Lighthouse, do you really think that Stephen being saved had anything to do with self-righteous acts under the written Law of Moses? That he had something of which he could boast? If that is true, then anyone can be. Which flies in the face of not only what Paul taught but James too...
Being a doer of the law has nothing to do with self-righteousness. It has nothing to do with righteousness, as righteousness does not come through the law.
However, one who is a follower of Christ in a dispensation wherein they are under the law will be a doer of the law as an obedient response to Him. Because they love Him; not because it saves them.
Paul spoke of a different dispensation than the one which Stephen was in as Paul stated we are not under the law.
Stephen was saved by Grace alone! (as are we all). The 'works' that James speaks of are not empty works of the written 'LAW' but rather that which we do because faith demands it! Love God, Love one another'
Did you just call the written law 'empty'? As in 'void'?
"Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law."
-Romans 3:31
Earlier in the chapter it is said that boasting is excluded, but not by the law of works. Boasting is excluded by the law of faith.
It was by Grace that Stephen believed in Christ and it is by Grace through that faith, that he was able to endure to the end. Enduring to the end is a 'work' that is required by faith, (loving GOD) and forgiving those that were murdering him is also a 'work' that Faith requires (loving one another).. Was he able to accomplish this on his own power? NO! It was by the Grace of God, doing what is expected of a child of God.
ame all the Biblical authors who wrote of salvation by grace through faith and not works.
Then notice that the same did not speak of enduring the end, and vice versa.
And if the law was of no effect for Stephen why did Peter argue with God in his vision in Acts 10?
[qutoe]Is it so hard to say that without the cross there is no salvation? the burial and resurrection are also necessary, of course, but it is to the cross that 'the writ against us' is nailed...
1co 2:2 'For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified'.[/quote]
Did I say otherwise?
The power, condemnation, strength of sin is DEATH! ''You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die'
"The sting of death
is sin, and the strength of sin
is the law."
-1 Corinthians 15:56
Try again.
That we will NOT die is the first lie told to men. And the choice that our father Adam made, was DEATH! And since that time all mankind has been bound in death.
The second Adam has freed us from that choice, and offers us once more LIFE! Eternal Life in HIM
No argument here.
We are saved from both spiritual AND physical death. The resurrection of Christ's body is our proof in this. our bodies too, shall be resurrected, made incorruptible and our whole selves will indeed be saved.
A bodily resurrection does not negate the physical death that precedes it.
"And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, "
-Hebrews 9:27
But that actually gets more interesting:
" And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation."
-Hebrews 9:27-28
He will appear again for salvation to those who eagerly await Him. This means the author of Hebrews is stating that salvation hadnot yet come to those in his dispensation, whereas Paul writes of his audience as having already been saved.
still dancing? you are the one that thinks i'm missing something here... so teach me...
:doh:
Jesus. It was Jesus. His ministry lasted three years, and the fig tree represents Israel.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicks...ersion=NKJV&searchtype=all&wholewordsonly=yes
That's not quite all of it, is it. First he went there because he was prompted by the Holy Spirit to do so.
Did I deny that?
Then he met privately 'with those in repute' to see if he had not preached his gospel in vain' . Paul was checking with the majesterium of the church, that what he had been teaching was in line with the Truth! And, of course, it was. (they made me add nothing).
But others, 'the Judaizers' spoke out against Paul and those that would not force observance of the LAW on the gentiles. What follows is the first recorded Council of the Church. It is at this council that Peter stands up and definitively declares what the Church doctrine in this matter should be. (acts 15 6-11)
Then James supports Peter and the whole council agrees.
This is the precedent by which all future major doctrinal disputes that arise in the Church become settled.... (eg the doctrine on the Trinity)
Is there a reason you barely reference Scripture?
Did you not notice in Acts 15 that some of the council agreed that the Gentiles shoul follow the law? Why believe this if they did not have to follow it?
What Peter declares is that the Gentiles are under a dfferent dispensation and therefore are not required to be made into Israelite proselytes.
By the nature of the office he holds, of course he is more...
What office? Apostle?
[qote]If you believe that, you are missing the whole point of Paul's letters about the Judaizers and the LAW... Paul is demonstrating that both the believers who are circumcised and those who were not, ARE ONE BODY! The central thrust of Paul's letters to the churches is all about unity, the bond of peace... ONE faith...'
You are trying to do what the 'Judaizers' were doing but from the opposite perspective... you are excluding the 'circumcised' and separating them from the Church. Paul would be horrified....[/quote]
I have implied no one is excluded from the church.
Now ifyou want to show that Paul says the circumcision is part of the Body go right ahead.
Meanwhile I'll read Romans 4:16, which shows us that those of the law and those of faith are two different groups, both the seed of Abraham and therefore heirs of the promise.
baloney.... the New and Everlasting covenant is here, the Old has passed away... There me a carnal effort by certain people to TRY and re-establish the old covenant, but it will fail miserably....
Who said anything about the Old Covenant?
Jesus established the New Covenant for Israel and it was put on hold because the fig tree did not bear the desired fruit within the time it was given. So Israel was blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.
" Therefore
it is of faith that
it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all"
-Romans 4:16
You should read the story again. Peter did not treat them as unclean, until a group of 'the circumcised' came to them... then he separated himself.... And this was contrary to the decision of the Council of the Church, to the very doctrine that Peter had outlined at that council. Paul was berating Peter, for not following that doctrine. (i.e for being a hypocrite)
I didn't say Peter was acting as though they were unclean at all times. You assume too much. And maybe I assume too much in regard to your intellect and intelligence. I thought you would understand that it was inmplied I was speaking of Peter's actions when the certain men from James showed up.
The only overlap, was the continued sacrifices in the Temple AFTER the New Covenant was established, before it was destroyed....
Who continued to make said sacrifices?
And can you verify this was the only overlap?
There is only one New and Everlasting Covenant, made woith the faithful remnant of Israel, and extended to all men, everywhere.....
The covenant is with Israel; not all are Israel.
Paul may have been the first one to use the analogy of the Body to teach the Unity of the Church, but he certainly wasn't the first to talk about that unity.. In fact Jesus prayed for that unity!
Paul was the only one to ever refer to believers as the Body of Christ. And he was the apostle to the Gentiles. No other apostle was to the Gentiles, nor did any of them refer to believers as the Body of Christ; either before or after Paul did.
Consider to where Paul says we find that unity: 1Cor 10:16-17
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Paul is referring directly to the celebration of the New Covenant, which, of course began at the Last Supper.... Everyone, who, by Faith, partakes of the Eucharist IS a member of the body.. gentile or Jew....
That is an assumption based on no evidence.
Paul wrote that in the Body of Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, as recognized differently from each other. It is those outside of the Body who make that distinction. And the circumcised, e.g. those of the law, are not of the Body, becuse the Body is those of faith.
I don't disagree. But that doesn't mean it can't be misinterpreted. The plethora of doctrinal disputes and heresies down through the centuries which clarified the Church's understanding are there for any to see.. Abandoning the decisions of the Council's (like the first discussed above) opens one up to a reintroduction of heresies long since repudiated.
I haven't abandoned anything. But Paul did not follow their advice completely as they asked him to preach the Gentiles should stay away from things sacrificed to idols and Paul simply told his listeners to only refrain if it could make someone else stumble.
Or he was given the vision, to shake him out of his own past and realize what the plan was all along...
So it was too difficult for Jesus to tell his disciples the plan? Why was the vision necessary? And if that was always the plan why call Paul to preach the new message before revealing it to Peter?
he DID tell them: Go therefore and make disciples
of all nations.... They just needed a little extra push from the Spirit.
Peace!
PJ
And did they do that? No, they did not. As seen in Galatians 2:9.
We also know that when Jesus told them to do that He also told them to baptize. But Paul, who was also an apostle, was not sent to baptize. Why do you think that is?
