Featured These verses would not be needed

I have no quarrel with that. We shall all assemble together in heaven.

 

[/QUOTE]

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

They are not written there because of unbelief in John 3:18 Jesus makes it clear. he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Very clear.

The wages of sin is death why do you think Christ died, atonement for sin required death.

Exodus 29:36 says Atonement was about sin, 36 And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.

Nehemiah 10:33 For the shewbread, and for the continual meat offering, and for the continual burnt offering, of the sabbaths, of the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things, and for the sin offerings to make an atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God.

Numbers 5:7-8,
7 "Then they shall confess their sin which they have done: and he shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed.
8 But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto the Lord, even to the priest; beside the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be made for him."

Numbers 6:10-12;
10 "And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:
11 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, and make an atonement for him, for that he sinned by the dead, and shall hallow his head that same day.
12 And he shall consecrate unto the Lord the days of his separation, and shall bring a lamb of the first year for a trespass offering: but the days that were before shall be lost, because his separation was defiled."

The Old Testament makes it very clear the blood sacrifice was for the atonement of sin, Christ blood was shed for the Atonement of sin, man's sin.

John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

Why does God wrath abide upon him? Because he who "believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath." God wrath is against the sin of unbelief. God's wrath for sin is seen in the Propitiatory sacrifce of Jesus.

John 3:15-18

15 "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

He came to save us from death, First Spiritual death, then Physical Death and finally the second Death.

Revelation 2:11 "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death."

How do we overcome, by Grace through Faith.

Revelation 20:
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

What does Jesus say here in His revelation those who have a part in the FIRST Resurrection aren't hurt by the second death.

Revelation 20:
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Their works could not save them

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

What is the Second Death, eternal seperation from God in the Lake of Fire, why are they there because of unbelief and Christ saves us from Death.

One last scripture John 5:24,
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

Believing on God and Christ brings eternal Life, it brings salvation, Christ death Paid the penalty for sin and became the atonement for the whole world. Believing on Him brings us out of Spiritual Death and into Eternal Life. We will not suffer the Second death all because of His Efficacious work on the cross. The sin debt paid gives life to all who believe, those who reject will suffer the Second death and be eternally seperated from God in the Lake of Fire.

 

He may have? There is no uncertainty about it!

By that you mean only a local congregation. And you are mistaken. As Herman Ridderbos has said, it is the primarily "the description of the church in its totality irrespective of its being scattered over various localities." Only in a secondary sense does the word have reference to the local manifestation.

When Jesus is speaking to Peter of the rock that he will build his church he was not expressing anything about the local church. (Matt.16:18)

When Acts 8:3 speaks of Saul starting to "destroy the church" it certainly wasn't speaking of a local church --or assembly.

I could go on and on. Perhaps I will in a new thread on the subject.

The overwhelming translation of ekklesia in English Bible versions is church. It will do quite nicely.

You are wrong. Besides "Ephesians" was a circular epistle. In 1:1 it doesn't have "Ephesians" in some early manuscripts.

You make unfounded assertions such as "Christ gave himself for the local church according to Ephesians 5." I had asked you to name N.T. Bible scholars who believe such a thing. Your answer is silence.

You and Van would make quite the duo.

 

Yes. There were nomads all over this world. I read that when John Eliot came to what later became the USA in the mid-1600's there were between 8-15 million people living in North America. Some of those natives spoke German, French, among other tongues. But during the time of Christ's death, peoples inhabited the earth all the way around it, in my opinion. No doubt people were living in what is now North America, South America, Greenland, Iceland, the Hawaiian Islands, Cuba, Guam, the Fiji Islands, Russia, Poland, United Kingdom, &c.


Now, if they were alive in these remote places during the time of Christ's death and never knew about Christ, how could they be saved? I think Rom. 10-8-17 shows those who never knew about Christ, still died in their sins.

 

As I told you on 5/27/2015 :

"You have wrongly interpreted Ro. 1:19,20. It doesn't say or imply that everyone will know about Jesus or the Gospel. And in Romans 2:12-15 it speaks of those who have had no knowledge of the Law. Having no knowledge of the Law certainly means they have also not heard of Jesus and the Gospel."

 

The question a can be ask a little differently.

How was mankind saved before Jesus came and died on the cross?

Did not Adam teach his descendants to look forward to a savior coming?

Did not Noah also teach to have Faith in a savior to come?

Aren't those folks in remote areas descendants of both these men?

 

No, YOU "may." You "may" call the corporate collective brotherhood of all believers by many different names. But one name you cannot use is the word "church." The "ekklesia" always refers to an assembly, a local congregation that can "congregate," if you will; that has the ability to assemble, as the word is defined. One cannot go contrary to the obvious definition of the word. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly.
It is foolish to fight against truth.

I am right and he is wrong. It is obvious that a congregation cannot be spread over various localities.
While in Troas:
Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
What does that mean?
Act 20:7 And the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed to them, about to depart on the morrow. And he prolonged the discourse till midnight.
--An assembly comes together at one place, not many.

Who assembled?
Christ and his disciples assembled together.
By the day before Pentecost there were the eleven and 120 more. The added to them (the First Baptist Church at Jerusalem) were 3,000 that day. And the Lord added to them (the local church at Jerusalem) DAILY such as should be saved.

In Acts 8 there was only one church--the church at Jerusalem.

There is no place in scripture where ekklesia cannot be translated as ekklesia or local church. There is no such thing as a universal invisible church. The concept never existed during the first century. If you tried to teach the Ephesians that concept they would think you were "mad."

The word "church" was a generic word with many different meanings which makes the entire doctrine of ecclesiology very confusing. It is a wrong translation, translated "church" only for the political correctness of the Anglican divines. Darby correctly translated it as assembly.

That is an opinion of some. You hold to it. It has the support of only "some" Manuscript evidence, but not a lot. I don't agree.
Besides that, the epistles such as Colossians and Ephesians were shared. That doesn't make them circular. He addressed problems that pertained to that particular church.

For example:
Colossians 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
--But Colossians was not a circular letter. It was written specifically to the Colossians.

Of course it is silence. I gave you a greater authority--God himself.
Is he not sufficient enough? I believe in sola scriptura. Apparently you do not.

 

Mankind has always been saved the same way as For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.[1 Cor. 1:21]


These people were scattered after God said “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.[Gen. 11:6-9]

But salvation has always came by preaching the gospel.

 

Who preached the gospel?

Those who are believers.

Job a man from Uz preached to those unsaved in his area. Abraham whose father worshipped idols was called out by God, who preached the gospel to him?

Enoch preached the gospel and walked with God and was not because God took him?

Through the ages men have witnessed to others and that is the preaching of the gospel.

Prior to Christ death on the cross the was believe on the Savior to come, those who have not heard that Christ came still know and can believe God is sending a savior, that gospel hasn't changed!

 

Your dishonesty is disgraceful.

You had originally said :

"He may have died for the family of God, for the kingdom, for the Bride of Christ, etc."

I had replied with:

"He may have? There is no uncertainty about it!"

Christ did indeed die for, in the place of, in the stead of the Bride of Christ. The Bride of Christ is the Church. There are many other designations for the Church in the Bible, among them --the sheep, the Beloved, the elect, believers, the called, His children and many more.

There is no may about it. It is a fact.

You don't get to call the shots --the Bible itself has these designations.

Of course I can use the word Church. Who do you think you are? Go to the majority of translations. Go to the overwhelming number of Bible commentaries --the word Church is used constantly.

In certain contexts it does refer to a local expression of an assembly of believers. But the primary sense is those believers --the called out ones of his from all ages --scattered around the world.

Herman Ridderbos yields to your superior understanding...in your dreams.

Oh yeah? What about Ephesians 1:22,23:

"And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way."

Consider Ephesians 3:10,21

"His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms."

"to him be glory in the church and in Jesus Christ throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.

You remain in the distinct minority. As I have said before, the overwhelming majority of English Bible translations render it church. Nearly all Bible commentaries do as well --even your favorities. You are fighting a losing battle.

As far back as Bishop Ussher it was noted. In the 20th century Ray Steadman held to it. I checked the remarks of many who have written commentaries on Ephesians in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. They all have acknowledged that Ephsians was a circular letter. The name Ephesians does not occur even once in the epistle.

Peter O'Brien, Bryan Chapell, Harold W. Hoehner (conservative as can be), Klyde Snodgrass, Frank Thielman, A. Skevington Wood are united in the belief.

Others who have not written commentaries on the epistle, but are respected in the field join with the above Daniel Wallace, Craig Blomberg, Bruce Metzger, Philip W. Comfort, D.A. Carson and Doug Moo.

I'm sure many more can be added to the list. But you have the right to disagree with them without availing yourself of their scholarship.

You have no integrity.

I had told you :"You make unfounded assertions such as 'Christ gave himself for the local church in Ephesians 5.'

"I had asked you to name N.T. Bible scholars who believe such a thing. Your answer is silence."

Then you come up with your ungodly "I believe in sola scriptura. Apparently you do not."

Your dishonest method of operation here on the BB has been constant. It has to stop. You delight in twisting things around.

As an example, Protestant once said :"Every one for whom Christ dioed and rose again will be justified. He rose for our justification."

Then you gave an absurd reply :"You believe in universalism. That is heresy."

If you can't find it within yourself to deal truthfully with others here then take your stuff and go home.

 

It is evident that you have posted this with a lot of pent-up anger. Perhaps you should go and take a break.
I have not been dishonest about anything.

I never denied any essential doctrine as you suppose or infer.
But if you need to brush up on your English skills perhaps you should take a "Bonehead English" course to improve your grammar and syntax, and just maybe you will understand what I said.
The dishonesty is all yours in declaring I said something I didn't.

I am the one using the Bible. That is why "I called the shot" so to speak. If you want to challenge my position then do so on the basis of the Word of God.

And what do you do when "you go to church"? Is your definition a "building"?
The Bible knows no such definition. Is "your church" a denomination."
Again, the Bible knows no such definition.
I don't use the word "church" for that very reason. The word ekklesia means "assembly" or "congregation," a much more accurate translation. It wasn't translated that way because of "political correctness" of some Anglican divines.

There is no such thing as an "unassembled assembly."
Your definition is wrong. In fact it doesn't even exist.
The word means: "assembly, congregation," and in no way can mean universal church. That would be contrary to its meaning. The only time all believers can assemble together is in heaven.

Do you ever consider the context?
First and foremost, it was written to the church at Ephesus. Remember that.
Secondly, Go back and look. It is a prayer. He is praying for the believers of the church in Ephesus.
Third, what here is he referring to in this part of his prayer, and how would the believers in Ephesus understand it?

Eph 1:22 and has put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the assembly,
Eph 1:23 which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all:
--Through the resurrection of Christ, all things are under his feet. Christ is the head over this local assembly (as he should be). Is he the Head of your local assembly? Each local assembly is a body of Christ. See 1Cor.1212,13.

It is through the assembly at Ephesus. And that is how the believers at Ephesus would have understood it. Ask yourself if there is any reason why they would not have understood it that way?
Your concept of a "universal church" did not exist in the first century.

Rarely is the majority right.
The two greatest religions in the world today are the RCC and Islam. Of which are you?

Do I care?

That ad hominem has no place here and is totally unfounded.

1. Stop acting like SBM. I don't have to yield to your demands. You are not my master. Stop being so arrogant.
I don't care about other scholars; I care about the Word of God, and that is what I gave you; thus I ignored your petty demand.

 

You're not telling the truth.

You said that "He may have died for the family of God, for the kingdom, for the Bride of Christ, etc."

There is no maybe about it. His death for his Bride needs no such qualifer as may. He definitively laid down his life for His Bride, His Body, The Church, His elect, The Called-Out Ones, His Beloved, His Inheritance and many other designations for the very same people of God.

By that remark are you making the feeble attempt to infer that I am not using the Bible? That is low of you --but very typical of your conduct.

Because the overwhelming number of English Bible translations use the word church? You want to remain defiant? Because the overwhelming number of Bible commentaries --even your favorites use the word church as well? You are strange.

I already pointed out to you that it was a circular letter for the benefit of a number of local gatherings --assemblies.

You are constantly demonstrating your lack of integrity. You can't help yourself --repent and turn to the Lord.

No, you are careless.

You told me that you believe in sola scripture. Then, you followed it with "Apparently you do not." I rebuked you with :"You have no integrity."

You never learn. You just follow your sinful inclinations year by year.

Back on 11/19/2013 you said something along the same line to me :"You don't believe in either sola scriptura or the priesthood of the believer do you?"

You post that kind of trash regularly and feel no shame about it. Yet you remain as a "mod" here. Simply astounding.

My demands? My demands are reasonable. Stop your typical dishonest method of operation. It has to cease. You specialize in misrepresentation of others. Drop it.

Although you quote them a great deal to make your points. You employ a double standard as it is plain to see.

Then obey it and tell the truth. If you are so all-fired right about everything you have no need to deal deceitfully.

 

Here's what I am trying to bring out. After God dispersed them throughout all the earth, they eventually fell into paganism over the years. Look at all the gods the Moabites had. Look at the gods of the the Philistines. Asia is probably the biggest pagan continent we have, in my opinion.

These peoples who confronted Israel during their wilderness wondering were worshipping other gods than the God of Israel.

 

Oh for goodness sake Rippon. Stop with all this pettiness. I know you spend time in Korea but bone up on your English if you can't understand it.
The subject was "YOU," and it was "YOU" that I was addressing, though it was inferred and you apparently couldn't understand me because of your lack of English skills.

Let me reword it for you. I may have to take a step backward and go back to grade three or four level English.

This goes all the way back to post #37 made on June 19th and you have been bickering about it ever since.

Now for your sake:
Look, Rippon:
You may have the liberty to say: Christ died for the family of God, for the kingdom, for the Bride of Christ, etc., but you do not have the liberty to say Christ died for "The Church"....

Do you understand now.
Go take an English class!!

 

China. Master your geography.

You are odd. You are claiming that I am not allowed to proclaim that Christ died for the Church?! You are being absurd. What kind of popish powers do you think you have Mr. Pontiff? Have you turned into Obama? He shreds the Constitution. What you are shredding is the Word of God.

How do you have the gall to make that kind of nonsensical statement?

Of course Christ died for the Church. I have emphasized a number of synonyms for Church in the Scripture. You need to study the Word.

In John 10 Jesus said that he lays down his life for the sheep. The sheep are his. He is not referencing anyone else. He gives them, and them alone eternal life.

In Acts 20:28 Paul tells us that the church of God has been bought with his own blood. It doesn't say the church and everyone else.

In Ephesians 5:25 Paul informs us that Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

Before the creation of the world the Father predestinated certain ones through Jesus Christ. Those individuals are the elect. The names of the elect were written in the Lamb's Book of Life before time began. Those alone are the ones who inherit the promises including eternal life. They alone receive salvation.