Rebaptism?

[Darrell C]

Readers, this man is completely irrational.

Now that I am not going to argue with.

He offers ridicule instead of thoughtful discussion.

This too can be seen to be true, and as I have said...what's not to ridicule?

The Baptism with the Holy Ghost is a Public Accreditation of the Earthly ministry of the Church?

The Church is the assembly of water baptized believers?

He ignores contextual based evidence.

You have no "contextual based evidence" for the carnal doctrine you teach.

You cannot equate the Spirit of God coming upon a physical building with Christ building His Church.

He changes the subject matter.

Where?

Again, how is direct address of your doctrine changing the subject matter. I have consistently addressed your erroneous doctrine concerning the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

You teach, not immersion into God, but...immersion into water and a public, visible organization.

Sorry, but that is absurd.

There is no point in wasting my time dealing with a person who simply wants to argue for the sake of argument.

I hardly view trying to force you to address the questions your carnal doctrine creates as arguing for the sake of argument.

You cannot even address me, you have to address the fantasy audience you seek to nurture your ego with.

Great...get them involved. I'll be glad to have anyone affirm your carnal doctrine. Maybe they will respond to what I actually say, rather than reiterating the same false arguments you have dodged the issues with since Post 1.

You will either support your carnal doctrine, or you will leave, makes no difference to me. But do not for one minute think that you are going to be free to teach this without opposition.

I know what I believe, and I have repeatedly given the Biblical Basis for my views. I have consistently addressed your own. Yet you falsely say I am ignoring you?

You will get the attention you deserve, my friend. Nothing will be ignored.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

I love the
bravado you two guys have in presenting your arguments, but can't you make them smaller? It's like trying to read two novels on here.

It comes down to the content of the terms "saved" and "justified" Darrell and Jeshua1 both claim pre-cross people were "saved" and "justified" but they don't define the content of those words.

Today, when we say a person is "saved" (past tense) we mean they have been regenerated and justified. When we use the present tense "save" we are speaking about progressive sanctification. When we use the future tense "shall be saved" we are speaking about glorification.

Now, there is no dispute between us over the future tense "shall be saved" with regard to pre and post cross believers. However, they deny the content of "saved" and "save" for pre-cross beleivers because they claim such applications of "saved" and "save" and "justified" cannot precede the actual incarnation of Christ.

However, Paul clearly defines the term "justified" with regard to Abraham as inclusive of imputed righteousness and remission of sins already applied and obtained prior to the incarnation:

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Notice with regard to both Abraham (not under law) and David (under the law) the consistent use of the present tense. Notice the use of the future tense with regard to future sin in verse 8.

Moreover, this case inclusive of Abraham is presented as the standard for "all who are of faith" (Rom. 4:11). Justified "by faith" is predefined in this context in Romans 4:24-26 as faith "in Christ" and thus the faith that God imputes righteousness has for its object Christ as preached by all the prophets (Acts 10:43) which obtained "remission of sins" for them prior to the cross.

However, when Darrell and Jeshua use the term "saved" or "justified" they are forced to deny this Biblical content given these terms because they don't believe application can precede actual provision. However, the truth is that application was based upon God's promise rather than upon the completion of the provision. God's promise was as good as the completion and so application was obtained.

So, the bottom line is Darrell and Jeshua must empty the terms "saved" and "justified" of their Biblical meaning in order to use them for pre-cross believers. They refuse to define what "saved" actual includes or what "justified" actually includes and they deny it includes what Paul specifically says it included with regard to Abraham and David in Romans 4:5-11.

 

[The Biblicist]

I would be glad to continue this discussion with someone who is serious and reasonable and sincerely takes the position of Darrell and Jeshua1. But continuing with Darrell is pointless and I think any reasonable observer can see why.

 

[SovereignGrace]

It comes down to the content of the terms "saved" and "justified" Darrell and Jeshua1 both claim pre-cross people were "saved" and "justified" but they don't define the content of those words.

Today, when we say a person is "saved" (past tense) we mean they have been regenerated and justified. When we use the present tense "save" we are speaking about progressive sanctification. When we use the future tense "shall be saved" we are speaking about glorification.

Now, there is no dispute between us over the future tense "shall be saved" with regard to pre and post cross believers. However, they deny the content of "saved" and "save" for pre-cross beleivers because they claim such applications of "saved" and "save" and "justified" cannot precede the actual incarnation of Christ.

However, Paul clearly defines the term "justified" with regard to Abraham as inclusive of imputed righteousness and remission of sins already applied and obtained prior to the incarnation:

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Notice with regard to both Abraham (not under law) and David (under the law) the consistent use of the present tense. Notice the use of the future tense with regard to future sin in verse 8.

Moreover, this case inclusive of Abraham is presented as the standard for "all who are of faith" (Rom. 4:11). Justified "by faith" is predefined in this context in Romans 4:24-26 as faith "in Christ" and thus the faith that God imputes righteousness has for its object Christ as preached by all the prophets (Acts 10:43) which obtained "remission of sins" for them prior to the cross.

However, when Darrell and Jeshua use the term "saved" or "justified" they are forced to deny this Biblical content given these terms because they don't believe application can precede actual provision. However, the truth is that application was based upon God's promise rather than upon the completion of the provision. God's promise was as good as the completion and so application was obtained.

So, the bottom line is Darrell and Jeshua must empty the terms "saved" and "justified" of their Biblical meaning in order to use them for pre-cross believers. They refuse to define what "saved" actual includes or what "justified" actually includes and they deny it includes what Paul specifically says it included with regard to Abraham and David in Romans 4:5-11.

I think they of OT days were just as saved as we are today. They may not have had the Spirit in His plenitude as we do today(but they very well could have) as I think that was what John 7:39 expresses. But they were regenerated, possessed the Spirit within them, were sanctified and justified as well. So they probably had the Spirit in His plenitude. I just crossed my ownself before I finished this post. Egad!!

 

[The Biblicist]

I think that was what John 7:39 expresses.

The historical background is described by Barnes as:

Because on this day probably occurred the ceremony of drawing water from the pool of Siloam. On the last day of the feast it was customary to perform a solemn ceremony in this manner: The priest filled a golden vial with water from the fount of Siloam (See Barnes "Joh 9:7"), which was borne with great solemnity, attended with the clangour of trumpets, through the gate of the temple, and being mixed with wine, was poured on the sacrifice on the altar.

So the pouring out of this water was in the public house of worship. The New Testament church is the new "house of God" for public worship. Individual believers could presently drink this water (symbol of the Holy Spirit) and thus presently have a well of water indwelling them by faith. However, it was not until Pentecost that the outflow of this water would occur. The outflow refers to the manifest power (signs and wonders) and Acts 1:8 and the power to preach the gospel unto all nations.

John 7:37 uses the present tense whereas John 7:38-39 both use the future tense. The future tense in verse 39 refers to the future tense in verse 38 but not to the present tense inflow or drinking into in verse 37. The unbeliever is the one being invited to drink in verse 37 whereas it is the believer who has drunk into, and thus has the water already IN them that will be provide the OUTFLOW power in verse 39.

 

[The Biblicist]

The term "saved" and "justified" have no meaning apart from the universal problem of sin and spiritual separation. If those terms do not provide the solution to this universal problem they lose all practical meaning.

All natural born human beings before and after the cross are "in Adam" by natural birth and by position (Adam acted as the appointed representative of the human race). Death and condemnation are the inheritance of that state of being. All who are "in Christ" are in Christ by supernatural birth (Eph. 2:10) and representative position (justification). There is no possiblity of a third option or condition of those "in Adam" simply because the condition of those in Adam is universal and is death and condemnation. There can be no third option between death and condemnation and life and justification. It is not possible as no such LIMBO exists between life and death and condemnation and justification. If one is not in one state they must be in the other state.

Abraham lived before the law, while David lived under the Law and yet both lived prior to the cross and both are said to be equally justified in the very same sense as "all who are of faith" regardless when they live (

 

[Darrell C]

I love the bravado you two guys have in presenting your arguments, but can't you make them smaller? It's like trying to read two novels on here.

Most of my responses are broken up and try to center on specific points. The responses are primarily for those responded to, and what you might like to look at is entirely up to you. It is likely that at this point in the discussion I am going to start focusing on specific points which have gone unanswered. It's kind of like this, SG: there is a process in a discussion where in the beginning there is a detailed response which can often take some time. Again, I have broken up the posts to make them shorter and easier to read. But eventually most discussion will boil down to key points, and because the point has been addressed in detail before, it allows for interaction to take on a shorter form, in which the discussion is easier to follow.

So if it is not at that point yet, just give it time, it'll get there.

This particular topic is extremely important, and what is being taught just might surprise a lot of people.

But thanks for checking it out, to whatever extent that is, and hopefully we can get this to a point where the posts and responses are shorter, and easier to follow.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

It comes down to the content of the terms "saved" and "justified" Darrell and Jeshua1 both claim pre-cross people were "saved" and "justified" but they don't define the content of those words.

Again the same false argument.

This is why the posts are long. You assert a false argument, then give a carnal lecture on it. I respond to that which is posted.

How long are you going to rely on false arguments, and clustering the thread with what you think we say, rather than what we actually do say?

What I would like you to address what is actually being said.

Here is a simple one:

The temple still standing shows that the actual application of the cross does not depend upon the TIME of the cross.

So the time of the Cross doesn't actually bring about the results of the Cross...they were being bestowed prior to the Cross.

Any other member care to comment on this?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Abraham lived before the law, while David lived under the Law and yet both lived prior to the cross and both are said to be equally justified in the very same sense as "all who are of faith" regardless when they live (

Another simple one: Why did Abraham and David have to offer up sacrifice and we do not?

If the Cross is being applied prior to the Cross, then why do they have to offer up for their sin...themselves?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

The application of the cugh the cross was being made even though the temple was still standing 40 years AFTER the cross just as the application of the cross was being made 4000 years before the cross occurred.

How is this relevant to my point, or to what the Writer of Hebrews states?

But because you do not address the point, the actual context of my statment is lost.

That is how you nullify a clear tracking of the discussion. Back up, and see that your assertions are absurd: you are teaching he Baptism with the Holy Ghost is likened unto the Shekinah Glory of God ascending upon the Temple. You teach it is the "Public Accreditation of the Administration of the Church," just like the Shekinah Glory was, and what you are doing essentially is making the BAptism with the Holy Ghost identical to the Shekinah Glory, and that has been the primary distinction you have rejected...

...that the Ministry of the Comforter is distinct to the ministry He performed in the Old Testament.

Your doctrine is carnal. Physical. It is not the spiritual truth of the Eternal Indwelling of God as opposed to His external presence in the Temple.

And again...the Writer of Hebrews never once mentions the Temple.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

So, the bottom line is Darrell and Jeshua must empty the terms "saved" and "justified" of their Biblical meaning in order to use them for pre-cross believers.

You have convinced yourself that your "proofs" have been ignored, but the reality is that I have consistently distinguished between the justified Old Testament Saint and the New Covenant Believer, and your conclusion is that...

...no-one is yet made perfect.

This was given to you:


Hebrews 12:18-24

King James Version (KJV)


18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,

19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:

20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:

21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


Few understand the teaching of Perfection as taught by Hebrews, so I can understand your ignorance. However, what I cannot understand is how you can teach in direct contradiction to what is so clearly taught in Scripture.

As I said, the more you teach, the easier it will be to expose the carnality of your understanding.

We are made perfect in Christ...when we are saved.

The Old Testament Saint was made perfect at the time of the Cross, which you teach is not a significant event, because the result of the Cross was already being bestowed, even though Scripture is clear their sins were not redeemed, they had not received the Spirit sent by Christ, and they had not received the promise.

You teach the exact opposite of what Scripture teaches. That is not insult, that is not ignoring your teaching, or your proofs, that is precisely what you have taught, and you are being called to account for it.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I think they of OT days were just as saved as we are today. They may not have had the Spirit in His plenitude as we do today(but they very well could have) as I think that was what John 7:39 expresses. But they were regenerated, possessed the Spirit within them, were sanctified and justified as well. So they probably had the Spirit in His plenitude. I just crossed my ownself before I finished this post. Egad!!

No, actually, that's great!

Because you just did what some will not do...see the contradiction.

Now I ask you, what is being said by Christ here:


John 7:38-39

King James Version (KJV)

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


You say...

They may not have had the Spirit in His plenitude as we do today(but they very well could have)

...and...

But they were regenerated, possessed the Spirit within them, were sanctified and justified as well. So they probably had the Spirit in His plenitude.


...and your conclusion is correct: if they were born again they did in fact have the Spirit "in His plenitude."

Now, reconcile that to Christ's many teachings that the Spirit could not be sent until He returned to Heaven.

This is not a matter of having "part" of the Holy Ghost, it is a matter of He did not come until Christ returned to Heaven.

So all I ask is that you give this some consideration, and when you see this issue in the context of what has been discussed in this thread and the last, you will see why imposing the Promised Spirit into the Old Testament is error.

I have stated numerous times that the Old Testament Saint was just as saved as we are, and their Eternal Security just as secure as our own, however, we cannot ignore the fact that their sins were not forgiven them (because animal sacrifice cannot and did not take away sins, only Christ's Sacrifice is credited with that), they had not received the Spirit only promised to them (see Acts 1:4-5), and they were not in relationship with God through the New Covenant.

It is not any different to say that the Old Testament Saint was saved but not regenerated than it is to say we are saved but not glorified. Just because we have not attained to that period in time when we shall receive of that promise, doesn't mean we are not saved.

And it has been pointed out numerous times that just because the Eternal indwelling of God had not yet commenced (John 14:15-18), that does not mean the Old Testament Saint was bereft from God ministering in them internally through the Spirit. All of the Old Testament Saints had truth revealed to them by the Spirit, and He very much ministered in them, and through them. That same ministry is still performed in our lives...we call this the filling of the Spirit. There is a difference between being immersed into God and being filled with the Spirit. We can be in Christ yet not filled with the Spirit, and we are called to be.

But these issues have been addressed in detail, both in this thread as well as the last. But until these focal points are discussed and examined, there will be no progress.

So I ask you, does John say above that the Lord is speaking about the Spirit, Who had not yet come, and would not come until Christ was glorified...

...or not?


God bless.