The Wall That Jesus Christ Broke Down; Rebuilt?

[OldRegular]

You said in your previous post:

The baptism in the Spirit is Pentecost in origin not pre-pentecost.

Perhaps I misunderstood but I took that to mean you did not believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Old Testament believers. In the following you are saying that if one is not indwell with the Holy Spirit he is unsaved.

Hence, if any man have not the Spirit indwelling them they are "none of his" (Rom. 8:8-9).

Given your response who then are the "saved" nations living outside of the New Jerusalem AFTER the Great White judgement seat and creation of the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21:1-2) in Revelation 21:24? Why is the leaves on the tree of life for these "nations" (Rev. 22:3) and the fruit for overcomers (Rev. 2:7)? Who are the friends of the bride (Rev. 19:8-9)?

I believe I asked who or what is the Bride of Jesus Christ and who or what is the New Jerusalem? The above doesn't address either question.

 

[The Biblicist]

You said in your previous post:

Perhaps I misunderstood but I took that to mean you did not believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Old Testament believers. In the following you are saying that if one is not indwell with the Holy Spirit he is unsaved.

Hence, if any man have not the Spirit indwelling them they are "none of his" (Rom. 8:8-9).

Previously, I was using "the baptism in the Spirit" in the sense that universal invisible church advocates use it as the means to bring the believer into "spiritual union" with Christ or the mystical body of Christ (a doctrine I repudiate). In my latter post, I was attempting to show the true doctrine of Spiritual union, which is simply the reverse of spiritual death/separation.

I believe I asked who or what is the Bride of Jesus Christ and who or what is the New Jerusalem? The above doesn't address either question.

Actually, I answered your question by asking a question. The Bible clearly does not teach that all the elect are in the church or in Israel whether Old or New Testament. There are "saved" people existing outside the New Jerusalem in Rev. 21:24. There are "saved" people outside of the bride (Rev. 19:8-9). There are "guests" to the wedding (Psalm 45).

I believe the "church" in its institutional sense includes all saints between the first and second advent who are serving through New Testament churches within the greater family and kingdom of God. To be inside the bride in Revelation 19 is to be inside the institutional espoused church now (2 Cor. 11:2). To be outside that espoused institution now is to be outside then. In both cases there are "saved" people outside both now and then.

 

[OldRegular]

Previously, I was using "the baptism in the Spirit" in the sense that universal invisible church advocates use it as the means to bring the believer into "spiritual union" with Christ or the mystical body of Christ (a doctrine I repudiate). In my latter post, I was attempting to show the true doctrine of Spiritual union, which is simply the reverse of spiritual death/separation.

You are rejecting a spiritual union of the believer and Jesus Christ.

Actually, I answered your question by asking a question. The Bible clearly does not teach that all the elect are in the church or in Israel whether Old or New Testament. There are "saved" people existing outside the New Jerusalem in Rev. 21:24. There are "saved" people outside of the bride (Rev. 19:8-9). There are "guests" to the wedding (Psalm 45).

I believe the "church" in its institutional sense includes all saints between the first and second advent who are serving through New Testament churches within the greater family and kingdom of God. To be inside the bride in Revelation 19 is to be inside the institutional espoused church now (2 Cor. 11:2). To be outside that espoused institution now is to be outside then. In both cases there are "saved" people outside both now and then.

I have noted previously that there were OT Elect who were not of Israel. I believe Jesus Christ died for all the elect and they are a part of His body, the Church.

 

[OldRegular]

Oh, wait ... of course you do, because you believe the Father has reneged on His promise to Abram. Never mind.

The truth is, Christ doesn't break covenants. You know this, yet you persist in an unholy belief that He did just that. You have twisted not only Scripture, but impugned the character of God with this nonsense. You're going to excessive lengths, dangerous lengths, to prove your view correct. As I said yesterday, it is disagreement over nonessential doctrine. See to it that you do not negate the essential ones in trying to stand on your head to believe nonsense. I'm done here.[/FONT][/SIZE]

I thought you were a different stripe from the usual dispensationalist on this forum but you are not and the above prove it, the same lying accusations I have come to expect. I don't recall insulting dispensationalists in the manner you do above. I have said that you and other dispensationalist misunderstand or incorrectly interpret Scripture but I do not believe I have ever accused one of making God a liar! You are done as far as I am concerned. You come as close as you dare in your last statement above of questioning my salvation. DHK did it deliberately on the Eschatology thread. So much for dispensationalists and their false doctrine!

 

[DHK]

You are done as far as I am concerned. You come as close as you dare in your last statement above of questioning my salvation. DHK did it deliberately on the Eschatology thread. So much for dispensationalists and their false doctrine!

Why are you being so rude and accusatory. You are the one that needs to apologize. You need to apologize for false accusations. Let's see what really happened.

First keep in mind that Ryrie is a Classic Dispensationalist.
In that context he said:

Progressive/modified/revisionist dispensationalism wishes to discard the word parenthesis, implying that it means that the church is something lesser in God's plan, an afterthought.

The above is not the belief of Ryrie. Note that. He is a Classic Dispensationalist. He is repudiating those who revise or modify his position.



I actually agreed with him when I said:

Whoever said that has no reverence for God, and is speaking as an unsaved individual. There is nothing done in the providence of God that is "an afterthought." No dispensationalist would agree with the above assessment. It is just a foolish random rambling said from one who is not using his brain.

Don't you agree with Ryrie here? Or do you also agree that the works of God are simply "an afterthought"? Seriously OR? What is your belief concerning the Almighty Creator here? He is just "an afterthought?" Really?



But because of the strong language I used you emotionally reacted and have said this:

I must state as forcefully as I can that I find the doctrine of the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, as a parenthesis or an intercalation, in God’s program for Israel to be repugnant and I reject it completely. However, I totally reject the comment made by one individual who refused to retract the following statement even after being confronted with the above statements by learned Classic Dispensationalists. I have noted before that I am surrounded by Baptists who are “Rapture Ready” dispensationalists. I would no more question their Salvation than I would my own.

I never questioned your salvation nor Ryrie's. In fact I was agreeing with Ryrie.



Now it is up to you to man-up and apologize for the false accusations.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are rejecting a spiritual union of the believer and Jesus Christ.

No, I am not! I am simply defining it under the doctrine of regeneration - not the baptism in the Spirit - and therefore no relationship with the church at all.

I have noted previously that there were OT Elect who were not of Israel. I believe Jesus Christ died for all the elect and they are a part of His body, the Church.

I don't believe either "Israel" or "all the elect" or "church" are synonomous terms. Israel is a "nation"; all the elect are all the elect; and the "church" is an institution within the professing kingdom God which is the public administrator of the keys of the kingdom.

 

[OldRegular]

The above is not the belief of Ryrie. Note that. He is a Classic Dispensationalist. He is repudiating those who revise or modify his position.

Try to be honest DHK, present the full quote from the OP:

Following are remarks by Chafer and Ryrie. Lewis Sperry Chafer founded and served as the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and was an influential proponent of Christian Dispensationalism in the early 20th century. Charles C. Ryrie is a Christian writer and theologian who served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary He is also the author of the Ryrie Study Bible.

"But for the Church intercalation -- which was wholly unforeseen and is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it. In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term parenthetical, commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalation" [emphasis added] (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:41; 5:348-349).

Charles Ryrie says the same thing: "Classic dispensationalists used the words 'parenthesis' or 'intercalation' to describe the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God's program for Israel. An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar, and a parenthesis in one sense is defined as an interlude or interval (which in turn is defined as an intervening or interruptive period). So either or both words can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in God's program for Israel (as clearly taught in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks in 9:24-27)" (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995] p.134).

http://twonewcovenants.com/covenant/covenant1.html

I also presented another quote from Ryrie, also in the OP, in which he notes that progressive dispensationalists reject the use of "Parenthesis" or "Intercalation" to describe the Church. Charles C Ryrie writing in his book Dispensationalism regarding the Progressive Dispensational movement states on page 134.

Classic dispensationalism used the words parenthesis or intercalation to describe the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God's program for Israel. An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar and a parenthesis in one sense is defined as an interlude or interval (which in turn is defined as an intervening or interruptive period). So either or both words can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in God's program for Israel (as clearly taught in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks in 9:24--27).

Progressive/modified/revisionist dispensationalism wishes to discard the word parenthesis, implying that it means that the church is something lesser in God's plan, an afterthought. Of course, the dictionary definition does not support this meaning. Instead, the church is submerged into the broader kingdom concept and called a "functional outpost of God's kingdom" and a "sneak preview" of the future kingdom.”

And then I was sufficiently gracious to post a statement from you where you question the salvation of these men!

Whoever said that has no reverence for God, and is speaking as an unsaved individual. There is nothing done in the providence of God that is "an afterthought." No dispensationalist would agree with the above assessment. It is just a foolish random rambling said from one who is not using his brain.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthre...=94418&page=13

Of course the remark was primarily directed at me. Typical dispensational response! Now perhaps you will delete this final post and close the thread as someone did on the Eschatology thread!

 

[OldRegular]

I don't believe either "Israel" or "all the elect" or "church" are synonomous terms. Israel is a "nation" all the elect are all the elect and the "church" is an institution.

I had no intention of saying that all Israel are among the elect. I still believe that all the redeemed constitute the Church.

 

[The Biblicist]

I had no intention of saying that all Israel are among the elect. I still believe that all the redeemed constitute the Church.

I know what you believe. I know you don't believe all Israel as an ethnic nation IN THIS PRESENT TIME are among the elect and neither do I. However, Israel as an ethnic nation is God's elect nation which will be saved as an ethnic nation yet in the future, as its election is to salvation yet future (Rom. 11:25-28). The church is not synonomous with "all" of the elect or with Israel in any way shape or form. The church is the public institutional house of worship corresponding to the temple in the Old Testament as a public house of worship. The difference is that the church house of God is made up of lively stones (by baptismal profession) and is administrative IN the kingdom as it administers the "keys of the kingdom". The church is the new covenant public administrator of the keys in the kingdom of God.

 

[OldRegular]

I know what you believe. I know you don't believe all Israel as an ethnic nation IN THIS PRESENT TIME are among the elect and neither do I. However, Israel as an ethnic nation is God's elect nation which will be saved as an ethnic nation yet in the future, as its election is to salvation yet future (Rom. 11:25-28). The church is not synonomous with "all" of the elect or with Israel in any way shape or form. The church is the public institutional house of worship corresponding to the temple in the Old Testament as a public house of worship. The difference is that the church house of God is made up of lively stones (by baptismal profession) and is administrative IN the kingdom as it administers the "keys of the kingdom". The church is the new covenant public administrator of the keys in the kingdom of God.

I thought you were headed that way!:laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

I had no intention of saying that all Israel are among the elect. I still believe that all the redeemed constitute the Church.

I believe there is but one covenant of salvation and it is a covenant restricted to the Persons of the Godhead agreed upon before the world began. Hence, there is but one way, one gospel, one salvation (the substitutionary complete satisfaction of God's holiness in the person and work of Jesus Christ as the basis for election, regenerative indwelling, justification by faith, progressive sanctification, glorification purely by grace without works, but which does work) one Savior - period. - Heb. 13:20. Faith looks forward and backwards to the finished work of Christ as the basis for remission of sins - Acts 10:43

I believe there has been various PUBLIC administrations among humans by God of that eternal covenant between Genesis and Revelation 22. All these administrations are declarative and non legislative and non-sacramental by nature. Each public administration gave emphasis to either the holiness of God or the grace of God but all were inclusive of both.

In the Old Testament period the covenant administration that placed more emphasis upon the grace of God is the Abrahamic covenant. In the Old Testament period the covenant administration that placed more emphasis upon the holiiness of God is the Mosaic Covenant.

From the cross to the Second Coming the only PUBLIC covenant administrator is the church as an institutional house of God. It is not legislative but only administration. It is not sacramental but declarative. The Grace of God is the emphasis of this public administration.

Only two public administrations of the everlasting covenant administered it through public institutional houses of God (Heb. 9:1 "also....and"). The former administration is called the "old" covenant administrator, while the latter is called the "new" covenant administrator. Both administered the "keys of the kingdom" in the professing kingdom of God on earth.

Now please carefully reread what I said, in order to make sure you understand my position clearly.

 

[Iconoclast]

The church is not synonomous with "all" of the elect or with Israel in any way shape or form. The church is the public institutional house of worship corresponding to the temple in the Old Testament as a public house of worship. The difference is that the church house of God is made up of lively stones (by baptismal profession) and is administrative IN the kingdom as it administers the "keys of the kingdom". The church is the new covenant public administrator of the keys in the kingdom of God.

This is not really defensible....it is error.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is not really defensible....it is error.

The founder, the foundation, first officer, first added to the church does not occur until the ministry of Christ. It has no Old Testament existence.

Simply quoting one verse in Acts 7 that describes the visible assembly at the foot of Mount Sinai does not prove the preexistence of the Church before the public ministry of Christ. Moreover, that assembly at Mount Sinai was the generation that God killed in the wilderness, that sacrificed unto false gods and consistently rebelled against God.

Hence, you have no kind of church prior to the ministry of Christ, no builder, no foundation, no first members, office, ordinances etc. Neither Christ or the Holy Spirit were sent in connection to the church prior to the public ministry of Christ or the day of Pentecost. You have NOTHING!

Hence, the church cannot possibly be synonomous with either "Israel" or the "kingdom of God" as Israel prexisted the first coming but the church did not. You are really only furthering the Roman Catholic heretical doctrine of church salvation, with the unbiblcial term "invisible" added to their Unbiblical addition of "universal" attached. Like Rome you are teaching a church salvation doctrine. To be in your church is to be saved and to be outside your church is to be lost - same as Rome, same as all the cults. The only issue between them is how they define that church. However, we believe that salvation has nothing to do with any kind of church regardless of how you define it but with the substitutionary satisficatory Person and work of Jesus Christ - period.

Hence, your view of the church is "not really defensible ....it is error"

 

[DHK]

Of course the remark was primarily directed at me. Typical dispensational response! Now perhaps you will delete this final post and close the thread as someone did on the Eschatology thread!

You are not being honest.
This is a direct quote from Ryrie:

Whoever said that has no reverence for God, and is speaking as an unsaved individual. There is nothing done in the providence of God that is "an afterthought." No dispensationalist would agree with the above assessment. It is just a foolish random rambling said from one who is not using his brain.

The bolded part is a direct quote, and the other is exactly what I said.
How can that be directed to you? It is not what you said?
It is what Ryrie said about those who modified and revised Classic Dispensationalist. You are taking that quote out of its context!

Stop with the false accusations. Read carefully. Nothing there was directed at you. You have your sensitive blinders on. Take them off.
A quote from Ryrie cannot be direceted at you, can it?

 

[Yeshua1]

This is not really defensible....it is error.

The true error is when some see the Church as being spiritual israel, as having replaced the nation of israel fully in the plans of God, and having received ALL promises God made to that elect nation/people!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I was done until you chose to call me out for doing something I quite clearly did not do.

I thought you were a different stripe from the usual dispensationalist on this forum but you are not and the above prove it, the same lying accusations I have come to expect. I don't recall insulting dispensationalists in the manner you do above.

There was no insult in that statement you quoted, unless you consider a brief synopsis of your beliefs to be insulting.

I have said that you and other dispensationalist misunderstand or incorrectly interpret Scripture but I do not believe I have ever accused one of making God a liar!

You did that yourself in adopting a view that God breaks covenants.

You are done as far as I am concerned. You come as close as you dare in your last statement above of questioning my salvation. DHK did it deliberately on the Eschatology thread. So much for dispensationalists and their false doctrine!

Nice and tidy for you, isn't it? Now you don't have to deal with a differing view of the facts. Not if you don't have anyone around you who will share them with you.

And please don't pretend you've ever thought of me in any other way than as a poor, misguided Dispensationalist who couldn't exegete his way out of a passage of Scripture. You've made it clear you have no respect whatsoever for anyone who is not a Covenantalist.

 

[OldRegular]

You are not being honest.
This is a direct quote from Ryrie:

The bolded part is a direct quote, and the other is exactly what I said.
How can that be directed to you? It is not what you said?
It is what Ryrie said about those who modified and revised Classic Dispensationalist. You are taking that quote out of its context!

Stop with the false accusations. Read carefully. Nothing there was directed at you. You have your sensitive blinders on. Take them off.
A quote from Ryrie cannot be direceted at you, can it?

Those who want to know the truth can read the Eschatology thread starting with post #120!

 

[Yeshua1]

Those who want to know the truth can read the Eschatology thread starting with post #120!

Did you come to your beliefs by what the Bible teaches, or that it fit within Covenant theology?

 

[OldRegular]

Did you come to your beliefs by what the Bible teaches, or that it fit within Covenant theology?

By what the Bible teaches! God in His Grace preserved me from the Scofield RB when He saved me. I am eternally grateful for all His blessings!

One has to be schooled or trained to believe dispensational doctrine. That is someone taught them. That is obvious since the word dispensation does not appear in the Old Testament and I believe dispensationalists claim 5 of the dispensations occur in the Old Testament.

The Bible teaches that God deals with people through Covenants and that is the truth!

 

[Yeshua1]

By what the Bible teaches! God in His Grace preserved me from the Scofield RB when He saved me. I am eternally grateful for all His blessings!

One has to be schooled or trained to believe dispensational doctrine. That is someone taught them. That is obvious since the word dispensation does not appear in the Old Testament and I believe dispensationalists claim 5 of the dispensations occur in the Old Testament.

The Bible teaches that God deals with people through Covenants and that is the truth!

Except that you cannot even prove the Covenant between the father and Son before fall of adam, correct?

And while i have a Scofield, I have not used tghat as a primary study bible, so did not get theology from his notes!