wretched

You are hitting the leftist nail on its head my friend:

Trump Derangement or something much darker?

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 6:39 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "Wretched,"

Well now, that changes my perspective on your position somewhat.  However, it also leaves me a little uncertain of it also.  Furthermore, it appears that I may need to explain my position a little better.  Even so, I believe that this discussion involves three different "works" of the Holy Spirit in relation to believers, as follows:

1.  The regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, whereby a believer is born again spiritually so that the old spirit which was "dead in trespasses and sins" is removed and so that a new spirit which is created after God replaces the old.  I believe that this work of the Holy Spirit is eternally permanent for whomever experiences it.  Furthermore, I believe that this work of the Holy Spirit was experienced by Old Testament believers and is experienced by New Testament Church believers.

I agree with objections (is that allowed?). But please bear in mind, it is mainly due to the lack of matching wording: there doesn't seem to be much objective evidence of this occurring in OT believers from a strictly verbiage standpoint. No passage indicates it "clearly" in wording IMO. Albeit, I do concede that you may be correct in this from the standpoint of descriptive similarities in the "end result" of what actually happened with believers in the OT and NT. 

2.  The infilling work of the Holy Spirit, whereby a believer is governed and empowered by the directing influence of the Holy Spirit so as to accomplish God's will.  I believe that this work of the Holy Spirit is a temporary work that is not automatically permanent.  Furthermore, I believe that this work of the Holy Spirit was experience by some Old Testament believers in order to perform a "special" calling for the Lord.  On the other hand, I believe that this work of the Holy Spirit is available unto all New Testament Church believers, as we deny the lusts of our selfish flesh and submit under the direction of the Holy Spirit.  As such, I believe that this work of the Holy Spirit can "come and ago" for a New Testament Church believer, based upon that believer's choice to deny self and submit unto the Spirit.

This seems reasonable to me Bro Scott.

3.  The indwelling-sealing work of the Holy Spirit, whereby a believer experiences the holy influence of the Holy Spirit from within and in union with his or her regenerated spirit so that the believer continually experiences a divine "draw" from within toward the objective of transformation unto perfect Christ-likeness.  Furthermore, I believe that this work of the Holy Spirit was never available unto any Old Testament believers.  Rather, I believe that this work of the Holy Spirit is only experienced by New Testament Church believers, that it began to be experienced by New Testament Church believers on the day of Pentecost, that since the day of Pentecost it is initiated for a New Testament Church believer at the moment of regeneration, and that it is a permanent work of the Holy Spirit for all New Testament Church believers.

I absolutely agree on this point (no objections)

Now, Brother "Wretched," I must ask for you to reveal wherein you agree and wherein you disagree with my position as presented above.

Furthermore, I would ask WHY you do not believe that Old Testament believers were regenerated - if indeed you believe that the regenerating work and the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit are distinctly different works.

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "Wretched,"

As I have indicated before in relation to this disagreement between us, I believe that you have a wrong premise in this matter of doctrine -- in that you view the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit as being inseparably joined together.

Certainly, John 14:13-19, 25-26; John 15:25-27; and John 16:7-16 all speak concerning the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit.  As such, they speak concerning the comforting work, the relational work (of spiritual fellowship with the Father and the Son), the teaching work, the testifying work, the empowering work (for faithful witnessing), the guiding work, and the glorifying work which is involved in the Holy Spirit's indwelling work.  However, none of these passages specifically references the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.  Rather, the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is specifically referenced in John 3:3-21, wherein the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit is not at all referenced. 

Therefore, all of the differences between us on this matter flow out of the difference in this premise -- whether the regenerating work and indwelling work of the Holy Spirit are inseparably joined, or whether the regenerating work and indwelling work of the Holy Spirit are distinctly different. 

(Note: Although I believe that the regenerating work and indwelling work of the Holy Spirit are distinctly different, I do recognize that for the church age since the day of Pentecost the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit does indeed initiate the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit for the New Testament believer.  However, because I believe that the regenerating work and indwelling work of the Holy Spirit are distinctly different, I can further believe that Old Testament believers were indeed regenerated by the work of the Holy Spirit without ever receiving the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit at all, and that this could also be true for the Lord's disciples before the day of Pentecost.)

Concerning Luke 22:31-35, I have also indicated before in relation to this disagreement between us my belief that you have a wrong premise concerning the Biblical usage for the word "convert."  You appear to believe that the word "convert" is only used Biblically for the work of eternal salvation.  However, I have contended in the past that the word "convert" simply means to turn back from a wrong path, and that it is used Biblically both in relation to unbelievers coming to eternal salvation through repentance and faith and in relation to believers coming to restored fellowship through repentance and faith.

In James 5:19-20 God's Word uses the word "covert" in relation to a believer, saying, "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."  Herein the one who needs to be converted is one who has erred "from the truth."  Furthermore, this one who has erred "from the truth" is defined as one of those whom James calls "brethren."  James is speaking to fellow believers concerning one of them as believers erring "from the truth" and needing to be converted (turned) back "from the error of his way" unto a restored walk in the way of truth.  (As such, James 5:19-20 would be speaking concerning the same need as Galatians 6:1.)  Finally, if a fellow believer is able to convert the sinning believer "from the error of his way," then that believer will have saved the sinning believer, not from the judgment of hell, but from the Lord's chastening unto death; and thereby he shall "hide a multitude of sins" from occurring in the sinning believer's life by turning him back from the way of sin and thus preventing him from further engagement in sin.

Brother "Wretched," concerning your indication that there is no point in arguing, you are correct that neither of us will move from our doctrinal position in this matter until one or the other of us changes on the points of doctrinal premise.  However, for the sake of the audience, I still believe that there may be a need for a Biblical presentation to combat what I believe is false doctrine on your part (just as I expect that you might choose to do in relation to what you believe is false doctrine on my part).

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

As has occurred in past discussions between Brother "Wretched" and myself, I am compelled to disagree with his position that the apostles were not regenerated until the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

In John 17 our Lord Jesus Christ delivered a prayer unto the Father on the night before His crucifixion.  Within that prayer in John 17:14-16, our Lord made the following statement concerning His disciples, "I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.  I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.  They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."  Twice in this passage our Lord declared that His disciples were not of (that is -- out of as a source) this world in the same manner as He Himself was not of this world.

So then, in what manner was our Lord Jesus Christ not out of this world?  We find the answer in John 8:23-24, 39-47.  In this passage our Lord Jesus Christ engaged in a discussion of rebuke against the Pharisees and scribes.  In John 8:23 He declared in rebuke unto them, "Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world."  Herein our Lord delivered two parallel statements of contrast.  Against the Pharisees and scribes, He proclaimed that they were "from beneath" and that they were "of this world."  As such, we can conclude that to be "of this world" means also to be "from beneath."  However, in contrast our Lord proclaimed that He Himself was "from above" and "not of this world."  As such, we can conclude that to be "not of the world" just as our Lord was "not of the world" means to be "from above" instead.  Even so, since the disciples were "not of the world" as the Lord was "not of the world," they were instead "from above" as He was "from above."  So then, what is the only way for a lost sinner to be "from above"?  Answer -- to be "born of God," to be "born again."

Furthermore, in John 8:42 our Lord Jesus Christ declared in rebuke against the Pharisees and scribes, "If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me."  As such, we can further conclude that to be "of this world" means, not only to be "from beneath," but also to not possess God as one's heavenly Father.  Again in the opening portion of John 8:44, our Lord Jesus Christ declared in rebuke against them, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do."  As such, we can further conclude that to be "of this world" means to be "from beneath," to not possess God as one's heavenly Father, but to possess the devil as one's spiritual father.  Finally, in John 8:47 our Lord Jesus Christ declared in rebuke against them, "He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."  As such, we can further conclude that to be "of this world" is to not be "of God."

Yet our Lord Jesus Christ was "not of this world," but was "from above" (as per His declaration in John 8:23).  Even so, He was the spiritual opposite of these Pharisees and scribes against which He was delivering His rebuke.  He was indeed "of God," and God the Father was indeed His heavenly Father.  In like manner, His disciples, who were "not of the world" just as He was "not of the world," must also have been indeed "of God" with God the Father as their heavenly Father.  So then again, what is the only way for a lost sinner to be "of God" with God the Father as his or her heavenly Father?  Answer -- to be "born of God," to be "born again."  In fact, to deny that they were "born of God" is to deny every occasion wherein our Lord Jesus Christ referred to the Father as their heavenly Father.

12 hours ago, swathdiver said:

No Wretched, the matter is settled forever with me, I don't need to study that again.  You take the hyper-dispensational line which I reject completely as heresy.  I studied Ruckmanite teachings for several years and found them at odds with God's Word, I must reject them too as heresy.  But don't get me wrong, even a broken clock is right twice a day.  The Apostles were unregenerate?  Now that's a new one!

Read John 14: 13-19 & 25,26; then read John 15:25, 26; then John 16: 7-12; then Luke 22:31-35 and then think to yourself for a moment. When could this comforter coming event have happened within the remainder of the Bible? No other place than Acts chapter 2. The Spirit's pouring out is obviously far more crucial than simply "empowering the church".

Have you ever wondered why Peter denied the Lord 3 times, cursing and swearing? Ever wonder why all of His disciples lost all hope at His crucifixion, ran and hid? Seems unfathomable to a regenerated, sealed believer who possesses the Spirit of Truth in them, doesn't it. And these were His chosen Apostles to boot. It is because their faith was temporary and dependent upon sight and signs and miracles from God as throughout the OT. They were not converted, regenerated or sealed until the day of Pentecost. That is when all believers became born again, immediately there in the assembly and as the newly born Christians spread the Spirit spread with them and all who believed were regenerated from that point on. That is when the local church in Jerusalem cut the tape, that is when the followers began to truly understand the truth, that is when the world was turned upside down and not one second before it.

One thing I've noticed with these Ruckmanites, for the most part they're quite prideful and sincere in their belief that they can better "Rightly Divide" the scriptures than the average ho-hum baptist.  Now if they'd only follow Paul and humble themselves.  Ruckman was a deceived man who attempted to apply Protestant church/bible doctrines with the King James Bible within Independent Baptists; another bridge builder to the one world church.  

These are commonalities between all "ites". They are incapable of independent worship, study and decision making. I am nearly certain that most of these "ites" of any persuasion are what the Lord referred to as tares mixed into the wheat. They worship and serve the creature (pastors) more than the Creator. They care what the pastors and church members think of them more than the Lord. 

 

52 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

Wretched misses all the actions taken by the members of the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem, they were fully set up and functional and even voted in a new member before Pentecost.  

Ruckmanites believe in the universal, invisible church.  Wretched's is wrong again and the church was already in existence when the Lord talked about Peter, the rock and the building of his church.  Jesus said HE would build the church, and he did so during his earthly ministry.  Pentecost was just the Holy Ghost empowering the church as He did with the tabernacle and temple.  It's not that complicated folks.

Study Acts 1 and 2 more closely and you will see that you are wrong with this notion that the church was established with elders, ordinances, discipline, or anything else before our Lord's ascension and the day of Pentecost. The local NT church organized and became functional afterwards, not before. BTW, they voted on a new Apostle to replace Judas in chapter one not a church member?? Mattias was already present and numbered with the 120 which was obviously of the flesh and not of God. They jumped the gun without any authority. Only God chose Apostles. But how could they know any better, they were still unregenerate at the time. Just 40 days before they were down in the dumps, broken and broken hearted over our Lord's death. They had no clue what the Lord's mission on earth had been at all.

This ruckamite nonsense gets old guy and seems to be your only argument (with everyone who bothers to entertain your arguments) whenever you can't understand Scripture. Most of the time I doubt you have any idea who ruckman or any other person is whom you reference when you are over your head.

14 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Wretched,

I have to wonder just what kind of Independent Baptist Church you attend. Independent Baptists have, always denied the existence of a universal church.

To be frank with you I can't remember anyone preaching on this type of subject in the 20 some IFB churches I have been a member of throughout the world.  How many IFB churches have you been a member of Jim? And did they specifically care about this topic? I am guessing so since you made this statement. Just because the churches you have known have preached on it, doesn't make it correct or even Scriptural for one and for two it certainly doesn't speak to what other IFB churches preach on it. Although let me reiterate that I have never actually heard anyone preach on it either for or against.

I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth; I have never believed in a universal church, no such church is mentioned in Scripture.

Quite the contrary Jim. Most of the Scriptures you site as when the local NT church began reference no actual NT local church (if so what town was it in??) so you are either claiming a universal church exists or you are misinterpreting the Scriptures: Which is it?

You deny almost every point I made, but provide no scripture to back your claims.

The Scriptures taken in context that you site as evidence denies your associated commentary with them Jim as I state in each denial. I was simply checking your Scripture in context.

Two or three gathered together is not a church. Jesus did promise to be in their midst, but this is not teaching that they were a church. You and I can gather together for something such as prayer or soul winning, this does not make us a church. We would even be from different churches, so this is not (A) church.

In your previous point #2 you use Matt 18:15-19 as evidence that the local NT church existed during Christ's earthly ministry. Verse 20 in that context (the very next verse) reveals that our Lord was referenced when 2 or 3 people are gathered, He is in the midst. Doesn't say the First Baptist of Jerusalem or give any other location. Nor does any of your other points "evidence" EXCEPT when we get to Acts and Pentecost and the first local NT church ever recorded in Scripture in Jerusalem. After this point in Scripture, every single local NT church is NAMED Jim (think about it). Prior to that Jesus referred to all believers everywhere as His Church or Flock or Fold.

I stand by every point in my devotion and have taught this for almost forty years in different Independent Baptist Churches.

And this somehow makes it accurate? That is the problem with traditions of men my friend. Anybody can fall into it.

I think the problem that came about over the liberals using the term universal church is that they don't understand that it only exists to God. Only Jesus can see all His people at once spread out over the globe. The liberals use the term to excuse attendance, giving and working for the Lord at a local NT church. However, just because some seriously in sin Christians and/or religious lost people misuse the term doesn't make it anathema.

When Jesus was here He always referenced all believers as His Church or His Flock or His Fold because that is what all of us are to Him. He establish the local NT church with it offices and ordinances for our growth, service, protection and edification AFTER His departure at the same time He sent His Spirit as our Comforter.

We can disagree, no biggy

49 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Pentecost was the empowering of the already existing church. The disciples were instructed to wait for this empowering. The church was already in existence at pentecost.

The following are some scriptural evidences that the Church did not begin in the days of Abraham, or on the day of Pentecost, but rather during Christ's earthly ministry. The Church clearly existed before the day of Pentecost.

This depends totally on what you are referring to as "the Church" Jim.  Your evidence below applies mainly to the universal church. That is the "church" that God sees. However, the local NT church began at Pentecost.

I do believe that both the universal and the local NT church exists and both are absolutely Scriptural. The universal church is the one that God sees but we cannot. The local NT church is the one we see, join and serve the Lord on earth in and through.

 

1. Jesus Christ said, "I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18) which He did during His earthly ministry.

Indicating the Church was not built yet so this is not evidence of an existing local NT church Jim. However it could be referring to the future first local NT church Peter lead. Of which all others got their start from (hence the Lord's usage of MY CHURCH)

 

2. The authority of disciples was placed in the church during Christ's earthly ministry (Matt. 18:15-19).

Verse 20 explains the context of our Lord's passage here Jim. Not referring to a local NT church as we know it since the Lord says where two or three are gathered, He is in the midst. This refers more to His universal church and not an organized local NT church with offices.

 

3. Jesus sang the praises of God "in the midst of the church" (Heb. 2:12; Matt. 26:30).

The Hebrews passage refers to the universal church again. The second passage is not relevant to this conversation.

 

4. They had a commission to preach the Gospel before Pentecost (Matt. 10:5-7).

Irrelevant to the conversation IMO. But if you insist it is then it is obviously referring to the universal church that only God can see again, not the local NT church

 

5. They had "the keys of the kingdom of heaven", and these were given to His church (Matt. 16:18-19).

Universal reference again, not a local NT church, with offices and stationary, etc.

 

6. They were baptized believers before Pentecost (Matt. 3:5-6; Jn. 4:1).

Irrelevant to the conversation IMO

 

7. They had authority to baptize before Pentecost (Jn. 4:1; Matt. 28:18-20).

Also irrelevant to the conversation (as with 6. above the practice of believers baptism later became a local church ordinance but in no way proves a local NT church existed at this time) there is no other evidence that would indicate it in the context.

 

8. There was an ordination service before Pentecost (Mk. 3:13-14).

Same as 6 and 7 above

 

9. There were apostles before Pentecost; and the office of apostle was a church office (Eph. 4:11; I Cor. 12:28; Lk. 6:12-13).

Same as 6, 7 and 8 above

 

10. They had a church roll of 120 members before Pentecost (Acts 1:15).

2 or 3 assembled together or 120, the Lord was in the midst of them at the time but still no evidence of a local NT church with offices "yet" but read a little further and you will see this was the base from which the first NT local church started from on the day of Pentecost.

 

11. They had the Great Commission before Pentecost (Matt. 28:18-20).

Same as all above.

 

12. About 3000 were added unto His church roll on the day of Pentecost; You cannot add to something that does not already exist Acts 2:41).

The 120 was the base that this passage references as you brought up in point number 10.

 

13. They had a business meeting before Pentecost (Acts 1:23-26).

See 12.

 

14. They had a church treasurer before Pentecost (Jn. 13:29).

LOL

 

15. The ordinance of the Lord's Supper was instituted and observed before Pentecost (Matt. 26:26-30).

As with baptism, the Lord demonstrated what local NT churches were to do after His departure. In no way is this evidence that a local NT church existed at the time.

 

"... that he went into a mountain to pray and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day he called unto him his disciples and of them he chose twelve whom he named apostles. --- Luke 6:12-13.

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles. --- I Corinthians 12:28.

I think your contextual interpretation is off on this one Jim. IMO this means they are the first officers or the first elders or leaders of the first NT local church started on Pentecost. All subsequent offices in this list were not a chronological role call of who got saved or joined the church next but a rank order per say in church offices.

 

Acts clearly to me records the start of the first church at Pentecost. The Lord had risen and poured out the Spirit, elders were established and the assembly was visible and local for the first time. Couldn't have been prior to this because no assembly of believers were based anywhere prior to this nor were any elders established and left behind to lead. The Lord and His Apostles were traveling town to town. IE, to think that the first NT church was before Pentecost is to believe in the universal "church" and not the local NT church as being "the Church".

9 hours ago, Ronda said:

Certainly a person must comprehend that there is an eternal punishment in hell for those who chose not to believe upon Jesus. They are condemned already of they have chosen not to believe (John 3:16-18). I do not contend on that at all dear "Wretched". There is no doubt that a person must realize they are in fact a sinner (as ALL are, Rom. 3:23), and they must realize that salvation entails eternal life WITH CHRIST, as well as no condemnation (once accepting Christ, Rom. 8:1). I do not believe in "watering down the gospel" by any means!!! 

And so I do contend on your assessment (paraphrasing) of the verses I noted. I did not bring them up  for this reason (to quote you):

But, instead I brought them up to show that as brother Jim stated he did not have a particular college degree, he is quite qualified (in the eyes of the Lord, according to scripture) to in fact serve his calling as a preacher. I never at all intended that anyone "need less Scripture and conviction to realize they are" sinners... and I really don't understand how you came to that conclusion after reading brother Jim's post and then reading my post. Sorry... but that wasn't what I was saying at all!

You misunderstand Rhonda. You have my word that I am not sharpshooting anyone. The OP is extremely well thought out and your post to it is also.

My post was just a reminder to all of us to make sure we preach condemnation and hell along with Heaven or the cross is of none effect.

17 minutes ago, Ronda said:

 1 Corinthians 1:26-30 
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption

You bring up really good points Rhonda so I am quoting you just to make a general plea.

To paraphrase what you said about this passage: The despised and base of this world need less Scripture and conviction to realize they are.

The Graham crusades fathered the emerging church hell-less gospel movement IMO. This downward spiral satan has used for some 40-50 years now to deceive millions into head belief (and hell) of the historical facts concerning Jesus' death on the cross.

Please remember that God poured out His Spirit over all flesh to convict the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment to come. Make double sure that Scripture on sin, judgment and hell are clearly presented or the Spirit cannot work and the cross will mean little to them. The Spirit must work with those Scriptures or else we will continue to produce more head believers who never regenerated. Without a Spirit broken heart, then is no salvation.

Will this produce as many "professions", absolutely not; will it produce more real fruit that remains, absolutely yes.

Just a friendly admonition.