Baptism and Regeneration of the Spirit

[The Biblicist]

My Brother Biblicist - I do not understand your meaning of "time restricted and geographically restricted."

Every single reference to the baptism in the Spirit found in the gospels is future tense without giving the time of fulfilment. Hence, John the Baptist or Jesus viewed this as something NOT YET fulfilled. Not until Acts 1:4-5 do we find any specifics about the time and place of fulfillment.

1. They were not to leave Jerusalem - so Jerusalem is the place of fulfillment
2. It was not "many days hence" - so Pentecost was the time of fulfillment

You have stated that John the Baptist was part of the Bride. Do you remember? You have stated that all believers before and after Pentecost are part of the Bride. However, the means to incorporate anyone into the bride and body of Christ you have said is the "baptism in the Spirit" which you now claim to be at least simeltaneous with regeneration if not regeneration.

Do you not see the obvious contradiction in your theory???? John the Baptist and all Old testament saints both lived and died before the fulfilled occurrence of the baptism in the Spirit/regeneration, SO HOW COULD THEY HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED/REGENERATED into the bride/body of Christ as the baptism in the Spirit had not yet happened until Pentecost.

You can't have it both ways. Either they are in the bride or they are not! If entrance is through the baptism in Spirit then it is not possible for them to be in the bride/body as there was no baptism in the Spirit prior to Pentecost.

My point is so simple that to belabor it is to cause confusion.

Also, I believe Scripture teaches that regeneration is a result of the Spirit's baptism and they are not only simultaneous but also inseparable. Wherever the Spirit is, there is "regeneration."

But the baptism in the Spirit did not occur until Pentecost and in Jerusalem on Pentecost. So tell me how pre-pentecost believers can be "in Christ" spiritually? If you deny they could be, then you are forced to embrace a salvation OUTSIDE of Christ and without spiritual union with God through Christ and no such gospel or salvation exists.

These simply contradictions to your system prove it is false and based upon false interpretations of scripture.

In case you still don't understand my points, let me breifly restate them:

1. If the baptism in the Spirit is the means to be placed "in Christ" meaning in the "body" and/or "bride" of Christ then how could anyone previous to the day of Pentecost be "in Christ" or in his "body" or "bride"????

2. If the baptism in the Spirit is what obtains spiritual union with God through Christ or "in Christ" then does not that demand all people prior to Pentecost are OUTSIDE of any spiritual union with God through Christ, therefore not "in Christ" therefore not in His "body" therefore not in His "bride" OR is there some other salvation or spiritual union with God OUTSIDE of Christ or OUTSIDE of being "in Christ"????

 

[NetChaplain]

Every single reference to the baptism in the Spirit found in the gospels is future tense without giving the time of fulfilment. Hence, John the Baptist or Jesus viewed this as something NOT YET fulfilled.

I believe I understand your meaning, which leaves the subject of pre-cross believers and what God has done with them concerning the Spirit's work in regeneration. But as I've mentioned before, Scripture may not even address this issue--if it is an issue.

It's might be that the Spirit's baptism was either applied to them where they are after He was given. or since He had not yet been given, it was not required. Regardless, since these concepts are not clear in Scripture concerning the OT saints position in relation to them inheriting Heaven and the Spirit's role here, the issue to me is not necessary for closure.

I see the "New Heaven" dwellers ruling with Christ, and the New Earth dwellers their subjects. Rule as in teaching, not controlling.

 

[NetChaplain]

You have stated that all believers before and after Pentecost are part of the Bride.

The reason I accept the above is because of Christ's declaration in John 20:29: "Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

I believe this includes obedient OT saints who believed all that was written about Christ's prophecies portraying His sacrificial efficacy, which were in type and shadows, e.g. they did not need to see Him and believed; and those after Christ's ascension who believe without seeing Him.

Thus, the sense of "blessed are they" may well intend a superior position to those who will believe only after they see Him (Millennium Israel).

Though this is still somewhat speculation to me, I have come to mostly believe it to be truth.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe I understand your meaning, which leaves the subject of pre-cross believers and what God has done with them concerning the Spirit's work in regeneration. But as I've mentioned before, Scripture may not even address this issue--if it is an issue.

It's might be that the Spirit's baptism was either applied to them where they are after He was given. or since He had not yet been given, it was not required. Regardless, since these concepts are not clear in Scripture concerning the OT saints position in relation to them inheriting Heaven and the Spirit's role here, the issue to me is not necessary for closure.

I see the "New Heaven" dwellers ruling with Christ, and the New Earth dwellers their subjects. Rule as in teaching, not controlling.

But the issue is explicitly addressed in scriptures and addressed very clearly - Rom. 8:8-9/Jn. 3:3-6. You just refuse to accept it because your soteriology and ecclessiology won't fit with what it clearly states.

Before Pentecost Jesus clearly states "except A MAN be born again he cannot..." And he rebuked Nicodemus as a "master of Israel" becuase he did not know this, but your whole soterilogical/ecclesiological position is based scquarely upon the idea that he could not possibly know it!!!!

Paul's view of fallen man and salvation in the book of Romans is based upon Old Testament Scritpures. He is not claiming new revelation when he described the two possible states of mankind in Romans 8:8-9! He did not say this is only true of Post-Pentecost man as you claim!

The Old Testament Scriptures are equally as clear about this but your theology requires you to reject such scriptures (Deut. 5:29; 29:4; Ezek. 36:26-27; Jer. 31:33-34) as applicable to INDIVIDUALS then and there as well as to the future nation of Israel in the end times. However, Paul applies it to INDIVIDUAL salvation now without denying its future application to Israel in the end times (Heb. 8:10-12; 10:15-17; Rom. 11:25-28).

Paul says the covenant made with Abraham was "IN CHRIST" (Gal. 3:17) but your theology forbids you to accept what it clearly states.

The point is your view forces you to reject these clear statements of scripture because your view is wrong. Your view of the bride is wrong. Your view of the body of Christ is wrong. Your view of the baptism in the Spirit is wrong. Your view of regeneration is wrong. There is no salvation of any kind without regeneration as it is essential to the very problem of the fallen nature. The baptism in the Spirit is not promised to any individual ever at any time in history, but only to a plural body of WATER baptized persons and every single solitary text explicitly makes that clear. The "body" and "Bride" of Christ have no existence apart from the New Testament congregation (2 Cor. 11:2) and is merely a metaphor for FAITHFULNESS to "the faith" once delivered and "purity" from apostasy from "the faith" once delivered. The scriptures in Revelation 20-22 are explicitly clear that not all believers are part of the "bride" or "body" of Christ but your theory won't allow you to accept those clear defining scriptures. The clear and explicit Biblical teaching on regeneration and the baptism in the Spirit forbid your view of the "bride" and "body" of Christ. The clear and explicit teaching on the baptism in the Spirit forbids anything having to do with salvation or spiritual union, so you just ignore the explicit statements.

Moreover, it is impossible to justify that regeneration is or accompanies the Baptism in the Spirit if you take Scriptures at their face value as the new birth is clearly taught prior to Pentecost even by Jesus (Jn. 3) without any reference to something impossible before Pentecost whereas the baptism in the Spirit is clearly stated to be impossible until Pentecost. The problem is your theory and so to harmonize those scriptures with your theory, you simply explain the plain clear sense of the scriptures away. That is the problem.

 

[The Biblicist]

The reason I accept the above is because of Christ's declaration in John 20:29: "Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

I believe this includes obedient OT saints who believed all that was written about Christ's prophecies portraying His sacrificial efficacy, which were in type and shadows, e.g. they did not need to see Him and believed; and those after Christ's ascension who believe without seeing Him.

Thus, the sense of "blessed are they" may well intend a superior position to those who will believe only after they see Him (Millennium Israel).

Though this is still somewhat speculation to me, I have come to mostly believe it to be truth.

There is no such thing as justifying faith without regeneration - it is impossible to occur. Indeed, there is no such thing as salvation without regeneration as the fallen condition of man before and after Pentecost has no other Biblical or logical solution.

You are forced to explain away clear and explicit scriptures that deny the existence of the church, the body of Christ, the Bride prior to the ministry of Christ. Jesus never said "I HAVE built the church" but "I WILL" but your theory demands the latter. You have the metaphorical foundation laid AFTER the metaphorical building has been built. You change the words "set first aposltes...secondly prophets" (1 Cor. 12:28) to mean "revealed first prophets, secondly apostles." In other words, you reject what the Scriptures clearly explicitly state and force your own words upon them as your theory must in order to survive.

 

[NetChaplain]

You just refuse to accept it because your soteriology and ecclessiology won't fit with what it clearly states.

Before Pentecost Jesus clearly states "except A MAN be born again he cannot..." And he rebuked Nicodemus as a "master of Israel" becuase he did not know this, but your whole soterilogical/ecclesiological position is based scquarely upon the idea that he could not possibly know it!!!!

I have yet to see anyone's explanation clear and accurate concerning much of that contained within Echatological doctrine, esp. that related to Israel.

Much of what you continue to reply with has already been addressed by some of my replies, but considering the difficulty-level concerning what we've been discussing, we may never agree with one another's beliefs here.

 

[NetChaplain]

There is no such thing as justifying faith without regeneration - it is impossible to occur. Indeed, there is no such thing as salvation without regeneration as the fallen condition of man before and after Pentecost has no other Biblical or logical solution.

I've shared with you that whatever God had to do with the OT believers for them to inherit Heaven, He has provided, be it regeneration for them also, after the Spirit was given, which issue is not addressed (or not clear if it is).

My concern is that the New Heaven (NH) dwellers will be in Christ as His Body and Church. I see no reason to conceive that anyone in the NH will not be in Christ, regardless the attempt to conflict doctrine with this truth.

 

[The Biblicist]

The whole universal visible and or invisible church theory is based upon violating the Scriptures, confusing one truth with another, and ultimately preaching another gospel foreign to the scriptures.

1. The words "universal" and "invisible" are not found in the scriptures.

2. The Roman Catholic (visible) and Reformed Roman Catholic (invisible) was invented by Augustine and Luther's interpretation of the word "world" in Matthew 13:38 made to mean "church."

3. These false views are also based upon ignoring of the institutional use of ekklesia in scriptures (Mt. 16:18; 18:17). The very same expression in Matthew 16:18 in the singular with the definite article without any geographical designation is the very same way it is found in Matthew 18:17 but no one is so ignorant to claim Matthew 18:15-18 refers to a universal or invisible church. The same institutional sense is found in both passages while the remaining 20 uses of ecclesia by Christ are obviously found in the concreted sense of literal geographical located localized assemblies.

4. The Reformed and Roman Catholic concepts confuse the church of God with the Kingdom in Matthew 13 when in fact the church of God is the administrator of the keys of the kingdom rather than being the kingdom.

5. The Kingdom of God does not have officers, ordinances, or a congregational form of government but the church of God does.

6. The kingdom of God has existed since the Garden of Eden but the church was built by Christ in his earthly ministry and has its metaphorical foundation and first additions in the earthly ministry of Christ as a New Covenant administrative body replacing the Old Covenant administrative "house of God".

7. The Body and bride of Christ is distinguished from Christians now within the Great Whore (Rev. 18:4 in contrast to Rev. 19:6-7; Rev. 18:4 in harmony with 2 Cor. 11:3-4; so 2 Cor. 11:2 in contrast with 2 Cor. 11:3-4; Rev. 21:24 in contrast to Revelation 22:1-3; Revelation 19:6-7 in contrast with Rev. 19:8-9; Psalm 45 and the queen in contrast to many virgins; etc.).

With the exception of my kind of Baptists, all other Christian denominations teach some form of church salvation. They teach salvation is in the church and outside the church there is no salvation:

1. Rome teaches salvation is in the Church - universal visible church
2. Reformed and Sub-Reformed Rome teaches there is no salvation outside their definition of the church - universal invisible church
3. Restoration Christianity by prophets teach there is no salvation outside of either their own localized churches or invisible church

We are the only ones that I know of that teach salvation is strictly by faith in the gospel of Christ APART FROM ANY KIND OF CHURCH UNION and that "in Christ" by spiritual union refers to regeneration while "in Christ" positionally refers to justification by faith.

 

[NetChaplain]

The whole universal visible and or invisible church theory

I'm uncertain of your meaning concerning the above.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm uncertain of your meaning concerning the above.

Rome believes that there is no salvation outside of the VISIBLE Roman Catholic Church.

Reformed Roman Catholicism, or the ecclessiology invented by those ex-Roman Catholic Priests during the Reformation believe there is no salvation outside the Universal Invisible Church theory. If you are outside of this concept of the church you are lost according to their theory of the church. Hence, both teach church salvation.

We believe the church has NOTHING to do with salvation from Genesis to Revelation but salvation has only to do with the redemptive substitutionary Person and work of Christ - period!

We deny spiritual union is or accomplished by the baptism in the Spirit but is the sole work of regeneration in all ages.

 

[The Biblicist]

I've shared with you that whatever God had to do with the OT believers for them to inherit Heaven, He has provided, be it regeneration for them also, after the Spirit was given, which issue is not addressed (or not clear if it is).

But it is the issue, as this issue is exactly what promotes your view of the new heaven and earth.

There is absolutely no rationale that justifies pre-cross persons from being able to believe, be justified by faith (which Paul defines as imputation of righteousness and remission of sins - Rom. 4:6-8) walk by faith (Heb. 11) and yet claim regeneration is withheld or the Spirit is withheld as it is irrational to claim that part of the salvation package is given while the other part is withheld when in fact the cross is essential for THE WHOLE PACKAGE. If part can be given, the whole can be given and if the part cannot be given due to the need of the cross first, then the WHOLE cannot be given either. This whole rationale is irrational and unbiblical. The fact is, the WHOLE PACKAGE of salvation given to us was given to them and the only part of the package not given to them is still not given to us - glorification. They received the WHOLE on promise of the cross while we receive the whole on fulfillment of that promise but both receive it equally (Rom. 4:25-26).

My concern is that the New Heaven (NH) dwellers will be in Christ

There is no salvation for anyone at anytime who is OUTSIDE of Christ. So to even suggest that Abraham was not "in Christ" when the Scriptures explicilty say he was (Gal. 3:17) is to build on a rotten foundation for interpreting end time events. Before Calvary Jesus denied there is more than one way of salvation (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6). If any man be not "in Christ" he is "none of His - period, regardless of the TIME zone in which they live (Pre-cross, Tribulation period, etc.).

as His Body and Church. I see no reason to conceive that anyone in the NH will not be in Christ, regardless the attempt to conflict doctrine with this truth.

If anyone interprets the Baptism in the Spirit to be the mechanism to bring people into spriitual union with Christ then you have no basis to believe all in the NH are "in Christ" in the sense YOU DEFINE IT!

However, if we interpret the baptism in the Spirit as it is stated and described in Scripture then it has NOTHING to do with individual salvation whatsoever in any sense whatsoever. It has a consistent use in scripture as the divine accreditation action by God to confirm that any newly built "house of God" has been built according to the divine pattern. The tabernacle recieved this confirmation ONCE. The temple received this confirmation ONCE. Now, the new house of God made up of living stones on Pentecost received this divine confirmation ONCE. Peter's words in Acts 11:15 deny it reoccurred more than ONCE from Pentecost to the house of Corneilius as the nearest reference point for what happened there is "AT the beginning". This was not a repetitive indivdiual experience as you claim and as your position demands. It is not simeltaneous with individual regeneration as you claim as thousands had been saved and added to the church at Jersualem since Pentecost and yet the nearest reference point that Peter could point to for such an act by God was "AT the beginning." The repeat at the house of Pentecost was for the very same purpose "AT the beginning" to confirm that GENTILES should be received into the CONGREGATIONAL BODY in Jerusalem BY WATER BAPTISM as the baptism in the Spirit was promised to a new "house of God" made up of WATER BAPTIZED believers (Mt. 3:11; Acts 1:4-5) and the ALL JEWISH congregation had refused to receive Gentiles into its membership. Peter had to be shown three times in a vision that God accepts Gentiles. Even after being shown three times by God what does he tell Cornelious upon entering his house:

And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

What was Peter's first response after the baptism in the Spirit upon the Gentiles? It was "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"

The whole thing that occured in Acts 2:1-5 occurred at the house of Cornelious (sound of a mighty rushing wind, tongues of fires, speaking in tongues). THIS IS NOT REPEATED WITH REGENERATION OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL CHILD OF GOD THEN OR NOW. This is the divine confirmation of "the house of God" that it built by the right builder (Mt. 16:18), contains the right materials (1 Pet. 2:5), and therefore is the qualified PUBLIC HOUSE OF WORSHIP with qualified public ministers (1 Tim. 3:1-13) and qualified public ordinances administered according to a public qualified system of faith (1 Tim. 3:15-4:6). After the church Jesus built in Jerusalem received Gentile membership the baptism in the Spirit CEASED and now there is but "ONE BAPTISM" and that is the WATER baptism promised administration to the end of the age in the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20) which is administered by men ("ye") to men ("them").

This once INSTITUTIONAL CONFIRMATION ceased in Acts 10. All other New Testament congregations are built after the same patter provided in Matthew 28:19-20 as seen applied in Acts 2:40-41. This is the INSTITUTIONAL metaphorical body and bride of Christ (2 Cor. 11:2) which can be polluted by false doctrine and become part of the INSTITUTIONAL Great Harlot (2 Cor. 11:3-4; Rev. 18:4).

1. The False INSTITUTIONAL church is described asRev. 17-18)

a. A Polluted Woman with polluted daughters (concrete congregations).
b. A worldly city - Rev. 17:18
c. Containing true but UNFAITHFUL children of God - Rev. 18:4

2. The True INSTITUTIONAL church (Rev. 19,21-22)

a. A Faithful and Pure woman - Rev. 19:6-7
b. A Heavenly city - Rev. 21-22:3
c. Unfaithful Christians placed OUTSIDE on new earth - Rev. 21:24

The bridal gown is the PLURAL righteousnesses of the saints not the singular imputed "righteousenss" of Christ - Rev. 19:6-7

The plural righteousness of the saints are their works not the substitutionary work of Christ

The plural righteousnesses of the saints refer to SANCTIFICATION by washing of the water of the Word maintaining faithfulness to "the faith" once delivered (Eph. 5:22-27) not to regeneration or justification.

 

[NetChaplain]

Rome believes that there is no salvation outside of the VISIBLE Roman Catholic Church.

Reformed Roman Catholicism, or the ecclessiology invented by those ex-Roman Catholic Priests during the Reformation believe there is no salvation outside the Universal Invisible Church theory. If you are outside of this concept of the church you are lost according to their theory of the church. Hence, both teach church salvation.

We believe the church has NOTHING to do with salvation from Genesis to Revelation but salvation has only to do with the redemptive substitutionary Person and work of Christ - period!

I see what you mean, and its concept as you've indicated does not collate with Scripture's presentation of the Body. The Papists and its system is openly not considered Christian in the Scriptural sense because it, as many others do, i.e Mormon, Jehovah Witnesses et al base an admixture of law, grace, truth and error.

For example, the term Judeo-Christian is an attempt to describe a religion containing teachings of the law of Moses and the grace of Christ, which if could be practically performed would be a detraction from both.

Any doctrine that clearly opposes Scripture and is knowingly accepted as such concerning the doctrines of Christ is non-Christian.

 

[NetChaplain]

But it is the issue, as this issue is exactly what promotes your view of the new heaven and earth.

There is absolutely no rationale that justifies pre-cross persons from being able to believe, be justified by faith (which Paul defines as imputation of righteousness and remission of sins - Rom. 4:6-8) walk by faith (Heb. 11) and yet claim regeneration is withheld or the Spirit is withheld as it is irrational to claim that part of the salvation package is given while the other part is withheld when in fact the cross is essential for THE WHOLE PACKAGE. If part can be given, the whole can be given and if the part cannot be given due to the need of the cross first, then the WHOLE cannot be given either. This whole rationale is irrational and unbiblical. The fact is, the WHOLE PACKAGE of salvation given to us was given to them and the only part of the package not given to them is still not given to us - glorification. They received the WHOLE on promise of the cross while we receive the whole on fulfillment of that promise but both receive it equally (Rom. 4:25-26).



There is no salvation for anyone at anytime who is OUTSIDE of Christ. So to even suggest that Abraham was not "in Christ" when the Scriptures explicilty say he was (Gal. 3:17) is to build on a rotten foundation for interpreting end time events. Before Calvary Jesus denied there is more than one way of salvation (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6). If any man be not "in Christ" he is "none of His - period, regardless of the TIME zone in which they live (Pre-cross, Tribulation period, etc.).





If anyone interprets the Baptism in the Spirit to be the mechanism to bring people into spriitual union with Christ then you have no basis to believe all in the NH are "in Christ" in the sense YOU DEFINE IT!

However, if we interpret the baptism in the Spirit as it is stated and described in Scripture then it has NOTHING to do with individual salvation whatsoever in any sense whatsoever. It has a consistent use in scripture as the divine accreditation action by God to confirm that any newly built "house of God" has been built according to the divine pattern. The tabernacle recieved this confirmation ONCE. The temple received this confirmation ONCE. Now, the new house of God made up of living stones on Pentecost received this divine confirmation ONCE. Peter's words in Acts 11:15 deny it reoccurred more than ONCE from Pentecost to the house of Corneilius as the nearest reference point for what happened there is "AT the beginning". This was not a repetitive indivdiual experience as you claim and as your position demands. It is not simeltaneous with individual regeneration as you claim as thousands had been saved and added to the church at Jersualem since Pentecost and yet the nearest reference point that Peter could point to for such an act by God was "AT the beginning." The repeat at the house of Pentecost was for the very same purpose "AT the beginning" to confirm that GENTILES should be received into the CONGREGATIONAL BODY in Jerusalem BY WATER BAPTISM as the baptism in the Spirit was promised to a new "house of God" made up of WATER BAPTIZED believers (Mt. 3:11; Acts 1:4-5) and the ALL JEWISH congregation had refused to receive Gentiles into its membership. Peter had to be shown three times in a vision that God accepts Gentiles. Even after being shown three times by God what does he tell Cornelious upon entering his house:

And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

What was Peter's first response after the baptism in the Spirit upon the Gentiles? It was "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"

The whole thing that occured in Acts 2:1-5 occurred at the house of Cornelious (sound of a mighty rushing wind, tongues of fires, speaking in tongues). THIS IS NOT REPEATED WITH REGENERATION OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL CHILD OF GOD THEN OR NOW. This is the divine confirmation of "the house of God" that it built by the right builder (Mt. 16:18), contains the right materials (1 Pet. 2:5), and therefore is the qualified PUBLIC HOUSE OF WORSHIP with qualified public ministers (1 Tim. 3:1-13) and qualified public ordinances administered according to a public qualified system of faith (1 Tim. 3:15-4:6). After the church Jesus built in Jerusalem received Gentile membership the baptism in the Spirit CEASED and now there is but "ONE BAPTISM" and that is the WATER baptism promised administration to the end of the age in the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20) which is administered by men ("ye") to men ("them").

This once INSTITUTIONAL CONFIRMATION ceased in Acts 10. All other New Testament congregations are built after the same patter provided in Matthew 28:19-20 as seen applied in Acts 2:40-41. This is the INSTITUTIONAL metaphorical body and bride of Christ (2 Cor. 11:2) which can be polluted by false doctrine and become part of the INSTITUTIONAL Great Harlot (2 Cor. 11:3-4; Rev. 18:4).

1. The False INSTITUTIONAL church is described asRev. 17-18)

a. A Polluted Woman with polluted daughters (concrete congregations).
b. A worldly city - Rev. 17:18
c. Containing true but UNFAITHFUL children of God - Rev. 18:4

2. The True INSTITUTIONAL church (Rev. 19,21-22)

a. A Faithful and Pure woman - Rev. 19:6-7
b. A Heavenly city - Rev. 21-22:3
c. Unfaithful Christians placed OUTSIDE on new earth - Rev. 21:24

The bridal gown is the PLURAL righteousnesses of the saints not the singular imputed "righteousenss" of Christ - Rev. 19:6-7

The plural righteousness of the saints are their works not the substitutionary work of Christ

The plural righteousnesses of the saints refer to SANCTIFICATION by washing of the water of the Word maintaining faithfulness to "the faith" once delivered (Eph. 5:22-27) not to regeneration or justification.

I appreciate your labors in sharing the Word, but the more this issue is discussed, the less our correspondence will be understood by one another, because we are using different premises to base our comprehensions.

Nothing wrong with disagreement, so long as it is in brotherly-love!!

 

[The Biblicist]

I see what you mean, and its concept as you've indicated does not collate with Scripture's presentation of the Body. The Papists and its system is openly not considered Christian in the Scriptural sense because it, as many others do, i.e Mormon, Jehovah Witnesses et al base an admixture of law, grace, truth and error.

For example, the term Judeo-Christian is an attempt to describe a religion containing teachings of the law of Moses and the grace of Christ, which if could be practically performed would be a detraction from both.

Any doctrine that clearly opposes Scripture and is knowingly accepted as such concerning the doctrines of Christ is non-Christian.

Yes. Any mixture of "church" with the gospel of Christ is foreign to the scriptures and a complete repudiation of the gospel. The very same gospel, very same salvation, the very same Christ was preached unto them as well as unto us (Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23; Acts 10:43) and without addition or subtraction of any kind of "church".

 

[NetChaplain]

Biblicist - Uncertain what you mean here: "The Church has nothing to do with salvation." Do you mean the Church has nothing to do with effecting salvation?

Chat you latter!

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist - Uncertain what you mean here: "The Church has nothing to do with salvation." Do you mean the Church has nothing to do with effecting salvation?

Chat you latter!

I mean that the church is an institution for public worship that requires a profession of faith prior to and separate from obtaining membership. I mean the church is not an intricate part of regeneration or spiritual union with God through Christ, but is part of an EXTERNAL progressive sanctification on the same level as church ordinances.

If you would do a word study on the terms "house of God" prior to 1 Tim. 3:15, you will see in every single instance it refers to a QUALIFIED PUBLIC place of worship, with a qualified public ordained ministry, administering public qualified ordinances expressing a public and qualfied system of faith. Then when you look at the context of 1 Tim. 3-4 you will see it is mentioned there also in a clear context of a public qualified ordained ministry (1 Tim. 3:1-3) and a clear public qualified system of faith (1 Tim. 3:16-4:6) where public and qualified ordinances are administered. Thus, the phrases concerning the "church" in 1 Tim. 3:15 are INSTITUTIONAL in nature, the same is true in 1 Cor. 12:28 as opposed to the concrete application in the previous verse to the church body at Corinth (v. 27).

 

[The Biblicist]

I appreciate your labors in sharing the Word, but the more this issue is discussed, the less our correspondence will be understood by one another, because we are using different premises to base our comprehensions.

Nothing wrong with disagreement, so long as it is in brotherly-love!!

Thank you! Please don't mistake strong convictions for personal attack, as I have nothing personally against you, although I can't say I don't have very strong feelings against the doctrines you embrace. Hopefully, you will see and realize that it is the doctrine that I am strongly opposed to rather than the person holding that doctrine. I confess that my strong convictions come across at times without sufficient clarification that it is the doctrine that I am opposing rather than the person holding the doctrine. However, if you will understand that, you can see that I never say anything about you. My arguments are solely aimed at what I perceive to be false doctrine.

 

[The Biblicist]

but the more this issue is discussed, the less our correspondence will be understood by one another, because we are using different premises to base our comprehensions.

Isn't that the common problem among professed believers of different denominations and theological convictions? Same language different meaning. Here are my working definitions:

1. "church" = institutional or local metaphorical body of baptized believers as the administrator of the keyes within the professing kingdom of God on earth.

2."bride" = institutional faithfulness to "the faith" once delivered

3. "baptize you in Spirit" - one time historical institutional public accreditation that a new "house of God" has been built according to a divine pattern.

4. "body of Christ" = metaphor for an institutional or local body of water baptized believers united by "the faith" once delivered.

5. "born again" = brought into spiritual union with God (life) thus reversal of spiritual separation from God (death).

6. "one baptism" = the Great Commission baptism in water by human administers to human professed believers in Christ - Mt. 28:19-20.

7. "Kingdom" = the rule, realm and person of the King, as it is in reality over all creation as his realm, or in the person of Jesus Christ as the incarnate king, or by mere profession of submission to God's rule by those living on earth at any given moment, or by actual submission through new birth inside true servants on earth at any given moment, or by taking possession of the kingdoms of this earth at His coming, or the eternal state after the creation of a new heaven and earth. Context makes the difference which application of His kingdom is being addressed.

8. The "family" of God = all saints now in heaven and all saints presently upon earth at any given moment.

The Kingdom of God is more comprehensive when inclusive of the entire realm of His rule, but is less comprehensive than the family of God when considered as only the actual spiritual rule of God in true saints at any given time, but both are more comprehensive than the church of God, as the members of the institutional church of God are first professed family members and servants of the Kingdom before acceptance as members of the congregational body of Christ.

The so-called universal visible or universal invisible church of God is nothing more or less than the professing kingdom of God on earth at any given moment. It is universal as the professing kingdom of God is worldwide and found in all denominations that profess to be Christian. It is invisible in regard to all true kingdom "seed" in contrast to the professed visible kingdom inclusive of "tares." Therefore, it is the result of confusing the family of God in heaven and on earth with the church of God, and/or the result of confusing the true spiritual kingdom on earth with the church of God. The church is the public administrator of the keys of the kingdom within the professing kingdom of God. The church is the visible manifestation on earth of the spiritual kingdom of God, as the rule of God's kingdom is visibly seen in the ministration of the ordinances and carrying out of the Great Commission.

 

[Yeshua1]

Rome believes that there is no salvation outside of the VISIBLE Roman Catholic Church.

Reformed Roman Catholicism, or the ecclessiology invented by those ex-Roman Catholic Priests during the Reformation believe there is no salvation outside the Universal Invisible Church theory. If you are outside of this concept of the church you are lost according to their theory of the church. Hence, both teach church salvation.

We believe the church has NOTHING to do with salvation from Genesis to Revelation but salvation has only to do with the redemptive substitutionary Person and work of Christ - period!

We deny spiritual union is or accomplished by the baptism in the Spirit but is the sole work of regeneration in all ages.

There was NO church prior to Pentacost , as that event marked the new work of the Holy Spirit among sinners to save and seal and indewll all found in Christ...

God remitted the sins of the OT believers due to the coming Messiah, but did NOT have them be "born again"

And they will be raised up to go into Earthly Millinium with Jesus, while Church raised unto heavenly realm!

 

[The Biblicist]

There was NO church prior to Pentacost , as that event marked the new work of the Holy Spirit among sinners to save and seal and indewll all found in Christ...

God remitted the sins of the OT believers due to the coming Messiah, but did NOT have them be "born again"

And they will be raised up to go into Earthly Millinium with Jesus, while Church raised unto heavenly realm!

Amazing! You just freely rebuke Jesus Christ and call him a liar, as he is the one who commanded (imperative mode) Nicodemus BEFORE Pentecost "MUST be born again" and then rebuked him for being ignorant of this fact as a "master" of Israel. He did this at the very outset of his ministry long before Pentecost.

You simply don't understand the basics of salvation. There is no salvation OUTSIDE of spiritual union with God through Christ for any man at any time anywhere (Jn. 14:6; Rom. 8:8-9). Salvation does not exist apart from regeneration as the fallen nature of man is spiritually dead and without quickening it cannot serve, please, worship, walk by faith or produce any other fruit of the Spirit.

You actually believe the Pre-pentecost man has a different fallen nature than the post-pentecost man and thus there is a different kind of salvation than for post-Pentecostal man.

Abraham was "IN CHRIST" (Gal. 3:17) and chosen "in him" before the Foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4; Rom. 8:28-32) as there is no salvation of any kind OUTSIDE of Christ.

You don't even understand the nature of regeneration and that is why you spout off this absolute nonsense. Adam died spriitually in the day, moment, second he sinned. He spiritually died instantly - meaning he was SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED from God. Regeneration is quickening - giving spiritual life or bringing the human spirit back into spiritual union with God. That is its nature and to deny it is to deny Biblical salvation altogether, it is to pervert the salvation of the gospel and deny new birth is necesssay for "man"! Jesus said, except "A MAN" any man, all men, Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Nicodemus "MUST" be born again or there is NO SALVATION at all. This is what Romans 8:8-9 explicitly teaches in black and white without any post- or pre-pentecost nonsense attached or qualification.