Union With Christ

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist,

First, the ekklesia of Christ is not any two or more believers who just HAPPEN to assemble. Matthew 18:20 is contextually refering to the ekklesia in verse 17.

No one said that....no one referred to Mt.18.....thanks for the reminder though

Second, the Ekklesia of Christ is an organized institution consisting of officers, ordinances, membership, discipline, and a mission and you can't find any ekklesia in the NT. that is not.,

No one questions that the church has these elements....no one questions this, but thanks again for the reminder

Third, it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate the words "gather together in the ekklesia" from "in one place" it can't be done!

No one is doing that....but thanks again for the reminder

You are misapplying this text

.

What i see is you going into long convoluted posts to obscure the plain meaning...

The very nature of the Jewish temple and Samaritan temple restricted worship to ONE CITY over the entire earth. The ekklesia of Christ in the institutional sense is not restricted to ONE CITY over the entire earth but can be found in EVERY city or ANY SINGLE place over the entire earth.

Jesus spoke of a new paradigm.....

Moreover, worship "in spirit and IN TRUTH" demands membership in such an ekklesia in order to be OBEDIENT to Christ's commission and the Holy Spirit's command (Heb. 10:25).

This is not news to anyone.....thanks for the reminder
I posted;
Iconoclast said: ↑
In our Union with Christ....by virtue of Spirit baptism..we are baptized into His body.

To which you responded with...

This is a lie straight from the father of lies.

So ...1cor was inserted by Satan now? I do not agree with you...
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
The Spirit baptizes all into one body....

It does not say by water we are placed in the body...water baptism does not place us IN Christ. Spirit baptism is identified as what accomplishes that here.

A lie from Satan....not really biblicist

 

[Iconoclast]

pt2;

Another false doctrine as the Scriptures make it clear he persecuted the ekklesia at Jerusalem. When you persecute the METAPHORICAL body of Christ, HIS institutional congregation you are persecuting Him as a METAPHOR by its very definition is REPRESENTATION and the congregations of Christ REPRESENT him.

Your obsession with the term institutional is keeping you from reading the texts....
8 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.

3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
Paul went after individual living stones....Jesus said why do you persecute me....That is because they were In Saving union with the Head,they being the body.

Paul is referring back historically to the time he was known as the unregenerated Saul. Luke specifically identifies “the church” Saul Persecuted:

Acts 8:1 ¶ And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles….As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

yes when believers assemble to worship they are the church...but notice they were scattered....unassembled....and still persecuted as members of the Kingdom.

I posted earlier;
Iconoclast said: ↑
not an institutional church...men and women....living stones.

You said;

This is such a manifest falsehood that I don't know how you can even utter it. What constitutes an institution? The answer is - Officers, ordinances, membership qualifications, disciplinary code, order, mission statement and all of these characterize every single ekklesia in the N.T.

The persecution scattered the church....Saul still went after individual, unassembled Christians....Kingdom members......thats how i can utter it.

The very text you are abusing demands all of these characteristics

.
the abuse is coming from your keyboard. i see a pattern, you go into long answers saying some basic truths...the church is this, or that, but what happens is...you use this information to not deal with the text in question....this will be seen in the hebrews 12 :22-23 text discussion , where you jump all over creation to avoid the actual verse telling the believers;
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,

The very term "Holy" means set apart in keeping with Scriptural precepts, the very term "priests" spoke of a qualified person, the very terms "lively stones" modified by "built up" so that it is called a "house" demands an ordered assembly of such stones.

No one questions this....here is another example of what I just posted...no one here is questioning local churches, or their members.

The very term "acceptable" demands a qualified sacrifice.

Again...same thing here....Now the twist is...Landmarkers want to "help all of us" define all the terms, like you set out to do here.
I do not mind to some extent because much of the teaching is similar anyway.

You are abusing God's Word.

One of us is for sure, maybe both of us...

The NT. ekklesia is the visible REPESENTATION of the professing "KINGDOM" of God on earth and thus replaces the "NATION" of Israel in that VISIBLE capacity

.
No...Individual Christians are the visible representation of the kingdom of God on earth, they are "known and read of all men"
2 Corinthians 3King James Version (KJV)
3 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

When these kingdom members assemble as the Church is distinct from individual service on a daily basis.

If one wants to see the true nature of God's rule/kingdom at work, the ekklesia VISIBLY represents His laws and His worship. And your false doctrine is perverting that representation into the Great Harlot.

here you go again with another accusation....your repeated attempts to accuse me of believing in a universal church when i believe no such thing, and here your wrong understanding of the great harlot is just put out there as if it is authoritative

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist,

Hebrews 12:23

There are several contextual and grammatical factors that must be understood clearly if this passage is to be interpreted correctly.

Or...you are going to go into all the world to avoid the force of the text which is simply put.....You have not come to MT.Sinai, but you have come to The heavenly Zion and Jerusalem.....he does not say...they are going to go there.....but he says In Christ they have come there.
Christ is in heaven....they have come there....not physically, but they In Christ come in worship ,and take part of all the worship taking place daily in heaven.
The kingdom reign does extend down to the earth, but we are described as strangers and pilgrims here. Our citizenship is IN HEAVEN....Our Head is on the Throne ruling in the midst of his enemies as the kingdom rule spreads on earth.
No mention of institutional anything....instead..YOU have come .

Spirit baptism does this for all the elect;
it fulfills the prayer of Jn17;
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

 

[The Biblicist]

pt2;


Your obsession with the term institutional is keeping you from reading the texts....

It is called correct exegesis! The ordinary historical usage of ekklesia involves more than the concrete usage in history but it also is used in the abstract institutional sense. This is part of its normal historical meaning and the universal church theory was built upon IGNORING that historical fact and usage. The term CANNOT be translated or understood to mean anything other than its normal ordinary meaning UNLESS its normal mean does not make sense in the context. Part of the NORMAL meaning is the abstract institution use which universal church advocates INTENTIONALLY IGNORE!

8 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.

3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
Paul went after individual living stones....Jesus said why do you persecute me....That is because they were In Saving union with the Head,they being the body.

First, you are in error when you think the church ceases to exist when it is not actually assembling. That error is due to the fact you fail to recognize the historical usage of the term ekklesia. Do you reconstitute the ekklesia each Sunday? Are you rebaptized and become a new member every Sunday? It is an INSTITUTION and to deny that is to deny that is to be ignorant of what is an institution! The ekklesia of Christ is an organized institution- meaning it has officers, it has members, it has ordinances, it has discipline, it has order, it has by-laws (bible) and it has a mission statement. It is "spiritual" rather than "carnal" or "secular" and those that constitute it are metaphorical "members" and metaphorical "living stones" that acutally do form an organized "house."

yes when believers assemble to worship they are the church...but notice they were scattered....unassembled....and still persecuted as members of the Kingdom.

So you rewrite the bible to suit you??? First the metaphor "members" is NEVER used of the kingdom. Second, no such statement can be found in acts 8-11 with regard to the church members. Third, the context demonstrates what was scattered were its preachers. Note all masculine nouns used to describe those scattered. Second not the use of the term meaning "males" only in Acts 11:19. Next note that Philip is given as an example of those scattered. Note the leadership did not scatter and the common membership did not scatter as they were being imprisoned. Last the term "scattered" reprsents a Greek term that does not mean scattering as chickens are scattered when a fox comes into the hen house but it is the term used for intentional directed scattering as when one sows seed in a field. God had told them to "go" and they had not and so God sent Saul to motivate them to obedience and we see that obedience manifested in the example of Philip.


.

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,

this has been answered and you have ignored that post.

No one questions this....here is another example of what I just posted...no one here is questioning local churches, or their members.
Again...same thing here....Now the twist is...Landmarkers want to "help all of us" define all the terms, like you set out to do here.
I do not mind to some extent because much of the teaching is similar anyway.

Then stop abusing this text when it is descriptive of the local church institution.

No...Individual Christians are the visible representation of the kingdom of God on earth, they are "known and read of all men"
2 Corinthians 3King James Version (KJV)
3 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

He is talking to the visible local assembly at Corinth and the time when he constituted them into such an assembly by his ministry which is described in detail in 1 Cor. 3:5-10. You jerk scripture out of context, pervert verses as that is the only way you can defend error!

here you go again with another accusation....your repeated attempts to accuse me of believing in a universal church when i believe no such thing,

You have been defending the universal invisible church theory so don't tell us you don't believe in it or there would be no debate between us.

and here your wrong understanding of the great harlot is just put out there as if it is authoritative

Care to challenge my understanding of it and put your false accusation to the test?????

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist,



Or...you are going to go into all the world to avoid the force of the text which is simply put.....You have not come to MT.Sinai, but you have come to The heavenly Zion and Jerusalem.....he does not say...they are going to go there.....but he says In Christ they have come there.

I see you write your own scriptures to defend your error. Well, that is the only way you can defend is by changing the scripture.

First, it says nowhere in the text that "IN CHRIST" they have come there! You are reading your position into the text - try being honest with the text.

Second, the same perfect tense is used for the ekklesia assembling at Mount Sinai - were they assembled in heaven???? No! The church members have their names written in heaven but they are not in heaven, Heaven assembles with the church on earth just as heaven assembled with Jewish ekklesia Mount Sinai.

No mention of institutional anything....instead..YOU have come .

Yes there is, and it is the word ekklesia which are completely ignorant of its meaning. The abstract institutional sense is part and parcel of its historical meaning which universal invisible churchites are mostly ignorant about and the ones who are not ignorant simply ignore PART OF ITS VERY MEANING by usage.

Spirit baptism does this for all the elect;
it fulfills the prayer of Jn17;
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

No it does not. First,the preceding context (which you omitted) is referring to the UNITY IN TRUTH (vv. 17-21). Versus 22-23 is speaking of UNITY IN SPIRIT that is accomplished by INDWELLING by regeneration not by any kind of baptism. There is no baptism that made the Son in spiritual unity with the Father any more than is any baptism that makes the Son in spiritual unity with us. He is the only "BEGOTTEN" Son.

 

[The Biblicist]

I posted;
Iconoclast said: ↑
In our Union with Christ....by virtue of Spirit baptism..we are baptized into His body.

To which you responded with...


So ...1cor was inserted by Satan now? I do not agree with you...
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
The Spirit baptizes all into one body....

It does not say by water we are placed in the body...water baptism does not place us IN Christ. Spirit baptism is identified as what accomplishes that here.

A lie from Satan....not really biblicist

You are reading your interpretation into the text and calling it scripture (lol). First, it is Christ that is the baptizer not the Spirit. The Holy Spirit water baptizes members into the ekklesia as the "another comforter" following the lead of the first comforter in John 4:1-2 (where water baptism by his disciples is attributed to him) and this is spelled out for you in 1 Cor. 3:5-16:

5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 ¶ For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16 ¶ Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

The issue of division over WATER baptism administrators is dealt with in chapters 1-4. Paul's solution is that all adminstrators of baptism work AS ONE and work UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE SAME BOSS - The Holy Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit sent them to you, you were saved by the Spirit and given the desire to be baptized in water by these administrators who were acting under the leadeship of the same Spirit. The same Spirit made you to differ and gifted you differently (1 Cor. 4:7) in order to be a complete metaphorical body of Christ at Corinth. So, division over human admistrators has no basis since it is the Holy Spirit that supertended the baptism of all of them. The division over gifts has no basis since it is the same Spirit that superintended their gifts and how they were added to the congregational body of Christ.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist,

It is called correct exegesis! The ordinary historical usage of ekklesia involves more than the concrete usage in history but it also is used in the abstract institutional sense. This is part of its normal historical meaning and the universal church theory was built upon IGNORING that historical fact and usage.

Expand on this if you could. What aspect of this do you think leads to the universal church theory.?

The term CANNOT be translated or understood to mean anything other than its normal ordinary meaning UNLESS its normal mean does not make sense in the context. Part of the NORMAL meaning is the abstract institution use which universal church advocates INTENTIONALLY IGNORE!

which part?

First, you are in error when you think the church ceases to exist when it is not actually assembling.

Did I say the church ceased to exist? I do not remember saying that anywhere.

The word speaks of.....an assembly. One believer is not an assembly...sorry B but you cannot have it both ways in reality although you think you can.

When the assembly is not assembled.....what do you call those saints?

That error is due to the fact you fail to recognize the historical usage of the term ekklesia. Do you reconstitute the ekklesia each Sunday?

That is way to broad a statement.

Are you rebaptized and become a new member every Sunday?

I am a member of Christ's eternal body everyday by being Spirit baptized into that body. It will assemble on the last day.
The local church functions as such....when it assembles.
If you go down to the building where they do assemble, and the members have NOT ASSEMBLED....you cannot rightly call the building the church......or perhaps you might go into a longwinded explanation where you would find a reason to call the empty building the church like catholics do.

It is an INSTITUTION and to deny that is to deny that is to be ignorant of what is an institution!

You harp on this term and this let's you ascribe all manner of things into your description of what goes along with being constituted an institution...

The ekklesia of Christ is an organized institution- meaning it has officers, it has members, it has ordinances, it has discipline, it has order, it has by-laws (bible) and it has a mission statement.

No one questions the church has these things...nobody....

It is "spiritual" rather than "carnal" or "secular" and those that constitute it are metaphorical "members" and metaphorical "living stones" that acutally do form an organized "house."

I am not sure what you mean, but scripture speaks of real members, and living stones that are the real members...that God builds.

So you rewrite the bible to suit you???

Another accusation by you..rewrite the bible...no....add some descriptive words as quite frankly you are sometimes a bit dense in your attempted understanding.
Hopefully you are not deliberately twisting things???

before You ask...or deny twisting things, I will show you what I mean;
let me list them for you from this thread alone-
-First, you are in error when you think the church ceases to exist when it is not actually assembling

-So you rewrite the bible to suit you???

-You jerk scripture out of context, pervert verses as that is the only way you can defend error!

-You have been defending the universal invisible church theory so don't tell us you don't believe in it or there would be no debate between us.

-Care to challenge my understanding of it and put your false accusation to the test?????

-It is utterly amazing that any professing Christian would deny the baptism of John as “Christian” (or Christ-like baptism) especially on the grounds that it was a “baptism of repentance.” Utterly amazing!

-If you believe such garbage, then stop telling people to “follow Christ in baptism” as you don’t even believe Christ had “Christ-like” (Christian) baptism.

-Only true churches of Christ identify with the Great Commission baptism of John. Those who repudiate it are advertising they are not New Testament churches and are not of New Testament origin. Oh I realize this will offend many - let it offend!

-So, you don’t believe anyone was saved prior to Pentecost?

-Now, that is “complete nonsense”! That is where your church salvation leads you!

-Your view forces you to adopt Van's view of salvation prior to the cross. Your view denies gospel salvation is actual before Pentecost. Your view is necessitated by all who embrace Reformed Roman Catholic ecclesiology where church membership equals salvation in Christ.

-You give your OPINIONS without a shed of Scripture. You make charges without a shed of factual basis. You are defending a SYSTEM that has no Biblical basis.

-You are using a dishonest and cowardly approach as you simply attack an epitaph, a term IN ORDER TO AVOID DEALING WITH SCRIPTURES! that is dishonest and cowardly

-How can you be so dishonest with me and with God’s Word

-They are irrefutable facts and totally annihilate your doctrine by exposing it as unscriptural, thus a FALSE doctrine that actually perverts the gospel of Christ

-Your explanation is irrational and unbiblical.
Then I love this one; Biblicist says;
-Hey, instead of ad hominen attacks that center around a term "Landmarkism" try dealing with the scriptures.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist

I see you write your own scriptures to defend your error. Well, that is the only way you can defend is by changing the scripture.

First, it says nowhere in the text that "IN CHRIST" they have come there! You are reading your position into the text - try being honest with the text.

No....after reviewing your clown like posts like that bolded it became clear you are not quite grasping what is being said ...so I am adding words...sort of like the amplified bible does to help you

There is no baptism that made the Son in spiritual unity with the Father any more than is any baptism that makes the Son in spiritual unity with us. He is the only "BEGOTTEN" Son.

Did anyone say anything about a baptism for the Son?
You cannot help yourself from doing this can you?

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist

Did anyone say anything about a baptism for the Son?
You cannot help yourself from doing this can you?

That is your whole reason for quoting that passage of scripture to defend your view of the baptism in the Spirit as spiritual union is it not??? We are in Christ and Christ is in us EVEN AS the son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son??? Hence, according to your rationale then the Son must have been baptized into the Father just as you claim we are baptized into the Spirit in order to have that union. Is that not your rationale behind this whole debate???

We do not disagree about spiritual union. We disagree about the MEANS of spiritual union. You claim it is by baptism in the Spirit, whereas I claim it is by regeneration or new birth. You use of John 17 does not support your view. If we are in Christ and Christ in us EVEN AS the Son is in the Father and the Father in him, then according to your view we are baptized into the Spirit (you then claim is Christ) and therefore the Son must to have been baptized into the Father or else this whole analogy breaks down.

I say we are in Christ and Christ in us by NEW BIRTH or REGENERATION and I say the Son is the only BEGOTTEN of the Father as some old divines claimed ETERNAL GENERATION not baptism of any sort.

I have argued long enough with you over this point. I think I have sufficiently established my view. I have to get back to my students and class as I am behind on some things. You and I get along on many other things and I don't discount you as a brother in Christ, my apologies for coming across to strong at times. You may have the last word.

Oh yes, the Greek term ekklesia is used in both the concrete and abstract sense in classical Greek literature. Therefore, when it is considered in any context in the New Testament both uses must be considered as part of its historical meaning and application before assuming a new meaning that has absolutely no history behind it (e.g. a universal invisible ekklesia).

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 7pm Pacific.

 

[Iconoclast]

That is your whole reason for quoting that passage of scripture to defend your view of the baptism in the Spirit as spiritual union is it not??? We are in Christ and Christ is in us EVEN AS the son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son??? Hence, according to your rationale then the Son must have been baptized into the Father just as you claim we are baptized into the Spirit in order to have that union. Is that not your rationale behind this whole debate???

We do not disagree about spiritual union. We disagree about the MEANS of spiritual union. You claim it is by baptism in the Spirit, whereas I claim it is by regeneration or new birth. You use of John 17 does not support your view. If we are in Christ and Christ in us EVEN AS the Son is in the Father and the Father in him, then according to your view we are baptized into the Spirit (you then claim is Christ) and therefore the Son must to have been baptized into the Father or else this whole analogy breaks down.

I say we are in Christ and Christ in us by NEW BIRTH or REGENERATION and I say the Son is the only BEGOTTEN of the Father as some old divines claimed ETERNAL GENERATION not baptism of any sort.

I have argued long enough with you over this point. I think I have sufficiently established my view. I have to get back to my students and class as I am behind on some things. You and I get along on many other things and I don't discount you as a brother in Christ, my apologies for coming across to strong at times. You may have the last word.

Oh yes, the Greek term ekklesia is used in both the concrete and abstract sense in classical Greek literature. Therefore, when it is considered in any context in the New Testament both uses must be considered as part of its historical meaning and application before assuming a new meaning that has absolutely no history behind it (e.g. a universal invisible ekklesia).

Okay B.....I agree with the spirit of this post....
I do not mind be challenged , in fact I am thankful for it.
WE agree on much more than disagree with .
I do not consider you or what you believe as an enemy or as a problem .
You said it correctly in that we agree on the blessings of UNION in Christ....but at this point the disagreement is over the means of that union being appropriated .

My use of John 17 was not to suggest any such need of Jesus to add any kind of baptism.
JESUS as God is perfect in all Divine attributes.
AMONG the Godhead exists a perfection of that Divine communion between the 3 persons of the Godhead.

I was however trying to point to and suggest that I do see Spirit Baptism as the necessary work to bring all the elect from all time beyond the veil .....In Christ.
YOU lump it all into regeneration.....but I do not as Jesus in psa68, quoted in Eph 4.....is said to have lead captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
There are many things the Spirit does.....baptism,regeneration,indwelling, sealing,illumination....you have explained why you believe what you do which is all that we could ask for.
Thanks for the interaction.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 7pm Pacific.