It's not the Bible till we say its the Bible....

[CatholicConvert]

Pondering things yesterday (as I am wont to do from time to time), it occurred to me that not everyone here is hearing the Word of God.

Let's see:

Jesus said "Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood ye have NOT life.

For the next 400+ years, all that the Church had was the words of Jesus and the eyewitness account of His saying those words as faithfully recorded by that eyewitness.

The eyewitness to all this, being asked what these word meant by pagans and catecheumens, would faithfully reply that this meant that one must consume the very Flesh of the Son of God Who hung upon the Cross and drink His Blood. Pressed to explain how this was done, he would explain as much as he could about he Eucharistic Mysteries and how they confer eternal life.

Therefore, the pagan or catecheumen who was hearing this and hearing the word of Jesus was indeed hearing the Word of God, for these were God's words to mankind.

Now, if someone else came around with another interpretation, would that interpretation be the same as what Jesus Himself said?

Of course not!!

Therefore, would those words actually BE the Word of God?

Again, of course not? They are not the same as what Jesus Himself taught to the apostles.

So if you are hearing verses from a book combined with teaching that denies what these verses teach, are you really hearing the Word of God as Jesus taught it.

NOPE!!!! NOT AT ALL.

And WHO, pray tell, determined that this was the EXACT and PRECISE meaning of Jesus' word?

None other than the Church which was led by St. Peter and founded upon the depositum fidei of the apostles, dutifully handed down from generation to generation. From one generation to the next, the teaching had the same CORE VALUE. Oh, the administration of that truth might change with culture and time, but the BASE CORE TRUTH itself remained.

Likewise, it was the Church who decided the 73 books of the Bible. In fact, it is the Church which has all authority on Heaven and earth to make authorative and binding moral judgements, and all mankind will be judged according to either their obedience to those declarations or their rebellion against them.

The Catholic Faith is the Word of God in expression, praxis, and truth. All others are simply a watered down version of Jesus words, a changing of 1500 centuries of teaching, and very, very possibly, teachings which cannot save one's soul at all, for the salvation of mankind and our souls was entrusted to the Church, and to no other Body BUT the Church.

Think on it.


PS I noticed the other day, when I went to a link provided on John McArthur's "teachings" that the one thing that stood out LIKE A SORE THUMB was the complete absence of any patristic writings. Very understandable, for if you are going to try to teach a new religion which has Jesus' name stuck to it, you better be sure that the original teachings of the original believers are nowhere to be seen near what you believe!!!

 

[Justified Saint]

Isn't it funny how us Catholics take the Bible so literal in many places. To think that Jesus actually meant what he said, downright hersey.

But, just like the scriptures there are some that try to twist the Church fathers, taking them out of context, to support their interpretations; James White comes to mind.

Good post!

 

[A_Christian]

Once the flesh of Jesus was consumed on the cross
and HIS blood spilt, there was no other sacrafice for sin. So eat the cracker and drink the
juice and remember what Jesus ACCOMPLISHED and forget about what some priest is believed to be
DOING. It's been already done.

A church has no power to withhold salvation
by deprivation of a memorial service ceremony.

 

[DHK]

Brother Ed,
You refer to the Patristic writings.
You refer to the interpretation of John 6:63.
There are other red herrings in your post referred to.
In the thread which I believe that you are alluding to, I quoted a simple passage of Scripture:

1John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

How simple a verse can it be. Take it in its context from verse 11 to 13. Explain it. There is not one Catholic on this board that has done so. They have come up with ridicule and sarcasm. They have said "That is your interpretation." How many ways can you interpret the simple statement given in 1John 5:12. They have not offered "their interpretatio," for there is none other than what it says. They have said go to John 6:63. They will avoid that simple verse, because it teaches something that they don't want to believe. I think that this is what you may be referring to. Why are the Catholics on this board acting like a typical Jehovah's Witness, who everytime get cornered with a verse Scripture, try to change the subject. Just deal with the Scripture at hand. What does 1John 5:11-13 mean other than what it really says. Don't be sarcastic, and tell me that I am making up my own interpretations. If what I explain is wrong then tell me how I am wrong. Don't be like your cohorts and just blather on and on saying that's your interpretation with nothing constructive to offer, no real answer to give. If it is not what it says it is than what does it mean? He that has the son has life. No process involved here.
DHK

 

[Yelsew]

And WHO, pray tell, determined that this was the EXACT and PRECISE meaning of Jesus' word?

None other than the Church which was led by St. Peter and founded upon the depositum fidei of the apostles, dutifully handed down from generation to generation. From one generation to the next, the teaching had the same CORE VALUE. Oh, the administration of that truth might change with culture and time, but the BASE CORE TRUTH itself remained.

Likewise, it was the Church who decided the 73 books of the Bible. In fact, it is the Church which has all authority on Heaven and earth to make authorative and binding moral judgements, and all mankind will be judged according to either their obedience to those declarations or their rebellion against them.

The Catholic Faith is the Word of God in expression, praxis, and truth. All others are simply a watered down version of Jesus words, a changing of 1500 centuries of teaching, and very, very possibly, teachings which cannot save one's soul at all, for the salvation of mankind and our souls was entrusted to the Church, and to no other Body BUT the Church.

After pondering these words for a while it becomes plain that you are "indoctrinated" in man's teachings.

The Word of God stands the test of time because the HOLY SPIRIT protects it from man's devices. Even if man could remove every scrap of the scriptures from parchment to Fine Corinthian Leather bound bibles to electronic bibles, the Word of God would remain among men. Man did not make it so! Man was merely the instrument that the Holy Spirit employed to do the assembly of the writings of old. Man did not make the decisions on his own as to what constitues Holy Scripture any more than man can save himself.

As for the words of Jesus regarding eating his flesh and drinking his blood, you are welcome to believe what you do, but don't expect common folk to accept what you say. Eating the flesh of Jesus is the ingesting, "taking into the heart", of his Holy Word into your inner man and thereby making Jesus the center of your natural life's existance. The Drinking of his Blood is likewise taking the Spirit or life of Jesus into your inner man so that His life is extended among man through you. NO! the elements are not the "real" flesh and blood of Jesus, you are not eating the human flesh or drinking the human blood of the one slain from the foundation of the world. You are, however, ingesting into your inner man the whole essence of his life among men. I challenge you to prove otherwise!

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
How simple a verse can it be. Take it in its context from verse 11 to 13.

12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

If it is not what it says it is than what does it mean? He that has the son has life. No process involved here.
DHK

Your one time saving act of faith belief, that gives you your never to be lost salvation, fails to take into consideration the words "and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God."

If a "saved" person can cease to believe in the name of the Son of God...

...your OSAS belief requires you to say either it is not possible to loose faith (which makes this verse pointless)

...or your OSAS belief requires you to say that even a person who looses faith is still saved (which is a contradiction because that person no longer has the Son, so they cannot have life)

...or your OASA belief is wrong, and salvation is a process which requires us to continue in faith.

 

[Ray Berrian]

God speaking through the Apostle John has said, 'He who hath the Son hath life; and he who hath not the Son of God hath not life.' [I John 5:12] And in the word concept of a Catholic, "What kind of life does the sacred heart of Jesus have within Himself?" Now that He is in Heaven does He have 'human life, temporary life or eternal life?' If you know and love Jesus He has imparted to you the latter Divine reality--eternal life. [John 10:27-30] When we love Him He promises to us life without end. When did this experience of grace take place; when we believed and trusted in Him with the intent to follow Him as His people.

John also says in St. John 1:12 that people find and have the Son by receiving Him into their hearts and lives. The power of God through regeneration is given to sinners in becoming the sons and daughters of God, by welcoming Jesus into their lives.

As vital as Holy Communion is to all Christians it is not His mode of Divine intervention initially, in bringing people to Himself and received grace.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
How simple a verse can it be. Take it in its context from verse 11 to 13.

12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

If it is not what it says it is than what does it mean? He that has the son has life. No process involved here.
DHK

Your one time saving act of faith belief, that gives you your never to be lost salvation, fails to take into consideration the words "and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God."

If a "saved" person can cease to believe in the name of the Son of God...

...your OSAS belief requires you to say either it is not possible to loose faith (which makes this verse pointless)
</font>[/QUOTE]The verse is not pointless only misunderstood by you because of your blurred vision to the truth, obscured by your indoctination to the false teaching of the RCC.

"that you may continue to believe" is an action stated after the point in time one has already believed, after "he knows he has eternal life." If Thomas had died before he met the risen Saviour but after he made his statement that he would not beleive unless he saw the nail prints of Christ's hands, would he have gone to Heaven?
If Peter had died after he had denied the Lord three times, but before he had a chance to confess that sin of denial, would he have gone to heaven?

Thus the verse says that you may continue to believe, just as Christ wanted Thomas and Peter to continue to believe. "Be not faithless but believing." "O ye of little faith," he rebuked his disciples. Saving faith produces in a person the ability to keep on trusting Christ on a day to day basis. This is what John is referring to, not the possibilty of losing one's salvation. Otherwise verse 12 would not make sense.

Again take my original challenge. Explain verse 12 just on its own merit.
He that hath the Son, hath life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

What does it mean?
DHK

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Justified Saint:
Isn't it funny how us Catholics take the Bible so literal in many places. To think that Jesus actually meant what he said, downright hersey.

But, just like the scriptures there are some that try to twist the Church fathers, taking them out of context, to support their interpretations; James White comes to mind.

Good post!

That is a big can of worms you opened. I hope you are up for it. I would assume you haven’t read Tertullian on baptism. He goes against the pedobaptists. Let us know what you think about what that church father writes on baptism.

If you are a strict literalist then how would you interpret Matthew 8:28-33, Luke 8:26-39, and Mark 5:1-20?

Matthew 8:28-34, “When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way. And they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" Now there was a herd of many swine feeding at a distance from them. The demons began to entreat Him, saying, "If You are going to cast us out, send us into the herd of swine." And He said to them, "Go!" And they came out and went into the swine, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and perished in the waters. The herdsmen ran away, and went to the city and reported everything, including what had happened to the demoniacs . And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw Him, they implored Him to leave their region.

Luke 8:26-39, “Then they sailed to the country of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee. And when He came out onto the land, He was met by a man from the city who was possessed with demons; and who had not put on any clothing for a long time, and was not living in a house, but in the tombs. Seeing Jesus, he cried out and fell before Him, and said in a loud voice, "What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You, do not torment me." For He had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For it had seized him many times; and he was bound with chains and shackles and kept under guard, and yet he would break his bonds and be driven by the demon into the desert. And Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Legion"; for many demons had entered him. They were imploring Him not to command them to go away into the abyss. Now there was a herd of many swine feeding there on the mountain; and the demons implored Him to permit them to enter the swine. And He gave them permission. And the demons came out of the man and entered the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned. When the herdsmen saw what had happened, they ran away and reported it in the city and out in the country. The people went out to see what had happened; and they came to Jesus, and found the man from whom the demons had gone out, sitting down at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind; and they became frightened. Those who had seen it reported to them how the man who was demon-possessed had been made well. And all the people of the country of the Gerasenes and the surrounding district asked Him to leave them, for they were gripped with great fear; and He got into a boat and returned. But the man from whom the demons had gone out was begging Him that he might accompany Him; but He sent him away, saying, "Return to your house and describe what great things God has done for you." So he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him.

Mark 5:1-20, “They came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes. When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him, and he had his dwelling among the tombs. And no one was able to bind him anymore, even with a chain; because he had often been bound with shackles and chains, and the chains had been torn apart by him and the shackles broken in pieces, and no one was strong enough to subdue him. Constantly, night and day, he was screaming among the tombs and in the mountains, and gashing himself with stones. Seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran up and bowed down before Him; and shouting with a loud voice, he said, "What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God, do not torment me!" For He had been saying to him, "Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!" And He was asking him, "What is your name?" And he said to Him, "My name is Legion; for we are many." And he began to implore Him earnestly not to send them out of the country. Now there was a large herd of swine feeding nearby on the mountain. The demons implored Him, saying, "Send us into the swine so that we may enter them." Jesus gave them permission. And coming out, the unclean spirits entered the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea. Their herdsmen ran away and reported it in the city and in the country. And the people came to see what it was that had happened. They came to Jesus and observed the man who had been demon-possessed sitting down, clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the "legion"; and they became frightened. Those who had seen it described to them how it had happened to the demon-possessed man, and all about the swine. And they began to implore Him to leave their region. As He was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed was imploring Him that he might accompany Him. And He did not let him, but He said to him, "Go home to your people and report to them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He had mercy on you." And he went away and began to proclaim in Decapolis what great things Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed.”

You will notice there are two demoniacs in Matthew and one in Mark and Luke.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:


Again take my original challenge. Explain verse 12 just on its own merit.
He that hath the Son, hath life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

What does it mean?

Did that.

It just doesn't agree with your personal interpretation.

BTW the word is "may" continue to believe, not "will for sure" continue to believe.

 

[CatholicConvert]

Well, sorry I didn't perhaps make things clearer in my original post. Been kinda brain dead today.

My original point was that the Bible is what the Church says it is and says only that which the Church says it says.

So.....despite and and all of your interpretations (and Lawdy ain't dere a passel o dem!!), the only interpretation which is correct is the one which the Church says is correct. Therefore, the Church says what the Bible is, and not anyone outside the Church. Therefore, all interpretations which do not agree with that which the Church teaches are not really the Word of God.

Or:

It ain't the Bible till we say it's the Bible.

1John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

How simple a verse can it be. Take it in its context from verse 11 to 13. Explain it. There is not one Catholic on this board that has done so.

Yes, you have eternal life when you believe upon Jesus Christ as Savior. Scripture says so and so does the Church. Where we differ is that you have one of the thousands of twisted interpretations which differs from the Church. You interpret this to mean that a person has "once and forever never to be lost and always eternal life."

That is not what the Bible teaches. We have eternal life because we have the One Who IS eternal life - the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by having Him, we have eternal life. But as I have told you before, that portion is not the whole enchilada. It is merely the downpayment. Scripture calls it the "earnest of our inheritance." meaning that we have a portion of the whole as a downpayment, with the rest to come later if we remain faithful to the conditions set forth in the covenant of God -- the New Covenant

They have come up with ridicule and sarcasm.

I didn't.

They have said "That is your interpretation."

No, we both agree that the Scipture is plain that one has eternal life as a possess. Where you and we differ is that you don't believe that the inheritance can be thrown away. Scripture teaches otherwise, therefore, that part is indeed your interpretation.

If what I explain is wrong then tell me how I am wrong.

Just did, thank you. You don't put it in the context of the New Covenant. You act as if it is a non-covenantal blanket promise which cannot be broken. That is not a covenant. It is something else, for covenants can be broken. God doesn't break His part, but we do indeed break our part.

It also goes against St. Paul's warnings against falling away into apostasy and losing your salvation. Even some Protestants believe this because, sir it is in the Bible

Okay. Your turn. Explain it all away.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Personally, if it weren't for Marian theology and the Cult of Saints, I'd likely be RCC.

Jesus was pretty unambiguous when He spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. The RCC goes too far in trying to explain all of this, but the meaning is clear.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Well, sorry I didn't perhaps make things clearer in my original post. Been kinda brain dead today.

My original point was that the Bible is what the Church says it is and says only that which the Church says it says.

Okay. Your turn. Explain it all away.

Dr. Martin Luther one of the doctors of the RCC didn't think so. He knew the RCC was corrupt at the time.

Sometime just look at the books of the prophets. The Jews thought they were correct but God didn't see it that way and so he raised up prophets. (Rememeber 98 percent of what the prophets said was preaching and not foretelling). I believe Martin Luther was one of those and the RCC did not listen. So God in His sovereignty raised people to lead in a reformation.

Sometime read the 95 theses and Martin Luther's response to their accusations and see if you don't agree. I would be interested in knowing what you think.

You wrote, "Likewise, it was the Church who decided the 73 books of the Bible. In fact, it is the Church which has all authority on Heaven and earth to make authorative and binding moral judgements, and all mankind will be judged according to either their obedience to those declarations or their rebellion against them."

God's people the Jews never accepted the intertestamental books. By the way by what rules did the RCC accept the extra books? There are many more they rejected than accepted.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:


So.....despite and and all of your interpretations (and Lawdy ain't dere a passel o dem!!), the only interpretation which is correct is the one which the Church says is correct. Therefore, the Church says what the Bible is, and not anyone outside the Church. Therefore, all interpretations which do not agree with that which the Church teaches are not really the Word of God.

Okay. Your turn. Explain it all away.

The church is not God on earth. Jesus took care of that. It is not up to us to follow the church. All believers are the church the body of Christ. It is up to the church to follow God. It is not the church that rules, but God.

Remember in Revelation 2 and 3 the writer describes several diferent churches. Which one of those is the Catholic Church?

 

[DCK]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Well, sorry I didn't perhaps make things clearer in my original post. Been kinda brain dead today.

My original point was that the Bible is what the Church says it is and says only that which the Church says it says.

So.....despite and and all of your interpretations (and Lawdy ain't dere a passel o dem!!), the only interpretation which is correct is the one which the Church says is correct. Therefore, the Church says what the Bible is, and not anyone outside the Church. Therefore, all interpretations which do not agree with that which the Church teaches are not really the Word of God.

Or:

It ain't the Bible till we say it's the Bible. ...

That's the standard Catholic doctrine, but why should the rest of us accept it? Nowhere does Jesus set up the church as the sole and final interpreter of Scripture. That's an authority that the RCC has arrogated to itself. As for the correct meaning of John 6:53, symbolism is used elsewhere in this gospel without demanding a literal interpretation (e.g., the "living water" metaphor). John is also a gospel that stresses that the only work we need to do is to believe. We are not compelled to take 6:53 as literal if a symbolic interpretation makes more sense within the larger context.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DCK:
That's the standard Catholic doctrine, but why should the rest of us accept it? Nowhere does Jesus set up the church as the sole and final interpreter of Scripture.

Just curious as to why do you accept the canon of the New Testament, since it was recognized by the Church through the Councils.

Why those particular books and not any that the Church did not deem to be inspired?

In other words, if you reject the authority of the Church, why accept the Bible?

After all, Scripture doesn't give you an inspired table of contents.

 

[CatholicConvert]

The church is not God on earth. Jesus took care of that. It is not up to us to follow the church. All believers are the church the body of Christ. It is up to the church to follow God. It is not the church that rules, but God.

Again, NOT what Jesus said. These are HIS direct words in this regard:

Mt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Men do not hear the voice of God speaking directly to them. The proliferation like lice of Protestant sects, all claiming to have some sort of voice from God, direct revelation, or other knowledge from Him, yet ALL CONTRADICTING EACH OTHER, proves that in spades. Therefore, since men are spiritual deaf and blind, it is necessary to have a body on earth which is led by the Holy Spirit and speaks infallibily on matters of faith and morals.

In other words, ONE Church.

Remember in Revelation 2 and 3 the writer describes several diferent churches. Which one of those is the Catholic Church?

Stop trying to be cute. It makes you look dumb. They were all the Church for they all believed only ONE THING. In other words, they had a "universal" (katholicos) belief. I continue to be amazed at how Protestants 20 centuries after the apostles actually think that the Early Church looked like the MESS we have in the world today.

 

[CatholicConvert]

That's the standard Catholic doctrine, but why should the rest of us accept it?

Because it is the same teaching which Jesus gave the apostles. It is the same teaching that the apostles taught their disciples. It is the same teaching that these disciples faithfully handed down from generation to generation. In other words, if you wish to follow Jesus, you must accept what He taught to the apostles.

Nowhere does Jesus set up the church as the sole and final interpreter of Scripture. That's an authority that the RCC has arrogated to itself.

Wrong again. Matthew 16: 18 - 19 gives the promise that the Church will be protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

As for the correct meaning of John 6:53, symbolism is used elsewhere in this gospel without demanding a literal interpretation (e.g., the "living water" metaphor). John is also a gospel that stresses that the only work we need to do is to believe. We are not compelled to take 6:53 as literal if a symbolic interpretation makes more sense within the larger context.

Then perhaps you can explain to me WHY the apostles taught the literal understanding?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm???

Catholic doctrine has been around since Jesus. Protestantism came along 16 centuries later, yet acts as if it were always taught. Yet there is nothing in the history of the Church or secular records which show us teachings associated with the Protestant Rebellion. Therefore, as I said before, if you wish to follow Jesus and the EXACT TEACHINGS HE TAUGHT, you will become Catholic.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
You don't put it in the context of the New Covenant. You act as if it is a non-covenantal blanket promise which cannot be broken. That is not a covenant. It is something else, for covenants can be broken. God doesn't break His part, but we do indeed break our part.

Okay. Your turn. Explain it all away.

Thank you for your courteous response Brother Ed.
I believe that much of the differences that we have in interpretation is our outlook on Scripture. You view things from a covenantal point of view (covenant theology). Whereas, I view the Bible from a dispensational point of view. The covenants made to Abraham, reaffirmed to Isaac, and Jacob, and to David; mentioned also in Jeremiah, and in almost all of the minor prophets—these covenants were promised to the nation of Israel, and to no one else. Just as the Sabbath Day became a sign of the covenant made to the Jewish nation under Moses and the law.

Exodus 31:12 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
--Christians do not keep the Sabbath for it was a sign to the Jew, to the nation of Israel, between Jehovah and Israel, throughout their generations forever (not gentile believers).

Ex.31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
--Again, it is a perpetual covenant between Jehovah and Israel. It is perpetual, for all generations, for the nation of Israel only. Christianity has nothing to do with it.

Here is the original covenantal promise given to Abraham that has been passed down throughout his generations:
Gen. 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Here the covenantal promise is repeated again, along with the land that Jehovah promises to Abraham and to his descendants.

Gen.13:14 And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.
18 Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD.

The land that Abraham walked over is the land of Israel. The land promised him was actually larger than described here, and larger than what Israel now occupies. It will eventually be given back to the nation of Israel. The covenant is with the nation of Israel, not with Gentile believers, not with the Church.
I suppose this is a bit off topic, but I am posting it to show why I look at the Bible in a dispensational way rather than a covenantal way such as you. When God make a promise to Israel, a covenant, he never broke it. His covenants were always unconditional. Go back to Genesis 12:2-3, the original covenant given to Abraham. In verses 2 and 3 there are no “ifs,” no conditions that are set. It is an unconditional promise that is made to Abraham, just like all His covenants are unconditional.

Jer.31:33 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.
34 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.
--Here again the Lord speaks to Israel, unconditionally. He speaks clearly of a covenant that he makes with the “house of Israel.” The fulfillment of this is still future, as Israel has not yet accepted Christ as their Messiah. They someday will as Paul said in Rom.11:26. They shall all be saved. The Lord will write His law in their hearts, and once again be their God. For now they have been set aside, but that will not be for always. I will forgive their iniquity, He says. It is an unconditional covenant and will be unconditionally fulfilled.

The church (believers in Christ) can in no way consider themselves as Israelites. They are not part of these covenants, or the fulfillment thereof. God will fulfill his covenant with the Jewish nation, not with us. We have benefited and have been blessed by the covenant with Abraham. It was through the Jews that the Word of God came. It was through the Jews that the Messiah came. They rejected Him at that time, but in the future will receive Him. In the meantime God is calling out a nation unto Himself. That is, in this dispensation of grace (not law), He is calling a nation unto Himself.

1Pet.2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
--This nation is composed of all who believe in the gospel message: receiving Christ as Saviour on the basis of His shed blood and substitutionary atonement. We are not Israel, but rather Christians. We have not entered via a covenant, but by faith. Eternal life is a gift of God, given at the point of salvation, when a person receives Christ.

Eph.2:8,9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.
--What is the gift of God? Salvation is the gift of God.
Romans 6:23 further identifies the gift of God as eternal life. Thus eternal life is given when one is saved. The problem with your explanation of these and verses such as 1John 5:11-13, is that if eternal life could be lost then eternal would not be eternal; it would only be temporal and Jesus Christ would be found a liar. He promised eternal life (especially in John 10:27-30 and 5:24). If eternal life could end at any point in the Christian life it would only be temporal.

John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
--A thief is a false religious leader or teacher. He comes to steal, kill, and destroy the individual’s spiritual life. Jesus comes that you might have life, not only the joyful life of the Christian here on earth, but an abundant life both here on earth and in Heaven.

Rom.8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
--The believer in Christ is made an heir of God and a joint-heir with Christ; not through a covenant, but by faith in Jesus Christ; for by grace are ye saved through faith. As an heir we have been granted many blessings here no earth, many privileges, and have already been given many things. We have already been given eternal life. We shall enjoy our mansion in Heaven after our death, and even more so after the resurrection. But eternal life starts the minute I am saved.

Rom.8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
--As heirs, he freely gives us all things: not through a covenant but by faith.

Thus,
“He that hath the Son hath life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.”
There is no covenant involved. There is no process involved. It is a one time action taken by the individual when he believes on Christ by faith, and thus enters into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The gift of God is eternal life, not temporal. Eternal life cannot be lost.
DHK

 

[CatholicConvert]

Thank you for your courteous response Brother Ed.

You're welcome. The tone and tenor of your questions in this thread is also much appreciated on our side.

I believe that much of the differences that we have in interpretation is our outlook on You view things from a covenantal point of view (covenant theology). Whereas, I view the Bible from a dispensational point of view.

That really is it. DHK, since our Lord Himself said He was establishing the New Covenant in His Blood, am I so wrong to view His work through the lenses of covenantalism?

The covenants made to Abraham, reaffirmed to Isaac, and Jacob, and to David; mentioned also in Jeremiah, and in almost all of the minor prophets—these covenants were promised to the nation of Israel, and to no one else. Just as the Sabbath Day became a sign of the covenant made to the Jewish nation under Moses and the law.

Quite right. And St. Paul makes mention of the fact that we are now the "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16) and the children of Abraham (Gal. 3: 8) The Church was not viewed as something different from Judaism, but the fulfillment and continuation of Judaism, but in the fulfillment of Christ.

Christians do not keep the Sabbath for it was a sign to the Jew, to the nation of Israel, between Jehovah and Israel, throughout their generations forever (not gentile believers).

Agreed. Shame we cannot get the SDA's present to understand that this part of the law was under the Old Covenant and to a specific people -- the Jews.

Ex.31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

--Again, it is a perpetual covenant between Jehovah and Israel. It is perpetual, for all generations, for the nation of Israel only. Christianity has nothing to do with it.

Ah ah!! No no no. Remember, covenants are CONDITIONAL. The term perpetual covenant means that the TERMS of the covenant are unchangeable. But like all covenants, this one can be broken.

The land that Abraham walked over is the land of Israel. The land promised him was actually larger than described here, and larger than what Israel now occupies. It will eventually be given back to the nation of Israel. The covenant is with the nation of Israel, not with Gentile believers, not with the Church.

Yes, and God gave them all that he had promised. I remember reading a paper a couple of years ago which showed how God had fulfilled all that He had promised. But the Jews lost it.

I suppose this is a bit off topic, but I am posting it to show why I look at the Bible in a dispensational way rather than a covenantal way such as you. When God make a promise to Israel, a covenant, he never broke it.

His covenants were always unconditional. Go back to Genesis 12:2-3, the original covenant given to Abraham. In verses 2 and 3 there are no “ifs,” no conditions that are set. It is an unconditional promise that is made to Abraham, just like all His covenants are unconditional.[/quote]

Sorry. That is not a covenant, pure and simple. Go read Deuteronomy 28. That is the description of how a covenant works. It can be broken by either side.

Again, I make mention of Ray Sutton's very excellent book on this THAT YOU MAY PROSPER. Still online and still can be read free of charge. You really should read it.

The church (believers in Christ) can in no way consider themselves as Israelites. They are not part of these covenants, or the fulfillment thereof. God will fulfill his covenant with the Jewish nation, not with us.

Again, profound disagreement. The name "Is ra el" means "the people of God". The people of God is anyone who belongs to the covenantal nation. You are confusing ethnicity (being a Jew) with faith (being an Israelite -- a person of faith.)

1Pet.2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

One of my favorite verses to show that God has now shifted the title "Israelite" to the Church. Notice the correlation between the wording in 1 Peter 2:9 and Exodus 19:6. The language is identical.

Brother Ed