Featured The Wall That Jesus Christ Broke Down; Rebuilt?

Previously, I was using "the baptism in the Spirit" in the sense that universal invisible church advocates use it as the means to bring the believer into "spiritual union" with Christ or the mystical body of Christ (a doctrine I repudiate). In my latter post, I was attempting to show the true doctrine of Spiritual union, which is simply the reverse of spiritual death/separation.

Actually, I answered your question by asking a question. The Bible clearly does not teach that all the elect are in the church or in Israel whether Old or New Testament. There are "saved" people existing outside the New Jerusalem in Rev. 21:24. There are "saved" people outside of the bride (Rev. 19:8-9). There are "guests" to the wedding (Psalm 45).

I believe the "church" in its institutional sense includes all saints between the first and second advent who are serving through New Testament churches within the greater family and kingdom of God. To be inside the bride in Revelation 19 is to be inside the institutional espoused church now (2 Cor. 11:2). To be outside that espoused institution now is to be outside then. In both cases there are "saved" people outside both now and then.

 

Why are you being so rude and accusatory. You are the one that needs to apologize. You need to apologize for false accusations. Let's see what really happened.

First keep in mind that Ryrie is a Classic Dispensationalist.
In that context he said:

The above is not the belief of Ryrie. Note that. He is a Classic Dispensationalist. He is repudiating those who revise or modify his position.



I actually agreed with him when I said:

Don't you agree with Ryrie here? Or do you also agree that the works of God are simply "an afterthought"? Seriously OR? What is your belief concerning the Almighty Creator here? He is just "an afterthought?" Really?



But because of the strong language I used you emotionally reacted and have said this:

I never questioned your salvation nor Ryrie's. In fact I was agreeing with Ryrie.



Now it is up to you to man-up and apologize for the false accusations.

 

No, I am not! I am simply defining it under the doctrine of regeneration - not the baptism in the Spirit - and therefore no relationship with the church at all.

I don't believe either "Israel" or "all the elect" or "church" are synonomous terms. Israel is a "nation"; all the elect are all the elect; and the "church" is an institution within the professing kingdom God which is the public administrator of the keys of the kingdom.

 

I know what you believe. I know you don't believe all Israel as an ethnic nation IN THIS PRESENT TIME are among the elect and neither do I. However, Israel as an ethnic nation is God's elect nation which will be saved as an ethnic nation yet in the future, as its election is to salvation yet future (Rom. 11:25-28). The church is not synonomous with "all" of the elect or with Israel in any way shape or form. The church is the public institutional house of worship corresponding to the temple in the Old Testament as a public house of worship. The difference is that the church house of God is made up of lively stones (by baptismal profession) and is administrative IN the kingdom as it administers the "keys of the kingdom". The church is the new covenant public administrator of the keys in the kingdom of God.

 

I believe there is but one covenant of salvation and it is a covenant restricted to the Persons of the Godhead agreed upon before the world began. Hence, there is but one way, one gospel, one salvation (the substitutionary complete satisfaction of God's holiness in the person and work of Jesus Christ as the basis for election, regenerative indwelling, justification by faith, progressive sanctification, glorification purely by grace without works, but which does work) one Savior - period. - Heb. 13:20. Faith looks forward and backwards to the finished work of Christ as the basis for remission of sins - Acts 10:43

I believe there has been various PUBLIC administrations among humans by God of that eternal covenant between Genesis and Revelation 22. All these administrations are declarative and non legislative and non-sacramental by nature. Each public administration gave emphasis to either the holiness of God or the grace of God but all were inclusive of both.

In the Old Testament period the covenant administration that placed more emphasis upon the grace of God is the Abrahamic covenant. In the Old Testament period the covenant administration that placed more emphasis upon the holiiness of God is the Mosaic Covenant.

From the cross to the Second Coming the only PUBLIC covenant administrator is the church as an institutional house of God. It is not legislative but only administration. It is not sacramental but declarative. The Grace of God is the emphasis of this public administration.

Only two public administrations of the everlasting covenant administered it through public institutional houses of God (Heb. 9:1 "also....and"). The former administration is called the "old" covenant administrator, while the latter is called the "new" covenant administrator. Both administered the "keys of the kingdom" in the professing kingdom of God on earth.

Now please carefully reread what I said, in order to make sure you understand my position clearly.

 

This is not really defensible....it is error.

 

The founder, the foundation, first officer, first added to the church does not occur until the ministry of Christ. It has no Old Testament existence.

Simply quoting one verse in Acts 7 that describes the visible assembly at the foot of Mount Sinai does not prove the preexistence of the Church before the public ministry of Christ. Moreover, that assembly at Mount Sinai was the generation that God killed in the wilderness, that sacrificed unto false gods and consistently rebelled against God.

Hence, you have no kind of church prior to the ministry of Christ, no builder, no foundation, no first members, office, ordinances etc. Neither Christ or the Holy Spirit were sent in connection to the church prior to the public ministry of Christ or the day of Pentecost. You have NOTHING!

Hence, the church cannot possibly be synonomous with either "Israel" or the "kingdom of God" as Israel prexisted the first coming but the church did not. You are really only furthering the Roman Catholic heretical doctrine of church salvation, with the unbiblcial term "invisible" added to their Unbiblical addition of "universal" attached. Like Rome you are teaching a church salvation doctrine. To be in your church is to be saved and to be outside your church is to be lost - same as Rome, same as all the cults. The only issue between them is how they define that church. However, we believe that salvation has nothing to do with any kind of church regardless of how you define it but with the substitutionary satisficatory Person and work of Jesus Christ - period.

Hence, your view of the church is "not really defensible ....it is error"

 

You are not being honest.
This is a direct quote from Ryrie:

The bolded part is a direct quote, and the other is exactly what I said.
How can that be directed to you? It is not what you said?
It is what Ryrie said about those who modified and revised Classic Dispensationalist. You are taking that quote out of its context!

Stop with the false accusations. Read carefully. Nothing there was directed at you. You have your sensitive blinders on. Take them off.
A quote from Ryrie cannot be direceted at you, can it?

 

The true error is when some see the Church as being spiritual israel, as having replaced the nation of israel fully in the plans of God, and having received ALL promises God made to that elect nation/people!

 

I was done until you chose to call me out for doing something I quite clearly did not do.

There was no insult in that statement you quoted, unless you consider a brief synopsis of your beliefs to be insulting.

You did that yourself in adopting a view that God breaks covenants.

Nice and tidy for you, isn't it? Now you don't have to deal with a differing view of the facts. Not if you don't have anyone around you who will share them with you.

And please don't pretend you've ever thought of me in any other way than as a poor, misguided Dispensationalist who couldn't exegete his way out of a passage of Scripture. You've made it clear you have no respect whatsoever for anyone who is not a Covenantalist.

 

Did you come to your beliefs by what the Bible teaches, or that it fit within Covenant theology?

 

Except that you cannot even prove the Covenant between the father and Son before fall of adam, correct?

And while i have a Scofield, I have not used tghat as a primary study bible, so did not get theology from his notes!