Attn: All Dispensationals

Ya, but what about Romans 4 and Galatians 3? What point was Paul trying to make, keeping in mind Gal. 1:6-8?

 

JR,

Salvation has always been by grace through (or maybe by) faith. Rom 4 and Gal 3 stress this. This was "good news" and in that sense, gospel. It was not the gospel of the cross. See my comments and explanation at this thread...

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3088.html

Obviously, some there disagree with me, but still waiting for a response to my last post...

 

I believe like most Christians that the OT saints looked forward to the cross, and we look back. (John 8:56)

Of course we are given more knowledge of what took place at Calvary, but the point is that those that put their trust in God alone for mercy find it.

"Be merciful unto me, O God, be merciful unto me: for my soul trusteth in thee: yea, in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge, until these calamities be overpast.
I will cry unto God most high; unto God that performeth all things for me.
He shall send from heaven, and save me from the reproach of him that would swallow me up. Selah. God shall send forth His mercy
and His truth." Ps. 57:1-3

"Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and ye perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their
trust in Him." Ps. 2:12

 

JR,

It matters most to me what the Bible says, not what most Christians believe.

I do not believe OT saints looked forward to the cross. I do not believe the disciples looked forward to the cross. I do not believe Jesus looked forward to the cross.

Mt 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

Mt 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.


I do not believe OT saints understood the cross. I do not believe that the disciples understood the cross. Jesus understood the cross, better than anyone ever has, or ever will.

Yes, the OT saints did trust in God for mercy. Justified by faith. They neither anticipated nor had faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Your citations from the Psalms are good verses. They give no indication that OT saints looked forward to the cross.

RJP

 

I didn't mean that they understood the cross and looked forward to it. I mean that the cross saved both the OT saints and the NT saints.

When the OT saints did their blood sacrifices of lambs without blemish, they were without thie direct knowledge looking forward to the cross.

And Eph. 1:4-5 shows full well that Jesus understood what He had to do before even the creation.

 

Two of a kind, I would say. Christ Jesus has a place for all of us in our understanding of His Word.

 

What about Paul's use of Abraham as an example in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 concerning salvation through faith alone?

And how could Jesus say that God is the Father of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob if they are not all in heaven? And how else could they have gotten there if not through faith alone? Especially Jacob who was quite the scoundrel.

”Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30. Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith,” Romans 3:28-30. It is God that Justifies, and this is the way He does it. We forget they had to do a work. God required it. Not so for we in the Body of Christ today.

We find in Hebrews 11 all mentioned, and those in-between, are saved By faith. Not one of them was saved “through” the blood of Christ Jesus. It was impossible even for Noah, a Gentile for Jesus had not shed His Blood. They could only come to the Father By their blood sacrifices of animals, making their salvation conditional, having to endure until the end in their faith by which they came.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." Rom. 1:16

Why then is "it" here in the singular if there was ever more than one Gospel?
</font>[/QUOTE]Paul is telling us there is Now only One gospel. Is it not Paul that you are quoting, and He is not ashamed of the gospel that Christ gave to Him. Christ didn’t give this gospel for the uncircumcision to any of His earthly Apostle’s, and not to James His half-brother. Scripture says Christ chose Paul, from heaven, and commissioned Paul, and gave Paul HIS dispensational gospel of His Father of reconciling the whole world unto Himself. The gospel of Paul is the gospel of Christ from heaven, just as he gave to Moses, Moses’ Law.

 

JR,

We are on the same page. I just do not like to say, "They looked forward to the cross" since some argue that OT Saints had to have some understanding of the coming cross. The only sense in which OT Saints "looked forward" to the cross is that something they did not understand had not happened yet, it was yet future. We certainly look back to the cross, no doubt about that!

 

Perhaps we are on the same page, I'm not sure that's true for Ituttut who wrote:

Then why does it say this in Hebrews 10:1-10:

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience
of sins.
But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein;
which are offered by the law;
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

How then did their blood sacrifices save them without Jesus?

Do you think that any OT saints in heaven will ever say that Jesus is not their Savior? Why then do they all cast their crowns at His feet in Rev. 4:10?

And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of
saints.
And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;" Rev. 5:8-9

 

Hello rjp. Checking for missed posts, and found your post. So you’ll know where I coming from, needed to do a little “explaining”. Enjoy reading some of yours, and JackRus, and a few others. JackRus see you point a post of Sept. 5 in my direction. I’ll try to keep that one shorter, as this one covers a lot of ground.

It took a while to “settle in” on my present position in Christ. It is very comfortable, but it doesn’t mean I have quit learning as I am taught.

Until I began to see the dispensations, did I begin to understand His Word. I thought I understood, but I found a whole new world when I began to understand Paul’s gospel, which of course is the gospel of Christ Jesus from heaven. Jesus while on earth had the gospel of John the Baptist for the nation Israel, that gospel being the “kingdom is at hand”, and to enter, God’s people were told they had to “repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins”. I can find nowhere in scripture where this message was ever preached to or at a Gentile by John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, John, any of the other earthly appointed Apostles, or James the son of Joseph and Mary. We know Paul never did. Of course the heathen could become proselytes of the Jewish faith by circumcision, but not on their own could they enter into the covenant gospel.

Paul says he was given a dispensational gospel; he is the Apostle to the Gentile, and Christ revealed what had been hidden from the world, since the beginning, to Paul. These had to have beginnings. We know they only came from the beginning of a New “dispensation”. Who knew anything about the “Body of Christ”, for they had not been told? With this “dispensational” gospel of God, came understanding of things that could not before be understood, and new things were presented. In fact all things have become New, for Old things passed away. II Corinthians 5:16-17, ”Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”

To me verse 16 is perhaps the most “scary” verse in the Bible. We simply don’t want to believe what Paul says here. But did Jesus die on that Cross, buried, arose and ascended to heaven? This is all true. Jesus the man died. Jesus tells a disciple in Matthew 8:22 to follow Him. His Apostles and disciples followed Him, but His nation refused to follow Him. Where was Jesus going? To be their King, in His Kingdom, but His people refused Messiah, their King. It didn’t happen. Since His kingdom is to come after the tribulation, and that did not happen, Christ Jesus now resides in heaven seated next to His Father. The earthly Apostles came to understand they don’t have a dead man to follow, but one “alive and in heaven”. However in the Old gospel they expected entering into the “kingdom at hand”, which did not happen, as the covenant people would not accept their King. Old Things have Passed Away, and All Things Are New. This means a New gospel will be preached, and this New gospel is for the purpose of making His first love jealous, she with her idols and whoredoms. Exodus 34:14; Romans 10:19-21

The wisdom the Spirit gave to Paul was beyond measure, and lays open to us the understanding of New things, and the understanding of the Old things also, never before understood. Besides Romans 10 above, the rapture and a few other things never before known, is how we today are saved, and it was impossible for anyone before this dispensation (after Damascus Road) to know that the Gentile would be saved through faith, and not [/b]by[/b]faith as all from the beginning had been saved, for works were necessary. I believe as we become more Berean, proving Paul (Acts 17:10), we come to revelations now revealed to us(II Corinthians 12:1.

None from Abel (Hebrew 11) until the Gentile Cornelius could be saved through faith. It was impossible for any to be saved Through faith of Jesus Christ, for He had not shed His blood. If Jesus had not proved His faith, we today could not come to the Father Through the Faith of Jesus Christ. They could not be Once Saved Always Saved, for only the blood of Christ saves immediately and permanently. So all before, including the earthly Apostles of Jesus were conditionally saved, having to endure until the end. That is at least until God established and made known, ”… old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”

We cannot find in the Bible the phrase “through faith” in connection with salvation, until after Damascus Road. Many will hold all have been saved “through faith”, but if this be so then let it be right, but also to be right they must acknowledge it was not all of Grace for all had to do a Work. We only fool ourselves if we say we come to the Father just as did those of Old, for if we bring our “works” to Christ to enter the presence of our Father, He will know we present “false” or “fake” works. We have brought Him the Old works of a dead dispensation. We enter by the “gift” God gave to us. His Son knows us by sight, and that New ticket He issued to us on that heavenly flight to heaven. Those of Old were issued “ground transportation” tickets for that train to the promised land on the earth.

As this New gospel was feed to Paul, he made it known to man. II Peter chapter 3 informs Paul has wisdom to impart, and it is hard to put together. But is it ever worth it to come to understanding God’s dispensational gospel. The discrepancies disappear for we learn to divide this Grace period for the whole world, from the Law, that came with the covenant the nation of Israel made with God. Our God is a God of Division, and able to bring together again.

I believe every verse in the Bible tells us something, some more important than others, to different people. I am a Gentile. After years reading about my Baptist belief, and other beliefs, some without a belief, teaching and being taught, I found out I didn’t know anymore about His Word than I did when I was in my 20's. I finally dawned on me all I was leaning was what I had been reading. I had been reading the “tradition of man” for 40 or so years, and not the whole Word of God. What I found out by reading the Bible is the Baptists are probably closer than most, but no religion down here will ever be perfect. However, as individual’s I believe we must grow from simple saving messages such as the Billy Grahams, to the “hard to understand” wisdom given to Paul.

Who can really understand “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”? Every Christian can understand that” simple” message of believing on His name for their salvation. Who can understand the gospel of Christ Jesus for this present dispensation? After our salvation it is up to us to work out our own salvation (Philippians 2:12). And we will be placed in our proper place in the Body of Christ, as we find that “more excellent way”, referenced in I Corinthians 12, apart from the gifts given by the Holy Spirit to men.

Paul says he is the Apostle to the Gentile, and also the circumcised. Evidently he is for Christ Jesus appointed him to that position. Since I believe the Book is the Word of God, I believe what Paul tells us in Romans 3:30, God shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. I have found it does no good trying to argue with what was revealed to Paul. I don’t believe God tells us we (me) are “sanctified” differently than the Jew. Christian faith, ituttut

 

Then why does it say this in Hebrews 10:1-10:

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience
of sins.
But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein;
which are offered by the law;
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

How then did their blood sacrifices save them without Jesus?

Hello JackRUS. Since I’m addressed will also answer.

The animal sacrifices only covered their sins. Their sins were covered while living, going to the grave in death, their sins covered. The High Priest, only, entered into the Holy of Holies annually to sacrifice for the Nation. They had to endure until the end. These were preserved for salvation, until Jesus Christ could bore their sins.

Those that did remain faithful to the end, with their works, did not have the assurance that we have. Christ Jesus’ blood saves. We are buried with Him at the Cross for that is where we left our sins for He took them to him. We will never understand or imagine the horror, the fear, the shame, or the loneliness (without God), this perfect one felt when all our sins were dumped on him. All that filth, disgusting things idol worshippers do, and all the sins from the beginning to the end. No wonder He that had no sin cried, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

I believe we are Sanctified before we are Justified. Through sanctification of the Spirit we were chosen to salvation – II Thessalonians 2:13. However, I believe this all happens at one time. We turn to God, being circumcised, and baptized without hands, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus – I Corinthians 6:11. Once Saved Always Saved.

I believe He Sanctifies us, setting us apart to His Holiness, so we know we are not condemned, and then He must Justify. There is only one way and that is Through the Blood of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Was this possible before Christ shed His Blood? Only afterwards, and only after God said it was so. Who first tells us this? Moses, David the Prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus. It is Christ Jesus from heaven; not from earth. It was a secret in the mysteries of God.

Do you think that any OT saints in heaven will ever say that Jesus is not their Savior? Why then do they all cast their crowns at His feet in Rev. 4:10?

They didn’t know by whose name they could be saved. They Looked for their King. Our Lord Jesus Christ shed His blood for all in His dispensation. God our savior so loved the world.

And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of
saints.
And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;" Rev. 5:8-9 </font>[/QUOTE]Amen! His shed blood saves. Christian faith, ituttut

 

Ituttut - Please forgive an "interloper" who has not been part of the conversation, but I couldn't resist - haven't posted here for several months, being caught up in other matters. You wrote (paraphrased) "I can find nowhere in Scripture where [the gospel of the kingdom, I suppose?] was preached to or at Gentiles by .... (list)." Do we really think that the Magi were not saved? They were certainly Gentiles. In Lk. 3:14, how could these have been Jewish soldiers? The Roman army was in control in Palestine. Was the woman of Samaria (Jn. 4) a Jew? Was she not saved? Before the Message on the Mount, comparing Mt., Mk. & Lk., we have the rejection of Jesus by His home town folks clearly because He was preaching to Gentiles (Lk. 4:24-29). He fulfilled the prophetic word of Isaiah (Mr. 4:13-16) by being "a light to Galilee of the Gentiles." Many from Galilee AND DECAPOLIS (Gentile region) and "all Syria" heard Him preaching the "gospel of the kingdom," Mt. 4:23-24, Lk. 4:44-45. Mk. 3 adds "Idumea (Edom - Herod's home), "and about Tyre and Sidon," to the crowd that heard the Message on the Mount, fulfilling Isa. 2:1-4 and Micah 4:1-3 ("mountain of the Lord's house" [church - RCB]to be "established on the top of the mountains, and all nations shall flow into it." Immediately after the message, a Roman centurion came to Him, Mt. 8 - evidently because he heard the sermon; Roman soldiers were everywhere, listening to everything. And Jesus highly commended his faith - none like it in Israel! Later in this chapter and parallels, He crossed over into Gentile territory, Geresa, Gadara, Decapolis (Latin for "ten cities" under Roman control), and returned there later, Mk. 7:53ff. Was the demoniac not saved? What about the others of that region when He returned? And of course even Scofield admits He preached His message to the Syro-Phonecian woman. In the last week, certain Greeks came saying "We would see Jesus." Were they rudely turned away?

You also wrote "It was impossible for any to be saved through faith of Jesus Christ [glad you kept the objective genitive there; it isn't our faith, but His that saves - RCB], for He had not shed His blood." What do we do with Rev. 13:8 and 17:8? To say that something foreknown from eternity past could have no results until it was fulfilled misses the point that God is not bound by time. Even with a human will, while the property remains, the owner may dispose of it as he sees fit in advance of his death.

And the term "through faith" was not used before (I've forgotten your first ref here) - but (I believe JackRus picked up on this above) "through faith" is the common thread of OT saints listed in Heb. 11 - used after the fact, but indicating that their actions looking forward in faith to whatever God would do were pleasing to Him. Are we to argue that these were not saved? Yes, we have more information, "some beter thing," but surely the same salvation!

Quite obviously, I am not a "dispie," neither am I a covenant theologian; possiibly the one term that would come closest is "landmark," but I do agree with BapMom above that it is better to work from the text out rather than from the theology in. Most systems, if not all, falter at some point; Scripture never fails. It is "that which is perfect," and it has come to us -all of it - for our admonition, we "upon whom the ends of the age have come." We are in the last days, and have been ever since Acts 2 or even before, the last age of human history. Peter made that clear in Acts 2:1-21. John the Baptist preached:
"Behold the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world." That is the same message I will preach tomorrow from I Cor. 15. Wishing you His best - Charles Blair - Rom. 8:28

 

Good post Charles. And I might add that Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite was saved, and also a Gentile.

(Num 14:24, 32:11-12; Deut 1:36).

[ October 08, 2005, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: JackRUS ]

 

I am curious as to the definition of a “landmark”?

I like this summary given of what Bapmom has been saying; I think the Bible is very clear about being deceived by theologies.

Every system I have dug into has faltered and appears to be forced to fit, some worse than others. I have been told I would have to come up with my own system and if I went this way I must eventually end up HERE or if I went that way I must end up THERE; like it’s all been figured out for me by someone, but I see myself as an incurable Berean maybe always without a complete system and very reluctant to adopt one.

 

JackRUS & Benjamin - Thanks for the encouraging words. I deliberately avoided OT Gentiles - Ruth, Job's 3 friends who were "hooked" on their system of theology but evidently worshipped the one true God, even Job may not be Hebrew; a large number in Nineveh; Nebuchadnezzar; and I'm just working "off the top of my head." Moses' father-in-law and family also come to mind. Also, many OT saints were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, including all the Bible writers (I Peter 1:11).

Benj, I don't subscribe fully to "old landmarkism" as usually defined, but am probably closer to that than any one other "systematic" theology. Summarized (as I hold it): Jesus built, during His earthly ministry, the very first New Testament church (congregation) the world ever knew, using material prepared by John the Baptist just as Solomon used material prepared by David to build the temple. It was a "moving" church in those years, as the tabernacle "moved" in the wilderness; then it settled in Jerusalem, had a long-running prayer meeting before Pentecost, had a business meeting to fulfill 3 prophecies of a successor for Judas (the only apostle to have an elected successor; the apostolic age came to an end with those who had been baptized by John and seen the risen Saviour). That church was vitally empowered in Acts 2, and new churches (Antioch, etc.) were established in succession, with a continuity of baptisms (believer's immersions, under church authority - even the eunuch of Acts 8 was immersed by a member under the authority of the Jerusalem church. How do we know that? Philip did not tell Peter and John to back off; he gladly acknowedged the authority of the church that sent them over his ministry.) Churches are the extension agents of the kingdom, each one local, visible, and complete in itself, with Christ as Head of each local body. Such churches baptize and administer the Lord's Table, with careful boundaries set by Scripture in I Cor. 5, 10, and 11. The easiest way to avoid a mockery is what some call "closed" communion. I prefer the term "church" communion. I do not partake any where I am not a member; even when I have done interim pastorates, I have led the church in observing the ordinance without partaking, and explained my reasons.
There has been a succession of churches like that first one and those first-century ones across the ages, in some sort of continuity. ("Strict" landmarkers probably want a "chain-link," which goes beyond available historical evidence, but Mt. 16:18 and 28:20, with Eph. 3:21, tell me that there has never been a time when NT churches ceased to exist since the days of Jesus and the apostles.)

That's a bit more difficult than "TULIP" or the "Famous Five Fundamentals," and hard for lots of folks to swallow I know, but some of the best Baptist work ever done on the face of this earth has been done on those principles. The nickname is not necessary; the principles are the most important part. Obviously, with my (our!) view about starting from the text rather than the system, I should give verses and then exposition, but you asked for a definition. Any more discussion will be at your request or that of others on the chain of posts; I'm not looking for debates and long, drawn-out and unpleasant lines of argument. Of course there are lots of saved people who are not Baptists, and lots of Baptists who would disagree with these ideas. I'm glad you are reluctant to adopt any system; so am I.

Best in Him - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

Charles,

Thanks for the reply. I went over 1Cor 5, 10, and 11 to see why you might feel strongly about not taking communion with other churches. I can only guess at what would need to be agreed on to unify brethren to tarry for one another and the complications involved before one would be considered to take in with communion. I’ve got to say this would seem to involve a lot of discernments of beliefs to keep contentiousness away.

I see from looking into the scriptures why you would prefer to call it a “church” communion instead of a “closed” communion and also possibly expect a lot of unpleasant argument on this subject from this board. Never having heard of this before I am curious if you hold to an eschatological view and what other principles might be at the forefront.

 

Thanks for your post Charles Blair. Haven’t digested post yet. Past my bedtime. Got things to do with the wife tomorrow. Don’t get around to computin’ everyday, but will try for tomorrow night. Christian faith, ituttut

 

Benjamin & ituttut - Good morning! Understand fully "past my bedtime" - us oldtimers like me go to bed with the chickens most of the time, then up and at 'em too early. Just started translating Nehemiah from the Sept. (my Hebrew is pretty rusty), getting ready for 2006 SBC Winter Bible Study in that excellent book.

Eschatology? Jesus is coming again, personally, visibly, literally, to receive His own unto Himself, judge the world in righteousness, and usher in eternal glory. Probably closer to "A" than any others, though "realized eschatology" and the historical pre both have something to say, and I just finished reading Willard Ramsey's "Zion's Glad Morning" - strongly post-mil by a living author! - and enjoyed it a great deal. Boettner's post-mil views have never impressed me, but B. H. Carroll did, and Ramsey is in that school. By the way, Carroll was a local-church, limited communion Baptist; his brother J. M. wrote the "Trail of Blood" which was the first Baptist history I ever read, while still in grade school. While it wasn't verbally inspired (and neither am I!), it is a generally helpful summary of 2000 years of history of the Lord's kind of churches. Our succession, if we have any (and the 3 passages I cited seem to show that we should), must be found among the persecuted and despised rather than among the high-and-mighty ecclesiastical persecutors who "baptized" babies for their salvation and used the arm of the state against us "heretics."

By the way, "landmarkism" has little to do directly with either the issue of election or that of eschatology; it deals primarily with church life. On the 3 I Cor. passages: no such thing as truly "open" communion if these are followed - no openly immoral person, no admittedly lost person, and (most important, from ch. 11) no divisions. Doctrinal as well as practical divisions are in view, and it is difficult enough to keep that standard in one congregation, much less when we open the doors even to "fellow Baptists" - just read the posts on this forum! We are not saying others are lost, though we begin with the common salvation as a basis; proper baptism and a walk in fellowship with the Lord and His people in a local congregation are the simplest ways to avoid any sort of judging. Let each member of that church (such as the one at Corinth) examine himself, partake as he feels led, so long as he/she is not under some form of discipline (a matter we have too long neglected). Well, I do understand that these are not the common views today, though they once were among Southern Baptists and many "independent" Baptists, and were advocated by people like Chester Tulga and S. E. Anderson among the Northern Baptists. They are also the basic views of groups like ABA and BMA, and strong in the CBA groups. Hope you have a great day - we're off to Louisville for a KY Baptist Convention activity. Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

R. Charles.
On your escatology; do mean post-trib or as you posted, post-mil?

How could Jesus return after the Millennium if that is to be His glorious reign?

 

Paul is right. All Christians cannot all be in the same part in the Body of Christ.

God bless you as you give forth His Word, which must include Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved which differs from Acts 2 gospel of salvation, having conditions. And I know you will invoke His name to your listeners, and pray they will believe on His name to save them. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12.