View Single Post
  #6  
Old 02-16-2009, 11:12 PM
stephanos's Avatar
stephanos stephanos is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wenatchee WA
Posts: 885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chette777 View Post
Well Peters writings are considered tribulational by most dispensationalists. we may and so did others offer up spiritual sacrifices that were not priests at all. they application is there but no support from Paul means that it just not a Doctrine. So it will have spiritual application and personal application.

The Doctrine would be "that we are called Priests" and we as the body are never called that. but we are for sure part of the Body of the Great High Priest, and Author of Eternal Salvation.

concerning the resurrection of the martyred saints in Rev 20 they are said to be, "they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." but these ones priesthood is only for 1,000.
Yeah, well I'm just not convinced that Peter's epistles are to be disregarded as Tribulational. Peter had been taught by Paul (well rebuked is a better work) and also knew of what God was doing with the Gentiles. Peter also comments on Paul's letters as if he's read them. I also imagine Peter had fellowship with Paul in Rome, since they both died there. I don't believe, or rather, am not convinced, that Peter's epistles are all out Tribulational. I think they are unique, and they have remnants of his pre-Pauline Kingdom of Heaven doctrine in them, but never the less I'm not so eager to disregard what I read in them. To me, with a book of the Bible such as this, one must compare it with other Scriptures to see if it contradicts what Paul writes. I don't see it doing this. The parallels this particular passage of Scripture has with those found in Paul's letters are no coincidence to me.

Also, you have got to stop saying something is not a Doctrine. That simply makes no sense. Everything in the Scripture is a doctrine. You must makes sure that you clarify what you mean Chette or else you will run the risk of rubbing folks the wrong way who don't know what you're talking about and have no knowledge of Dispensations. A better way to say it would be "not an applicable Church age doctrine". The reason I say this is because of:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16 KJV)

Doctrine is essentially a teaching. All Scripture is good for teaching. So, just take it from someone who was vehemently anti-dispensationalism that the distinction needs to be spelled out when you say "not a Doctrine".

Peace and Love,
Stephen