The Many Insurmountable Difficulties of Futurism: The Temple of God

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Protestant, Oct 31, 2014.

  1. Protestant

    Protestant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    63
    Futurists would have us believe the temple of God found in Rev. 11 is a literal future re-built Jewish Temple located in Jerusalem.

    However, Jesus’ statement contradicts that teaching:

    And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple [Gr: hieron] and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. [Gr: hieron]

    And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

    Rather than illustrate the destruction of the Temple in vague terms Jesus specifically details the destruction in such a way as to lead the unbiased reader to conclude that the Temple shall not only be thrown down, but it will stay down.

    And down it has stayed…..for nigh unto 2,000 years thus far.

    To further guarantee it stays down, the Lord has sovereignly raised up the Palestinian Sunni Muslims so that they would build their most sacred mosque, Dome on the Rock, on the very grounds upon which the Jewish Temple once stood.

    So then what does the temple of Rev. 11 refer to if not a literal re-built Jewish Temple?

    Scripture gives us the answer.

    Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, [Gr: naon] and in three days I will raise it up.

    Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

    But he spake of the temple
    [Gr: naou] of his body.

    (See Strong’s Concordance # 3485, naos.)

    Please note that the literal temple of which Jesus was speaking in Matt. 24 uses the Greek noun hieron (Strong’s Concordance # 2411).

    When speaking of the ‘temple of the body’ the Greek noun naos is always used.

    Know ye not that ye are the temple [Gr: naos] of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

    If any man defile the temple [Gr: naon] of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple [Gr: naos] of God is holy, which (temple) ye are.

    What? know ye not that your body is the temple [Gr: naos] of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

    And what agreement hath the temple
    [Gr: naou] of God with idols? for ye are the temple [Gr: naos] of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple [Gr: naon] in the Lord.

    Let us now examine Rev. 11 to determine whether the Temple cited in the Greek text is that of hieron – the literal temple – or naos, the anti-type of the Jewish Temple……….the body of Christians in whom the Spirit of God dwells.

    And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple [Gr: naon] of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

    But the court which is without the temple [Gr: naou] leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

    In point of fact, the temple of Rev. 11 and all other references to the Temple of God in the Revelation speak of the spiritual temple of believers.

    I encourage the reader to discover for himself that the only Greek noun used in the Revelation referring to the temple of God is naos.

    Now let us consider, another prophetic Scripture in which the phrase temple of God is utilized:

    Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

    Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple
    [Gr: naon] of God, shewing himself that he is God.

    Once again, we have confirmation that the temple of God about which the Holy Spirit speaks is the spiritual temple of God: the Body of Christ: the professing Christian Church…..not a literal re-built Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

    Antichrist will be a fraudulent professing Christian who will claim rule over the professing universal Christian Church.

    That fraud is the Bishop of Rome: the reigning Pope holding the Papal office.

    Futurism is a false teaching whose origins are found in the perverted teachings of the Papal-worshipping anti-Christian Jesuits.
     
  2. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    This entire conclusion makes no sense; has nothing to do with any of the above scriptures, and is totally speculative.
    The word "ekklesia" translated as "church" means assembly. There is no such thing as a universal church. Your argument fails on that point alone.

    You fail to distinguish between two entities: the first beast and the second beast; the antichrist and the false prophet. The pope can never be the antichrist. He is a religious entity not a political entity. It is possible he may fit the description of the false prophet, but even that is speculative. We don't know; we are not told.
     
  3. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,556
    Likes Received:
    273
    What about Paul's "Man of Sin"?

     
    #3 kyredneck, Nov 1, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 1, 2014
  4. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,556
    Likes Received:
    273
    What about Paul's "Man of Sin"? continued:

     
    #4 kyredneck, Nov 1, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 1, 2014
  5. Protestant

    Protestant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    63
    I have proven the temple of God in Revelation and 2 Thess. 2 is the spiritual temple of God, the Body of Christ, comprised of professing believers.

    The Antichrist, whom all Futurists believe will sit in the literal re-built Jewish temple, will instead sit in the spiritual temple of God, the professing Christian Church.

    "To sit" in biblical terminology is "to rule."

    My response:

    2Thess. 2 speaks of the Antichrist who sits as ruler over all Christians. The Christian Church is universal as indicated in Rev. 7:9-10:

    After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

    10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.


    Christians are not limited to Canadians. :>)

    (Continued in next post)
     
  6. Protestant

    Protestant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    63
    You need learn the history of the Papacy....an easy study from any home computer.

    Also, I will re-paste my previous post in blue which answers the question as to the Papacy's political prowess:

    The Antichrist of Scripture is both a political and professing ‘Christian’ religious world leader whose headquarters is Rome.

    The Pope of Rome is both a political and professing ‘Christian’ religious world leader whose headquarters is Rome.

    The Pope is ruling Head of the Holy See as well as the Absolute Monarch of the Vatican City State:

    “The Holy See (Latin: Sancta Sedes) is the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Catholic Church in Rome, the episcopal see of the Pope…….The Holy See is viewed as analogous to a sovereign state, having a centralized government, called the Roman Curia, with the Cardinal Secretary of State as its chief administrator and various departments essential to administration comparable to ministries. It enters diplomatic relations with states, and has Vatican City as its sovereign territory.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See

    “Eighty countries currently maintain embassies to the Holy See. The Vatican City State, over which the Holy See is sovereign, is the smallest independent nation in the world and its size renders any resident diplomatic community impractical. Therefore, all embassies to the Holy See are located in Rome…”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...o_the_Holy_See

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign...f_the_Holy_See

    The Papacy is as political as any political office can be.

    Which is why the Pope is constantly receiving an endless stream of Heads of State.


    The political intrigues within the Vatican are legendary.

    The Antichrist is both a false prophet and political leader.

    That does not negate the fact that he has an army of false prophets who do his bidding.

    Many reside comfortably in professing Evangelical Christianity.
     
  7. Protestant

    Protestant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    63
    Kentucky:

    I appreciate the fact that you hold to an entirely different view of the Man of Sin.

    Perhaps one day I will specifically address the Preterist view, but since that view is the minority view held by Christians I feel an obligation to address that view which is held by the vast majority: Futurism.

    Blessings in Christ!
     
  8. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Perhaps you have proven that you do not rightly divide the word of truth.
    First, in this day and age the body is the temple of God or the temple of "the Holy Spirit which you have of God," which is more precise (1Cor.6:19,20). That is speaking of our relationship with Christ.

    This scripture is speaking of an actual physical temple:
    [FONT=&quot]2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
    4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.[/FONT]
    --There will be "a man of sin." He is an actual person, real and physical. People cannot sin in my heart, my body, my spirit! Duh! Use some common sense here!!
    This is a real physical temple, that a real physical person is going to enter and declare himself to be God. There are many such people today that declare themselves to be deity. I can name you half a dozen. One such person will rise up, make a pact with the Jews, and somehow declare his divine authority to the world.

    Your terminology shows your lack of knowledge:
    You say: "the Body of Christ, comprised of professing believers."
    The only "body of Christ" is the local church. Every local church is a body of Christ. There is no such thing as a universal church which is the body of Christ.
    All believers make up the family of God or the Kingdom. And whether you speak of a "church," the "family of God," or "His Kingdom," none of them include the unsaved, by virtue of definition. There is no such thing as "professing believers." You either are a believer or you are not. There is no sitting on the fence.
    It is hard to have a discussion with a person whose terminology is all over the map, and every second word has to be redefined according to the Bible.
    There is no such thing as "sitting in a spiritual temple." Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? This man is going to make a pact with the Jews, break that pact half way through the Tribulation of seven years, and then desecrate the Temple. Facts are facts. If you choose not to believe them, I cannot help you.
    And so it has that connotation. No argument. But it won't be for long. He will ultimately be overthrown.
    Your response was useless. Restrict your response to the actual definition of the word, not to how it is used today. Here is the definition of the word:
    The last two entities it gives: "the Church, the whole body of Christian believers," are not scriptural ones, they are extra-biblical. An assembly is not mystical. This is a contradiction of his own definition. It certainly isn't in the Bible.
    It is not mystical in the Bible. That is a common error which the author went on to describe. It is a modern definition not a Biblical one.
    We are having a discussion about this topic right now.
    It is here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2159998&postcount=4
    Note in this post where your thinking comes from:
    Get your terminology right.
    You haven't made your case yet.
    The Pope is a religious leader, the head of the RCC.
    He does not fit the description of a political head of state no matter what you say. It is not convincing.
    There are two beasts. The first is the antichrist; the second is the false prophet (the religious leader). Thus the Pope could not be the antichrist.
    The antichrist in 2Thes.2 rules over all people, not just Christians.
     
    #8 DHK, Nov 3, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2014
  9. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,080
    Likes Received:
    48
    The manof Sin will male the temple obligations cease, and will proclaim himself as being God, so how can that be the Papacy?
     
  10. Protestant

    Protestant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    63
    Thanks for your sincere question, Yeshua1.

    Your question takes for granted several assumptions which are points of disagreement.

    For centuries Christians have understood the spiritual nature of the NT Temple: the Body of Christ.

    Futurism re-defines this Temple as literal and re-built.

    I have shown by Scriptural evidence that ‘hieron’ always refers to the literal OT Temple.

    2 Thess. 2 and the entire book of Revelation use only ‘naos’ to refer the Temple: the same noun which always refers to the spiritual Temple of God: the Body of Christ, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Church.

    Next, you assume (as all Futurists assume) that Daniel 9:27 speaks of Antichrist making a covenant with the Jews allowing them to rebuild their Temple, then in the middle of 7 years breaks covenant, demanding their literal animal sacrifices cease.

    However, for centuries Christians have understood the passage to refer to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, confirming the everlasting covenant made with the Father on behalf of all the Elect, both Jew and Gentile.

    The OT sacrifices were only shadows of the one final perfect sacrifice of Christ.

    Thus, the OT Temple was no longer viable and, after Christ’s sacrifice, any sacrifice thereafter was considered an abomination, though the Jews claimed to do so in the name of YHWY.

    The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is also considered such an abomination.

    For these abominations the OT Temple was destroyed, as will the Vatican one day be destroyed for its abominations done in the name of Christ.

    In previous posts I have explained how the Pope usurped the offices of Christ, ‘Christ’ being an official title, ‘anointed One’, anointed to carry out offices as God’s Prophet, Priest and King.

    As such the Pope fulfills the literal definition of Antichrist: one who purports to come in the name of Christ as His friend and personal representative, yet, in reality is His enemy. For by stealth he opposes Christ, overturning His teachings while stealing Christ’s offices and worship.

    Christians have always known Christ is the sole Head of the Church, though the Pope claims he is the Head of the Christian Church on earth.

    The one who takes upon Himself the offices of ‘Christ’ is ‘shewing’ – not verbally openly proclaiming – but showing, demonstrating, displaying himself to be God.

    By overturning the commandments of God, as do the doctrines and commandments of the Church of Rome, the ruling Head, the Pope, shows himself to be the greater God.

    To claim obedience to the Pope is necessary for salvation is showing oneself to be God.

    By creating God through the foul doctrine of Transubstantiation, the Pope shows himself to be greater God.

    N.B. Are you at all concerned that Rev. Billy Graham has preached a false Gospel of salvation apart from Christ (without repentance on his part), or are you of the opinion, as is DHK, that it ain’t no big deal?

    I find it curious I am the only one on this board who is outraged by it.
     
  11. Protestant

    Protestant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    63
    The Body of Christ is comprised of those Elect worldwide (Jew and Gentile) who make up the many members of Christ’s Body.

    Christ is the Head of the Body….the Head of the Church Universal.

    The Pope, on the other hand, declares he is the Head of the Universal (Catholic) Church on earth.

    Baptist theology correctly states the above definitions which support my view:

    Please note the cross reference to 2Thess 2.

    Baptists define the Temple of God as the Christian Church in which the Papal Antichrist claims to sit as Head.

    I urge you to study the historical theology of Baptists.

    The old paths are so much wiser than the new.

    The local congregations are composed of both Elect and non-Elect, saved and unsaved, the wheat and the tares.

    Yet both are considered part of the local church.

    Both profess Christ yet not all who call Jesus Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

    Sadly, many of the unsaved stand behind the pulpit.
     
  12. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    That is a common but unbiblical idea. It is difficult to substantiate through Scripture. Ekklesia means assembly. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly. It is a contradiction in terms.
    There is no such thing as a universal church just as there can't be a universal assembly unless it assembles in heaven, and it will some day. The word "church" simply means "assembly." Read Darby's translation where the word ekklesia is properly translated.
    Of course. He can say anything he wants can't he. The Catholic apologist says "The sun never sets on the RCC," and to some degree he is right given the large number of Catholics spread all over this world.
    No it doesn't. The LBC is not my confession of faith. In fact there are many Baptists that don't subscribe to it. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. You know about sola scriptura, right?
    I don't have much use for confessions, creeds, etc. They have some usefulness in historical matters and that is about all. Thus your point is not proven.
    One thing you should have learned about Baptists is that they are independent and autonomous. IOW, we are a heterogeneous group of believers. Our churches vary one from another. Because of our independency, our aversion to denominationalism, we are all do not hold to the same doctrine. Haven't you noticed the different and varied doctrines debated in the Baptist theology forum?
    I notice it every time I read it. :)
    [FONT=&quot]2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.[/FONT]
    --I assume you are referring to this "temple."
    First, no it is not a "Christian" temple. Remember that by this time, "Christians" will have been raptured. They won't be there.
    The Temple will be Jewish. Jewish Temples are desecrated, not Christian temples. An unbeliever cannot desecrate a Christian temple, for his temple is his body (1Cor.6:19,20).
    I don't know what books you read. I don't know anyone who defines the temple of 2Thes.2:4 as a Christian Church--absolutely no one. You are out to lunch on that one.
    I urge you to study the Bible.
    No man is wiser than Christ.
    Here is a definition of a local church for you:

    A local church is an assembly of baptized (immersed) believers who have voluntarily associated themselves together for the purpose of obeying the Great Commission and observing the ordinances of Christ (baptism by immersion and the Lord's Supper).

    Given the above definition a local church is not composed of any "non-elect." It is composed only of "baptized believers."
    Some people try and fool men, but they cannot fool God. The Lord knows them that are His. The so-called U-church has far more tares in it than any local church.

    [FONT=&quot]Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.[/FONT]
    --Paul wrote the above verse to the elders of the Ephesian church (vs.17).
    Christ shed his blood for the local church, meaning every Biblical local church. That is how much the local church means to him. There is no such thing as a U-church. It doesn't exist.

    Let's look at this verse once more:
    [FONT=&quot]Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own.[/FONT] (Darby)
    --Shepherd the assembly of God. It is not a universal church, so-called.
     
  13. Protestant

    Protestant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    63
    Originally Posted by Protestant:

    "The Body of Christ is comprised of those Elect worldwide (Jew and Gentile) who make up the many members of Christ’s Body."

    Protestant Quote:

    "Christ is the Head of the Body….the Head of the Church Universal."

    Sorry for the delay in responding.

    The Epistle to the Ephesians clearly contradicts your faulty interpretation.

    Christ is head of His Body which is comprised of many members, all Jewish and Gentile believers called Christians.

    Christ is head of His Church which is comprised of many members, all Jewish and Gentile believers called Christians.

    Christ's Body and Christ's Church are one and the same.

    Christ does not have several bodies or several churches.

    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.

    For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
     
    #13 Protestant, Dec 24, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 24, 2014
  14. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Keep in mind that Paul is writing to a church, ekklesia, an assembly or local church. Keep in mind the historical context. How would the believers at that time understand this epistle. There was no such understanding or any such concept of a "universal church" in the first century.
    He was speaking to the believers at Ephesus. This is obvious. Do you have Jewish believers in your church? No (at least probably not--we do have one person in our church who is a converted Jew
    --but it is not like half the congregation as it was in Ephesus).
    --Christ was the head of the church at Ephesus. That is what he said. And as he was the head of that local church so is He the head of every Bible-believing church.
    There is no "Church" only "churches." Your concept is not in the Bible. The word means "assembly."
    Christ dwells in me. Are you saved? Then does he dwell in you? What about the other believers on this board? Does he dwell in them?
    How many Christs are there then? Thousands? Millions? How can Christ be divided up if he dwells in so many people? You are asking the same type of non-sense question about Christ being the head of each biblical church.
    Read carefully 1Cor.12. The Corinthian church is called "a body of Christ." It has several members, and Paul compares each member to a part of the body--a human body. Each one has to do his own part or the body doesn't function properly. This can only be true of a local assembly.
    "And where one member suffers all members suffer together."
    This can only be true of a local assembly.
    How many wives do you have?
    Christ has only one wife/bride. That bride is composed of all believers.
    But he is the head of every Bible believing church. That is what he teaches. Each local church is a body. Read 1Cor.12
     
  15. Protestant

    Protestant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    63
    Had you taken the care to read the first verse of Ephesians, you would have realized the Epistle was written to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

    Were there not the faithful In Christ Jesus throughout the ages?

    And did not this Epistle hold as much importance to them as to the Ephesians?

    There is no disagreement that by 'church' may be meant a local assembly of believers 'called out' of the world and into Christ.

    The letters to the 7 churches confirms this truth.

    However, not all those who profess to be part of Christ's local churches are part of Christ's one, true Church comprised of all the redeemed throughout the history of the world.

    This truth was taught in the parables of the wheat and the tares, as well as by Paul when he stated that 'they are not all Israel which are of Israel.'

    In other words, spiritual Israel and physical Israel are two completely different classifications.

    The former found favor with God while the latter is rejected by God.

    Thus the one Church and one Body of which Paul discusses in Ephesians is that Church and Body of Christ worldwide which are the true Israel --- the blood bought, spirit-filled, regenerated, who have the faith of Abraham, and for whom Christ died.
     
  16. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    I believe I referred you to that verse.
    No, most believers don't last that long, and most churches don't last that long. Why would you ever think that?
    To who? It was written to the Ephesians who were faithful in Christ. That is a description of the Ephesian believers.
    There is no such thing as a U-Church. Ekkesia means assembly.
    Are all of God's redeemed part of the family of God, yes; the bride of Christ, yes.
    This is applicable at the end of the age. It is an eschatological parable.
    Yes, but they speak of Israel.
    The only worldwide church is the church of the Antichrist still to come.
    There is a clear-cut division between Israel and the NT believers. It is the RCC which believes that the "Church" replaces Israel. It is a heresy known as Replacement Theology, if that is what you are advocating.
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    There is also the statement (in addition to many excellent points made in the OP) that in Matt 23 Christ said "you house is left to you desolate" speaking of the temple and pronouncing the curse of Solomon on the Temple - a curse defined at the building of Solomon's temple where he predicts the utter destruction of it should they choose rebellion.

    Dan 9 says that the Jews had 490 years to figure out if they were going to go with God's plan or not. The Messiah would come near the end of that time at the 483 year mark - and 3.5 years later be crucified. "Cut off".

    Then 3.5 years after the death of Christ - Stephen is stoned and a change is made such that the Church turns to Gentile evangelism as Peter does in Acts 10 and as Paul does in Acts 13.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. Protestant

    Protestant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    63
    I recently came across a sermon by Spurgeon which corroborates the premise of the OP: the NT Temple of God is comprised of all the members of His universal Church. His sermon is based on the Scripture,

    He shall build the temple of the Lord, and he shall bear the glory. -- Zechariah 6:13.

    Certainly DHK does not believe Spurgeon is yet another Baptist witness who does not rightly divide the word of truth…..or does he?

    http://biblehub.com/library/spurgeo...me_4_1858/christ_glorified_as_the_builder.htm

    The Universal Church = The NT Temple of God = The Body of Christ = the Bride of Christ = all those for whom Christ died and purchased with His blood.
     
  19. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    My authority is not in man, but rather in the Word of God.
    Let's go to the Scripture.
    In the Book of Acts Paul comes to Miletus. He couldn't go all the way to Ephesus so he calls for the elders or pastors to meet him there. They are the elders of the local church at Miletus.

    [FONT=&quot]Acts 20:17 But from Miletus having sent to Ephesus, he called over [to him] the elders of the assembly.[/FONT]

    And then he says to them:
    [FONT=&quot]Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own.[/FONT]

    Christ shed his blood for the assembly at Ephesus, not for any mystical universal non-existing, "church" so-called, but for an actual assembly that historically existed in time and place.
    As he did for the assembly in Ephesus so he does for every local assembly that has Christs as its foundation and the Bible as its rule of faith.
     
  20. Protestant

    Protestant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    63
    Please continue reading chapter 20:

    29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

    30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.


    To the best of your understanding did Christ shed His blood for the grievous wolves who were about to devour the Ephesian flock?

    And did Christ shed His blood for those men who were to arise as Ephesian elders, whose perverse teachings were contrary to the Word of God?

    Also, in your view is the English noun ‘church’ no longer a viable scriptural classification of Christians ‘called out’ by God since you have recently discarded it from your vocabulary?

    And lastly, should Christians disregard the Confession of Southern Baptists as well as the testimony of the much respected Baptist C. H. Spurgeon and follow your eccentric ecclesiology instead?

    I thank you in advance for your thoughtful replies.
     

Share This Page

Loading...