Featured Rebaptism?

Now that I am not going to argue with.

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.