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,

Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there

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.

Realitybites said:

---

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

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

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.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

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.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

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."

historian said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

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.

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.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

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.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

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.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

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".

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

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.

historian said:

---

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.

BUDOS said:

---

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.

---

It does not disagree with being saved by grace. The sacrament is an instrument of God's grace. Baptismal regeneration is a work of God, not of man.

Here's a Lutheran Pastor who does a good job of explaining it.

I hope you all had a great weekend

Realitybites said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

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.

---

It does not disagree with being saved by grace. The sacrament is an instrument of God's grace. Baptismal regeneration is a work of God, not of man.

Here's a Lutheran Pastor who does a good job of explaining it.

---

But that's not what Paul says under grace. Under John's Baptism to the Jews under Law, they were possibly required to be water Baptized for Salvation, but under Grace, no mention of water Baptism when giving the Gospel of grace. Romans 10: 9, 10-13 is the Way of Salvation. No water there. The Holy Spirit Baptizes the believer into Christ, not water:

I Corinthians 12:13 NKJV
[13] For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one bodywhether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or freeand have all been made to drink into one Spirit.


Romans 10:9-10, 13 NKJV
[9] that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[13] For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Romans 10:9-10, 13 NKJV
[9] that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[13] For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

---

One of the many problems with dispensationalism is that it diminishes the direct statements of Jesus in the Gospels as "for the Jews" and elevates Pauls epistles above them as "for us" as you've done here.

Jesus directly says: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5).

It isn't that these statements are contradictory. It is that the are both true. I've seen dispensationalist pastors absolutely tie themselves into ridiculous knots trying to explain away that one, even going so far as to say the water being referenced here is amniotic fluid.

Ezekiel 36
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Ties in with the born of water and born of the spirit verse

historian said:

---

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.

---

I agree that is great to read and pray the scriptures to gain understand; but we should also consult those who know the meaning of the passages when we aren't sure.

historian said:

---

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.

---

Really, let's briefly look at John 6 Bread of Life Discourse. For nearly 2000 years, Catholic (and Orthodox) have believed that Jesus meant what he said literally, "Amen, amen, I say to you, my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink." He says this no less than 6 times in the passage. 1500 years later, some men (reading the same passage) believe that it is symbolic. This is a CORE tenant of Christianity, but people reading the same words have arrived at completely different conclusions. How is this possible if you "cannot imagine anyone truly being unable to understand?"

historian said:

---

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.

---

What is God's Word (or the Word of God?)

Many people falsely believe that it is only means the Bible (or scriptures); however, that's not what the Bible teaches.

The Word of God is also
Jesus - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
Sacred Tradition - Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

historian said:

---

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.

---

The Church does not claim to be:
A replacement for God's authority
Superior to Scripture or Tradition
Able to contradict or override divine revelation
The source of truth

The Church claims to be the instrument and guardian of God's authority not a replacement for it.
Dei Verbum states

The Magisterium is "not above the Word of God, but serves it teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously, and explaining it faithfully."

Similar to the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution. They are not above the Constitution.

They are exercising delegated interpretive authority the authority the system itself gave them to apply the law authentically.

The Church functions the same way with Scripture and Tradition. God is the author. Scripture and Tradition are the deposit of faith. The Magisterium is the authorized interpreter given that role by Christ Himself, not self-appointed.

Now the Church makes this claim using scripture

• Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me." (Luke 10:16)
• "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)
• "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (Matthew 28:1920)

We can debate about that, but we could simply look at the point that I brought up earlier about a Baptist and Lutheran discussing Baptismal Regeneration. Who decides what is correct?

BUDOS said:

---

Ok I just came into the conversation and I only have a concept of baptismal regeneration, so I'm pretty ignorant on the topic.

---

I think these are GREAT questions to ask.

Here are some responses that present the Catholic view to your questions

Baptismal regeneration is the doctrine that Baptism actually causes spiritual rebirth. Baptism washes away Original Sin and ALL sin. Going into the water, we die. When we are raised (or washed), we are born anew. We are not part of God's adoptive family.

Now Original Sin is NOT something we have. It's actually something we lack Sanctify Grace. When our first parents fell, we lost sanctifying grace. It is restored in Baptism.

BUDOS said:

---

My question is does it disagree with being saved by grace?

---

NO. We are ONLY saved by Grace. Salvation is entirely God's gift. No human being earns it, deserves it, or produces it from within themselves.

BUDOS said:

---

Does it state that a person has to be baptized to be saved or that it's an act of disobedience?

---

Yes Baptism is necessary for salvation as the ordinary means God has established.

Jesus ordained this in John 3:5 and Mark 16:16

With respect to disobedience, I can only surmise that if a person believed in Jesus as the Eternal Son of God and all he taught but rejected (with free will and full knowledge) baptism, that he might not be saved.

What about those who don't or can't get baptized?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states in paragraph 1257
"God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."

The Church has always recognized three forms of baptism
Baptism of Water the ordinary form
Baptism of Blood - A person who is martyred for Christ before receiving water Baptism
Baptism of Desire A person who:
Sincerely seeks God
Desires to do His will
Would have accepted Baptism had they known

BUDOS said:

---

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.

---

I fully understand that a person's believe in a passage may and can change overtime; however, the Holy Spirit cannot change.

Where one get in danger is when they begin to believe something heretical based on their interpretations of scripture.

Let's look at Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) for a moment. (At least this won't upset many people here.)

After the "Great Disappointment", Ellen G White started the SDA and through here interpretations of the Bible, the SDA believe that we should ONLY worship God on the Sabbath (or Saturday) and the doctrine of Soul Sleep. They recommend a vegetarian diet, particularly using kosher foods. This is all based on HER interpretation of the bible.

My point is that we need to be careful in whom we trust in we look for an interpreter of the bible. We should as 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says,

But test everything; hold fast what is good."

We do know that St Paul said in 1 Tim 3:15, that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet