JD wrote: Anyone who has a Bible can read Hebrews 8:6-13 and they will not find the church of Jesus Christ mentioned in the text at all. It is a neat trick to change words in a text like you did in Je 31 and then make the bold statement that the text of He 6 plainly teches that this is fulfilled in the NT church. This is false and misleading and is a fabrication. Besides the fact that the text does not mention the church, it mentions the house of Israel AND the house Judah, neither of which is the Church of Jesus Christ. It is also in the future tense and during the time Hebrews was written in the mid 60's AD there was no identifiable house of Israel except as they were addressed by Peter and James as "Strangers" and the 12 tribes of Israel scattered abroad. All ofyour references are as dishonest as this one but I can't answer them all in 1300 characters, or I would.
So who do YOU think the Hebrew text is referring to? The WHOLE of Hebrews is one ongoing explanation of how Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant, how everything in the OT pointed to Him and now we have the New Covenant which grew out of the Old. Hebrews quotes Jeremiah to prove this - that is not dishonest, that is believing what the bible tells you. It is there in black and white!!
John Yurich wrote: a Baptist minister knows more about the Bible then you do.
Really? I have known Baptist ministers who didn't know their knee from their elbow and when it came to the Bible they couldn't find their head with both hands. So you would listen to someone and agree with them just because they are a Baptist minister? the Bereans didn't even agree with the Apostle Paul till they checked the Scriptures for themselves.
JD wrote: Mr J says Jer 31 talks about the law written on the hearts of the people of God, but Heb8:6-13 clearly says that this refers to the church. The text clearly says the law will be written on the hearts of the Israelites. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: One thing that is always needed with false teachers is clarification of the context. The terminology is very different from what he stated, "the people of God". It is specicically with the house of Israel and the House of Judah. Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. I will deal with the He passage later.
This only proves that Israel and the church are synonymous which defeats your whole theological house of cards therefore you must reject the NT interpretation of the text. You do not have the right to reject inspired NT exegesis of OT texts just because it does not fit with your theological framework. Don't try to "deal with it", consider it dealt with by the Apostles!
JD wrote: Now you are changing the subject from the quote and the evaluation of John the Baptist by Jesus Christ. You are accusing me of saying John the Baptist was not a justified believer and was a lost man and it is good to know that one of you have admitted that the kingdom Jesus was speaking of and he and his diciples, as well as John the Baptist had preacxhed about was yet future from the time of John and that he died before the kingdom was realized and so therefore was never born again and never entered into it. The least in the kingdom is greater than John. No one has dealt with the words Jesus said except me. I understand the kingdom of God and therefore I know what he meant. The least in the kingdom of God is greater than John the Baptist BECAUSE THEY ARE SONS OF GOD!
So John the Baptist, filled with the Spirit of God from his mother's womb was not a son of God? What was he, a son of the devil? I gave my response to Jesus' quote below. So you would say that when "Many come from east and west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" this was a different kingdom than Christians enter into, or the same kingdom but John the Baptist was not part of it because he was less than the least? Please explain???
gdstwrd wrote: For Lack of a better choice I chose a restored relationship with God. Regeneration is a work of God's Spirit alone. Outside of the faculty of man and apart from any religious activities that he observe of practice. It is first the dying of the depraved man, the descendant of Adam, who is joined to the Law and yet incapable of fulfilling its demands. Who opposes God and the things of God and his nature , and who in and of himself has nothing of merit or worth, nor the inclination nor ability or desire to do anything to change it. In regeneration this man is put to death vicariously with christ in baptism. But is then reborn or (recreated) in the image of Christ. He no longer is slave to sin, nor joined in union to the law of sin. He is given the same right standing before God that Christ himself has both earned and is. He is now identified with His Messiah, and he now stands before god complete, holy, blameless and pure. Free from sin and enabled to live a holy life and make right choices. And now for the first time has Faith to believe God's word and in his Son.
Now that is a clear, concise and erudite statement which lays out the truths of salvation in unambiguous language. Thank you gdstwrd, I salute you
terry (red herring) evans wrote: Hi Mr JDC U say I would not like to be part of any kingdom you are in I know, but the Bible says to ask. You Say And don't expect me to reply to any more of your bullsquash I Don't, kinda wonder why you did, for you never did before. take care by the way as with your words , in DJC condeming comment to JD, I guess you think that was ok because he gave some facts on the heresy of JD.
[QUOTE]There is no common ground with Rome. Christians need to share the gospel with them and make it clear to them that the gospel of Rome is another, a cursed, false gospel that denies the sufficiency of Christ. Catholics like anyone else need the new birth in the Holy Ghost something that didn't happen in infant baptism (sprinkling). God's elect have no right to compromise with RCs[/QUOTE]AMEN my brother - I am in wholehearted agreement. ANY compromise with Rome is anthema. I am in total opposition to ECII and cannot understand how great theologians like Packer have gone in that direction. I merely wanted to point out in my previous post that Rome believes, as we do, in the Trinity and the deity of Christ etc. The reformers did not change those doctrines because they saw them as Biblical. Likewise they saw covenant baptims as Biblical. This is not the same as "christening" which is another corruption of Rome. If you get the chance, read Pierre Marcel's "Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism". It may not change your mind, which is fine by me, but may help you understand the other position a bit better. I am as heartbroken as you are about 'reformed' churches. They brought us Liberalism which led to Billy Graham which led to Rome. Come out and be seperate!
terry (red herring) evans wrote: all knowing - - condescending Uncharitable - unloving pride full - - arrogant pretentious - - divider vintage DJC 49 Someone in the Bible said first remove the plank from your own eye. plankeye
You are well named. You are more than just a red herring. You are the King of the Red Herrings. If you are going to make a statement - back it up! If you can't, or won't - then keep your statement to yourself. Posting nothing but a personal attack without substantiation is low and cowardly.
If the OT saints were not saved by grace, through faith in the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, then how were they saved? Does the NT not consistently tell us that we Christians are now partakers of the blessings of Abraham? That we are now organically grafted into Israel? That by the deeds of the law no flesh, OT or NT, shall be justified? That Abraham was justified by faith, as were all the saints mentioned in Heb 11? There is and always has been only one way of salvation and that is by faith in the substitutionary work of the Saviour. The OT saints knew that, Abraham saw Jesus when he looked at Isaac. If this is not true then there is more than one Biblical faith, more than one way of salvation, more than one body of believers. Then Paul was an idiot who knew nothing, Hebrews was a waste of time from the first to the last verse and you may as well throw the rest of your Bible away. Can you not see where this nonsense is leading?
Those words about John the Baptist were said for several reasons. He was, in effect, the last OT prophet. His function was to be a herald and to announce the coming of the Messiah. Once a herald has finished heralding he should get off the stage. John stayed on the stage, kept his disciples and kept baptising. In the very least he should have become one of Christ's disciples. So John was taken off the stage by God, using Herod as His tool. Then, while he was imprisoned, his lack of understanding came fully to the surface. He had preached an immediate judgement(Mat3:10,12)but Christ did not act the way he expected(Mat11:19) so he became confused(Mat11:1-3). But Jesus put Him straight by quoting to him the prophet Isaiah. DJC49, Darbyites are not anti-Semitic. They can't get past the idea that Israel is accursed of God, that they broke the covenant one too many times and that God justly divorced and abandoned them. They can't get it into their heads that the two Testaments or dispensations form an organic whole and that the OT is preparatory for the NT. They accuse us of not rightly dividing the Word of Truth, but the TRUTH is that they stand accused of wrongly dividing the church of God. There is one covenant of grace, under two economies. Everyone can see that, but the Dizzies.
Michael Hranek[/AUTHOR]Anyway on a more serious note, being a former never to be again Roman Catholic it has been interesting to me to note that both Roman Catholics and what you call "the church of the reformation" have persecuted 'Baptist Type Believers'[/QUOTE]You are right Michael. I thank God He took you out of the darkness of Catholicism and into His marvellous light. But just because the RC church is wrong on so many things doesn't mean it is wrong on everything. I understand when you come out of something so wrong you want to get as far away from it as possible. I was once a Baptist myself, mate. And my two very best friends are Baptists. We have had some serious discussions, let me tell you, but it has never diminished our friendship. I did not mean to come across as a persecutor of Baptists and I am sorry I gave you that impression. I guess sometimes agressive defence is not far from agressive attack. I understand and have empathy for Reformed Baptist theology. I just came to the conclusion that my view of the whole was wrong. The Bible is fundamentally covenantal in its nature. Get the whole wrong and the parts can't be right. Just because you can't see the butterfly in the caterpillar doesn't mean they aren't organically united. Same with the OT and NT.
John the Baptist was not in the kingdom of God? He was not a saint? Yet he was filled with the Spirit of God from the womb!!! Do you think the Spirit of God will live in an unregenerate, in a spiritual corpse? Do you think the Spirit of God will live in an enemy of the Father, in someone who is not justified? Do you think the Spirit of God will live in a latrine, in something wholly unclean, in someone who has not been sanctified? John the baptist was born again before he was born. Your whole argument is so fallacious, yet you have the GALL to question the Christianity of anyone who does not agree with you? It is you who are blind and deliberately obtuse JD. If you have any decency, go back through my recent posts, check my Biblical references which PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that there is an organic unity and continuity between the OT and the NT and between Israel and the Church. When you have read them, THEN you may attempt to formulate a response with YOUR prooftexts. Oh, and by the way, you still have not answered my question regarding the effects of sin on mankind. But that's ok. You have no time for that now. Read my texts, check the facts and then get back to me.
I would be the first to admit that neither side of the baptism debate has a watertight argument. There is no injunction given in the OT to baptise infants and Acts, being a missionary book dealing primarily with adult converts, always talks about believing then being baptised. But neither does the NT forbid baptising infants of believing parents. Everything which changed from OT to NT is clearly discussed and explained. NOWHERE does it say that children now do not receive the sign of belonging to the covenant body. Of course, if you refuse to see the Bible as one book which explains the redemption of one people and see it as a series of attempts made by God in different dispensations,and Israel being seperate and distinct from the church then none of this means anything to you. But does the Bible not clearly say that all the promises made to Abraham were fulfilled in Christ and that NT Christians are partakers of all those promises? And does Paul in Col2:11,12 not clearly identify circumcision with baptism? Was Jesus' death not referred to as both a circumcision and a baptism? Do they not signify the same spiritual reality? Did Peter not clearly say that the OT promise was STILL to children as well as parents? Did they not baptise households on a singe profession?
JD wrote: The church is not defined by who has the Holy Spirit.
Do you actually listen to yourself? The NT constantly refers to the OT for verification(Lk 16:31;24:27;IITim3:15). Not only that but you quote OT texts which the NT says refer to the church. Jer 31 talks about the law written on the hearts of the people of God, but Heb8:6-13 clearly says that this refers to the church. Hosea 1:10,11 talks about how the children of Israel shall be as the sand on the seashore, and how the children of Judah and Israel shall be gathered together. Paul emphatically states in Rom 9:24-26 that this refers to the NT church. Amos 9:11-15 talks about the tabernacle of David being restored and the captivity being brought back referring to the natural nation of Israel. But in Acts 15 when the apostles were discussing the NT church in the Jerusalem council James quotes THIS text as proof that not only Jews are saved, but also Gentiles. Now either Paul and James and the writer of Hebrews made serious mistakes in exegesis of the OT and the church or the OT, when speaking of the salvation of Israel, sees this fulfilled in the salvation of the Gentiles. Who is wrong, Paul and James or JD?? I think the answer is clear.
JD wrote: It would have been a neat trick for OT saints to have received the Holy Spirit and to have been born again.
I am amazed at your deliberate ignorance. What pray tell is a SAINT? Is it not someone who has been sanctified? Is it not someone who has been SET APART unto God?? Who is it that sanctifies them, if not the Holy Spirit? Israel was God's spiritual bride. That is why her idolatry is referred to as adultery and prostitution. That is what God wrote he a certificate of divorce. The Bible says there is one olive tree, but you say No, there are two. The Bible clearly and laboriously explains in Ephesians how the two(Jew and Gentile, Israel and the Church) are now one body. But you would seperate what God has joined. Paul goes into overdrive to explain that ALL the promises made to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ and that ALL Christians are partakers of those same promises. If you had been listening to Peter at Pentecost, in your ignorance you would have asked "What promise are you talking about?" But the Israelites who heard him KNEW what he was talking about. They were not ignorant of the OT as you are. And where on earth do you get the term "Immersed into the body?" Now you see why Dispensationalism has all but ruined the church
jago wrote: I believe we have the permission of scripture to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, but some of the latter that are becoming very popular are not true to scripture. Some choruses should never be sung as part of worship. Please read the words as you sing.
Mate, if you have a close look at those two texts that talk about Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs you will find they literally mean Psalms, Psalms and Psalms. To start with, it talks about speaking, not singing. Secondly it talks about let the Word of Christ dwell in you, which can only refer to Scripture. Most importantly, I think, it talks about teaching and admonishing. You cannot admonish someone on the basis of a man-made hymn or song. You cannot teach truth with an uninspired hymn or song. It is only with the auhority of Scripture that you can teach or admonish. Then again - the NT talks about singing a New Song. But personally, I lament the fact that we have lost the Psalms. They were replaced with hymns. Some of those hymns were great. Now those have been replaced with syrupy, subjective hymns and, worse still, with repetitive, badly written choruses.
When the Pharisees questioned Jesus about divorce, He said, "Because of the hardness of your hearts..., but from the BEGINNING God made them male and female. Therefore what God has joined let not man seperate." In other words, this is how God ordained it from the start so here endeth the argument. Paul used the same reasoning when talking about men, women and the authority structure and forbidding women to teach or have authority in ITim 2, referring back to the order of creation and the way God originally intended things to be. Once again, here endeth the argument!
JD wrote: I do not agree that the OT church was the church of Jesus Christ. The gospel by which men enter into the church is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
If there was no regeneration in the OT then Nicodemus would have every right to be confused. But Jesus asked in amazement, "You are THE teacher of Israel and do not know this?" The OT is full of regeneration. Likewise Israel is constantly referred to as the church(Acts7:38) and the church as the twelve tribes or as Israel. OT saints were saved by the blood of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Jesus said of Abraham, "He saw My day" and Hebrews talks about the faith of the fathers and how they looked for the heavenly Canaan. Galatians talks about the gospel preached to Abraham. David the prophet continually speaks about preaching salvation in the great congregation and converting sinners thereby. Believers, when they are born again, are now citizens of Jerusalem which is the mother of us all. They will sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (God is the God of the living, remember? How else were these saved????) and are registered by God Himself as having been born in Zion no matter where they were physically born on earth. Your argument is nul and void!
jago wrote: Mr J has given you the facts. Just because you wish to ignore them does not make them any less the facts.
Mr J is done trying to give him any more facts. They are totally wasted on him cos he wouldn't know a fact if it walked up and introduced itself. They have a saying in this country, "You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear." How true that is.