting another way when the Jews showed up on the scene.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I would agree with the writer of the article that the ancient landmarks are the ones laid down by the apostles.

I can't buy that suggestion Mizpeh. The scripture is in Proverbs which was written long before the apostles were on the scene. This is a principle that transcends the OT and NT... Paul spoke to Timothy as his "Son in the Gospel", therefore Timothy's spiritual Father was Paul (one generation away). We could also apply the same precedence, in that our spiritual "fathers" are the ones who begat us in the gospel, one generation away. The principle "move not the landmarks of our fathers" can speak of our immediate predecessors in the SAME WAY it speaks of those landmarks from 3500 years ago, or 2000 years ago, or 20 years ago....