Church in the New Testament

[QuickCat]

Tiberius: Please! No straw dummys. Of course our LORD Jesus Christ did not have Adam’s fallen nature because He had no human father. Adam acquired the fallen nature when he sinned in the garden. His human offspring acquired his nature since he is the father of the human race. See Gen. 5:3; Romans 3:10-12; 5:12. The authority to bind on earth fits perfectly with what our LORD Jesus Christ told the 12 in Matthew 19:28. The 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the coming kingdom. We have a preview of this binding in early Acts. Peter, an apostle to the circumcision [Gal. 2:8,9] , offers this kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21 contingent upon their acceptance of the LORD Jesus Christ as their Messiah and King. Israel is promised a kingdom on earth. You will note that our LORD Jesus Christ spent His last 40 days on earth teaching the 11 about this kingdom Luke 24:25-27; 44-45. The one thing He did not teach them was the time element, so they ask Him in Acts 1:6 if He would “restore the kingdom to Israel” at that time. Since He had “opened their understanding of the Scriptures” this was a logical question for them to ask. Their first order of business after His ascension was to bring their number back up to 12. Very significant! I pray that this helps you. 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
QC

 

[Tiberius1701]

Tiberius: Please! No straw dummys. Of course our LORD Jesus Christ did not have Adam’s fallen nature because He had no human father. Adam acquired the fallen nature when he sinned in the garden. His human offspring acquired his nature since he is the father of the human race. See Gen. 5:3; Romans 3:10-12; 5:12. The authority to bind on earth fits perfectly with what our LORD Jesus Christ told the 12 in Matthew 19:28. The 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the coming kingdom. We have a preview of this binding in early Acts. Peter, an apostle to the circumcision [Gal. 2:8,9] , offers this kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21 contingent upon their acceptance of the LORD Jesus Christ as their Messiah and King. Israel is promised a kingdom on earth. You will note that our LORD Jesus Christ spent His last 40 days on earth teaching the 11 about this kingdom [Luke 24:25-27; 44-45. The one thing He did not teach them was the time element, so they ask Him in Acts 1:6 if He would “restore the kingdom to Israel” at that time. Since He had “opened their understanding of the Scriptures” this was a logical question for them to ask. Their first order of business after His ascension was to bring their number back up to 12. Very significant! I pray that this helps you. 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
QC

First, I wasn’t building strawmen, I was responding to your wording. If I responded to what I thought you meant, rather than what you specifically said, that would be building a straw man argument. That’s why I simply responded to what you actually said.

Second, what’s the point of the above? It denies nothing of Catholic teaching and fails to make any point about Israel being shoved aside. In reality, Paul continues to reiterate that the ultimate destiny of Israel is always to be re-assumed into the Kingdom of Heaven. After all, Jesus is the eternal King in the line of David. Plus, the question in the early Church was never, “What do we do with all these extra Jews? The kingdom’s not meant for them anymore!” On the contrary, the question was, “What do we do with all these extra Gentiles? Must they become Jews according to the Law of Moses in order for them to be welcomed into the Davdic Kingdom of the Davidic Messiah?”

Thirdly, the New Testament never ever says that we must discard the Old. In fact, especially in the book of Hebrews, the Old Testament is vitally important; it’s re-interpretted according to the New Covenant, but it’s still entirely in effect. Jesus Himself expressly contradicts the things you’ve claimed here about a new dispensation that ignores the Jews and the OT:

“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matt 5:17-20). Are you saying that we’ve reached the time when heaven and earth have passed away? Because I can still feel the ground beneath my feet…
[/quote]

 

[QuickCat]

First, I wasn’t building strawmen, I was responding to your wording. If I responded to what I thought you meant, rather than what you specifically said, that would be building a straw man argument. That’s why I simply responded to what you actually said.

Second, what’s the point of the above? It denies nothing of Catholic teaching and fails to make any point about Israel being shoved aside. In reality, Paul continues to reiterate that the ultimate destiny of Israel is always to be re-assumed into the Kingdom of Heaven. After all, Jesus is the eternal King in the line of David. Plus, the question in the early Church was never, “What do we do with all these extra Jews? The kingdom’s not meant for them anymore!” On the contrary, the question was, “What do we do with all these extra Gentiles? Must they become Jews according to the Law of Moses in order for them to be welcomed into the Davdic Kingdom of the Davidic Messiah?”

Thirdly, the New Testament never ever says that we must discard the Old. In fact, especially in the book of Hebrews, the Old Testament is vitally important; it’s re-interpretted according to the New Covenant, but it’s still entirely in effect. Jesus Himself expressly contradicts the things you’ve claimed here about a new dispensation that ignores the Jews and the OT:

“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matt 5:17-20). Are you saying that we’ve reached the time when heaven and earth have passed away? Because I can still feel the ground beneath my feet…

You chastised me previously [and wrongly], claiming I didn’t use Scripture. I used a lot of Scriptures. I notice you don’t use any. You are mistaken that Israel only has a heavenly kingdom. Please tell me what Mt. 19:28 means to you. How about all of the promises in the O.T. [to Israel] having an earthly kingdom in view. After our Lord Jesus Christ spent 40 days teaching the 11 about the kingdom from the Old Testament, and He opened their understanding of the Scriptures, they asked: “Will you, at this time RESTORE AGAIN THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL?” Acts 1:3,6. What do you do with that? How about Paul speaking of the dispensation of the grace of God being given to him FOR US? What do you think he is talking about? What is he describing in Eph. 3:6. Where did Peter or any of the 12 preach that message? What do you do with Gal. 2:6-9? Who ever even hinted that we should throw out the O.T.? Not me! BTW, concerning the new covenant: Please explain Jer. 31:31 and Hebrews 8:8?
Grace and Peace,
QC

 

[Tiberius1701]

You chastised me previously [and wrongly], claiming I didn’t use Scripture. I used a lot of Scriptures.

First, I said that, specifically in the section of a single post - a section which I then quoted - where you said something about Israel coming back as an earthly kingdom and Jesus reigning physically over it, you didn’t cite Scripture. In fact, I called it “this entire prediction of yours” because, as I just said, I was referring to that specific portion of that specific post which I specifically quoted. As you can see, if you look back at that post, there is no Scriptural citation in what I quoted from you.

I notice you don’t use any.

Really? I didn’t? Are you sure? Let’s have a look, just to be sure:

“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matt 5:17-20).

Matthew 5:17-20 is in my Bible. Isn’t it in yours?

You are mistaken that Israel only has a heavenly kingdom.

When did I ever say that “Israel only has a heavenly kingdom”? As I recall, I actually said, “After all, Jesus is the eternal King in the line of David.” I then spoke of “the Davidic Kingdom of the Davidic Messiah” (cf. the same post where I quoted Matt 5:17-20). Now, David was the real, physical, historical king of Israel, was he not? And Jesus is a real, physical, historical descendent of David, is He not? So, if “Jesus is the eternal King in the line of David,” then He is the king of Israel, isn’t He? And thus, He is the King of both Heaven (as the Son of God) and of earth (as the Son of David). So, I’m not mistaken, as you claim I am, because, well, I never said that “Israel only has a heavenly kingdom,” did I? Quite the contrary. … Now who’s making straw men (or, as you call them, “straw dummys” [sic])?

Please tell me what Mt. 19:28 means to you.

As for all the things you asked me to explain for you, since your main point seems to be moot because it’s refuting something I don’t believe (i.e. it’s refuting a “straw dummy”), I’ll not bother to respond to it all, except to answer the above request. Somehow, I don’t think you’ll like where I go with it, though, even if it is the very same place Christians have been going with it for the last two millenia…

((To Be Continued…))

 

[Tiberius1701]

((Continued…))

Matthew 19:28 is incredibly significant to me as a Catholic. In fact, when I read it again, it made me smile, because it illustrates exactly what I wanted to explain to you anyway.
“Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man shall sit on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt 19:28).
The visible, earthly Kingdom of Israel, ruled over by Christ, is now, has been since His Incarnation, and forever shall be, the Catholic Church. Israel was a People Called by God. That’s what church means. A chosen, called, holy people. And that is exactly what Jesus perfected by coming to earth, assuming a human nature, and offering Himself as a Sacrifice - nay, the Sacrifice - for the life of the world. David ruled on a real throne, and when David went off to war, he left his royal steward in charge over the kingdom. And David’s descendents did the same. In Isaiah 22, we see God telling one of them to replace his royal steward, Shebna, with a new one, Eliakim. And see what words He uses to do so:
“He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open” (Isa 22:21-22).
Jesus used exactly the same imagery to cast aside the scribes and Pharisees (who “sit on Moses’ seat” [Matt 23:2]), and to place Simon Peter both on the new chair of Moses (now called the chair of Peter) and in the office of Royal Steward (which, incidentally, is why we call him and his successors “Pope” a.k.a. “father,” as in, “to the hinhabitants of Jerusalem” [v. 21], etc.):
"And I tell you, you are Peter [Rock], and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt 16:18-19).
I call it, not the “Kingdom of Israel”, but the Kingdom of Heaven, not because it is not visible, earth-bound, or the very same kingdom of David - on the contrary, it is all of these! - but, quite simply, because that’s the name Jesus gives it. And a new King has the right to rename his kingdom, most especially this King and this Kingdom!

What does any of that have to do with Matthew 19:28, you ask? Simple. Jesus does in fact say that all Twelve Apostles will have thrones in His Kingdom, because, as you say, it is a very real, very visible, very earth-bound - so earth-bound in fact that it covers the entire face of the earth! - Kingdom. The Twelve are all Stewards of the Kingdom, which is why, in Matthew 18:18, he gives them, jointly, the same binding and loosing authority that He gave to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19. But, where there are multiple Stewards, there is always a Chief Steward. And the Apostles themselves asked Him, before His death, which of them was to be the greatest, the chief among equals. And He answered them:
“The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.

“You are those who have continued with Me in my trials; and I assign to you, as My Father assigned to Me, a Kingdom, that you may eat and drink at My table in My Kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you [singular] that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (luke 22:25-32).
Just like in Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells them that they will each have a throne, but He prays only for the safety of Peter, and then tells Peter alone, “when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (v. 32). The point, here, is that, like Jesus, who, though He is the King, says He is “among you as one who serves” (v. 27), Peter is among the Twelve “as one who serves.” In other Kingdoms, the highest in authority is served by those below him, but in Christ’s Kingdom the highest is the one who serves all others… And Peter is that one, second only to Jesus.

So you’re right, the Kingdom of Israel is an earth-bound Kingdom. And you’re right, the Twelve Apostles shall sit - nay do sit! - on twelve very real thrones. But those thrones are now! Those thrones are not in lieu of a future earthly Kingdom after the so-called “Millenial reign of Jesus.” Those thrones are the episcopal chairs of the Bishops of the Catholic Church, as visible and earth-bound today as they were in the first century. And Pope Benedict XVI sits in one of them, in fact he sits in the highest of them: in the Chair of Peter, and from there, he “strengthen the brethren”, for he is the Chief Steward of the Kingdom of Jesus, who is Son of God and Son of David.

 

[Tiberius1701]

P.S. QC, did I use enough Scripture that time?

 

[QuickCat]

So Israel is the church of this dispensation, hmmm. Don’t think that our Lord would agree with that “spiritualizing” of Scripture. When Jeremiah writes that the Lord “…will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the hourse of Judah…” [Jer 31:31] I suppose you would change Israel and Judah to mean the church. Is that right? When the 11 asked our Lord, “…will you AT THIS TIME RESTORE AGAIN THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL?” They were really asking about the church? I suppose we could paraphase Acts 1:6 to read, “…will you at this time restore again the church to the church?” When you spiritualize clear Scripture to change the meaning you do wrest the Scripture to your own destruction [as Peter writes in 2 Peter 3:16].

 

[Tiberius1701]

So Israel is the church of this dispensation, hmmm. Don’t think that our Lord would agree with that “spiritualizing” of Scripture. When Jeremiah writes that the Lord “…will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the hourse of Judah…” [Jer 31:31] I suppose you would change Israel and Judah to mean the church. Is that right? When the 11 asked our Lord, “…will you AT THIS TIME RESTORE AGAIN THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL?” They were really asking about the church? I suppose we could paraphase Acts 1:6 to read, “…will you at this time restore again the church to the church?” When you spiritualize clear Scripture to change the meaning you do wrest the Scripture to your own destruction [as Peter writes in 2 Peter 3:16].

How is it even rationally consistent to claim that saying that the King of Kings, Son of David and Son of God, is a King of both Heaven and of Israel and every nation on Earth that has, through Baptism which replaced Circumcision, been grafted into Israel under the New and Everlasting Covenant, is a “spritualization” of Scripture? I say that, just as converts to Judaism became Israelites by Circumcision, all who are Baptized into Christ become the New Israel - physically, in the real world - and you claim that I’m “spiritualizing” Scripture? That is a non-sequitur, Cat. It would be far more accurate to claim that I am “physicalizing” it. Or perhaps I am merely “incarnating” it as God incarnated His Son?

And just because they ask about the temporal affairs of the Israelite nation doesn’t mean Jesus answers them in their terms, referring only to the Israelite nation. On the contrary, the whole point of putting the account of the Apostles asking, “Will you at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” was to show that Jesus didn’t look at it the way you’re looking at it. On the contrary, “He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth’” (Acts 1:7-8). If you want to claim that someone is “spiritualizing” the promise of the New Covenant, look no further than Jesus Himself. After all, the answer to the “physical” question from the Twelve is that they “shall receive power” (and isn’t “power” often another word for authority, as in, the authority of the sorts of people who might be found sitting on thrones?) “when the Holy Spirit has come upon you”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the definition of “spiritual” something having to do with spirits or the Holy Spirit? Oh look! Right there! The Holy Spirit, mentioned by Jesus in response to a question about the Kingdom! Wow, I guess Jesus does agree with “spiritualizing” the Kingdom; in fact He mandated it!

As they say on infomercials, “But wait! There’s more!” Where does Jesus go next? That’s right, in the same sentence He says, “…and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.” Huh. “in Jerusalem and in all Judea” which is where Israel was located, “and Samaria” the outcast half-children of Israel, to whom Jesus earlier extended the Covenant (cf. John 4:19-42), “and to the end of the earth,” i.e. to all of us. So you see, it is not I who both “spiritualized” the Kingdom and expanded it beyond the ethnically Jewish people, it is Jesus Christ Himself. You remind me of the promise of a New Covenant found in Jeremiah? Very good. I likewise remind you that Jesus is the fulfillment of that Promise - after all, He said, “This Cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in My Blood” (cf. Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, I Cor 11:25) - and it is Jesus who extends that New Covenant beyond “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” to “Samaria and to the end of the earth.”

It’s not an either/or proposition, Cat, it’s a both/and. The Kingdom of God is both the spiritual Kingdom existing and pouring forth glory and blessing and power from Heaven and the physical Kingdom of David that has grown as the New Covenant in Christ’s Blood has been poured over the heads of all peoples through the washing of regeneration called Baptism, which corresponds to Circumcision by which believing peoples were once grafted into the very same Kingdom under the Old Covenant. Just because your teachers can’t fathom the radical connection between the Heavenly Kingdom of David and the Earth-Bound Kingdom of David doesn’t mean there is none, and it certainly doesn’t mean that there must be two completely different timelines (or “dispensations” as you call them) for the spiritual and the earth-bound Kingdom.

As you said before, you don’t believe that anyone is infallible, therefore, logically, everything you’ve ever been taught about the various “dispensations” could very well be entirely incorrect. I, on the other hand, know that Jesus promised Peter, the Twelve, and those who succeeded them in their offices that Heaven itself would ratify their decrees, so I know with the certainty of God’s own Word that the Kingdom of Heaven is the Kingdom of Israel as well, in the here and now, on this planet and throughout the universe. That’s why it’s called the Universal Church (“Catholic” is Greek for “Universal” in case you weren’t aware of that).

 

[QuickCat]

How is it even rationally consistent to claim that saying that the King of Kings, Son of David and Son of God, is a King of both Heaven and of Israel and every nation on Earth that has, through Baptism which replaced Circumcision, been grafted into Israel under the New and Everlasting Covenant, is a “spritualization” of Scripture? I say that, just as converts to Judaism became Israelites by Circumcision, all who are Baptized into Christ become the New Israel - physically, in the real world - and you claim that I’m “spiritualizing” Scripture? That is a non-sequitur, Cat. It would be far more accurate to claim that I am “physicalizing” it. Or perhaps I am merely “incarnating” it as God incarnated His Son?

Thank you Tiberius. Can’t agree with your theories, but I will not be disagreeable about it. Seems to me that once you start the “spiritualizing” of Scripture there can be no end point. You are forced into wresting the Scriptures to mean something other than what they logically say. A case in point is Acts 1:6. Our Lord had opened their [the 11] understanding of the Scriptures about this literal kingdom [on earth] long promised to Israel as a nation. Obviously, the one thing He did not cover was the time element. It is clear to me that this is the actual [literal] kingdom that is promised to Israel. Peter’s offer in Acts 3:19-21 cements this position in place. All of Peters speeches in early Acts have this kingdom and Israel in view. Dispensation is a a Biblical word that Paul uses several times. He mentions the “dispensation of the grace of God” in Eph. 3:2 and says that it was given to him. He is the only N.T. writer to name the Lord Jesus Christ as Head of the church. He is the only N.T. writer to name the church the Body of Christ. He is the only N.T. to personalize the gospel of the grace of God by calling it “my gospel” three times. I pray that at some point in time you will come to the realization that “spiritualizing” Scripture is “non-Scriptural.” In your scheme of things are all the promises to Israel in the O.T. now being fulfilled in the church? You are so right: I am not infallible. If you will recall I said that no man, woman or child is infallible because we all have an intact old sin [Adamic] nature. That, of course, includes you.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Thank you Tiberius. Can’t agree with your theories, but I will not be disagreeable about it. Seems to me that once you start the “spiritualizing” of Scripture there can be no end point. You are forced into wresting the Scriptures to mean something other than what they logically say. A case in point is Acts 1:6. Our Lord had opened their [the 11] understanding of the Scriptures about this literal kingdom [on earth] long promised to Israel as a nation. Obviously, the one thing He did not cover was the time element. It is clear to me that this is the actual [literal] kingdom that is promised to Israel. Peter’s offer in Acts 3:19-21 cements this position in place. All of Peters speeches in early Acts have this kingdom and Israel in view. Dispensation is a a Biblical word that Paul uses several times. He mentions the “dispensation of the grace of God” in Eph. 3:2 and says that it was given to him. He is the only N.T. writer to name the Lord Jesus Christ as Head of the church. He is the only N.T. writer to name the church the Body of Christ. He is the only N.T. to personalize the gospel of the grace of God by calling it “my gospel” three times. I pray that at some point in time you will come to the realization that “spiritualizing” Scripture is “non-Scriptural.” In your scheme of things are all the promises to Israel in the O.T. now being fulfilled in the church? You are so right: I am not infallible. If you will recall I said that no man, woman or child is infallible because we all have an intact old sin [Adamic] nature. That, of course, includes you.

You’re right, Jesus didn’t specifically say, “in fourteen days” or “in eleven years” or “in twelve centuries” or anything like that, but you’re wrong in that He did actually given them a time when their question would be answered: going back to the text - a verse that you brought up - He said, “when the Holy Spirit comes upon you,” and we know exactly when that happened, don’t we? It’s called Pentecost, Cat. I’m not bending Scripture, I’m just looking closely at the exact words and context of the verses you’re bringing to my attention. The entire Bible speaks with One Voice, the Voice of Christ, the Word of God, the King of Kings, the Head of the Body of Christ, “the household of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and bulwark of the Truth” (I Tim 3:15). St. Paul Himself tells us that it is the Church we must listen to for assurance of Truth. So when that Voice says one thing through one of His Apostles, it cannot contradict what He says to another, nor can it contradict anything said to the prophets of old. Look closely at my so-called “theories” and you will see that there is no contradiction in them. Look closely at Scripture and you will see that there is no contradiction between It and the One Voice which Christ promised the Church through the Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome. Look at history and you will see that the New Testament cannot contradict anything said by the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church wrote it!

I never said that I was infallible. But I know that, when I tell you what the Church has taught for 2000 years, I cannot be wrong, because the Body of Christ is infallible just as Christ is infallible. Because Christ is Christ. May the Spirit of God lead you to the fullness of Truth and open your eyes to see It and your ears to hear It, so that hearing you may understand.

 

[QuickCat]

Tib: Have you noticed in your search of Scripture that the baptism OF the Holy Spirit on the the Jewish feast day in Acts 2 [Pentecost] IS NOT the baptism BY the Holy Spirit that puts one into the Body of Christ the moment they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and are saved? On Pentecost the Lord Jesus Christ is the baptizer, baptizing those Jews with power [an enduement] so that they could preach to the other Jews in Jerusalem [from the various countries] in their own language. It also was an authenication sign to the Jews [the sign people - 1 Cor. 1:22]. By contrast, every believer in the Body of Christ was baptized BY the Holy Spirit into the Body [1 Cor. 12:13]. The Holy Spirit is the baptizer and the Body of Christ is the element. Pentecost does not have the Body of Christ in view. Peter addresses Jews: Acts 2:14,22,36; 3:12; 4:10; 5:31. He raises our Lord up in resurrection to sit on David’s throne and presents Him as Israel’s Prince and Savior - 5:31.
Paul, by contrast, raises our Lord in resurrection be Head of the Body - Eph. 1:22,23. Also, have you noticed that Peter presents the cross as bad news? He accuses the Jews of murdering their Messiah. Be of good cheer. The Lord is coming soon [very soon] to catch us away - 1 Thess. 4:13-18. Notice that Paul says that we are to “comfort one another with these words.” I hope that you are in that group.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Tib: Have you noticed in your search of Scripture that the baptism OF the Holy Spirit on the the Jewish feast day in Acts 2 [Pentecost] IS NOT the baptism BY the Holy Spirit that puts one into the Body of Christ the moment they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and are saved? On Pentecost the Lord Jesus Christ is the baptizer, baptizing those Jews with power [an enduement] so that they could preach to the other Jews in Jerusalem [from the various countries] in their own language. It also was an authenication sign to the Jews [the sign people - 1 Cor. 1:22]. By contrast, every believer in the Body of Christ was baptized BY the Holy Spirit into the Body [1 Cor. 12:13]. The Holy Spirit is the baptizer and the Body of Christ is the element. Pentecost does not have the Body of Christ in view. Peter addresses Jews: Acts 2:14,22,36; 3:12; 4:10; 5:31. He raises our Lord up in resurrection to sit on David’s throne and presents Him as Israel’s Prince and Savior - 5:31.
Paul, by contrast, raises our Lord in resurrection be Head of the Body - Eph. 1:22,23. Also, have you noticed that Peter presents the cross as bad news? He accuses the Jews of murdering their Messiah. Be of good cheer. The Lord is coming soon [very soon] to catch us away - 1 Thess. 4:13-18. Notice that Paul says that we are to “comfort one another with these words.” I hope that you are in that group.

Really? You’re basing your theology on a conjunction? How many times do I have to tell you, there is no “contrast” with God? There only one Gospel! “There is one Body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4-6). Not two, not three, not four; one!!

Pentecost did have the Body of Christ in view, because without the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Stewards of the Kingdom, the rest of the New Covenant could not have come about. God always has His Plan “in view.” To say otherwise is to deny the omniscience and omnipotence of God.

Going back to your previous point, rather than letting you side track this tangent further, about St. Paul using the word “dispensation;” we do not deny that St. Paul talked about dispensations of the grace of God. We merely deny that he meant them in the way you mean them. That is to say that, when St. Paul speaks of God dispensing grace on us, that’s precisely what he’s talking about: God. Dispensing grace. On us. You, on the other hand, take this simple act of God - dispensing grace - and twist it to mean that God dispenses entire covenants, entire systems of theology and epochs of history, independent of one another. Grace is grace: the power of the Holy Spirit to enable people to act according to the Will of God when they otherwise could not because of their sinful nature. Grace is not a system of dogma, nor an entire covenant-system, nor a temporal age. Grace is grace is grace; it is nothing else. So taking Paul’s term for how God dispenses grace and applying it instead to something Paul never intended it for, is simply un-Biblical. You, my brother, are the one twisting Scripture to fit your theology. You take a word, “dispensation,” completely out of context, and apply it to something entirely contrary to the nature of God, who is “the same yesterday, today, and forever.” He doesn’t have one plan for you and me, one plan for the Israelites of the Old Testament, and a third entirely separate plan for the Isrealites of tomorrow. He is the same God with the same plan for all eternity.

God dispenses grace. Yes! Amen! But He does so primarily through the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, two of which you have access to: Baptism and Marriage. But the rest of the avenues of grace are protected by the Catholic Church and ministered only through those validly endowed with a special grace by which they become uniquely Christ during the celebration of the Sacraments. Those people, those men, are called priests forever in the order of Melchizedek. Jesus Himself consecrated the first priests, namely the Apostles, when “He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (John 20:22-23). If you would deny the unique power and charism (that’s Greek for grace) of the Catholic priesthood, I ask you to honestly answer this one question: do you have the power to “retain the sins of any”, so that if you refuse to forgive someone for a sin and they die, they are forever damned to Hell?

 

[Tiberius1701]

Now, QuickCat, if you won’t (or can’t) answer the question posed at the end of my last post, perhaps you can answer me this one because I’m honestly curious:

Can you explain to me exactly how these “dispensations” you believe in work?

 

[QuickCat]

Strong’s Greek Dictionary
3622. οικονομια oikonomia
Search for G3622 in KJVSL
οικονομια oikonomia oy-kon-om-ee’-ah
from 3623; administration (of a household or estate); specially, a (religious) “economy”:—dispensation, stewardship.
See Greek 3623
As you can see a dispensation is an administration/stewardship. Paul uses the word 4 times in his epistles. Ephesians 3:2 * Paul writes that the “dispensation of the grace of God” was given to him. No other writer mentions this dispensation by this name. He says this involved the revelation of the mystery. Now we know that Moses was given the administration/stewardship of the Law which was still in effect during the birth and earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus. As a matter of fact as late as Acts21:20 James and the Elders are boasting about the Jews still being “zealous of the Law…” Paul also mentions the “dispensation of the fullness of time” which is yet future. Our Lord Jesus Christ recognized a change in dispensations when he stood up to read the scroll of Isaiah in Luke 4:16ff. He read from Isa. 61:1,2 which describe His two advents, but He stopped in the middle of the sentence and closed the scroll [1 advent] because His 2nd coming was yet future. Now a question for you: What is Paul describing in Eph. 3:6-9 I pray that this will be of help to you. Grace and Peace, QC*

 

[Tiberius1701]

Strong’s Greek Dictionary
3622. οικονομια oikonomia
Search for G3622 in KJVSL
οικονομια oikonomia oy-kon-om-ee’-ah
from 3623; administration (of a household or estate); specially, a (religious) “economy”:—dispensation, stewardship.
See Greek 3623
As you can see a dispensation is an administration/stewardship. Paul uses the word 4 times in his epistles. Ephesians 3:2 * Paul writes that the “dispensation of the grace of God” was given to him. No other writer mentions this dispensation by this name. He says this involved the revelation of the mystery. Now we know that Moses was given the administration/stewardship of the Law which was still in effect during the birth and earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus. As a matter of fact as late as Acts21:20 James and the Elders are boasting about the Jews still being “zealous of the Law…” Paul also mentions the “dispensation of the fullness of time” which is yet future. Our Lord Jesus Christ recognized a change in dispensations when he stood up to read the scroll of Isaiah in Luke 4:16ff. He read from Isa. 61:1,2 which describe His two advents, but He stopped in the middle of the sentence and closed the scroll [1 advent] because His 2nd coming was yet future. Now a question for you: What is Paul describing in Eph. 3:6-9 I pray that this will be of help to you. Grace and Peace, QC*

In Ephesians 3:2, Paul says, “you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you,” which is obviously referring to when Christ appeared to him and made him an Apostle. What you call the “dispensation of the grace of God,” the RSV, adhering to your own definition, calls “the stewardship of God’s grace.” This is 100% in keeping with the Catholic understanding of the ministerial priesthood “after the order of Melchizedek” (cf. Ps. 110:4, Heb. 5:6). The stewardship of God’s grace is given to them, making them, quite literally, stewards of God’s grace through the preaching of the Word and the ministration of the Seven Sacraments. Again, I remind you that, to claim this stewardship is more than Paul specifically says here is, quite simply, to go beyond the text, making it say more than is there. To paraphrase, Paul is saying, “I assume you’ve heard of my conversion story, about which I’ve written before” (cf. Eph 3:3), “and of my having been enrolled in the priesthood of the Apostles/of Melchizedek” (3:2). That’s it. Eph 3:6-9 merely goes into the specifics of what he is called to do as a priest/Apostle.

In verses 4-6, St. Paul speaks of the fact that the nature of what he’s about to talk about, namely the ministry of his priesthood, has been revealed to “[Christ’s] holy Apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (v. 5). (You’ll note that he does not say that the stewardship was given only to him, as you have claimed about your theoretical dispensation which goes well beyond an economy or stewardship of just God’s grace. Instead, Paul says that it was revealed to several people, including other Apostles and prophets, all of which are mentioned in the plural.) He also goes on to say that this revelation, given to the Apostles and prophets (not just to him) included the fact that the Gentiles (i.e. all ethnically non-Jewish peoples) were to be included in the economy of God’s grace. If you’ll recall, this fact was revealed first, not to St. Paul, but to St. Peter during his vision on the rooftop and his subsequent trip to Cornelius’ house (cf. Acts 10). In verse 7, St. Paul again reiterates that he was made a minister of the grace of God, i.e. enrolled in the priesthood, and in verses 8 he elaborates on part of his duty as a priest: he is “to preach to the Gentiles.” From there on, he merely expounds on the awesome nature of the Gospel he is to preach.

You’ve attempted to use the fact that Sts. Peter, James, and John “added nothing to [St. Paul]” (Gal. 2:6) to say that therefore Paul must’ve added something to them. However, that simply does not follow (or, in Latin, non sequitur). It simply means what it says: that they “added nothing to [him].” Period. Yes, they gave him “the right hand of fellowship,” but that merely speaks to their being in fellowship with one another (obviously) but says nothing about St. Paul having revealed anything new from God to them. On the contrary, as has already been shown, the Holy Spirit Himself had already revealed the fact that the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles, not through Paul, but through Peter (cf. Acts 10). As Paul himself testifies in Ephesians 3:5, it was not St. Paul who revealed this to the other Apostles, but rather it was the Holy Spirit. What St. Peter did was merely do delegate, saying, in effect, “Paul, you take the Gospel to the Gentiles; we’ll take it to the Jews.” He could have just as easily said, “you take the Gospel to the Jews; we’ll take it to the Gentiles.” St. Paul was merely expressing to the Galations which way St. Peter chose to arrange things. Once again, to claim that there must therefore be an entirely different economy/stewardship/dispensation for Paul than there is for Peter and the other Apostles is quite plainly over-reaching the text.

If you want me to understand, much less to accept, your interpretation of Scripture, you’re going to have to elaborate a lot more about what you believe the various “dispensations” involve and why you believe that. From your single paragraph, I must confess, I gleaned next to nothing, aside from, possibly, a few names you might ascribe to the things you believe.

 

[QuickCat]

Tib: A quick search of Paul’s epistles [Romans-Philemon] will reveal that he does not use any form of the word “priest” in all these bookls. In writing to the Hebrews he uses some form of the word 34 times, which we would expect since he is writing to Hebrews. Israel is to become a “kingdom of priests” [Ex. 19:5,6 cf 1 Pet. 2:9] in the millennial kingdom.
Paul writes elsewhere to tell us how we are approved of God: “Study [spoudazo] to show thyself approved unto God A WORKMAN WHO NEEDETH NOT TO BE ASHAMED, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.” 2 Tim. 2:15. I pray that this is helpful to you.
I’ll reply to the other items in your statement a little later. Busy right now.
Grace and Peace,
QC

 

[Tiberius1701]

Tib: A quick search of Paul’s epistles [Romans-Philemon] will reveal that he does not use any form of the word “priest” in all these bookls. In writing to the Hebrews he uses some form of the word 34 times, which we would expect since he is writing to Hebrews. Israel is to become a “kingdom of priests” [Ex. 19:5,6 cf 1 Pet. 2:9] in the millennial kingdom.
Paul writes elsewhere to tell us how we are approved of God: “Study [spoudazo] to show thyself approved unto God A WORKMAN WHO NEEDETH NOT TO BE ASHAMED, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.” 2 Tim. 2:15. I pray that this is helpful to you.
I’ll reply to the other items in your statement a little later. Busy right now.
Grace and Peace,
QC

Cat, a quick search of the entire Bible reveals that no Biblical writer ever used the word Trinity, yet you believe it. Even so, a quick search of the Epistles of St. Paul also reveals that he does actually use the word presbyteros, which is where our word for priest comes from. He also uses the word episcopos, from which we get the word bishop. If you do an etymological search for the origins of these two English words, you’ll find that they trace back to these two Greek words. So, even though, in other cases you accept the use of a term that is not found in the Bible, thus making your rejection of my using a term you think is not found in St. Paul’s letters hypocritical, you need not even worry about that hypocrisy since St. Paul actually does use the word priest… it’s just translated as “elder” or “presbyter” in your Bible so as to obscure it’s Catholic origin. The Greek for the Aaronic priesthood and for pagan priests was hieros, but you’ll notice, that’s nothing like what we call priests today. Do you know why that is? Because Christian priests, which were quickly called presbyteroi, filled the whole Roman Empire in a matter of decades and, in a matter of just a few centuries, completely outnumbered all the hieroi, so newer languages didn’t develop a word for priests around hieros but around presbyteros, first calling them presters (dropping the “by”), then priesters, then priests (dropping the “er”). Again, search for the etymology of the word “priest” and you’ll find that I’m telling the truth, or for the word “bishop” and, again, you’ll find I’m telling the truth.

Furthermore, what, exactly, makes you think that a book specifically written to Timothy (hence the name “II Timothy”) is written to “us”? Have you not read the first two verses of the book? “Paul, [self-description]… to Timothy, my beloved child…” Where in that “address line,” as it were, are we listed? Also, you should note that Paul makes it clear, even in this letter, that he is addressing not a lay-person, such as you or I, but a member of the clergy, when he says, “Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; for God did not give us a Spirit of timidity but a Spirit of power and love and self-control” (II Tim 1:6-7). The gift God gave them was the charism (i.e. grace) of the Melchizedek priesthood. And what is the laying on of hands? Maybe you remember it from Acts 1, when Matthias was enrolled among the Apostles? Do you recall what St. Peter called Judas/Matthias’ office? He called it a “bishopric” (KJV), or “episcopen” in Greek. That’s still the same word we use for the Catholic bishopric, the Catholic episcopal office. St. Timothy was a bishop just like St. Paul and all the other Apostles, so whatever you believe St. Paul was telling St. Timothy, it applies far more to people in the priesthood than to you and me. Do you know why Timothy needed to study? So he could preach the Gospel during the Liturgy of the Word, the first part of the Mass. Just as I pointed out yesterday, preaching is part of the duty of priests.

I pray this is useful to you as you seek Truth, willing to rid yourself of any unTruth that comes not from God but from the Adversary.
In the service of His Holy Cross,
Jackford

 

[QuickCat]

Below is a listing of the Greek words for “priest” and “high priest.” You will note that they are used to refer to the Jewish priesthood. The term for bishop is quite different.
English-Strong’s Index: priest
• G748 αρχιερατικος archieratikos ar-khee-er-at-ee-kos’ (1)
from 746 and a derivative of 2413; high-priestly:—of the high-priest.
o OF THE HIGH PRIEST (1)
Ac 4:6
• G749 αρχιερευς archiereus ar-khee-er-yuce’ (55)
from 746 and 2409; the high-priest (literally, of the Jews, typically, Christ); by extension a chief priest:—chief (high) priest, chief of the priests.
o AN HIGH PRIEST (7)
Heb 4:15; 5:5,10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11
o HIGH PRIEST (7)
Joh 11:51; Ac 23:4; Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 5:1; 8:3
o OF THE HIGH PRIEST (7)
Mt 26:3; Mr 14:47,54,66; Lu 22:50 …
o OF THE HIGH PRIEST’S (1)
Mt 26:51
o THE HIGH PRIEST (27)
Mt 26:57,62,63,65; Mr 2:26; 14:53,60,61,63; Joh 11:49; 18:13,19,22,24; Ac 4:6; 5:17,21,27; 7:1 …
o THE HIGH PRIEST’S (3)
Mt 26:58; Lu 22:54; Joh 18:10
o UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST (3)
Joh 18:15,16; Ac 9:1
• G2405 ιερατεια hierateia hee-er-at-i’-ah (1)
from 2407; priestliness, i.e. the sacerdotal function:—office of the priesthood, priest’s office.
o OF THE PRIEST’S OFFICE (1)
Lu 1:9
• G2407 ιρατευω hierateuo hee-er-at-yoo’-o (1)
prolongation from 2409; to be a priest, i.e. perform his functions:—execute the priest’s office.
o EXECUTED THE PRIEST’S OFFICE (1)
Lu 1:8
• G2409 ιερευς hiereus hee-er-yooce’ (17)
from 2413; a priest (literally or figuratively):—(high) priest.
o A PRIEST (5)
Heb 5:6; 7:3,17,21; 8:4
o PRIEST (7)
Lu 1:5; 10:31; Heb 7:1,11,15; 10:11,21
o THE HIGH PRIEST (1)
Ac 5:24
o THE PRIEST (1)
Ac 14:13
o TO THE PRIEST (3)
Mt 8:4; Mr 1:44; Lu 5:14

 

[QuickCat]

Presbuteros simply means elder. It is never translated as priest.
English-Strong’s Index: elder
• G3187 μειζων meizon mide’-zone (1)
irregular comparative of 3173; larger (literally or figuratively, specially, in age):—elder, greater(-est), more.
o THE ELDER (1)
Ro 9:12
• G4245 πρεσβυτερος presbuteros pres-boo’-ter-os (7)
comparative of presbus (elderly); older; as noun, a senior; specially, an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian “presbyter”:— elder(-est), old.
o AN ELDER (2)
1Ti 5:1,19
o ELDER (1)
Lu 15:25
o THE ELDER (2)
2Jo 1:1; 3Jo 1:1
o THE ELDER WOMEN (1)
1Ti 5:2
o UNTO THE ELDER (1)
1Pe 5:5
• G4850 συμπρεσβυτερος sumpresbuteros soom-pres-boo’-ter-os (1)
from 4862 and 4245; a co-presbyter:—presbyter, also an elder.
o AM ALSO AN ELDER (1)
1Pe 5:1

 

[QuickCat]

In Ephesians 3:2, Paul says, “you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you,” which is obviously referring to when Christ appeared to him and made him an Apostle. What you call the “dispensation of the grace of God,” the RSV, adhering to your own definition, calls “the stewardship of God’s grace.” This is 100% in keeping with the Catholic understanding of the ministerial priesthood “after the order of Melchizedek” (cf. Ps. 110:4, Heb. 5:6). The stewardship of God’s grace is given to them, making them, quite literally, stewards of God’s grace through the preaching of the Word and the ministration of the Seven Sacraments. Again, I remind you that, to claim this stewardship is more than Paul specifically says here is, quite simply, to go beyond the text, making it say more than is there. To paraphrase, Paul is saying, “I assume you’ve heard of my conversion story, about which I’ve written before” (cf. Eph 3:3), “and of my having been enrolled in the priesthood of the Apostles/of Melchizedek” (3:2). That’s it. Eph 3:6-9 merely goes into the specifics of what he is called to do as a priest/Apostle.

In verses 4-6, St. Paul speaks of the fact that the nature of what he’s about to talk about, namely the ministry of his priesthood, has been revealed to “[Christ’s] holy Apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (v. 5). (You’ll note that he does not say that the stewardship was given only to him, as you have claimed about your theoretical dispensation which goes well beyond an economy or stewardship of just God’s grace. Instead, Paul says that it was revealed to several people, including other Apostles and prophets, all of which are mentioned in the plural.) He also goes on to say that this revelation, given to the Apostles and prophets (not just to him) included the fact that the Gentiles (i.e. all ethnically non-Jewish peoples) were to be included in the economy of God’s grace. If you’ll recall, this fact was revealed first, not to St. Paul, but to St. Peter during his vision on the rooftop and his subsequent trip to Cornelius’ house (cf. Acts 10). In verse 7, St. Paul again reiterates that he was made a minister of the grace of God, i.e. enrolled in the priesthood, and in verses 8 he elaborates on part of his duty as a priest: he is “to preach to the Gentiles.” From there on, he merely expounds on the awesome nature of the Gospel he is to preach.

You’ve attempted to use the fact that Sts. Peter, James, and John “added nothing to [St. Paul]” (Gal. 2:6) to say that therefore Paul must’ve added something to them. However, that simply does not follow (or, in Latin, non sequitur). It simply means what it says: that they “added nothing to [him].” Period. Yes, they gave him “the right hand of fellowship,” but that merely speaks to their being in fellowship with one another (obviously) but says nothing about St. Paul having revealed anything new from God to them. On the contrary, as has already been shown, the Holy Spirit Himself had already revealed the fact that the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles, not through Paul, but through Peter (cf. Acts 10). As Paul himself testifies in Ephesians 3:5, it was not St. Paul who revealed this to the other Apostles, but rather it was the Holy Spirit. What St. Peter did was merely do delegate, saying, in effect, “Paul, you take the Gospel to the Gentiles; we’ll take it to the Jews.” He could have just as easily said, “you take the Gospel to the Jews; we’ll take it to the Gentiles.” St. Paul was merely expressing to the Galations which way St. Peter chose to arrange things. Once again, to claim that there must therefore be an entirely different economy/stewardship/dispensation for Paul than there is for Peter and the other Apostles is quite plainly over-reaching the text.

If you want me to understand, much less to accept, your interpretation of Scripture, you’re going to have to elaborate a lot more about what you believe the various “dispensations” involve and why you believe that. From your single paragraph, I must confess, I gleaned next to nothing, aside from, possibly, a few names you might ascribe to the things you believe.

Paul says “on the contrary” indicating that he had something new to impart to these three. Then he says, “When they saw…” Indicating that they now understood what he was imparting to them. Peter makes this clear in 2 Peter 3:14,15 where he says, “There are things in Paul’s epistles that are hard to understand.” [paraphrase]. Question: When the 12 were sent out to preach the gospel in Luke 9:6, what was the content of that gospel?