The Father Of (Partial Preterism) A Catholic Jesuit "Luis De Alcasar" (1554-1613)

[Light of the East]

Answer my question, please. Why did the Apostles teach the priesthood? You still haven't answered the question.

 

[BABerean2]

Answer my question, please. Why did the Apostles teach the priesthood? You still haven't answered the question.

"priesthood" in the New Testament

Heb_7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Heb_7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Heb_7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Heb_7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Heb_7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

1Pe_2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1Pe_2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

.

 

[Light of the East]

"priesthood" in the New Testament

Heb_7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Heb_7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Heb_7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Heb_7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Heb_7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

1Pe_2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1Pe_2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Throwing verses at someone is not debate or conversation. You can make a verse say anything you want, especially when you take it out of context of the rest of the Bible.

The "perfection" which is being spoken of is in regards to the establishment of the New Covenant and the eternal Yom Kippur which Christ offers for the whole world. That is the context of what is being said. As I mentioned before: A.) Hebrews 7-10 is about Christ as Great High Priest, not about the priesthood of the Levites which is to minister to individual sins. B.) Christ is show offering Yom Kippur in Hebrews, therefore, that is what is being addressed there. C.) God established the priesthood and not man, therefore, it is up to Him to remove it if He pleases, and not for us to simply say "It is over." Especially by taking a single verse out of context.

In regards to Hebrews 7:24, again, the issue is that Christ is shown to be the Great High Priest before the Father. Context. You keep jerking stuff out of context.

1 Peter 2:9 I showed you the correlating verse in Exodus in which the same thing is said, yet the structure in the Old Covenant was set up with mediatorial priests and a high priest. Just because the whole nation was a nation of priests did not change the priesthood in the Old Covenant.

And the Apostles knew all this. They should have written "There is no such thing as priests anymore...." but they didn't. They taught it and established "presbuteros" (priests) in every town where they went.

 

[BABerean2]

And the Apostles knew all this. They should have written "There is no such thing as priests anymore...." but they didn't. They taught it and established "presbuteros" (priests) in every town where they went.

And those priests are all of those who placed their faith in Christ, based on 1 Peter 2:4-10.

The man in this video was a Roman Catholic "priest" for 22 years.

.

 

[David Kent]

An earthly priest acts "in persona Christi," that is, it is Christ who is in the priest who forgives the sin, not the priest himself. So you are technically right about that, but we are still commanded to confess our sins to an earthly priest, just as they did in the Old Covenant. That has not changed at all, and we know this because in John 20:23, Christ gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins, meaning that they had to hear them confessed first.

"An earthly priest acts "in persona Christi," that is, it is Christ who is in the priest who forgives the sin, not the priest himself. "

That is just error upon error and pure heresy. There are no earthly priests who can forgive sins, show us from scripture if you disagree.

We are not commanded to confess to a priest but to each other and to God.

• James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Who do we confess to? Each other.

• 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

We confess to Christ and he will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. No one else can.

 

[David Kent]

And the Apostles knew all this. They should have written "There is no such thing as priests anymore...." but they didn't. They taught it and established "presbuteros" (priests) in every town where they went.

No they didn't they established elders, incidentally, they should be married to one wife,

 

[Light of the East]

No they didn't they established elders, incidentally, they should be married to one wife,

So where did the priests come from?

And in the Orthodox Church they are the husband of one wife.

 

[David Kent]

So where did the priests come from?

And in the Orthodox Church they are the husband of one wife.

You tell us. Not from scripture that is for sure.

 

[Light of the East]

Show us where the apostles established a priesthood. Of course they didn't.

"Ignatius’ letters, written likely in the first decade of second century, testify to this. Over and again he advises the churches in Smyrna, Rome, Tralles, etc., about ecclesial authority. He tells the Christians in Ephesus, for instance, to “obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind” (Ephesians 20) and directs the believers in Smyrna to “follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God” (Smyrnaeans 8). (My note: why obey if they have no authority over you?)

Oddly, Wills makes only passing reference to Ignatius and then mainly to echo the weary canard about his efforts to impose such an ecclesial system on the primitive church. Rather than seeing Ignatius as evidence of a wider pattern of priestly and episcopal authority, Wills regards him as a radical innovator and outlier.

But this is farfetched.

Imposition? I don’t think so

When Polycarp, the bishop at Smyrna, exhorted the church at Philippi regarding martyrdom he counted Ignatius’ example with that of Paul and the other apostles. He commended Ignatius’ letters as dealing “with faith and endurance and all the edification which belongs to our Lord.” These letters were not pushed upon the Philippians. They requested copies. Accordingly, Polycarp sent them along saying, “You will be able to benefit greatly from them” (9.1, 13).

Worth noting: Polycarp — soon to be martyred himself — was hardly one for novelty. His extant writing is primarily a pastiche of quotes from Christ and the apostles. In one short letter he makes more than fifty such quotes and allusions.

In other words, these were leaders whose ministries were consonant with the men who laid the very foundation of the church. They understood themselves as following their example. Others did as well.

The imposition charge seems especially absurd when you realize that churches separated by both doctrine and geography (the ancient Latin, Coptic, Celtic, Palestinian, North African, Ethiopian, Armenian, Syrian, and Indian churches) all possessed the same basic structure and understanding of church authority. It was and remains universal. (MY NOTE : In other words, they all had priests. From where did they learn this except from the Apostles who went out into the four corners of the Roman Empire and taught this?)

On these and other points, one is left with the impression that Wills’ argument has less to do with history, theology, or hermeneutics and more to do with some sort of personal grudge."


Again, the problem you have is that St. Paul speaks of bishops (episcopos) and priests (presbuteroi) in his epistles. And by the second century, these were established as authorities in the Church. Where else could they have learned it from except the Apostles who taught them?

 

[Light of the East]

You tell us. Not from scripture that is for sure.

I just told you. St. Paul speaks of priests and bishops in his epistles.

 

[Light of the East]

And those priests are all of those who placed their faith in Christ, based on 1 Peter 2:4-10.

The man in this video was a Roman Catholic "priest" for 22 years.

SO....
WHAT....?

I am supposed to be impressed by the words of one single apostate vs the writings of centuries of the Early Fathers who defended the Trinity against heresy??? The men of the first five centuries of the Church who put together the canon of Scripture, defended against heresies, and built the Church?

That will be the day!!!!

 

[BABerean2]

SO....
WHAT....?

I am supposed to be impressed by the words of one single apostate vs the writings of centuries of the Early Fathers who defended the Trinity against heresy??? The men of the first five centuries of the Church who put together the canon of Scripture, defended against heresies, and built the Church?

That will be the day!!!!

Since you have used words like "apostate" and "heresy", do you believe that only those who are members of the Roman Catholic Church will gain eternal life through faith in Christ?

Do you believe all Protestants are doomed to hell?

.

 

[Light of the East]

Since you have used words like "apostate" and "heresy", do you believe that only those who are members of the Roman Catholic Church will gain eternal life through faith in Christ?

Do you believe all Protestants are doomed to hell?

That is up to God, not me, to say. I make no judgments on this. BTW - FYI once again, I am NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC, but rather Orthodox in my theology and understanding of God and His salvation program for mankind.

I'm sure you know that there are Traddies on all sides of the coin who readily and eagerly condemn all who do not accept their version of God to an eternal fiery hell. Traddie Roman Catholics and Holy Orthodox do it. So do Fundamentalists. I was a Bob Jones Fundamentalist for 13 years and I heard our pastor even condemn other Fundamentalists to hell who didn't "toe the line" with respect to certain teachings in Fundamentalism.

Now if you want my personal belief, my hope and prayer is that what St. Isaac the Syrian taught (along with other Early Fathers) is true - that God will eventually save ALL MANKIND. Everyone who has ever lived, no exceptions! Some will go into the presence of God and find it joy, warmth, and blessing, while others will find it dreadful pain and suffering due to their sins.

In Orthodoxy, we believe that God brings all back to Himself, but only those who have lived lives of repentance, loving God, service to others, etc. will find it enjoyable. Think of fire (the Bible describes our God as a burning fire - it is His passionate love). The same fire that blesses steel and tempers it, making it hard, durable, and useful, torments wood. Sinners will be tormented by being in the presence of God. The only issue, as I see it (and I don't know here) is if what St. Isaac said, that the torment is restorative rather than retributive. Does it cleanse the sinner and make him fit for heaven, or is it just eternal and never-ending punishment?

Can't say much more because the discussion of apokatastasis is supposed to be in a special room in this forum. Trying to keep the rules and not get banned.

 

[BABerean2]

I was a Bob Jones Fundamentalist for 13 years and I heard our pastor even condemn other Fundamentalists to hell who didn't "toe the line" with respect to certain teachings in Fundamentalism.

I was once a deacon in a church with the same theology as Bob Jones Fundys.
However, I could not get my Bible to line up with modern Dispensational Theology.
When I did some research on the origins of the doctrine I discovered that it was less than 200 years old. I then had to wonder why nobody had told me this fact.

One of my fellow deacons told me that there were only two choices.
Either Dispensational Theology or Reformed Covenant Theology.
Then I discovered that both of these systems of interpretation run into problems in Galatians chapter 3.
Paul said the promises were made only to the one seed in Galatians 3:16.
Later Paul said that the Sinai Covenant was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed (Christ) could come to whom the promise was made.
Therefore, the man who told me that there were only two choices was wrong, because what he said did not agree with scripture.

Since that time I have had to abandon some of what I once believed, because it came from men.

Have you ever taken the time to look at the New Covenant of Christ in detail?


New Covenant Theology Made Simple: Jeremiah 31:31-34,
David H. J. Gay Ministry

David H. J. Ministry (Short Articles on the New Covenant)
David H J Gay Ministry


The New Covenant: Bob George

Overview of Covenants: Abraham to Christ, David H J Gay

.

 

[Light of the East]

Okay, I get it. It is written on the heart instead of on tablets of stone. Boy, he really drills that theme, doesn't he?

Okay, but here's the problem. God established His Covenant with a specific group - His Church, or congregation. We see this in Leviticus 16, where once a year, sacrifice was made for the congregation in the ritual of Yom Kippur. To enter the Covenant Congregation, one went through a ritual of covenant-making. This still happens today. In the Old Covenant, that ritual was circumcision. In the New Covenant, that ritual is now baptism. Baptism makes you part of the covenant community, even if you are outside the physical boundaries of the Church which Christ established on the Apostles. Baptism works (or as the Roman Church says "ex opere operato").

So seeing that God established a covenant community in the desert under Moses, and seeing that this community, referred to as the Kingdom of God in Scripture, was changed from national Israel to the New Covenant congregation (aka "the Church"), is this man part of the Church which Christ established upon the Apostles (Holy Orthodoxy).

Or has he, like so many others, read the Bible and figures that he has the right understanding and 2,000 years of Christianity, including the Early Fathers, is just so much fluff and nonsense? I would bet on the latter.

I'll go to the second video now.

 

[Light of the East]

The New Covenant: Bob George

After going to David Gay's website and listening to a few minutes of this presentation, I am assuming that you are a Reformed Baptist?

 

[BABerean2]

The New Covenant: Bob George

After going to David Gay's website and listening to a few minutes of this presentation, I am assuming that you are a Reformed Baptist?

No.

Because the Reformed Baptists took the Westminster Confession of Faith and changed parts on baptism, but kept errors.

They claim the ten commandments were given to Adam, before the fall.
Adam would not have understood adultery, or stealing, or having a mother.

Based on Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 5:1-3 the 10 commandments were not given before Mount Sinai.

Exo 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.


Deu 5:1 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
Deu 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
Deu 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

Adam was given one commandment.

"Do not eat of the tree of..."



Therefore, the Westminster Confession, and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith are wrong.

.

 

[BABerean2]

In the New Covenant, that ritual is now baptism. Baptism makes you part of the covenant community, even if you are outside the physical boundaries of the Church which Christ established on the Apostles.

Which baptism makes you are part of the New Covenant?

.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="BABerean2, No.

Because the Reformed Baptists took the Westminster Confession of Faith and changed parts on baptism, but kept errors.

They claim the Ten Commandments were given to Adam, before the fall. Adam would not have understood adultery, or stealing, or having a mother.

You're kidding!!!! That's ....... bizarre!

Based on Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 5:1-3 the 10 commandments were not given before Mount Sinai.

Yup.

Adam was given one commandment.

"Do not eat of the tree of..."

Question (to see if we are on the same page) What covenant principle was this commandment?

Therefore, the Westminster Confession, and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith are wrong.

Yeah, that's pretty messed up.

BTW - So what are you?

 

[Light of the East]

Which baptism makes you are part of the New Covenant?

I bet I know what you are going to say even before I watch the video - spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit, right?

Sorry, that won't fly.

The reason is that this idea is semi-Gnostic, i.e., the idea that the flesh is worthless and only those things which are "of the spirit" have value. This is the same reasoning by which I would imagine that you reject the use of the Sacraments.

But think on it - we are tripartite beings, that is, spirit, soul, and BODY. Our bodies are every bit part of our worship and relationship to the Lord as our spirit and souls are. To say that our bodies are not involved in the covenant-making process is to deny that the body has any value, and taking that thought to its epistemological end, there is no need for the resurrection of the body at the end of time!!

Also, the idea of a "spiritual baptism" violates one of the principles of covenant-making - oaths and sanctions. The reason for public baptism is that it is done in the presence of witnesses who can be called to testify in a case of covenant-breaking by either party. This is why we have people at a baptism. Not to oh and ah over the baby, but to remind the child as he grows of his vows of faithfulness and if he apostatizes, to bring these witnesses against him in a covenant-breaking adjudication.

The principles of covenant-making in the Scriptures follow the ancient Suzerainty Kingship Covenants of the Middle East. Understand them, (read Ray Sutton's book) and you will understand the principles and why things are done the way they are done.