Rebaptism?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Darrell C, Jun 29, 2016.

  1. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Okay, an interesting enough topic, which has a number of issues that might be discussed. And since the other thread closed, and the discussion wasn't finished, I will kick this off with a few of the posts that went unanswered.


    This one is addressed to someone else other than myself, but, it is an interesting assertion and and even more interesting response:

    This member believes that men did not go into Heaven at death, his reasoning that Messiah had not come and redeemed them (implied). He also makes the point that the New Covenant is far superior, something few would disagree with. I agree with both these points. I do not agree with the statement concerning "not all of them experiencing the Holy Spirit," because all believers in the Old Testament certainly did experience the Holy Spirit. But, the distinction between the ministry of the Holy Ghost under the (Covenant of) of Law and the ministry of the Holy Ghost in this current Age, under the New Covenant, is quite different. In both Ages believers "experience" the Holy Ghost, but only in this Age are believers Eternally indwelt.

    Here is the response, and I will give the link in the first quote:

    First, we see the same false argument this member reiterates consistently, even though he has been told numerous times that those of us that make the distinctions Christ makes between the Covenants (as well as the Apostles, as well as Prophecy itself) that men have always been saved by grace through faith.

    Look at this closely...

    No, your position does not have them "savED" at all but only THE PROMISE of FUTURE salvation.


    The fact is, even though they were saved, they still anticipated future salvation even as we do.

    Did someone just gasp? lol

    That's right, we, born again believers, await future salvation. I don't know about you, but my own body is beginning to break down. I highly anticipate salvation from the presence of sin, and that body which is made by God. In other words, we await the future redemption of our bodies.

    There is no difference between being saved and not eternally redeemed, and being saved and being eternally redeemed (through Christ's Work) and both still awaiting future salvation. Salvation does not reach its cculmination until we are in the Eternal State. Doesn't mean we aren't saved.

    And it doesn't mean that the Old Testament Saints, who were not forgiven their sins by the mythological "credit" that makes its way across most pulpits, were not saved, or any less saved than we are. But what it does mean is that though they were saved by grace through faith, they still awaited future salvation that was promised to them by God. That Promise began in the Garden (Genesis 3:15), and becomes made more clrear progressively as Redemptive History passes. We know more in God's promises to Abraham than we do when God rebukes Satan, and we know more in God's promises to David than we did when God made promise to Abraham.

    And we know more than David did.



    Again, a false argument that has been addressed several times in the thread this is taken from.

    And I apologize for this member's style of address.

    Now, here is the thing, and this member has had this pointed out to him, yet he still continues with the false argument: Yeshua doesn't have them spiritually separated...God does.

    Consider:


    John 14:15-18

    King James Version (KJV)

    15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

    16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

    17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

    18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.



    The simple point is that Christ is here telling the disciples that He is going to send...the Comforter.

    He says this cannot happen until He goes away, which in the context of the Gospel/s refers to His return to Heaven:


    John 16:7

    King James Version (KJV)

    7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.



    Now, think about that: can we say that Christ doesn't mean what He says? Is He not saying that He is going to send the Spirit?

    Now can you tell me...how the Comforter can already be indwelling men prior to His coming?

    It's a simple point. It is a clear point. It is reiterated by Christ numerous times.

    Yet confusion about the Ministry of the Spirit in the Old Testament and the Ministry of the Spirit in the New seems to be the theme of some.

    And I think I'll stop there, with just the added note that "rebaptism" is denied in the other thread. They can't be rebaptized with the Holy Ghost because they were, in the view of some, already having the Spirit of God. The point above is just an example of how that is rationalized.


    God bless.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  2. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Next we take a look at the OP of the original topic:

    Some interesting statements, lets look at a few:

    Why did these 12 disciples at Ephesus need baptism? It is fairly common to posit that there was something wrong with or lacking in John’s baptism (at least after the day of Pentecost).


    There is good reason to look at it that way...that is what John himself stated:


    Matthew 3:11-12

    King James Version (KJV)

    11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

    12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.



    I don’t believe these disciples were baptized because of a flaw in the baptism of John.



    The "flaw," it seems, is that they were baptized by an unauthorized source:


    These disciples in Ephesus had been baptized by someone who had heard John preach the Messiah and then picked up an incomplete message and ran with it. This person was not authorized to administer John’s baptism.


    Now here is the point I offer up for consideration, and would like anyone that agrees with this...to please come forward:


    All those baptized by him received the counsel of God. It was not wrong to “know only the baptism of John,” but no one else had the right to perpetuate it.



    Now maybe I am misreading this, but it certainly sounds as though the author is saying...John's Baptism was sufficient, and equates that to being baptized in the name of Christ.

    Secondly, and more interestingly, we have to consider the baptism of the Ephesian Disciples, and consider that there are two baptisms in view, water baptism, and the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

    Now, this is the basis for the discussion that follows, and as I said, there were unanswered posts, and I would like to address those posts. This is far too important an issue to let it go unaddressed.

    And again, anyone agreeing with the assertions that are made here, or disagreeing with my own, please, feel free to join in.


    God bless.
     
  3. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    You should have stuck with your better judgment:

    To which I stated:

    You respond to this, but, you do not quote all I said:




    Do you really understand me to say you haven't read any of the posts? When I quote exactly what you said? lol

    The point is you are agreeing with BIblicist and disagreeing with me and you admit you haven't read all of the posts.

    Now, based on my statement, what do you think my question asks?


    And based on my further questions, which you do not answer (though you have ample opportunity in this thread to correct that), do you not understand I am trying to find out exactly what it is you agree with and don't agree with?

    If you like, I can repost the breakdown of this...


    Here is an example (my statements are in red):


    rlvaughn said:
    Everything and anything are not the same. I did not say I agree "with Biblicist without actually having read the posts
    Here is what you said:

    rlvaughn said:
    I haven't read everything either one of you have posted. But regarding what I have read I generally agree with Biblicist's teaching and generally disagree with yours.
    Here is my response:

    Darrell C said:
    First, I would ask why you would think you agreeing with Biblicist without actually having read the posts...should mean anything?

    If you want to split hairs and think that reading some of the posts qualifies you to draw a reasonable conclusion, feel free.


    That you are similar to Biblicist is quite evident in the OP.

    So you can affirm that you too believe that men were saved identically by being baptized by John and being baptized by Paul in Acts 19. Biblicist does. Biblicist believes Cornelius was already a born again believer eternally indwelt.

    Do you affirm that teaching?



    So your statement...

    ...still evades the point. You "generally" agree with what Biblicist teaches and "generally" disagree with what I teach, yet...

    ...you don't give any indication as to what exactly that is.

    So I ask again:



    ...why should I think that means anything? You have been given twice now the opportunity to clarify.

    Proceed.


    God bless.
     
  4. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    This is the last post in the thread that was shut down, so I'll just work backward, which only seems an appropriate approach for commentary such as follows:


    Its not really a different angle, its the same error you have been teaching all along.

    You are teaching that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is in regards to Public Administration of the House of God. You are still imposing the Promise into the Old Testament.

    And what you are doing, ultimately, is equating the Church, which began at Pentecost...with those who were in relationship outside of the New Covenant.

    This error has been addressed on all points, numerous times, yet you still preach a carnal understanding of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

    There might be one new element you add, though: Baptismal Regeneration, and an implication that one cannot be saved outside of the Church, meaning...the Church is instrumental in salvation.


    No, The Baptism with the Holy Ghost is the immersion of the believer into God on an eternal basis.

    The simple truth found in the Gospels and Acts is that the disciples were not Baptized into God prior to Pentecost, when the Spirit that was promised by God was sent by Christ...according to His promise to the disciples.

    Believers are still being Baptized with the Holy Ghost, which is an immersion into God, and the time at which God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost...make their abode in the believer.

    That is why there are two distinct Temples presented in Scripture, that which is earthly, and that which is spritual. In this Age the Temple of God is within the believer, but in prior Ages that Temple was not yet manifest:


    Hebrews 9:1; Hebrews 9:8-9

    King James Version (KJV)


    1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.


    8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

    9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;



    The Holiest of All is Heaven:


    Hebrews 9:24

    King James Version (KJV)

    24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:



    Mankind was shut out of the presence of God in this Covenant, and their entrance to God was through the High Priest only. But that entrance was...worldly. The remission of sins was incomplete.


    So when we ascribe the condition of the New Covenant believer to the Old Testament Saint...

    ...we really do see a "re-baptism," which is not possible, due to the fact that men had not received the Promised Spirit until Pentecost.

    The Ephesian Disciples were not re-baptized, they were, for the first time, Baptized with the Holy Ghost, and Baptized in the Name of Christ, according to His commandment.


    Continued...
     
    #4 Darrell C, Jun 30, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2016
  5. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    This is true, but how you can see this as picturing carnal ordinance is beyond me. The Writer distinguishes between that which is worldly, and that which is Heavenly, yet you are teaching that the context refers to both as being worldly.

    You really do not see the difference?

    Consider:


    Hebrews 9

    King James Version (KJV)

    9 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.



    This is clearly identified as worldly.

    This...


    11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

    12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.



    ...is Heavenly.

    Did Christ enter into the physical Temple when He died? Of course not.

    This...



    Hebrews 12:17-25

    King James Version (KJV)


    17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

    18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,

    19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:

    20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:

    21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake)



    ...is worldy, and this...




    Hebrews 12:17-25


    22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

    23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

    24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

    25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:



    ...is Heavenly.

    Two entirely different dispensations, or, administrations.

    So you fail to use these to support your statement:


    You are in direct contradiction of what these passages actually say.


    Continued...
     
  6. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Sorry, no.

    Hebrews 9:1 has a focus on the fact that the provision of the Covenant of Law was worldly. That you would make it a proof-text to try to show "two administrations on earth" is amazing.

    Hebrews 12:17-25 have a focus on the distinction between the economy of the Law and it's provision and the Provision of the New Covenant.

    Since you have seemed to miss this point, the Writer makes it absolutely clear that the High Priest of the New Covenant, His Blood, and the benefit of His death...

    ...are not comparable.

    One is worldly and incomplete, the other is Heavenly and...complete.

    Once you have spent some time in Hebrews you will, hopefully, understand this.

    Until then, trying to impose carnal understanding into the text is not advised.



    And this is an example of the magnitude of Christ being minimized. While Christ was a "Prophet like unto Moses," there is simply no comparison between the two. One is a man, used of God, the other is God manifest in the flesh for the purpose of bringing about Eternal Redemption for mankind.

    The redemption accomplished through Moses was physical, and in the temporal, whereas the Redemption accomplished by Christ was Eternal.

    And that is what is being missed:


    Hebrews 9:12-15

    King James Version (KJV)


    12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

    13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

    14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

    15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.



    Throughout Hebrews we see the Two Covenants, and their provision, contrasted.

    This has nothing to do with "two earthly administrations," because both are the administrations of God.

    We see Christ and Moses distinguished in their roles here:


    Hebrews 3

    King James Version (KJV)


    1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

    2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.

    3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

    4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

    5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

    6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.



    Now, another question that has been posed to you is whether you equate the "house" established through the Covenant of Law with the House of Christ, or, in other words, do you equate being a member of Israel as identical to being a member of the Church.

    You answer with teachings like this we are examining now...yes, you do.

    Again, we see that both "houses" are built of God, and Moses is a servant, not the builder. Christ is the builder of His Own House.

    And to make the Church an earthly house, as was the House established in the Covenant of Law...goes against everything the Writer of Hebrews teaches. There is simply no comparison.

    We cannot equate the House of God established in the Covenant of Law with the House of Christ established through the New Covenant. Just like we do not equate the remission of sins of the First Covenant with the Remission of sins received through believing on the risen Savior. Just like w do not equate the Ministry of the Holy Spirit with the ministry of the Comforter, Who did not come and begin this Ministry until Christ returned to Heaven.


    Continued...
     
  7. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118

    And what happened to that "Kingdom?"

    They were not happy having God as their King, so they clamored for an earthly King...and got one.

    That first King was anointed, and the Spirit of God came upon him, and because of sin...the Holy Spirit departed from him.

    And that is to be equated with the House of Christ? The Eternal Indwelling promised by God in the Old Testament and received at Pentecost?

    Simply amazing.

    There is something new provided to us in the New Covenant, which was also promised by God in the Old Testament:


    Isaiah 9:6-7

    King James Version (KJV)


    6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

    7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.




    Luke 1:31-33

    King James Version (KJV)


    31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

    32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

    33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.



    There is a point in time when that Kingdom was established. This is the Gospel of the Kingdom preached by Christ, which begins the Spiritual Rule and Reign of Christ in the hearts of His subjects.


    Continued...
     
  8. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    You are kind of forgetting that the "house" established in the Covenant of Law did not have a "deviation" from the "divine pattern" many years later...that was the problem from the very beginning. The Children of Israel fell in the wilderness due to unbelief.

    So will you say that only the Priests were of this House? Who exactly, of the Children of Israel...were in the House of Christ? If they are to be equated?

    Can one be a member of this "visible administration" and an unbeliever as well?

    That is what your teaching implies. Yours is not the only teaching that suggests this.



    So you do recognize a difference?


    God established the House of Christ under the former administration?


    Could you show the "publicly qualified ministers" baptizing men in the Name of Christ. Or the Name of God, even?

    I can show you the Baptism they were associated with:


    1 Corinthians 10

    King James Version (KJV)


    1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

    2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;



    Was this good enough to be a Christian and a member of the House of Christ as you suggest the Church has authority to bring about, as long as they are publicly qualified?

    And before you try to make this...


    3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;


    4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.



    ...mean the Children of Israel were born again believers, I would remind you that the following text denies that.

    The Children of Israel were baptized unto Moses, not in the name of Christ.

    The Ephesian Disciples were baptized unto Repentance and associated with John, and had not, as you teach, been Baptized with the Holy Ghost nor baptized in the name of Christ until Paul led them to Christ through the preaching of the Gospel.

    They were re-baptized, but...their former Baptism was not salvific. They were not just publicly acknowledged as already being in Christ, they were immersed into God on that very day.

    Just as Cornelius was not a born again believer who had been Baptized with the Holy Ghost...he was a proselyte to Judaism.

    And he, Cornelius, stands as a testimony that your teaching that men who have not been immersed into God cannot please God, for it seems God was pleased with the faith of Cornelius in His Word.


    Continued...
     
  9. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    So one has to be "publicly qualified" to administer baptism and Communion?

    I think we have two very different ideas as to what partaking of Communion unworthily means.

    I do agree there is a course set for leadership in the Church, but how you tie this into the establishment of the New Covenant and the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and reduce the Baptism with the Holy Ghost to water baptism and the validation of leadership, rather than validation of salvation...is truly mind-boggling.

    But many in leadership zealously guard their authority. We have centuries of examples of this.


    So the Church follows the divinely revealed pattern?

    Absurd.

    We follow the...divinely revealed.

    Big difference.

    That is why we are called ministers of the New Covenant.

    Our Doctrine and Practice is quite different from that practiced by those under the First Covenant.


    Matthew 16:18

    King James Version (KJV)

    18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.



    So who, in the Old Testament, was confessing Jesus as the Christ? You've been asked many times.

    What is the Rock that the Church is built on? Do you not understand that it is the confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God? DO you not understand that those under the Law rejected Him? That His own disciples rejected the Gospel?

    You have been shown this many times...



    Mark 16:9-14

    King James Version (KJV)


    9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

    10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

    11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

    12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

    13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

    14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.



    Yet you teach these men had received the Spirit of God, were born again...

    ...even though they did not believe that Jesus Christ was risen from the dead...just as He told them He would?

    So again I ask another question that has not been answered, to my knowledge (and you are free to post your answer if you did)...

    ...can one be a born again believer and a member of the House of Christ if they don't believe Christ has risen from the dead?

    If so, could you present the Scripture that supports this teaching?


    Continued...
     
  10. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    That which is revealed in the New Testament...

    ...is not a pattern.

    It is the reality.

    The pattern was revealed in the Law.

    What has this to do with the Baptism with the Holy Ghost?

    The Church does not administer salvation...God does. And it happens both through the ministry of the Church...as well as outside of the visible earthly administration.


    These passages do not "reveal a pattern," they are the revelation of the ministry that began after these men were Baptized with the Holy Ghost:


    Acts 1:8

    King James Version (KJV)

    8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.



    The Church, the House of God, does not follow a pattern, they follow the empowering of the Holy Ghost in carrying out the Great Commission.

    And it is when carnal teachings like yours make the Church the Administrator rather than God...

    ...that the result is simply religion.




    How can their structure conform to this Biblical revealed pattern when their doctrine is carnal? You create a paradox.

    The pattern is done away with, the Reality is the norm.

    The Reality is the New Covenant...not the patterns given in the Covenant of Law.

    The Reality is eternal as opposed to that which was worldly, and here you are...teaching that the Church is a carnal organization.

    You are not the only one teaching that.


    Completely finished?

    The Church is an entirely New act of God, not something started with the Nation of Israel. Israel was a figure for the Church...not the Church herself.

    While the events in Acts do serve to validate this Work, it does not in any way imply that this is simply a continuation of what God already started, for as you have been told numerous times, the Church is comprised of the New Man, the New Creature...not someone still under the Law, not someone who began to be saved by the Law.


    And there it is: an equation of that which took place in the Old Testament, when the Law was established, and that which takes place today.

    Men built the Tabernacle/Temple, and it was a pattern. God is building the Temple that is the Church, made up, not of physical rock, but living stones.

    You equate an earthly building being immersed with fire with a believer being immersed into God.

    And the worse thing is, it seems you are implying that this correlates to...

    ...what church building we should worship in.

    Your teaching is carnal.


    Continued...
     
  11. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    So the Upper Room was identified publicly as the authentic place of worship?

    It was the men, not the building...that were made the House of God.


    Which forces you to admit...He was not ministering as the Comforter prior to that.

    A simple enough point you have sought to deny since first we began discussing this.



    Well make up your mind, was it the "First Comforter" or "Another Comforter?"

    I cannot find this "First Comforter" you speak of.

    Christ is the Consolation of Israel, and He did not build His House while He yet remained unglorified, which is another point you reject, though it is clearly taught by Christ.

    There is no equation to the Tabernacle/Temple of the Law to the Temple of God which is the Church.

    Now explain how this...


    Acts 1:21-22

    King James Version (KJV)

    21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

    22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.



    ...equates to this:

    Can I just ask...how is God dwelling in a Temple made with hands equable to God dwelling in the Temple not made with hands?



    Again, note that even your carnal doctrine demands that there is a distinction between what you call the "First Comforter" and the Second.

    Again, you are equating the indwelling of God to a physical building, and no such equation exists.

    Again, Christ did not enter into the Holy Place made with hands, but into the Holiest of All.

    Your doctrine is exposed as erroneous and carnal, for you impose that which is Eternal, made not by hands, with that made with hands...

    ...quite the opposite of what God spoke to us through the Writer of Hebrews.


    Continued...
     
  12. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    The Comforter was sent to secure New Covenant Kingdom Administrative goals?

    That is not what Christ taught:


    John 16:7-9

    King James Version (KJV)


    7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

    8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

    9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;



    Your first "goal:"


    (1) Authenticate through sign and revelatory gifts a new body of Scriptures - the New Testament in accordance with Isaiah 8:16-20 as confirmed by Hebrews 1:1; 2:4-12), thus leading the church into "all truth" and completeing the Biblical canon of Scripture;


    Two things:

    1. The New Testament was not a primary goal of the coming of the Comforter, for His Work began on the Day of Pentecost and was accomplished through the expounding of the Hebrew Scriptures. While the New Testament is without question a result of the ministry of the Spirit, for it is He that has revealed the Mystery of Christ to mankind, the implication that His coming was meant only to establish the "visible, credible earthly administration of the Church" is a carnal error.

    2. I'm amazed you give Hebrews 1:1 as a proof-text. Truly. Let's actually finish out the statement of the Holy Ghost here:


    Hebrews 1

    King James Version (KJV)

    1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

    2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;



    You see, if you keep it in context you might realize the distinctions you are missing in administration, Who the Administrator is, and the purpose of the distinctive dispensations.



    Correction: bring to completion the salvation taught beginning in Genesis 3:15.

    Secondly, again you are forced to recognize the Church is a New People. They are not, as you have been repeatedly told, Israel, who are without question the People of God beginning when the Law was establsihed.

    Third, we do not see salvation equated with being the People of God as Israel.

    Lastly, we do not see Israel credited as being born again through their Heritage:


    John 1:11-13

    King James Version (KJV)


    11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

    12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

    13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.



    Anyone that denies Israel are the People of God in the Old Testament kick against a goad which is constantly reiterated through the Old Testament. And when people try to equate that church with the Church of Christ...

    ...they do greatly err. The solution is to know the Scriptures, as Christ taught.



    So the Comforter, which is the "Second Comforter," perpetuates the pattern?

    Completely the opposite of what Scripture teaches. This is made clear in Hebrews, which is probably the best Book to come to an understanding of this issue.

    Secondly, we do not see a parallel in the public worship of the Law and the Public Worship of the Church. While men could receive the benefits provided in the Law by keeping that which was commanded, the great deceit you imply is that people can be...

    ...saved simply through public worship.

    In other words, going to Church saves.

    Absolutely ludicrous.

    The "perpetuation" of the Church, comprised of those who have been born of God, is not reliant on "going to Church." Being immersed into God is Eternal, and spiritual, and while we do fellowship in corporate worship, that is a result of being the Church, not the means of becoming the Church.


    Continued...
     
  13. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    [QUOTE=Biblicist]
    The first goal and sign of his indwelling presence was completed in the first century, thus ceasing prophetic revelation with its authenticating signs and revelatory gifts.
    [/QUOTE]

    Could you show me where Christ said "And when He is come He will guide you into...writing the New Testament?"

    Can you show me where "And when He is come He will glorify...public administration?"

    Can you show me how sign gifts are the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, rather than evidence that one has been saved, immersed into God?



    I wouldn't be so quick to say that God is no longer healing or helping men of differing languages communicate. While we do not see healers, I have witnessed some pretty remarkable healings over the years.

    The simple fact of the matter is that God is still baptizing people with and in the Holy Ghost.

    Christ is the Baptizer, and He is still immersing unbelievers into God.

    He is still eternally indwelling men.

    He is still raising up living stones which grow up into the Temple of God.

    The carnal understanding you present minimizes the spiritual and eternal and instead glorifies the physical aspect of the Church.




    Now where, in John 13-17...do we see the "present partaking of the benefits of the New Covenant" that is not yet established?

    They are not partaking of the Spirit Who has not come. They do indeed, as all who fall under the ministry of the Spirit of God, which has always taken place in this world, partake of the Holy Ghost, but, they are not partaking of the Ministry of the Comforter.

    They are not believers according to the standard of the New Covenant.

    They do not believe Christ has risen from the dead, even though He told them He would (for which he was rebuked by Peter), and witnesses who saw Him told them (for which He rebukes them: Mark 16:9-14).

    And this statement reveals just how carnal your understanding is, so we will look at it again in the next post. It really deserves some attention.


    Continued...
     
  14. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    Notice he does not define the nature of their salvation. Saved from what? What kind of salvation is being provided in relationship to their sin nature and spiritual separation? He merely uses words that are left empty of content or definition.

    Well, no! Nobody is gasping because I have been saying all along that this is the only aspect of salvation they did not receive, just as we have not received it. Again, another worthless point.



    This man has been given several explicit scriptures that contradict what he is saying here and yet he continues to refuse to address them, but still keeps repeating his opinion as though if he repeats it often enough it will become fact. Another worthless repetitious statement. Acts 10:43 said the prophets preached "remission of sins" as the consequence of faith "in him". Paul says that David was a "blessed man" as well as "Abraham" due to remission of sins in the kind of justification they actually received then and there (Rom. 4:6-8,11). What's more, Paul claims this SAME KIND OF JUSTIFICATION that Abraham "had" is the same kind that "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" with regard to justification have regardless when they lived.

    The Old Testament prophets claimed present remission of sins in so much that their sins were removed from them "as far as the East is from the West" and that God had "cast them into the deepest sea" and "remembered them no more." However, our friend here just ignores the Biblical facts.



    Apparently, he does not know what "saved" means and what "saved" refers to in us any more than in them? Saved from what? Can he tell us? The problem is universal and it is indwelling sin and its power over us and spiritual separation from God. This is the only problem that human beings struggle with in their lifetime. Yet this man has no salvation from the universal problem of sin or spiritual separation from God without which THERE IS NO SALVATION AT ALL present in their lives or in ours.


    But what it does mean is that though they were saved by grace through faith, they still awaited future salvation that was promised to them by God. That Promise began in the Garden (Genesis 3:15), and becomes made more clrear progressively as Redemptive History passes. We know more in God's promises to Abraham than we do when God rebukes Satan, and we know more in God's promises to David than we did when God made promise to Abraham.


    His response is comically absurd! He actually believes that a sinner, spiritually separated from God can be called "the friend of God" or a "man after God's own heart" or one who can "walk with God." Ask him this simple question. "Today, will God call a natural born human being "the friend of God" or "a man after God's own heart" or say he can "walk with God" if he is spiritual separated from God????? If not, then is our sin nature different then the sin nature of human beings prior to the cross???? If not, then how can either be referred to by such language by God????? His position is irrational and absurd.

    Notice "the world cannot receive" but he has already told them they are not "of the world". The "world" cannot receive because "it seeth him not, neither knoweth him" but they can see him and "ye know him for he dwelleth with you." Even though Jesus just as clearly told them they names were already written in heaven and confessed they were believers in him and that believers already have eternal life ("hath everlasting life"). Darrel simply denies the repeated present tense even when the present tense is place in a context where it is contrasted to a future tense (Jn. 5:24) and a perfect tense demonstrating it cannot possibly refer to a prophetic future or else the text is rendered confusion and meaningless. His problem is that he has jerked John 14-15 out of context. The context is referring to the new covenant administration (as introduced with the Lord's Supper in chapter 13:2 ("the supper having been ended" where he had said "this is my blood of the new covenant" (Mt. 26:28). The Lord's Supper is not an INDIVIDUAL Christian ordinance but an INSTITUTIONAL ordinances of the new "house of God." Individually they were born again at the point of faith and indwelt by the Spirit, but INSTITUTIONALLY they had not been indwelt by the Spirit until the day of Pentecost. The Spirit was "with" this institution as individuals but was not indwelling it as the institutional "house of God" until Pentecost. Paul makes the very same distinction between individual indwelling and institutional indwelling in the letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 3:16 versus 1 Cor 6:19).


    1. The Church Temple of the Spirit - 1 Cor. 3:16-17

    16 ¶ Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
    17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.


    A. Notice he said "YE" and "YOU" not "we" or "us" - hence, this is no universal invisible temple consisting of all true believers.

    B. In Context he is the "masterbuilder" that laid the foundation of this temple - v. 10

    C.In Context this temple is located at Corinth where other ministers built it up - vv. 5-9

    D. He is resolving the issue of division over ADMINISTRATORS OF WATER BAPTISM demonstrating that the ministers that worked at Corinth in building the "temple" composed of "ye" at Corinth were all working together as "ONE" under the leadership of the Spirit of God.

    2. The Physical Human Body Temple of the Spirit - 1 Cor. 6:19

    19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

    A. In Context this is the same kind of body that can fornicate with a harlot - v. 15

    B. In Context this is the same kind of body that has a "belly" which eats "meats" - v. 13

    C. In Context this is the same kind of body that is found in the plural "your bodies" - v. 15 (the church body is never used in the plural).

    3. Both are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and they are completely different from one another. The first is an INSTITUTIONAL congregational body of water baptized believers existing at Corinth. The second refers to the individual's physical body.

    If you will look at the last thread, you will see he was unable to deal with these texts but simply ridiculed them - but no answer!
     
  15. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    We have not received the Promised New Covenant?

    We have not received the Promised Spirit?

    We have not received the Promised Redemption?

    We have not received the Promised Perfection?

    The only aspect of Salvation we have not received is the redemption of our bodies. Its funny you teach a carnal gospel yet that which is carnal, our bodies, is the one thing you never talk about.

    Here is the Promise that was not received by the Saints of the Old Testament:



    Jeremiah 31:31-34

    King James Version (KJV)


    31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

    32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

    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 is the reality of the Promise being fulfilled:


    Hebrews 10:15-18

    King James Version (KJV)


    15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

    16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

    17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

    18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.



    Your carnal lectures confuse the difference between promise given and promise received. You impose the reception of the Promises of God to a people that did not receive those promises. You equate the distinctions of the New Covenant with the provision of the Law.

    But, I am getting ahead of myself. Only have time to deal with one carnal lecture this morning, but I do appreciate you continuing to expose your doctrine that it might be made understandable for what it teaches.


    God bless.
     
  16. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Which is in direct contradiction to your carnal teaching, which makes the established publicly revealed administration irrelevant, because the simple fact is that not one of the disciples...

    ...was a publicly recognized or authorized administrator of that which you equate to the Church.

    What utter confusion you teach, my friend.

    And the more you seek to justify your carnal understanding...the easier it will be to reveal that confusion and contradiction with what Scripture actually teaches.


    God bless.
     
  17. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118

    While the average Sunday School attendee might be impressed with what, on the surface, seems to be an orderly presentation of "spiritual truths," it is not going to keep the bible Student from noticing that there is a difference between the Temple of the Covenant of Law and the Temple of God being built by Christ.

    One is carnal, the other spiritual.

    The contention is not whether the Church is the spiritual abode of God in this Age, the contention is your equation of this Temple with the Tabernacle/Temple of the Old Testament, and the butchering of the teachings of the Book of Hebrews you commit.


    God bless.
     
  18. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Here is the Link.

    ;)


    God bless.
     
  19. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118

    Okay, let's consider what you say here again:

    Present partaking of these benefits of the Spirit indwelt "house of God" is obtained by only believers through water baptism (Acts 2:38-42; 1 Cor. 3:5-16; 12:13; Mt. 28:19) into membership of such a "house of God" (Acts 2:40-41).


    Again, we see the validation of John's Baptism, even as the OP of the original Thread maintained.

    Yet Paul does not recognize John's Baptism as sufficient.

    There is a difference in a baptism unto repentance, and being Baptized with the Holy Ghost and being Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

    Men were not either when baptized by John.

    The fact that four times John's Baptism is contrasted with John's and this is dismissed...boggles the mind.

    Again, we see the House of God equated to the House of Christ, the Church equated with those who were under Law, and water baptism given as a means of coming into relationship with God.

    That is carnal doctrine.

    Those baptized by John did not receive remission of sins, they simply did what the Law was designed to do...bring confession of sin.

    Every person baptized by John was still under obligation to offer up sacrifice for sin...because their sin was not yet redeemed.

    That is quite evident in the fact that when Christ offered up Himself, Israel was still...offering up sacrifice for their sin.

    And not one member of the Church can be equated to those who were under the Law, though that is what we are seeing in this carnal lecture.


    Continued...
     
  20. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    Yes and no, I am approaching it from a larger overall perspective rather than dealing with individual points. The larger perspective is that the new covenant administration is being established after the TYPE of the Old covenant administration. Notice I said "type." The new covenant being the antitype. The old covenant was a covenant based upon externals while the new covenant is based upon internals.

    If you would have carefully considered Hebrews 9:1 and the words "even....also" you would have to admit to this point. The writer is not pointing out a contrast but a comparison by the words "even...also", that is, just as the old covenant had ordinances so does the New covenant (baptism and the Lord's Supper). Just as the old covenant had a "worldly sanctuary" meaning a sanctuary located in this present world, so does the new covenant ("churches" - Heb. 10:25).

    That is correct! The baptism in the Spirit in Acts 2:1 is consistent with the baptism in the Spirit in Exodus 40:35 and 2 Chron. 7:1-3. In every case, it is the culminative act by God that tells the people of God that this "house of God" is mine and it has been built according to divine specifications by an appointed builder and it signifies that I have taken up residence as "the house of God" (1 Tim. 3:15) the kind of house that has an equally qualified public ministry (1 Tim. 3:1-13). It has nothing to do with individual indwelling as that has to do with the physical body of the believer whereas the baptism in the Spirit has to do with the institutional body of water baptized believers (Acts 1:4-5; 2:1, 40).



    No, I am not! This promise is to the New Covenant public administrator (the public house of God) alone, but it is in keeping with its Old Testament application to the "house of God."

    Again, you are interpreting my words from your positional framework. No, I am not! I make a distinction between "the house of God" as an institution which has the prerequisite for membership water baptized believers and salvation which does not require water baptism at all but only gospel repentance and faith. The problem here is that you are reading your ecclesiology into my ecclesiology instead of noting the differences between us. You have church salvation because your church is inseparable from being saved. In contrast, I see salvation as the prerequisite for church membership because I do not see the church as inseparable from salvation. I see the church as an institution for water baptized believers whereas you see it as salvation itself being "in Christ" spiritually - or the Protestant universal invisible church theory which I wholly reject.



    Hebrews 9:1; Hebrews 9:8-9

    King James Version (KJV)


    1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.


    8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

    9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;



    The Holiest of All is Heaven:[/QUOTE]

    Yes, but the "church" is on earth and it is the new "house of God" (1 Tim. 3:15) and so both the temple and church are not the ultimate antitype which is in heaven are they? Notice he did not say the way "into the holiest was not yet obtainable" but only that it was not yet "manifest." Notice also he says this is true as long as the "first tabernacle was YET STANDING." It was still standing AFTER the cross was it not???? It was still standing until A.D. 70 was it not? However, the ripping of the veil when Christ was on the cross signified the Spirit of God had left the old public house of worship and on Pentecost he came to indwell the new public house of worship (Acts 2:1).

    The EXTERNAL ceremonies existent in the tabernacle and temple "never" could make the conscience perfect or without sin. That could only be done then and now by regenerative faith in the gospel both then (Acts 10:43; Rom. 4:6-8) and now or justification by faith which occurred in the life of Abraham BEFORE he submitted to external ordinances, as it did in the life of Abel, who was righteous "by faith" before he offered a sacrifice that only bore "witness" he was righteous, meaning sin removed (Heb. 11:4).





    Yes, the antitype of the High Priest in the temple is Christ. His incarnation, life and death and resurrrection was the necessary antitype and thus the promised provision. However, the application of salvation (regeneration and remission of sins/righteousness) preceded the promised provision as even your position must admit because you have some kind of "saved" preceding the cross when the fact of the matter is that the cross is the basis for ALL ASPECTS OF SALVATION (emphasis) not just some apsects. So even your position must admit that some applications only procured by the cross existed before the cross.
     

Share This Page

Loading...