The Baptism With the Holy Ghost

[The Biblicist]

There is: there are those justified by faith in the Old Testament who awaited Eternal Redemption and remission of sins accomplished only by Christ.

.

You have already agreed that spiritual separation is the fate of all who are in Adam and all mankind between Genesis and Matthew are "in Adam" (of course all after Matthew to Revelation are as well, but that is not our point of argument). Hence, there can only be TWO POSSIBLE conditions and not three as you argue. Either you are spiritually separated from God or you are not - PERIOD!

If you are spiritually separated from God you are existing in a spiritual state WITHOUT LIFE, WITHOUT LIGHT and WITHOUT HOLINESS because God IS life, IS light and IS holiness and you are SEPARATED from Him.

Any human being that is SEPARATED from God is not in relationship with God, is not in fellowship with God and cannot be regarded as God's true people.

So there are only TWO possible options (1) separation from God (2) not separated from God.

Those NOT SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED from God our in SPIRITUAL UNION with God, because if they are not in SPIRITUAL UNION with God they are SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED from God.

Again, those justified by faith in the Old Testament are awaiting "ETERNAL" redemption just as we are because our salvation has not yet been accomplished as we both are waiting for our ETERNAL INHERITANCE. The fact they had been "justified by faith" means they had obtained remission of sins and had been imputed the righteousness of Christ OR ELSE THEY NEVER WERE JUSTIFIED! Don't you know what justification includes? Your arguments are nonsensical and self-contradictory.

 

[The Biblicist]

We know there is, in the sense that the Revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel is revealed in this Age, not in those prior to this Age.

Again, this has been addressed.

But let's take it a step further, and see what you think of another rejected Biblical Truth: God has, and always will...judge men based on their obedience to the revealed will of God they have available to them.

And since you are not bothering to address my points, I will not try to develop this point, which would help you to understand better the error of thinking the Just of all Ages have always been saved by a Mystery Paul makes clear was not available to them, and Eternal Redemption that Christ and most of the Apostles make clear was not available:


Romans 2:11-16

King James Version (KJV)


11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


Did the Gentile who did not have the Law have no hope of standing in the judgment? If one says no, then they miss a very Basic Bible Principle concerning the Just nature of God.

How did these men shew the works of the law written in their hearts? Well Paul tells us...it was written in their hearts. This is contrasted with those who knew God but turned from Him in Chapter One.

But I can see you are not interested in addressing these points, so as I said, I will not bore you with the details.


Continued...

Readers, this is where those who embrace Darrel's arguments will have to follow him to works for salvation prior to the cross when the Bible plainly states that Abraham who is the FATHER OF ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH was justified by faith WITHOUT WORKS as he lived prior to Moses and the law.

He jerks Romans 2:6-15 completly out of its context and misapplies it to justify the idea that some fallen men may be justified by their works rather than by the subsitutionary works of Christ by faith. In other words, he is asserting there is "another gospel" (Gal. 1:7-9) contrary to the one God preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:8) who is the father, example of all who believe in the one and only gospel (Gal. 3:6-7; Rom. 4:16; 22-25).

Romans 2:6-11 is found in the immediate context of addressing unregenerates who believe they are better than other unregenerates and thus can escape the judgement of God (Rom. 2:1-5; 17-22). It is found in the overall context that is designed by Paul to prove that there is NONE GOOD, NO NOT ONE either before the law was given or after the law was given, or before Christ came or after Christ came as "all have come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:9-23).

Romans 2:6-11 simply provides the just standards of God's judgment for those who come by way of THEIR OWN WORKS rather than by faith. God will judge the Jews who come by their own works by the Mosaic Law. God will judge Gentiles who come to God by their own works by the standard of their own conscience.

Romans 2:15 does NOT say the law is written in their heart - THAT IS FALSE!!! What it says is that the "WORK" of the Law is written in their hearts. The "work" of the Law is to provide a standard for right and wrong and the conscience provides the same work.

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

However, the ultimate standard of both the written Mosaic Law and the conscience is the PERSON of Christ as revealed in the gospel (Rom. 2:16) a SPOTLESS and SINLESS standard.

Here is where Darrell's view leads - "another gospel" and not only so but the very heart of his position repudiates the essentials of salvation which IS spiritual union.Where there is no spiritual union there is no kind of salvation possible at all for Abel as much as for you.

 

[The Biblicist]

Does God justify human beings who remain spiritually separated from God, therefore without God, without life, without light, without holiness? Abraham was justified (Rom. 4:11 Aorist tense) and specifically prior to circumcision and not "in circumcision (Rom.4:9-10). Darrell's position is forced to embrace the idea that God can justify persons who continue in spiritual separation from Him, continue without life, without holiness as God IS life, light and holiness.

Second, if salvation application could not occur until AFTER the cross, then how could anyone be JUSTIFIED before the cross as justification is completely based upon the imputed righteousness of Christ and remission of sins all of which is based on the life of Christ and the cross? If justification can be applied prior to the cross so can regeneration and indwelling and progressive sanctification. However, where there is no spiritual union with God there can be no progressive sanctification. Where there is no new birth there can be no progressive sanctification because progressive sanctification is working out of the inward new nature into the life of the believer. If Darrell's position were true then of all salvation aspects, justification should not be available before the cross as it depends totally on the life of Christ and his death. The problem is that Darrel cannot distinguish between application and provision. The application is obtained by faith while the provision is obtained by incarnation.

Darrell's position is self-contradictory. He wants to have some of the salvation benefits applied before the cross (justification by faith = imputed righteousness and remission of sins - Rom. 4:6-8) while denying other salvation benefits (regeneration, indwelling, progressive sanctification). There can be no progressive sanctification if there is no new nature inside, and there can be no new nature inside without regeneration.

 

[Darrell C]

The very fact that men are dead spiritually can be seen...even in Christ's day.

Consider:


John 6:47-51

King James Version (KJV)


47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.


In view, Biblicist, is the truth that despite the Old Testament provision for "life," their fathers were dead. Christ contrasts the Life He came down from Heaven to bestow with the life of the fathers (and this would certainly include Moses, a man of great faith), which was sustained through physical supply/provision.

Now note the True Bread which a man might eat is...His flesh. Or in other words, He is speaking about His death. And the Gospel of Christ demands that men believe on the Resurrected Savior, Who died for them.

The "bread" given to the children of Israel was LITERAL PHYSICAL BREAD called "manna" and LITERAL PHYSICAL bread only provides LITERAL PHYSICAL life. Therefore, such LITERAL PHYSICAL bread did not keep them from LITERALLY PHYSICALLY DYING. In addition, these were those who refused to believe the gospel, the very same essential gospel preached unto New Testament people (Heb. 4:2). Therefore, they were spiritually dead and physically died in that state.

I guess there is no point trying to help you understand that this is the point: the life Christ came to bestow was not available to the fathers.

If I START YELLING OUT MY POINTS would that DO ANY GOOD?

lol

Secondly, oh great exegeter, you miss a pretty simple lesson in Hebrews as well. You impose salvation on an eternal basis and understanding of the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ...

...to unbelievers.

Nice job. Perhaps if you could get you emotions under control you might give attention to what is actually being said in Scripture.

Note:


Hebrews 4:1-3

King James Version (KJV)


1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.


Do you really not understand that the rest provided to them was a physical rest? Do you really not understand that the Gospel provided to them was in fact that which is recorded in Scripture? Perhaps if you could put Chapter Three in as an element of your "exegesis" then you might see that in view is not the first person in the Wilderness rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but rejecting the will of God as revealed to them. They were not told, until Christ came, the significance of the Serpent being raised. And even in Christ's day...they still did not understand.

Just as you do not.

Here it is again:


John 6:47-51

King James Version (KJV)


47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.


Do you really not understand the Lord is contrasting the provision they had in the wilderness with the provision that has come down from Heaven? And that the True Bread is His flesh?

Parroting commentaries is not exegesis, brother.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

The "Mystery" has nothing to do with the content of the gospel but with the Gentiles being the primary objects of the gospel ministry under the New Covenant administration (Eph. 2:14-3:5).

This is right up there with...

However, the baptism in the Spirit is TIME and PLACE restricted and can have no possible relationship with spiritual salvation or spiritual union with God - you are confusing regeneration with the baptism in the Spirit.

Here is the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ:



1 Corinthians 2

King James Version (KJV)


6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.



Romans 16:24-26

King James Version (KJV)


24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:


There is nothing Gentile specific in these two passages, and even when it is specific to Gentile Inclusion...


Colossians 1:25-27

King James Version (KJV)


25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:


...there is still no possible way for you to impose understanding of this Mystery into the Old Testament.

Let me explain why: because we already know that both Jew and Gentile, and man in General before the Law was established...were justified by faith.

Understand?

If you say "Well the Jews knew what the Gospel was" you will, or should...immediately see the error in that.

It is a matter of understanding that he Gospel, while indeed given in the Old Testament, as already mentioned in posts you have ignored, and Scripture you have ignored, the understanding of it was not.

You claim to be going "post to post?" Laughable. You are ignoring everything that has been said. First you say "None of the above," and apparently, after actually giving some thought to it, you then decide to give your definition of what the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is. You ignore the posts given, then beg off discussion because I am ignorant of the fact that Christ is the Baptizer (false argument), then, that I am ignorant of the fact that man is born spiritually dead (false argument, then I am teaching Catholic Doctrine (false argument), now...I am teaching another Gospel.

WHich is a false argument.

Just because you think men were regenerate in the Old Testament based on arguments I have many times addressed...doesn't make it so. Just because you have no self control concerning your emotions and pride doesn't make it so.

So when you can start addressing the points, many of which I will apparently have to reiterate because you either ignore them or you simply reiterate the same poor arguments over again...you might come to an understanding of the condition of man prior to Christ's Redemptive Work.

As I said, you are not alone...most equate salvation in the Old Testament with salvation in Christ, and do not understand the difference.

And most, like you, ignore the points raised and make it personal. Try to keep it doctrinal, Biblicist. Try to learn to properly emphasize what you say, Biblicist. Try to actually quote everything your antagonist says, Biblicist, and it will be much harder for you to ignore the points made.

Now, to make this point again, in which you raise the false argument that I...

Again, you do not distinguish between PROGRESSIVE revelation and the essential gospel.

That is a false argument. The fact that revelation is progressive...

...is the point.

This is the Gospel revealed in the Old Testament:



Isaiah 53:7-11

King James Version (KJV)

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.


But it is not "revealed" to men that they might understand it.

That is what you are missing in regards to the progressive nature of revelation.

But again, I have already made this point. Will you ignore it again?"

How about going back and dealing with those points?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Again, you don't distinguish between PROGRESSIVE revelation and essential gospel revelation. Paul tells you bluntly three times that they did preach the very same essential gospel (Acts 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2; Rom. 10:16).

There is no argument that the Gospel is found throughout Scripture...but the understanding was not given to men in those Ages.

You are denying what Paul taught by saying it was.

You want to show me one person who was trusting in the Risen Savior? I've asked you several times, and it is clear that you have not addressed the detailed responses I gave to justify this position.

Shall I say you are teaching another gospel, because you are teaching men can be saved without trusting in Christ?

You are condemning your own theory and don't even realize it! They were spiritually SEPARATED from God and thus WITHOUT LIFE, WITHOUT LIGHT, and WITHOUT HOLINESS and no fallen human being can have ANY KIND OF RELATIONSHIP with God in such a state of SEPARATION. It is that STATE OF SEPARATION left in place that assigns all such to hell. Your view assigns all mankind living before Acts 2 to hell and must do so as no kind of relationship can exist where that state of separation exists.

So Abraham was a born again believer when he was called?

Abraham had his sin removed by offering up animal sacrifice?

Abraham went to Heaven when he died?

The only thing being condemned here is man apart from spiritual union with God.

The remedy for that condition was Christ dying in our place and sending the Spirit of God.

Israel as a nation did not receive him but individual Jews did, hundreds of them prior to Pentecost,

And when did that happen? lol

You miss even the point given that it began...when the True Bread came down from Heaven.

Israel was not receiving Christ in the Wilderness, to a man they were judged for their rebellion. They had manna, not the True Bread. They had the rest of a physical land...not Rest in Christ.

You are laying again foundational principles of the Doctrine of Christ, which you are forbidden to do.

and "as many as did receive him" were born of the Spirit.

This is true.

Now, when you can understand when they received Him, then you will understand why your carnal view of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is in error. You will see why equating salvation in Christ through the New Covenant differs from relationship with God through the First Covenant.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You have Jesus telling Nicodemus something that he cannot possibly partake (Jn. 3:3-11).

No, we have the Lord rebuking Nicodemus for a carnal understanding.

That is precisely what you are guilty of.

Nicodemus should not have been thinking in physical terms, but in spiritual, and according to the promise of God.

Christ also taught that men must believe on Him, and again...who did that? I have showed you the disciples in their carnal understanding, particularly Peter...who was in opposition to Christ even dying, because that would have interfered with his carnal understanding, which was the only one available to him.

So you feel that men do not have to trust in the Risen Savior to be born again?

You think the Gospel of Jesus Christ is simply the First Principles? That as long as someone trusts that a Messiah is coming and is going to establish a Kingdom on earth...they are born again?

You quote the prophetic text in Ezekiel 36:27 which concerns the NATION of Israel in the last days but fail to read Ezekiel

These are the last days, Biblicist.

While there is a future fulfillment in Prophecy, as well as in salvation (the redemption of our bodies, the Millennial Kingdom, the Eternal State), are you really going to deny the fulfillment of Christ in regards to Eternal Redemption?

I have not failed to read anything, Biblicist, and I have addressed your posts in full. Perhaps you could return the favor.

Eze 44:7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.
Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

So there were Gentiles who were circumcised in heart that...could be brought into His sanctuary?

Honestly, for such great exegesis, you miss some pretty basic details.

You say my quote is a future event, yet you quote from details concerning the Millennial Kingdom...to counter the Scripture you ignore?

You need to read the Book of Hebrews somewhere along the line.

Paul interprets circumcision in heart as the new birth (Col. 2:12).

Nice.

Thanks for showing you equate salvation from Old to New.

And this is the primary error most make.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Titus 3:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


When did that kindness and love appear, Biblicist? And are we not saved by the cleansing of rebirth and...the renewing of the Holy Ghost? Which is that reunion of God with man, that remedy for man's primary problem he is born into? That he is separated from God?

He is speaking of the kindness and love of God manifest in the PERSON of the Messiah or the incarnation. He is not talking about when the gospel first appeared or when actual salvation of mankind first occurred. Acts 10:43 explicitly repudiates your interpretation as it plainly says that "remission of sins" had been obtained through believing in the promised coming of Christ. Paul explicitly says that Abraham is the "FATHER OF ALL" who are of faith in the Messiah and that he obtained actual remission of sins (Rom. 4:6-11) as justification is inclusive of imputed righteousness and remission of sins.

Your proof-text:

Acts 10:43King James Version (KJV)

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.


Your proof-text back in its context:



Acts 10:37-43

King James Version (KJV)


37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.


Do you really want to nullify Paul's teaching of the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with this? You really want to say that the Prophets understood the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Peter disagrees with that here, because he is specific to the events which took place concerning the Gospel, and when it began, who were witnesses, and Who Christ truly was.

You want to say Cornelius was a born again believer?

Then you are indeed preaching another gospel, because Peter makes it clear that Cornelius and his house are saved at this time:


Acts 11:13-18

King James Version (KJV)


13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


So we know the Gentiles were not given eternal life through salvation in Christ, which means...

...only Hebrews/Jews were saved in the Old Testament.

What do you think "the words whereby thou and thy household shall be saved..." means?

You want to argue that these men were born again believers in relationship with God but simply need public accreditation so people would know they were also being saved?

What do you think "The Holy Ghost falling on Cornelius and his house the same 'as us' in the beginning means?"

What beginning is in view?

Was there "one man" under the Law, Biblicist? The Jew?

No, there was one man created in Christ Jesus when men began to be reconciled to God through Christ.

But, I can understand how embarrassing it is for some who have never really put any thought into this. I can FULLY UNDERSTAND the EMOTIONAL OUTBURST YOU ARE DISPLAYING RIGHT NOW.




Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Again, your interpetation is false as you confuse the provision that necessarily had to be provided in the coming of Christ as promised in the pre-first coming gospel and its personal application to their soul's and lives upon faith.

And this is why they were justified, Biblicist, but not perfected, and died in faith...still awaiting the promise.

Here it is again:


Acts 1:4-5

King James Version (KJV)


4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


The Baptism with the Holy Ghost is the Promise of the Father, and taught by Christ.

You are free to show how this does not show this clearly, and what it is that Christ had taught them in regards to their receiving the Promised Spirit.

I have done some detailed posts you have ignored that speak to that issue. But you are selective in what you will and will not address. That should be embarrassing for you, unless you simply do not realize you are doing it.

The "eternal inheritance" is what they looked for as the POST-resurrected hope as explained by the writer in Hebrews 11:

8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

No, BIblicist, lol...Hebrews is quite clear, the shadow/type/figure/parable is fulfilled in Christ.


That's why it says they died in faith, not having received the promises, nor having been made perfect.

Perfection is not speaking about the redemption of the Body, the Millennial Kingdom, nor the Eternal State.


Hebrews 10:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


He is contrasting the First Covenant (Covenant of Law) and its inadequacies with the New Covenant.

That is why I gave you this...


Hebrews 12:22-24

King James Version (KJV)

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


You are equating what men received under the Law with what they receive under the New Covenant, and missing one of the prominent themes of Hebrews. Read it ten times, and you will understand.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Guess what? They still have not received this promise of inheritance and neither have we although we live 2000 years after the cross.

Guess what...they have:


Hebrews 11:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.


Hebrews 11:39-40

King James Version (KJV)


39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.



Hebrews 12:22-24

King James Version (KJV)


22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


Now back up and see what those under Law had come to:



Hebrews 12:18-21

King James Version (KJV)


18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,

19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:

20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:

21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake.


Look at the provision they did have:



Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)


1 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.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


...and contrast that with what Christ provided:



Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)


10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


You are failing to distinguish between the Two Covenants. Both established and maintained with the shedding of blood. You know the blood of the First, but you do not fully comprehend the Blood of the Second:


Matthew 26:28

King James Version (KJV)

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


And in case you are not aware of it, it is the New Covenant He speaks about here.


Continued...

 

[Yeshua1]

No, we have the Lord rebuking Nicodemus for a carnal understanding.

That is precisely what you are guilty of.

Nicodemus should not have been thinking in physical terms, but in spiritual, and according to the promise of God.

Christ also taught that men must believe on Him, and again...who did that? I have showed you the disciples in their carnal understanding, particularly Peter...who was in opposition to Christ even dying, because that would have interfered with his carnal understanding, which was the only one available to him.

So you feel that men do not have to trust in the Risen Savior to be born again?

You think the Gospel of Jesus Christ is simply the First Principles? That as long as someone trusts that a Messiah is coming and is going to establish a Kingdom on earth...they are born again?




These are the last days, Biblicist.

While there is a future fulfillment in Prophecy, as well as in salvation (the redemption of our bodies, the Millennial Kingdom, the Eternal State), are you really going to deny the fulfillment of Christ in regards to Eternal Redemption?

I have not failed to read anything, Biblicist, and I have addressed your posts in full. Perhaps you could return the favor.




So there were Gentiles who were circumcised in heart that...could be brought into His sanctuary?

Honestly, for such great exegesis, you miss some pretty basic details.

You say my quote is a future event, yet you quote from details concerning the Millennial Kingdom...to counter the Scripture you ignore?

You need to read the Book of Hebrews somewhere along the line.




Nice.

Thanks for showing you equate salvation from Old to New.

And this is the primary error most make.


Continued...

God in the past bypassed/did not hold the sins of His own people against them, as they were "saved" by the same event that we are all saved by under the new Covenent, the Cross of Christ, but the Holy Spirit ONLY c ame upon certain people who had specific roles for Him to do under the Old Covenant, such as Kings/Prophets/Priests...

God spoke thru the Prophets and foretold of a future event, when God will dwell in and be with His people in a fashipm totally unlike as He did while operating under the old Covenant, as now all who know God are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and not certain people, and ALL of us now have full access to throne of God, and no need for the priests and animal sacrifices, as required under the Old Covenant system!

 

[Yeshua1]

Darrel, there is no point in going any further in our discussion because we are just going past each other and the reason for this is that you and I view essential salvation completely different. I believe that without spiritual union with God there is no salvation of any kind possible. Spiritual union with God IS the first essential aspect of subjective salvation.

We we need to do is discuss "DEATH" and what it means because we cannot understand the solution for Death if we don't understand DEATH. I don't believe you understand "DEATH" and therefore it is utterly impossible for you to understand initial salvation.

Those who embrace the baptism in the Spirit as essential to spiritual union with God have no concept of the most basic essentials of the problem of death or salvation or they would not be even making their arguments.

Those who embrace the universal invisible church theory are equally in ignorance of the basic essentials of Biblical salvation with regard to death and spiritual union.

We need to discuss the nature of death that occurred "in the day" Adam ate and what is the only possible solution (salvation) for it. My point is that it was SPIRITUAL SEPARATION or to say it another way that gets the point across it is SEPARATION FROM GOD. The only possible solution or salvation is the REVERSE - UNION WITH GOD. Without spiritual union with God there is no salvation of any kind for it is the absolute first essential in salvation. Without it there is no salvation of ANY KIND - present or future tense. Without it there is no progressive sanctification. Without there is no fellowship, friendship, relationship or any other kind of relationship between fallen man and God.

However, the baptism in the Spirit is 4000 years too late to be the solution for this problem of death between Genesis and Acts 2. The church and its foundation are NEW TESTAMENT IN ORIGIN and thus 4000 years TOO LATE to be any kind of solution for this problem. Please carefully read and consider what I have said before making a hasty answer because this is the PROBLEM that divides you and I and until it is resolved there is no point in discussing this issue one step further because it will only result in peat and repeat, understanding and misunderstanding each other.

You so realise that the Apostle paul wrote that ALL of us have been baptized into Christ, and that is not the rite of water baptism spoken there, so again, would those who are not either part of a local assembly/nor water batized yet still have that experience then?

And the Holy Spirit was NEVER shown/daid to come ypon and in all under OT times, but just a certain select such as prophets/priests/Kings, correct?

 

[Darrell C]

They will receive this promised inheritance precisely when we do and not without us - Heb. 11:39-40.

Sorry, brother, we have that inheritance now:


1 Peter 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.


Do you regularly deny such clearly stated biblical truths?

And of course, you know I am going to have to yank your chain a little in this process, right?



We are born again unto a living hope...to an inheritance, not the hope of an inheritance.

Secondly, that is the point of the Promises of God, and when you can discern what those promises are and when they are fulfilled you will be on your way to grasping the magnitude of the Cross of Christ, and leave the majority of believers who make the same mistake you do...equating salvation under Law with salvation in Christ.

It is no different than the fact that we have not yet received our glorified bodies, though we are still saved. The Old Testament Saint had not received much of what we do, though they were still saved. They were saved by grace through faith like as we, but, that does not mean they were born again, or, had received the Spirit so clearly taught wouldn't come until after Christ was glorified and returned to Heaven.

You grammatical suicide is seen in numerous scholarly efforts, and it will never impose the Spirit being given before He is given. You, like most, have a problem understanding that a promise s a promise until fulfilled, and that is precisely what is in view in Hebrews 11.

Your whole view is based on complete eisegesis.

So you say, yet if this is true, you should have no problem going back to everything you have ignored and properly exegeting the Scripture given to show that the Spirit was not given until Pentecost, that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is when men began receiving the Promised Spirit, and that your view, and that men were born again believers despite the fact this is impossible apart from the Eternal indwelling taught by Christ in John 14 in the prophetic tense.

Your support for that? It must have been possible because "The Lord would not have demanded it of Nicodemus if it were not possible." This is actually the strongest argument those who believe men were regenerated prior to Pentecost have, yet it hangs on the error of Nicodemus...

...which is rebuked.

Not exactly something I would want to hang my hat on.


Continued...

 

[Yeshua1]

How would our friend hanle the writer of the Book of Hebrews, for doesn't he make a solid case that the New Covenant was brand new work of God, superceded the Old One, and gave to us spiritual blessings the OT beleivers were not able to experience, as jesus had not yet come?

 

[Darrell C]

This is simply not true! John 4:1-2 demonstrably proves it is not true. The over 120 listed in Acts 1 BEFORE Pentecost proves it is not true. There are many individual cases that prove it is not true (woman at the well, Seraphoncian woman, Roman Centurian, etc.). There were literally hundreds that repented and believed the gospel as Paul recounts over 500 "brethren" saw the resurrected Lord (1 Cor. 15).

This...


John 4:1-2

King James Version (KJV)


4 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)


...proves that men were regenerate and had received the Spirit of God?

Honestly. Biblicist, can you see that the Lord is not Baptizing here, and that water baptism is in view?

Remember...Christ is the Baptizer?

Put two and two together, my friend.

Addressing it is one thing, actually dealing with the evidence is quite another thing.

I agree. Back up, address the posts, and you will be on baord as the second person to address everything his antagonist has said, both points and Scripture.



Or, keep throwing a tantrum. Up to you.

You offered NOTHING in response but pure opinion.

It's not opinion that the Spirit had not yet been sent.

lol

The grammar is present tense in this verse while it is future tense in the next verse. It is the future tense "shall" that John comments on as yet future "shall" be given. The INFLOW is present tense with coming to him and believing him is present tense. The next verse about OUTFLOW is future tense "shall" corresponding with the future tense "shall" be given. Deal with the grammar instead of giving me your personal opinions which are worthless. Furthermore, I have given you documented evidence of not only present tense "hath everlasting life" in connection with present tense "beleiveth" but have given you concrete examples of those who actually did come to him in faith.

Prophetic Tense, amigo.

There can be no inflow if the Spirit is not yet sent, because Christ is not yet glorified.

As I said, reiterating the same argument doesn't make it right.

As far as having everlasting life being present tense, there is no argument there: the Old Testament Saints had everlasting life in the Prophetic Tense but that does not mean they had received the Spirit of God or were born again.

You will not get that from anything Scripture teaches, because if you could, then we would see contradiction to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

God spoke thru the Prophets and foretold of a future event, when God will dwell in and be with His people in a fashipm totally unlike as He did while operating under the old Covenant, as now all who know God are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and not certain people, and ALL of us now have full access to throne of God, and no need for the priests and animal sacrifices, as required under the Old Covenant system!

But for many, there is an equality of the Provision found under Law and preceding Covenantal Eras as there is under the New Covenant established by Christ.

Pretty sad, no?

God in the past bypassed/did not hold the sins of His own people against them, as they were "saved" by the same event that we are all saved by under the new Covenent, the Cross of Christ, but the Holy Spirit ONLY c ame upon certain people who had specific roles for Him to do under the Old Covenant, such as Kings/Prophets/Priests...

Don't entirely agree with that, because Scripture is consistent that God has always worked in the hearts of men, and that relationship was always initiated by God, not man.

The ministry of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament is basically identical to what we call the filling of the Holy Ghost, in which God comes upon men for the purpose of empowerment. When King David is anointed, we are told "The Spirit of God came upon Him from that day forward," and we are never told that the Spirit of God departed from him, as we see in the case of King Saul.

This, my friend, was what the Lord meant here:


John 14:16-18

King James Version (KJV)


16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


This is simply basic. I have never been a member of a Baptist Church that did not make this distinction, ye many Baptists here kick at this as though their lives depended on it, when the only thing hagnging in the balance is...their pride.

And the Holy Spirit was NEVER shown/daid to come ypon and in all under OT times, but just a certain select such as prophets/priests/Kings, correct?

While we might make a case for that, I think a general understanding of the Whole Counsel would deny that. It is my view that everyone who came to obedience to the revealed will of God experienced the Ministry of the Spirit.

We know that everyone is held culpable in Israel for rejecting Him:


Acts 7:50-52

King James Version (KJV)


51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

You so realise that the Apostle paul wrote that ALL of us have been baptized into Christ, and that is not the rite of water baptism spoken there, so again, would those who are not either part of a local assembly/nor water batized yet still have that experience then?

I'm going to pretend you didn't just ask that.



What I will ask is...who is Paul speaking of? The Church? Or all of the Just of all time? And I mean historically, it is not argued that the Just of all time make up that One Fold of the One Shepherd Christ taught.

How would our friend hanle the writer of the Book of Hebrews, for doesn't he make a solid case that the New Covenant was brand new work of God, superceded the Old One, and gave to us spiritual blessings the OT beleivers were not able to experience, as jesus had not yet come?

Not just Hebrews...but we see this Basic Bible Principle...throughout the Entire Bible.

The New Covenant was what was in view when God said the Seed would crush the head of the Serpent. It is in view when God promises Abrah that through his seed would all families of the earth be blessed. It is what was in view when David prophesied, and Isaiah, and all the Psalmists and Prophets...about Christ.

Here is a good example:


Galatians 3:17-19

King James Version (KJV)


17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.


The writer of Hebrews goes through a lot of trouble expounding the Gospel of Christ from the First Covenant, yet, somehow many seem to miss this.

So to answer your question...

...they ignore it.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

This is simply not true! John 4:1-2 demonstrably proves it is not true. The over 120 listed in Acts 1 BEFORE Pentecost proves it is not true. There are many individual cases that prove it is not true (woman at the well, Seraphoncian woman, Roman Centurian, etc.). There were literally hundreds that repented and believed the gospel as Paul recounts over 500 "brethren" saw the resurrected Lord (1 Cor. 15).

Not sure how you can see the disciples and the 120 as having received the Spirit.

But, if you want to impose that so you can retain your pulpit bred understanding...have at it.

Again, you do not distinguish between PROGRESSIVE revelation and the essential gospel. Acts 10:43 and Hebrew 4:2 explicitly repudiate your view. Acts 26:22-23 explicitly states that Paul did not preach any different essential gospel than did Moses and all the propehts. Isa. 53 exposes your view as false as Paul explicitly quotes Isa. 53:1 and claims it is the gospel being preached.

Job explicitly states "I know MY REDEEMER liveth" showing he grasp the essential gospel.

Progressive revelation simply revealed "how" he would die but his death is proclaimed in all the sacrificial offerings since Abel (Heb. 11:4).

The Biblical evidence is not only clear but in abundance that the gospel was preached and believed by multitudes long before Pentecost.

In the Old Testament the Redeemer was known in the foundational teaching the Writer of Hebrews demands is not lain again.

That is, there is One God...hear Him.

What they did not understand was a Trinitarian view which is why so many reviled Christ...because He "made Himself God."

Here is the understanding provided the Old Testament Saint:


Isaiah 43:3

King James Version (KJV)

3 For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.


However, if you want to impose an understanding of God manifest in the flesh prior to the revelation of this mystery...have at it:



1 Timothy 3:16

King James Version (KJV)


16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


Oh Paul...where did we go wrong?

Seems there is a bit of controversy...for some.

Readers, this is where those who embrace Darrel's arguments will have to follow him to works for salvation prior to the cross when the Bible plainly states that Abraham who is the FATHER OF ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH was justified by faith WITHOUT WORKS as he lived prior to Moses and the law.

Okay, so I am teaching Catholic and works-based salvation, lol.

You want to show where?

Can you show where I said men were justified by works? Did I not say they were justified by faith, and in fact is that not the point you cannot grasp?

They were justified?

There is a difference, Biblicist, from receiving a good report (which is temporal) and being made perfect.

And they were not, they were justified by faith through grace...like as we.

However, we are not going to see men Baptized with the Holy Ghost like as it happened unto the disciples at the beginning, which was Pentecost...not the creation of the World, not at the beginning of Christ's Ministry.

By the way, that's all been addressed in the posts you cherry-picked.


Continued...

 

[Yeshua1]

the believers under the Old Covenant were saved/justified by God the same way as we are under thenew one, thru the Cross of Christ, but since jesus had not yet come to the world and actually die upon the Cross and then get resurrected, the OT believers were not in the exact same state as we now are, for the Holy Spirit had not yet come as he did at pentacost, as that vent awited for Jesus to be lifted up and glorified...

 

[Darrell C]

He jerks Romans 2:6-15 completly out of its context and misapplies it to justify the idea that some fallen men may be justified by their works rather than by the subsitutionary works of Christ by faith. In other words, he is asserting there is "another gospel" (Gal. 1:7-9) contrary to the one God preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:8) who is the father, example of all who believe in the one and only gospel (Gal. 3:6-7; Rom. 4:16; 22-25).

Actually, you are asserting it is another Gospel, I am showing from Scripture that God is just, and no respecter of persons, which has contextual relevance to the distinction between Jews (who received the Oracles of God) and Gentiles who did not, who showed the Law, not just the works of the Law, but the Law, that is, God's will...written on their hearts.

They were faithful to the revelation God provided them. By this, when they are judged by Jesus Christ, shall they stand or fall.

I didn't say it, Paul said, and I would remind you that this is...inspired, so God said it.

And could you quote the Scripture I post? You seem to think you have an audience to which you cater to, so would you actually quote the Scripture I present andlet them judge for themselves if you commentary makes sense and invalidates my point?

Here is what I quoted:



Romans 2:11-16

King James Version (KJV)


11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


You distinguish between the Law and the works of the Law, but can I remind the point Paul makes is the doers of the Law shall be justified?

How is that out of context? How is this you addressing the point? How are these Gentiles not doers of the Law.

And most importantly...did they receive eternal life for being obedient to the Law?

That is more important than asking you where you concocted works-based salvation, but then, you are having some trouble understanding the difference between the Justified Old Testament Saint and those who have been born again and indwelt by the Spirit sent at Pentecost.

Those who died in faith are the "spirits (that's the immaterial aspect of men, Biblicist, which is that aspect of man who departs from the physical body when he dies) of Just men made perfect."

Romans 2:6-11 is found in the immediate context of addressing unregenerates who believe they are better than other unregenerates and thus can escape the judgement of God (Rom. 2:1-5; 17-22). It is found in the overall context that is designed by Paul to prove that there is NONE GOOD, NO NOT ONE either before the law was given or after the law was given, or before Christ came or after Christ came as "all have come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:9-23).

Now you raise another false argument. How many is that now, three, four?

I have never denied that man is completely incapable because he is, a you tried to impose another false argument...spiritually dead. Separated from God.

This has nothing to do with works, yet because you cannot stay on point you have to create diversionary false arguments in order to sound as though you are in line with Scripture.

Try arguing the points I am making, and stop raising false arguments.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

the believers under the Old Covenant were saved/justified by God the same way as we are under thenew one, thru the Cross of Christ, but since jesus had not yet come to the world and actually die upon the Cross and then get resurrected, the OT believers were not in the exact same state as we now are, for the Holy Spirit had not yet come as he did at pentacost, as that vent awited for Jesus to be lifted up and glorified...

That is correct. Nor had their sins been forgiven.


God bless.