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

[wisdomseeker]

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.”

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.

 

[QuickCat]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

The dispensational approach is neither new nor recent. I just gave you two prime examples in Luke 4 and Eph. 3. I completely covered the use of the Greek word for dispensation in another 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.

 

[QuickCat]

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
Quite true! In this dispensation of the grace of God [Eph 3:2] we know that the gospel by which we are saved is 1 Cor. 15:1-4. 1Co 15:1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; (KJV)
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (KJV)
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; (KJV)
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (KJV)
In the 4 Gospels we have the account of the Lord’s earthly ministry to Israel [Mt. 15:24; Romans 15:8]. Our Lord, John the Baptist and the 12 were preaching the “gospel of the kingdom.” Can you show me where they were proclaiming the truths of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 in the Gospel accounts?

 

[PJM]

=missouricitizen;8435646]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 ?

Your RIGHT ON the Protestants NOT being true.

The RCC is the ONLY faith [set of beliefs] and the ONLY Church founded by Jesus Himself. Eastern catholics seperated from the CC after about 1, 000 years on a pretext of a different understanding of the Blessed Trinity.

They do have the seven sacramnets validly And we still consider them Brethern. BUT stick with what Christ Himself DIRECTLY founded.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[paul_c]

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

I would personally be happy to see your proof of this because I’ve never heard a Catholic refer to Catholicism as a replacement theology. You may think that Catholics think of themselves as replacing the Jews as the chosen people, but that would be inaccurate.
You see, the Jewish race was chosen as the race of the Messiah and so they needed to be holy and separate . But after Jesus came to redeem all men, the Church was open to all those who choose to join, so there is no replacement of the Jews. Their specific role ended when Jesus completed his paschal sacrifice.

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.

Quite the opposite. We recognize that the Jews were waiting for the Messiah and after he came, those that were properly disposed, both jew and gentile alike, are now waiting for eternal life. But recognize also that the Old testament is both a prelude and a prophesy of what was to come. All the moral teachings of the Old Testament, including the ten commandments, are still in effect. Much of what was discussed in revelations was also seen in Daniel and Ezekiel as well.

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, this is a misunderstanding of Revelations. The 1000 year reign is the reign of the Church on earth. It started at Pentacost… The 1000 years just means a long period of time because Jesus said that no one knows when the end will come, only the Father.

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?

They most certainly did not confine their ministry to Israel. Have you read Acts? Peter was the first to bring Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10). And if you read about the Apostles, you would know that they spread out and covered the who earth as far as they could go. Matthe went to India, for instance. You are most probably basing your speculation on Galatians 2:9, where Paul says that the pillars of the Church agreed to send Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles while they worked with the Jews but just 3 lines later in Galatians 2:12, we see that Peter is actually ministering to the Gentiles in Antioch as well. (and is subsequently criticized by Paul for pulling back). Peter’s first letter is written to the churches of Asia Minor and his second letter is to a general audience.

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.”

Again, it would be a mistake to try to understand Revelations as anything other than an example of apocolyptic literature. Things are in code and will only be understood once they happen.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I would personally be happy to see your proof of this because I’ve never heard a Catholic refer to Catholicism as a replacement theology. You may think that Catholics think of themselves as replacing the Jews as the chosen people, but that would be inaccurate.
You see, the Jewish race was chosen as the race of the Messiah and so they needed to be holy and separate . But after Jesus came to redeem all men, the Church was open to all those who choose to join, so there is no replacement of the Jews. Their specific role ended when Jesus completed his paschal sacrifice.

Quite the opposite. We recognize that the Jews were waiting for the Messiah and after he came, those that were properly disposed, both jew and gentile alike, are now waiting for eternal life. But recognize also that the Old testament is both a prelude and a prophesy of what was to come. All the moral teachings of the Old Testament, including the ten commandments, are still in effect. Much of what was discussed in revelations was also seen in Daniel and Ezekiel as well.

Yes, this is a misunderstanding of Revelations. The 1000 year reign is the reign of the Church on earth. It started at Pentacost… The 1000 years just means a long period of time because Jesus said that no one knows when the end will come, only the Father.

They most certainly did not confine their ministry to Israel. Have you read Acts? Peter was the first to bring Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10). And if you read about the Apostles, you would know that they spread out and covered the who earth as far as they could go. Matthe went to India, for instance. You are most probably basing your speculation on Galatians 2:9, where Paul says that the pillars of the Church agreed to send Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles while they worked with the Jews but just 3 lines later in Galatians 2:12, we see that Peter is actually ministering to the Gentiles in Antioch as well. (and is subsequently criticized by Paul for pulling back). Peter’s first letter is written to the churches of Asia Minor and his second letter is to a general audience.

Again, it would be a mistake to try to understand Revelations as anything other than an example of apocolyptic literature. Things are in code and will only be understood once they happen.

I dont know how you got those posts under my name. I did not post those things someone else did.

 

[paul_c]

The dispensational approach is neither new nor recent. I just gave you two prime examples in Luke 4 and Eph. 3. I completely covered the use of the Greek word for dispensation in another thread.

I don’t think you understand those readings properly. They are not signally a distinction between races in the Church and they certainly don’t say that you can ignore the teachings of Christ because you aren’t Jewish.

Acts 1:8 gives the progression - [1] Israel [2] Samaria [3] Nations.

That happened to be the closest to furthest away. They lived in Israel after all.

Our Lord Jesus lChrist had told the Gentile woman, “Let the children [Israel] FIRST be filled.”

This was done to test her. In Luke 7, he had no qualms about healing the Centurian’s slave, who he described as having more faith than anyone in Israel.

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.

Yes, Israel was used as an instrument to spread the Gospel, they were indeed the chosen people. But the new covenant was open to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike. You would do well to re-read 1Corinthians 1 where Paul argues AGAINST divisions in the church.

 

[paul_c]

I dont know how you got those posts under my name. I did not post those things someone else did.

Sorry, It was from QuickCat but you had answered him and I was quoting from your post.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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 ?

Correct they are not… for protestants to be true, the CC had to be false. It isnt the case.

 

[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.
[/QUOTE]

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:

 

[wisdomseeker]

[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]

Chrisostom presented the reality of those days. The Jews were great persecuters of the Church. they also incited others to do the same. Jesus Himself spoke against them because they rejected Christ. They went after Jesus and incited the romans to crucify Him. why is people so afraid to say this today is beyond me. One cannot deny the Truth and facts of that time. there is no anti semitic but reality and truth. we dont hate them just stating the truth. although many converted even jewish, many jews did rejected the Faith and tried to stop it.
Yes, Jesus replaced Israel with the Church, how can you deny this? the Church was built with Jews. The Church is the new Israel. no one can reduce the Church to nothing since God is the builder of the Church. the Jews are more than welcome, and it is our desire as Catholics that they should come to believe in Jesus and in teh Church.

 

[PJM]

=vsedriver;8576018]

Which interpretation is the oldest and who has the authority to interpret?

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Fair enough, Samson.

But I believe that I offered some Scripture verses way back in post #186, to which I don’t believe you’ve responded.

Again, my apologies for the delay.

We are One Family in Christ in Heaven and on Earth

Eph. 3:14-15- we are all one family (“Catholic”) in heaven and on earth, united together, as children of the Father, through Jesus Christ. Our brothers and sisters who have gone to heaven before us are not a different family. We are one and the same family. This is why, in the Apostles Creed, we profess a belief in the “communion of saints.” There cannot be a “communion” if there is no union. Loving beings, whether on earth or in heaven, are concerned for other beings, and this concern is reflected spiritually through prayers for one another.

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… **

Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24 - this family is in Jesus Christ, the head of the body, which is the Church.

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.

1 Cor. 12:12,27; Rom. 12:5; Col. 3:15; Eph. 4:4 - we are the members of the one body of Christ, supernaturally linked together by our partaking of the Eucharist

.
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.

Rom. 8:35-39 - therefore, death does not separate the family of God and the love of Christ. We are still united with each other, even beyond death.

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.

Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30 - Jesus converses with “deceased” Moses and Elijah. They are more alive than the saints on earth.

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?

Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38 - God is the God of the living not the dead. The living on earth and in heaven are one family.

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!

 

[Arizona_Samson]

=vsedriver;8576018]

Quote:
**Originally Posted by Arizona Samson **

Which interpretation is the oldest and who has the authority to interpret?

considering that the teaching came to the Church before the Bible was written I’d go with the Church’s interpretation and not with an interpretation only a few centuries old.

Pat

Good afternoon, Pat. I’m sure it wasn’t your intent to misquote me but somehow you’ve misattributed the questions above as having come from me rather than from the poster who asked them.

 

[PJM]

=Arizona Samson;8595331]Good afternoon, Pat. I’m sure it wasn’t your intent to misquote me but somehow you’ve misattributed the questions above as having come from me rather than from the poster who asked them.

Sorry about that!

God Bless,
Pat

 

[CopticChristian]

[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 don’t hate Israel. I believe that the Israel of today is an invention of Evangelical Protestants and the United Nations. I beliveve that the Church is the Israel of God.

 

[CopticChristian]

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].

I would agree that Dispensationalists are an invention of Irish Protestant thought.

 

[CopticChristian]

**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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

The dispensational approach is neither new nor recent. I just gave you two prime examples in Luke 4 and Eph. 3. I completely covered the use of the Greek word for dispensation in another 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.

I don’t care how many credentialed scholars you find to preach another gospel…Christ never promised us Scholarship, he promised a Church and my Bible does not say the “Scholarship is the pillar and foundation of truth” it says “the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth”

You may want to read a Protestant work that explains the inconsistencies and errors of dispensational thought “rightly dividing the word of God”…good read for those that want to see how dispensationalsit got it wrong.

 

[CopticChristian]

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:

John Nelson Darby would be one of those False teachers.

 

[mjakemccoy]

Correct they are not… for protestants to be true, the CC had to be false. It isnt the case.

I would disagree on a slight technicality but an important one. For protestants to be true at one time the CC was correct and even infallible and at a later time became false. Good point none the less.