I have no quarrel with that. We shall all assemble together in heaven.The church Jesus died for will assemble on the last day....no more/no less
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!
I have no quarrel with that. We shall all assemble together in heaven.The church Jesus died for will assemble on the last day....no more/no less
I have no quarrel with that. We shall all assemble together in heaven.
[/QUOTE]revmwc
Do you believe they were not written in the book of life because they had a bad haircut?
The wages of sin is not death?
Atonement was not about sin?
God's wrath is not against sin?
Jesus did not come to save us from our sins?
Is this what you teach? If it is ,it is not the gospel at all.
Isolating verses that do not speak of sin, and denying the fall into sin and death is the problem here once again......I cannot believe you men are saying this at all....
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Where do you see it say these are condemned already because of sin?
icon
Do you believe they were not written in the book of life because they had a bad haircut?
ICON
The wages of sin is not death?
ICON
Atonement was not about sin?
ICON
God's wrath is not against sin?
ICON
Jesus did not come to save us from our sins?
When Jesus was hanging on the cross......how did the heathen who died that week worldwide hear about it????? In China, South America, Korea, Japan, how did they hear without a preacher?
where are these people RM? In the land of make believe?
So you believe God is not capable of getting the gospel to them? Anyway you have yet to prove anyone has died without hearing about Jesus.
He may have? There is no uncertainty about it!He may have died for the family of God, for the kingdom, for the Bride of Christ, etc.
By that you mean only a local congregation. And you are mistaken. As Herman Ridderbos has said, it is the primarily "the description of the church in its totality irrespective of its being scattered over various localities." Only in a secondary sense does the word have reference to the local manifestation.the meaning of ekklesia which can only mean assembly
The overwhelming translation of ekklesia in English Bible versions is church. It will do quite nicely.Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly and gave Himself up on its behalf,
--My authority is the Bible. The above verse from the LITV should be clear enough.
You are wrong. Besides "Ephesians" was a circular epistle. In 1:1 it doesn't have "Ephesians" in some early manuscripts.The "assembly" referred to is the one Paul was writing to, the one at Ephesus.
You and Van would make quite the duo.The word "church" is an inaccurate translation.
When Jesus was hanging on the cross......how did the heathen who died that week worldwide hear about it????? In China, South America, Korea, Japan, how did they hear without a preacher?
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
You are suggesting that they did hear? without a preacher?:BangHead:
Paul says they do not...you know of any who professed Christ in 35 ad...37 ad...in the rainforest, in Greenland?
where are these people RM? In the land of make believe?
As I told you on 5/27/2015 :Anyway you have yet to prove anyone has died without hearing about Jesus.
So you believe God is not capable of getting the gospel to them? Anyway you have yet to prove anyone has died without hearing about Jesus.
You have posted foolishly. You suggest everyone who has lived has indeed heard the gospel. You need to explain the basis of your false claim.
The fact is you cannot. There is no one who has claimed this. Do not try and put this novelty upon me.
The question asked was not what God is capable of....the question is show how anyone in these countries heard about Jesus at all.
You cannot...it was nonsense. Idol worship is idolatry and the worship of devils, not the worship of God.
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
Yes. There were nomads all over this world. I read that when John Eliot came to what later became the USA in the mid-1600's there were between 8-15 million people living in North America. Some of those natives spoke German, French, among other tongues. But during the time of Christ's death, peoples inhabited the earth all the way around it, in my opinion. No doubt people were living in what is now North America, South America, Greenland, Iceland, the Hawaiian Islands, Cuba, Guam, the Fiji Islands, Russia, Poland, United Kingdom, &c.
Now, if they were alive in these remote places during the time of Christ's death and never knew about Christ, how could they be saved? I think Rom. 10-8-17 shows those who never knew about Christ, still died in their sins.
Anyway you have yet to prove anyone has died without hearing about Jesus.
Okay....I can play along-
RM you have yet to prove a blind man cannot see a rainbow.
You have yet to prove space aliens did not visit earth....
You have yet to prove that spiderman does not exist...
You have yet to prove that leprechauns are not dancing around a pot of gold at the base of every rainbow like we see on a box of lucky charms:laugh:
Yes. There were nomads all over this world. I read that when John Eliot came to what later became the USA in the mid-1600's there were between 8-15 million people living in North America. Some of those natives spoke German, French, among other tongues. But during the time of Christ's death, peoples inhabited the earth all the way around it, in my opinion. No doubt people were living in what is now North America, South America, Greenland, Iceland, the Hawaiian Islands, Cuba, Guam, the Fiji Islands, Russia, Poland, United Kingdom, &c.
Now, if they were alive in these remote places during the time of Christ's death and never knew about Christ, how could they be saved? I think Rom. 10-8-17 shows those who never knew about Christ, still died in their sins.
No, YOU "may." You "may" call the corporate collective brotherhood of all believers by many different names. But one name you cannot use is the word "church." The "ekklesia" always refers to an assembly, a local congregation that can "congregate," if you will; that has the ability to assemble, as the word is defined. One cannot go contrary to the obvious definition of the word. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly.He may have? There is no uncertainty about it!
I am right and he is wrong. It is obvious that a congregation cannot be spread over various localities.By that you mean only a local congregation. And you are mistaken. As Herman Ridderbos has said, it is the primarily "the description of the church in its totality irrespective of its being scattered over various localities." Only in a secondary sense does the word have reference to the local manifestation.
Who assembled?When Jesus is speaking to Peter of the rock that he will build his church he was not expressing anything about the local church. (Matt.16:18)
In Acts 8 there was only one church--the church at Jerusalem.When Acts 8:3 speaks of Saul starting to "destroy the church" it certainly wasn't speaking of a local church --or assembly.
There is no place in scripture where ekklesia cannot be translated as ekklesia or local church. There is no such thing as a universal invisible church. The concept never existed during the first century. If you tried to teach the Ephesians that concept they would think you were "mad."I could go on and on. Perhaps I will in a new thread on the subject.
The word "church" was a generic word with many different meanings which makes the entire doctrine of ecclesiology very confusing. It is a wrong translation, translated "church" only for the political correctness of the Anglican divines. Darby correctly translated it as assembly.The overwhelming translation of ekklesia in English Bible versions is church. It will do quite nicely.
That is an opinion of some. You hold to it. It has the support of only "some" Manuscript evidence, but not a lot. I don't agree.You are wrong. Besides "Ephesians" was a circular epistle. In 1:1 it doesn't have "Ephesians" in some early manuscripts.
Of course it is silence. I gave you a greater authority--God himself.You make unfounded assertions such as "Christ gave himself for the local church according to Ephesians 5." I had asked you to name N.T. Bible scholars who believe such a thing. Your answer is silence.
The question a can be ask a little differently.
How was mankind saved before Jesus came and died on the cross?
Did not Adam teach his descendants to look forward to a savior coming?
Did not Noah also teach to have Faith in a savior to come?
Aren't those folks in remote areas descendants of both these men?
Mankind has always been saved the same way as For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.[1 Cor. 1:21]
These people were scattered after God said “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.[Gen. 11:6-9]
But salvation has always came by preaching the gospel.
Your dishonesty is disgraceful.No, YOU "may."
You don't get to call the shots --the Bible itself has these designations.You "may" call the corporate collective brotherhood of all believers by many different names.
Of course I can use the word Church. Who do you think you are? Go to the majority of translations. Go to the overwhelming number of Bible commentaries --the word Church is used constantly.But one name you cannot use is the word "church."
In certain contexts it does refer to a local expression of an assembly of believers. But the primary sense is those believers --the called out ones of his from all ages --scattered around the world.The "ekklesia" always refers to an assembly, a local congregation that can "congregate,"
Herman Ridderbos yields to your superior understanding...in your dreams.I am right and he is wrong.
Oh yeah? What about Ephesians 1:22,23:There is no place in scripture where ekklesia cannot be translated as ekklesia or local church.
You remain in the distinct minority. As I have said before, the overwhelming majority of English Bible translations render it church. Nearly all Bible commentaries do as well --even your favorities. You are fighting a losing battle.The word "church" was a generic word with many different meanings which makes the entire doctrine of ecclesiology very confusing. It is a wrong translation, translated "church" only for the political correctness of the Anglican divines. Darby correctly translated it as assembly.
As far back as Bishop Ussher it was noted. In the 20th century Ray Steadman held to it. I checked the remarks of many who have written commentaries on Ephesians in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. They all have acknowledged that Ephsians was a circular letter. The name Ephesians does not occur even once in the epistle.That is an opinion of some. You hold to it. It has the support of only "some" Manuscript evidence, but not a lot. I don't agree.
You have no integrity.Of course it is silence. I gave you a greater authority--God himself.
Is he not sufficient enough? I believe in sola scriptura. Apparently you do not.
It is evident that you have posted this with a lot of pent-up anger. Perhaps you should go and take a break.Your dishonesty is disgraceful.
I never denied any essential doctrine as you suppose or infer.You had originally said :
"He may have died for the family of God, for the kingdom, for the Bride of Christ, etc."
I had replied with:
"He may have? There is no uncertainty about it!"
Christ did indeed die for, in the place of, in the stead of the Bride of Christ. The Bride of Christ is the Church. There are many other designations for the Church in the Bible, among them --the sheep, the Beloved, the elect, believers, the called, His children and many more.
There is no may about it. It is a fact.
I am the one using the Bible. That is why "I called the shot" so to speak. If you want to challenge my position then do so on the basis of the Word of God.You don't get to call the shots --the Bible itself has these designations.
And what do you do when "you go to church"? Is your definition a "building"?Of course I can use the word Church. Who do you think you are? Go to the majority of translations. Go to the overwhelming number of Bible commentaries --the word Church is used constantly.
There is no such thing as an "unassembled assembly."In certain contexts it does refer to a local expression of an assembly of believers. But the primary sense is those believers --the called out ones of his from all ages --scattered around the world.
Do you ever consider the context?Oh yeah? What about Ephesians 1:22,23:
"And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way."
It is through the assembly at Ephesus. And that is how the believers at Ephesus would have understood it. Ask yourself if there is any reason why they would not have understood it that way?Consider Ephesians 3:10,21
"His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms."
"to him be glory in the church and in Jesus Christ throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
Rarely is the majority right.You remain in the distinct minority. As I have said before, the overwhelming majority of English Bible translations render it church. Nearly all Bible commentaries do as well --even your favorities. You are fighting a losing battle.
Do I care?As far back as Bishop Ussher it was noted. In the 20th century Ray Steadman held to it. I checked the remarks of many who have written commentaries on Ephesians in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. They all have acknowledged that Ephsians was a circular letter. The name Ephesians does not occur even once in the epistle.
Peter O'Brien, Bryan Chapell, Harold W. Hoehner (conservative as can be), Klyde Snodgrass, Frank Thielman, A. Skevington Wood are united in the belief.
Others who have not written commentaries on the epistle, but are respected in the field join with the above Daniel Wallace, Craig Blomberg, Bruce Metzger, Philip W. Comfort, D.A. Carson and Doug Moo.
I'm sure many more can be added to the list. But you have the right to disagree with them without availing yourself of their scholarship.
That ad hominem has no place here and is totally unfounded.You have no integrity.
1. Stop acting like SBM. I don't have to yield to your demands. You are not my master. Stop being so arrogant.I had told you :"You make unfounded assertions such as 'Christ gave himself for the local church in Ephesians 5.'
"I had asked you to name N.T. Bible scholars who believe such a thing. Your answer is silence."
Then you come up with your ungodly "I believe in sola scriptura. Apparently you do not."
Your dishonest method of operation here on the BB has been constant. It has to stop. You delight in twisting things around.
You're not telling the truth.I have not been dishonest about anything.
You said that "He may have died for the family of God, for the kingdom, for the Bride of Christ, etc."I never denied any essential doctrine as you suppose or infer.
By that remark are you making the feeble attempt to infer that I am not using the Bible? That is low of you --but very typical of your conduct.I am the one using the Bible.
Because the overwhelming number of English Bible translations use the word church? You want to remain defiant? Because the overwhelming number of Bible commentaries --even your favorites use the word church as well? You are strange.I don't use the word "church" for that very reason.
I already pointed out to you that it was a circular letter for the benefit of a number of local gatherings --assemblies.First and foremost, it was written to the church at Ephesus.
You are constantly demonstrating your lack of integrity. You can't help yourself --repent and turn to the Lord.The two greatest religions in the world today are the RCC and Islam. Of which are you?
No, you are careless.Do I care?
You told me that you believe in sola scripture. Then, you followed it with "Apparently you do not." I rebuked you with :"You have no integrity."That ad hominem has no place here and is totally unfounded.
My demands? My demands are reasonable. Stop your typical dishonest method of operation. It has to cease. You specialize in misrepresentation of others. Drop it.I don't have to yield to your demands.
Although you quote them a great deal to make your points. You employ a double standard as it is plain to see.I don't care about other scholars;
Then obey it and tell the truth. If you are so all-fired right about everything you have no need to deal deceitfully.I care about the Word of God,
Who preached the gospel?
Those who are believers.
Job a man from Uz preached to those unsaved in his area. Abraham whose father worshipped idols was called out by God, who preached the gospel to him?
Enoch preached the gospel and walked with God and was not because God took him?
Through the ages men have witnessed to others and that is the preaching of the gospel.
Prior to Christ death on the cross the was believe on the Savior to come, those who have not heard that Christ came still know and can believe God is sending a savior, that gospel hasn't changed!
Oh for goodness sake Rippon. Stop with all this pettiness. I know you spend time in Korea but bone up on your English if you can't understand it.You're not telling the truth.
You said that "He may have died for the family of God, for the kingdom, for the Bride of Christ, etc."
There is no maybe about it. His death for his Bride needs no such qualifer as may. He definitively laid down his life for His Bride, His Body, The Church, His elect, The Called-Out Ones, His Beloved, His Inheritance and many other designations for the very same people of God.
Now for your sake:Rippon:
Christ died for the Church --international in scope throughout all ages. Christ died for the elect --the called-out ones. I don't know where you are getting "purchased all biblically based churches composed of such obedient believers."DHK:
He may have died for the family of God, for the kingdom, for the Bride of Christ, etc. but he did not die for "The Church." There is no "Church," unless you believe in the RCC. This mystic, universal, invisible, imaginary Church does not exist. It cannot. It defies the meaning of ekklesia which can only mean assembly and can only exist in time and space. It assembles--together, is organized, has purpose--carries out the Great Commission; baptizes new converts, and remembers to celebrate the Lord's Table. I have never seen a universal invisible Church do those things.
China. Master your geography.I know you spend time in Korea
You may have the liberty to say: Christ died for the family of God, for the kingdom, for the Bride of Christ, etc., but you do not have the liberty to say Christ died for "The Church"...