"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history." -Cardinal Francis George

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Preliminary questions to "two gospels" discussion

Jed and Kendra,


I have gone through the document you linked, at http://www.matthewmcgee.org/dispguid.html, and it is a really good (but brief) summary. It is an overview full of lots of statements. And that is fine, it was not attempting to go in depth on any of them. I would like to continue on the topic of the different gospels of Paul and Peter if you are game. Would the other articles on the Matthew Mcgee site be in line with your thinking? If not, how not? Also is there any "exceptions you guys take to Stam. Anything in his book you would not agree with? And please, if you don't want to go into all this, please let me know and I will not go into it with you. (although I will still be going into it, but perhaps less informed than if you or Doug or someone engaged me on it first)

As a preliminary question to the (Disp. of law/Disp. of grace) conversation (which I am still in process of further researching if you have other resources to offer), I want to know if we agree on something or not. My claim is this:

All interpretive methods (paradigms) in Protestantism which rely on the concept of sola Scriptura are on the same level of authority. Put another way, there is no principled reason to choose one method over another, other than personal conviction of the methods reliability.

I don't mean this as an insult in any way, it seems just to be true. But I think it will help me understand your epistemology more to know if you agree with this statement or not. If we get too bogged down and can't agree very much on the epistemology, we could just set it aside. But otherwise it will help me narrow the focus of my questions.

Could I try an experiment to show you where I am coming from here? Read the following link from a Reformed perspective. If you don’t have time, then just read my excerpts below. I think these statements are common to all Protestant interpretive paradigms. I will put in red the parts I think you would replace with other more "Mid-Acts Dispensational" words. See if you find this as interesting as I do:

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/12/what_is_covenant_theology.php

“At first glance, it is apparent that the Bible is a very complex book: it was written in three different languages, by dozens of human authors, over the course of many centuries, and in a wide variety of styles and genres. However, beneath this dauntingly complicated surface, there must be a unified purpose and message; … So what is that unified message of the Bible?... the idea which most rigorously allows the Bible itself to indicate its own major emphases and underlying structural elements, is commonly called Covenant Theology.”

However, the sad truth is that, in contemporary Evangelicalism, many believers have only a very fuzzy understanding (at best) of this helpful and biblically-faithful way of understanding the over-arching message of the scriptures. And yet, in the author's experience, there are few teachings which will enable a Christian to make better and more fruitful use of his scripture-reading than the basic components of Covenant Theology – understand these few, scriptural themes, and you will be able to mark out and follow the general flow of the unfolding saga of redemptive history, as recorded in God's Word.”

“Basically, Covenant Theology attempts to unfold the biblical story with constant reference to the universal display and glorification of God…”

Covenant Theology differs from other systems in that it sees the biblical structure giving great weight and importance to a series of divine covenants. These covenants are like the framework of a house – without them, all the doctrines and stories in the Bible fall down into a hopelessly confused jumble of unrelated bits of information.”…

“So what are these covenants? Theologians speak, first, of a Covenant of Redemption, made between the members of the Godhead; second, of a Covenant of Works, made between God and man; and third, of a Covenant of Grace; which is basically a repetition to man of the first Covenant of Works, with the added proviso that a Redeemer would be provided to fulfill the required works in the place of all covenant-members, as their federal head. Let's look at each of these three covenants in a little more detail…”

O.k. so what I think is interesting is that the language here (minus the red) is almost identical to what I read from Traditional Dispensationalists, Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, Lutherans, Methodists, etc, etc. Not to even mention more unorthodox people like Harold Camping or worse weirdos.

Now here is a selection from the Matthew McGee article you linked:
"One aspect of the context which is often overlooked is the dispensation. God has provided His Word in the Bible in several different dispensations. Every Bible passage is written in the context of one dispensation or another. Therefore, proper understanding of the different dispensations is needed in order to understand the context of each Bible passage. After becoming aware of this need, many Bible students will then ask about how they can determine which dispensation any particular Bible passage is under, so that they can more fully comprehend the context of the passage."
There are some obvious similarities in their views of the superiority and simplicity of their interpretive method, but of course the results of those methods are quite different.
The following are some facts I think are uncontroversial. If you disagree with these facts, please, by all means tell me, but honestly they seem to be obviously true to anyone who looks at the evidence. So, concerning the proponents of the various Protestant interpretive paradigms:

1. They all (using the same language) claim that their method is clear and biblical.
2. They all claim their method "gets to the bottom" of things, and simplifies interpretation by focusing on some key interpretive principle that other Christians have ignored or missed. (covenants for Reformed, dispensations for Dispensationalists, Law/gospel for Lutherans the quadrilateral for Methodists, etc.).
3.They generally claim other Christians "just don't understand" their interpretive method, and if they did, would adopt it.
4. They all can be assumed to have good motives, to be followers of Christ, and to have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, they all desire the truth of God's infallible word, and are using the method of interpretation that they truly and honestly believe gets closest to the truth of the scripture.
5. They all pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit to properly interpret.
6. They all can be assumed to have studied the other methods of interpretation and found them to not be the right ones.
7. They all believe ONLY the Bible is authoritative for faith and practice.
8. They all disagree on how to interpret the bible at key points of doctrine, and they all disagree on what those doctrines actually are. (they take different roads, and find different destinations.)

So to summarize, do you agree with my statement at the beginning of the post, and do you agree with these 8 statements?

Peace,

David Meyer
P.S. If we continue the conversation, I will try to keep things short. Staying on topic will really help me with that.

58 comments:

  1. Sorry David, I just noticed this post. I will try to respond to this and your other latest later this week, it's looking to be a busy week though so hold on if it takes me longer than that.
    ~Kendra

    ReplyDelete
  2. Take as much time as you need Kendra. And I appreciate any time taken. For myself, I find that when I take the time to discuss things with people from a different tradition, I end up strengthening my faith because I am forced to research things that perhaps I took for granted before. That has happened countless times for me. For instance, when you spend your time only around Calvinists, they will speak of the 5 points of Calvinism (or TULIP) as "the doctrines of grace". After a while it is easy to stop questioning the validity of those doctrines because, well, ...they "just are" the doctrines of grace! They are solid Bible truth... right? But stepping out and asking other christians what they think the Bible says about those doctrines can either reinforce ones conviction in them, or...(I can relate to this one) lead them to reject them as unbiblical.

    And I really have a heart for unity among Christians. How can we ever be unified if we don't talk about the hard things?

    Have a great day.

    -David

    ReplyDelete
  3. David,
    The only reasons I have problems with time restraints are because I'm a slow reader, a slow typist, and I'm a divergent thinker, which is why I have trouble sticking to one subject at a time and it causes me to be easily distracted so I sometimes sit here for how long just staring into space thinking about unrelated stuff when I'm trying to type a message to you, lol. Hence the Dexedrine, Adderall, and D grades during my school years, lol. That last longish message I sent you on Facebook took me 2 1/2 hours to type for that reason.
    I can't find anything I disagree with in your above comment. One thing I have kind of prided (for lack of better word) myself on is an ability to be objective. I'm pretty good at not letting biases sway my opinion or judgement of things. So if I come across a challenge to my faith(in this case) I don't brush it off or say, "oh, well, I don't understand it but I'm sure it's okay", I search for an answer until I found one. I have always had an almost obsessive need to understand things (which is probably why I suck at math, unless I can see exactly how the numbers work). So you don't ever have to worry that I am simply following blindly. As far as unity among Christians, we will have it one day but I fear we won't have it at a level to your satisfaction until the end.
    Now, I will try to address your above questions or comments one at a time, in order. I am also going to try to keep my answers very basic.
    I have not read anything else on the Matthew McGee site so I cannot tell you if I agree with anything else on it. I was actually looking for a different article (and now I don't even remember what it was) but I couldn't find it but I came across that page and it was the closest thing I could find to what I was looking for. I also couldn't tell you if I agree with 100% of Stam's teachings since I have not read them all either. I'm sure I could find something to disagree with him on. I know that there are minor discrepancies between mid-acts dispensationalist teachers like whether or not they call the dispensations of innocence or the fulness of time dispensations but those types of discrepancies are just semantics, and they don't cause division. Most of my knowledge of dispensationalism comes from Richard Jordan's teachings. Of course I haven't read or listened to everything by him either but I'm pretty sure I could say I agree with him at least 98% of the time. I can't think of anything I disagree with him about. As I've tried to explain before the nice think about dispensationalism is once you get it and it clicks you can read a passage that you've never heard commentary on before and come to the same conclusion as pretty much any other dispensationalist. Once it clicked for me the whole Bible suddenly made more sense.
    Cont....

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cont...
    "All interpretive methods (paradigms) in Protestantism which rely on the concept of sola Scriptura are on the same level of authority. Put another way, there is no principled reason to choose one method over another, other than personal conviction of the methods reliability."
    I would basically agree with this, but I don't think that means that they are all wrong. And of course I don't believe the Catholic Church has the authority you believe it does. So I guess I would lump the Catholic Church in with that statement too except that she gained more numbers and power than the others. I think it would be very interesting to do an in depth word study on the word authority in the Bible. I would want to do that as an actual Bible study as a group though I think, not just a quick glance at all the verses on my own. Although if one were to do a study on headship they would see that the Bible says God is the head of Christ who is head of the man who is head of his wife/ household and that Christ is also head of the Church (which makes sense if He is head of everyone in it) and it says churches are to be made up of elders and deacons and gives the qualifications for those positions. It goes into detail on these things yet it never says the Church is in any way the head of the man.
    On the 8 statements:
    I mostly agree with them. Of course there are exceptions. The problem is most people have biases. I think dispensationalists are the only ones who when faced with a contradiction in the Bible, actually let scripture interpret scripture rather than saying, "well, that's not literal", or simply choosing to agree with one of the contradicting verses and interpreting the other one the way a hippie might, when looking at a painting while stoned, "I think what the author was trying to say was blah blah blah". Now you are definitely not the first person to notice those similarities between dispensationalists and Calvinists. When I first started learning about dispensationalism, I wondered why D&M had so many Calvinist books. More than once I heard them say, "they have so many things right and yet so many things wrong", or "they are so close yet so far off". At first I didn't get it because all I knew about Calvinist then was TULIP, and there aren't any similarities there. I get it now though. The funny thing is Calvinist don't seem to see the similarities. Every anti-dispensationalist book I've ever come across was written by a Calvinist. Also, every anti-dispensationalist argument I've ever read was based on grossly false info about what we even believe. BUT, they are really great at arguing against evolution, and teaching home values. Then you have the charismatics who are really weird but they are good at getting people in the door (they just don't have much to offer beyond that IMO) and then you have us Mid-Acts folks, and where I think we shine is in doctrine, interpretation and consistency. I think our interpretation is the most objective and leaves the least amount of room for bias or personal interpretation, except I suppose for the Catholics on that last part who I believe rely on someone else's personal interpretation.

    Hope you're all staying cool and have better AC than we do. Keep that preggo momma indoors today. :)
    Kendra

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh BTW.... The only problem with doing this on your blog is that there is no way for Jed or I to get notifications when you respond, so maybe when you respond to each of us you can send us a little reminder on FB. Maybe even just a poke. Thanks
    Kendra

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh and also you get to use colors and stuf but we don't. No fair! J/K

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kendra,
    I had said:
    "All interpretive methods (paradigms) in Protestantism which rely on the concept of sola Scriptura are on the same level of authority. Put another way, there is no principled reason to choose one method over another, other than personal conviction of the methods reliability."
    To which you said:
    "I would basically agree with this, but I don't think that means that they are all wrong. And of course I don't believe the Catholic Church has the authority you believe it does. So I guess I would lump the Catholic Church in with that statement too except that she gained more numbers and power than the others."
    The Catholic Church (or E. Orthodox) cannot be lumped in with that statement because they do not subscribe to sola Scriptura. There are two things which all Protaesants claim which Catholics would never claim: They would never claim that the Catholic Church is a fallible interpreter of scripture, and they do not claim to only use a portion of scripture for doctrine (they use the whole Tradition handed down). Now they could be wrong, but they cant be lumped in with that statement I made.

    "I think it would be very interesting to do an in depth word study on the word authority in the Bible."
    Could be interesting, but doing word study's is not a good way of gaining the truth from scripture. John 11:11 for instance has the word "sleep". But a study of the word will lead to the exact wrong meaning of what Christ was saying. This situation is all over scripture. And I think a word study on "authority" will not give a complete picture of what biblical authority means. Many passages which speak about authority don't have the exact word. Isaiah 22:20-24
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2022:20-24&version=KJV
    does not have the word authority. Yet this verse is what Christ refers to in Matt. 16:18-19
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt.%2016:18-19&version=KJV
    when he gives Peter the authority of the keys. But theat verse to would not show up in a word study on the word authority.

    You said "I think dispensationalists are the only ones who when faced with a contradiction in the Bible, actually let scripture interpret scripture rather than saying, "well, that's not literal"

    Kendra there are loads of things dispensationalists dont take literally in the Bible. Check out John 6:51.
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:48-58&version=KJV
    Dispensationalists do not take this verse literally, Kendra, at least none I have ever heard of. Yet Christ is clearly teaching we must eat His literal flesh. Paul confirms this fact in 1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 11:27, 29. Pauls words in these verses make no sense if the flesh is not literal.
    This is interesting and worth pursuing here a bit I think. Because I hear this a lot for Dispensationalists and other evangelicals that they have some corner on "literal" interpretation. But they have just as many parts of scripture they dont take literaly. Particularly when it comes to sacraments. Here is a quick "word study" on the word "eat" in John 6.
    Continued...

    ReplyDelete
  8. ...Cont.

    From Scripture Catholic.com:
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:F9LTJi-V2hgJ:www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html+phago+trogo+catholic&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

    John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

    John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

    John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

    John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

    John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

    John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

    Continiued...

    ReplyDelete
  9. ...cont.
    (DM again:)I think that sums up a situation where Catholics have really good reasons for taking something "literaly" that almost no other Christian groups do. (although 60-70% of Christians do take it litteraly)
    My point is not about John 6 and the Real Presense, my point is to challenge your contention that dispensationalists are "the only ones who [...] actually let scripture interpret scripture". To Catholics, it seems Protestants of all types are "spiritualising away" most of the faith, not just Christ's real presense in the Eucharist.
    Even Calvinist would show you Romans 9 and say you dont take it literaly. There are many more passages. My point is that having an interpretive system (which you do) that fits things together and makes sense of them, does not necessarily mean you are right. Other systems do the same thing. And I think it is just false that your system (in general) takes anything any more "literally" in the Bible than other groups (including Catholic).

    ReplyDelete
  10. So, thanks for your response yesterday, I think I know a bit better where you are coming from and can move on from here to ask you some questions about the different NT dispensations if you are game. I will go ahead and use the McGee thing because it is concise and topical. I will probably reference some stuff from Stam or Richard Jordan as well.
    As for this blog, blogger is crappy and I am even having trouble posting comments on my own blog. Try getting an open ID profile or something so when you comment it might have an option for an email alert. I will look into changing settings also.

    But when you are on a thread like this, look to the right of "post comment" and click "subscribe by email". that will make sure you get email alerts for this thread. If we do another thread so as to keep the conversations seperated a bit, you can subscribe to that as well.
    If you want alerts for any new main posts for future topics, "subscribe to" "posts" in the top right sidebar. You can always unsubscribe if the conversation dies out at some point so you dont have to recieve goofy Catholic blog posts in your inbox every week. But I only average about a post a week.

    And yes, we are in glorious central air conditioning. The child-bearer in the house demands it in the summer.

    Peace,

    David

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am not aware of any protestant group that doesn't participate in the sacrament of communion.

    Jed

    ReplyDelete
  12. You say we ignore or spiritualize Romans 9. Well I would say you ignore or spiritualize Romans 10

    Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
    Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
    Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
    Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
    Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
    Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
    Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
    Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
    Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
    Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

    Its pretty straightforward.

    Jed

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jed said: "I am not aware of any protestant group that doesn't participate in the sacrament of communion."

    Did I say they didnt? I scanned my post and comments and perhaps missed where I said that. But just off the top of my head, there are people within your own movement that don't. Not the "Grace" churches probably, but the more Acts 28 types. If you disagree, I can show evidence.

    Second, most protestants only have it <25% of the time. Having it once a month or twice a year is pretty close to not having it at all, when it should be the main reason for gathering, on the same level as the liturgy of the Word.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jed said:
    "You say we ignore or spiritualize Romans 9. Well I would say you ignore or spiritualize Romans 10 [you then qoute from Rom. 10]"

    Three things Jed.

    1. I said a Calvinist would accuse you of spiritualizing it. I dont think I would. Ironically, I have come much closer to your position on most "TULIP" related issues. Count yourself a help in that area if you wish. You were closer to the truth on that issue and bore witness to the truth. I was wrong and changed. Thank you for your witness.

    2. My comment was in the context of a larger point, that we can all throw the charge of "spiritualizing" at other interpretive paradigms. Your bringing of Romans 10 into the discussion and saying that I (or perhaps Calvinists) spiritualize it sort of proves my point.

    3. I notice you don't comment on the main example from John 6. The excerpt from Scripture Catholic nails the exegesis on the head. By the way, it was in the context of Kendra mentioning the idea of doing a "word study". I pointed out the word "eat" in John 6 proves the Catholic/ Orthodox doctrine of the real presense.

    Wait, I just thought of something, when you had said you werent aware of Protestants not partaking of communion, perhaps you meant that when they "spiritualize" it, they don't do it. Perhaps you think that because of your view of baptism? I misunderstood you.

    OK so to clear that up, I was meaning that Protestants "spiritualize" it by not believing it is the Lord's Body. They partake of bread and *wine* (juice more likely), but "spiritualize" what it is awayC Contrary to scripture, they think it is merely bread that they are eating, not Christ's Body and Blood like scripture says.

    3. You said I ignore or spiritualize Romans 10. This is the second time you said this recently, and for the second time, I have no idea what you mean. I literaly (just now) read through it online and even read chapters 9-11 for context, and I am open to corection, but I dont see where I am ignoring or spiritualizing anything.

    I believe every word 100% and it seems to be the opposite of what you are saying: perhaps you are "spiritualizing" it. If we take into account our differing ideas of what constitutes "belief", yours would be more of an invisible personal assent, wher as mine would be invisible *and* physical assent. More of a "living faith" of agape rather than a mere assent. So I certainly don't ignore or spiritualize Rom. 10, and I don't even see where the acusation could be made. Of course you did not really exegete the passage but just cut/pasted it and said it was "straightforward", so I don't really know where you are coming from at all. I agree it is straightforward. Just like John 6:51-55 is straightforward.

    Peace bro,

    David

    ReplyDelete
  15. So just to summarize my point and show where I think the conversation is at, I was trying to show (and I think I provided quite convincing evidence) that Kendra's contention that Dispensationalists take things more "literally" than other groups is false.

    For me to show my point to be valid, all I need to do is show some areas that dispensationalists do not take the Bible literally where most other Christians do. I have done that. If there is no more response on that issue, I will ask another preliminary series of similar questions to the "two gospels" discussion.

    Here it is:

    1. Do you believe your 66 book canon to contain everything we need to know as Christians?
    2. Do you believe your 66 book canon is clear enough that a Spirit filled Christian can clearly understand all that is needed for a Christian to know?
    3. Do you believe only what is contained in the your 66 book canon to be valid for determining orthodox doctrine?
    4. Which leads to the main question: Where in your bible is #3 clearly stated?
    5. with the secondary question "where from within your 66 books do you know how to identify the 66 books as scripture?"

    Thanks for answering these most fundamental and basic questions. The question is so basic to Protestant theology it should be easy to answer and very clear to all from Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  16. David,
    To reword what I said about including the Catholic Church in the group, I will say that since I believe that the Catholic Church does not have the authority you believe she has and thus simply relies on other people's (Church Father's) interpretation of scripture which are no better than their own, then I basically find them to be in the same boat. When Paul told people to obey the Pharisees, the scriptures weren't yet complete and people didn't have easy access to all of what was completed. I don't see why God would have given us all he gave us in the scripture, declared it finished, and then set up a system where we have to look at extra-biblical writings to find our way.
    Next point: I never said dispensationalist take the whole Bible literally. I said we don't simply spiritualize verses or passages when they don't suit our interpretation. Certainly not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. Richard Jordan spoke about this in Grace School of the Bible. I would quote him if I had access to it. Here are some verses that I'm sure we both agree are probably not literal:
    Rom 9:27 Literally exactly the same number as there are grains of sand in the sea?
    John 7:38
    Now if you believe Peter was/is the rock, what kind of rock, granite?
    Now there are some things that Catholics and/ or most protestants would not take literally that we do. For example, God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God made a promise to the Jews and the Gentiles were not a part of it. Now neither you or I are Jews, and neither of us believer were are going to Hell so how can the above sentence be true? Well, most people would say something to the effect of, "we are SPIRITUAL Israel". Of course a mid-acts dispensationalist believes that God still plans on keeping His promise to Israel and the Gentiles are still not a part of THAT covenant, but the MYSTERY given to Paul by Christ himself is that God planned all along for Christ to die (no one could know this was going to happen or Satan never would have tried to talk them out of crucifying Christ) for EVERYONE's sin, Jew or Gentile, so that anyone who would accept this act of grace and confess it and believe it would not perish but have everlasting life. Now this does not mean that Gentiles will inherit the Kingdom. That is and always was for the Jews. When God made his covenant with Israel he said it was only for Israel and he meant it. Saying that gentiles are Israel too is not taking the Bible literally where it should be taken literally.
    Luke 21:24 & Rom 11:25 Saying that the fulnes of the gentiles/ time of the gentiles just means the end of time or whatever is also not taking the Bible literally when it should be taken literally. Personally I don't think it's any harder to know when to take the Bible literally than it is for you or I to tell when to take one another literally. The reason so many people have trouble with it is because when you fail to rightly divide there are things in the Bible that contradict and so they have to come up with a spiritualized or intellectualized explanation.
    Next point:
    Word study. That is why I said IN DEPTH word study.
    Cont....

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cont....
    Next point:
    I do not think there is any verse that proves we the literal flesh and blood of Christ during communion. Why would we need to eat his real flesh and blood "in remembrance"? Christ's blood was only shed for our sins once. That's all it took. Jesus probably used more parables and analogies and metaphors than any of the biblical authors. I think when he said, "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." well yeah, it was his flesh and blood which were pierced and shed for us that gives us eternal life (that is our souls) and food and drink give us life so this is a perfectly plausible metaphor. Notice Joh 6:58 "This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever". Also, Jesus hadn't even died yet when he said this he wasn't even dead yet, so was this like divinely cloned flesh or something? He was telling them without really telling them what was about to happen while also setting forth a new tradition for everyone to follow to remind us of his sacrifice. I think if it were literal flesh and blood it would have shown up on someone's autopsy by now at least once. It would be like if in 2000 years some scientists found a preserved watchable copy of those, "this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs" and drew the conclusion that in the 20th century human brains looked just like chicken eggs (but have since evolved) and people bashed there heads with cast iron skillets to get high. I don't mean to be TOO offensive but eating human flesh and blood to earn your way into heaven sounds like a serious form of idolatry to me.
    Allow me to break down John 6:55 in Greek according to both Strong's and Thayer's:
    Cont....

    ReplyDelete
  18. Cont....
    For
    G1063
    γάρ
    gar
    Strong's
    A primary particle; properly assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles): - and, as, because (that), but, even, for indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.
    Thayer's
    1) for
    Part of Speech: conjunction
    A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a primary particle

    flesh
    G4561
    σάρξ
    sarx
    Strong's
    Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such): - carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).
    Thayer's
    1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
    2) the body
    2a) the body of a man
    2b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship
    2b1) born of natural generation
    2c) the sensuous nature of man, “the animal nature”
    2c1) without any suggestion of depravity
    2c2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin
    2c3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering
    3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast
    4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God

    meat
    G1035
    βρῶσις
    bro'-sis
    Strong's
    From the base of G977; (abstractly) eating (literally or figuratively); by extension (concretely) food (literally or figuratively): - eating, food, meat.
    Thayer's
    1) act of eating
    1a) in a wider sense, corrosion
    2) that which is eaten, food, ailment
    2a) of the soul’s food, either which refreshes the soul, or nourishes and supports it

    indeed
    G230
    ἀληθῶς
    alēthōs
    Strong's
    Adverb from G227; truly: - indeed, surely, of a surety, truly, of a (in) truth, verily, very.
    Thayer's
    1) truly, of a truth, in reality, most certainly

    blood
    G129
    αἷμα
    aima
    Strong's
    Of uncertain derivation; blood, literally (of men or animals), figuratively (the juice of grapes) or specifically (the atoning blood of Christ); by implication bloodshed, also kindred: - blood.
    Thayer's
    1) blood
    1a) of man or animals
    1b) refers to the seat of life
    1c) of those things that resemble blood, grape juice
    2) blood shed, to be shed by violence, slay, murder

    drink
    G4213
    πόσις
    posis
    Strong's
    From the alternate of G4095; a drinking (the act), that is, (concretely) a draught: - drink.
    Thayer's
    1) a drinking, drink

    indeed
    see above definitions

    I see no reason to take this literally, especially when Christ uses metaphors so often.
    Alright, I'm finally done with this response! Hope you and the fam had a great 4th of July and that Bridgette wasn't too sick or tired to watch the fireworks!
    ~Kendra

    ReplyDelete
  19. *sigh* We were writing at the same time again.
    We would agree with you that communion should take place far more often (although the scriptures don't say how often we should do it) and that it should be done with wine, although the Bible also says:
    Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
    Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
    As for your 5 questions to Jed, if you asked me I would say,
    1. yes
    2. yes but that doesn't mean everyone will, anyone who fails to see the truth in regards to salvation and believe it is not saved, as far as doctrine goes, all those saved will have wood, hay and stubble, and (hopefully) gold, silver, and precious stones, but the former will all be burned up and the latter will be all that remain, some people will have more of the latter than others, but everything will be complete regardless.
    3. Pretty much
    4. well, there are lots of answers for that but I will leave it at what I said in my previous post. If I find a good article or video on the subject I will share it with you.
    5. There is no way to answer that exhaustively on here. I would recommend watching Richard Jordan's Grace School of the Bible for that answer. Any thing else I feel like you probably already know.
    Kendra

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't want to sound like an old lady but how do I get an Open ID account and what is it. If I put my e-mail address in the "Follow New Christendom by Email" box will it notify me of new comments or just new posts? All it says next to "Post Comment" is "Preview". Wait, maybe if I comment as Google Account instead of Anonymous. Duh, that would probably do something. I'll try it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Cool, now I can edit my comments when I make a mistake. Jed doesn't have a Google account or any of those other things, so I'll just have to tell him when you respond. Signing up for one of those wouldn't be any easier or more convenient if this was all he used it for.
    εἰρηνεύω έξω ἀδελφός

    ReplyDelete
  22. Regarding Communion: I don't disagree that there are splinter factions of many churches that either do it very rarely or not at all. If we were really going to be serious and follow Jesus' example we would do it while eating a feast as they were at the last supper. There is a strong tradition in both the Circumcision and Grace for communion.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 1. Do you believe your 66 book canon to contain everything we need to know as Christians?

    Yes

    2. Do you believe your 66 book canon is clear enough that a Spirit filled Christian can clearly understand all that is needed for a Christian to know?

    Yes

    3. Do you believe only what is contained in the your 66 book canon to be valid for determining orthodox doctrine?

    Yes

    4. Which leads to the main question: Where in your bible is #3 clearly stated?

    2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
    2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


    5. with the secondary question "where from within your 66 books do you know how to identify the 66 books as scripture?"

    Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

    Rom 16:25 Now 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,
    Rom 16:26 But 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:

    1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

    1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
    1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
    1Co 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
    1Co 14:30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
    1Co 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
    1Co 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

    Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

    Eph 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
    Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
    Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
    Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
    Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was

    not made known unto the sons of men,

    as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
    Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

    1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

    Jed

    ReplyDelete
  24. Wow, good passage Jed (2 Ti 2:15-17)!
    According to Thayer's the word perfect there in verse 17 comes from:
    ἄρτιος
    artios
    Thayer Definition:
    1) fitted
    2) complete, perfect
    2a) having reference apparently to “special aptitude for given uses”

    and "throughly furnished" comes from:
    ἐξαρτίζω
    exartizō
    Thayer Definition:
    1) to complete, finish
    1a) to furnish perfectly
    1b) to finish, accomplish, (as it were, to render the days complete)

    ReplyDelete
  25. I said, "When Paul told people to obey the Pharisees"

    Whoops! That would be Jesus, NOT Paul! That's what I get for typing as fast as I can and not proof-reading. Sorry!

    Obviously I was referring to Matt 23:3

    Thanks Jed for pointing that out for me so I could correct it!

    ReplyDelete
  26. What a Fruedian slip with the Paul/Jesus mix up! I always knew you guys put Paul above Jesus. Kidding guys, kidding. sort of. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Kendra:
    “To reword what I said about including the Catholic Church in the group, I will say that since I believe that the Catholic Church does not have the authority you believe she has and thus simply relies on other people's (Church Father's) interpretation of scripture which are no better than their own, then I basically find them to be in the same boat.”
    I get what you are saying. You put Catholics in the same group because you think everyone relies on their own (or other peoples) interpretation, so do Catholics, so they are in the same boat. I get that. And as far as that goes, you are correct. But just a minor tweak: Catholics do not see themselves as only having a infallible interpreter of scripture in the Fathers or the Church magisterium, but they see Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium as being three legs of the same stool of revelation. Like the Trinity, you can’t isolate one leg of the stool out of context of the others. That kind of thing makes the Catholic mind spin like someone not recognizing a dispensation would make yours spin. That is the sense in which I was trying to keep Catholics (and EO) separate from Sola S. Christians in your statement. The Catholic paradigm could be wrong and merely the teachings of men, but they are not basing everything on a true or false interpretation of the scripture. Because you see Scripture as the only rule of faith, I think you see Catholics as relying on a faulty interpreter of scripture (you could be right). Ironically, on the other side of the coin, Catholics see you as having a faulty Tradition, which includes a faulty interpretation of scripture, but also has other man made traditions which are unscriptural. We see each other through our own lenses. Ok, well I think I understand what you meant. I will comment later if I can, I only got into the first paragraph of your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Kendra said: “I don't see why God would have given us all he gave us in the scripture, declared it finished…”
    Just a quick rhetorical question, where in scripture does it say it is finished? I agree that it is. In fact Catholics believe there is no new revelation after the apostolic age, but I just don’t see anywhere in scripture where the scripture is "declared to be finished". Keep in mind a declaration is fairly definitive and obvious. Could you show me the clear declaration of this event?

    “I never said dispensationalist take the whole Bible literally. I said we don't simply spiritualize verses or passages when they don't suit our interpretation.”

    I hear ya on the first sentence, but the second sentence is false, which I showed from John 6. But hey, everbody does it (including the Catholic Church) What matters is having the correct interpretation and knowing when to spiritualize. You do it in John 6, others do it elswhere.

    I hope I didn’t give the impression (I probably did) that I think you take it all literally. My main point was not to look at this or that passage, (although I did side track with John 6 because I find it a really pointed example of the literal/spiritual distinction) but my point was to show that we all do it. I just don’t think Dispensationalists do it any more or less than other serious Christians. (think Gen 1:1 and old earth) In that way they are more “literal” because they are willing to stake whole theologies on single passages. Certainly you have the corner on literal interpretation of Jew/Gentile passages… I concede that!
    It is difficult because some things must be figurative. When John says “behold the lamb of God…” to Jesus, there is a lot of deep imagery there. Of course Jesus is NOT a lamb… but… of course Jesus IS a lamb. Know what I mean? So it is not that “I’m literal, you’re not.” It is more that we disagree on which passages are literal and which are not. I just don’t see anything setting Dispensationalists out from the pack on this, which is what you had said made them different. On some issues, yes, like the “spiritual Israel” thing. But on something like baptism or communion, you look to other groups like you are spiritualizing.

    Again my point was to refute your contention that Dispensationalists have any edge in this area. If we list out passages and doctrines on a white board into two columns: “literal” and “spiritual/figurative”, I contend that if everyone gets a turn to write their favorite doctrines down in a different color pen, your ink would be spread around just like everyone else’s.

    More later today…

    ReplyDelete
  29. David,

    Its pretty simple.

    Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
    Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

    Note the word fulfil wich we will look at here

    G4137
    πληρόω
    plēroō
    Thayer Definition:
    1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
    1a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
    1a1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
    2) to render full, i.e. to complete
    2a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
    2b) to consummate: a number
    2b1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
    2b2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
    2c) to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
    2c1) of matters of duty: to perform, execute
    2c2) of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
    2c3) to fulfil, i.e. to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

    So it means to finish.

    Jed

    ReplyDelete
  30. We could get into a who other discussion
    about the second half of the verse but that is for another day.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I can flesh this out for you if you want but first my question for you David is when Jesus is talking in John 6 is he talking about physical life or spiritual life?

    Jed

    ReplyDelete
  32. In the context of defending your position as being more literal you gave an example:

    “God made a promise to the Jews and the Gentiles were not a part of it. Now neither you or I are Jews, and neither of us believer were are going to Hell so how can the above sentence be true? Well, most people would say something to the effect of, "we are SPIRITUAL Israel".”

    First an admission. Yes, in this area of interpretation, Dispensationalists take things the most literally. But what I want to show is that it is a wooden sort of literalism that obscures the bigger picture.

    Most Christians see those promises as already being fulfilled in Christ, and that the promises were also promised to the gentiles. It is not as if they see a “contradiction” and say “oh no! what do we do now… welp, the plain reading of scripture doesn’t suit or interpretation, so let’s just call it *spiritual* Israel.”
    No. There is very good reason to not look at it through a Dispensationalist lens. One of the earliest of these passages is to Abraham himself, that all nations would be blessed. And in Rom. 4:13 Paul reiterates that the promise was that Abraham receive the whole world as an inheritance.

    In Eph. 3:6 (which I am sure you have memorized, underlined, and highlighted in your Bible ;-)) Paul says that the mystery is that Gentiles are fellow heirs and that they are made “partakers of the promise” through the gospel. What promise? Paul just told us earlier in Ephesians (2:12-14):

    “At that time you were without the Messiah, excluded from the citizenship of Israel, and foreigners to the covenants of the promise...”

    Paul clearly says Gentiles were excluded from Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise given to Israel.

    Now what?

    “…But now in Christ Jesus, you who were far away have been brought near by the blood of the Messiah. For He is our peace, who made both groups one…”

    Brought near to what? The covenants of promise and citizenship in Israel,

    and “made one” with what?

    Israel.

    So this is yet another “both and” situation in scripture where I think H-Disp's want it to be either /or. Are Chritians today members of Israel? Yes and no.
    Paul clearly says that in one sense we are. In the sense that matters, we have been “brought near” to Israel and partake of their promises. WoHo! We get to go to heaven!
    But yes, he still refers to a different Israel in other places. That the “time of the Gentiles” will be completed. And in some sense, yes, there is still some sort of unbelieving fleshly Israel that at the end times will be brought to Christ. But that fleshly Israel is far down on the list of what Paul talks about. His main concern is the unity of Israel with the Gentiles. Bringing both into the same “body” and the same “covenants of promise” by the cross. In that sense, we are Israel, and in that sense the promises to old covenant Israel have been MORE than fulfilled through the blood of Christ!

    Cont...

    ReplyDelete
  33. ...cont.

    “Of course a mid-acts dispensationalist believes that God still plans on keeping His promise to Israel and the Gentiles are still not a part of THAT covenant…”

    Kendra, not only were the gentiles (mysteriously) part of that covenant, God HAS fulfilled His promise to Israel in Christ!!! What more could God give than HIMSELF!

    Here is a parable showing where non-dispys are coming from:

    Your employer promises to let you pay him in installments for a rusty, used Ford Festiva so you can get to and from work, and he has promised to bring the car next Sunday to your home so you can drive it to work the next day. You are really lookig forward to having a car to get around in, and think your boss is a swell guy.
    When He shows up, there is no Festiva! *Gasp* Instead, he gives you a new Mustang, and gives you full ownership of a 5000 car Ford dealership, and he wants to help you run the dealership in his retirement as lead sales guy! Also in the passenger seat of your new Mustang is his drop-dead-gorgeous daughter, whom you have had your eye on for the last few years. She wants to marry you and her father says “welcome to the family …son!! He gives you a big hug, and you feel the tears roll down your cheeks. The best day of your life! You chuckle as the image of the Ford Festiva flashes across your mind’s eye. How insignificant that seems now! How much more than you could have ever hoped for have you been given!

    Has he not fulfilled his promise!? WHO CARES about the crappy Festiva!!! To focus on that after what the employer (now father) did is to reject his gift! So if the employee says, “He promised a Festiva, and a Festiva is what I want!”. That son would be missing the point. Although the son would be quite “literal”, and seemingly taking the father seriously, really he is missing the entire point. Like a Pharisee he has substituted what God has given for his own pet rules.

    So do you see why your claim to literal interpretation in this instance looks so odd to other Christians? From our point of view, you are saying “God still needs to give what he promised to the Jews!”. We are saying: “He already gave infinitely MORE than He promised!!” And in that sense, there is no way we are “spiritualizing” Israel. Christ is real, we as his Body are real people, just like the nation of Israel. And instead of only getting a swath of land in the middle east, we get the whole world! God gave more than He promised. Christ is the real fulfillment of the promises to Israel. He fulfilled the promises to Israel. Not that those promises are fulfilled in the sense of “finished” (as Jed would seem to want the word used in Col. 1:25, which I will respond to when I get to his comment), but these promises are for us as well as Paul says in Eph. 3:6 and mre explicitly in 2:12-14.

    We (in 2011) get access to Christ’s once for all sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. We receive the Holy Spirit which was promised, we receive the world as our inheritance. We are made Children of God. That happens because we are grafted INTO Israel.

    All this was to defend against the Dispensational idea that they take the Isreal/Church distinction in a literal way where others are spiritualizing it to fit their interpretation. The same "fitting to their interpretation" critique can be made of dispensationalists. And their supposedly "literal" hermenutic on this topic can be seen as a wooden phariseeism that misses the beuty of fulfilled promises in Christ.

    More later perhaps. I will go in order of comments. I am still responding to Kendra's comment which is #16 I think.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sorry, I signed up for e-mail alerts on this thread but for some reason I didn't see any alerts for the comments you posted on the 7th. And NOW, just a moment ago I was almost done typing this very response when my lovely daughter hit the power switch on the power strip that the computer just so happens to be plugged into. So now I have to type it up again (this time in Open Office first since OO auto drafts) and I'm feeling a bit salty about it because I wasted a bunch of time and whenever this happens I always miss stuff and my 2nd draft is always less coherent. Oh and now the computer is running like a snail for some reason so this will take even longer than it did the first time. *SIGH* Oh well, here it goes:

    Eph 2:12-14 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
    But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
    For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

    Great verse.
    “Paul clearly says Gentiles were excluded from Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise given to Israel.”
    I'm so glad we can agree on this because that is behind whole idea of dispensationalism.

    Times Past:

    Before Christ came and died and was risen, mankind's sin had not yet been paid for. To be saved you had to be or become a part of the promise God made to Israel. This meant you had to believe in the one true God and his promise and follow his laws. Then, when you died you were sent to Abraham's Bosom aka Paradise, a la Lazarus. Then Christ came, died, and spent 3 days preaching to those people in Abraham's Bosom, and then was risen.

    But now:

    Now the Jews and the Gentiles are one because Christ paid for our sins.
    Rom 11:25-27 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
    And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
    For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. [Emphasis mine]
    Now, to be saved we have to believe in Christ apart from works. We follow the law because we are saved, not to be saved.
    Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

    Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
    Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

    Cont....

    ReplyDelete
  35. Cont....

    Ages to come:

    Jer 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
    Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
    But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
    And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

    After the fulness of the Gentiles has come, God will renew his covenant with Israel, and Christ will come back to finish what he started the first time he was here; ushering in the Kingdom on Earth, which Israel will inherit. A new Heaven and new Earth will be created, Jews inherit the Earth and saved Gentiles aka the Body of Christ will be in Heaven. There's other stuff in between there but you get the picture.
    You are right, God DID give more than he promised. But you seem to suggest that God scrapped his promise in trade for something better, whereas we believe God intends to keep his promise, but that he added to it abundantly.
    Rev 21:1 & 2 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
    And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

    “Brought near to what? The covenants of promise and citizenship in Israel,

    and “made one” with what?

    Israel.”

    Romans 11 clearly states that Israel has fallen and that blindness in part has come to her. So if we are grafted into Israel wouldn't that make us blind and fallen as well?

    “I am still responding to Kendra's comment which is #16 I think.”

    #16? In what? Just curious because I didn't understand that part.

    Well, hopefully I didn't miss any brilliant ;) points from the first copy of this response! I still intend to respond to your other post, but not until this one has been beaten dry.

    God Bless

    ~Kendra

    ReplyDelete
  36. To add to the comment I find it ironic that Israel's system (which is the basis for the RCC) is compared to a Festiva.

    This is where the rubber meets the road on the Disp. thing. The real problem David is when you get into the books in the new testament that are written to the Kingdom Jews.

    Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
    Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

    If we are all part of the same promis or covenant why does Israel have to be blind now and when do they stop being blind? What happens to them after they can see again? I think you know where I am going with this and I think you know what the answer is.

    Jed

    ReplyDelete
  37. Kendra,
    I have been busy as well and not had time to get back to these comments till now. But I am glad to see you back. I try to type in an OO or Word document. Spellcheck is a must for me to not look too stupid. And sometimes submitting comments is like pressing a self destruct button… everything goes wrong. Also the “#16” I was talking about was the comment number. I have tried to get the comments numbered for ease of use, but blogger is crappy. I tried to hack the code, we will see if it works to number the comments.
    So let me pick up where I left off in #16.
    You said: “Now this does not mean that Gentiles will inherit the Kingdom. That is and always was for the Jews.”
    No, that is just not biblical. They will inherit it, as the bible clearly states, and yes it is for the Jews, but it is also for the gentiles. I could go to a hundred verses from the Old Testament and gospels and other non-Pauline books to show this, but Paul himself is just as clear: The kingdom of God is for everyone. Paul makes no distinction as to the message he preaches.
    Here is Paul:
    [Paul and Barnabas preaching “grace” to Jews and Gentiles] Acts 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
    [Paul preaching to “both Jews and Greeks” (v.10)] Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
    Acts 20:25 And now, behold , I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
    Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God , persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
    Acts 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
    There are 6 references in Acts alone where the word kingdom is used and Paul is said preaching the same message of the “kingdom of God” to Jews and gentiles. Most of these passages also have in context with them other verses saying Paul is preaching “the gospel” or “message of grace” in the same context as it says he is preaching the kingdom. Paul sees no difference in the message,

    why do you?

    And this same message seamlessly continues into the Pauline books you accept.
    Continued…

    ReplyDelete
  38. ...cont

    And this same message seamlessly continues into the Pauline books you accept.

    Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

    1 Cor 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

    1 Cor 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived : neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    1 Cor 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

    1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say , brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

    Gal 5:21 ...they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

    Eph 5:5 For this ye know , that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

    Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

    Col 4:11 And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God...

    1 Thes 2:12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.

    2 Thes 1:5 ...that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer :

    2 Tim 4:18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom...

    Heb 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

    “Now this does not mean that Gentiles will inherit the Kingdom. That is and always was for the Jews.”
    “When God made his covenant with Israel he said it was only for Israel and he meant it.”

    Yes and no. It is only for Israel if you include the grafting that Paul is talking about at length in Rom 11. With that in mind, God’s covenant is only for Israel, with gentiles being grafted in. That is what Paul clearly says in Romans 11.
    He talks about that “grafting” in Eph 2 in a really clear way as well:

    “…you [gentiles] were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near [to the commonwealth of Israel and the covenants]…”

    So yes, it is only for Israel. BUT like Paul explicitly says, we are brought into Israel.
    And yeah, is some of the old conception of fleshly ‘Israel’ is hardened till all the gentiles come in? (Rom 11:25) Sure, that is an acceptable interpretation for me to take, so I will grant it to you. But when they do come back, they will come back to the ONE faith, the ONE covenant of grace, the one gospel, the kingdom, etc.

    Was their covenant fulfilled? Paul says for some Jews it was, some not. In Rom 11, concerning the fulfilling of their covenant, he says “Israel did not find what it was looking for, but the elect did find it. The rest were hardened.” (v. 7) “The rest” would be the Jews that have the “partial hardening” of v. 25.

    Rom 11:25b,26a,27: “…a partial hardening has come to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written: […]27 And this will be My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”

    cont...

    ReplyDelete
  39. ...cont

    In Rom 11 and Eph 2, Paul is clearly saying that the covenant for the Jews is the same covenant that the gentiles are brought into! Just ask yourself: what have the gentiles “come in” to (v. 25)? They have “come in” to the covenant that God made with the Jews! And at some point in the future, the rest of the “hardened” Jews will come in as well. But they will come into the ONE covenant, not one of two covenants, and certainly not by one of two gospels, which is the main point of the main thread here.

    In Act 20 St. Paul speakes to the Ephesian elders whose calling is to shepherd and “feed the church of God”.

    He specifically describes his message and it’s SOURCE as:

    1. “the ministry, which I have received from the Lord Jesus” (described elsewhere as ‘the mystery’)
    2. “The whole counsel of God”
    3. Having “kept back nothing that was profitable.”


    In the SAME BREATH he describes the CONTENT of his message as:

    4. “the gospel of the grace of God”
    5. The “preaching [of] the kingdom of God”
    6. “repentance towards God”
    7. “faith in the Lord Jesus Christ”

    Again in the SAME BREATH he identifies the RECIPIENTS of this message as:

    1. “Jews”
    2. “Greeks”


    Paul makes no distinction between these categories. He makes no distinction, but you guys do. Why?

    And yes or no, can you at least sympathize with me that when I read Acts 20 I have a hard time seeing a difference between the gospel of grace and the preaching of the kingdom? Or between faith in Christ and repentance? You folks want to make these concepts seperate, but I see them combined here in Acts 20 from the very lips of Paul.

    Explain what I have missed?

    Remember, you guys are the Scripture only people. I would not even attempt to prove say... the assumption of Mary... from scripture. But I dont claim that I can or that I need to. You folks on the other hand are claiming there are 2 gospels, and also claim the scripture not only backs it up, but is really clear about it. Well I agree it seems clear on this '2 gospels' issue, but the clarity of passages like Acts 20 seems to show the contrary to your doctrine. Do you see my dilema?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Kendra,
    Here is my last part of responding to comment #13.

    You said:
    "Luke 21:24 & Rom 11:25 Saying that the fulnes of the gentiles/ time of the gentiles just means the end of time or whatever is also not taking the Bible literally when it should be taken literally."

    First, how do we take "time of the gentiles" literally? I am not sure it is really a literal/not literal choice.

    second, I agree with you (I think) that it can be interpreted as meaning there is some future plan for some of the Jews, and not nesesarily the end of time. Personally it is not clear enough for me to care either way, as it is more of an eschatological question, rather than a matter of faith or dogma for Catholics. I am allowed to believe either way, but I choose to interpret it as being a fute time when the Jews will be 'brought back in'. But either way it is exegeted, one is not more 'literal' than the other.

    Third, twice you have said that people are "not taking the Bible literally when it should be taken literally".

    Here is my question: Considering the fact that I have found areas of scripture (John 6) that you take absolutely NOT literally which most Christians do and have taken VERY literally, what criteria do you use to decide when it is literal and when it is not? And can I take that criteria and use it everywhere in the bible and it will always work? Or does the criteria change from passage to passage?

    You say:

    "Personally I don't think it's any harder to know when to take the Bible literally than it is for you or I to tell when to take one another literally. The reason so many people have trouble with it is because when you fail to rightly divide there are things in the Bible that contradict and so they have to come up with a spiritualized or intellectualized explanation."

    The fact that you "dont think" it is hard to know when it is literal and when it is not, is not a method I can use to know the same thing. Unless you want me to just give you a call each time I have a question, which I know you dont mean. Many scholars, even dispensational scholars, disagree on how to interpret certain passages. It is not a "who is more literal" battle, it is a "what is the passage saying" battle. So what method do you use to choose when to be literal, and where is that method taught in scripture?

    ReplyDelete
  41. David you state that we make a make a difference between the Jews and the Greeks but what you are failing to see is that there is no longer any difference between Jews and Gentiles. The middle wall of partition is broken down and we are all reckoned alike.

    Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

    Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

    Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

    However this was not the way it was in the old testament.

    Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

    Isa 61:6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

    And then in Jesus ministry

    Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
    Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
    Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.


    Why not go to the Gentiles? As Paul says aren't we all one? Or did Paul receive new revelation.

    Joh 7:33 Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me.
    Joh 7:34 Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come.
    Joh 7:35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

    Note the almost mocking tone that the Leaders take. Will he go to the Gentiles? IF you keep reading it is clear that he is not going to the gentiles. What is also important to remember is that just because the Jews were the chosen people the Gentiles could be saved by coming to Israel

    Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
    Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
    Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
    Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
    Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
    Mat 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
    Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

    Note the servant-hood position of the Gentiles in the passage. They were clearly lower than the Jews. Also note that Jesus was fully prepared to send the woman away "empty handed".

    ReplyDelete
  42. Continued...

    Here is what is generally assumed to be the same story in Mark (I have doubts though because Matthew refers to the woman as a Cannanite and Mark Refers to his woman as a Greek)

    Mar 7:25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:
    Mar 7:26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
    Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
    Mar 7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
    Mar 7:29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

    So we are beginning to see a difference between the Jews and Gentiles of time past and today.

    Jed

    ReplyDelete
  43. Kendra/Jed/both (the last comment was started by Kendra and ended by Jed)

    I still want to respond to the John 6 stuff in this combox and some other things about sola scriptura etc. But I will briefly get up to date with the last 2 comments:

    "David you state that we make a make a difference between the Jews and the Greeks but what you are failing to see is that there is no longer any difference between Jews and Gentiles."

    Then...

    "So we are beginning to see a difference between the Jews and Gentiles of time past and today."

    First off, I see absolutely no differnce between Jew/Gentile, so I am not "failing to see" that. I took pains in my last comments to show there is no difference. What differences there were at one time are gone, and I dont believe there has ever been two gospels, which you guys believe, and is the whole point of this "preliminary" discussion.

    You guys are the ones who try to make the Jew/gentile distinction, even in the last two comments. I honestly am confused as to what you are saying, because yuo started by aying there is no difference, then ended by saying there is. Huh? Which is it?
    My guess is that you are meaning that there was a difference in Jesus day, is not now, but will be again in the next "dispensation".

    The verses you give are one sided. Quoting Matt. 10 where Christ sends his men to Israel:

    ("But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel")

    but neglecting to mention the great commision and many other passages where he either tells the same men to go into all the world, or directly goes to samaria or brings the gospel to gentiles. You cant pick and choose. WHen these two types of verses are harmonized, what we see is that DURING Christs ministry He and his disciples went mostly to Jews but also to gentiles, and after his ressurection He said to go to ALL the world. If we dont pick and choose, we see Him starting with Israel FIRST (the children in Mark 7) and then the ONE Gospel going out to everyone (to the children and the dogs in Mark 7).

    Your interpretation seems selective in that you only chose passages where Christ specifically went to Jews, yet excluded passages where he specifically went to Gentiles and specifically told his disciples to do so.
    That is called isogesis. Making the scripture fit a pre-concieved notion.
    Exegesis would be to include all Christ said on the topic, including the last things he said, which is to go to the Gentiles.

    cont later today hopefully...

    ReplyDelete
  44. I think Mark 16, which is the ressurection narative in Mark's gospel, speaks for itself, but if not I can elaborate from elsewhere ibn scripture.

    I include the KJV here cuz I know you *prefer* it. ;-)

    14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

    15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

    16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

    ReplyDelete
  45. It was actually started and completed by Jed, he didn't want to sign me out so he just posted with me signed in and put his name at the end. I still plan to respond, eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  46. David,
    This time I'm only going to respond to a portion of what you wrote because you brought up a subject, the Kingdom of God, that I don't think I can sum up in a couple of blog posts so I am going to look for some other resources to point you to from people who have already laid it out. So I'm setting that aside for the moment, although it is probably the most important portion of this discussion. I'm just too distracted to lay it out myself.
    Now regarding the "partial hardening", I can't tell whether or not we are on the same page there. The Jews that were not "hardened" were the first Christians. However, remember, this whole thread was started over an article explaining that the entire book of Acts lays out the transitional period between law and grace. Remembering that can answer many of the points you made in your last comment.
    "First, how do we take "time of the gentiles" literally? I am not sure it is really a literal/not literal choice."
    Well, he was talking about a finite period of time during which there is obviously something "special" about Gentiles. The fulnes of the Gentiles will come to be and then the blindness of Israel will be lifted and God will make a new covenant with them as Jeremiah 31 explains. Then Jesus will come back and finish bringing in the Kingdom. Not taking it literally is saying that there is no time specifically for the Gentiles that will come to an end when the blindness is lifted. Just a side note, "most Christians" do not take John 6 literally the way you do, just Catholics. Do Calvanists also?
    "The fact that you "dont think" it is hard to know when it is literal and when it is not, is not a method I can use to know the same thing. Unless you want me to just give you a call each time I have a question, which I know you dont mean."
    Richard Jordan explains it better than I probably can, but to me it is the same way you would know when to take any other literature literally. A few guidelines I would go by are:
    1. If it's a dream or a vision, it's not 100% literal.
    2. If it's a parable, " "
    3. If it's obviously a comparison (look for the word like, although it may not always be there), " "
    I already explained above(16-18)why I don't take John 6 literally the same way you do.

    More on the Kingdom(s) later.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The problem with the great commission is that the plan was always to save the gentiles through Israel. So of course they were to get Jerusalem saved, Israel saved, Samaria saved and then the world saved; all through the Jews. Problem is they never got all of Israel saved. I say that in a figurative sense because obviously God in his infinite wisdom planned all along for them to fail at the Great commission. The rejected the Father when they Killed the OT Prophets. They rejected the Son when they crucified him and they rejected the Spirit when they stoned Stephen. Doing so they committed the unpardonable sin which is why Paul literally refers to himself as the "chief of sinners". He literally was the first man saved by Grace completely apart from works and there was no way for him to be saved under the Kingdom. There is no record of him repenting or being baptized like Jesus commands for salvation (although it is possible that he did after he was saved. This salvation was made possible by the Mystery that was revealed to Paul and the setting aside of the Jews as the chosen people.

    In response to Mark 16 specifically

    Mar 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
    Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
    Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
    Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
    Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
    Mar 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

    Question 1 The disciples did not believe the accounts that he had risen from the dead. He then tells that that "people" have to believe and be baptized to be saved. Were the disciples saved before he showed up?

    Second he gives very clear signs that will follow the people getting saved. These include speaking in tongues, serpent handling, healing on command and drinking of poison. Can we do these things and on command today and if we can't, why not?

    Third: if today we are saved by Grace through faith apart from works and the Gospel is that Jesus was crucified, died, buried and rose again on the third day what "gospel" were the disciples supposed to teach? This is remembering that they did not even believe that he was risen from the dead. I will take you to Acts 1

    Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

    Note that in this different rendition of the same account of the Ascension they still were wondering when he was going to restore the physical kingdom to Israel. note that he doesn't refute them but He knows that they will be set aside so it won't be anytime soon but he can't tell them yet because it is still a mystery. So the second part of the question is if he still wants them to preach the gospel, what Gospel were they preaching?

    Jed

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hint: these are not rhetorical questions ; )

    Jed

    ReplyDelete
  49. Ok. There is a lot of topics on the table now, and I think it would be helpful make some seperate threads for different topics. You guys are welcome to take this as far as you want with me. I will be making the threads and doing my best to refute the errors I see either whether you take part or not though.

    No offence! ;-)

    If you want to respond I would suggest subscribing to "new posts" if you can, and then when you comment in a post, to subscribe to comments within the post so we can keep things orderly.

    I will be making seperate posts for different topics so as to keep the train of thought going in the comments of each post.

    So for instance, I will make a post about the doctrine of the Real Presense, the kingdom(s), the gospel(s) etc. I will use this current combox as a guide to find topics from and I will focus on Ultra-Dispensationalism and the topics from this thread.

    The only thing connecting these posts will be how they relate to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

    So for instance, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism relates to John 6 and the Real Presence because you have a non-literal interpretation, while claiming to generally be quite literal elswhere.

    Also in the sense that Christ's Body and Blood on the altar is seen as a sacrifice by most Christians, (which shows the continuation of the Old Covenant sacrifices, which dispensationalism would strongly deny),

    and it also relates in terms of interpretation method-- whose is more consistent when interpreting the various passages?

    Lastly would be the interpretive wrangling itself... who's right who's wrong about the Real Presence, and what does the text mean to convey to us as Christians.

    Also it relates to sola Scriptura in the sense that there are many views on the Real Presense, all heartfelt and honest. Yet if the scripture is so plain to every believer, why do they disagree? It relates to sola in many other ways as well.

    At any rate, that is what I am going to do. Feel free to respond at your leasure. My main goal in this is to satisfy my own curiosity about your denomination, which I believe to be in grave error, while at the same time making a record of my studies, which perhaps will be found by some late night Google searcher in 2023 who types in "Mid-Acts Dispensationalism" or some such thing.

    So with that I will make a new thread.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Only Catholics disagree on the issue of communion and its because they look outside of scripture.

    Jed

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Only Catholics disagree on the issue of communion and its because they look outside of scripture.
    Jed"

    You are Wrong and Wrong.

    Again, Jed, prove it. You will not because you can't. a sound-bite is all you can muster. Again I will show tyou to be wrong with no apology or retraction on your end. Here we go:

    There are at least three major distinct views within Protestantism. Protestants disagree among themselves AND with Catholics, and they disagree based on scripture. So you are 100% wrong there. (you could not partake at many Lutheran Churches because of this difference, and your non-sacramental view scorned as heresy by the Reformed, Anglicans, Lutherans etc... and they ALL would use scripture to disagree with you)

    Catholics get our view of the Eucharist from John 6 and the gospels. along with the accounts in the old testament of sacrifices and passover. Also the book of Hebrews. All my reasoning here has been from scripture. Yeah, we follow the Tradition handed down as well, just like Paul commands, but so far I have stuck to scripture in my argument here.

    So BACK UP your assertion Jed. Where do Catholics go outside of scripture on the communion issue and because of that they disagree with Protestants?

    Protestants disagree among themselves, are THEY also going outside of scripture?

    ReplyDelete
  52. I didn't know we were arguing about whether or not communion is a sacrament. I'm pretty sure that Jed was talking about transubstantiation and that is what we thought you were suggesting we dispensationalists were on the fringe about. I've never met a protestant (as far as I know) who believes in transubstantiation. Luther didn't. Catholics disagree among themselves too. They just have a list of certain things they HAVE to agree on, and some even disagree on some things on that list.

    ReplyDelete
  53. 1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
    1Co 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
    1Co 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
    1Co 10:19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
    1Co 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
    1Co 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
    1Co 10:22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
    1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

    JED

    ReplyDelete
  54. "I didn't know we were arguing about whether or not communion is a sacrament."

    I didnt know that either, and I have no idea what you mean. My last comment pointed out two ways in whick Jed's comment was wrong, and I proved it. The part about it being a sacrament was to show that many Protestants think it is a sacrament, and thus disagree with you, and that is just fine in your ecclesiology for that disagreement to exist. Jed had said "ONLY Catholics disagree on the issue of communion". That is a direct quote, right? So was that correct or not?

    "I'm pretty sure that Jed was talking about transubstantiation..."

    Ok, he said "Only Catholics disagree on the issue of communion and its because they look outside of scripture."

    I proceded to disprove both parts of that statement. Nothing I said implied Protestants believe in Transubstantiation. They have at least 3 or 4 OTHER distinct doctrines BESIDES Transub.

    "Catholics disagree among themselves too. They just have a list of certain things they HAVE to agree on..."

    This statement contradicts itself. Either Catholics disagree, or they cant disagree. The reality is that there is disagreement, and the ones that do not hold to the true faith are in heresy. That is not the same kind of "disagreement" that Protestants have. You believe Calvinists and Lutherans to be part of the "church" even though you disagree with them. So within your "church" are people you are just fine disagreeing with doctrinally, and according to your doctrine, it is OK to disagree with them. Not so in Catholicism. There is ONE belief in Catholicism, to which some dessent and some subscribe.

    So will Jed stick by his one liner? or will he retract it? Or will he do like his Dad and make statements which he will refuse to back up, and when corrented will not acknowledge it?

    ReplyDelete
  55. ;-)

    Oh, gee Jed, I never noticed 1 Cor. 10 before! It talks about the Eucharist there... wow, never saw that. It is all so simple now!

    ;-)

    Of course you would have to "explain" it. Or should I say "explain" what you think it says. In verse 16 I see about as clear a statement in favor of Transubstantiation there is! at the very LEAST the whole passage is a clear statement of the supper being a sacrament that conveys grace. It is conmpared to the OT sacrifices! To my (and even many Protestants) mind, this passage is really, really clear Jed. I guess we are all just blinded to the truth or something. Is that it?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ok mister smarty pants.

    1Co 10:19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?


    What is the idol? He is explaining here hence the "What say I then?" He is saying not to make Communion idolatry.


    Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

    What I am saying is just because Moses lifted up the serpent as salvation didn't stop Hezekiah from destroying it when the people started worshiping it. The RC church has a propensity to worship anything it can gets it its hands on.

    2Ki 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

    The idea that just because someone is a protestant means they need to agree with me is also ridiculous. Jesus said the way is narrow and

    Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

    There will be a lot of Catholics and Protestants cooking in the lake of fire.

    The issues with protestants disagreeing on communion boils down to a basic one (and like I said not all "protestants" even teach a salvation message). Most if not all protestants don't believe that you are saved by taking communion. Where as Catholics (and Pseudo Catholics) believe that until you take communion and or get baptized you are not saved.

    Jed

    ReplyDelete