Scripture study pertaining to The Church age

[DMorgan56]

Good morning. I have a serious question concerning the scriptural foundations of the Catholic Church vs. the Bible based Baptist confessions. I have been exposed to a line of theology called Dispensationalism. I find the arguments pertaining to different dispensations between man and God to be compelling on the surface when compared with Scripture.

Concerning this current era, the Dispensation of Grace, there seems to be two lines of Gospel in the early Church. St. Peter and the Twelve were addressing the Jewish converts. St. Paul was given the Mystery and was the"Apostle to the Gentiles". There seems to be firm scriptural support for this division. St. Paul speaks of the “Gospel of the Circumcision” given to St. Peter and the Apostles and the “Gospel of the Uncircumcised” given to him.

As I continue to study scripture, using the Douay-Rheims and the King James Version, I am finding myself in a quandary to rectify the two. I am Catholic. Your (name removed by moderator)ut would be greatly welcome as this is causing me a bit of a struggle to rectify Church teaching. Document links and articles would be welcomed as well. Thank you

God bless.

In Christ, Donald Morgan

 

[MT1926]

I would start by going back and reading Acts 10 & 11.

These tell us about the Baptism of Cornelius and his household. This was performed by Peter, as the head of the Church, and was the first time that Gentiles accepted the gospel and became members of the Church. This occurred before Paul was sent to preach the Gospel to the gentiles.

I think we can see here that their is no division.

St. Paul speaks of the “Gospel of the Circumcision” given to St. Peter and the Apostles and the “Gospel of the Uncircumcised” given to him.

Not sure where you are getting this from. Where does it say St. Peter taught circumcision was necessary for salvation?

God Bless

 

[DMorgan56]

I did not say that St. Peter taught one must be circumcised, I said He was the Apostle to the Circumcision: Galatians Ch. 2
“[6] But of them who seemed to be some thing, (what they were some time, it is nothing to me, God accepteth not the person of man,) for to me they that seemed to be some thing added nothing.
[7]]But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision.
[[8]] [(For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles.)
[[9]] And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:
[[10]] Only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do.”

My point was that there seemed to be two paths. Also read St. Peter’s words in response to the Vision: Acts Ch. 10
" [[14]]But Peter said: Far be it from me; for I never did eat any thing that is common and unclean.
[[15]] And the voice spoke to him again the second time: That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common.

[[16]]And this was done thrice; and presently the vessel was taken up into heaven.
[[17]] Now, whilst Peter was doubting within himself, what the vision that he had seen should mean, behold the men who were sent from Cornelius, inquiring for Simon’s house, stood at the gate."
St. Peter was still following Jewish Customs. The argument from the Dispensationalists is that St. Peter and the 12 were ministering to Jewish converts that still adhered to the Law and customs. I am trying to work out my apologetic arguments to rebut this position.

 

[MT1926]

My point was that there seemed to be two paths.

I see what you mean. I am guessing you are referring to verse 7. I think if you reread it like this it might help.

[7]]But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of THE uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of THE circumcision.

The word THE tells us that St. Paul is speaking of a particular people not a particular gospel message. Basically if it simple said…

gospel of uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of circumcision.

Then this would relate the two paths you speak of. But the addition of the word THE tells us 2 different sets of people but the gospel message is the same.

The NRSV tells us…
7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised…

This translation helps us see more clearly that St. Paul is referring to 2 different groups of people, not two different gospels.

St. Peter was still following Jewish Customs. The argument from the Dispensationalists is that St. Peter and the 12 were ministering to Jewish converts that still adhered to the Law and customs.

What can we say, it’s no secret that St. Peter was a hard head. It’s not like this is the first time he told God he would never do something. The question this leaves me with is the dispensation argument that St. Peter was correct and God was wrong here? Because it seems to me what they are presenting is even though the voice spoke saying

That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common.

it was OK for St. Peter to keep preaching to the Jews that for them God is unable to cleans what was unclean for Jews.

Maybe there is more to their argument then what you are presenting, but that would be my question for them?

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[DMorgan56]

Thanks. I will keep looking into the early Church Fathers as well to see if there is anything else i can find.
The root of the arguments I am working on refuting is to the affect that Catholicism developed from the melding of Christian and Jewish customs and teachings which were combined by the early Jewish believers. Remember that at Pentecost all of the hearers of St. Peter and the Apostles were Jews in Jerusalem for the feast. The folks I am debating with claim St. Paul alone gave the Gospel and instructions for this “Age of Grace”. and it alone was for the gentile believers. It is a rather convoluted argument. I have had to do a bit of study into Dispensationalism in order to understand the basis of their arguments. They are strictly by the Book believers, and have a very deep knowledge of scripture.

 

[MT1926]

The root of the arguments I am working on refuting is to the affect that Catholicism developed from the melding of Christian and Jewish customs and teachings which were combined by the early Jewish believers.

I would be interested in seeing their HISTORICAL evidence for this? If all they are going on is their private interpretation of scripture this is just their opinion.

My first thought when I read this was Jesus words I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. (Matthew 5:17) Christianity itself isn’t some new invention by St. Paul it is Jesus fulfillment of the Mosaic Law and OT prophecies. Jesus gave us a New Covenant that includes and concludes the Old Covenant: it both perfects it and transforms it. So my argument would be that Early Christianity itself incorporated and “improved” Jewish customs.

The folks I am debating with claim St. Paul alone gave the Gospel and instructions for this “Age of Grace”.

I thought Jesus gave the Gospel? Curious what do they do with the Gospels? I would think it would be common sense to read the Gospels and then interpret St. Paul through the words of Jesus . I’m guessing the biggest “convolution” in their argument is the contradictions they end up with between St. Paul and Jesus? Forcing them into changing what Jesus says to fit in line with what they think St. Paul says.

I remember one guy just asserting Jesus isn’t telling us what we need to do to be saved, He is telling us how a saved person would act after they are saved. When questioned how they come to this conclusion they go to their private interpretation of St. Paul to change the meaning of Jesus words.

Maybe something in here will help you out…

Was Paul Anti-Catholic? | Catholic Answers Magazine

I would also try this web site

Text Studies – St. Paul Center

Dr. Scott Hahn is a convert to the Catholic Faith. In one of his talks he said seeing the fulfillment of the Old Covenant in the mass is what brought him into the Catholic Church. The “melding of Jewish customs and teachings” they are arguing with.

They are strictly by the Book believers, and have a very deep knowledge of scripture.

It seems to me they only read St. Paul though and ignore the Gospels and the Old Testament.

Not sure if you can answer this but where do they think these “Pauline Christians” were for 1500 years? Did the “Age of Grace” start for 20 years and then take a break, when St. Paul died, for 1500 years then just all of the sudden start up again? My thoughts would be if what they believe, the their “Age of Grace” is the true Gospel message wouldn’t it have been in every age from the beginning?

One final article…

Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Faith Alone? | Catholic Answers Magazine

Hope this help, I’ve never dealt with a dispensationalist, would love to know if they are using St. Paul to interpret Jesus. That would be my guess.

God Bless

 

[DMorgan56]

For a synopsis of Dispensationalism, check out the description on Wikipedia. It was widespread in the early to middle 1900’s. Then fell off as Covenant Theology and Calvinism advanced in the evangelical movement. Now it is seeing a resurgence in fundamentalist and Baptist congregations. It is an interesting theory, and does compartmentalize scripture. You are correct in stating that they draw all inspiration from St. Paul. Especially the Prison Epistles written from Rome. Like much of Protestant theology it is built on a Bible only basis and it only stands if you agree with the way scripture is understood. No Tradition, no Church Fathers, just the Words of the Bible dissected and understood in a literal fashion. Makes for some interesting discussions.