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

[QuickCat]

CopticChristian:
John Nelson Darby would be one of those False teachers. Not at all. Darby was a wonderful Bible scholar.

In context, the “kingdom of heaven” is not the Body of Christ. It is the promised kingdom for Israel and the nations. The present “dispensation of the Grace of God,” the church-age, was first revealed to Paul. He describes it as a “mystery” not revealed in past generations nor ages. During the last 40 days of our Lord’s earthly ministry [which was to Israel] our Lord opened the eyes/understanding of the 11 about the coming kingdom. As we come into the book of Acts they ask Him, “Will you, AT THIS TIME, RESTORED THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL?” He did not rebuke them for asking about this kingdom, but told them that the time element was not for them to know. The very first act of the 11 after the ascension was to bring their number back up to 12. Twelve is important for Israel. When our Lord does restore this kingdom the 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Peter addresses Israel only in the first 5 chapters of Acts. He presents the Lord in resurrection to be a Prince and a Savior to Israel [Acts 5:31]. Peter actually offers this kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21. This was contingent upon Israel accepting their Messiah. Israel rejected the Lord Jesus Christ, but God gave them approx. 30 years, to reconsider and finally has Paul present that judgement in Acts 28:28ff. So, presently Israel is in a state of blindness. This blindness will continue “Until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in” [Romans 11:25]. Note the next verse [26], then all Israel will be saved.

 

[CopticChristian]

John Nelson Darby would be one of those False teachers.

In your opinion, based on your knowledge and understanding. You may want to research the history of eschatology. There is at first historical millianism. Then we have amillinealism that the OHCAC adopted after putting to rest the historic millinial thoughts, then came Postmillineialism…your Darbyism is a late arriver and was never taught by anyone until it was spawned in Ireland by Irish Protestants and then it infected many Protestant ecclesial communities and it is dying out only to be reivived again and again…nothing new under the sun.

Here are some links for you and those viewing to see about Dispensationalism. Darby as I understand found writings by a Catholic priest…Joachim De Fiore…Wow here we go again…another Catholic priest responsible for writing something that Protestants get hold of and twist into???

catholic.com/documents/false-profit-money-prejudice-and-bad-theology-in-tim-lahaye%E2%80%99s-left-behind-series

catholic.com/tracts/the-rapture

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/joachim.html

 

[QuickCat]

[You cant possibly be serious. Jesus warned His chosen ones of many false teachers to come. do you think you could be one of them.
to first understant the Gospel, one must find the Kingdom of God first. The Kindgdom is at hand. The Church Jesus found is the Kingdom of God on earth. The Church is the one comissioned by Christ to teach all man. Do you deny this? individuals alone cannot take the authority of Christ and His Church. Someone lied to you and you believed. Gee, I wonder what would happen if Jesus took the Bible from you alls hands.

Chrysostom’s View

John Chrysostom [AD 347-407] was the first Roman Catholic to articulate Replacement Theology. He was a Catholic monk who became the archbishop of Constantinople around 381. Historical writings indicate that he was anti-Semitic. Due to his hatred for Israel, he taught that God had replaced Israel with the present day church. He cited Matthew 21:43 as his proof text:
[/quote]

I didn’t write the above

! Someone has written it and apparently ascribed it to me. Not true!

Seems to me that the position that one must first join the church and then be saved is quite different from what the Bible teaches. Paul writes that we are baptized [by the Holy Spirit] into the Body of Christ when we are saved. He also tells us that we are sealed by this same Holy Spirit until the day of redemption of our body. See 1 Cor 15:1-4; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13,14.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Chrysostom’s View

John Chrysostom [AD 347-407] was the first Roman Catholic to articulate Replacement Theology. He was a Catholic monk who became the archbishop of Constantinople around 381. Historical writings indicate that he was anti-Semitic. Due to his hatred for Israel, he taught that God had replaced Israel with the present day church. He cited Matthew 21:43 as his proof text:

I didn’t write the above

! Someone has written it and apparently ascribed it to me. Not true!

Seems to me that the position that one must first join the church and then be saved is quite different from what the Bible teaches. Paul writes that we are baptized [by the Holy Spirit] into the Body of Christ when we are saved. He also tells us that we are sealed by this same Holy Spirit until the day of redemption of our body. See 1 Cor 15:1-4; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13,14.

Can you show where St Paul teaches this to people outside the Church?

 

[QuickCat]

CopticChristian:
In your opinion, based on your knowledge and understanding. You may want to research the history of eschatology. There is at first historical millianism. Then we have amillinealism that the OHCAC adopted after putting to rest the historic millinial thoughts, then came Postmillineialism…your Darbyism is a late arriver and was never taught by anyone until it was spawned in Ireland by Irish Protestants and then it infected many Protestant ecclesial communities and it is dying out only to be reivived again and again…nothing new under the sun.

Here are some links for you and those viewing to see about Dispensationalism. Darby as I understand found writings by a Catholic priest…Joachim De Fiore…Wow here we go again…another Catholic priest responsible for writing something that Protestants get hold of and twist into???

catholic.com/documents/false-profit-money-prejudice-and-bad-theology-in-tim-lahaye%E2%80%99s-left-behind-series

catholic.com/tracts/the-rapture

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/joachim.html

Early church and premillennialism (chiliasm)

Christian eschatology

Eschatology views

[show]Viewpoints

e

If millenarian beliefs have fallen into disfavor in Mainstream Christian theology today, this was not the case during the Early Christian centuries. At least during the first four centuries, millennialism was normative in both East and West.[1] Tertullian, Commodian, Lactantius, Methodius, and Apollinaris of Laodicea all advocated premillennial doctrine.[2] In addition, according to religious scholar the Rev. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee[3] the following is true, “Justin’s ‘Occasional Chiliasm’ sui generis which was strongly anti-pretribulationistic was followed possibly by Pothinus in A.D. 175 and more probably (around 185) by Irenaeus – although Justin Martyr, discussing his own premillennial beliefs in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter 110, observed that they were not necessary to Christians:
I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.”[4]
Melito of Sardis is frequently listed as a second century proponent of premillennialism.[5] The support usually given for the supposition is that Jerome [Comm. on Ezek. 36 ] and Gennadius [De Dogm. Eccl., Ch. 52] both affirm that he was a decided millenarian.”[6]

In the early third century, Hippolytus of Rome wrote:
And 6, 000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day “on which God rested from all His works.” For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they “shall reign with Christ,” when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.” Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6, 000 years must be fulfilled (Hippolytus. On the HexaËmeron, Or Six Days’ Work. From Fragments from Commentaries on Various Books of Scripture).
Around 220, there were some similar influences on Tertullian though only with very important and extremely optimistic (if not perhaps even postmillennial modifications and implications). On the other hand, ‘Christian Chiliastic’ ideas were indeed advocated in 240 by Commodian; in 250 by the Egyptian Bishop Nepos in his Refutation of Allegorists; in 260 by the almost unknown Coracion; and in 310 by Lactantius.

Into the late fourth century, the Bishop known as Ambrose of Milan had millennial leanings (Ambrose of Milan. Book II. On the Belief in the Resurrection, verse 108).

The first known opponent of Christian chiliasm was Marcion, in the 2nd century, who most Christians feel was an early heretic (Brown HOJ. Heresies

 

[wisdomseeker]

In your opinion, based on your knowledge and understanding. You may want to research the history of eschatology. There is at first historical millianism. Then we have amillinealism that the OHCAC adopted after putting to rest the historic millinial thoughts, then came Postmillineialism…your Darbyism is a late arriver and was never taught by anyone until it was spawned in Ireland by Irish Protestants and then it infected many Protestant ecclesial communities and it is dying out only to be reivived again and again…nothing new under the sun.

Here are some links for you and those viewing to see about Dispensationalism. Darby as I understand found writings by a Catholic priest…Joachim De Fiore…Wow here we go again…another Catholic priest responsible for writing something that Protestants get hold of and twist into???

catholic.com/documents/false-profit-money-prejudice-and-bad-theology-in-tim-lahaye%E2%80%99s-left-behind-series

catholic.com/tracts/the-rapture

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/joachim.html

Early church and premillennialism (chiliasm)

Christian eschatology

Eschatology views

[show]Viewpoints

e

If millenarian beliefs have fallen into disfavor in Mainstream Christian theology today, this was not the case during the Early Christian centuries. At least during the first four centuries, millennialism was normative in both East and West.[1] Tertullian, Commodian, Lactantius, Methodius, and Apollinaris of Laodicea all advocated premillennial doctrine.[2] In addition, according to religious scholar the Rev. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee[3] the following is true, “Justin’s ‘Occasional Chiliasm’ sui generis which was strongly anti-pretribulationistic was followed possibly by Pothinus in A.D. 175 and more probably (around 185) by Irenaeus – although Justin Martyr, discussing his own premillennial beliefs in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter 110, observed that they were not necessary to Christians:
I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.”[4]
Melito of Sardis is frequently listed as a second century proponent of premillennialism.[5] The support usually given for the supposition is that Jerome [Comm. on Ezek. 36 ] and Gennadius [De Dogm. Eccl., Ch. 52] both affirm that he was a decided millenarian.”[6]

In the early third century, Hippolytus of Rome wrote:
And 6, 000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day “on which God rested from all His works.” For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they “shall reign with Christ,” when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.” Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6, 000 years must be fulfilled (Hippolytus. On the HexaËmeron, Or Six Days’ Work. From Fragments from Commentaries on Various Books of Scripture).
Around 220, there were some similar influences on Tertullian though only with very important and extremely optimistic (if not perhaps even postmillennial modifications and implications). On the other hand, ‘Christian Chiliastic’ ideas were indeed advocated in 240 by Commodian; in 250 by the Egyptian Bishop Nepos in his Refutation of Allegorists; in 260 by the almost unknown Coracion; and in 310 by Lactantius.

Into the late fourth century, the Bishop known as Ambrose of Milan had millennial leanings (Ambrose of Milan. Book II. On the Belief in the Resurrection, verse 108).

The first known opponent of Christian chiliasm was Marcion, in the 2nd century, who most Christians feel was an early heretic (Brown HOJ. Heresies

Can you show where St Paul teaches people outside the Church?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Ok, first, the Schism happened when a papal legate walked into the Hagia Sophia during Mass one Sunday morning and served their excommunication documents on the Altar of St. Sopia. How do you look at that and say “when the Eastern churches left Rome”?

The problem is that the East-West Schism cannot be pinned exclusively to that one occurrence, as shameful as it was. 1054 is a convenient dividing point for historians to use, but the schism developed gradually and cannot fairly be blamed on the West or the East.

In 1054, the papal legate intended to excommunicate the patriarch of Constantinople personally, not all of the Byzantine patriarchates. And likewise, the patriarch of Constantinople intended to excommunicate the pope of Rome, not the whole Latin Church.

It wasn’t irrevocably clear that there was a major schism until the beginning of the thirteenth century, with the Latin crusaders’ sacking of Constantinople.

And actually, cracks really began appearing in the dam in the Photian schism of the ninth century.

Of course, we could go back further, too. Claims similar to those made by the papacy today were made by earlier popes such as Leo the Great and Gregory the Great, and although no schism happened, I wouldn’t find it implausible for some historian to assert that such-and-such an eastern bishop or patriarch would have disagreed.

I myself have read Orthodox Christians on the Internet state quite rationally their objections to the way Gregory the Great brought the British church under papal supervision through the Gregorian mission.

I guess my point is that this schism is a complex matter, and it would be unfair to lay the blame at the feet of any particular individual or any particular church.

No, Only the Michael, Patriarch of Constantinople and his supporters were excommunicated and I agree that mass was the wrong time to do this.

Interestingly enough, the papal legate’s excommunication was canonically invalid. Pope Leo IX had died by that point, which implicitly suspended the legate’s authority to issue an excommunication from him.

It’s fairly uncontroversial that there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome until about the mid 2nd century

True, but that’s not a problem for Catholic claims. Recall that it’s likely the last Apostle died in the early second century. Of course a “monarchical episcopate” isn’t going to develop in a way visible to historians while there are still men living who hold the office of Apostle. Sheesh, the Catholic claim is that public revelation didn’t even end until the last Apostle died, so the presence of Apostles of course dilutes the visible uniqueness of the role of the bishop in the early church.

Yes, biblical Christianity.

So biblical Christianity began in the sixteenth century? Or late fifteenth century at the absolute earliest?

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

The difference is their church didn’t exist before the nineteenth century.

Saint Paul also instructs us to hold fast to what was handed on to us. That is what Catholics have been doing for 2000 years, friend.

 

[CopticChristian]

I

n your opinion, based on your knowledge and understanding. You may want to research the history of eschatology. There is at first historical millianism. Then we have amillinealism that the OHCAC adopted after putting to rest the historic millinial thoughts, then came Postmillineialism…your Darbyism is a late arriver and was never taught by anyone until it was spawned in Ireland by Irish Protestants and then it infected many Protestant ecclesial communities and it is dying out only to be reivived again and again…nothing new under the sun.

catholic.com/tracts/the-rapture

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/joachim.html

Early church and premillennialism (chiliasm)

Christian eschatology

Eschatology views

[show]Viewpoints

e

If millenarian beliefs have fallen into disfavor in Mainstream Christian theology today, this was not the case during the Early Christian centuries. At least during the first four centuries, millennialism was normative in both East and West.[1] Tertullian, **Commodian, **Lactantius, Methodius, and Apollinaris of Laodicea all advocated premillennial doctrine.[2] In addition, according to religious scholar the Rev. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee[3] the following is true, “Justin’s ‘Occasional Chiliasm’ sui generis which was strongly anti-pretribulationistic was followed possibly by Pothinus in A.D. 175 and more probably (around 185) by Irenaeus – although Justin Martyr, discussing his own premillennial beliefs in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter 110, observed that they were not necessary to Christians:
I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.”[4]
Melito of Sardis is frequently listed as a second century proponent of premillennialism.[5] The support usually given for the supposition is that Jerome [Comm. on Ezek. 36 ] and Gennadius [De Dogm. Eccl., Ch. 52] both affirm that he was a decided millenarian.”[6]

In the early third century, Hippolytus of Rome wrote:
And 6, 000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day “on which God rested from all His works.” For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they “shall reign with Christ,” when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.” Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6, 000 years must be fulfilled (Hippolytus. On the HexaËmeron, Or Six Days’ Work. From Fragments from Commentaries on Various Books of Scripture).
Around 220, there were some similar influences on Tertullian though only with very important and extremely optimistic (if not perhaps even postmillennial modifications and implications). On the other hand, ‘Christian Chiliastic’ ideas were indeed advocated in 240 by Commodian; in 250 by the Egyptian Bishop Nepos in his Refutation of Allegorists; in 260 by the almost unknown Coracion; and in 310 by Lactantius.

Into the late fourth century, the Bishop known as **Ambrose of Milan **had millennial leanings (Ambrose of Milan. Book II. On the Belief in the Resurrection, verse 108).

The first known opponent of Christian chiliasm was Marcion, in the 2nd century, who most Christians feel was an early heretic (Brown HOJ. Heresies

Here are some links for you and those viewing to see about Dispensationalism. Darby as I understand found writings by a Catholic priest…Joachim De Fiore…Wow here we go again…another Catholic priest responsible for writing something that Protestants get hold of and twist into???

catholic.com/documents/false-profit-money-prejudice-and-bad-theology-in-tim-lahaye%E2%80%99s-left-behind-series

It is appreciated that you have looked at what I outlined for you as historic prelmillenialism that was jettisoned by the Church. I appreciate that you have such admiration for the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers. Is it safe to say that you believe all that they have written? Here is a site where you can find their writings online.

newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[PRmerger]

Again, my apologies for the delay.

The bolded portion in your comment is a common theme I find throughout your hypothesis, one which I respectfully see as contrary to biblical testimony, and thus a faulty premise.

By stating “loving beings” in heaven are aware of what is going on in the individual lives of people on earth, by default you’re claiming departed believers are omniscient.

Ironically the verse you quote in an attempt to support praying to the departed begins "For this reason I bow my knees before the Father…

In Ephesians 1:22-23 Paul is proclaiming Christ’s preeminence as Lord over all creation and head of the universal church of *all believers *in fulfillment of Psalm 8:6. He is not referring to specific teachings of a particular church.

.
Every one of these verses are proclaiming that every believer is part of the universal body of Christ. Not a single one of them even remotely speaks of partaking of the Eucharist or praying to the departed.

These verses testify to the wonderful truth that nothing can seperate God’s elect from the love of Christ. To this I join all redeemed saints in shouting a hearty Amen!

Unfortunately Rom 8:35-39 doesn’t support your thesis statement.

The appearance of Moses represents the lawgiver who foretold of the promise of salvation, while Elijah represents the prophetic forerunner of the Messiah and appointed restorer of all things (Mal 4:5-6). In other words, they are representatives of the Law and the Prophets who foretold of a coming Messiah who would fulfill the Old Covenant promises and deliver His people from the bondage of sin.

Do you believe the Transfiguration itself to be a biblical foundation for communication with those who have passed from this life? If so, are you able to offer examples of communication between the apostles and Moses and Elijah?

If this form of communication isn’t limited to King Jesus who is the Creator of all, using your logic shouldn’t we by extension also be able to call forth the dead as Jesus did with Lazarus? If not, why not?

Hallelujah He is the God of the living! But once again these verses neither teach or support praying to deceased believers.

PRM I’ll address the rest of your post as time permits. May your day be blessed!

Samson, you took my post from another thread and transferred it here.

Why?

 

[PRmerger]

By stating “loving beings” in heaven are aware of what is going on in the individual lives of people on earth, by default you’re claiming departed believers are omniscient.

Of course anyone in heaven who knows anything knows it because he is joined to God.

Would you have any objection if St. Paul told you that he saved you? If so, you then have a problem with the Sacred Scripture, for Paul says he saves souls.**

If not, then you understand, as Catholics do, that Paul saves only through his participation in the One Sacrifice of Christ.

**If, by any means, I may provoke to emulation them who are my flesh, and may save some of them.—Romans 11:14

Curiously, you call Moses the lawgiver right here, just a few seconds after typing the above, so clearly you see that Moses is only “the lawgiver” because of his participation in the Divine Will of God. Moses is the lawgiver only through his participation in and through The One Lawgiver.

The appearance of Moses represents** the lawgiver** who foretold of the promise of salvation,

You have no problem with that, I presume? Moses is the lawgiver? But isn’t God the Lawgiver? Oh, right–you get that he’s been given that authority through The Lawgiver.

(NB: If you are going to claim that he is only the “appearance” of a lawgiver and not really a lawgiver then we’re going to have to have a little chat about that!)

Thus, I think you can see how Saints are given a very specific type of knowledge (of the prayers of the faithful), only through the authority of the Omniscient One.

 

[CopticChristian]

Chrysostom’s View

Wow…did someone get you confused. No, no, no…you don’t gain salvation by joining the Church…you have to get Baptized to get salvation and that is how you enter the Church. You are correct, here is what the bible teaches.

1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Paul points this out in Romans…

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.

Peter says this too…

21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Paul says this in Colossians

11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

He repeats this in Ephesians

12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

and in Ephesians…

10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

If you read on in Ephesians he says that it is the Church…that is the mystery by which all will be reconciled to Him, by Baptism.

9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

and at the end of Romans he again points out the Mystery of the Church where all humanity will be reconciled to God.

25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Wow, sorry someone got you confused, you can’t join the Church until you are Baptized when you get salvation. Hope that helps.

 

[QuickCat]

CopticChristian:
In your opinion, based on your knowledge and understanding. You may want to research the history of eschatology. There is at first historical millianism. Then we have amillinealism that the OHCAC adopted after putting to rest the historic millinial thoughts, then came Postmillineialism…your Darbyism is a late arriver and was never taught by anyone until it was spawned in Ireland by Irish Protestants and then it infected many Protestant ecclesial communities and it is dying out only to be reivived again and again…nothing new under the sun.

Here are some links for you and those viewing to see about Dispensationalism. Darby as I understand found writings by a Catholic priest…Joachim De Fiore…Wow here we go again…another Catholic priest responsible for writing something that Protestants get hold of and twist into???

catholic.com/documents/false-profit-money-prejudice-and-bad-theology-in-tim-lahaye%E2%80%99s-left-behind-series

catholic.com/tracts/the-rapture

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/joachim.html

Centuries before Christ, the Psalmist said:

“If thou, Lord,shouldst mark iniquities… who shall stand? But there isforgiveness with Thee…” (Psa. 130:3,4).

     It is doubtful whether the Psalmist understood the basis upon which a just God, through the ages, has so graciously forgiven sins, but this has since been revealed in the Epistles of Paul.

There we read: “God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you”(Eph. 4:32). But this is only part of the truth, for God forgives sinners, not merely because Christ desires this, butbecause Christ paid for their sins and purchased their redemption. Thus Eph. 1:7 declares: “In [Christ] we haveredemption, through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.”

     And thus Paul could proclaim to his hearers in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch:

"Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that throughthis Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

     "And by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from whichye could not be justified by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:38,39).

     Obviously such forgiveness can never be rescinded orrevoked, for it is based upon the full and complete paymentof our whole debt of sin by "the precious blood of Christ."

     Sad to say, many people do not feel they need forgiveness,for they have not seen themselves as they truly are in thesight of a holy God, but those who are conscious of their sinsand are willing to say with the prodigal son: "I havesinned," may experience the peace and joy of sins forgivenby faith in Christ who paid sin's penalty for us.

     Here is forgiveness that can never be revoked because itis based on the "one offering [of Christ at Calvary]" bywhich our Lord "hath perfected forever them that are sanctified *" (Heb. 10:14).*

 

[paul_c]

In your opinion, based on your knowledge and understanding. You may want to research the history of eschatology. There is at first historical millianism. Then we have amillinealism that the OHCAC adopted after putting to rest the historic millinial thoughts, then came Postmillineialism…your Darbyism is a late arriver and was never taught by anyone until it was spawned in Ireland by Irish Protestants and then it infected many Protestant ecclesial communities and it is dying out only to be reivived again and again…nothing new under the sun.

Here are some links for you and those viewing to see about Dispensationalism. Darby as I understand found writings by a Catholic priest…Joachim De Fiore…Wow here we go again…another Catholic priest responsible for writing something that Protestants get hold of and twist into???

catholic.com/documents/false-profit-money-prejudice-and-bad-theology-in-tim-lahaye%E2%80%99s-left-behind-series

catholic.com/tracts/the-rapture

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/joachim.html

Centuries before Christ, the Psalmist said:

“If thou, Lord,shouldst mark iniquities… who shall stand? But there isforgiveness with Thee…” (Psa. 130:3,4).

     It is doubtful whether the Psalmist understood the basis upon which a just God, through the ages, has so graciously forgiven sins, but this has since been revealed in the Epistles of Paul.

There we read: “God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you”(Eph. 4:32). But this is only part of the truth, for God forgives sinners, not merely because Christ desires this, butbecause Christ paid for their sins and purchased their redemption. Thus Eph. 1:7 declares: “In [Christ] we haveredemption, through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.”

     And thus Paul could proclaim to his hearers in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch:

"Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that throughthis Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

     "And by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from whichye could not be justified by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:38,39).

     Obviously such forgiveness can never be rescinded orrevoked, for it is based upon the full and complete paymentof our whole debt of sin by "the precious blood of Christ."

     Sad to say, many people do not feel they need forgiveness,for they have not seen themselves as they truly are in thesight of a holy God, but those who are conscious of their sinsand are willing to say with the prodigal son: "I havesinned," may experience the peace and joy of sins forgivenby faith in Christ who paid sin's penalty for us.

     Here is forgiveness that can never be revoked because itis based on the "one offering [of Christ at Calvary]" bywhich our Lord "hath perfected forever them that are sanctified *" (Heb. 10:14).*

When you are baptized, your previous sins are forgiven. If you continue to sin, you will be condemned unless you are reconciled to God through the sacrament of reconciliation.

 

[CopticChristian]

In your opinion, based on your knowledge and understanding. You may want to research the history of eschatology. There is at first historical millianism. Then we have amillinealism that the OHCAC adopted after putting to rest the historic millinial thoughts, then came Postmillineialism…your Darbyism is a late arriver and was never taught by anyone until it was spawned in Ireland by Irish Protestants and then it infected many Protestant ecclesial communities and it is dying out only to be reivived again and again…nothing new under the sun.

Amen, Amen and Amen…have you been living a sheltered life. Welcome to Catholic Answers. The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is over a billion in the world and when combined with the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox who also understand forgiveness there are many that understand confessing sins. In fact the world population of Christians in this body do. This should change your sad disposition. Your sadness is certainly based on your lack of knowledge of the Christian community. Come on over and confess with us. You know that if you confess with your lips and believe with your heart in the sacrament of reconcilliation you will have salvation at hand.

The truly great thing is that you can confess those sins and with a repentant heart never do them again…and as you know nothing can separate us from the love of God as Paul says…For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

and

35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

37Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Paul never says Adultery, Murder, lying, cheating, stealing, heresy, abortion, contraception…oh no for in all these things we are more than conquerers…can you imagine anyone reading this and believing that you don’t have to suffer and that Paul is talking about suffering and not sin…sin seperates you from the love of God …and that is why you can confess your sins…hope that clarifies and brings joy out of your sadness.

 

[govav8er]

I am a Protestant I don’t think Protestant Christianity is true I am trying to decide between Roman Catholic Christianity and or Eastern Orthodox Christianity how do I decide thank you ?

Well, as you can see, this simple question ignited a theological debate. One that really isn’t necessary, albeit wholly allowed by the forum masters, since this is a forum on Catholic Answers.

Please respond as to why you think that Protestant version is untrue. Or not. But If you truly want to get somewhere and have made up your mind, to join the The Church., then go talk to a priest, recommeneded by somoeone hopefully, from either RCC or EOC. Then PRAY a whole bunch.

RCC is the run from the chair of St. Peter who Jesus Christ personally named to lead his Church. The Bible (NT) sprung from the Catholic Church. It is the (name removed by moderator)ired word of God and the Catholic Church has kept and been faithful to it for approx 1650 years. I ask, HOW can the inspired word of God come from some group of people that is either an invalid usurping group, or later became invalid, have the authority to form the list of books to be the New Testament? Matt 16; “…you are Peter, the rock, and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of hades **shall not **prevail against it.” This would then mean that God was WRONG. That is WHOLLY untrue and sacriligious. God knows all so would have known if His Church that He established were to go bad, he would not have placed a visible leader of His Church and one that will not be conquered by evil but conquers it!

People are sooo proud of themselves and read into too much stuff. I have a degree in engineering and am a professional pilot by trade. I can not follow some of these things by some people. God and 2000 years and counting are pretty hard to debate.

I wish you the best of luck in your faith journey and choice and welcome home!

 

[PJM]

John Nelson Darby would be one of those False teachers.

Not at all. Darby was a wonderful Bible scholar.

In context, the “kingdom of heaven” is not the Body of Christ. It is the promised kingdom for Israel and the nations. The present “dispensation of the Grace of God,” the church-age, was first revealed to Paul. He describes it as a “mystery” not revealed in past generations nor ages. During the last 40 days of our Lord’s earthly ministry [which was to Israel] our Lord opened the eyes/understanding of the 11 about the coming kingdom. As we come into the book of Acts they ask Him, “Will you, AT THIS TIME, RESTORED THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL?” He did not rebuke them for asking about this kingdom, but told them that the time element was not for them to know. The very first act of the 11 after the ascension was to bring their number back up to 12. Twelve is important for Israel. When our Lord does restore this kingdom the 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Peter addresses Israel only in the first 5 chapters of Acts. He presents the Lord in resurrection to be a Prince and a Savior to Israel [Acts 5:31]. Peter actually offers this kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21. This was contingent upon Israel accepting their Messiah. Israel rejected the Lord Jesus Christ, but God gave them approx. 30 years, to reconsider and finally has Paul present that judgement in Acts 28:28ff. So, presently Israel is in a state of blindness. This blindness will continue “Until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in” [Romans 11:25]. Note the next verse [26], then all Israel will be saved.

My DEAR friends in Christ.

It OUGHT NOT be a secret why ONLY the Catholic Church can [that is has the literal ability; blessed, guided and guarded by God Himself] to teach the FULLNESS of the [singular truth of the Bible]

The above post is a fine example of why this necessary and why only the CC can and has the mandate from Christ Himself [Mt. 28;16-20, as well as Mt. 16:18-19 and John 20:19-23] Also see John 14:16-17 and john 17:15-19].

Because God knows and logic ought to affirm that there is and it is possible ONLY to have ONE truth for each precisely defined issue; our ALL-PRUDENY, ALL-WISE God wisely choose ONLY one messenger ALONE who can and MUST proclaim God’s truths.

More than just the One chosen and hand selected by Christ is BOUND to add there own opinins and understanding.

When the Bible speaks of “Isreal” in the context as used above, it is speaking on NOT just the Jewish people and the Hebrew nation. The Bible speaks here of the " End Times"
and also the entire known world.

ANY and ALL who teach anything that relates to Faith-belief and Morals and fails to conform completely with what the CC teaches is defacto “a false teacher.”

The above nevertheless has much good informattion included in it.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Contarini]

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

I am aware of the RC position. But in recent years they–like Christians generally–have moved away from strict replacement theology and toward a view that recognizes God’s continuing dealings with the Jewish people, while not segregating God’s actions as you dispensationalists do. This theological development is still ongoing.

Dispensationalists did us all a service by pointing to the problems with replacement theology. But your answers aren’t satisfactory. I grew up with dispensationalism and have rejected it.

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.

There’s nothing “illogical” about rejecting a premise that is itself not logically necessary.

You need to stop saying “fail to see” as a substitute for “disagree.” I know your arguments. I’ve heard them all my life. They aren’t convincing.

You take the NT evidence and split it carefully into two parts, and then announce triumphantly that you have “discovered” something. No, you created a division that was completely unnecessary in the first place. And thus you have radically distorted the message of the Gospel and shut yourselves off from being challenged by a large part of the New Testament.

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

Yes, I do deny this. Jesus is going to return to usher in the new heavens and the new earth. Maybe there will be a thousand-year reign first, followed by a final battle against evil, but the relevant language in Revelation is not very clear and I don’t see that it matters a great deal one way or the other. I certainly don’t think the coming kingdom is just for the Jews!

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?

Yes, I do deny this. The evidence does not indicate that the division was as strict as that. Paul certainly focused on the Gentiles, but he ministered to Jews as well; and if later Christian tradition has any value, then the Twelve also ministered to Gentiles. Paul’s account in Galatians probably doesn’t have the huge “dispensational” significance you give it.

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.”

This is apocalyptic language. Whether it refers to literal thrones I’m not sure. I certainly don’t take it to be something other than the ultimate kingdom in the new heavens and the new earth. And it does point to a “fulfillment theology” in which the Apostles and their followers (yes, that would be the Church) inherit the promises to Israel. That may be “politically incorrect,” and I certainly don’t like the term “replacement” because I don’t think Israel has been cast aside–it’s a both/and, not an either/or.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The dispensational approach is neither new nor recent. I just gave you two prime examples in Luke 4 and Eph. 3.

You confuse the text and the interpretation. You interpret these texts dispensationally. They are not self-evidently dispensational. Dispensationalism is, I repeat, a modern interpretive strategy. You will get nowhere if you simply assume that we all see the truth of your interpretation. The problem isn’t that we don’t know the Scriptures, but that we know them and don’t agree with your interpretation of them. Your unwillingness to admit this makes communication with you difficult.

I completely covered the use of the Greek word for dispensation in another thread.

Well, that doesn’t do me much good, does it, especially since you don’t tell me how to find this other thread?

Acts 1:8 gives the progression - [1] Israel [2] Samaria [3] Nations. Our Lord Jesus lChrist had told the Gentile woman, “Let the children [Israel] FIRST be filled.” Israel was to be used as the instrument to spread the gospel, but they rejected the Lord Jesus Christ and were [temporarily] set aside at the end of Acts. You might find it interesting to study the “but nows” in Paul’s epistles. The “but nows” would indicate a change.

Again, please stop assuming that disagreement is due to ignorance and that anyone who studies Scripture will come to your conclusions.

Of course there is a change. The orthodox view is that this is a fuller revelation of God’s eternal plan. Your dispensationalist interpretation is that it is a “parenthesis” in God’s primary plan which relates to Israel. Doesn’t it follow from this that the glorious message of God’s free grace is an afterthought–a sideline from the main show? Do you really think this exalts the Gospel?

If the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel preached by Paul are two different things, and if the latter came into existence only as a “parenthesis” because Israel rejected the former, then doesn’t it follow that there never would have been a doctrine of justification by grace through faith if Israel hadn’t rejected the original Gospel?

Dispensationalism’s treatment of classic Protestant soteriology is a typical instance of “destroying the village in order to save it.” The Reformers insisted that God has always dealt with people on the basis of grace. I think they were wrong to set up the Gospel of grace over against Catholic teaching, and I think they may have been wrong in some of their exegesis of Paul, but their doctrine of justification by grace through faith was presented as the fullest and final meaning of Scripture as a whole. Dispensationalism deals with the NT counter-evidence by separating it out as the “Jewish Gospel of the Kingdom,” thus allowing for a radically antinomian version of the Gospel, but ironically reducing this Gospel to a 2000-year-long sideshow in salvation history.

 

[Contarini]

John Chrysostom [AD 347-407] was the first Roman Catholic to articulate Replacement Theology

Apart from the problems with calling Chrysostom a “Roman Catholic” (not a term I myself use for anything before the Council of Trent), the claim that he was the first to articulate “replacement theology” is pretty clearly false. Insofar as there is such a thing, it dates from the second century, not the fourth.

He was a Catholic monk who became the archbishop of Constantinople around 381. Historical writings indicate that he was anti-Semitic. Due to his hatred for Israel, he taught that God had replaced Israel with the present day church. He cited Matthew 21:43 as his proof text:

This is nonsense. You are of course referring to his On the Jews, a collection of vitriolic sermons against “Judaizers”–Christians who attended Jewish synagogue services. He said some very nasty things about the Jews, true. But the Jewish scholar Paula Fredriksen would repudiate the claim that this is anti-Semitism. She points out that both Jews and Christians were flourishing religious groups at the time–Chrysostom wasn’t calling for persecution of Jews, although his language would later unfortunately be used in that way.

For a fuller discussion of these troubling texts, I recommend Robert Louis Wilken, *John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the late 4th Century *(Wipf and Stock, 2004).

Perhaps you can share with me the source for your historical interpretation?

Oh, and you aren’t using the “Quote” function correctly, which is confusing some folks as to who is saying what. You seem to be using just a square bracket to begin the quote–you need to type the entire word “Quote” inside square brackets. If you don’t get it right the first try, you can use the “edit” function to go back and change your post until you do. Ask for help if you need to.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t care how many credentialed scholars you find to preach another gospel

QuickCat is having trouble with the “quote” function. That was my remark.

You and QuickCat would both do well to respect scholarship a little more instead of relying on ideological fervor as a substitute.

Edwin