Jump to content
Online Baptist
  • 0

Is there the concept of ther Unversal Church in the Bible?


Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
  • Members
15 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

If an individual holds that the present-day Baptists are the "doctrinal descendants" of the Anabaptists (as I do), then historically they existed BEFORE the reformation.

Which viewpoint do you hold with?

https://www.theopedia.com/baptist

14 hours ago, SureWord said:

The church of the firstborn does exist on earth. I can't even believe I'm hearing this.

As sure as you and I are here on earth we have also already been spiritually raised again, joined with the body of Christ and seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven (Eph. 2:6).

Ephesians 3:10 -To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Is Paul speaking of the church in heaven or the church on earth in that verse revealing these things? He's speaking of both of the present.

Ephesians 1:20-23

[20] Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
[21] Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
[22] And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
[23] Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Christ is presently head over all things to the church presently (vs 22) not just in the future when we all assemble in heaven.

Christ is presently head of the church, presently as in on earth and in heaven.

The "fullness of him that filleth all and all". 

The body of Christ, i.e. the church, fills the whole universe because Christ fills the whole universe. This is an amazing mystery that Paul stated he hoped we could grasp in Ephesians 3:18.

We are not sitting around waiting for death or the Rapture before we are joined to the church of the firstborn in heaven we are already part of it here on earth we are just sojourning in a strange land presently.

By the way, the "general assembly and firstborn in heaven" is the completed church after the Rapture. The epistle of Hebrews is written to the Jews in the last days (Hebrews 1:2). 

 

The true Church of Christ are those in heaven right now and we who are alive here right now!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

Which viewpoint do you hold with?

https://www.theopedia.com/baptist

Using the terminology of the article above, I would be ranked within the 3rd category - "A continuity of Baptist forms of faith through the centuries."  I would contend that Baptists are to be defined, not by their name, but by their belief system.  As such, I would contend that Baptists historically preceded the Reformation, and that Baptists historically are NOT actually Protestants, since they did not "come out" of the Roman Catholic church.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Using the terminology of the article above, I would be ranked within the 3rd category - "A continuity of Baptist forms of faith through the centuries."  I would contend that Baptists are to be defined, not by their name, but by their belief system.  As such, I would contend that Baptists historically preceded the Reformation, and that Baptists historically are NOT actually Protestants, since they did not "come out" of the Roman Catholic church.

I tend to see the Christians in Acts as not being Baptist, but having Baptist like doctrines and practices!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

I tend to see the Christians in Acts as not being Baptist, but having Baptist like doctrines and practices!

Actually, faithful Baptists will have New Testament like doctrines and practices.  The name Baptist as a descriptive for those who hold to "Baptist like doctrines and practices" is a shortened form of the the name AnaBaptist.  The name AnaBaptist means "rebaptizers," and was coined for them by their opponents (primarily the Roman Catholic Church organization).  Historically the "anabaptists" did not take up this name for themselves.  In fact, for quite some time they declared that the term "anabaptist" (rebaptizer) was false descriptive, because they argued that they only administered the FIRST Biblical baptism to believers, and that the previous "baptism" was NO Biblical baptism at all.  (That is -- You cannot REbaptize those who have never truly been Biblically baptized previously.)

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Actually, faithful Baptists will have New Testament like doctrines and practices.  The name Baptist as a descriptive for those who hold to "Baptist like doctrines and practices" is a shortened form of the the name AnaBaptist.  The name AnaBaptist means "rebaptizers," and was coined for them by their opponents (primarily the Roman Catholic Church organization).  Historically the "anabaptists" did not take up this name for themselves.  In fact, for quite some time they declared that the term "anabaptist" (rebaptizer) was false descriptive, because they argued that they only administered the FIRST Biblical baptism to believers, and that the previous "baptism" was NO Biblical baptism at all.  (That is -- You cannot REbaptize those who have never truly been Biblically baptized previously.)

Believe that they were arminians in theology, when did Particular Baptists arise?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
12 minutes ago, Yeshuafan said:

Believe that they were arminians in theology, when did Particular Baptists arise?

Although they were not yet called "Particular Baptists," I believe that Baptists who held to a Calvinistic belief system can historically trace their origins to the rise of Baptists in Great Britain during the early 1600s (as an "outgrowth of English Separatism).  Since I am not Calvinistic in my belief system, I definitely do not trace my Baptist heritage to these Calvinistic Baptists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Although they were not yet called "Particular Baptists," I believe that Baptists who held to a Calvinistic belief system can historically trace their origins to the rise of Baptists in Great Britain during the early 1600s (as an "outgrowth of English Separatism).  Since I am not Calvinistic in my belief system, I definitely do not trace my Baptist heritage to these Calvinistic Baptists.

many of the first settlers that were Baptists seem to have been that though!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

many of the first settlers that were Baptists seem to have been that though!

That is true, because many of the first settlers came out of Great Britain.  However, not ALL of them held to a Calvinistic system of belief.  In fact, although a majority of Baptists in Great Britain held to a Calvinistic system of belief, not ALL of them did either.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
On 12/1/2020 at 5:50 AM, DaChaser said:

There are saved catholics, Methodists, and we Baptists, as all of us saved by same Lord Jesus and by same Grace!

That would be the Church Universal!

Widest circle = Kingdom of God

Circle within that= Family of God- the triune God, His angels and His redeemed children past present and future

Circle within that= Local body of Christ- an assembly of saved, baptised believers covenanted together to carry out the great commandment and commission with Jesus as the Head. Local and visible.

A believer could have membership to the Kingdom and Family.. but not the body. If they join a local body- they have membership to all 3.

When all believers are gathered in the Heavenly Jerusalem.. it will be a local body of all believers in heaven, still gathered, still visible.

I think the majority of believers mix the Family of God up with the body of Christ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, 360watt said:

Widest circle = Kingdom of God

What is the Kingdom of God's dear Son? (See Colossians 1:13)

10 hours ago, 360watt said:

When all believers are gathered in the Heavenly Jerusalem.. it will be [future tense] a local body of all believers in heaven, still gathered, still visible. (words in bold added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Hebrews 12:22-24 -- "But ye are come [present tense, NOT future tense]unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 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, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of abel."

Ephesians 2:5-6 -- "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved:) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit [past tense, not future tense] together [assembled] in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."

(Note: I do NOT hold to the same belief system as DaChaser, but I also cannot agree with your manner of argument against it.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
On 12/4/2020 at 6:45 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

That is true, because many of the first settlers came out of Great Britain.  However, not ALL of them held to a Calvinistic system of belief.  In fact, although a majority of Baptists in Great Britain held to a Calvinistic system of belief, not ALL of them did either.

Yes, as there have always been Calvinists and Free will Baptists!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
11 hours ago, 360watt said:

Widest circle = Kingdom of God

Circle within that= Family of God- the triune God, His angels and His redeemed children past present and future

Circle within that= Local body of Christ- an assembly of saved, baptised believers covenanted together to carry out the great commandment and commission with Jesus as the Head. Local and visible.

A believer could have membership to the Kingdom and Family.. but not the body. If they join a local body- they have membership to all 3.

When all believers are gathered in the Heavenly Jerusalem.. it will be a local body of all believers in heaven, still gathered, still visible.

I think the majority of believers mix the Family of God up with the body of Christ.

The Body and the Bride of Christ is also the Church, which has individual members of it also in local churches!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
11 hours ago, 360watt said:

Widest circle = Kingdom of God

Circle within that= Family of God- the triune God, His angels and His redeemed children past present and future

Circle within that= Local body of Christ- an assembly of saved, baptised believers covenanted together to carry out the great commandment and commission with Jesus as the Head. Local and visible.

A believer could have membership to the Kingdom and Family.. but not the body. If they join a local body- they have membership to all 3.

When all believers are gathered in the Heavenly Jerusalem.. it will be a local body of all believers in heaven, still gathered, still visible.

I think the majority of believers mix the Family of God up with the body of Christ.

The kingdom of God is the spiritual kingdom of God that all believers enter into through the blood of Christ.

The kingdom of heaven is the physical, literal Abrahamic, Davidic kingdom on God on earth  which will have its capital in Jerusalem.

The two kingdoms seem to be different but also overlap and are one. Two aspects of the same kingdom. You can't get one without the other therefore the kingdom of God mostly applies in our age.

The mystery of the kingdom of heaven/God appears to be God's kingdom hear now on earth in which the principalities and powers on high struggle over and the violent seek to take it by force. The son of perdition will seek to usurp it within, I say, the next 10 years.

It is important to note the the church is not the kingdom. This is the heresy the RCC, Calvin, Mormonism, JWs and replacement theologians have taught which has led to hundreds of wars, bloodshed and persecutions of Jews, Christians and pagans.

We believers are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, the bride of Christ which is his body. It's irrelevant that we haven't had our wedding yet. An espousal is as good as a real marriage in the bible.

My guess is the family of God are those not of the bride. OT saints, the righteous who followed the law of God (ex Cornelius) in their hearts before the light of the gospel.

Tribulation saints are not of the bride but perhaps the "virgins" Christ refers to in Matt 25 and Rev. 7.

Angels, cherubs and seraphim are not of the family but are servants and ministers. 

The local church or churches is just a gathering place of professing believers. In Paul's day undoubtedly they were mostly believers but over the last 2000 years the enemy has sowed his tares.

A IFB Baptist Church is a local assembly that resembles most closely what a scriptural, bible believing gathering of professing Christians should look like.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
4 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

SureWord, you said "The local church or churches is just a gathering place of professing believers."

The place where believers gather is usually a building. The local church or churches are the actual believers.

Yeah, a church is the baptized believers that are members. The unsaved that go to be with that church aren't members of it until they they are converted , baptized and voted in to join. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
21 hours ago, SureWord said:

The kingdom of God is the spiritual kingdom of God that all believers enter into through the blood of Christ.

The kingdom of heaven is the physical, literal Abrahamic, Davidic kingdom on God on earth  which will have its capital in Jerusalem.

The two kingdoms seem to be different but also overlap and are one. Two aspects of the same kingdom. You can't get one without the other therefore the kingdom of God mostly applies in our age.

Brother "SureWord,"

I have a question; but I fear that it will move this thread discussion away from its original subject --

Why would you divide and define "the kingdom of God" and "the kingdom of heaven" from one another as if they are different things, or at least as if they have different definitions?

(Note: Through my own study of the gospels, I have come to the conclusion that "the kingdom of God" and "the kingdom of heaven" are precisely the same thing, just two different phrases describing and defining the same kingdom.)

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
15 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "SureWord,"

I have a question; but I fear that it will move this thread discussion away from its original subject --

Why would you divide and define "the kingdom of God" and "the kingdom of heaven" from one another as if they are different things, or at least as if they have different definitions?

(Note: Through my own study of the gospels, I have come to the conclusion that "the kingdom of God" and "the kingdom of heaven" are precisely the same thing, just two different phrases describing and defining the same kingdom.)

The kingdom of heaven is a term exclusively used by Matthew in regards to the literal, physical kingdom promised to Israel except when spoken of as "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" in which case it is that literal kingdom in its spiritual form on earth now. This is the kingdom that mankind has struggled to usurp through politics and religion. Matthew's focus was on the offering of the Abrahamic, Davidic kingdom being offered to the Jews but they missed it because they refused to "seek ye first the kingdom of God" therefore their kingdom went into mystery form (Matt. 13, Romans 11:25) This is a bit hard to comprehend but once we start understanding it more we see why things have been the way they have been with the constant battles in the physical and spiritual realms when it comes to governments and religions over the last 2,000 years. Really, even since the beginning when he made the promise of Genesis 3:15 this battle has been going on.

The kingdom of God is the spiritual kingdom one cannot enter unless he is born again. It is in peace, joy and righteousness in the Holy Ghost (Romans 14:17) not in rules, regulations, standards, church buildings, offices, councils, holy water, beads, papal bulls, holy days, fasting, etc. 

Now there are passages where both the terms kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are used interchangeably and this is because the passages apply to both kingdoms or both aspects (physical and spiritual) of the same kingdom since to eventually enter the literal, physical, kingdom of heaven a man must first be born again into the kingdom of God.

It is of utmost importance not to teach that the church is the kingdom. This always invariably leads to a "one, true Church" mentality or state religion as with the RCC.

Edited by SureWord
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 hours ago, SureWord said:

The kingdom of heaven is a term exclusively used by Matthew in regards to the literal, physical kingdom promised to Israel except when spoken of as "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" in which case it is that literal kingdom in its spiritual form on earth now.

Indeed, the gospel of Matthew is the only book of the Bible wherein we find the phrase, "the kingdom of heaven."  Therein we find that phrase 33 (if my count is correct) times - Matthew 3:2; 4:17; 5:3; 5:10; 5:19 (twice); 5:20; 7:21; 8:11; 10:7; 11:11; 11:12; 13:11; 13:24; 13:31; 13:33; 13:44; 13:45; 13:47; 13:52; 16:19; 18:1; 18:3; 18:4; 18:23; 19:12; 19:14; 19:23; 20:1; 22:2; 23:13; 25:1; 25:14.

In the gospel of Matthew we also find:

1.  The phrase, "the kingdom of God" -- Matthew 6:33; 12:28; 19:24; 21:31; 21:43.

2.  The phrase, "the gospel/word of the kingdom" -- Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 13:19; 24:14.

3.  The phrase, "thy kingdom" -- Matthew 6:10; 20:21.

4.  The phrase, "thine is the kingdom" -- Matthew 6:13.

5.  The phrase, "the children of the kingdom" -- Matthew 8:12; 13:38.

6.  The phrase, "his kingdom" -- Matthew 13:41; 16:28.

7.  The phrase, "the kingdom of their Father" -- Matthew 13:43.

8.  The phrase, "the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" -- Matthew 25:34.

9.  The phrase, "my Father's kingdom" -- Matthew 26:29.

Now, from your postings above, you define "the kingdom of God" as follows:

On 12/7/2020 at 12:27 PM, SureWord said:

The kingdom of God is the spiritual kingdom of God that all believers enter into through the blood of Christ. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Furthermore, you define "the kingdom of heaven" as follows:

On 12/7/2020 at 12:27 PM, SureWord said:

The kingdom of heaven is the physical, literal Abrahamic, Davidic kingdom on God on earth  which will have its capital in Jerusalem. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Then you repeat your definition for "the kingdom of heaven," but also provide an exception to this definition as follows:

11 hours ago, SureWord said:

The kingdom of heaven is a term exclusively used by Matthew in regards to the literal, physical kingdom promised to Israel except when spoken of as "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" in which case it is that literal kingdom in its spiritual form on earth now. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

At least this exception as presented appears to apply unto all of the "kingdom of heaven" uses in Matthew 13 (Matthew 13:11; 13:24; 13:31; 13:33; 13:44; 13:45; 13:47; 13:52).  Even so, this exception in your above definitions raises some questions --

1.  Are there any references other than those in Matthew 13 that you classify as within your "exception"?

2.  Where do you classify the various other phrases concerning "the kingdom" that I have listed above?

(By the way, as best as I can discern, I do not agree with your premises on this matter.)

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members

I know we are presently part of the "assembly and church of the firstborn". I think I made that pretty clear in the verses I posted.

But...

Hebrews is written to Jews IN THE LAST DAYS (Heb. 1:2) so the author of Hebrews is speaking to tribulation saints AFTER the Rapture of the church. Notice also Hebrews 9:28. The author of Hebrews is prophetically speaking to Jews who are close to seeing that assembly in heaven, literally, through martyrdom or through "Christ appearing a second time without sin unto salvation". 

Tribulation saints are not part of the church of the first born since that body will have been completed and raptured out before the "time of Jacob's trouble".

Now, before I'm accused of being a "Hyper" I do not suggest you toss Hebrews out the window as solely tribulation doctrine as Hypers do. There's obviously church age doctrine in the epistle but we better be careful how we doctrinally apply books outside the Pauline epistles to the body of Christ and get our right divisions down pat. 

By the way, Peter preached that they were "in the last days" in Acts 2:19 but none of those things he said were at the door (wonders, signs, vapor, blood, fire, darkness and sackcloth) took place so either Peter was using hyperbole or playing fast and loose with the book of Joel or was completely wrong or he was right but God postponed those things. I say he postponed until the body of Christ is called out. My guess, despite what the scholars say, Hebrews was written around this time (from the time of James to early in Paul's ministry before he received the "revelation of the mystery") therefore has application to the church but ultimately has a future application the the Jews when Peter's message is truly fulfilled.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
5 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, the gospel of Matthew is the only book of the Bible wherein we find the phrase, "the kingdom of heaven."  Therein we find that phrase 33 (if my count is correct) times - Matthew 3:2; 4:17; 5:3; 5:10; 5:19 (twice); 5:20; 7:21; 8:11; 10:7; 11:11; 11:12; 13:11; 13:24; 13:31; 13:33; 13:44; 13:45; 13:47; 13:52; 16:19; 18:1; 18:3; 18:4; 18:23; 19:12; 19:14; 19:23; 20:1; 22:2; 23:13; 25:1; 25:14.

In the gospel of Matthew we also find:

1.  The phrase, "the kingdom of God" -- Matthew 6:33; 12:28; 19:24; 21:31; 21:43.

2.  The phrase, "the gospel/word of the kingdom" -- Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 13:19; 24:14.

3.  The phrase, "thy kingdom" -- Matthew 6:10; 20:21.

4.  The phrase, "thine is the kingdom" -- Matthew 6:13.

5.  The phrase, "the children of the kingdom" -- Matthew 8:12; 13:38.

6.  The phrase, "his kingdom" -- Matthew 13:41; 16:28.

7.  The phrase, "the kingdom of their Father" -- Matthew 13:43.

8.  The phrase, "the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" -- Matthew 25:34.

9.  The phrase, "my Father's kingdom" -- Matthew 26:29.

Now, from your postings above, you define "the kingdom of God" as follows:

Furthermore, you define "the kingdom of heaven" as follows:

Then you repeat your definition for "the kingdom of heaven," but also provide an exception to this definition as follows:

At least this exception as presented appears to apply unto all of the "kingdom of heaven" uses in Matthew 13 (Matthew 13:11; 13:24; 13:31; 13:33; 13:44; 13:45; 13:47; 13:52).  Even so, this exception in your above definitions raises some questions --

1.  Are there any references other than those in Matthew 13 that you classify as within your "exception"?

2.  Where do you classify the various other phrases concerning "the kingdom" that I have listed above?

(By the way, as best as I can discern, I do not agree with your premises on this matter.)

Let me see if I can be more clear. 

1) The kingdom of heaven-physical. Heaven is physical.

2) The kingdom of God-spiritual. God is a spirit. 

The kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:21) not "among you" as the new versions say. That would be the kingdom of heaven.

3) Any other time when the words are used interchangeably then the passage in question applies to BOTH kingdoms.

Christ preached "the kingdom" or "the gospel of the kingdom" because he was preaching both yet the Jews could not grasp the idea of a spiritual kingdom. They wanted their King to be strong, crushing the Gentiles not a meek, sacrificial Lamb. They had no interest in a spiritual kingdom therefore they didn't get their physical kingdom.

Matthew primarily focused on the literal, physical, Abrahamic, Davidic kingdom promised to Israel. When reading his passages concerning the kingdom of heaven they apply to the literal kingdom.

Luke, who was writing to Gentiles, was focused on the spiritual aspect of the kingdom since Gentiles were not promised a literal kingdom.

Again, when the passages use interchanging terms it's because the Holy Spirit is showing the verses apply to both kingdoms.

But like I mentioned above, only the kingdom of God is within you. 

The "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" is a whole 'nuther ball game. A little more difficult to understand because a careful reading of the scriptures suggest it is God's kingdom on earth now in a mystery or hidden form and that both the children of God and the children of the wicked one reside within it until the Second Coming (Rev. 11:15). No unsaved reside within the kingdom of God for you can only enter that kingdom via the new birth. I believe this is the kingdom, the present kingdom of heaven in mystery form, Christ was referring to that the violent seek to take by force (Matthew 11:12) and is also the mustard tree that has birds (devils) perched on its branches. I admit some of doctrinal implications  of these verses are deep and I do not fully have a grasp on them yet.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, SureWord said:

Hebrews is written to Jews IN THE LAST DAYS (Heb. 1:2) so the author of Hebrews is speaking to tribulation saints AFTER the Rapture of the church. Notice also Hebrews 9:28. The author of Hebrews is prophetically speaking to Jews who are close to seeing that assembly in heaven, literally, through martyrdom or through "Christ appearing a second time without sin unto salvation". 

Tribulation saints are not part of the church of the first born since that body will have been completed and raptured out before the "time of Jacob's trouble".

Yet as I presented above, I completely disagree with your viewpoint concerning the epistle to the Hebrews.  Now, your viewpoint seems to be primarily founded upon the usage of the phrase "last days" in Hebrews 1:2.  So, let us consider the contextual meaning of that phrase in that verse.  

Hebrews 1:2 is a part of a single, long sentence that extends from verse 1 to verse 4.  Grammatically, the main subject of this sentence is the word "God" at the beginning of Hebrews 1:1.  Grammatically, the main verb of this sentence includes the words "hath" and "spoken" in the beginning portion of Hebrews 1:2.  Grammatically, the whole independent clause of this sentence is as follows:

"God . . . hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son."

All of the remaining portion of Hebrews 1:1-4 presents four dependent clauses that serve to modify the main, independent clause above.  The first of these dependent clauses begins with the relative pronoun "who" in Hebrews 1:1 and extends to the end of the verse.  Grammatically, the antecedent for this pronoun "who" is the word "God," and thus this dependent clause provides a description for God.  The second of these dependent clauses begins with the first relative pronoun "whom" in Hebrews 1:2.  The third of these dependent clauses begins with the second relative pronoun "whom" (serving as the object of the prepositional phrase "by whom") in Hebrews 1:2.  Finally, the fourth of these dependent clauses begins with the relative pronoun "who" at the beginning of Hebrews 1:3, and extends throughout the entirety of verses 3-4.  In every case of the second, third, and fourth dependent clauses, the relative pronoun finds its antecedent in the word "Son" from Hebrews 1:2; and thus each of these three dependent clauses provides a description for God's Son.

Now, since the matter in question concerns the time description "last days," the last three dependent clauses of the sentence really have no relevance to that question.  On the other hand, the first dependent clause of the sentence does have relevance to the question since it also includes a contrasting time description to that of the phrase "last days."  This first dependent clause is as follows:

"who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets."

Grammatically, the subject of this dependent clause is the relative pronoun "who;" and as I have mentioned above, the antecedent to this relative pronoun is "God."  Grammatically, the verb of this dependent clause is the word "spake."  Even so, we notice that this relative clause and the main, independent clause are both telling us something about God's action of speaking.  Furthermore, we notice that in both of these clauses the verbs are presented in the past tense, which indicates that the action of God's speaking about which the sentence is concerned is speaking that was in the past from the perspective of the epistle's writing.  What then do these two clause tell us about this matter of God's speaking?

1.  Who (God) spake -
     a.  at sundry times
     b.  and in divers manners
     c.  in time past
     d.  unto the fathers
     e.  by the prophets

2.  God . . . hath . . . spoken -
     a.  in these last days
     b.  unto us
     c.  by his Son

Herein we take notice of three contrasts between these two statements.  First, there is a contrast in the timing of God's speaking.  This contrast is "at sundry times . . . in time past" with "in these last days."  Second, there is a contrast in the audience of God's speaking.  This contrast is "unto the fathers" with "unto us."  Third, there is a contrast in the manner of God's speaking.  This contrast is "in divers manners . . . by the prophets" with "by his Son."  

Now, the contrast in the timing of God's speaking helps us in discerning the contextual meaning for the phrase "last days," for it indicates that "these last days" are viewed in contrast to the "time past."  Furthermore, the descriptive modifiers in the dependent clause, "unto the fathers by the prophets," help us in discerning the contextual meaning for the phrase "in time past;" for it reveals that the "time past" in this context is to be understand as that time period wherein God spoke unto the Jewish fathers by means of the Jewish prophets.  Thus we understand that the "time past" in this context is a reference unto the time of the Old Testament.  Finally, the descriptive modifiers in the main, independent clause, "unto us by his Son," help us to discern the specific manner in which "these last days" are set in contrast to the "time past" (the time of the Old Testament).  When hath God (past tense) spoken "unto us by his Son" (in contrast to His speaking by the Old Testament prophets)?  He hath (past tense) done so through the incarnation of God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, which actually served as the BEGINNING of the time of the New Testament. 

Even so, the epistle to the Hebrews was NOT at all written to Jewish believers during the time of the Tribulation Period.  Rather, it was written to Jewish believers during the time of the BEGINNING of the New Testament, that is -- the BEGINNING of the New Testament church age.  Indeed, I would contend that your viewpoint concerning the epistle to the Hebrews will distort the Holy Spirit's inspired purpose and doctrine of the epistle.

4 hours ago, SureWord said:

Notice also Hebrews 9:28.

Now, I must apologize at this point; for I really am not able to discern the relevance of Hebrews 9:28 to the question at hand.  I would need you to explain your viewpoint further concerning this verse and its relevance.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, SureWord said:

By the way, Peter preached that they were "in the last days" in Acts 2:19 but none of those things he said were at the door (wonders, signs, vapor, blood, fire, darkness and sackcloth) took place so either Peter was using hyperbole or playing fast and loose with the book of Joel or was completely wrong or he was right but God postponed those things. I say he postponed until the body of Christ is called out. 

Well, let us consider what Peter actually said in relation to what you say about what he said.

First, Peter did not say anything about something being "at the door."  In Acts 2:14-36 Peter did not used the phrase "at the door" or anything similar to that phrase.

Second, in Acts 2:16 Peter did say the following, "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel."  In the context Peter's pronoun "this" refers back to the filling of the Holy Spirit, the "speaking with other tongues," the amazement of the people, and the mocking accusation that these preachers were "full of new wine."

Third, in Acts 2:17-21 Peter quoted the prophet Joel as follows, "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, . . .
     (1)  I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: . . .
     (2)  and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
     (3)  and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
     (4)  and I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
     (5)  and it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Fourth, you stated that "none of those things he [Peter] said were at the door (wonders, signs, vapor, blood, fire, darkness and sackcloth) took place."  It is interesting that in your explanatory parenthetical you only mentioned the wonders, signs, vapor, fire, darkness.  (By the way, Peter never mentioned "sackcloth.")  Now, you are correct that those things have not yet happened.  However, those things are NOT all that Peter mentioned, are they?  Peter ALSO mentioned the pouring out of Gods Spirit upon all flesh, on His servants and handmaidens, with the result that they would prophesy.   So, is it actually true that NONE of the things Peter quoted from the prophet Joel took place?  NO, it is NOT true.  Some of those things MOST CERTAINLY DID take place.  Indeed, they took place ON THAT VERY DAY, the Day of Pentecost.  What was it that took place?  God did indeed pour out of His Spirit upon all flesh, on his servants and handmaidens; and they did indeed prophesy in His name under His Spirit's power.  In fact, Peter himself revealed that this was the point of his quote; for in Acts 2:32-33 he said -- "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.  Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth THIS [the same contextual usage for the pronoun "this" as is found in Acts 2:16], which ye NOW see and hear."

Indeed, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit by the hand of God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, at the authority of God the Father was (and is) the evidence that "the last days," the time of the New Testament, had already begun.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
On 12/9/2020 at 10:36 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Well, let us consider what Peter actually said in relation to what you say about what he said.

First, Peter did not say anything about something being "at the door."  In Acts 2:14-36 Peter did not used the phrase "at the door" or anything similar to that phrase.

Second, in Acts 2:16 Peter did say the following, "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel."  In the context Peter's pronoun "this" refers back to the filling of the Holy Spirit, the "speaking with other tongues," the amazement of the people, and the mocking accusation that these preachers were "full of new wine."

Third, in Acts 2:17-21 Peter quoted the prophet Joel as follows, "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, . . .
     (1)  I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: . . .
     (2)  and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
     (3)  and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
     (4)  and I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
     (5)  and it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Fourth, you stated that "none of those things he [Peter] said were at the door (wonders, signs, vapor, blood, fire, darkness and sackcloth) took place."  It is interesting that in your explanatory parenthetical you only mentioned the wonders, signs, vapor, fire, darkness.  (By the way, Peter never mentioned "sackcloth.")  Now, you are correct that those things have not yet happened.  However, those things are NOT all that Peter mentioned, are they?  Peter ALSO mentioned the pouring out of Gods Spirit upon all flesh, on His servants and handmaidens, with the result that they would prophesy.   So, is it actually true that NONE of the things Peter quoted from the prophet Joel took place?  NO, it is NOT true.  Some of those things MOST CERTAINLY DID take place.  Indeed, they took place ON THAT VERY DAY, the Day of Pentecost.  What was it that took place?  God did indeed pour out of His Spirit upon all flesh, on his servants and handmaidens; and they did indeed prophesy in His name under His Spirit's power.  In fact, Peter himself revealed that this was the point of his quote; for in Acts 2:32-33 he said -- "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.  Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth THIS [the same contextual usage for the pronoun "this" as is found in Acts 2:16], which ye NOW see and hear."

Indeed, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit by the hand of God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, at the authority of God the Father was (and is) the evidence that "the last days," the time of the New Testament, had already begun.  

 

Brother, I just don't have time to go through your post more in detail but I will quote what Peter said:

"But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel"

1) What is "this"?

The event that was happening at that moment when the Spirit was poured out upon them.

2) What is "that"?

All the events mentioned by Joel that Peter quotes. 

It can't be anymore clearer.

Peter clearly was saying that the events of Joel, including the signs and wonders in heaven, were imminent. 

As far as "sackcloth" you are correct in that Peter did not use that term but he did say "darkness" and this will occur during the same event. As John prophedied in Rev. 6:12 it will be "blackness of sackcloth" in Rev. 6:12.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
57 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Brother, I just don't have time to go through your post more in detail but I will quote what Peter said:

"But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel"

1) What is "this"?

The event that was happening at that moment when the Spirit was poured out upon them.

Correct, even as I presented in my posting above:

On 12/9/2020 at 10:36 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

In the context Peter's pronoun "this" refers back to the filling of the Holy Spirit, the "speaking with other tongues," the amazement of the people, and the mocking accusation that these preachers were "full of new wine."

________________________________________

57 minutes ago, SureWord said:

2) What is "that"?

All the events mentioned by Joel that Peter quotes. 

Correct again.  The "that" is further modified as "that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;" and the quotation that follows encompasses all of Joel 2:28-32 except the second half of Joel 2:32, even as I presented in my posting above:

On 12/9/2020 at 10:36 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Third, in Acts 2:17-21 Peter quoted the prophet Joel as follows, "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, . . .
     (1)  I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: . . .
     (2)  and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
     (3)  and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
     (4)  and I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
     (5)  and it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

________________________________________

57 minutes ago, SureWord said:

It can't be anymore clearer.

Peter clearly was saying that the events of Joel, including the signs and wonders in heaven, were imminent. 

But this is where you have it incorrect.  The word "imminent" means "likely to happen without delay; impending; threatening."  However, Peter was not quoting Joel in order to give evidence for something that was about to happen (in the close future, without delay).  Rather, Peter was quoting Joel in order to give evidence for something that was happening at that very time (in the very present).  He said, "This IS [present tense] that."  Furthermore, in Acts 2:32-33 Peter indicated that the "this" was something that those in his audience were "NOW" (present tense) seeing and hearing, even as I presented in my posting above:

On 12/9/2020 at 10:36 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

In fact, Peter himself revealed that this was the point of his quote; for in Acts 2:32-33 he said -- "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.  Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth THIS [the same contextual usage for the pronoun "this" as is found in Acts 2:16], which ye NOW see and hear."

Peter was NOT talking about something from Joel's prophecy that was imminent.  Rather, Peter was talking about something in Joel's prophecy that was happening at that very time before their very eyes.

________________________________________

And such is the reason for my original complaint against your posting.  In your earlier posting you had said the following:

On 12/9/2020 at 5:28 PM, SureWord said:

By the way, Peter preached that they were "in the last days" in Acts 2:19 but none of those things he said were at the door (wonders, signs, vapor, blood, fire, darkness and sackcloth) took place so either Peter was using hyperbole or playing fast and loose with the book of Joel or was completely wrong or he was right but God postponed those things. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Saying that NONE of those things which were quoted from Joel's prophesy took place is simply a falsehood, even as I presented in my posting above:

On 12/9/2020 at 10:36 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So, is it actually true that NONE of the things Peter quoted from the prophet Joel took place?  NO, it is NOT true.  Some of those things MOST CERTAINLY DID take place.  Indeed, they took place ON THAT VERY DAY, the Day of Pentecost.  What was it that took place?  God did indeed pour out of His Spirit upon all flesh, on his servants and handmaidens; and they did indeed prophesy in His name under His Spirit's power.  In fact, Peter himself revealed that this was the point of his quote; for in Acts 2:32-33 he said -- "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.  Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth THIS [the same contextual usage for the pronoun "this" as is found in Acts 2:16], which ye NOW see and hear."

Indeed, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit by the hand of God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, at the authority of God the Father was (and is) the evidence that "the last days," the time of the New Testament, had already begun.  

Here then is the truth of Joel's prophesy as quoted by Peter.  The evidence that "the last days," the time of the New Testament, has already begun is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit throughout the time of the New Testament church.  The evidence that "the last days" are drawing to a conclusion will be the "wonders in heaven above" and the "signs in the earth beneath," the "blood, and fire, and vapour, and smoke," the sun turning "into darkness, and the moon turning "into blood."  Furthermore, these particular wonders and signs will occur just before the coming of "that great and notable day of the Lord."  

Even so, we are already in the time of the "last days;" for the "last days" ARE the time of the New Testament.  Indeed, the "last days" encompass the entirety of the New Testament church age; for the time of the New Testament BEGAN with the first coming of God the Son, Jesus the Christ.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 12/9/2020 at 6:04 PM, SureWord said:

Let me see if I can be more clear. 

Brother "SureWord,"

I thank you for your efforts to be more clear concerning your position on the differences between "the kingdom of heaven" and "the kingdom of God."  However, your posting did not actually answer the questions for which I am seeking answers.  Thus I shall slow down and begin to ask my questions one at a time.

In your postings and explanations above, you have indicated your viewpoint that "the kingdom of heaven" is "the physical, literal Abrahamic, Davidic kingdom of God on earth."  Furthermore, you have indicated your viewpoint that "the kingdom of God" is "the spiritual kingdom of God that all believers enter into through the blood of Christ."  Finally, you have indicated your viewpoint that "the mystery kingdom" is the "literal kingdom [the kingdom of heaven] in its spiritual form on earth now."

Here then is my first question -- Since in your viewpoint "the kingdom of God" is a "spiritual" kingdom, and since in your viewpoint "the mystery kingdom" is a "spiritual form" of "the kingdom of heaven," would this mean in your viewpoint that "the kingdom of God" and "the mystery kingdom" are equivalent (the same) to one another?  

(Note: If your answer to the question above is negative, then I would further request an explanation as to their differences in your viewpoint.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 12/9/2020 at 6:04 PM, SureWord said:

Let me see if I can be more clear. 

1) The kingdom of heaven-physical. Heaven is physical.

2) The kingdom of God-spiritual. God is a spirit. 

Brother "SureWord,"

In the quote above your provide your evidence that "the kingdom of heaven" is "physical" - because "heaven is physical."

First, I would ask if you have any other Biblical evidence for your viewpoint that "the kingdom of heaven" is "physical."

Second, I would contend that you are incorrect about the nature of heaven.  Heaven is not physical.  Heaven is spiritual.  Heaven is the habitation of spiritual beings.  God is a spirit (as you mention in your quote above).  The angels are spirit-beings.  The believers who are now dead and in heaven are there in spirit-form, for the resurrection of their bodies has not yet occurred.  In fact, even in the resurrection of believers, according to 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, our bodies that are "sown" as "a natural [physical] body" will be raised as "a spiritual body."  ("So also is the resurrection of the dead.  It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual bodyThere is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.")

Since I cannot agree that "heaven is physical," using such as evidence that "the kingdom of heaven" is "physical" is empty evidence from my perspective.  Thus I request some other Biblical evidence for your viewpoint on the matter.

Actually, if I take up your presented manner of evidence, I would be compelled to view the matter as follows:

1) The kingdom of heaven-spiritual: because heaven is spiritual.
2) The kingdom of God-spiritual: because God is a spirit.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 29 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...