When the church started. Pentecost or Israel

[weary warrior]

52 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Ahhhh.  How often the doctrine of regeneration (being born again) is misunderstood.

Indeed, the Holy Spirit IS the Person of the Godhead who administers the renewing work of regeneration upon a believer. (See John 3:3-8; Titus 3:4-7)  (Note: According to Titus 3:5 a believer is SAVED specifically BY "the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."  So then, if Old Testament believers were SAVED, how were they saved APART FROM "the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.")

On the other hand, the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (which occurs in an instant) upon a believer and the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit (which occurs continually) within a believer is NOT the same work of the Holy Spirit.  Indeed, in this time of the New Testament the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit certainly does proceed out of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.  However, in the time of the Old Testament the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit could occur without the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit.

In fact, John 1:10-13 teaches that the disciples (believers) of our Lord Jesus Christ were indeed regenerated (born again, born of God) prior to the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.  The specific grammar of this passage speaks in the past tense.  The specific context of this passage speaks concerning the past period wherein our Lord Jesus Christ "came unto His own" during His earthly ministry of teaching and preaching unto the Jews.  Even so, in relation to this specific time period, John 1:11 indicates that most of the Jews overall did NOT receive the Lord Jesus Christ as their Messiah and Savior.  However, also in relation to this specific time period, John 1:12 declares that as many individuals among them who did receive Him (in that past tense period), "to them gave he power to become the sons of God."  Furthermore, John 1:13 teaches that this power to become a child of God was specifically administered upon these specific individuals in that specific time period in that they "were born [past tense] . . . of God."

The past tense, yes. But the past tense relative to when John was writing. Well after the resurrection, ascension and day of Pentecost. We are told in Hebrews that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin. Only the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ had not been shed yet, so all were still sinners. Yes, righteousness had been imputed unto them because of their belief, (Romans 4:16-22) but they could not enter heaven upon death because their sins were merely temporarily covered, not washed away. Thus the existence of a separate Paradise, or Abraham's bosom. How can you have a church made up of unwashed, unregenerate sinners? How can there be a church pre-crucifixion without the shedding of the blood of Christ? I see nowhere in the Old Testament where there was a regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. It came upon men, and it left men. It enabled them to do the work of God as God determined (Samson and Saul) I have never seen it said that it regenerated them. It could not, for sin still remained. Covered, yes. But not yet removed. I myself have a hard time thinking that men such as Samson and Saul were "regenerated by the Holy Spirit" even though the spirit came upon them. It just doesn't fit.

Even Abraham and Moses were not allowed into heaven until after the shedding of blood. How in the world does line up with any Biblical definition of the church, the body of Christ? The thief on the cross? "Today thou shalt be with me in paradise". Not heaven. Not the church. Abraham's bosom, the place of rest and waiting until the promised work of the messiah was complete.

Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 

In the dispensation of the fullness of time ... all things in Christ ... which was a mystery until revealed to Paul while he was in the desert for 3 years. (Ephesians 3). No shed blood? No remission of sins. No remission of sins? No regeneration. No regeneration? No NT church.

[DaveW]

7 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

As I come to the forums this morning it is with a certain sense of incredulity and even sadness. I find it quite depressing when I consider how far from biblical truth some posts become. Perhaps my depression is magnified by the realization that the errors, distortions and misunderstanding of scripture are presented by those who call themselves Independent Baptists.

It makes me fear for and wonder what is being taught in Independent Baptist churches in these last days. If the error we see being put forth in these forums is being taught as truth and the "faith once delivered to the saints", then I fear for those who may be exposed to supposed men of God who have the responsibility to know and pass on biblical truth. I am reminded of the Apostle's admonition found in  1Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Perhaps it is best to end this line of thought before I depress others. I had even thought of not posting what I have written so far, but then thought that just maybe someone else having the same thoughts might be encouraged by knowing that they are not alone in their thinking.

I do understand that we are warned that in the last days there will come a falling away, but I find that reading it and actually experiencing it are two quite different things. Perhaps with God's help these realizations I experience this morning will encourage me to still fight on as admonished in: Jude 1:3  Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Please pray for me this morning as I struggle with thoughts of this nature. I know I have strayed from the original topic, but felt that what I have written here is a result of some of the errors posted in this thread.

 

It is a great shame when one is hesitant to post (dare I say it) "traditional" baptist doctrinal positions because it will then lead to a long drawn out defense of those doctrinal positions against those presenting what was always simply known to be doctrinal error by IFB.

Half the stuff being posted the last few days was laughed at when heard of it being presented by charismaniacs and new evangelicals, and yet it is being presented by those calling themselves IB.

I am with you......

[Pastor Scott Markle]

39 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

The past tense, yes. But the past tense relative to when John was writing. Well after the resurrection, ascension and day of Pentecost.

Such a viewpoint does not handle the past tense within the context of John 1:11-13.  John 1:11 specifically reveals the time period about which the context is speaking -- It was the time period when "He came unto His own."  This was not "well after the resurrection, ascension, and day of Pentecost."  Rather, it was specifically during our Lord Jesus Christ's earthly ministry, BEFORE the crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and day of Pentecost. 

Grammatically, the conjunction "but" at the beginning of John 1:12 specifically connects the statement of John 1:12 to the statement of John 1:11.  Thus within the immediate context of John 1:11-13, John 1:12 is speaking about the SAME time period as John 1:11, that is -- when our Lord Jesus Christ "came unto His own" during His earthly ministry unto His own (the Jews).  Indeed, "as many as" those Jews "received Him" through faith, "to them gave He power to become the sons of God" in that they "were born . . . of God."
 

45 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

We are told in Hebrews that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin. Only the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ had not been shed yet, so all were still sinners.

Yet Revelation 13:8 reveals unto us that from God's own perspective our Lord Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who was "slain from the foundation of the world."  Thus from God's perspective His sacrificial death and shed blood could provide eternal redemption, eternal regeneration, eternal justification, eternal salvation unto all "from the foundation of the world."
 

56 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

Yes, righteousness had been imputed unto them because of their belief, (Romans 4:16-22) but they could not enter heaven upon death because their sins were merely temporarily covered, not washed away.

Yet Romans 4:25 also teaches us that eternal forgiveness of sins is directly connected unto our Lord Jesus Christ's death and that eternal justification before God (which you acknowledge as occurring for Old Testament believers) is directly connected unto our Lord Jesus Christ's resurrection.  So then, I would challenge your logic -- If Christ had not yet resurrected from the dead in the historical events of time, how were Old Testament believers eternally justified before God?
 

1 hour ago, weary warrior said:

. . . but they could not enter heaven upon death because their sins were merely temporarily covered, not washed away. Thus the existence of a separate Paradise, or Abraham's bosom.

Your presentation of this viewpoint appears to assume that I agree with this viewpoint.  I most certainly do NOT agree with the "two-compartment" viewpoint of "hell" during the time of the Old Testament.  Therefore, this viewpoint provides no weight to your argument with me.
 

1 hour ago, weary warrior said:

How can you have a church made up of unwashed, unregenerate sinners? How can there be a church pre-crucifixion without the shedding of the blood of Christ?

No where in my above posting did I make any reference whatsoever at all unto the existence of the church during the time of the Old Testament.  In fact, no where in my above posting did I make any reference whatsoever unto the church at all.  Rather, in my above posting I dealt ONLY with the two matters of being regenerated by the Holy Spirit and of being baptized (indwelt) with the Holy Spirit.  In fact, I do NOT believe that the church of our Lord Jesus Christ existed during the time of the Old Testament.  However, I DO believe that Old Testament believers were INDEED regenerated by the Holy Spirit.  The doctrinal issue upon which I set my focus in my above posting was not the doctrine of the church, but was the doctrine of regeneration.
 

1 hour ago, weary warrior said:

I myself have a hard time thinking that men such as Samson and Saul were "regenerated by the Holy Spirit" even though the spirit came upon them. It just doesn't fit.

I wonder -- How could Lot have had a "righteous soul" (as per 1 Peter 2:8) if he was not a regenerated (born again) believer.  From the Biblical record we can certainly conclude that he did NOT have righteous character or righteous conduct.  As such, the only part of his inner man which could have been defined as "righteous" would have to have been his regenerated (thus righteous) spirit.

In addition, did you know that all of the first generation of Israelites who were redeemed from Egypt in the Exodus did indeed partake of our Lord Jesus Christ spiritually?  Consider the truth of 1 Corinthians 10:1-4.
 

1 hour ago, weary warrior said:

Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 

In the dispensation of the fullness of time ... all things in Christ ... which was a mystery until revealed to Paul while he was in the desert for 3 years. (Ephesians 3). No shed blood? No remission of sins. No remission of sins? No regeneration. No regeneration? No NT church.

Within its context Ephesians 1:10 is NOT speaking concerning the time of the New Testament church.  Rather, it is speaking concerning the time of the New Heaven, New Earth, and New Jerusalem, wherein every believer from every "time" (dispensation) will be gathered together in one body (as per the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21).  That time alone can be described as "the dispensation of the fullness" of all other times (note the plural).

[No Nicolaitans]

13 hours ago, InSeasonOut said:

But yes I strongly believe the OT Jews were saved by faith and keeping the law.

If I may ask, why do you believe this? I ask this sincerely; where does the Bible say that their salvation resulted from faith and keeping the law? 

If one reads Deuteronomy chapters 28-30 (just to keep it short), one will see both the blessings for keeping the law...and the curses for not keeping the law. Both of them (blessings and curses) are physical...not spiritual. They would be blessed physically or cursed physically dependent upon their obedience or disobedience to the law. Salvation is never mentioned in any way as having to do with keeping the law.

 

7 hours ago, Joe Coley said:

no one in the old test. was looking forward to the cross!

The cross itself? Perhaps not. The work of Christ? Yes.

Luke 24:25-27
25   Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26   Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27   And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Like many today, the Jews stumbled at the stone of stumbling. They fixed their eyes upon the law rather than the law-giver. The knowledge and work of Christ was right there for them to see and read...but they missed it. They sought to attain righteousness through works (the law) rather than faith...and many today still try to ascribe law-keeping as a means of (or part of) their salvation.

Romans 9:31-33
31   But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32   Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33   As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

 

1 hour ago, Jim_Alaska said:

As I come to the forums this morning it is with a certain sense of incredulity and even sadness.

I think everyone here knows that I'm always willing to admit if I'm wrong about something; I often say that I reserve the right to be wrong. Still, I feel much the same Bro. Jim. I think that's one reason that I've more or less resorted to posting nonsensical things in the non-doctrinal sections of the forum.
 

 

[weary warrior]

17 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Such a viewpoint does not handle the past tense within the context of John 1:11-13.  John 1:11 specifically reveals the time period about which the context is speaking -- It was the time period when "He came unto His own."  This was not "well after the resurrection, ascension, and day of Pentecost."  Rather, it was specifically during our Lord Jesus Christ's earthly ministry, BEFORE the crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and day of Pentecost. 

Grammatically, the conjunction "but" at the beginning of John 1:12 specifically connects the statement of John 1:12 to the statement of John 1:11.  Thus within the immediate context of John 1:11-13, John 1:12 is speaking about the SAME time period as John 1:11, that is -- when our Lord Jesus Christ "came unto His own" during His earthly ministry unto His own (the Jews).  Indeed, "as many as" those Jews "received Him" through faith, "to them gave He power to become the sons of God" in that they "were born . . . of God."
 

Yet Revelation 13:8 reveals unto us that from God's own perspective our Lord Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who was "slain from the foundation of the world."  Thus from God's perspective His sacrificial death and shed blood could provide eternal redemption, eternal regeneration, eternal justification, eternal salvation unto all "from the foundation of the world."
 

Yet Romans 4:25 also teaches us that eternal forgiveness of sins is directly connected unto our Lord Jesus Christ's death and that eternal justification before God (which you acknowledge as occurring for Old Testament believers) is directly connected unto our Lord Jesus Christ's resurrection.  So then, I would challenge your logic -- If Christ had not yet resurrected from the dead in the historical events of time, how were Old Testament believers eternally justified before God?
 

Your presentation of this viewpoint appears to assume that I agree with this viewpoint.  I most certainly do NOT agree with the "two-compartment" viewpoint of "hell" during the time of the Old Testament.  Therefore, this viewpoint provides no weight to your argument with me.
 

No where in my above posting did I make any reference whatsoever at all unto the existence of the church during the time of the Old Testament.  In fact, no where in my above posting did I make any reference whatsoever unto the church at all.  Rather, in my above posting I dealt ONLY with the two matters of being regenerated by the Holy Spirit and of being baptized (indwelt) with the Holy Spirit.  In fact, I do NOT believe that the church of our Lord Jesus Christ existed during the time of the Old Testament.  However, I DO believe that Old Testament believers were INDEED regenerated by the Holy Spirit.  The doctrinal issue upon which I set my focus in my above posting was not the doctrine of the church, but was the doctrine of regeneration.
 

I wonder -- How could Lot have had a "righteous soul" (as per 1 Peter 2:8) if he was not a regenerated (born again) believer.  From the Biblical record we can certainly conclude that he did NOT have righteous character or righteous conduct.  As such, the only part of his inner man which could have been defined as "righteous" would have to have been his regenerated (thus righteous) spirit.

In addition, did you know that all of the first generation of Israelites who were redeemed from Egypt in the Exodus did indeed partake of our Lord Jesus Christ spiritually?  Consider the truth of 1 Corinthians 10:1-4.
 

Within its context Ephesians 1:10 is NOT speaking concerning the time of the New Testament church.  Rather, it is speaking concerning the time of the New Heaven, New Earth, and New Jerusalem, wherein every believer from every "time" (dispensation) will be gathered together in one body (as per the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21).  That time alone can be described as "the dispensation of the fullness" of all other times (note the plural).

I'm not going to fuss with you, Brother, but I disagree with your interpretation of many of these scriptures, as well as the view of the big picture as a whole. It doesn't matter. I posted my belief, and do not feel threatened or take it personal when one disagrees with me. I am content.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

22 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

I'm not going to fuss with you, Brother, but I disagree with your interpretation of many of these scriptures, as well as the view of the big picture as a whole. It doesn't matter. I posted my belief, and do not feel threatened or take it personal when one disagrees with me. I am content.

Indeed, I also have no need to "fuss" about these matters.

However, I am compelled to acknowledge that I DO have a need, even a driving need, to handle Scripture precisely according to the specific grammar and context of a passage.

[InSeasonOut]

12 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

 Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 

 Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

 Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

 Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
 
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Heb 10:1 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.

I know about all this. I disagree. Not one of those quotes are from the OT. The Bible shows progressive revelation.

Anyway, I did say this is another thread, and id rather put debates aside, yet for some reason you bring it up?

Plus you never even answered the questions I asked you before ... so I don't know how I should respond to this.

[InSeasonOut]

9 hours ago, Joe Coley said:

no one in the old test. was looking forward to the cross!

Amen.

3 hours ago, weary warrior said:

The past tense, yes. But the past tense relative to when John was writing. Well after the resurrection, ascension and day of Pentecost. We are told in Hebrews that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin. Only the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ had not been shed yet, so all were still sinners. Yes, righteousness had been imputed unto them because of their belief, (Romans 4:16-22) but they could not enter heaven upon death because their sins were merely temporarily covered, not washed away. Thus the existence of a separate Paradise, or Abraham's bosom. How can you have a church made up of unwashed, unregenerate sinners? How can there be a church pre-crucifixion without the shedding of the blood of Christ? I see nowhere in the Old Testament where there was a regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. It came upon men, and it left men. It enabled them to do the work of God as God determined (Samson and Saul) I have never seen it said that it regenerated them. It could not, for sin still remained. Covered, yes. But not yet removed. I myself have a hard time thinking that men such as Samson and Saul were "regenerated by the Holy Spirit" even though the spirit came upon them. It just doesn't fit.

Even Abraham and Moses were not allowed into heaven until after the shedding of blood. How in the world does line up with any Biblical definition of the church, the body of Christ? The thief on the cross? "Today thou shalt be with me in paradise". Not heaven. Not the church. Abraham's bosom, the place of rest and waiting until the promised work of the messiah was complete.

Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 

In the dispensation of the fullness of time ... all things in Christ ... which was a mystery until revealed to Paul while he was in the desert for 3 years. (Ephesians 3). No shed blood? No remission of sins. No remission of sins? No regeneration. No regeneration? No NT church.

Amen. Thank you for posting this.

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

25 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

If I may ask, why do you believe this? I ask this sincerely; where does the Bible say that their salvation resulted from faith and keeping the law? 

Indeed, no individual sinner in any time period has ever or will ever be saved through any level of works.  Indeed, no individual sinner in any time period has ever or will ever be saved through any other means than through faith.  Any other claim is simply false doctrine.  No individual sinner in any time period has ever or will ever be saved by debt, but only by grace.  Salvation through works of any level is salvation by debt.  Only salvation through faith alone is salvation by grace.  The epistle to the Romans is quite clear on this matter.

[wretched]

5 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

As I come to the forums this morning it is with a certain sense of incredulity and even sadness. I find it quite depressing when I consider how far from biblical truth some posts become. Perhaps my depression is magnified by the realization that the errors, distortions and misunderstanding of scripture are presented by those who call themselves Independent Baptists.

It makes me fear for and wonder what is being taught in Independent Baptist churches in these last days. If the error we see being put forth in these forums is being taught as truth and the "faith once delivered to the saints", then I fear for those who may be exposed to supposed men of God who have the responsibility to know and pass on biblical truth. I am reminded of the Apostle's admonition found in  1Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Perhaps it is best to end this line of thought before I depress others. I had even thought of not posting what I have written so far, but then thought that just maybe someone else having the same thoughts might be encouraged by knowing that they are not alone in their thinking.

I do understand that we are warned that in the last days there will come a falling away, but I find that reading it and actually experiencing it are two quite different things. Perhaps with God's help these realizations I experience this morning will encourage me to still fight on as admonished in: Jude 1:3  Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Please pray for me this morning as I struggle with thoughts of this nature. I know I have strayed from the original topic, but felt that what I have written here is a result of some of the errors posted in this thread.

 

I wouldn't let it bother you Jim. I haven't seen a repeated poster on this forum lately that wasn't a self-described "man of God" in some form or fashion. IOW: an expert that won't be told different. Seems new folks that are not some sort of self described "man of God" with boldness get run off long before they can absorb any teaching or share any thoughts. Seriously, there are now more moderators on this forum than active posters it seems.

The latest thread topics I have seen are peripheral issues and not of the "fundamental" variety so it doesn't help the sharing of ideas when a moderator accuses those who don't see things the way you have been taught of being part of this "falling away". To be blunt Jim, if you think these disagreements are the falling away referenced in 2 Thess 2 then you seriously need to get out of the house more. How could you take the abuse one receives when they really preach the Word on the streets to the lost if you can't handle minor disagreement over minor issues from other believers over the internet without getting depressed? If there is a city of any size where you live, spend a Saturday on main street with Gospel signs and you will see first hand what the falling away really is.

Basically this is a forum full of chiefs without any Indians to teach. Take it all with a grain of salt and realize it is simply a pass-time and not to be taken personally. Narcissism drives depression so the only cure is to think less of ourselves and our opinions and we will be much happier. Remember, depression always results from taking ones self too seriously.

Also keep in mind that by your own admissions you are significantly less traveled than others on this forum so it makes no sense to qualify yourself as some kind of keeper of IFB distinctives or teachings? Having been the member of what? two churches maybe three your entire life? Come on Jim, I doubt you have any idea the variances of belief among fundamental Baptists out there. Doesn't mean they are not saved, not IFB or not sincere. Face it Jim, you have some kooky ideas that most wouldn't consider agreeing with yourself and they have come out at times here. Example: tracing modern "baptist" churches to John the Baptist or your stand on Christmas trees and whatnot. These variances have nothing to do with the virgin Birth, Deity of Christ, new birth, eternal security, etc..and most importantly none of these variances are new. You would think just like them had you been raised in their churches. No? tell me when the last time was that you actually disagreed with and contended with your own pastor?....Exactly. I hope this little illustration helps you understand that IFB covers allot more ground than your little country church teachings.

Because of this I also recommend that we not delude ourselves into thinking we are defending the faith once delivered to the saints in these peripheral debates. On this forum, all we are really defending is our own opinions of these issues. Everyone here claims regeneration and indwelling and study so what gives?  I have read the posts in these latest threads and can see why each party sees the issues differently. I usually don't agree with either side completely to be honest but it is still interesting sometimes and things have been learned that may not otherwise have been. This thread of speculation over how people in the OT, and the Gospels got regenerated (if they did at all) is just that - speculation. Until someone can produce OT (only) Scripture that clearly explains they believed exactly what we believe now (only we do in hindsight-see the difference?) and were regenerated just like us now, this subject will always be speculation, peripheral and of little import for us now.

Perhaps everyone should just relax and try to persuade with Scripture and not emotion.....if the Scripture won't change minds then add some prayer for each other. If that still doesn't work...keep praying. If all else fails perhaps we should prayerfully consider what the opposing opinions are saying and study it out thoroughly. You never know, we may learn something new. At the very least we would be better prepared to attempt correction if we truly researched the matter ourselves (in the Bible and not other men's book opinions) instead of jumping the gun with name calling and accusations.

Just some input from one of the only self described regular joes on this forum.

[Ukulelemike]

I was going to jump in here too, but like Jim, there's a lot of weird stuff. Regeneration before the sacrifice of Christ? By what power? If one was regenerated without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, then there was no reason for Him to come and die for sin.  

[Joe Coley]

brother Jim, this is Pastor Coley, I will not make implications so you can try to figure out who is he referring to. I am not a novice and have been in the ministry and studying this book for 30 years. I have a BA , MA AND 2 PHDS and trashed them all because they were unscriptural as best as I understood. from an IFB school. I haven't bashed anyone here because they disagree with me, my desire was to (be a help and blessing as a teacher of the word. it is however obvious that if I do not agree with the doctrines of this board that I am a heretic , ( them , the some, the they,.....) I have on big boy pants, and have tried to with kindness  say where I stand, and at least promote thought. so I will bow out and find fellowship where it is ok to do so. be blessed brethren . pastor Coley

[swathdiver]

On 6/5/2017 at 5:49 AM, Joe Coley said:

Peter Ruckman was not hyper-dispensational...

Yes he was though he claimed to be against.  In practice he was and his followers still are.  They tear up the NT into little pieces and do violence to the Word of God with all the heresies of Mr. Ruckman.

[No Nicolaitans]

1 hour ago, wretched said:

Basically this is a forum full of chiefs without any Indians to teach. Take it all with a grain of salt and realize it is simply a pass-time and not to be taken personally.

wretched,

I think I "in essence" agree with the idea behind your post. However, I do have one concern...

Unless a post (or thread) is in a section of the forum that's not available for public display, then anyone can read it. Unfortunately, we live in a day and age; in which, many people are searching the internet for answers. So, I see what takes place here as more than a pastime. We often forget that others can also view our interactions...that we're not in a box and secluded from the world.

Then again, even if a post (or thread) is located in a section of the forum that's not available for public display, there are still others who have access to those sections who may not be actively involved...but are still reading and watching. 

We may not realize the importance of what we're doing...or we may forget about it at times (I know I sure do), but our words...whether we realize it or not...are more than just a pastime.

...every idle word will be accounted for.

[weary warrior]

1 hour ago, Joe Coley said:

brother Jim, this is Pastor Coley, I will not make implications so you can try to figure out who is he referring to. I am not a novice and have been in the ministry and studying this book for 30 years. I have a BA , MA AND 2 PHDS and trashed them all because they were unscriptural as best as I understood. from an IFB school. I haven't bashed anyone here because they disagree with me, my desire was to (be a help and blessing as a teacher of the word. it is however obvious that if I do not agree with the doctrines of this board that I am a heretic , ( them , the some, the they,.....) I have on big boy pants, and have tried to with kindness  say where I stand, and at least promote thought. so I will bow out and find fellowship where it is ok to do so. be blessed brethren . pastor Coley

I'm with Brother Coley. I've been on here for a while, but the posts are getting worse and worse these days. If most of what is often taught on here is basic Baptist doctrine, I must not be a true Baptist after all. I don't agree with everything Jim holds, but I do agree that a lot of posts lately have grieved my very soul. If Wretched wants to point his finger in righteouse indignation at me too, so be it. It means nothing. The spirit, much more than the doctrine, is not as it should be. And the doctrine is often ... well...enough of that.

Farewell, Brethren. I don't know what you actually seek, but I truely hope you find it. I do know what I seek, and I just never could find it here. So I'm moving on to where a fight means I'm fighting the actual enemy, not the brethren.

Sincerely,

S. Dewayne Noel