I am a Protestant I don't think Protestant Christianity is true?

[CopticChristian]

Greetings MC! How ironic someone from the “show me” state would make such a statement.

Exactly what is it about biblical Christianity that you find to be false?

I would like to take you on on this topic. First I want you to define for me what it is you believe “Biblical Christianity” to be.

Country of Origin
Beliefs
Salvation
Regeneration
How do you become one
Authority
Which Bible
What is true

Let me know when you are ready.

 

[Contarini]

Paul wasn’t baptized, Saul of Tarsus [a good Jew] WAS baptized by a DEVOUT MAN ACCORDING TO THE LAW [Acts 22:12,16].

Ananias was a devout man according to the Torah. That doesn’t mean that his baptism was baptism according to the Torah. You are reading your dispensationalist prejudices into the passage.

This was the “economy” he emerged from. The Jews were still under the Law when this transpired.

After the Resurrection? After Pentecost? This argument makes no sense at all. It’s a patently desperate attempt by Protestants to evade the Scriptural basis for traditional (Catholic) Christianity. Dispensationalist exegesis reduces Protestantism to a caricature. I suspect that knowing Protestants are guilty of such folly is part of Calvin’s purifying suffering in Purgatory.

If water baptism saves in this dispensation of the grace of God, Paul certainly didn’t want people to be saved because he was glad he “baptized none, but…” [1Cor. 1:14-17].

Illogical. He didn’t say that he didn’t want people to be baptized. He said that he was glad he hadn’t done many baptisms himself so that people wouldn’t think that he was somehow baptizing them into his own personal cult. Again, you are twisting Scripture because on this issue the plain sense of Scripture is clearly against you. When Catholics have this problem (in more minor ways, in my opinion, like the perpetual virginity of Mary) they have tradition to fall back on. You have no such recourse, so you (not you personally, but fundamentalist Protestants over a century ago and you as one of their followers) have to come up with a ludicrous but clever system of exegesis to do the work of the ancient tradition you so conspicuously lack and the plain sense of Scripture whose support you so unconvincingly claim.

He states the Christ “sent him NOT to baptize.” The 12 apostles to Israel could never have said this.

Funny: Matt. 28 doesn’t say “go and teach Israel.” It says “go and teach all nations,” which is pretty clearly referring to the Gentiles. I suppose you will argue that it really means Jews who live among all nations. . . .

You fail to realize that the book of Acts is a transition from the gospel of the kingdom preached by the 12 to Israel and the gospel of the grace of God preached by Paul.

I for one “realize” that some dispensationalists claim this. You do have some support in tradition for this insofar as early and medieval Christians thought that Jewish converts were allowed to practice Torah in this “transitional” period, whereas later it was forbidden. But this is actually one of those Catholic ideas that really isn’t supported in Scripture. I guess it figures that it would be one of the few Catholic ideas that dispensationalists like.

Edwin

 

[wisdomseeker]

Paul wasn’t baptized, Saul of Tarsus [a good Jew] WAS baptized by a DEVOUT MAN ACCORDING TO THE LAW [Acts 22:12,16]. This was the “economy” he emerged from. The Jews were still under the Law when this transpired. If water baptism saves in this dispensation of the grace of God, Paul certainly didn’t want people to be saved because he was glad he “baptized none, but…” [1Cor. 1:14-17]. He states the Christ “sent him NOT to baptize.” The 12 apostles to Israel could never have said this.
You fail to realize that the book of Acts is a transition from the gospel of the kingdom preached by the 12 to Israel and the gospel of the grace of God preached by Paul. In early Acts you have the sign gifts manifested to Israel and you find these accounts in the early epistles written during the Acts period.
You cite 1 Cor. 12:23-32 on the Lord’s supper. There is no verse 32 in 1 Cor. 12. And the chapter speaks of the sign gifts, not the Lord’s supper.

I think St Paul was addressing some kind of dispute.

Hummm…1 Cor 1

For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. [12] Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. [13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? [14] I give God thanks, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Caius; [15] Lest any should say that you were baptized in my name.

[16] And I baptized also the household of Stephanus; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. [17] For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. [18] For the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness; but to them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God. [19] For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the prudence of the prudent I will reject. [20] Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

I hope that all of you non Catholics realize how tired and exhausted we Catholics are for trying to steer you all into the right direction. It is exhausting.

 

[paul_c]

On another Catholic thread someone wrote that the RCC has never fully defined how to be saved. No Catholic refuted this. Is it true?

Quick Cat,
Of course the Catholic Church has defined how to be saved. That was what Jesus commissioned it do to and to help people gain salvation is its only reason for existing. It is exactly as I stated:

1. You enter the state of grace through baptism
2. You stay in that state by avoiding mortal sin and by loving God and Neighbor.
3. if you fall from grace, you can be reconciled through the sacrament of reconciliation (confession)
4. if you die in the state of grace, you will go to heaven, although you might have to spend time in purgatory on the way there if you still have a tendency to sin.

Now of course, everyone has different trials and opportunities so how you stay in the state of grace differs by the situations that you are put in. The common denominiator is that if you love, you will stay in the state of grace. The catechism goes through this all in much detail.

 

[paul_c]

Paul wasn’t baptized, Saul of Tarsus [a good Jew] WAS baptized by a DEVOUT MAN ACCORDING TO THE LAW [Acts 22:12,16]. This was the “economy” he emerged from. The Jews were still under the Law when this transpired.

/quote] The Jews are still under the law to this day. But Saul was converted to the Catholic Church when he was baptized and this was not according to the LAW: Here’s the incident as reported in Acts 9: 010-19
10i There was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias, and the Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” He answered, “Here I am, Lord.” 11The Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight and ask at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul. He is there praying,j 12and [in a vision] he has seen a man named Ananias come in and lay [his] hands on him, that he may regain his sight.” 13But Ananias replied, “Lord, I have heard from many sources about this man, what evil things he has done to your holy ones* in Jerusalem.k 14And here he has authority from the chief priests to imprison all who call upon your name.”l 15But the Lord said to him, “Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites,m 16and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name.” 17So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.” 18Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, 19and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength.*

In acts 22, keep in mind that he was defending himself before the Jews in Jerusalem so he made sure they understood that he was a devout Jew. Keep in mind that Paul is describing his baptism in 60 AD, long after he had changed his name from Saul to Paul.
QuickCat;8577581:

If water baptism saves in this dispensation of the grace of God, Paul certainly didn’t want people to be saved because he was glad he “baptized none, but…” [1Cor. 1:14-17]. He states the Christ “sent him NOT to baptize.” The 12 apostles to Israel could never have said this.

Keep in mind that in 1Corinthians Paul is trying to stop the factions that were developing and to make sure the Church stayed unified. Paul baptized lots of people including the Jailer in Acts 16 and the people he mentions in 1Corinthians 14-16. He’s just making the point that they should consider themselves Jesus’ disciples not Paul’s disciples. You would do well to follow his advice as well

You fail to realize that the book of Acts is a transition from the gospel of the kingdom preached by the 12 to Israel and the gospel of the grace of God preached by Paul. In early Acts you have the sign gifts manifested to Israel and you find these accounts in the early epistles written during the Acts period.

This is very disturbing. You actually believe that Paul, who was sent on his missionary journeys by the Church (see Acts), and who went to Peter to make sure he was not running in vain (see Galatians as well as Acts 15), actually taught a separate gospel from the rest of the Church. To come to this conclusion, you must read very selectively. Paul was very clear that there is one Church for Jews and Gentiles alike. Read Romans if you doubt this.

You cite 1 Cor. 12:23-32 on the Lord’s supper. There is no verse 32 in 1 Cor. 12. And the chapter speaks of the sign gifts, not the Lord’s supper.

Sorry, 1Cor 11: 23-32:

23* For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,k that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”l 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.* 28A person should examine himself,* and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment* on himself. 30That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. 31If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; 32but since we are judged by [the] Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, biblical Christianity.

Unfortunately our friends who are based in Salt Lake City often offer a similar answer.

Which is why we are commanded to “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess 5:21)

We do this just as the Bereans did by **“Examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” **Acts 17:11

Do you believe all of the doctrines to which you hold fast are found in the Bible?

Yes, and here you must differentiate material v.s. formal sufficiency.

catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/sola-scriptura/material-vs-formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-by-mark-shea/

 

[CopticChristian]

Or is the Catholic interpretation of the passage incorrect?

Or perhaps you’re reading things into the passage that Matthew never intended?

You mean like Sola Scriptura, not found in any Scripture. Not found in any passage…

Where in the Bible does the Bible teach that the Bible is the pillar and foundation of truth?

Where in the Bible does the Bible teach that the Bible is Scripture, naming all the books…

Where does the Bible teach that the Bible is all you need…Let me help you…these won’t work…

1. 15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2. 10And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
3. 6And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
4. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
   6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[CopticChristian]

You believe the Bible to be a modern fundamentalist invention???

,
I, but more importantly the facts of history, beg to differ.The Holy Spirit led Reformation was a result of heresies that found there way into the church.

Despite the fact the majority of Catholic doctrines cannot be found within its pages?

1 Thess 5:12 was not written by “those” it was written by the Apostle Paul while he was being ‘carried along’ by the Holy Spirit.

Had you studied church history you’d be asking yourself this question.

What made the Bereans noble is rather than simply accepting the teachings of men they held them up to the refining light of the word of God to "See whether things things were so."

On the contrary. To be classified as a “Bible Christian” one must embrace the only Apostolic teachings we have, the inerrant word of God.

"Examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so" is exactly what led this “Bible Christian” to reject the claims of Rome.

This is an empty claim, one which attempts to circumvent the teachings of the Lord Jesus, all of which are found only in the pages of Holy Writ.

Again, this is simply another empty claim without biblical merit.

Yes I do! Which is exactly why I reject your arguments.

Indeed there is. Since many of the doctrines Catholics cling to are not supported by Scripture they are forced to “read them” back into the Bible, much like they do with the writings of the early church fathers.

What made the Bereans noble is that they accepted an ORAL teaching that did not contradict Scripture.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi Paul. Could you please provide the passages that teach Paul believed one needs to be baptized and to partake of the Eucharist to be saved?

Thank you and have a blessed day.

Romans 6

1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Paul didn’t say it Jesus said it…

50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Better yet prove that Romans 10:9 is a proof text for the sinners prayer, an impossibility with a proper educated understanding of Romans.

 

[QuickCat]

Quick Cat,
Of course the Catholic Church has defined how to be saved. That was what Jesus commissioned it do to and to help people gain salvation is its only reason for existing. It is exactly as I stated:

1. You enter the state of grace through baptism
2. You stay in that state by avoiding mortal sin and by loving God and Neighbor.
3. if you fall from grace, you can be reconciled through the sacrament of reconciliation (confession)
4. if you die in the state of grace, you will go to heaven, although you might have to spend time in purgatory on the way there if you still have a tendency to sin.

Now of course, everyone has different trials and opportunities so how you stay in the state of grace differs by the situations that you are put in. The common denominiator is that if you love, you will stay in the state of grace. The catechism goes through this all in much detail.

Where is the Lord Jesus Christ in this scenario? When I discuss salvation with my RCC friends they rarely to never mention the Lord Jesus Christ in connection with salvation. Peter Kreeft has commented that, “Not many Catholics know the gospel of salvation.”

 

[wisdomseeker]

Where is the Lord Jesus Christ in this scenario? When I discuss salvation with my RCC friends they rarely to never mention the Lord Jesus Christ in connection with salvation. Peter Kreeft has commented that, “Not many Catholics know the gospel of salvation.”

I guess you found here, who does know.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Quick Cat,
Of course the Catholic Church has defined how to be saved. That was what Jesus commissioned it do to and to help people gain salvation is its only reason for existing. It is exactly as I stated:

Quick Cat, all of this is because of the Lord Jesus.

Jesus gave us baptism for the forgiveness of sins and because of his paschal sacrifice, we can recieve the necessary grace to be saved.

Jesus, through his earthly ministry, taught us how to stay in the state of grace through love of God and Neighbor. In fact, his sacrifice on the cross showed us how far we must be willing to go for that love, which was perfect and the complete giving of himself for others. That is, by the way, the true definition of love: to give of yourself for the benefit of others. Afterall, he always told us to " follow him"

Jesus, through his mercy, forgave sins and he authorized his Apostles and their appointed successors to forgive sins in his name in the sacrament of reconciliation. When Peter asked how many times he must forgive a man’s sins, Jesus told him as often as he asked, even up to 70 X 7 times.

If you stay aligned to Jesus’ will (staying in the state of Grace) to death, we will enter into eternal life with him.

So you see, Quick Cat, its ALL about following Jesus. The Church teaches us what this means so that we aren’t floundering with misconceptions about what is required. In the end, its more than faith. It requires Love. Read 1Corinthians 13 to see this very neatly explained.

 

[QuickCat]

Ananias was a devout man according to the Torah. That doesn’t mean that his baptism was baptism according to the Torah. You are reading your dispensationalist prejudices into the passage.

After the Resurrection? After Pentecost? This argument makes no sense at all. It’s a patently desperate attempt by Protestants to evade the Scriptural basis for traditional (Catholic) Christianity. Dispensationalist exegesis reduces Protestantism to a caricature. I suspect that knowing Protestants are guilty of such folly is part of Calvin’s purifying suffering in Purgatory.

Illogical. He didn’t say that he didn’t want people to be baptized. He said that he was glad he hadn’t done many baptisms himself so that people wouldn’t think that he was somehow baptizing them into his own personal cult. Again, you are twisting Scripture because on this issue the plain sense of Scripture is clearly against you. When Catholics have this problem (in more minor ways, in my opinion, like the perpetual virginity of Mary) they have tradition to fall back on. You have no such recourse, so you (not you personally, but fundamentalist Protestants over a century ago and you as one of their followers) have to come up with a ludicrous but clever system of exegesis to do the work of the ancient tradition you so conspicuously lack and the plain sense of Scripture whose support you so unconvincingly claim.

Funny: Matt. 28 doesn’t say “go and teach Israel.” It says “go and teach all nations,” which is pretty clearly referring to the Gentiles. I suppose you will argue that it really means Jews who live among all nations. . . .

I for one “realize” that some dispensationalists claim this. You do have some support in tradition for this insofar as early and medieval Christians thought that Jewish converts were allowed to practice Torah in this “transitional” period, whereas later it was forbidden. But this is actually one of those Catholic ideas that really isn’t supported in Scripture. I guess it figures that it would be one of the few Catholic ideas that dispensationalists like.

Edwin

Why would the Holy Spirit tell us that Ananias was a “devout man according to the LAW…?” Because the Jews were still under the Law throughout Acts!

You obviously don’t understand the dispensational aspects of the Word of God. The Lord Jesus Christ did - note Luke 4:18,19 cf Isa. 61:1,2. Why did the Lord Jesus Christ close the “book” in the middle of the sentence? Because He recognized two different dispensations were involved in the context.

Inre Mt. 28:19,20. The Lord Jesus Christ expanded on this in Acts 1:8, note the order of progression of their ministry. The "…children [Israel] must first be filled…{Mark 7:27]. The “Great Commissions” for the Body of Christ are found in 2 Cor. 5:14-21; Eph. 3:1-9, etc.

Inre: Dispensations: Paul tells us that the “dispensation of the grace of God was GIVEN ME…” We now live in this dispensation of the grace of God, the church-age! Israel is “blinded " until …” the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" [Romans 11:25].
If you have a problem with dispensations take it up with the Lord Jesus Christ and Paul.

Your “replacement theology” is what is illogical.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Why would the Holy Spirit tell us that Ananias was a “devout man according to the LAW…?” Because the Jews were still under the Law throughout Acts!

You obviously don’t understand the dispensational aspects of the Word of God. The Lord Jesus Christ did - note Luke 4:18,19 cf Isa. 61:1,2. Why did the Lord Jesus Christ close the “book” in the middle of the sentence? Because He recognized two different dispensations were involved in the context.

Inre Mt. 28:19,20. The Lord Jesus Christ expanded on this in Acts 1:8, note the order of progression of their ministry. The "…children [Israel] must first be filled…{Mark 7:27]. The “Great Commissions” for the Body of Christ are found in 2 Cor. 5:14-21; Eph. 3:1-9, etc.

Inre: Dispensations: Paul tells us that the “dispensation of the grace of God was GIVEN ME…” We now live in this dispensation of the grace of God, the church-age! Israel is “blinded " until …” the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" [Romans 11:25].
If you have a problem with dispensations take it up with the Lord Jesus Christ and Paul.

Your “replacement theology” is what is illogical.

Did you come up with this on your own or did you get this from somebody else?

 

[paul_c]

Why would the Holy Spirit tell us that Ananias was a “devout man according to the LAW…?” Because the Jews were still under the Law throughout Acts!

The Jews are still under the law. The Jewish converts to Christianity, while still following Jewish social customs, also followed the rules of the New Covenant, starting with baptism. They were not in conflict.

You obviously don’t understand the dispensational aspects of the Word of God. The Lord Jesus Christ did - note Luke 4:18,19 cf Isa. 61:1,2. Why did the Lord Jesus Christ close the “book” in the middle of the sentence? Because He recognized two different dispensations were involved in the context.

So lets finish the sentence:
… and a day of vindication by our God to comfort all that mourn

As God incarnate, that last phrase would be awkward, that’s why he stopped short. It has nothing to do with dispensationalism.

Inre Mt. 28:19,20. The Lord Jesus Christ expanded on this in Acts 1:8, note the order of progression of their ministry. The "…children [Israel] must first be filled…{Mark 7:27]. The “Great Commissions” for the Body of Christ are found in 2 Cor. 5:14-21; Eph. 3:1-9, etc.

Quickcat, you seem to believe that there was a different Gospel for the Gentiles than there was for the Jews. Paul does not share your view. lets look at Romans, for instance. He spends chapters 2-4 explaining that God has no partiality between jew and Gentile and that they will be treated equally, whether they know the law or not. Even in Ephesians 3:6, which you reference paul says that the Gentils are coheirs, members of the same body and copartners in the promise of Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Inre: Dispensations: Paul tells us that the “dispensation of the grace of God was GIVEN ME…” We now live in this dispensation of the grace of God, the church-age! Israel is “blinded " until …” the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" [Romans 11:25].
If you have a problem with dispensations take it up with the Lord Jesus Christ and Paul.

Paul and Jesus never taught what you believe. All of the Bible applies to everyone.

Your “replacement theology” is what is illogical.

What is the replacement theology?

 

[CopticChristian]

Why would the Holy Spirit tell us that Ananias was a “devout man according to the LAW…?” Because the Jews were still under the Law throughout Acts!
You obviously don’t understand the dispensational aspects of the Word of God. The Lord Jesus Christ did - note Luke 4:18,19 cf Isa. 61:1,2. Why did the Lord Jesus Christ close the “book” in the middle of the sentence? Because He recognized two different dispensations were involved in the context.

Inre Mt. 28:19,20. The Lord Jesus Christ expanded on this in Acts 1:8, note the order of progression of their ministry. The "…children [Israel] must first be filled…{Mark 7:27]. The “Great Commissions” for the Body of Christ are found in 2 Cor. 5:14-21; Eph. 3:1-9, etc.

Inre: Dispensations: Paul tells us that the “dispensation of the grace of God was GIVEN ME…” We now live in this dispensation of the grace of God, the church-age! Israel is “blinded " until …” the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" [Romans 11:25].
If you have a problem with dispensations take it up with the Lord Jesus Christ and Paul.

Your “replacement theology” is what is illogical.

The law has to be defined as Moral Law or Ceremonial Law. We are all under the Moral Law but not under the Ceremonial Law. The Ceremonial law is dead and is stated to be so in Romans 7.

Jew, Gentile, Greek, Barbarian are under the Moral Law…for the Gentile according to Paul without circumcision is a law unto themselves…they are circumcised of heart and do what the law requires without the Law…Moral law…not Ceremonial law.

Are you a dispensationalist?

 

[QuickCat]

Are you a dispensationalist?

Yes, just as any believer who no longer brings an animal sacrifice, but rests in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. I follow Paul as he followed the Lord Jesus Christ [just as he told the Corinthians].

 

[paul_c]

Are you a dispensationalist?

Catholics believe in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ without being dispensationalist.

 

[Contarini]

Why would the Holy Spirit tell us that Ananias was a “devout man according to the LAW…?” Because the Jews were still under the Law throughout Acts!

The context there is that Paul is vouching for Ananias’ Torah-observance. It does not follow that Ananias, as a believer in Jesus, thought he was observing Torah in order to be saved (in fact, many contemporary scholars think that no first-century Jews observed Torah in order to be “saved” in our sense). Therefore, it does not follow that Ananias was “saved” in any other sense than we are.

You obviously don’t understand the dispensational aspects of the Word of God.

It’s insulting to claim that people “don’t understand” something just because they reject it.

Dispensationalism is a highly controversial modern theological approach, which has found little favor among credentialed Biblical scholars (you may see this as evidence that Biblical scholars are ungodly, but I note it for anyone reading who may not share your prejudices), and which seems to me like an ingenious but desperate attempt to shoehorn the Bible into a Protestant theological framework.

The Lord Jesus Christ did - note Luke 4:18,19 cf Isa. 61:1,2. Why did the Lord Jesus Christ close the “book” in the middle of the sentence? Because He recognized two different dispensations were involved in the context.

I would agree in the sense that Jesus wasn’t there to proclaim judgment at that point. Judgment follows on the rejection of the Gospel. However, that doesn’t support a distinction of “dispensations” in your sense.

Inre Mt. 28:19,20. The Lord Jesus Christ expanded on this in Acts 1:8, note the order of progression of their ministry. The "…children [Israel] must first be filled…{Mark 7:27]. The “Great Commissions” for the Body of Christ are found in 2 Cor. 5:14-21; Eph. 3:1-9, etc.

I’m not clear here on what you are arguing. I repeat that the Twelve, contrary to what you said earlier, are here commissioned to preach to the nations. The entire progression of Acts 1:8 is entrusted to the Twelve.

Inre: Dispensations: Paul tells us that the “dispensation of the grace of God was GIVEN ME…”

The fact that the KJV uses the word “dispensation” doesn’t prove your point. The word is “oikonomia,” which refers to the activity of a steward in a household, and the KJV uses the word “dispensation” to mean the activity of dispensing. He isn’t saying that there is something called a “dispensation of the grace of God” that is to be distinguished from some other “dispensation,” but rather that God is now “dispensing” His grace to the Gentiles through Paul’s ministry.

We now live in this dispensation of the grace of God, the church-age! Israel is “blinded " until …” the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" [Romans 11:25].
If you have a problem with dispensations take it up with the Lord Jesus Christ and Paul.

That’s just silly rhetoric on your part. Your interpretation doesn’t hold up to any serious historical and exegetical study. It’s very clever, but note that all you ever do is assert pontifically that the texts must mean thus and so. You don’t engage in any real argument based on language or context. And you may not care that you’re going against the whole history of interpretation, but some of us do!

Your “replacement theology” is what is illogical.

First of all, I wouldn’t call my position “replacement theology.” You don’t actually know much about my theology–what strikes you as illogical about it?

The bottom line here is that everyone who has ever been saved is saved by grace. That has nothing to do with “replacement theology.” My position would better be described as “continuation theology.” You, on the other hand, hold to a kind of “segregation theology” in which God acts in radically different ways toward Jews and Gentiles, rather than being the same God, rich in mercy to all who call on Him!

Edwin

 

[QuickCat]

First of all, I wouldn’t call my position “replacement theology.” You don’t actually know much about my theology–what strikes you as illogical about it?

Edwin

The RCC position has long been replacement theology. I can furnish you with quotes if you desire.

What is “illogical” about your theology is that you fail to see/understand God’s dealing with Israel and their earthly hope and calling is quite different from the Body of Christs’ heavenly hope and calling.

Do you deny that the Lord Jesus Christ is going to return to this earth to set up a kingdom for Israel on earth?

Do you deny that the twelve, through James, Peter and John, agreed to confine their ministry to Israel after Paul became the apostle to the Gentiles?

Do you deny that the 12 will one day sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel on the earth? To make this the RCC magisterium is “replacement theology.”