Featured Salvation reduced to its most simplest level

True! But you cannot be an elect on earth apart from spiritual union with God BEFORE you serve God through good works (Eph. 2:10). To be INDWELT by the Spirit IS spiritual union as the spirit of man is found INSIDE of man and if the Spirit of God is in "spiritual union" with the spirit of man that requires INDWELLING by the Spirit. Just think it through.

However, your view of the baptism in the Spirit (individual indwelling) repudiates the possibility of anyone prior to Pentecost being an elect in regard to spiritual union.

It is YOU that defines the baptism in the Spirit to be indwelling do you not?

It is YOU that defines the baptism in the Spirit to be equal to being "in Christ" do you not?

It is YOU that defines being "in Christ" as one and the same thing as being in your concept of a universal invisible church or mystical body is it not?

So, if the baptism in the Spirit did not occur until Pentecost, and if it is your view that this is equal to being indwelt, being "in the Spirit" being "in Christ" being "in" the church then it obviously follows all before Pentecost were not indwelt by the Spirit, were not in spiritual union with Christ, and therefore were not "in Christ" but OUTSIDE OF CHRIST spiritiually and thus not "in" the church. That is the time fixed reality of Pentecost.

Either the baptism in the Spirit occurred first on Pentecost or it did not? Which is it? If it did not occur prior to Pentecost then by your definition of the baptism in the Spirit they are not in spiritual union with God, they are not indwelt by the Spirit of God, thus, they are not saved BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION of the baptism in the Spirit.

I qualified exactly what I said. I said "THE DOCTRINE" of church salvation and the Catholics do have a "DOCTRINE" of church salvation just as you have a "DOCTRINE" of church salvation by your own mouth you have claimed that your DOCTRINE is that saved equal church and church equal saved - that is a doctrine of church salvation because all outside of that kind of church DOCTRINE are lost. Your own admission.

 

True! This was also the view of Dr. J.M. Pendleton.

Have you ever studied the proper understanding and use of metaphors???? The word "meta-phor" means to "bring across" or to "transfer across." It requires that both nouns used in this transfer must be understood in their literal sense. Hence, the term "body" is taken from a literal physical body as in the "body" of Christ in which he lived. For it to be used metaphorically is to take actual literal characteristics found in the actual literal body and transfer them to another noun "the church." So in a metaphor the linking verb "is" or "are" conveys the idea of REPRESENTATION. For example, "I am the door" means "I REPRESENT the door." Thus "ye are the body of Christ" means "Ye REPRESENT the body of Christ" in certain characteristics that are being transferred from one noun literally understood to another noun literally understood. The question then is how does the church REPRESENT a physical body? Answer - it has members, it is visible, it is organized, it is under the direction of a head, etc.

The Donatists and the Anabaptists gave the same response to this idea and that was "you are demanding two different kind of churches" when there is but one - the New Testament kind found geographically located throughout the book of Acts and the Epistles.

If your Second Church idea is the true church then why are all churches in the New Testament required to remove "brethren" from it who are heretical (2 Thes. 3:6) while your second kind includes them?

Why is it that 22 out of 23 times Jesus speaks about the kind of church he built that it is an ORGANIZED INSTITUTION with officers, ordinances, disciplinary standards for retaining membership?????????

Like Augustine and Luther you are confusing the administrator within the kingdom with the kingdom.

 

Here is what you say about the baptism in the Spirit:

Indwelling of the Holy Spirit is Baptism in the Spirit - OR post #17


Therefore, according to your own definition the indwelling and baptism are one and the same or do you want to do a Clintonet "depends on what is is"?

Here is what you say about spiritual union:

If one is in union with Jesus Christ they are in union with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit! If one is in union with God then they are Saved! - OR post #7

So by your own definition union with any Person of the Godhead is salvation. So spiritual union equals salvation according to your own definition.

Now, let me ask you how the human spirit can be in union with God and God not at the same instant indwell that person? He is not in union with his physical body! It is the "spirit" of man that is "dead" spiritually and therefore it is a union between the spirit of man and the Spirit of God and the human spirit exists INSIDE man. So is the Spirit of God INSIDE united with the human spirit or not??? Or does "union" really mean non-union, ununited???

 

One does not have to believe in unconditional election to believe in the order given between quickening and good works spelled out clearly in Eph. 2:10. The Old Testament saints have such good works (Heb. 11) and my only point is that regeneration precedes good works regardless of what view of election you subscribe to. So you comment is non-germane, unless you like to argue just to argue?

******************

You believe wrong. In fact the charistmatic view is more akin to your view than my view. Both you and charismatics see it as an INDIVIDUAL application, whereas, I do not. Charismatics see it as a second work of grace, but I do not. I see it purely as an institutional accreditation of the "house of God" quite common in the Old Testament as an one time historical event with each new house at its completion.

No, you have simply provided YOUR INTEPRETATION of that scripture.

Well, let us see if it is a lie. Do you recognize ANYONE outside of the church as saved in the church described in your sentence "I said ALL the who have been redeemed are in the Church"???? Obviously you do not. Thus to be IN YOUR CHURCH DOCTRINE is to be saved and to be OUTSIDE your church doctrine is to be lost - that is the doctrine of CHURCH SALVATION as the church is required in the definition of who and who is not saved.

 

No, the truth is that you are advertising your own ignorance and when a man is ignorant and still wants to win a debate he has nothing left but to attack the person since he cannot reasonably respond to the message. You and Van should join a club together.

 

Case closed! Readers go figure! He will say anything but admit he is wrong.

 

Back on point

Those who embrace the Pentecost junction point for regeneration or spiritual union or indwelling of the Spirit have the problem of explaining how the fallen human nature in pre-Pentecost man is ABLE to do spiritual things that a post-Pentecost man cannot do apart from the indwelling presence of the Spirit.

The redeemed man in Romans 7 who is indwelt by the Spirit was not able to do anything spritiual because of the power of indwelling sin. However, according to these theologions the non-Spirit indwelt man before Pentecost was ABLE to do all these things.

Hence, this Baptism in the Spirit interpretation demands THREE different types of humans.

1. Pre-Pentecost humans who are not "in the Spirit" meaning they are not indwelt by the Spirit as Paul defines "in the Spirit" in Romans 8:9.

2. Mankind that is "in the flesh" who are not indwelt by the Spirit according to Paul's definition in Romans 8:8-7 due to the condition described in Rom. 8:7

3. Mankind who is "in the Spirit" and indwelt according to Romans 8:9.

However, there is no rationale or scripture to support this NECESSITY of their view of the baptism in the Sprit doctrine.

 

I don't see anything to respond to? The law and prophets were prophetic in the preaching of the gospel (Acts 10:43) until John came when the tense was changed from the future anticipation to the present "is at hand". But same gospel, same salvation, same Saviour and same command to repent and believe.

 

That is salvation reduced to its simplest form in regard to what the sinner does. However, salvation reduced to its simplest form in regard that defines the issue of salvation is (1) spiritual separation is man's problem reduced to its simplest form and (2) spiritual union is the solution of that problem reduced to its simplest form.

 

Yes, it would have caused such a rift because my point is that the universal invisible church interpretation of the baptism in the Spirit is false and when that idea is proven false the whole idea of the universal invisible church falls with it.

You see, if spiritual union is salvation reduced to its most simple form than that is indwelling of the Spirit as it is impossible to be in spirtiual "union" with God's Spirit and not be indwelt by God's Spirit or else there is no spiritual union at all. Your human spirit resides inside your body and for union between your human spirit and God's spirit to exist God must equally dwell where you spirit dwells or else no spiritual union exists.

If spiritual union is indwelling then the whole universal invisible church interpretation of the baptism in the Spirit is impossible, because Pentecosts fixes in time the baptism in the Spirit but spiritural union/indwelling precedes Pentecost. Therefore, the whole doctrine of the universal invisible church collapses in on itself as you must choose between its salvation equals church membership or salvation has no connection with the church at all.