What charge ...

[Tychicum]

You are right!! It isn't rocket science, but nor is it spiritual discernment, it is spiritual apostasy.

Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, with which he opened up to the Jews in Acts 2, to the Samaritans in Acts 8, and to the Gentiles in Acts 10.

Again your assumptions are invalid.

GLJCA

But what is the kingdom of heaven?

Another catholic ... ? We seem to be waste deep ...

.

 

[heymikey80]

Ah. I see now ...

So apparently you don't know what catholic means, much less apostolic.

That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him. ... And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Ep 1:10, 22,23
​

I guess given the rest of mid-acts dispensational defenses around here, I'm not surprised one hasn't considered the Scripture on the matter of the catholicity of Christ's church.

The Pope is the elder of the church in Rome. More attacks by association and misinformation -- a sad thing to build a theology on. After months of interchanges, that seems to me to be what most of mid-acts dispensationalism is built on.

The Apostles Creed ... ever read it? "I believe one holy catholic and apostolic church ..."

The Reformers -- no Pope followers, they -- embraced the Apostles Creed, and impressed it upon their churches in worship.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

By the way ... I do believe that "the sons of God" and "mixed it up" with the "daughters of men".

But not because of Enoch alone. But because it is supported in OTHER scriptural accounts.

If that is where you are headed.

.

Tychicum,
I can give you links to many cults who use the Scriptures and are in as much darkness as anyone of anytime has ever been in. Because Enoch is quoted on a site which is not christian is of no value in measuring the writings of Enoch as we do not measure the value of the bible because it is quoted and used by many in false religions.

I do believe we have the actual writings of Enoch in 1 Enoch -with a fragment from Noah- and Jude believed so also; but the point I bring Enoch up on this forum for is that Enoch was read and quoted and used as Scripture by the early Church and continued to be used in Ethiopia as Scripture after it was banned by the Roman Church in the 400's, and the writings of 1 Enoch totally refute the doctrine of MAD -totally absolutely refute without one iota of doubt, as the Hidden in God Son of Man who was "from the beginning' and 'concealed", kept secret, until His revealing to the elect was the Anointed One of the whole earth who was to come and was the Judge of the earth who would judge the secrets of all men's hearts and who would send the wicked to everlasting fire and give everlasting life and garments of glory to the righteous -who chose to live the "elect" life, and who would remake the earth and give it to the righteous to inherit forever -and so on.

 

[Tychicum]

Tychicum,
I can give you links to many cults who use the Scriptures and are in as much darkness as anyone of anytime has ever been in..

I have no doubt ...

 

[Tychicum]

So apparently you don't know what catholic means, much less apostolic..

I know that I would rather be called almost anything other than catholic ... if "usual" use of the term is applied.



To quote Sir Robert Anderson ...

. There is, indeed, in our day a spurious liberality that would teach us to forego the indictment which history affords against the Church of Rome; but while no generous mind will refuse to own the moral worth of those who, in England at least, now guide the counsels of that Church, the real question at issue relates to the character, not of individuals, but of a system.

It is the part, therefore, not of intolerant bigotry, but of true wisdom, to search the records of the past – terrible records, truly – for the means of judging of that system. The inquiry which concerns us is not whether good men are found within the pale of Rome – as though all the moral excellence of earth could avail to cover the annals of her hideous guilt! Our true inquiry is whether she has suffered any real change in these enlightened days. Is the Church of Rome reformed? With what vehemence the answer would be shrieked from every altar within her pale! And if not, let but dark days come again, and some of the foulest scenes and blackest crimes in the history of Christendom may be re-enacted in Europe. "The true test of a man is not what he does, but what, with the principles he holds, he would do;" and if this be true of individuals, it is still more intensely true of communities. They do good service, therefore, who keep before the public mind the real character of Rome as the present day development of the apostasy.

There will be many "catholic" persons saved and in heaven ... but little thanks to the organization which calls itself "catholic".

Any who forget the martyred should be ashamed ... Further, I know that many of that catholic "succession" ... specially those of the dark ages of the inquisition ... will in all probability be doing laps in that prophetic lake ...

But to be fair to my catholic friends ... for what it's worth ... I am pretty set against all forms of sectarianism or so called "denominationalism".

The Roman bunch are just easier targets.

.

 

[GLJCA]

But what is the kingdom of heaven?

Another catholic ... ? We seem to be waste deep ...

.

Nope you missed that one. I am catholic. I do belong to the catholic(universal) Church of Jesus Christ but not to the Roman Catholic Church. One does not have to be a Roman Catholic to say that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, the Bible says that.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This is also used in church discipline, which is another topic that you will probably think is foreign.
Mat 18:17-18 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. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Now on to your question.

The kingdom of heaven is where the elect of God throughout all the ages will spend eternity with Christ. Included in the elect are all the OT believers and all the NT believers.
Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Since everyone to the east of Israel was Gentile and everyone to the west of Israel was Gentile then Jesus was speaking of Gentiles sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.

Paul trusted the Lord to preserve him unto His heavenly kingdom, so he expected to be there also.
2Ti 4:18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve [me] unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are used interchangably.
Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Luk 13:29 And they shall come from the east, and [from] the west, and from the north, and [from] the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
JEWS AND GENTILES WILL ALL BE IN THE SAME KINGDOM.

GLJCA

 

[Tychicum]

Nope you missed that one.

You are confusing the kingdoms. ...

Plural.

You must disbelieve God when He said He will fulfill promises made for a physical kingdom to Israel. That kingdom of which is the subject of about 65% of all prophecy which is yet to be fulfilled.

FWIW I take Him for an honest God who will keep each and every promise. Jot and tittle.

So you may begin your investigation by examining exactly what is God's "kingdom" ... in context of His various promises. Is it something literal ... ? A kingdom physically on earth with Israel as a kingdom of priests. The 12 sitting on 12 thrones and judging the 12 tribes.

Or you may simply disbelieve that His promises will be fulfilled literally.

Many propose He was just "blowing smoke".

He ... being All Mighty ... omniscient ... and knowing the future perfectly ... was just making false promises to Israel of a land and their being the apple of His eye ... not intending on a literal fulfilment all along ... but just leading them to believe He would keep his Word.

The majority view ... no doubt.

... the rest of us who believe in a literal fulfilment of a physical Kingdom in addition to his Eternal "Kingdom" consisting of Angels and all kinds of worlds which we know nothing about ... as are simply a remnant.

.

 

[heymikey80]

I know that I would rather be called almost anything other than catholic ... if "usual" use of the term is applied.

It's often useful to discover the meaning of the words you're bantering with before trying to use them.

There are plenty of catholic churches which are not ultramontaines as the Roman Catholic church is. Just disliking people because we use the word properly, that just makes you ... well, wrong. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

There is an Anglican Catholic church, for instance. The Eastern Orthodox church considers itself a Catholic church as well. And there are others.

And all churches of Christ that were founded by Apostles called themselves "catholic" from early on.

You're going to have to join with Christians who were part of the catholic church. Not Roman Catholic -- but catholic nonetheless. Without Christians entering the faith from Jesus and Paul's ministries, it really wouldn't make sense.

 

[Tychicum]

It's often useful to discover the meaning of the words you're bantering with before trying to use them.

There are plenty of catholic churches which are not ultramontaines as the Roman Catholic church is. Just disliking people because we use the word properly, that just makes you ... well, wrong. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

There is an Anglican Catholic church, for instance. The Eastern Orthodox church considers itself a Catholic church as well. And there are others.

And all churches of Christ that were founded by Apostles called themselves "catholic" from early on.

You're going to have to join with Christians who were part of the catholic church. Not Roman Catholic -- but catholic nonetheless. Without Christians entering the faith from Jesus and Paul's ministries, it really wouldn't make sense.

Oh I know the meaning of the term. As for the others who use the term they are not much different.

I am not a big fan of the organized "Church" as you might tell. As a matter of fact humanity for the most part is a failure.

The Scripture record is an account of the repeated failure of man and the present dispensation is no exception.

Prophecy tells us it is going to get worse (although at times it is hard to imagine) ... If you subscribe to the opinion of most the description included in the epistles section of the Book of Revelation we are now in the Laodicea "era" ...

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
(Rev 3:14-16)

Sounds like John was not a big fan of 21st century catholic churches either ...



†

 

[heymikey80]

Oh I know the meaning of the term. As for the others who use the term they are not much different.

Ah, the Baptist London Confession and the Westminster Confession are "right out", in addition to churches like those in the time of Irenaeus & Augustine.

I am not a big fan of the organized "Church" as you might tell. As a matter of fact humanity for the most part is a failure.

Ah. Do you appreciate the Scripture actually organizing churches in different areas, holding councils, etc.?

The Scripture record is an account of the repeated failure of man and the present dispensation is no exception.

And are you any different? It doesn't seem to me a good argument to defect from something that you're entangled in as well.

Prophecy tells us it is going to get worse (although at times it is hard to imagine) ... If you subscribe to the opinion of most the description included in the epistles section of the Book of Revelation we are now in the Laodicea "era" ...

I don't think it's an accurate interpretation of Revelation. It's certainly not a literal interpretation of the letters to the churches. I often wonder how a dispensationalist can assert they're more literal and yet take on the baggage of such a non-literal view of these letters.

 

[Tychicum]

Ah, the Baptist London Confession and the Westminster Confession are "right out", in addition to churches like those in the time of Irenaeus & Augustine.

<sigh> it is sad isn't it?

In one of Paul's last letters ...

2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me;

I wonder what he means by all ... or what he means by Asia. All certainly means a lot of them ... and Asia certainly covers a lot of area.

Ah. Do you appreciate the Scripture actually organizing churches in different areas, holding councils, etc.?

And are you any different? It doesn't seem to me a good argument to defect from something that you're entangled in as well.

The church I go to is as apostate as the rest. I go for the fellowship not because they actually teach anything. Like Opra ... but only on Sunday morning.

I'm not altogether sure the Pastor believes much of the Scriptures ... I think he is a closet Historist and perhaps doesn't actually believe in prophecy. No telling as he doesn't actually preach anything substantial. As a sport in my youth I used to debate in Usenet groups different pastors and I can tell you straight up that most of them are not very familiar with the Scripture outside of their narrow denominational teachings. They as you suggest are quite familiar with the creed such as the Westminister Confession ... but the Reformation was not the end all of thought ... and they are frightened to turn to any issue outside of the creed.

[/quote] I don't think it's an accurate interpretation of Revelation. It's certainly not a literal interpretation of the letters to the churches. I often wonder how a dispensationalist can assert they're more literal and yet take on the baggage of such a non-literal view of these letters.[/QUOTE]I tend to agree. I think the letters are yet prophetic like the rest of Revelation.

However it is a standard dispensational quip that the letters refer to different ages within the church... each age is now history except the last ... this lukewarm bunch.

One can not rule out double or even triple fulfilment however ...

hey ... ever read the thesis "the greatest failure of the church" by Scofield? I will dig up a copy and post a new thread. Just for you.

 

[heymikey80]

You mentioned the church you go to. You didn't mention yourself. Do you consider yourself different? It does admittedly sound like it.

Did Jesus institute a church?

 

[Tychicum]

You mentioned the church you go to. You didn't mention yourself. Do you consider yourself different? It does admittedly sound like it.

Oh I suppose we are all different. I just don't accept things unless I feel they are actually supported in Scripture ... the traditions of men not being very trustworthy and all.

But yes there are few which would agree with me on everything ... as I have found few to agree with on everything. In the end I suppose I will have much right and much wrong ... but I hope to be given recognition for trying anyway.

Did Jesus institute a church?

When? Not when He was on earth He didn't. He came with a purpose and it was under the law to fulfil promises made to the fathers. Circumcision being Jews ... fathers being Jewish ancestors ...

Rom 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers

What is a "church" by the way? The word translated "church" (the word in the Greek is "Ecclesia"), but all ecclesia really means is a "called-out assembly."

The word is used in various ways of terminology. Stephen referred to that church which was in the wilderness. It was not a church as we understand the word `church,' but it was a "called-out assembly." It was Israel called out of Egypt and so was an ecclesia.

But up in Ephesus when the mob got out of control because of Paul's preaching the Gospel and it was affecting so many of the pagans that they were beginning to throw away their idols, the silversmiths precipitated a riot and they ended up in the amphitheater and it, too, was called an ecclesia. It certainly wasn't a church or anything godly. But it was still called an ecclesia - a called-out assembly.

The word "Body of Christ" is what describes us accurately. And yes it is a called out assembly ... but much more.

†

 

[heymikey80]

... but I hope to be given recognition for trying anyway.

That would be extra-salvific, wouldn't it. It just about has to be if God's giving "recognition for trying", right?

When? Not when He was on earth He didn't. He came with a purpose and it was under the law to fulfil promises made to the fathers. Circumcision being Jews ... fathers being Jewish ancestors ...

Always interesting to look at that from Scripture.

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Mt 16:18

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. John 10:16
​

What is a "church" by the way? The word translated "church" (the word in the Greek is "Ecclesia"), but all ecclesia really means is a "called-out assembly."

Hm. "all [it] really means"? 'ecclesia' has plenty of meanings and implications from its uses in Greek.

In a Christian context it's the assembly Jesus instituted. It means something, does it not? It's not just any group of people who gather themselves together.

That's what Paul said, so I'm stickin' with it:

And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. Ep 1:22-23
​

The word is used in various ways of terminology. Stephen referred to that church which was in the wilderness. It was not a church as we understand the word `church,' but it was a "called-out assembly." It was Israel called out of Egypt and so was an ecclesia.

Yes, a specific group of people.

The common usage of "church" isn't at all what's meant in Scripture's ecclesia. But it's not deprived of specific implications for its special position. It's not just any group called together.

But up in Ephesus when the mob got out of control because of Paul's preaching the Gospel and it was affecting so many of the pagans that they were beginning to throw away their idols, the silversmiths precipitated a riot and they ended up in the amphitheater and it, too, was called an ecclesia. It certainly wasn't a church or anything godly. But it was still called an ecclesia - a called-out assembly.

Yes, it's that particular assembly that would hold power of decisions in a democratic Greek city-state.

The word "Body of Christ" is what describes us accurately. And yes it is a called out assembly ... but much more.

The Christian assembly is identified as the Body of Christ. They would then be equivalent, and specially called-out because of their identification as the Body of Christ and institution by Christ Jesus.