Yes, you are asking to much.. :thumbs:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do you believe the Church started at Pentecost?
- Thread starter Jedi Knight
- Start date
Er...the asking too much part was rhetorical as to what to expect from the Baptist Board -- it was not asked of you Allan.
The question I posed to you is, "Are you a Baptist?" And that is not too much to ask of you.
saturneptune
New Member
Thank you.
It comes from the hymn "God is Working His Purpose Out" by Authur Ainger. The last part of the stanza is from Hab 2:14.
Tom Butler
New Member
Brother, even though I may agree with you on some of your views, you are out of line regarding Allan.
Although he and I do not see a couple of things alike, there is no more thoroughly Baptist member on this board.
I would be pleased to have him as my pastor.
The above shows just how little you actually understand not only of the argument in question but also the very arguments you use. Additionally, the question you pose is absurd and has no basis for even being 'posed'. This isn't being meaning to be degrading nor intended to be such toward you - only an observation of KNOWLEDGE, not an attack.
My argument from church history (the apostles, their disciples, and their disciples disciples) regarding you incorrect assumption of etymomogy of word ekklasia, and that the word has never been used to describe the spiritual ekklasia. Thus my showing of early church history establishes not only that mypoint is correct but that yours has no founation.
It also shows your lack of understanding and knowledge of early usage of the term 'c'atholic which simply means universal, and that its early usage does not equate to the Roman 'C'atholic Church, of which some of its early doctrinal founding can be seen taking root about 450'ish ad, with the church binding itself to the state and some changing of doctrines to suite their new views.
Therefore the etymological usage of ekklasia, which means - calling out from... and into ... was indeed used for both the physical and spiritual ekklasia by the apostles themselves and was taught to their disciples and their disciples disciples as evidenced in my earlier posting.
Wow! For me, coming from you brother, that is high praise.
Thank you for such kind and humbling words.
Truth is, though you are not a pastor, but as a teacher I would have no problem sitting under your teaching either or even allowing you to teach in the church God placed me in.
There is too much sensitivity on this thread, and too much reading into things. I am asking a simple question. I am not insinuating, or trying to degrade, etc., Allan, or anyone. I have already stated my position, I think in this very thread, as to why and how I gladly proclaim the Baptist name. I hide not my light under a basket. Why is there hesitation to answer this simple question? Why do you, Tom Butler, rush to his aid, when I am merely asking a simple question of where he stands in overall doctrine. I came to this Board to discuss, and hopefully find, like-minded doctrine/people. This is supposed to be a Baptist Only debate forum. Baptist Only, so that we have a closer start point. It is difficult to address nuances of belief, when we start out miles apart in our mindset & doctrine.
I have wanted to ask the question much sooner, but have waded thru the debate to this point, and now I REALLY WANT TO KNOW JUST HOW FAR APART WE ARE. I have seen/heard little from Allan so far to assure me of his Baptist leanings, which you apparently see. How else to say this, but to say, "Seriously, I want to know?" Which is what I said. I also made it clear, that maybe it is too much to expect from Baptist Board, to really be able to limit these forums to Baptist Only -- as it states. I suppose this would be fraught with difficulties.
Nonetheless, it is fair and reasonable for me to know the answer to this question. The question is neither a slam, nor "out of line" AT ALL. Am I to understand that this question is beneath Allan, or anyone else? What happened to the graciousness & humility you speak so highly of in Allan? You may have missed the constant condescension toward me and what I say, from Allan. It is blatantly prevalent in Allan's responses to mine. I take this in stride as best I can. I do not see this grace from Allan, that you imply. Debate is a 2-way street. Allan may be your friend and I may not be (tho I hope we may be, I have appreciated many of your contributions to this very thread), which has nothing to do with the objective facts, and moving things along.
I try to be direct & concise, not waste or mince words, redeem the time, iron sharpening iron, but I have also made it clear as I can, that no unkindness is intended. I apologize for offenses given without cause. However, mature men (and women! :tongue3
, in a debate forum, over serious matters like these, ought to have thick skins, so to speak, THIS IS DEBATE, after all.Some of Allan's response to me have been almost incoherent, jumbled together, jumping around - not over my head, as he would lead to believe - just plain "gobbledygook" or nonsense, to me. If you or he or anyone does not understand what I say, or my intention, you merely have to ask, and I will spend as much time as I can to clarify -- as in this post.
Again, I simply ask you Allan, "Are you a Baptist?"
For example, Tom Butler, this post from Allan, is pure nonsense, essentially impossible for me to intelligently respond to anything in it. It also reeks with condescension.
'Nuff said.
Let me break it down and make it simpler for you then.
You began the premise of your argument in that the proper understanding of the etymological defintion of 'ekklasia' was a physical and local gathering only and as the disciples understood and used it only as such, never using it in universal aspect, and I quote:
[ ] added for clarity of what 'this' is refering to.
I then refered you back to the Greek in 1 Cor 12:13 as a partial arguement which speaks of being baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ (universal NOT local) and, in point of fact, establishes from the grammer my point using that one verse - It establishes you are incorrect base on the Greek grammer and context.
In your desire to argue more boldly for your position against this point, you then stated:
This shows you did not actaully read what I gave concerning the Greek and how it PROVES the universal aspect from certain verse (ie. 1 Cor 12:13 not to meantion others)
Read it again. Thus the Greek grammer establishes the verse is not saying 'we are by/in the spirit' but that it is 'by/in' the Spirit we are baptized into one body. It is a spiritual baptism and as such the body into which He baptises us is spiritual as well, and we from from scripture this body is the body of Christ.
Thus by the Greek's grammer (and as such the English as well) and that in just one passage (not to mention a few others), you have been proved incorrect. And lest we forget, those Greek scholars understand and utilize etymology both frequently and consistantly. Knowing the words etymological usage they still overwhelming agree (I say overwhelmingly because though I have not, as of yet, found any, there might be one or two out there) the term 'ekklasia' is used for both physically AND spiritually. As I have already proven via the early church fathers and apostolic writings/creeds they used this term for both as well. (I'll get to this again in a minute)
However you still don't agree but since you can't prove your position grammatically using niether the originals nor the English, you moved back to the etymological arguement. But as I stated you seem to forget that those Greek scholars understand and utilize etymolog in they try to faithfully and accurately translate God's word.
Now you said, (paraphrasing) the term ekklasia has never been used for anything but the physical church and as such the disciples (apostles) did not know of any spiritual 'ekklasia'.
Therefore in order to show you are, again, incorrect. I took you back to the Apostles Creed. I had already shown you the Greek grammer on one such usage by the apostles through scripture proving my point, in one verse amoung others, about being baptized into Christ, and NOT being lead to be baptized into a local body. This creed was written by the 'apostles'.. in which is states - the holy (seperated unto God) catholic (meaing universal - and not the Roman Catholic church) church.
Then I showed how their (the apostles) disciples, and those who learned from their disciples held to the SAME view, as noted in the Nicene Creed. I even quoted Philip Shaff, noted and respected church historian as well as all his citations noting the early church DID in fact hold the 'ekklasia' being both physical AND spiritual. Thus from the apostles for another 250 years or so this belief was the prevailing view of 'ekklasia' being both a physical and spiritual body.
After I quoted of the apostles and early church (Ante-Nicene) fathers using the term 'catholic' - which mean universal, it was then you questioned whether or not I am baptists? Baptists have held the view of the universal church as long as the name has existed. It being only a locallized gathering is fairly recenct in church history compared to the universal view.
You asked am I baptist? That depends on what type of baptist you mean.
In any cased, based upon the historical, grammatical, and contextual evidence above and in various other places in this thread, there is no other conclusion I can come to than the term 'ekklasia' is used for both the physical AND spiritual body of Christ.
Is this one of my determiners for fellowship? Hardly
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Butler
New Member
Eagle, Allan has been a member of this board for almost four years now. He has nearly 6,000 posts. Over the years, I have acquired a pretty good feel for his views on several doctrinal issues. He is Baptist. He declares himself to be Baptist in his profile. The church he pastors in South Dakota is a Baptist church and accepts him as Baptist.
Allan is a dispensationalist, a non-Calvinist and a non-Landmarker. I am a Historical Pre-Mil, Calvinist and somewhat Landmark. I hold that the church began during Jesus earthly ministry. I hold that the Universal Church is a useless fantasy. Allan strongly disagrees. Shoot, 90% of the people in my church agree with Allan, but no one has ever questioned my Baptist credentials, nor have I theirs.
The fact that Allan posts in the Baptist-only sections is no guarantee of orthodoxy. But I suggest that someone with 70 or so posts has not been here quite long enough to insult someone like that. I guarantee you that if Allan were not Baptist, it would have been discovered long ago.
I also suggest that if you want to know how far apart you are, asking if he is Baptist doesn't provide the answer. Allan and I have disagreements on Calvinism, dispensationalism and Landmarkism. And he is as formidable debater, as you have found. But his 5800 posts have revealed more about him, and that's why I can defend him as thoroughly Baptist.
Remember, I side with you on some issues. Allan is not thin-skinned nor am I. But questioning his Baptist credentials did strike a nerve.
I probably have over-reacted, and made a bigger deal out of this than warranted. Allan does not need my help. Okay, so I AM thin-skinned.
Allan is a dispensationalist, a non-Calvinist and a non-Landmarker. I am a Historical Pre-Mil, Calvinist and somewhat Landmark. I hold that the church began during Jesus earthly ministry. I hold that the Universal Church is a useless fantasy. Allan strongly disagrees. Shoot, 90% of the people in my church agree with Allan, but no one has ever questioned my Baptist credentials, nor have I theirs.
The fact that Allan posts in the Baptist-only sections is no guarantee of orthodoxy. But I suggest that someone with 70 or so posts has not been here quite long enough to insult someone like that. I guarantee you that if Allan were not Baptist, it would have been discovered long ago.
I also suggest that if you want to know how far apart you are, asking if he is Baptist doesn't provide the answer. Allan and I have disagreements on Calvinism, dispensationalism and Landmarkism. And he is as formidable debater, as you have found. But his 5800 posts have revealed more about him, and that's why I can defend him as thoroughly Baptist.
Remember, I side with you on some issues. Allan is not thin-skinned nor am I. But questioning his Baptist credentials did strike a nerve.
I probably have over-reacted, and made a bigger deal out of this than warranted. Allan does not need my help. Okay, so I AM thin-skinned.
Last edited by a moderator:
Acatully a fellow brother in Christ standing for me, who does not agree with me on this issue is a strong testimony to and of you Tom. You most likely know that though it is not the right attitude, I have at times before, gone tit-for-tat, accusation for accusation. However what you posted above, being on the opposide of the coin on this issue, and still being there in my defence helped me keep fingers in check and mind at peace.
For that - being there, standing in gap, and showing love toward me - I Thank you brother.
by the way - I don't believe I ever said I was not a landmarker, and though I am a dispensationalist, I could likely be described as also being a closet Historic Pre-mill/post-trib
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Butler
New Member
Allan said:
And here I've been telling folks I had a pretty good handle on what you believed.
You may not have said you were not a Landmarker, but if you were, we wouldn't have spent most of this thread debating the question of the origin of the church. Two of the basic tenets of Landmarkism are 1. Jesus established his church during his earthly ministry, not at Pentecost; and 2. There is no such thing as the Universal Church--only local congregations are in view in the New Testament (except when spoken of in an institutional or prospective sense).
And I am now confused about your eschatology. I thought dispensationalists, by definition, held to a pre-tribulation rapture. Shows what I know.
You must be getting a kick out of keeping me off balance, but I'm easy pickings.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not a 'total' landmarker but I agree with the premise of the church going back to Christ (as He is the head and originator of the NT CHurch) and I agree with them on re-baptsim of those who were apart of a fellowship that was not of like faith and belief of core christian doctrines. Though I don't agree that a person must be re-baptised if they were not baptised by a landmark Church. So while I am not a Landmarker, I could be said to be a -marker. :laugh:
About eschetology -
No, the pretrib view is not by defintion only dispensationalist. All rapture views are dispensational, whether pre, mid, and post (of which is the historical pre-mil view. All three basically function under the Pre-mill unbrella.
Some Amills fall under the pre-mill as they tend closer to the post-trib view but their main distinction is that there will not be a literal 7 year period (it just a long unknown period of time), whereas Historic and Current Pre-mill does.
Another distinction in this 'portion' of the Amill camp is there belief that the world will get better and better and more and more Christian (the Kingdom of God now visible through the world) Christ will then return.
Historic Pre-mill (and thus pre, mid, and post) ALL hold that the world will in fact do just the opposite and it is for this reason Christ will come back - to judge the world.
However, Amil (in the main) and Preterists do not fall into this catagory.
Here are 7 things Historic Premils and current Dispensationalists have in common:
The above is from another post of mine in a different thread . I have many other citations but that one has quite a bit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Butler
New Member
Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I'm like you, I obviously hold to some Landmark views, but not the whole package.
And, although I'm Historic Pre-Mil (for the moment), I don't buy this:
Was that a typo or on purpose? Either way, it cracked me up.
I've led a sheltered life. I have never met or heard of a dispy who wasn't pre-trib. And i've never known anyone who drew the distinction between Israel and the Church who had any Landmark tendencies whatsoever.
No wonder you drive people batty who try to put you into some theological box.
And, although I'm Historic Pre-Mil (for the moment), I don't buy this:
Was that a typo or on purpose? Either way, it cracked me up.
I've led a sheltered life. I have never met or heard of a dispy who wasn't pre-trib. And i've never known anyone who drew the distinction between Israel and the Church who had any Landmark tendencies whatsoever.
No wonder you drive people batty who try to put you into some theological box.
No, it was on purpose. The historic Pre-Mil position does distinquish between the church and Israel with respect to the mil-reign.
I can quote you historians who show this, but yes the Historic premilj position holds to Israel as a nation, the Jewish people - now saved and yet as a people group, honored -.
If you believe in a literal return of Christ for a thousand year (or more if you hold it allegorical) and ruling from Jerusalem. The question should be as Why and why from earth? Becase it is the fulfillment of prophesy TO the Jewish people regarding the land and the nation (Kingdom) itselt. Yet this Kindom does include Church as a whole. We will rule and reign with Him from and in Jerusalem, over them and others. Thus the Jews have a distinct place in the Mil-reign but not exaulted because they to are saved and apart of the church yet nationally they are distinquished from other nations. Thus the prophesies of the OT must be fulfilled to literal Israel concerning the land, their King, peace, their exaultation above the other nations (they all must come to Jerusalem to see our King).
In other words, to believe in the literal coming of Christ one must ask why He would come back and rule 1. from Jerusalem, 2. Why does He sit upon David's thone, 3. in His Kingdom, why is borders which were encrouched upon and taken away restored back to being Israel's borders (restoring the Kindom lands of Israel)?
These are just a few of the questions that need to be answered, but do you think it might have something to do with the apostles asked Jesus. The scripture tells us that Jesus was teaching them things that pertained to the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:3), and then He spoke of the coming holy Spirit (1:4), and then we the apostles asking Jesus a very interesting question. Lord will you, AT THIS TIME, restore again the Kingdom 'to Israel'?
Isn't it odd that after His teaching them about the Kingdom of God, and Him telling them of the coming Holy Spirit in fulfillment to the promise of the Father. The very next thing they as in relation to the succession of events is (paraphrase) then are you going to restore again the Kingdom to Israel, now?
Jesus does not tell them NO, nor does He NOT answer them. He actaully acknowledges their question and answers it in an affirmitive butnot now phrasing (meaning it will happen). Note - it is not for YOU to know the time (time or seasons -of what - restoring) that the Father has placed IN HIS power/authority. The object here is of time but time relating to what? The question posed by the apostles - the restoring again the Kingdom to Israel. Here is the ESV from Acts 1:7:
Or the NASB:
Note the affirmitive response, especially proven in the next verse that speaks of what they were to think on was coming Holy Spirit who will baptize them and empower them for their purpose - to be witnesses of Him. Thus this was what God placed in to their hand for their time. Therefore this is what they should be more concerned about fullfilling and let God tend to fulfilling His promises as and when He has already determined.
This means the Kingdom from which Christ will rule has not yet come because the Kingdom has not been restored again to Israel.
Remember, I am dispensational, I just have very little issue with Historic Pre-mil since it is very similar to my view already and see many of the merits of thsi view. I see some problems but not as many Amil and certainly compared to Preterism who deny a literal physical resurrection.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Butler
New Member
Fine by me. I sorta hijacked the thread, and we need to get back to the OP, I guess. But I have little left to contribute unless some brilliant argument occurs to me later.
Tom Butler "I sorta hijacked the thread, and we need to get back to the OP, I guess."
Nah,we are just going to make a new record for the longest thread.....so fire away! lol:wavey:
Nah,we are just going to make a new record for the longest thread.....so fire away! lol:wavey:
Tom Butler
New Member
Jedi, you can go for the record if you'd like. But Allan has worn me out, as usual, so unless there's something new brought up, I'm probably done.
I am happy to contribute one more post to the total, however. The rest is up to you.
I am happy to contribute one more post to the total, however. The rest is up to you.
See what ya did Allan? :laugh: