Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I’m reading that book now. I look forward to that part of the book.
I am a Protestant I don't think Protestant Christianity is true?
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
Actually I would agree that they aren’t entirely identical. However, the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are the same thing!
Right, but that doesn’t make it an afterthought on God’s part, responding to Israel’s rejection of plan A. Quite the reverse–the argument of Ephesians is that the act of dispensing God’s grace is the culmination of God’s plans for humanity, bringing Jews and Gentiles together into one body. There is no indication that this was plan B.
First of all, there’s some serious historical question as to whether Jews as a whole did reject Christianity. Many Jews in the Diaspora probably became Christians. However, the Jewish leadership in Palestine certainly rejected the Gospel.
Most of what you say in this paragraph is fairly uncontroversial–the problem is that, again, you persist in reading exclusive language into the text even when this is not necessary, and you don’t argue for this reading strategy–you simply assume it.
In other words, you assume that when Peter talks about Jesus being “a Prince and a Savior” he’s talking about Jesus being a Prince and a Savior for Israel only. You can’t prove that, nor can I disprove it, because he’s talking to Jews there.
I repeat: dispensationalism is a very ingenious way of interpreting Scripture. But compare it, side by side, with more traditional interpretations of Scripture, and the traditional interpretations make a lot more sense of the overall narrative. Dispensationalism requires all kinds of clever little moves that split up things that seem to be together. Yes, you can make it work. But it’s not a convincing paradigm to me at least.
Edwin
P
paul_c
Guest
Edwin, that was a very cogent set of posts to Quick Cat.
C
Contarini
Guest
Right. And that is why the traditional “fulfillment” view makes a lot more sense than your dispensationalist interpretation. In your view, God only revealed the mystery because Jews rejected the Gospel of the Kingdom, and once the parenthesis is over God will return to the original project of setting up an earthly kingdom for Jews. In the traditional view, the Gospel of grace preached by Paul is the fulfillment of God’s purposes with the Jews as well as with the Gentiles. Your eloquent words praising the Gospel of grace fall short as long as you hold to the “parenthesis” understanding of how this Gospel relates to salvation history as a whole.
Or do I misunderstand your version of dispensationalism? I know there are more and less radical versions.
Edwin
J
John7
Guest
Who are the people of God according to your premillennial dispensationalist interpretings?
1Pe 2:9-10 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy
nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who
hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were
not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy,
but now have obtained mercy.
again as you interpret scripture, who are the people of God?
1Th 2:14-15 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God
which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own
countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and
their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and
are contrary to all men:
posted scriptures without any interpretation,
was wondering how a premillennial dispensationalist does interpret them…
M
mjakemccoy
Guest
I agree with all of your arguments except denouncing Chrysostom’s Catholicism. If you’re merely not willing to recognize the word “Roman”, I can see an argument there, but a small one. The term Catholic (Universal) was first used by Ignatius of Antioch in the 2nd century. Interesting that the town that first claimed the name “Christian” also pioneered this innovation. It was used in the Apostle’s Creed which gained universal acceptance in the late 2nd century but according to Tradition was handed down by the Apostles. It was also used again to dispel Arianism at the Council of Nicea in 325 when the Nicean Creed was developed, “One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic…” Many modern Christians take our Creeds for granted and don’t think about what we’re saying. We’re making an Oath when we say it, we’re reaffirming our Baptismal vows every time we say it. Are you making the argument Chrysostom rejected the Creed? Arius had to sign by this Creed after the Nicean Council before receiving Communion again. Arius died on his way to Mass that following Sunday, and Athanasius credited it to the hand of God, that Arius did not believe in the oath he was making. If you’re not familiar with Athanasius he was the first Christian to list the 27 books of the NT as canonical. He was the bishop of Alexandria, also a Catholic. The term has been carried on since the earliest of times. Certainly Christ didn’t use it according to the records we have, and the Bible didn’t use it, but it was well in circulation before the New Testament was canonized.
Trent didn’t invent it, it was preserved. Henry VIII was Catholic as was Luther, there weren’t the divisions we know today until they started their own churches. But study the Reformation to see who protected the Gospel. Was it Trent, was it Luther, or was it Henry? I as most Catholics will agree that there were serious corruptions and reforms were needed, but not new churches. Christ started one, it is not for man to start new ones (not to be confused with starting new parishes). An Anglican by the name of John Henry Newman studied the developing doctrine up to his time to defend the Anglican Church in the 19th century. I would recommend his “Development of Christian Doctrine”. If that leaves you wanting more a French Bishop by name of Bossuet wrote a heavy 4 volume treatise right after the Reformation on the “History of the Variations of Protestant Churches”. Praise be Jesus Christ!
Q
QuickCat
Guest
][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]
The above nevertheless has much good informattion included in it.
God Bless,
Pat**
Mt. 16:18-19; John 20:19-23; - Peter and the 12 are given great authority in these verses. We are given a brief review of this authority in early Acts when the “kingdom” is being offered to Israel [Acts 2:22; 3:19-21], contingent upon Israel accepting their Messiah. When our Lord Jesus Christ returns to this earth [Zech 14:4] to establish this kingdom the 12 will “Sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel” [Mt. 19:28]. To apply these verses to the Body of Christ is a gross “spiritualizing” of Scripture. Israel is the Jewish nation, it is not the Body of Christ.
Grace and peace,
QC
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Also see **John 14:16-17 and john 17:15-19]
The above nevertheless has much good informattion included in it.
God Bless,
Pat**
Mt. 16:18-19; John 20:19-23; - Peter and the 12 are given great authority in these verses. We are given a brief review of this authority in early Acts when the “kingdom” is being offered to Israel [Acts 2:22; 3:19-21], contingent upon Israel accepting their Messiah. When our Lord Jesus Christ returns to this earth [Zech 14:4] to establish this kingdom the 12 will “Sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel” [Mt. 19:28]. To apply these verses to the Body of Christ is a gross “spiritualizing” of Scripture. Israel is the Jewish nation, it is not the Body of Christ.
Grace and peace,
QC
I dont know if I am understanding you. but Jesus already came and has already established His Kingdom. The Church is His Kingdom. He is the King now. He rules through His Church throughout the world. He rules all nations througt HIs Church.
Jesus took the world by storm. My goodnes, are you still waiting for Jesus to set HIs Kingdom?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Also see **John 14:16-17 and john 17:15-19]
The above nevertheless has much good informattion included in it.
God Bless,
Mt. 16:18-19; John 20:19-23; - Peter and the 12 are given great authority in these verses. We are given a brief review of this authority in early Acts when the “kingdom” is being offered to Israel [Acts 2:22; 3:19-21], contingent upon Israel accepting their Messiah. When our Lord Jesus Christ returns to this earth [Zech 14:4] to establish this kingdom the 12 will “Sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel” [Mt. 19:28]. To apply these verses to the Body of Christ is a gross “spiritualizing” of Scripture. Israel is the Jewish nation, it is not the Body of Christ.
Grace and peace,
QC**
Hardly anyone accepts that the Kingdom was offered to the Jews and they rejected it and so the “church” was place instead to take up the rejection. This is nonsense.
Q
QuickCat
Guest
Q
QuickCat
Guest
I dont know if I am understanding you. but Jesus already came and has already established His Kingdom. The Church is His Kingdom. He is the King now. He rules through His Church throughout the world. He rules all nations througt HIs Church.
Jesus took the world by storm. My goodnes, are you still waiting for Jesus to set HIs Kingdom?
What are you going to do with the plain Scriptures that I cite? Please give me your take on: “Will you, at this time, restore again the kingdom to Israel?” [Acts 1:6]
Q
QuickCat
Guest
Hardly anyone accepts that the Kingdom was offered to the Jews and they rejected it and so the “church” was place instead to take up the rejection. This is nonsense.
What is Peter offering in Acts 3:19-21? Who is Peter addressing in this passage? Note verse 12.
Q
QuickCat
Guest
Hardly anyone accepts that the Kingdom was offered to the Jews and they rejected it and so the “church” was place instead to take up the rejection. This is nonsense.
What is Peter doing in Acts 3:19-21?
C
Contarini
Guest
It’s a semantic choice. Obviously an important one with which many on this forum would disagree, preferring a more static model of the Church than I find warranted in history.
I’m not denying a continuity of development. I’m denying, in a post to a Protestant, that Chrysostom was what he thinks of as a “Roman Catholic”–a member of a particular branch of Christianity standing over against Protestantism. That doesn’t exist until Trent.
Here’s a Catholic way of putting it: the Church defines itself more and more clearly over against heresies. As you note, the word “Catholic” first originated with Ignatius, in contrast to the Docetists–more generally, early “Catholicism” defined itself against the Gnostics. Nicene Catholicism defined itself more sharply over against the Arians. And so on. The term “Roman Catholicism” is in my opinion best reserved for the Western/Latin Catholic Church after the Reformation, defining itself at Trent over against Protestantism. I’m trying to find language that can be used neutrally so that we can have a historical conversation without endlessly arguing over terms. Some Catholics on this forum seem to want to oppose such language as a matter of principle!
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Preaching the Gospel. The one and only Gospel. He happens to be preaching to Jews, so of course he makes specific reference to issues of relevance in that context.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I disagree with this. I think the Catechism puts it much better: the Kingdom was inaugurated by Christ, and the Church is “the seed and beginning of this kingdom” (CCC 567).
There’s a big difference between those two statements.
The Kingdom is both “already” and “not yet.” The dispensationalists get rid of this tension by wrongly dividing the Word of Truth. But simply folding the Kingdom into the Church is just as questionable.
Jews have a good point here: if the Kingdom has already arrived, why is watching the news so depressing? (And, to be more pointed, why is following Christian or even specifically Catholic news on average about as depressing as following any other kind?)
Edwin
J
John7
Guest
she didn’t answer me question…so guess will have to answer it, :compcoff:
**Christians **are the people of God, and they are chosen, besides being royal priests…not just the body of Christ, but also the people of God
“the Church is the new people of God” Pope Paul VI, 1965 Nostra Aetata (he was of course very Biblical)
M
mjakemccoy
Guest
I assume from your response that you would claim Chrysostom’s Catholicism, but reject the notion of his “Roman” Catholicism. I would agree with that, I’m a Catholic from the Roman period or whatever period, but a Catholic none the less. Doctrine has always developed in response to heresies, not that the doctrines weren’t there, they just weren’t spelled out in that manner yet. The Church allows teachers to bear fruits and judge the fruits to develop doctrines thoroughly. Newman’s book is a great chronicle of this. But I would argue that Christ is the same then as He is now and will forever be. The Church has to stay the same! The Catholic Church responded to Docetists, Arians, Protestants, etc. through the ages, but it has been maintained for 2,000 years. Not by some great work of men, but by the grace of God.
When you say the Creed why do you think “Catholic” is in there? It means universal, yes, but when you speak of this universal Church but openly “protest” it, I have to question the why? Many evangelicals are removed enough from the Reformation (i.e. from Catholicism) now that they have removed the word and replaced it with “Christian”. So I ask why not do the same? It’s only one word, and they’re pretty close right. It would cause less confusion right. Are you willing to change that word? Can you in good conscience alter that which was handed down? Would Chrysostom think highly of that? He might not agree with everything happening in the Catholic Church, but I’d think he’d be willing to make sacrifices to protect what Christ started. I do not speak as a lifelong Catholic, I was baptized Catholic but left and joined the protest, history was what pulled me back. I saw alot of great things in the Protestant churches, but some things were missing. I hold a great admiration for my Protestant brothers and sisters and hope to see them united with me and eachother in the Catholic Church one day. The Early Fathers solidified me with their doctrines, submission to Rome, and constant call to unity. Our unity is not reached by agreeing to disagree, but humbling ourselves to God, to His law, to His truth, and His Church.
The principle of language or changing words such as the Creed is something I take seriously and we all should. Terminology is important. It is extremely unfortunate that language could confuse one seeking the truth, but terminology is extremely important. I’m not a scholarly sort, I’m a cowboy by trade, but I’ve seen the ecclesial divisions caused by words, and even parts of words throughout history in translations and doctrines, so I’m working on my scholastics to clarify better. I sincerely reject the notion that Chrysostom was of a different faith than the Catholic Church defines today. Certainly there are members of the Catholic Church who may not meet that definition, we are made up of sinners like me, but the doctrine is solid. I have studied the 2,000 years as Newman had and would highly recommend it. Chrysostom was a phenominal orator, please continue to read his writings. The door to the Catholic Church is always open, and we always need parishoners well versed in the Early Fathers. I pray for unity among us brother.
- Status