Salvation reduced to its most simplest level

[OldRegular]

It takes OT believers, the elect remnant in transition in Acts, and elect gentiles and forms the ONE TRUE CHURCH...that will assemble on the LAST DAY.

B. H. Carroll, founder of the Southwestern Seminary, in his Exposition of the English Bible calls this the "Glory Church"! I don't believe he liked the name Universal Church.

I believe at any given time in history God has a total number or body of "true believers" on earth. I also believe that constitutes, on earth, the Church for which Jesus Christ died. Taken throughout all time that total or universal body of believers, the total number of Elect whose names ARE NOW in the Book of Life, constitute the Church for which Jesus Christ died.

Some folks don't like the name Universal Church, perhaps because they associate it with the Roman Catholic Communion which falsely claims it is a visible Universal Church.

Now we all know that the local church is constituted of "true believers", the Elect, and unbelievers which is likely composed of the unregenerate elect and also the non elect. Can we truly argue that this is the body for which Jesus Christ died?

 

[The Biblicist]

The Elect are the Elect, Old Testament or New Testament, Israelite or Gentile, and they are saved only because of the Obedience of Jesus Christ!

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

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

Now please identify where I said that there is SALVATION OUTSIDE of Jesus Christ?

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

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

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

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

If one is in union with Jesus Christ they are in union with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit! If one is in union with God then they are Saved!

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

I don't have a church. The Roman Catholics don't have a church.

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

 

[The Biblicist]

B. H. Carroll, founder of the Southwestern Seminary, in his Exposition of the English Bible calls this the "Glory Church"! I don't believe he liked the name Universal Church.

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

I believe at any given time in history God has a total number or body of "true believers" on earth.

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

I also believe that constitutes, on earth, the Church for which Jesus Christ died. Taken throughout all time that total or universal body of believers, the total number of Elect whose names ARE NOW in the Book of Life, constitute the Church for which Jesus Christ died.

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

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

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

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

 

[convicted1]

Salvation reduced to its most simplest level

"And after the delivering up of John, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of the reign of God, and saying -- `Fulfilled hath been the time, and the reign of God hath come nigh, reform ye, and believe in the good news.'" (Mark 1:14,15)

 

[OldRegular]

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

So you believe in conditional election? That is Arminian doctrine is it not?

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

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

It depends on how you understand Baptism of the Spirit. I believe your understanding is more akin to Pentecostals and Charismatics than Baptists!

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

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

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

No! Scripture defines Baptism in the Spirit. I have already presented that Scripture.

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

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

No!

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

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

You are attempting to define what I believe by your misconception of Baptism in the Holy Spirit. I have indicated above that there is great difference about what Baptism in the Spirit constitutes. You appear to take the Pentecostal/charismatic position. But you cannot reduce Salvation to its simplest level based on controversial doctrine!

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

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

Answered!

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

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

That is not really correct. From your post #6:

4. You are simply teaching the Reformed Roman Catholic view of Roman Catholic Church salvation. To be in your church is to be saved and to be outside your church is to be lost, just like your mamma church in Rome. The only difference is her church is universal VISIBLE while yours is universal INVISIBLE but the very same doctrine of church salvation.

To which I replied:

That is absolute nonsense. Furthermore it is absolutely FALSE! You are reading your bias into my post; unethical to say the least!

I don't have a church. The Roman Catholics don't have a church. Jesus Christ has a Church for which He died. All those in the Lamb's Book of Life constitute the Church. The Apostle Paul refers to That Church as the Bride of Jesus Christ. The Apostle John in the Book of Revelation refers to the Church the Bride of Jesus Christ. That Church will be with the Triune God throughout eternity in the New Heavens and New Earth.

Addendum:

I have noticed Mr. B that you also frequently attempt to tell Icon what his doctrine is regardless of what he posts just as you do me. I have already noted that your remarks I repeated from post #6 are false but you make one statement in your post #22 above that is particularly repugnant, again mischaracterize what I say:

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

That is a lie. I have never implied anything resembling what you call "church salvation". I said all the who have been redeemed are in the Church. Roman Catholics teach that there is no salvation outside their Roman Catholic Communion! Do you not see how you falsely twist what people say. Do you think it makes you look more Biblically literate than you are? Pathetic!

 

[The Biblicist]

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

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


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

Here is what you say about spiritual union:

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

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

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

 

[The Biblicist]

So you believe in conditional election? That is Arminian doctrine is it not?

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

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

It depends on how you understand Baptism of the Spirit. I believe your understanding is more akin to Pentecostals and Charismatics than Baptists!

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

No! Scripture defines Baptism in the Spirit. I have already presented that Scripture.

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

That is a lie. I have never implied anything resembling what you call "church salvation". I said all the who have been redeemed are in the Church. Do you not see how you falsely twist what people say. Do you think it makes you look more Biblically literate than you are? Pathetic!

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

 

[OldRegular]

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

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

Why not present exactly what I said?

You are confused! Indwelling of the Holy Spirit is Baptism in the Spirit unless you are Pentecostal.

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

That is correct!

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

You win a prize!

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

You figure it out! Your semantics are:sleep:

 

[OldRegular]

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

You said:

True! But you cannot be an elect on earth apart from spiritual union with God BEFORE you serve God through good works (Eph. 2:10).

Sounds like conditional election to me!
******************

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

So Baptism in the Spirit is the Baptism of the house of God. Do you dunk it or sprinkle it?

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

Don't we all?

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

Like , I believe it was Spurgeon who said: The elect don't have it stamped on their forehead. When I figure out how one is "IN YOUR CHURCH DOCTRINE" perhaps I can answer. That sounds a little like "Baptizing the House of God"!

B. You are an arrogant south end of a north bound donkey and full of yourself!

 

[The Biblicist]

Putting it mildly Mr. B you are an arrogant south end of a north bound donkey and simply full of "yourself"!

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

 

[The Biblicist]

Why not present exactly what I said?



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

That is correct!


You win a prize!

You figure it out! Your semantics are:sleep:

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

 

[convicted1]

Salvation reduced to its most simplest level

"And after the delivering up of John, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of the reign of God, and saying -- `Fulfilled hath been the time, and the reign of God hath come nigh, reform ye, and believe in the good news.'" (Mark 1:14,15)

Bumping this in case it was missed...


Anybody want to respond?

 

[The Biblicist]

Back on point

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[The Biblicist]

Bumping this in case it was missed...


Anybody want to respond?

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

 

[convicted1]

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

The OP title states thusly...

'Salvation reduced to its most simplest level'

To which I quoted Mark 1:14,15...reform/repent and believe the good news/gospel...

That's salvation reduced to its simplest form....

 

[The Biblicist]

The OP title states thusly...

'Salvation reduced to its most simplest level'

To which I quoted Mark 1:14,15...reform/repent and believe the good news/gospel...

That's salvation reduced to its simplest form....

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

 

[convicted1]

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

I agree with this...

Why didn't you state this in your OP? It would have not caused such a rift on here, imo...

Man's the problem, God's the solution...

 

[OldRegular]

I agree with this...

Why didn't you state this in your OP? It would have not caused such a rift on here, imo...

Man's the problem, God's the solution...

It would have made no difference! The following apparently yanked TB's chain and he had to bark, and bark, and bark, ad infinitum!

I don't know whether TB is dumping on the Church or not but the Church for which Jesus Christ died includes all the redeemed, those brought into union with Jesus Christ, throughout time! If Jesus Christ died for you you are a part of His Church!

But you say it well:

Man's the problem, God's the solution...

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree with this...

Why didn't you state this in your OP? It would have not caused such a rift on here, imo...

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

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

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

 

[OldRegular]

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

There was no debate TB. It is impossible to debate anyone who deliberately and with malice aforethought twists a response to make it say what you wish. I showed in my post #25 how you do this and it is dishonest behavior and unworthy of a professing Christian.

Furthermore to state that baptism in the Holy Spirit {Your post #29.} is:

an institutional accreditation of the "house of God" quite common in the Old Testament as an one time historical event with each new house at its completion.

is total ignorance of the Scripture.

Matthew 3:11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mark 1:8. I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Luke 3:16. John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

John 1:33. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Now can you produce one verse of Scripture that indicates Baptism in {or with} the Holy Spirit is:

an institutional accreditation of the "house of God" quite common in the Old Testament as an one time historical event with each new house at its completion.