InSeasonOut

Can I answer your question with a question?

How are the "tribulation saints" saved after the rapture? Faith alone?

15 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

15  And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

2 hours ago, InSeasonOut said:

(While no one ever goes to heaven apart from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, how his blood is applied differs in each dispensation).

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 7:56 PM, No Nicolaitans said:

Again I humbly ask, why do you believe OT Jews had to keep the law and have faith? Where is the biblical support that Jews were saved by both keeping the law and faith?

Here is my humble answer.

While I agree salvation was by grace through faith before the law was given, but after the law was given, they couldn't just have faith and reject God's commandments. They needed a sin offering , shedding of blood of an animal of some sort to cover their sin. (While no one ever goes to heaven apart from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, how his blood is applied differs in each dispensation).

Galatians 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Exodus 35:1-3 And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them. 2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

This isn't just physical salvation, of staying alive. It was also spiritual. There was no eternal security in under the law in the OT. I support the nation of Israel, and believe they will inherit the land God promised them, but many Jews still went to hell, (and many today as well because they reject Christ, it doesn't matter if they keep the law today). But under OT law, if they died in their sins they went to hell. (not Abraham's Bosom / Paradise).

Psalm 86:13 For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell." - God in his mercy even delivered David from hell. He was a great man of faith, but he transgressed God's law and was in danger of hell. Obeying God's law in the OT had the benefit of giving them material blessings.

Numbers 16:31-35 31 ¶ And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that was under them: 32 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. 33 They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. 34 And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also. 35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.

Leviticus 4:13 And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; 14a 14 When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin...  4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

Levi 5:1-3 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. 2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. 3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty. ... 5:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.

Quick note, God said if a "soul" sin, or a "soul touch..." Their soul is connected to their flesh.

Ezekiel 18:4-5 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
5 ¶ But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,... 18:8-9 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, 9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD. ... 18:13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him. ... 18:18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.

18:19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
24 ¶ But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

It's clear that even they could die in their sins and they would go to hell. They had to keep God's commandments.

Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Pharisee's is a little different situation, but even they said in Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

And actually note that these are Pharisees which believed, meaning in Jesus. But even they were confused about keeping the law... the whole chapter of Acts 15 is pretty much about this... and i'd say more but I hope you get why I say this so far.

Correct. thanks for your concern

15 minutes ago, DaveW said:

How big is the church you go to?

It is really strange that you can't find anyone who wants to go out - I know lots of people just don't care, but even a small church there should be someone.

Is it an IFB church? Or something else? Some churches are not just not interested - might be better to find somewhere else that is interested in the Great Commission?

If you keep at it, maybe someone from your church will eventually join in - they might just see your faithfulness and want some of it.

The church im a part of is so big, a single building cannot contain us.... know what I mean?

I don't go to a "church building" anymore. There was an IFB church I went to a few times that's good, but its an hour away and I can't afford to drive there every week.

Theres been a few churches in town i went to , but in all good conscience cannot attend.

I think I said a few things about it here and elsewhere on this site... I don't remember. But that's all i want to say. I don't feel like, or even feel comfortable talking about it with someone i don't know. Hope you understand. I've only been saved a few years and im just focusing on my relationship with the Lord Jesus.

2 minutes ago, Alan said:

The continuing asking the same questions, in different ways, saying things I did not say (nor hint, nor imply), has not helped my understanding of what you true intentions are at times.  In my thoughts, the bringing up of Acts 7:38, Matthew 10:5 & 6, and the other passages (after the second time they were brought up), indicated to me that you were trying to trap me in my words in order to discredit my belief.

Brother, in no way was this the case. If you look back over the last few posts, you'll see we have a lot of agreements. Sure I ask a lot of questions but I believe they were important to the discussion. Sorry we didn't see that the same way.

16 minutes ago, Alan said:

I never said, "... this is something they are not saying?" I would appreciate it you would not miss-quote me nor add and interpretation to a passage that I did not say, hint, nor imply. I said that the ministry to Israel, the Jews, had no bearing on the issue that the Lord Jesus started the church in the days of His ministry on the earth.

ohhkay... sorry about that. Thanks for clarifying. My point in using Matt. 10 was to say the early church consisted only of Jews. This is an easy fact. The 12 disciples were all Jews. This was all I was saying with this scripture. (but you said : "I feel, that you are trying to get around, or complicate, this doctrine by miss-using typology, Matthew 10:5& 6Acts 1:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 to say something they are not saying " as if you believe otherwise than what the text plainly said. Obviously Jesus had dealings with the Samaritans, but it does not contradict Matt 10, - but anyway this is besides the point.

24 minutes ago, Alan said:

You seem to ignore the purpose of this thread, continually repeat those passages that are not in direct reference to the subject of this thread

Alan, we were on the same page when you said :

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 11:43 PM, Alan said:

Here is the answer to three of your questions:

Then all I said was...

3 hours ago, InSeasonOut said:

I agree with everything on your post above, except I still think we should discuss Acts 7:38 more, in how they were "the church.."

I then gave a sincere and direct response to you, which I thought was relevant. We even had more agreements, even though you misunderstood me, which I pointed out. I then suggested we discuss 7:38 - Was this not okay? I thought it was relevant. It seemed we were making progress, and then I asked you the questions you were yet to answer, since you only answered 3. May I ask you to answer the other ones or is that not okay? I even made a separate thread but you have not answered them there either.

1 hour ago, InSeasonOut said:

1. How are we baptized into "one body" ? (not the church) 2. When did this first happen?

If someone were to ask me that, i would answer : 1 We are baptized into the one body by the Spirit. 2 This first happened on the day of Pentecost

I;m not saying your avoiding these questions... but these were the easiest ones!    :)

35 minutes ago, Alan said:

The issue, in my estimation, is that you need to stop trying to find fault, nor twist my words, in order to try and convince me of your beliefs. I simply believe the words of the Lord Jesus and Paul the apostle.

      :(           I'm not "trying"... if you think this way, sorry, it was a misunderstanding.... just like you misunderstood me, 2 posts ago. It happens.

I can't help but feel like this becoming contentious, like you said you simply believe the words of the Lord Jesus and Paul the apostle ; implying I don't?  :(

5 minutes ago, Alan said:

The definition of the 'church is the wilderness' is a congregation of people (the nation of Israel), called out of Egypt. In the sermon in Acts 7:1-53, Stephen is clearly trying to preach to the unbelieving Jews that they, in numerous incidents, rejected God and His will. Stephen gives the story of Abraham leaving Mesopotamia,  the rejection of Joseph (a type of Christ), Moses, and how they  have now rejected Christ. Stephen is not referring to the New Testament church at all.

Yes i already understand this. I did say Stephen was not referring to the NT church

7 minutes ago, Alan said:

You said, "I believe there is no distinction between OT church and NT church, its just "the church" (by definition). When Jesus began to "build" the church in his ministry, it only consisted of Israel, (Matthew 10:5-6). Then after Jesus died on the cross and rose again, this event made it possible for the church to become "the body" (Ephesians 2:16) at Pentecost - Comparing Acts 1:5 with 1 Corinthians 12:13. Allowing both Jews and Gentiles to be the church." This is partially true and partially false. Pentecost was not the time that it was possible to be a part of the body of Christ; at the moment of the death of Christ it was possible

Correct.... you misunderstood me.... Yes "at the moment of the death of Christ it was possible" ; "to be a part of the body of Christ" .... but that did not actually happen UNTIL Pentecost, in other words, AT Penetecost, even though as Eph. 2:16 says it was made possible by the Cross.

10 minutes ago, Alan said:

I you read the whole passage of Ephesians 2:1-22 you will discover a great fact: "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far  off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us." Ephesians 2:13 & 14 When the Lord Jesus shed His blood on Calvary, at that point, the Law, the Old Testament, was abolished. The Law, the Old Testament, was abolished at the ministry of the Lord Jesus at the cross of Calvary and the New Covenant, the New Testament, began.

Absolutely

13 minutes ago, Alan said:

You referenced Ephesians 2:16 but you did not reference Ephesians 2:20. Ephesians 2:20 is the thrust of this thread. This thread is simply that the Lord Jesus is the 'head,' the 'beginning,' the 'cornerstone,' of the church as Paul said in Ephesians 2:20 Sometimes, I feel, that you are trying to get around, or complicate, this doctrine by miss-using typology, Matthew 10:5& 6Acts 1:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 to say something they are not saying

Ephesians 2:16-20, is basically in short summary, saying Jews and Gentiles are now one body, made possible by the cross.

19-20 "Now therefore ye (Gentiles) are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; "

Let me quote theses scriptures and so, in response you can elaborate...

Matthew 10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

What im saying is Jesus did not go to Samaritans or Gentiles , only to Israel - Just as the text says - but you said this is something they are not saying?

1 Corinthians 12:13  For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

This deals with a question i asked, which you are yet to answer.... 1. How are we baptized into "one body" ? (not the church) 2. When did this first happen?

If someone were to ask me that, i would answer : 1 We are baptized into the one body by the Spirit. 2 This first happened on the day of Pentecost.

And let me remind you, that you have just said :

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 11:43 PM, Alan said:

I never said that in John 20:22 that the disciples were, “baptized with the Holy Ghost.”

and:

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 11:43 PM, Alan said:

I never stated that the disciples were, “baptized with the Holy Ghost' prior to Acts 1:5

Thanks for your patience.

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 11:43 PM, Alan said:

Here is the answer to three of your questions:

Okay, now we're getting somewhere :)

I agree with everything on your post above, except I still think we should discuss Acts 7:38 more, in how they were "the church.."

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 11:43 PM, Alan said:

As I stated before, the Lord Jesus did not build the New Testament church in the wilderness wanderings of the nation of Israel. Stephen is clearly using the word church as in a congregation of people; not as a New Testament church.

I agree, but this is where it gets technical and confusing I the sense that terms need to be defined. I agree Jesus did not build the "NT church in the wilderness" , but I believe he did "call out" (maybe not necessarily "build") the church in the wilderness (Israel - not NT church)

Not to get sidetracked by the Godhead, but "the angel of the Lord" ( Exodus 3:2-6) was said to bring Israel out of Egypt. And the LORD God was also said to bring them out of Egypt. (Exodus 13:21 ; 14:19-24). There's way more to it than this, but to speak plainly, I'm saying I believe Jesus is the angel of the Lord. - So Jesus called out Israel (the church of 7:37-39) from the Egypt, and Jesus called out Christians (the church of 1 Corinth. 12:28 for example) from the world (type of Egypt).

I'm not saying the church in the wilderness was part of the "NT church", in fact I don't make the distinction at all between, OT church and NT church. I'm not sure if that's what you're saying... 7:38 is just a "church" in the sense of a congregation, as you said, or "called out assembly from Egypt". - This "church" , consisting of Israel, has always been a ":church" - by definition - and meaning they were not to go back to Egypt.

So when I say the church began with Israel, im not saying NT church, i mean by the definition above. I believe there is no distinction between OT church and NT church, its just "the church" (by definition). When Jesus began to "build" the church in his ministry, it only consisted of Israel, (Matthew 10:5-6). Then after Jesus died on the cross and rose again, this event made it possible for the church to become "the body" (Ephesians 2:16) at Pentecost - Comparing Acts 1:5 with 1 Corinthians 12:13. Allowing both Jews and Gentiles to be the church.

I will admit, this might be the hardest thing i ever studied, im not trying to complicate it, im just trying to think it thru still as im still figuring it all out. Hopefully i communicated this, in such a way that my understanding is not unfruitful.

Again, i hope this clears things up...

-Jake.

13 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Have you read Deuteronomy chapters 28-30 yet?

If so, did you see the the only listed benefits of their keeping the law?

Did you see the only listed repercussions if they didn't keep the law?

Did you see any indication whatsoever that keeping the law had anything to do whatsoever with their salvation?

Again I humbly ask, why do you believe OT Jews had to keep the law and have faith? Where is the biblical support that Jews were saved by both keeping the law and faith?

When you find the answers to these questions, it will help you...

1. Why did God give them the law?
2. Why did God only give the law to the Jews and not the world?

Finally, what does it matter what an Orthodox Jew believes today?

 

Sure, thanks for asking the way you did. Quick question though which will determine how I respond..

Do you believe that OT Jews were saved by looking forward to the cross ? Or are you saying they were just saved by faith?

1 hour ago, Jim_Alaska said:

This was in response to your text that said that you strongly believe that the OT Jews were saved by faith and the keeping of the law. That is the only issue I was addressing. I only posted Scripture, not an opinion, so are you saying you disagree with Scripture?

I have never heard of any Baptists that believed that anyone was ever saved by keeping the law. Therefore I posted those Scriptures.
 Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 

Well first nay i politely ask why didn't you answer my questions? ... And I knew how you were using those scriptures to falsely assume OT Jews were saved by faith and not the law.  (BTW: Baptists are not the final authority. The Bible is. You know that. I know that :)

But dealing with the scriptures you posted in Galatians. I know the context of Galatians, Jews were trying to put Christians back under the law. Christians are not under the law, but Jews were! - Even reference any orthodox Jew today, he will not tell you he is saved by "faith alone". The word faith only appears twice in the OT.

How about I reference a verse in Galatians... 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Why couldn't an OT Jew only keep part of the law? Why was he a debtor to do the whole law? Wasn't he saved by his faith? (im speaking if OT Jews - not NT)

If you want me to start a thread on this topic, I will. But in the meantime look up the words / phrase "sin offering" and "law of Moses".

Your concordance works just like mine.

2 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

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

I'm new here so idk what this is all about... I hope ive contributed to some good discussions, but if anyone thinks my posts are the "worse" ones, then it'd be nice for them to let me know ... only one person has reached out and communicated with me. Other than that, i just joined this site for fellowship, and idk if this is what im looking for here....

I'm enjoying the discussions so far... sure we have some disagreements, but that's no reason to be contentious.

2 hours ago, wretched said:

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.

I feel this same way.

2 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

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.  

I just want to make it clear I never said this. ( I know my original post is long and there are becoming many comments on this thread so again, so again I don't even know who said this but it wasn't me)

22 hours ago, Alan said:

The Lord Jesus started, while He was on the earth, the church. “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

Ok. I agree with everything on the first section called "The beginning of the church". But with your quote I cited, is the church in effect AT  Mt. 16:18 ? Or PRIOR to 16:18 ? Or is the church yet future... "...I will build..." ? Secondly does the church only consist of Israel (up until the gospel goes to Gentiles with Paul obviously) With this in mind, is it fair to say the church was Israel ?

I would say prior, - Acts 7:38 which I quoted many times.... this is why I asked you " are these 2 DIFFERENT churches?

22 hours ago, Alan said:

The baptism of John the Baptist, as a messenger and prophet from God, is the baptism for all those who trust in the Lord Jesus and is the only mode of baptism acceptable in the New Testament.

I agree with everything in the 2nd section "The Prophet and messenger..."  - On this quote do you mean immersion? John's baptism was different, as it was not the Acts 2:38 baptism or the Matthew 28:19 baptism (correct one) which are all still by immersion.

I agree with everything in the 3rd section... where you mention the error of sprinkling etc. This is why I infer you meant immersion by John's baptism. I agree with the 4th section as well

22 hours ago, Alan said:

The Lord Jesus is the giver of the Holy Spirit to those who are saved. The apostles, as part of the foundation of the church, are the examples of the church. “Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whoe soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” John 20:21-23

I agree with everything on the 5th section "the giving of the Holy Spirit" ... - But a question I have for this section is if you believe John 20:22 is when they "baptized with the Holy Ghost"  (not baptism "of" the Holy Ghost - someone got on my case because I said "of" - just word games I believe were besides the point)

You previously commented on this but again, let me quote Acts 1:5 - "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."

Alan, in your response, can you please quote Acts 1:5 also, and then tell me they were already baptized with the Holy Ghost prior to this?

22 hours ago, Alan said:

The filling of the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost for empowerment to witness; not to start the church. The Lord Jesus said, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” Acts 1:8

The Lord Jesus had previously, in John 20:21-23, given the apostles the Holy Ghost. Now, the Lord Jesus is stating for them to remain in Jerusalem to tarry for the 'power' of the Holy Ghost for witnesses, soul-winning, the gift of tongues, to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth. The Lord Jesus clearly states they were to receive 'power;' they were not to receive the Holy Spirit, but 'power.'

Here is the last section quoted above. - Like I said previously, I agree the Spirit was not given to start "the church" like you said. But I do believe the Spirit was given to start the body of Christ -do you not make this distinction? Or were they baptized into the body of Christ at John 20:22 ? Do you believe the body of Christ was in effect prior to Acts 2 or John 20:22 ? - Remember 1 Corinthians 12:13 , no one is in the body until they have the Spirit. Agree?

Acts 1:8 from what I see they receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come ... not before that the Holy Ghost is come.. Again 1:5 says they were not yet baptized with the Holy Ghost.

I hope I cleared things up, I just have questions on those things.

3 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The way that you worded your above question leaves me a bit uncertain.  With your question are you viewing being "born again" and being "indwelt with the Spirit" as Biblically equivalent to one another?  Or, with your question are your viewing being "born again" as a separate work of the Holy Spirit from being "indwelt with the Spirit"?

In my presentation above I have very distinctly communicated that being "born again" by the Holy Spirit is NOT the same work of the Holy Spirit as being "indwelt with the Spirit."  As such, I DO believe that the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration (birthing again) did indeed occur for Old Testament believers.  However, I most certainly do NOT believe that the Holy Spirit's work of indwelling occurred until the day of Pentecost, for New Testament believers only.  Indeed, I believe that the Holy Spirit's work of indwelling is a specific part of the New Covenant (Testament), and NOT a part of the Old Covenant (Testament) at all.

Ok, thanks for clarifying... To speak plainly, Yes - When a believer is indwelt with the Spirit, he is born again. Being born again, is not apart from being indwelt with the Spirit. This is clear from the OT examples I gave... The Spirit was only upon them, rested upon, or fell upon, etc... the OT saints. They were not indwelt... the Spirit could (and did) leave, this is why I say they were not "born again". They were saved, but born again. The OT Jews could lose the Spirit (Psalm 51:11) thus they would lose the "new birth" of being born again.

There was no eternal security in the OT. To be born again the Spirit must indwell you, which seals you (NT) We cannot lose the new birth.

OT saints could lose the Spirit, therefore they were not born again.

16 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I would contend that these Old Testament passage concerning the Holy Spirit's work of filling, which I would contend is a separate matter from either His work of regeneration or His work of indwelling.  Three DIFFERENT works of the Holy Spirit as such -

1.  The work of regeneration.
2.  The work of indwelling.
3.  The work of infilling.

Filling by definition would, is to be inside an object. To be upon, or rest upon, or fall upon, is to be outside an object.

I agree with the 3 different works you listed, but all occur for the NT Christian.

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.

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.

12 hours ago, Alan said:

As I previously stated, the problem with those who do not believe that the Lord Jesus started the church during His earthly ministry (the Lord Jesus was still on the earth in John 20:21-23), is that they have a incorrect interpretation of the Jews, the church, the salvation of the Jews under the Law, the giving and the filling of the Holy Spirit are two different things, a mis-understanding of being born and saved, and the work of the Holy Spirit. Some of the brethren refer to this as 'hyper-dispensation.' I tend to agree with that designation.

I hope this is not referring to me, because I have not even discussed all these subjects, in detail at least...

Also Jesus started the church in the wilderness.

14 hours ago, InSeasonOut said:

So are these 2 different churches? How so? Is Israel a "church" by definition? How is this different than the NT church? When did the church in the wilderness end? It seems to me the church in the wilderness was where they were at, at that time. They weren't the church when they were only in the wilderness and not after that... Israel was always a church after they were called out of Egypt.

May I ask you to address these questions?

Thank you. I agree. You've confirmed what I believe, as this topic came up elsewhere.

However I have a question concerning your statement :

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

However, in the time of the Old Testament, being born again by the Holy Spirit occurred apart from being baptized (indwelt) with the Holy Spirit.

Do you remember where in the OT this happened? I've read the OT but I don't recall anywhere when anyone was born again, or indwelt with the Spirit.

Several places it says "the Spirit of the LORD came upon.." (Judges 3:10 ; 6:34 ; 11:29) or etc. There are different ways it's said but basically says the Spirit of the LORD " came upon me , is upon me ; or rest upon me ; or fell upon me " etc... It seems to me that being indwelt by the Spirit (NT) is different than the Spirit being upon someone (OT). As the Spirit could depart if it was upon them (OT) but it cannot depart if one is indwelt / sealed (NT).

One of the mysteries that was revealed to Paul was the indwelling of the Spirit (Colossians 1:26-27). Is this something different?

1 hour ago, Alan said:

InSeasonOut, after reading your thoughts on this verse I felt that you are symbolizes 'the church in the wilderness' too much. The 'church in the wilderness' in not the church in the New Testament. The 'church in the wilderness' was a called out assembly of Jews from Egypt. To use the 'church in the wilderness' and conclude, "The church started in the wilderness with Israel - The body of Christ started at Pentecost with the apostles (Israelites)," is not correct and is confusing the issue. The usage of Hebrew 4:8 and 2:12 with Exodus 15:1, Joshua 5:13-15 and Psalm 22:22 is further confusing the issue.

So are these 2 different churches? How so? Is Israel a "church" by definition? How is this different than the NT church? When did the church in the wilderness end? It seems to me the church in the wilderness was where they were at, at that time. They weren't the church when they were only in the wilderness and not after that... Israel was always a church after they were called out of Egypt.

These are a lot of questions, but they are honest questions. They are not to cause debate, but to learn.

I simply used Hebrews 4:8 to say Jesus was with Israel. Jesus is the captain of the LORD's host. Joshua took orders from him.

I believe the song mentioned in Hebrews 2:12 was the song of Moses in Ex. 15 - again sung in Rev. 15. (Psalm 22:22 is quotation of Hebrews 2:12)

(side note: You titled this, "The Beginning of the New Testament Church" ; which technically the NT didn't start until after the death of the testator Jesus Christ according to Hebrews 9:15-17. So to say the church started with the ministry of Jesus and the disciples, before the cross, this is still doctrinally old testament. And the disciples were all Jews = Israel. Therefore the church in the gospels is still Israel. Jesus only went to Jews (Matthew 10:5-6)

1 hour ago, Alan said:

The remainder of your questions involve a new thread. We will keep these posting on the beginning of the church and not branch out into other areas

I started this new thread and I would love to see your answers to them. Thanks Alan.

-Jake.

22 minutes ago, InSeasonOut said:

*edit

Ok I see what you mean... all you had to say is the scriptures I gave above to your reply say "baptized with the Holy Ghost" - not "of"

That's an honest mistake I didn't realize. Haven't you had your share? But that's no reason to yoke me up with false teachers and say im careless.

The correct reading is "with" - but what is "of" ? I would figure it has the same meaning. If you know otherwise please share. To be honest your comment caused strife towards me, and I'm trying to be nice. You went about the wrong way in trying to correct a brother in Christ.

James 3:13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom

Yeah I noticed what you meant... I edited my post above....

2 minutes ago, DaveW said:

If you find that offensive, well, I apologise for causing offence, but I do not detract from the statement.

Thank you.

3 minutes ago, DaveW said:

I meant no direct offense, but I DO FIND THIS CONCERNING in one who is presuming to be a teacher on this forum

Again thanks, but like I said, an honest mistake... But I never claimed to be a teacher... in fact I said my post was a "rough draft" and at the beginning...

On ‎6‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 4:42 PM, InSeasonOut said:

im still new here and would like to gain more fellowship. That said, pardon me if these things im bringing up have been covered / answered. Still its good to revisit the doctrines of the Bible and understand where each of us believers are coming from and exhort one another, or correct error in meekness. ( James 3:13 ).

I posted this for fellowship, im new to this site and new to this position I hold in my post. I'm open to correction. But I asked for correction in meekness.

There's a right and a wrong way to go about correcting a brother. Many are rude and sarcastic, and theres a time and reason for that. But this is an area where we can disagree without calling eachother hereticks, and causing contention and strife and being prideful. There's enough of that.

11 minutes ago, DaveW said:

The Bible ONLY spraks of baptism with the Holy Spirit, your idea of Baptism of the Holy Spirit is something not spoken of in the Bible, but greatly spoken of by many false teachers today.

Your careless use of terms is concerning.

Wow thanks for your kind words... like I said : please elaborate.

and give scripture!

*edit

Ok I see what you mean... all you had to say is the scriptures I gave above to your reply say "baptized with the Holy Ghost" - not "of"

That's an honest mistake I didn't realize. Haven't you had your share? But that's no reason to yoke me up with false teachers and say im careless.

The correct reading is "with" - but what is "of" ? I would figure it has the same meaning. If you know otherwise please share. To be honest your comment caused strife towards me, and I'm trying to be nice. You went about the wrong way in trying to correct a brother in Christ.

James 3:13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom

4 minutes ago, Alan said:

It seems to me that unless the scripture says a person has the Spirit, or is filled with the Spirit, or the Holy Spirit is doing this or that, you do not believe it.

And you hold that against me ? When I read the bible, why would I believe someone has the Spirit, when the bible doesn't say someone has the Spirit? :)

I cannot in all honesty make that assumption.

14 minutes ago, Alan said:

In my opinion, you have received some incorrect teaching concerning the Law of Moses, salvation in the Old Testament, the work of the Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testament, and the beginning of the church in the New Testament. Due to these incorrect teachings you are confused in some areas. In many areas, as we discussed in my devotion, and what I saw on your website, and your pre-tribulational rapture, we are in agreement. But, in the areas I just indicated, we are not. I do not want to cause these issues that we disagree in to hurt our relationship.

I appreciate that.

But yes I strongly believe the OT Jews were saved by faith and keeping the law. I'm aware of the position you hold. But that's another thread, and id rather put debates aside.

1 minute ago, DaveW said:

Baptised WITH the Holy Ghost and Baptised OF the Holy Ghost are different concepts.

These things are NOT unimportant.

Chapter and verse? Please elaborate

1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

How is a believer baptized into the body of Christ? And when did this first happen in the Bible?

Is being baptized with the Spirit mean you are born again? Does this include water?

19 minutes ago, Alan said:

You are correct. I was asking you what you meant by your statement.

The error was was both; the Holy Spirit worked in the lives of all individuals to convict them of their sins and their need of salvation.  I was trying to refer you to John 3:1-21 Let me use a verse from that passage. We need to remember that Nicodemus was a religious leader in Israel, a Jew, who knew about Abraham, the law, the prophets; but he was never saved was not born-again.

Verse 5, "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Anybody, from Adam, to the last man on the face of this earth, is born by 'the Spirit." The "Spirit," is clearly the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is convicts men, in any dispensation, of their need of salvation.

Except for Judas Iscariot, all of the apostles of the Lord Jesus were saved; born again. To state that the apostles, disciples, were saved, but not born again, is an error. There in not one word in Acts 2, nor even the hint, that the disciples were not born again. To use 1 Corinthians 12:13 as a text for the belief that the disciples, or apostles, before Acts 2 were saved, but not born again, is not 'rightly dividing' the scriptures.

Alan

I agree Nicodemus was not saved, nor born again. Nicodemus had no idea what being born again was (John 3:4).

While I also agree the Spirit convicts men of sin in any dispensation, this does not mean they are born of the Spirit, just because they are convicted of sin by the Spirit. (I don't think that's what you were saying...?) And Adam to the last man on earth is born of the Spirit? Are you included lost sinners?

Jesus said to the Pharisees (Jews)  in John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do...." They were hypocrites, and had many problems. The Pharisees were not saved nor born again. The disciples were saved because they were law keeping Jews, knew John's baptism, and followed Jesus. And John 3 says to be born again is to be born of the Spirit. Correct me if im wrong, but no where does it say they received the Spirit prior to Acts 2 (or even John 20:22 for that matter)

Yet John's (the Baptist) parents were blameless (Luke 1:5-7 ; and in 1:15 John was filled with the Holy Ghost from the womb). Still I wouldn't say John the Baptist was ever born again. He was saved, he was a law keeping Jew. But its difficult to find old testament saints that had the Spirit. There isn't that many. To say someone had the Spirit when the text doesn't say so is assumption.