Featured The Israel of God

I have found through 10+ years on this BB that the pre-trib-"snatching away" folks are beyond being educating by man even though they were seduced into that false doctrine by the teaching of man. Thankfully, however, I have also encountered a large number of the pre-trib folks who have been led to the truth by God the Holy Spirit and converted from the error of Darby's false doctrine of the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church. I do not recall one who indicated that he was converted to pre-trib-dispensationalism.

It is a fact, Thank God, that many in the dispensational camp are moving away from the false doctrine of Darby, Scofield, Ryrie, and Chafer that God has two peoples; an earthly people, the Jews; and a heavenly people, the Church!

 

Well, you didn't ask a yes or no question...



But okay, I am not a Jesuit. Not even sure exactly what that means, to be honest, because I don't make it a habit of study of what is not genuine. A Catholic priest that is the special ops of their branch?

For what? Your misunderstanding and refusal to address my points?

Let's return this to it's context:

Now answer the questions. You say David was a born again believer, so explain how it is that David, who did understand...recognizes his sin and condition.

This leads us into a soteriological aspect which demands a distinction of ministry in the lives of men before and after the Cross and Pentecost.

And when it is so well clarified in the New Testament we have to wonder at the motivation to ignore it.

But it wouldn't be to support an opposing view, would it?

It was actually sarcasm, or being facetious, you decide.

David recognizes his need for regeneration, which, again, was a Promise unto Israel and the world, spoken of in the Garden, in the Abrahamic Covenant, and specifics given in the Promise of the New Covenant, which was also a promise not received until established by and through Christ.

What a great opportunity to throw in "...there's just so much you know that isn't so." lol

Have to take advantage of humor when you can, my friend.

But, your denial doesn't hold up:

Are you going to say you did not post this with intent to say I don't know the Scriptures?

No reason to, and you would see that if you would simply look at the inconsistencies of your own.

Okay, one question I will ask again:

Just answer that for me, and then proceed with your exclusion extremes.

It's up to you. You can throw Scripture at me in an attempt to cast me as an ignorant and dangerous teacher, or, you can address the points which are made that force you to reconsider your own.

Going out of town Saturday and not sure how much I will get to tomorrow or Saturday morning. I guess I have my own meditating to do seeing that I have just learned I am a Jesuit Dispensationalist...



Answer the one question for me, my friend, that's all I ask. It is bad form to yank an antagonists statements out of context, so whether we continue in discussion or not, I just suggest you seek to avoid that with others. Anyone can make anyone seem to say anything, just as anyone can make the Word of God seem to say anything, but, it is the consistency of Scripture that all of us rely on, and we are to seek to bring the Whole Counsel into harmony.

I don't see, in regards to your view of salvation, that you maintain the dignity of salvation in Christ. You do not maintain clear teachings that place revelation of salvation in the progressive and ever increasing manner which is recorded in Scripture.

The Church did not exist until Christ created the Church which is founded on declaration of faith in the Risen Christ. Christ was without controversy spoken of, yet no man placed their faith in Christ in understanding of the Gospel, because the Gospel had not yet been revealed. The eternal indwelling of the Spirit of God had not begun. Eternal remission of sins had not been bestowed.

All these are very simple factors to a sound understanding of the Gospel itself, and those who ignore or reject it can usually be found to minimize not only the Gospel, but Christ Himself. They convert the New Covenant to the New and Improved Covenant. They fall into error of works-based mentality. They support the L.O.S.T.

That is my view. I have presented it over and over, and have dealt directly with your assertions. You have ignored much of what has been said.

Nevertheless, discussion is not something I usually deny to people, except when they show they do not want to discuss. And that is what you have done. You can't have one-sided conversations with people and expect to make an impact, my friend. Discussion requires listening as well as speaking. This is why many who are involved in cults remain in them, because only the information that supports their view is ever examined. But we examine...everything. And we test those things in light of the measure of the Word of God. I feel I have done that, and so far no address of my responses has shown otherwise.

Still, I have enjoyed the conversation, such as it has been, and don't regret it. I would like there to be more communication, but that really relies on you.


God bless.

 

In ten years it seems the only thing generated is hatred. Really, OR, you give "dispensational" a new meaning.

Again, in threads you have been given opportunity to debunk a PRe-Trib view, yet you refuse to address the points made. Is this any better than another member that refuses to address the points made about slavery?


God bless.

 

I would say that Dispy teaching though existed before Darby and Scofield within the church though, and that e father/Son again?one could also say that all of us have some "manmade" doctrines, as none of us are inspired apostles here, as for example, just where in the Bible is that covenant of works and between th

 

I nave noticed in those ten years that when anyone questions the false doctrine that John Nelson Darby and Cyrus Scofield foisted on a gullible public there is:

First: You don't believe the Bible.

Second: An immediate attitude of disdain even hatred toward that person who dares question the unbiblical idea that John Nelson Darby received a new revelation from God.

Third: Serious doubt expressed, cleverly on this BB, about the salvation of anyone who would dare question the unbiblical idea that John Nelson Darby received a new revelation from God.

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

In the following taken from the link provided it is clear that pre-trib-dispensationalism is the brainchild of John Nelson Darby!

I am not going to waste time responding to nonsense. There is not a single verse of Scripture that supports a pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church! That is a false doctrine "invented out of whole cloth" by John Nelson Darby during a period of convalescence and popularized in this country by the Scofield Bible.

 

The basic problem is that there are indeed verses to support a pre trib rapture, but our brother fits the verses through his mindset and refuses to acknowledge what they mean!

And darby did NOT bring that concept all by himself into the church!

 

Dispensational scholar Dr Thomas Ice disagrees with you!

 

Correct. I made a comment about "Jesuits ... [sigh]", which was in reference to the theological construct [Futurism, disp, etc...] which originates with them, and to which you presently seemingly adhere to. This capped both ends of the reply.

It is written:

He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers; - Proverbs 6:13

He that winketh with the eye causeth sorrow: but a prating fool shall fall. - Proverbs 10:10​

For anyone's information, a Jesuit, who is bound by their oaths, may disavow being a Jesuit, therefore, a denial of such from one who is Jesuit, is not really conclusive. What matters is what is being taught/said. Presently, brother Darrell C, though I do thank you for the more clear reply, I am more interested in the theology that originates with them, to which you presently adhere to. That is of course, you would like to distance yourself from their position? For instance, in what way would you say you differ greatly in, from their ongoing counter-reformation position, as provided in the previous historically documented link, to which I will once again attach here, for your easy perusal - http://www.biblelight.net/antichrist.htm

The Jesuits, aka the sons of Loyola or aka the society of Jesus, is a militaristic prelature of the Roman See - and you may view some of the history here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_5jvxI9mU

If you would like further information on that cabal of ordo ab chao, spawned of satan himself, I can document it for you. That also goes for the other 'orders', Opus Dei [a political prelature of the Roman See], and various orders of militaristic Knights - Columbus, Malta, etc.

Brother, you have repeatedly cut short my responses, and without the use of ellipses to show that further context was to follow. Therefore, please refer to what was originally given.

Darrell C had stated [red highlight, underline and bold added, mine]:

To which I cited the latter portion of and replied to:

It was not I that stated an incorrect, unscriptural apriori position of "Saul received eternal remission of sins and eternal life..." of which then followed that comment by yourself of yet "...David pleads the impossible ..." and "...It's amazing that a Prophet of God could so misunderstand regeneration. ...", after citing the Scripture of Psalms 51:9-11, wherein David is pleading with God over his grievous sins (Bathsheba, Uriah, etc) and did not desire to "be a castaway" (1 Corinthians 9:27; see the same word in Hebrews 6:8), even "cast forth as a branch" (John 15:6) to be "burned", and so pleaded with God for forgiveness, and cleansing, and to be given a new heart, one which was obedient unto God in His will and that the Holy Spirit would remain with Him, and not be "take[n] ... from" him, even as he had seen of King Saul (the Holy Spirit "departed from" 1 Samuel 16:14; 28:15), though he (Saul) had before been "turned into another man" (1 Samuel 10:6,7,9) given a new heart, and also the Holy Spirit. Conditional (Acts 5:32; Hebrews 5:9), and always has been (even from the Garden, and moreso - Ephesians 4:17-32). David feared before the LORD and rightly so, for He rightly understood, by the Holy Spirit, who pleaded with David..., as it is written elsewhere:

For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, - Hebrews 6:4

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, - Hebrews 6:5

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame. - Hebrews 6:6

For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: - Hebrews 6:7

But that which beareth thorns and briers [is] rejected, and [is] nigh unto cursing; whose end [is] to be burned. - Hebrews 6:8 (see the same word in 1 Corinthians 9:27)​

Therefore, David properly understood his precarious position before God, even inspired of the Holy Spirit to rightly speak it.

On the otherhand, notice what you stated, had nothing to do with 'sarcasm', no matter how it is decried. For you presently hold an unscriptural apriori position, being witnessed here as elsewhere: "... Great, Saul received eternal remission of sins and eternal life ..." and did not attach the necessary and Scriptural modifers, the conditional part, even of obedience. Thus, because of that incorrect apriori, you needed to have said of David's prayer as you did, which is the dangerous part, a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and hence the warning, in charity, to you. I was most serious, no sarcasm at all, but truly astounded amazement at such statements as you have made brother.

Presently you seem to adhere to a form of OSAS, which is in itself unscriptural, and there are many more texts in witness of this, not the least of which the Sanctuary "pattern" itself reveals. I know of the texts which others use to prop up that deadly dynamite of OSAS, but it is one of the most dangerous theologies out there, and what is worse, what it does to the character of God, whom most do not even to consider when presenting it. I know, I had a friend who once believed it... but thanks be to God and by the Holy Spirit and witnessing and sharing the Scriptures from Gen. to Rev., no longer, delivering him from some serious trouble. I will, if you would like, enter into this in another thread, since it is not the topic of this thread. I will not comment further here on it.

 

No brother, I understood you perfectly.

Brother, I have attempted to, and yet at this point I have waited on several occasions for a simple answer (yes/no) to a single question in regards Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:13-15, and the matter of "fulfilled" by and in Jesus Christ, even though I did answer your question "Did Jesus come?" by a simple "yes". If you will, perhaps we may try something different, since neither our approaches to one another are moving this study forward. Let me know if you will, being most candid and serious, even charitable, by a simple "yes" or "no", please.

Of which you recite yourself [my comments now interspersed, in charity]:

Already commented upon above.

Let us see:

The question is asked with an incorrect apriori. Since sins which are pardoned/forgiven can be returned unto the person, per Matthew 18:21-35, as well as Leviticus 4 & 16 & 23.

In very short - Forgiven sin, is "covered", not blotted out yet. For that which is "covered" hath need of its total eradication, but since it is merely "covered" until that time, the "covering" can be removed and the sin 'reinstated' to the person, and not merely for those past sins which had been covered, but even that which had accumulated since, as per Matthew 18, etc. In the instances of Leviticus 4 and the 'atonement' made throughout the year, though the sinners were forgiven, yet it was necessary to go through the Day of Atonement/Judgment (Yom Kippur) - Leviticus 16 & 23, wherein, even those who had been (past tense) forgiven, covered, etc, could yet be "cut off" forever if they were not right with God and had used that time of probation in the wrongful manner. All of their past sacrifices, even if brought day by day, was of no avail, unless they continued and abided in Jesus, by Him.

As scripture states, sin is like a heavy stone, a great weight or burden. It may be "covered" by the blood of the Lamb and "removed" from the person forgiven, but since it is "covered" it still exists on record, even in the books of Heaven, even transfered to another, but it may be transfered back, unless it is "blotted out" completely in the work of the Great High Priest in that special Day of Atonement.

"Covered" is not "blotted out", and neither the latter the first, for it is easily demonstrated from Scripture if required. For there is also no reason for sin to be "covered" if it is "blotted out", and no reason to be "blotted out" if sin "covered" was actually eradicated. If you would like I can cite several scriptures for you on this matter, both Old (Gen - Mal) and New Testaments (Matt - Rev).

If my heart becomes polluted as David's had? A New Heart is just that, New, and may be corrupted, even as Lucifers was, even as Adam's was. We are the Temple of the Living God on earth, and as such, there are many ways in which to defile that Temple (spiritually and/or physically), see 1 Corinthians 6:15-20, etc.

If one was in situation/circumstance/life event as David's? Wouldn't you? David did, and he knew his Redeemer was Merciful, ye also Just. The Holy Spirit will not always plead with men/beings (Genesis 6:3, etc, King Saul, Judas, Lucifer himself), and can begin to withdraw from the person, gradually, step by step, even as the person was withdrawing from Him. God is love (1 John 4:8,16).

I have indeed, even by His great grace and tender mercies, for he knoweth my frame, and knoweth all my heart/goings, from beginning to end. I will recommend you do the same, even now, because of what you have previously stated in regards the Holy Spirit and David's prayer.

Absolutely, when in such like situation as David's, when the Holy Spirit Himself convicts me to do so, even pleading with me. Of I reject that warning, I may not ever receive another, and that is why I plead for you brother, and the position you are in.

Done in brief. Further details and Scriptures may be given at a later period if charitably asked to do so.

I quoted Scripture brother, and therefore, "It is written". And so yes he was.

Brother, that is not what you stated before. Consider again what you wrote:

You clearly said David "misunderstood" [not "understood"] and what was prayed was "impossible" [not "possible"] according to yourself.

David could not have recognized a single thing, if it weren't for the pleading of the Holy Spirit he already had been given, who was then even pleading with him and wrestling with him in prayer.

No, brother, as shown here -

[1] http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2213232&postcount=189
[2] http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2213233&postcount=190
[3] http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2213234&postcount=191
[4] http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2213235&postcount=192

1 Corinthians 10; 2 Corinthians 4; Galatians 3; Hebrews 4; etc. are most clear. They had Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, Salvation, Holy Law of God, etc.

What I usually get, is when I give short answers, I am told I did not answer, and when I thoroughly evidence from the Scripture, I am told it is too much and get no general answer. Feast or famine, coming fasting or feasting, the pharisees, were never satisfied, for Jesus said as much (Matthew 11:16-19; Luke 7:30-35).

No brother, only in the apriori you have builded upon. Look again, please:

Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us] of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. - Hebrews 4:1

For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it]. - Hebrews 4:2

etc.​

The Scripures are indeed most clear, unsupportive of Futurism, OSAS, and this total division made, etc.

No brother, clearly, as demonstrated, it wasn't either. Repent. Additionally, the Bible also speaks to being facetious in Ephesians 5:4. Please consider it, for there is much more on it in James, and elsewhere.

 

The Holy Spirit, which David had already been given in the New Birth, and was upon/in Him [hence David's prayer, "Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me." (Psalms 51:11), "Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit." (Psalms 51:12)], pleaded with David, otherwise David could not ever be aware of His sin, for it is written that He reproves of "sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment", even as He speaks through the Word already spoken, 2 Timothy 3:16, even as the prophet was sent unto him, speaking the word/testimony of the LORD.

The mere fact of your attitude, in so much uncalled for jesting, in this and other conversations, shows the great lack of serious and prayerful study upon your part brother.

What reason for it?, since the conversation is not about vain and trival things, since even yourself have utilized the word 'soteriological'. Do you truly think these matters of salvation, gospel, the covenants, are of such hilarity and jocularity and rather not gravity [graveness, of the most serious importance] and sobriety?

Yes, brother it does. Look again. I had quoted Mark 12:24, to which you replied:

Therefore I stated in reply to the latter remark about being "ignorant" [cited below]:

I do not take you as being ignorant as stated. I have quoted Mark 12:24 in ending what was given you about the following texts:

Therefore, ye have erred and still do err in those specific scriptures, because ye know not the scriptures (as specifically cited, not stating ignorance in general, nor even of Scripture as a whole, but in specificity, in context), neither the power of God (from Genesis to the NT), since you presently adhere to the same theological position as of the Jesuit counter-reformation. Therefore, the replies stand in harmony in both responses, in their respective contexts. This is what happens when my replies are chopped up and the ellipses not properly given. Misunderstanding, generally followed by accusation. I do not mind so much, as except for the tremendous amount of wasted time to have to re-hash it all again, to set the context in clarity once more.

Brother, please see previous [above] response and take note again of the matter in regards the "theology" [Jesuit] espoused by yourself.

I have not been shown any inconsistencies except as you yourself apriorily claim them to be. All of the texts cited, I am in harmony with and therefore, cannot ever take your position for several reasons, both Scriptural [as some cited herein, and elsewhere already] as well as the origins of that theological position, being of Roman [C] descent.

 

Christ Jesus did not ever return unto the Land of Egypt, and there is no worldliness [of which Egypt is a symbol of] in Him. Even as He used the Assyrian king [and his armies] to punish Israel and rule over them with, in kingship/dominion, like as unto Nebuchadnezzar II [and Babylonian armies] to likewise punish Israel, being called "Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant" (Jeremiah 25:9, 27:6, 43:10). Notice, that the sentence does not cease at "but the Assyrian shall be his king", but continues with the reason, "because they refused to return." Notice it gives the reason for the "Assyrian" to be "His" king [in Christ Jesus, it is ownership, for He is KING of Kings and LORD of Lords] over "them" [the rebellious peoples of God]. Therefore, would not only the literal "Assyrian" actually reign over the peoples 'Israel' "after the flesh", but so too, would "Satan" [the "Assyrian" anti-type] rule over the rebellious peoples of God, and God would use Satan to punish them for their wickedness, in other words, God would withdraw His protection and Holy Spirit, and allow the forces of evil, so longed after, by the rebellious in their Idolatry, Adulteries, etc, to punish them in their iniquity and disobedience. This is seen in Revelation and in many other places. It is also found in Daniel and in the NT (about Jerusalem being destroyed once more by those who professed to be followers of God, but disobeyed, refused God, even Jesus Christ, and so God's protection was withdrawn, their house left to them desolate, and God allowed Rome to punish and destroy Jerusalem.

Done.

 

Brother, must you continue in this manner? Please, I am asking for seriousness, prayerfulness, even a fresh start with you, if we may go back to the Scripture and remain there.

I have cited the Scripture, as you asked, and responded as you asked, and from this perspective you are dangerous, but it doesn't make you necessarily or even inherently evil. It simply makes you like Eve unto Adam. This is what happens in deception. No one likes being told they are deceived, ye what else can one do, along with attempting to show the evidence of it? [I ask rhetorically, not looking to lengthen this any more than it already is.] This is where I was [in deception] in Roman Catholicism so many short years ago, and this why I plead with you brother, to consider the Jesuit counter-reformation origins and theologies which at present are so similar, if not identical, to the ones you are sharing. I know Roman Catholicism, and its theologies and it/they is dangerous, in more ways than one. I do not mean to belittle you, nor falsely accuse you of anything, but I do take these things most seriously. I have no room for laughter in any of it, and if you were in my position, I would hope you wouldn't either.

This is yet another point in regards your theology, in regards the 7th Day the Sabbath of the LORD thy God, but not here.

Brother, carrying/promoting theology is not the same as being of the order itself, though I do not understand why, after the evidence in regards the historical origins of that theology have been documentedly shown, anyone would want to continue in it.

I will take you at your word, that you are not a Jesuit, but with a caveat, that you do teach, in this regards, what they teach, it in its present formulation having originated with them.

Done.

Which is why I have not, even documentedly so, and I attempt to always use the proper ellipses. I have also taken great troubles to relocate all of the original citations, in their contexts to demonstrate this.

Agreed. This is the point of contention between us, for I believe that is what you are presently doing, though not consciously aware of it, thus not maliciously.

Therefore, if you were correct, your theological position [which I have attempted to demonstrate historically by link is one of the Jesuit positions] should be able to be seen in the "pattern" given to Moses [since both the OT and NT make mention/use of it].

Thy way, O God, [is] in the sanctuary: who [is so] great a God as [our] God? - Psalm 77:13​

At this point, I would like to suggest, it is because you are placing a position upon me which I do not take. Scripturally, I see it the other way around, since at this point, what I see you presenting is the Jesuit counter-reformation position, which is not based in Scripture, though it utilizes many portions of it in disarray, but even if I were to discontinue from saying it, and simply address the theology from nothing, where would you like to begin? Please start there, simply [and I would like to stress "simply"].

 

Brother, Salvation is found from Genesis 3:15 onward, in type unto anti-type as stated on several occasions. The Lamb slain from the Foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8) was typologically pointing to Christ Jesus in Anti-type, for it was even 'Jesus' Himself in the Garden which clothed them (Adam/Eve) with those skins of the slain. He Himself told them what it represented so that they would continue to explain it to their children and their children and so on.

Since this Thread is to be about "Israel", perhaps you may consider a video, we can discuss as well - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-WMjEl9fQg and you might be able to briefly comment upon where you disagree with time index noted, so I can know wherein to look, but if not, perhaps we can try again.

Brother, what do you do with the [singular/definite article] created "Church" "in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38), so also "the woman" (Revelation 12:1-2). The word used in the Greek is indeed "εκκλησιαG1577 N-DSF".

See also the (so-called) LXX uses:

Deuteronomy 4:10 ἡμέραν, ἣν ἔστητε ἐναντίον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν ἐν Χωρηβ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ὅτε εἶπεν κύριος πρός με Ἐκκλησίασον πρός με τὸν λαόν, καὶ ἀκουσάτωσαν τὰ ῥήματά μου, ὅπως μάθωσιν φοβεῖσθαί με πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, ἃς αὐτοὶ ζῶσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτῶν διδάξωσιν.

Deuteronomy 18:16 κατὰ πάντα, ὅσα ᾐτήσω παρὰ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου ἐν Χωρηβ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἐκκλησίας λέγοντες Οὐ προσθήσομεν ἀκοῦσαι τὴν φωνὴν κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ τὸ πῦρ τὸ μέγα τοῦτο οὐκ ὀψόμεθα ἔτι οὐδὲ μὴ ἀποθάνωμεν,

Deuteronomy 31:30 Καὶ ἐλάλησεν Μωυσῆς εἰς τὰ ὦτα πάσης ἐκκλησίας Ισραηλ τὰ ῥήματα τῆς ᾠδῆς ταύτης ἕως εἰς τέλος

Joshus 8:35 οὐκ ἦν ῥῆμα ἀπὸ πάντων, ὧν ἐνετείλατο Μωυσῆς τῷ Ἰησοῖ, ὃ οὐκ ἀνέγνω Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὰ ὦτα πάσης ἐκκλησίας υἱῶν Ισραηλ, τοῖς ἀνδράσιν καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶν καὶ τοῖς παιδίοις καὶ τοῖς προσηλύτοις τοῖς προσπορευομένοις τῷ Ισραηλ.

1 Kings 8:22 Καὶ ἔστη Σαλωμων κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου κυρίου ἐνώπιον πάσης ἐκκλησίας Ισραηλ καὶ διεπέτασεν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν

1 Chronicles 28:2 καὶ ἔστη Δαυιδ ἐν μέσῳ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ εἶπεν Ἀκούσατέ μου, ἀδελφοὶ καὶ λαός μου. ἐμοὶ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ καρδίαν οἰκοδομῆσαι οἶκον ἀναπαύσεως τῆς κιβωτοῦ διαθήκης κυρίου καὶ στάσιν ποδῶν κυρίου ἡμῶν, καὶ ἡτοίμασα τὰ εἰς τὴν κατασκήνωσιν ἐπιτήδεια·

1 Chronicles 28:8 καὶ νῦν κατὰ πρόσωπον πάσης ἐκκλησίας κυρίου καὶ ἐν ὠσὶν θεοῦ ἡμῶν φυλάξασθε καὶ ζητήσατε πάσας τὰς ἐντολὰς κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν, ἵνα κληρονομήσητε τὴν γῆν τὴν ἀγαθὴν καὶ κατακληρονομήσητε τοῖς υἱοῖς ὑμῶν μεθ᾿ ὑμᾶς ἕως αἰῶνος.

1 Chronicles 29:10 καὶ εὐλόγησεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Δαυιδ τὸν κύριον ἐνώπιον τῆς ἐκκλησίας λέγων Εὐλογητὸς εἶ, κύριε ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ, ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος.

2 Chronicles 6:12 Καὶ ἔστη κατέναντι τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου κυρίου ἔναντι πάσης ἐκκλησίας Ισραηλ καὶ διεπέτασεν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ,

2 Chronicles 6:13 ὅτι ἐποίησεν Σαλωμων βάσιν χαλκῆν καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὴν ἐν μέσῳ τῆς αὐλῆς τοῦ ἱεροῦ, πέντε πηχῶν τὸ μῆκος αὐτῆς καὶ πέντε πήχεων τὸ εὖρος αὐτῆς καὶ τριῶν πήχεων τὸ ὕψος αὐτῆς, καὶ ἔστη ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὰ γόνατα ἔναντι πάσης ἐκκλησίας Ισραηλ καὶ διεπέτασεν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν

2 Chronicles 28:14 καὶ ἀφῆκαν οἱ πολεμισταὶ τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν καὶ τὰ σκῦλα ἐναντίον τῶν ἀρχόντων καὶ πάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας.

2 Chronicles 29:23 καὶ προσήγαγον τοὺς χιμάρους τοὺς περὶ ἁμαρτίας ἐναντίον τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, καὶ ἐπέθηκαν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς,

2 Chronicles 30:4 καὶ ἤρεσεν ὁ λόγος ἐναντίον τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ἐναντίον τῆς ἐκκλησίας.

2 Chronicles 30:17 ὅτι πλῆθος τῆς ἐκκλησίας οὐχ ἡγνίσθη, καὶ οἱ Λευῖται ἦσαν τοῦ θύειν τὸ φασεκ παντὶ τῷ μὴ δυναμένῳ ἁγνισθῆναι τῷ κυρίῳ.

Ezra 10:8 καὶ πᾶς, ὃς ἂν μὴ ἔλθῃ εἰς τρεῖς ἡμέρας ὡς ἡ βουλὴ τῶν ἀρχόντων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ἀναθεματισθήσεται πᾶσα ἡ ὕπαρξις αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸς διασταλήσεται ἀπὸ ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἀποικίας.

Nehemiah 8:2 καὶ ἤνεγκεν Εσδρας ὁ ἱερεὺς τὸν νόμον ἐνώπιον τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς καὶ ἕως γυναικὸς καὶ πᾶς ὁ συνίων ἀκούειν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ μιᾷ τοῦ μηνὸς τοῦ ἑβδόμου

Psalms 22:22 (21:23) διηγήσομαι τὸ ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, ἐν μέσῳ ἐκκλησίας ὑμνήσω σε

Proverbs 5:14 παρ᾿ ὀλίγον ἐγενόμην ἐν παντὶ κακῷ ἐν μέσῳ ἐκκλησίας καὶ συναγωγῆς. ​

 

It is written:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad. - John 8:56​

Conditional, Brother, as demonstrated, and the Holy Spirit was from the very beginning as also shown, and in the life of David, etc. Of course they looking forward to the Cross, and we since then, back to it.

'The Old Covenant' is found in Exodus 19, in the agreement made by the peoples 'Israel' in their own [faulty; Hebrews] promises, in their own strength, and is not the Ten Commandments [God's My Covenant], the eternal, perfect, just, holy and good, Moral [spiritual] Law of God. The Ten Commandments are all over the NT scriptures, begin with John 14:15 and Exodus 20:6.

The view of the Jesuits, brother. Please see that link again.

Yes, I have so noticed.

No brother, you added to what I asked and stated by your apriori, thus making me take a position, I do not hold.

No brother, I have not, clearly. I was attempting to establish a baseline question, to further move from, which was not simply answered. Thus all of that which followed. The remainder of the texts all clear up once we establish the base line.

Brother, go back and look at your responses, to such a simple baseline question.

That is why I asked the question, in simplicity which was not simply answered. Do you see brother? I was most interested in speaking with you, though I must say, that fire is dwindling.

True. If you will please move more slowly, thank you. A point or question at a time please. It will be less cluttered. Easier to respond to, rather than what is now given.

Brother, I can assure you be personal experience, everything I believe is examined, and all things are test/proved by Scripture. I have many witnesses, earthly and heavenly.

Who is "we"?

Incorrect brother, go back and look again at my responses and questions to yourself. Including this.

I cannot say the same, though I desired it would not have been so, but perhaps we can start again? In simplicity?

At this point, I have spent way too much time on this single response alone, but in charity, have given it.

 

Takes 2 brother.

He has, and does. This is why I cannot ever believe as you presently do, for He has answered my prayer and continues to do and this I can know for certainty not based upon how I feel about it, but by Scripture itself:

And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. - 1 John 3:24

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: - 1 John 4:2​

That flesh, is fallen [and if not, what you have is Roman Catholicism, even if it is in some variant]- http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2211767&postcount=7

 

I was going to break this up but since you object to long responses, unless they are yours, I will just answer it in the fashion you have, though I will not obscure the text as you have done. Never a good idea to write in someone else's text as some may mistake your words for your antagonist's.

All of this and you still present the same premise: Christ is Israel.

You deny that you ask a singular question that demands a singular answer, to which, if you do not understand my answer by now, I see no hope of you ceding the point.

You want to make Post#142 the staring point where you can deny an answer, but that is not the starting point. Post#100 is the starting point, in which you state...

...in which you identify Israel as the "Church" in the Wilderness and you go on to say...

...that they were in the True Vine, thus further identifying Israel with the Church, the Body of Christ.

That is the point of contention and it is that your "question" has danced around.

Not even John the Baptist believed on Christ:


Matthew 11:2-3

King James Version (KJV)

2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,

3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?


You want to focus on whether Christ fulfilled your proof-text and I have said yes, but, that does not mean we ignore that Israel is a distinct entity that is not to be equated to either Christ or the Church.

I fail to see the relevance to the issue at hand.

Let me simplify the point, and just quote a section from the original response:

I answered your question in Post#152 in saying...

Now you reiterate what I have already said and still say...I have not answered.

I am addressing the premise of your teaching and you are ignoring that fact. I reiterate that in this post. Long story short...

...I am addressing your attempt to equate Israel to the Church, salvation in Christ to the redemption that was literal and physical for a literal and physical Israel who all stood on a level playing field in the Redemptive Plan of God. Not one of them were in the True Vine, for they were the Vine in the sense that the creation of the Nation Israel was for that time the provision of God for relationship to Himself.

Almost done.



God bless.

 

Would you like me to start calling you names, quoting you out of context, questioning your salvation, call you a false teacher...

...as you have done?

Sorry, not my style. Feel free to carry on, I will stick with the Scripture and keep this doctrinal.

Go back to my original response, my friend, that is what you have danced around in most of your replies. Leaving on a trip tomorrow so not sure if I will get the chance to get here tomorrow morning, so it is sad to have to waste so much time dealing with your judgments of me, when you could be dealing with the doctrine.

I addressed your teaching concerning Israel and her spiritual condition and the significance of maintain the historical context along with the prophetic. Been dealing with another member so I am not sure, but I don't think there has been much response dealing with the core issues which negate a premise of Israel, or anyone else under the other Covenants...trusting in Christ and being in the True Vine.

And which of your responses have I not dealt with word for word in their context? Which Scripture have I not addressed?

Yet you want to make this personal, lol. Because you were a Catholic and have some knowledge about Jesuits...you identify me with them. You say Jesuits originated certain doctrines that apparently are similar to mine, therefore I am a Jesuit, or, you magnanimously declare I err in ignorance, lol.

Just deal with the doctrine, my friend.

Well, I guess that's better than Satan unto Adam. Thanks for being so kind.

Now would you deal with the doctrine? lol

Long posts are only okay if you do them?

If you want to validate your charges, guess what you will have to do. You guessed it...

...deal with the doctrine.

So because you were involved with false doctrine you assume everyone else has to be as well?

The truth is this: there are just going to be similarities between theologies over the course of many millennia, and those similarities do not negate that which is found in Scripture.

My doctrinal views are the result of hard work and many discussions among other believers. Many debates which have at times found me in error, as well as correct. I do not study nor place an emphasis on false theologies, I seek out the truth straight from the Word of God.

And I have said it before, and say it again...you are in error in the post I addressed, and it is because you will not deal with that core issue that you create the need for a lot of wasted discussion, then...have the nerve to complain about it.

The simple solution: address the doctrine. Support your contention that Israel was following Christ. That they were in the True Vine. THat they were regenerate.

That they were THE Church, the Body of CHrist.

Not in the least bit interested, sorry.

Believe it or not, not everyone is an emissary of the "evil Catholic Empire," my friend. You're going to find doctrine that Jesuits hold to in others, doesn't make them Jesuits. And unless you want to say that everything Jesuits taught was in error, that is something you are going to have to get used to. Catholics are correct in some of their doctrine, whether you want to admit that or not.

Are you sure about that? lol

Lighten up. I can't tell you how hilarious your charges and judgments are. I cannot see how your escape from Catholicism places you in such dire straits that you neglect humor.

I mean, a Jesuit? Really? lol

But like I said, I've been labeled quite a few things, and perhaps some of them are more correct than in error. I am found in agreement with certain dispensational, covenantal, Catholic, Protestant, Reformed, and maybe even a little tolerance for early Arminian teaching.

But my doctrine is none of those, it is the result of Bible Study. I attend a Baptist Church and have no problem associating with them because I believe that as a whole their doctrine will get people closest to a sound theology. Not really another type of fellowship I think I would consider attending.

Well I can state my views on that: the Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday, always has been, always will be. Christians meet on Sunday as a matter of tradition which I think has a basis in Scripture. I do not quibble with those who are confused about the Covenants who choose to worship in Saturday, other than to try to explain why we are not under the First Covenant, but the New. We should view every day as a holy day in my opinion, rather than distinguishing a particular day or days for worship, which I feel engenders a religious attitude.

And we don't judge others concerning their views about holy days. Simply overlook and have compassion for those less understanding.

If you have a problem with my theology, then address it.

You sound like a post-tribber who denies the Rapture as a First Century teaching, but the fact is...that is where the basis for my belief is rooted.

I could care less what the Jesuits taught or believed, even as I can care less what the Catholic Church taught, teaches, or believes. Because I understand that despite someone being an actual member of those groups...doesn't mean they are knowledgeable about what that group teaches or have understood those teachings as they are held by that or any group.


Continued...

 

How magnanimous of you, lol.

I am not even sure what doctrine it is that has made you believe I follow or teach Jesuit teaching, whether through ignorance or intentionally.

Clarify and I will address...the doctrine.

Not really.

You still miss the point that there is an historical context which deals specifically with National Israel. National Israel herself is not a picture of Christ, my friend...but a picture of the Church.

Not the Church herself, though.

That is what was originally addressed.

Doesn't detract from the fact that you have not addressed my posts in detail. If you would do that your error on certain issues would be revealed.

The church in Israel was not the Church, the Body of Christ. They were not in the True Vine because that Provision was only pictured in the Nation until the True Vine actually came in fulfillment of the promises of God.

I haven't seen that. The last post I addressed you wrote within my text, a serious error on the part of any debater.

I will not respond to those.

Don't be lazy. You started it, put the effort in to finish it. Don't leave out anything because the context is often lost. You are going to be a serious debater or you need to refrain from debate. Don't let yourself be like those who like to take potshots...do the necessary work. If you are ever going to successfully address the doctrine of others, you are going to make sure you don't leave room for them to feel as though you couldn't answer...anything.

If you do this you will stand out amongst debaters, and that is just my personal opinion. I want you, and everyone professing and witnessing for Christ, to be excellent in doctrine and debate practice.

No, OB, it is not the point of contention between us, lol.

The point of contention between us is doctrinal.

I'm sure you are a very fine fellow, and I can see you have a good heart, but you have got to...keep this doctrinal. That is the only thing that ever changes this world...sound doctrine. If you feel yours is sound, then for Pete's sake...make that clear. Leave off the personal remarks and judgments, the doctrine will reveal all that needs to be known to the watching and reading world. It is Scripture that is going to change hearts when the Spirit of God enlightens our and their hearts.

Which position? That Israel was physical and not...the Church?

That's the pattern, my friend, but not the reality.

I have not, and will not give you links to diminish another group or theology system, I will, and have, give you only the Scripture I see as validating my doctrinal positions.

I have asked you to show me a regenerate Old Testament Saint and you have failed to produce one. You have failed to show how a mystery unrevealed to men was not only known but exercised by Old Testament Saints. You have failed to show how a promise can be fulfilled...

...and still a promise.

They lived by faith but...they received not the promise/s.

That is why we distinguish the New Covenant from the First. Some go so far as to wrest the word new to make the New Covenant the First...just revitalized. And if I am not mistaken, I have already pointed out how not making this distinction leads to erroneous theology which is corrupt.

Doesn't mean they were in the True Vine.

Why then would the Lord promise...a New Covenant? It is because they did not, like we, have the Spirit of God eternally indwelling us, that we might walk in His statutes and keep His judgments.

It's a very simple concept which I think many reject because they are embarrassed they had not given it thought before. I was saved probably close to fifteen years before I did. But in all the discussions I have had I have not once seen a credible presentation that places regeneration under New Covenant conditions in the Old Testament under any other Covenant.

Not one.

No sir, I do not.

You made the question demand a yes or no answer and that cannot be done, any more than there can just be the question "Did Christ come?" If we do, we neglect the rest of the relevant issues that also have to be answered.

And you are welcome to point out the error of my doctrine. You have been asked to do that yet you derail the discussion with accusations, charges, judgments, and personal remarks. Maybe them Jesuits weren't so wrong as you might like to have them. You know what they say, "Even the blind dog finds the water-bowl once in a while."

And just a little more advice, friend: if you center your ministry around hatred and dislike for what you perceive as not being genuine or sound...you will fail miserably. You can look at discussion about a Pre-Trib Rapture and see the enmity some believers hold towards others and their miserable attempts to discredit them. When it remains doctrinal, though, it should be clear enough who has done their homework and is not letting emotion control their efforts.

Like the guy that dealt with counterfeit money did not waste his time in study if counterfeit money, but spent his time in study of the genuine, so that is what we must be about.

Forget the Jesuits, forget Catholicism...study the true only and you will not fail.

So show how my doctrine is not found in Scripture.

You can go back to my first response and we can start over, lol. It was a short enough response, I did not get overly detailed in all you said. I addressed the singular point of Israel's condition under Old Covenant standard, and objected to your teaching that Israel can be equated to the Church, or that they followed Christ.

Truthfully Christ followed them, lol, but they were ignorant of the Gospel Mystery/ies and had no specific revelation by which they could place their faith in the Risen Christ and thereby be born again and eternally indwelt by the Spirit of God.

That is the singular point that was the focus of my first response, and if you feel our discussion has been in vain, I am sorry for you. But you can, if you like, go back to my first response, and I will try to keep it as simple as I can, but, these things are not going to be fully addressed with potshot posts that have no intention of going into any detail.

Still almost done.




God bless.

 

Now think about what you just said, my friend, you have effectively canceled your own argument.

Unless you make type and antitype equate.

Understand?

That is what I have been pointing out to you all along.

The salvation afforded men in the Old Testament was...temporal.

That is why I shared with you this verse:



Hebrews 9:13-15

King James Version (KJV)

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.


The "first testament" in view is the First Covenant, which is how the Writer refers to the Covenant of Law.

As in Revelation 20, in regards to the "First Resurrection," protos is not used in the sense of sequential order, but in rank. The writer only has two covenants in view, as did Paul in Galatians.

And the point is that the transgression of the Old Testament Saint were still in need of Atonement, the Atonement of Christ.

In the beginning of this chapter the Writer clarifies that Levitical Service in the Tabernacle was a parable until the time in which it was to be done away with. Paul makes it clear that because of sin, the (Covenant of) Law was given to Israel as a temporary means until the promised Seed should come. Scripture makes it clear that we are to distinguish between the two.

Now, let's look at your statement again:

While I agree with the latter half it is by saying "Salvation is found from Genesis 3:15 onward" that I have to object. There is a difference between the promise of salvation and the eventual eternal salvation revealed in the New Testament under the New Covenant. Adam and Eve were not, for example, saved by being clothed, nor by the blood of the animal/s that died that their sin might be covered. At the same time, Abel was not saved by the offering he brought from his flock, nor was Cain damned for his refusal to obey. Punished, yes, but God did not require of him at that time...his death.

I have always viewed the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world to be a specific reference to Christ, but, that is an interesting tie. I had not thought about it in that perspective before.

I would have to maintain my view based on the fact that we would also have to say that lamb, if it were the animal slain for Adam and Eve's sin, was the one who had a Book of Life, lol.

I agree. But then I believe every time that God has interacted with man in a physical capacity (i.e., Genesis 18) it was always the Son.

And again the death of the animal/s did not bring salvation in Christ. It was supplied apart from any effort of Adam and Eve.

It is also interesting when Abraham is stopped from slaying Isaac that it is said "God will provide Himself a sacrifice."

All vicarious death only pointed to the One Sacrifice the world was in desperate need of that their sins receive remission in completion. A study of telos and it's variants in the Book of Hebrews will give a better picture of the incomplete nature of prior provision versus the completion Christ brought to Redemption. Again, the distinction between economies is extreme.

So in one sense we cannot say men were "saved" as we are today. Their salvation still awaited atonement, and as the Writer states above Christ made that Atonement that their transgressions might be redeemed.

Only the Blood (death) of Christ can eternally save. That was true for the Old Testament Saint as well.


Continued...

 

"What it represented."

Type/antitype.

Parable/reality.

Promise given/promise received.

We have to make the distinction Scripture makes or our theology fails to represent Biblical Truth.

I doubt I will, because as I said, I do not focus on the teachings of men. I know that sounds arrogant, but it is not meant to be. It's just a matter that I feel we need to allow the Lord to instruct us, and sometimes the teachings of others can obscure what the Lord means for us to know. Take a look at the Calv/Arm dispute. Some get so consumed with it that they limit themselves to that as a central focus, which hinders, I feel, a more balanced understanding of the Whole Counsel of God.

That dispute ends if the truth that there is a distinct difference in the ministry of God in the lives of men under the New Covenant is acknowledged. We don't have to argue whether man chooses or not, it is clear, man does not have the ability but is reliant on the enlightenment of the Spirit of God.

Anyway, going out of town, and will only have a tablet, and trying to post with that or a phone is like pulling teeth.

If you want to just throw out the general premise perhaps we can discuss it.

Is Saul of Tarsus the same man as the King Saul?

Israel was without question a called-out assembly, that doesn't make them the Body of Christ.

Who in the Wilderness fulfills this...


Matthew 16:17-19

King James Version (KJV)

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

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.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

...?

Not only that, my friend, but we can see clearly that they were unbelievers:



Hebrews 3:12

King James Version (KJV)

12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.



Hebrews 3:18-19

King James Version (KJV)

18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?

19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

They did not, as those listed in Hebrews 11, have faith:


Hebrews 4

King James Version (KJV)

1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.


So look at your teaching again:

And that is the mistake the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers) make when they teach loss of salvation: they have to first make them believers so they can then have them losing their salvation.

They were not the Church, the Body of Christ. They were not even believers according to the truth they had revealed to them.

And another thing I would point out is that the Writer of Hebrews distinguishes between the "rest" which is the provision of the establishing of the Nation of Israel and the Rest we have in Christ.

Again, when Christ said "I am the True Vine" He was not discounting or negating that Israel was the "Vine" which was God's Provision, called the "rest" they had available to them then. What Christ was doing was revealing the true provision, Just as He was the True Bread in contrast to the manna provided.

In short (I know, I know...too late!), the Old Testament maintains a very physical context whereas the revelation of the New is spiritual and eternal. That doesn't mean the Old lacks spiritual content, it does, but, we do distinguish the physical/eternal contrasts drawn over and over in the New, such as manna/Christ, Israel/Christ, sacrifice of animals/Christ.

Those preserved in the wilderness during the Tribulation will be born again believers. And they will meet the criteria for entering the Kingdom that was promised Israel, they will be born again as Christ taught.

What do you mean "so-called?" Do you question the veracity of the Septuagint?

But, why would you post these? The simple point is that ecclesia is used to represent an assembly. Both Israel and the Church, though separate entities, can be called a church. But only those who have placed faith in the Risen Christ can be called the Church, the Body of Christ.


Still not quite done.




God bless.