Ephesians 3:2-6 NKJV [2] if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, [3] how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, [4] by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), [5] which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: [6] that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,
That's dispensation as in dispensing. Not dispensation as in dispensationalism.
As far back as Adam, God's been dealing with man via grace.
"Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them." Genesis 3:21.
Moses was not under Grace, he was under Law. Adam and Eve were in the dispensation of innicence. And yes dispensation means to dispense.
God had different ways of dealing with people at different times
You're misunderstanding covenant theology as different dispensations.
Adam and Eve weren't innocent the minute they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Adam and Even were innocent until they ate the fruit, so yes, it was innocence. Covenant Theology is full of errors and non Biblical assertions. They claim to follow Scripture until they are shown Scripture and try to re interpret the plain text to mean something it doesn't. I would consider that heresy. Scripture is the Authority not Church Fathers, Leaders, Tradition.
Scripture is the Authority not Church Fathers, Leaders, Tradition.
Exactly. This is the underlying truth behind any discussion of Christian theology or doctrine.
Anything contrary to scripture is a lie and thus comes from Satan, the "father of lies."
Who gets to determine what the scriptures mean?
Let's look (in principle - we don't have to discus them) at two topics which the Church accepts:
Baptismal Regeneration - some Protestants believe Apostolic Succession - few Protestants believe
Quoting scripture, the Church fathers had near unanimous consensus on both these topics.
As a "historian", how are you more qualified in your opinion than those closer (in time) to Christ and some were disciples of those that learned from an apostle?
Help me understand why their opinions on these topics "come from the 'father of lies'" when it differs from your opinion.
Scripture is the Authority not Church Fathers, Leaders, Tradition.
Exactly. This is the underlying truth behind any discussion of Christian theology or doctrine.
Anything contrary to scripture is a lie and thus comes from Satan, the "father of lies."
Who gets to determine what the scriptures mean?
Let's look (in principle - we don't have to discus them) at two topics which the Church accepts:
Baptismal Regeneration - some Protestants believe Apostolic Succession - few Protestants believe
Quoting scripture, the Church fathers had near unanimous consensus on both these topics.
As a "historian", how are you more qualified in your opinion than those closer (in time) to Christ and some were disciples of those that learned from an apostle?
Help me understand why their opinions on these topics "come from the 'father of lies'" when it differs from your opinion.
I don't believe there was unanimous consent on these things, maybe in the Catholic Church where if yiu disagreed with them you were murdered for your faith.
Most scriptures are pretty clear. Anyone honestly seeking God can understand the gospels, the letters of Paul, and the rest. Some of the O.T. and the Book of Revelation are more difficult. But if one prays to God for guidance, He helps. If one's understanding or interpretation of scripture is compatible with scripture as a whole then it is genuine. If not, then there is a problem and that individual will have to answer to God in the final judgment.
I do not claim to be infallible or have all the answers. Only God does. But I do know much of scripture and can read what is plainly there. God's word is perfect and useful to the believer for sanctification and to everyone else for salvation.
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." I Timothy 3:16
I also know that taking one passage out of context is very dangerous. It often leads to false teachings, heresies, and cults.
I don't believe there was unanimous consent on these things, maybe in the Catholic Church where if yiu disagreed with them you were murdered for your faith.
For the first 1054 years of the Church, there was only one.
I don't believe there was unanimous consent on these things, maybe in the Catholic Church where if yiu disagreed with them you were murdered for your faith.
For the first 1054 years of the Church, there was only one.
If this were true, then how do you explain the numerous instances of dissent throughout the book of Acts and throughout Paul's letters? We have well documented disagreements among various churches. Paul was constantly addressing them.
I don't believe there was unanimous consent on these things, maybe in the Catholic Church where if yiu disagreed with them you were murdered for your faith.
For the first 1054 years of the Church, there was only one.
If this were true, then how do you explain the numerous instances of dissent throughout the book of Acts and throughout Paul's letters? We have well documented disagreements among various churches. Paul was constantly addressing them.
There have been disagreements throughout church history. There have been heresies surrounding the church throughout church history as Satan dug tiger pits around it to entrap people.
That's why, as illustrated in Acts 15, the church in council, informed by the fathers, led by the Holy Spirit is the way of resolving them.
You don't resolve them by picking up a modern Bible that has an Old Testament version that neither Christ nor the Apostles used, and saying "thus saith I".
I don't believe there was unanimous consent on these things, maybe in the Catholic Church where if yiu disagreed with them you were murdered for your faith.
For the first 1054 years of the Church, there was only one.
If this were true, then how do you explain the numerous instances of dissent throughout the book of Acts and throughout Paul's letters? We have well documented disagreements among various churches. Paul was constantly addressing them.
There have been disagreements throughout church history. There have been heresies surrounding the church throughout church history as Satan dug tiger pits around it to entrap people.
That's why, as illustrated in Acts 15, the church in council, informed by the fathers, led by the Holy Spirit is the way of resolving them.
You don't resolve them by picking up a modern Bible that has an Old Testament version that neither Christ nor the Apostles used, and saying "thus saith I".
Acts 15 actually proves my original point: there was not unanimous agreement in the early Church. There was a serious doctrinal dispute (circumcision and the Law), and even division as of Acts 15. Acts 15 doesn't prove there was unanimity, but proves there wasn't, and that the Church had to work to resolve disagreement.
The problem with your position that these disagreements were "heresy outside the Church" is that, in the New Testament itself, many of the disputes occur within recognized churches. We saw it in Corinth, in Galatia and Antioch - real doctrinal disputes within the Church body, not all of which were heretical in nature.
While Councils were certainly part of how the Church addressed disputes, historically, it's pretty well-settled they did not always produce immediate or universal agreement. Divisions remained.
As for your reference to "modern" historical interpretation, I think such characterizations once again point to erroneous and unsupported Orthodox assumptions about Protestant belief. I don't know of any who belong to my reformed tradition that argue for private interpretation detached from the Church. I'm simply pointing out that the New Testament itself records real disagreements among believers, which challenges the idea that there was always a visible, unanimous consensus in the early Church.
And regarding the Old Testament canon that's a separate historical discussion. But regardless of which canon one uses, the evidence of disagreement within the early Church comes directly from the shared New Testament itself.
Most scriptures are pretty clear. Anyone honestly seeking God can understand the gospels, the letters of Paul, and the rest. Some of the O.T. and the Book of Revelation are more difficult. But if one prays to God for guidance, He helps. If one's understanding or interpretation of scripture is compatible with scripture as a whole then it is genuine. If not, then there is a problem and that individual will have to answer to God in the final judgment.
I do not claim to be infallible or have all the answers. Only God does. But I do know much of scripture and can read what is plainly there. God's word is perfect and useful to the believer for sanctification and to everyone else for salvation.
The bible may disagree with you. Look at Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:30-31 - So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 31 And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. From the beginning, the scriptures call for someone to help us understand them.
historian said:
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." I Timothy 3:16
The Catholic Church fully supports this text; however, please notice that it does NOT say that "ONLY Scripture ...."
historian said:
I also know that taking one passage out of context is very dangerous. It often leads to false teachings, heresies, and cults.
St Peter agrees with you - 2 Peter 3:16 -
"some things hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction."
I'll ask it a different way. You state that, " God's word is perfect and useful to the believer for sanctification and to everyone else for salvation." The Church fully affirms that God's word is perfect; however, how do we have a topic as important as Baptismal Regeneration (accepted by Catholics and many protestants) but which we have division? We're reading the same scriptures. How can there be two completely different views on something so important with regards to salvation?
Philip explained the prophecies in Isaiah to the Ethiopian who then became the first convert. Yes, the are plenty of scriptures that are more difficult, especially the prophecies. I addressed that in my post. This is why we pray and read scriptures: to gain understanding.
More importantly, the gospel is pretty straightforward and is easy to comprehend to one who has an open mind and willing to believe. I cannot imagine anyone truly being unable to understand the Gospel of John (or the others), or most of Paul's letters, most of the Psalms, etc. This is the miraculous beauty of God's word: the more one reads it the clearer it becomes. God communicates to us directly through our reading of His word.
In the context of Paul's letter to Timothy, it is clear that Paul means God's word and not the proclamations of corrupt politicians centuries later. I'm not sure what else it could honestly be taken to mean.
You keep citing the Church (presumably, the one with its HQ in Rome) as an authority on scripture. My point remains that God is the ultimate authority. No human or human institution, regardless of where he is or what title he might hold, can replace God and His word as the final authority. To do so would be idolatry. All too often such earthly persons lead people astray and blaspheme God.
Ok I just came into the conversation and I only have a concept of baptismal regeneration, so I'm pretty ignorant on the topic. My question is does it disagree with being saved by grace? Does it state that a person has to be baptized to be saved or that it's an act of disobedience?
As for an apparent implication that I need someone to decide for me what a biblical means, I don't get that. Having someone, including my pastor, a pope, Or Billy Graham give me their opinion/interpretation is fine and can be even welcome; however, me and the Holy Spirit interpret the meaning, which may change in time.
As you can see, I am a pretty basic believer; nothing sophisticated.
