InSeasonOut

While I have not searched for (extra) writings from the early centuries on E.S. The only early writing you need, is what is preserved in our bible today (KJV). Which certainly is "pro-E.S.".
I haven't read the 50+ current answers here but i'll myself say to my knowledge that most, if not all, the early writings of Christians after 100 AD were not preserved as they were not scripture. Plus by the time Catholicsim came in, they soon enough burned their writings along with the Christians. The bible supports eternal security and that is all we need.
But there are certainly faithful teachers of God's word today that teach and write on it. This is no new doctrine. Christians have always believe in E.S.

please accept my apology brethren if I don't not agree with you and there be any offence, but obviously we are most likely grounded in our belief as I would kindly disagree with your rebuttals . so the questions is whether we can accept what we clearly believe to be error from each other and be done with this saga. as I posted  my purpose was to simply declare our stand, and not to argue the point. I am sure there are many areas where we do agree and can have good fellowship. I have friends in the ministry who understand the we do not agree on many issues and we are willing to let it go: at times we even harass one another joyfully, "there is that Ruckmanite again"....this one thing I know.. Great peace have they which love thy law and nothing shall offend them.  plus I know one more thing; we are by our own words brethren and I don't think there will be sections in heaven so we don't have to speak! may as well get to liken one another down here. somebody give me a thought for sundays message ! I will by Gods grace not bother you with this thread any longer. have a blessed day.

I would like to get a penny for my thoughts, but don't expect any change back.
the reason in season and out , as well as myself and some others called bible believers agree along the same lines is  basically due to our method of study which is based upon 2nd Timothy 2:15 ..." rightly dividing the word of truth"...  for example, we believe that what paul wrote to the church was just that , it was to the church and should not apply to the Jews or to Gentiles until they become a part of the church.
when our Lord said in matthew 24:13 "But He that shall endure unto the end , the same shall be saved." he was clearly not speaking to the church but rather to the Jews .
If I get a credit card bill in my mail box that is addressed to brother Jim , I can learn a lot from reading it, however I am not responsible to pay the bill because it is not addressed to me.
we simply believe the key to understanding scripture is knowing who is speaking, who is spoken to, and what is he saying. If the scripture is not applied this way then many bible truths become misplaced and produce heresies . that is why the church of Christ teaches water baptism as part of salvation, its why the charismatics speak in tongues....... every heresy is a truth misplaced.
ALL of the bible is written for our learning , but it is not all directed to the church.
when the rich young ruler came to the Lord and asked him how to attain eternal life ,what the Lord did not say was believe the death, buriel , and resurrection, because it did not apply because the Lord was standing there in the flesh speaking to him,
while you may not agree with our method or approach I feel it is important to understand where we are coming from.
Heb. 11:1 says " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." so in the Mill. when Jesus is sitting on the throne of David , they will see him! and if it is sight it is no more of faith.
now concerning O T salvation. look at Ez. 3:20 Again when a righteous man ( right with God) doth turn from his righteousness ( go back in sin) and commit iniquity , and I lay a stumbling block before him,he shall die:because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin,and his righteousness WHICH HE HATH DONE, shall not be remembered; ....." this is one of the verses that charismatics teach for loosing salvation , the only problem is that it does not apply to the church.
brethren with all humility and truthfulness in my heart , the sole purpose here is that you understand why we ( I) believe what we believe and that even if you disagree we can agree that we disagree and have fellowship and rejoicing over the fact that we could still be cursing and fighting with cue sticks at bubbas bar.(no offence to all the bubbas and their husbands ) but we are fellowshipping over the precious words of God.  And I am not worthy!! be blessed.

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.

Alimantado,
Both InSeasonOut, and I, would like to thank you for your kind words.
"The light of the eyes rejoiceth the heart: and a good report maketh the bones fat." Proverbs 15:30
Thank you.
Alan

While I don't understand everything that's being talked about here, it's obvious to me that Alan and InSeasonOut are putting their best efforts into keeping the discussion both on track and charitable in tone and I really appreciate that.

Jake,
Here is the answer to three of your questions:
Question # 1 – The Church in the Wilderness
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 never said it was prior, or just after, Matthew 16:18 I said the Lord Jesus began to build His church while He had His ministry on the earth. This is the meaning of Matthew 16:18 The church is made up of Jews and Gentiles.
I would say prior, - Acts 7:38 which I quoted many times.... this is why I asked you " are these 2 DIFFERENT churches? 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 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 obviously did mean immersion. Let's worry about Acts 2:38 and Matthew 28:19 in a different thread.
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) I never said that in John 20:22 that the disciples were, “baptized with the Holy Ghost.”
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."  When I referenced Acts 1:5 I clearly stated that Acts 1:5 and 8 was a totally separate issue than the giving of the Holy Spirit for 'power' for witnessing. Here is my full quote:
“May I bring out a point for all of the brethren as a side issue?
A lot of folks are properly baptized;  but they do not have power to witness. There is a difference. A lot of saints have no power for witnessing, but, they are saved, born again, and attending church regularly. But, do they witness? No. Why? Instead of being filled with the Spirit they are filled with themselves. Maybe if you think about that long enough you may realize what Acts 1:5 and 8 is all about.”
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? I never stated that the disciples were, “baptized with the Holy Ghost' prior to Acts 1:5
Alan

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

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.
May I ask you to address these questions?

Well, I certainly was not fishing for farewell speeches.
What I am talking about is lightening up a little and giving new posters a chance without the attacks.
Maybe some would stick around a while and add some variety to the threads.

I wouldn't let it bother you Jim. I haven't seen a repeated poster on this forum lately that wasn't a self-described "man of God" in some form or fashion. IOW: an expert that won't be told different. Seems new folks that are not some sort of self described "man of God" with boldness get run off long before they can absorb any teaching or share any thoughts. Seriously, there are now more moderators on this forum than active posters it seems.
The latest thread topics I have seen are peripheral issues and not of the "fundamental" variety so it doesn't help the sharing of ideas when a moderator accuses those who don't see things the way you have been taught of being part of this "falling away". To be blunt Jim, if you think these disagreements are the falling away referenced in 2 Thess 2 then you seriously need to get out of the house more. How could you take the abuse one receives when they really preach the Word on the streets to the lost if you can't handle minor disagreement over minor issues from other believers over the internet without getting depressed? If there is a city of any size where you live, spend a Saturday on main street with Gospel signs and you will see first hand what the falling away really is.
Basically this is a forum full of chiefs without any Indians to teach. Take it all with a grain of salt and realize it is simply a pass-time and not to be taken personally. Narcissism drives depression so the only cure is to think less of ourselves and our opinions and we will be much happier. Remember, depression always results from taking ones self too seriously.
Also keep in mind that by your own admissions you are significantly less traveled than others on this forum so it makes no sense to qualify yourself as some kind of keeper of IFB distinctives or teachings? Having been the member of what? two churches maybe three your entire life? Come on Jim, I doubt you have any idea the variances of belief among fundamental Baptists out there. Doesn't mean they are not saved, not IFB or not sincere. Face it Jim, you have some kooky ideas that most wouldn't consider agreeing with yourself and they have come out at times here. Example: tracing modern "baptist" churches to John the Baptist or your stand on Christmas trees and whatnot. These variances have nothing to do with the virgin Birth, Deity of Christ, new birth, eternal security, etc..and most importantly none of these variances are new. You would think just like them had you been raised in their churches. No? tell me when the last time was that you actually disagreed with and contended with your own pastor?....Exactly. I hope this little illustration helps you understand that IFB covers allot more ground than your little country church teachings.
Because of this I also recommend that we not delude ourselves into thinking we are defending the faith once delivered to the saints in these peripheral debates. On this forum, all we are really defending is our own opinions of these issues. Everyone here claims regeneration and indwelling and study so what gives?  I have read the posts in these latest threads and can see why each party sees the issues differently. I usually don't agree with either side completely to be honest but it is still interesting sometimes and things have been learned that may not otherwise have been. This thread of speculation over how people in the OT, and the Gospels got regenerated (if they did at all) is just that - speculation. Until someone can produce OT (only) Scripture that clearly explains they believed exactly what we believe now (only we do in hindsight-see the difference?) and were regenerated just like us now, this subject will always be speculation, peripheral and of little import for us now.
Perhaps everyone should just relax and try to persuade with Scripture and not emotion.....if the Scripture won't change minds then add some prayer for each other. If that still doesn't work...keep praying. If all else fails perhaps we should prayerfully consider what the opposing opinions are saying and study it out thoroughly. You never know, we may learn something new. At the very least we would be better prepared to attempt correction if we truly researched the matter ourselves (in the Bible and not other men's book opinions) instead of jumping the gun with name calling and accusations.
Just some input from one of the only self described regular joes on this forum.

Thank you for your reply. It greatly helps the discussion.
I need to get ready for an appointment. I will be copying your reply (I copy most of the discussions), so I can answer it later.
God bless!

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

I had previously written:
The Giving of the Holy Spirit
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
According to my knowledge of the scriptures this is after the resurrection of the Lord Jesus and clearly with the framework of Hebrews 9:15-17
According to any body's reasoning, John 20:21-23, is doctrinally in the New Testament; after the death of the testator, Hebrews 9:16 Also, Matthew 10:5-6 has no bearing on the start of the New Testament church nor on the lesson of this thread.
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.
Alan

1.  Being baptized with the Holy Spirit is a spiritual work of our Lord Jesus Christ wherein our Lord Jesus Christ Himself baptizes a believer within the "substance" of the Holy Spirit.  Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Baptizer (not the Holy Spirit), and the Holy Spirit is the "substance" of the baptizing.
2.  The baptism with the Holy Spirit first occurred in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost.  Now throughout this time of the New Testament, the baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs for each new believer at the moment of faith in Christ for eternal salvation.  The baptism with the Holy Spirit is biblically equivalent to the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit within the New Testament believer.
3.  Being baptized with the Holy Spirit would indeed mean that an individual is born again, since an individual must be born again by the Holy Spirit before that individual can be baptized (indwelt) with the Holy Spirit.  However, being born again by the Holy Spirit and being baptized (indwelt) with the Holy Spirit are NOT the same thing.  In this time of the New Testament, being baptized (indwelt) with the Holy Spirit proceeds from being born again by the Holy Spirit.  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.
4.  No.  Being baptized by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself with the "substance" of the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with water.  Being baptized with water is accomplished physically (according to the commandment of our Lord) by mankind; whereas being baptized with the Holy Spirit is accomplished spiritually by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Peter Ruckman was not hyper-dispensational he was moderate! he preached against hyper. if we would do what God said and rightly divide the word of truth we would all be moderate, I learned right division before I ever knew of Dr. Ruckman .frankly my brother you should not speak of matters you are not sure of. with kindness, pastor coley

Mark 14:22
(22)  And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
 
???????? how could it possibly have been His body if His body was before them passing out his body?????????

Okay great. To be clear, I originally said the term "Christian mystic" just "threw me off" as I didn't know what this was when I first read the book. I looked up the term and was led to references to contemplative prayer and the RCC. Thus, when I said "if im getting this right" that's what I found it to be, but I was open to correction and in the meantime I strongly disagree with those things.

At the risk of secluding myself from those whom I hold dear on this forum, and at the risk of being labeled a heretic, I am moved to say (and feel I must say) this...
While I hold firmly to the historical Baptist distinctives, and I will always associate myself as a Baptist...and furthermore, as an Independent Fundamental Baptist, my allegiance isn't to being a Baptist. My allegiance is to Christ.
History, ecumenism, and modernism have all shown (and proven in my opinion) that alignment with a particular group can have unforeseen consequences. To call one's self a Baptist is no longer adequate in today's world. One must clarify what is meant by being a Baptist. Furthermore, one must clarify what one means by being an Independent Baptist. Even further, one must clarify what one means by being an Independent Fundamental Baptist.
In all honesty, I don't see how this can be turned around. Is this the fault of being "a Baptist"? Yes and no.
From what I've seen, men have crept in unawares, and caused both division and derision as to what a Baptist is. I saw on another forum the following..."Are all Baptists Calvinists?"
Huh?
Really?
However, it was a sincere question. The blame lies with those in the past who were ecumenical...those who didn't want to cause trouble...those who didn't want to hurt someone's feelings...those who wanted to be accepted...those who placed ecumenism above doctrine...those who wanted to please men above pleasing God.
Why did Jesus ask that when he returned, would he find faith on earth? It will be such a mishmash of beliefs that one can't distinguish true faith. People will be beholden to particular systems of belief instead of true belief (faith).
So...while I may offend some here by these words...yet, I will continue to personally identify myself as an Independent Baptist...I will know that in my heart, soul, and mind...my identity is with Christ and Christ alone.
I am Baptist by conviction; however, my allegiance is to Christ and Christ alone.
Perhaps I'm in a bad place in my life right now, but I'm tired of having to explain what I mean by being a Baptist. Even in my own little area, people have different ideas of what a Baptist is. I can explain it, and I can try to proclaim it...but at the end of the conversation, they seemingly still see no difference between a true Baptist and what's known as a Bapticostal in my area (Baptist with Pentecostal influence). Bapticostal is an accepted term here. People believe what they want to believe.
Like I said, I don't know how it can be turned around. It's almost to the point that I feel that I need to identify myself as something different.
Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
I want to hear, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."...not..."Well done, thou good and faithful Baptist."
If I've offended anyone or caused anyone to doubt my beliefs; I apologize. I will always be a Baptist; I just don't know what to do with today's circumstances.
 
 

I'll comment on Alaska's devotion tomorrow if I find time... what I have to say isn't quite relevant for this topic here. But I will say I believe(d) the church began at Pentecost but it may actually be before that, since reading comments and the above devotion... i'll have to look into this more. I'd dispute 1 or 2 minor things , but theres some good points.
I know many Christians don't like to accept correction, and I try not to be one of them. Of course many doctrines are set and ive been assured of them, but i'll willingly admit I might be wrong on when the church began... (theres a certain verse of scripture I need to find first)

The church did not begin with John the Baptist. I am not a Baptist brider. John baptized to reveal the messiah to Israel,see John 1:31 the church began at Pentecost and was later revealed to paul . we baptize because it is a ordinance of the church , but we are Christians because we follow Christ.. 1st Corinthians 12:13 is not a water baptism but a Spiritual that places us into the body of Christ.

I would be curious as to how the incident in Acts chapter 19 fits into this explanation. These 12 men in Ephesus, who were called disciples and were meeting in Christ's name, were also baptized by John the Baptist, making them "Baptists" by your reckoning, as it did Christ. However, when Paul learned they had been baptized by John, he re-baptized them. It is stated clearly in this passage that John's baptism was a "baptism of repentance". If this is the recognized nature of John's baptism, how then did it make Christ a baptist, and no one else? 

Awesome. Good to hear. I actually have all his books. He's a good writer/speaker. Definitely encouraged me as well.

I haven't read that particular book, but Mark Cahills book "The One Thing You Can't Do In Heaven" helped make me more passionate about personal evangelism.
I have had at least a dozen conversations with Mark via email, and know he is a KJV Independent Baptist.
He has excellent tracts and videos. I would recommend his stuff to everyone on MarkCahill.org

Paradise is novel of 220 pages, by Mark Cahill from 2013. It is his 1st novel, although he has written 3 "non-fiction" books on soul-winning. Paradise is his first of 3 novels. (Paradise, Reunion, and The Last Ride - which partly carry into one another but each could be considered stand alone novels and need not be read in order).
Some may rightly think, oh no not another "Christian novel". But all scriptures are taken from the King James Bible (in all his books). I myself am not a fan of novels so much, but Cahill has an interesting writing take in his novel and is useful for both Christians and unbelievers, as it would make a good gift for a lost friend or family member. Many people don't like to read, and gifting "The Genesis Record" by Henry Morris (or something similar) would be overwhelming. Perhaps they might read a novel if it sounds interesting. Which I say it is and would recommend it, as Paradise is a fast paced novel, that makes you think and keep turning the pages wondering where the story goes.
The main character is Josh, an unbeliever who is on a vacation trip with 3 college friends to Hawaii. Josh thinks Hawaii is a paradise on earth. He is confronted with the gospel and hears of the heavenly paradise. His vacation time on Hawaii is limited, but thinks upon the eternal Paradise. A lot of information is included in the novel, like how the bible is true, info on creation, archeology and reliability of it, the resurrection of Jesus and more. All info is clearly presented and understandable for new readers and even a well studied Christian might learn a thing or two.
Overall this book is "entertaining" because of the novel format. There is also information on Hawaii and the "sight seeing" there. I won't get into the story. I've spoiled nothing and if this sounds of interest, then definitely check it out. An enjoyable adventure.
-Jake