Something I found interesting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
By the way, clear Scriptural proof that the Church existed in the NT.

OT=Israel

NT=Church (both Jews and Gentiles)

The two are completely different. That is scriptural.
Brian, are you attempting to "prove" the difference between the two by simply stating or asserting it? That is not a valid proof; I might as well prove my position by quoting the Westminster Confession.
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
The reason you won't get into a theological debate is because you know I'm right.
Brian, I'm trying to begin a theological debate with you; you continue to ignore and bypass the texts that I want to examine; you continue to furnish no proof for your position; and you have the temerity to claim that I don't want to get into a theological debate with you because I know you're right?!? Are you serious?
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Whether or not you believe in a "Great Tribulation" the Book of Revelation teaches a time of judgment against Israel. If the Church is Israel, you had better get ready for God's judgment against you.
Brian, I am an Amillennial Historicist. I do not understand the Revelation in a literalistic fashion. But, as I said before, that is a discussion for another forum.
 
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
By the way, clear Scriptural proof that the Church existed in the NT.

OT=Israel

NT=Church (both Jews and Gentiles)

The two are completely different. That is scriptural.
Brian, are you attempting to "prove" the difference between the two by simply stating or asserting it? That is not a valid proof; I might as well prove my position by quoting the Westminster Confession.

I'm not attempting. It is proof. It's in black and white, the OT has Israel. The Church is in the NT.

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
The reason you won't get into a theological debate is because you know I'm right.
Brian, I'm trying to begin a theological debate with you; you continue to ignore and bypass the texts that I want to examine; you continue to furnish no proof for your position; and you have the temerity to claim that I don't want to get into a theological debate with you because I know you're right?!? Are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious. I haven't ignored anything. I've tried to answer questions and instead I get a "people like you" smart aleck comment in return. You should know I'm right. Much of the church believes that indeed, the church is in the NT and Israel is in the OT, and they aren't the same thing.
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Whether or not you believe in a "Great Tribulation" the Book of Revelation teaches a time of judgment against Israel. If the Church is Israel, you had better get ready for God's judgment against you.
Brian, I am an Amillennial Historicist. I do not understand the Revelation in a literalistic fashion. But, as I said before, that is a discussion for another forum.

I don't take Revelation entirely literally myself. But when it teaches God's judgment against Israel for rejecting the Messiah, I have no choice but to take that literally. It is not entirely a discussion for another forum as my point was valid. If the Church and Israel are the same thing, then I repeat, you had better get ready for God's judgment against the Church. That applies to this debate 100%.
 
Originally posted by lwadkins
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk

But...it doesn't specifically state infants.

Brian,
Yes you are correct. However it also does not say that all in the household except infants were baptized. Household in that time would have been understood by those receiving the teaching as multigenerational familial units headed by a patriarchal figure and would have been assumed to have contained infants and servants. Far different from how we would view a household today.

[Edited on 9-5-2006 by lwadkins]

True. Therefore we are both in the same predicament. We have no proof for our belief then. But...wouldn't the burden of proof be upon you to prove that infants were included in the "household", rather than upon me to prove that they weren't?
 
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Sean, when you start showing a little more respect I will answer your questions. I have a low tolerance for "people like you".
Would you have preferred "people like yourself"? Brian, the fact that you focus upon one phrase in a response that has little to nothing to do with my actual response, reveals rather plainly that you aren't interested in a serious discussion of these things. I apologize if I have offended you, and I meant no disrespect to you; but if you are interested in a serious discussion, maybe you should let perceived insults and slights slide, and just get to the heart of the argument.

I would have preferred that you had been a bit more respectful and said neither. The fact that I focused on that one statement meant I really didn't pay attention to whatever else you said.

You have no basis for accusing me of not being interested in a serious discussion. I am the one who has tried to be respectful in discussion, yet YOU have made smart aleck comments multiple times.

Yes, let's get to the heart of the argument. That being the Church is not in the OT. because it's not.
 
There is very little (if any) serious debating going on, much less with discussion with charity. The doctrine of the church is one of great importance, and deserves respect. If by "church" we are NOT talking about a building , but rather God's people (which is moreso the biblical sense of the term), then the church existed in the O.T. Just because the O.T. doesn't explicitly mention the word "church" doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

From Strong's:

G1577
ἐκκλησιÌα
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see'-ah
From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.

Thayer's Greek dictionary:

G1577
ἐκκλησιÌα
ekklēsia
Thayer Definition:
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
1a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
1b) the assembly of the Israelites
1c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
1d) in a Christian sense
1d1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting1d2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order´s sake
1d3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
1d4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
1d5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer´s/Strong´s Number: from a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564
Citing in TDNT: 3:501, 394

To say there was no church in the O.T. is similar to someone saying that there were no Christians in the O.T. There most definately were Christians (maybe not called explicitly that, but for all intents and purposes), and they did gather together to worship God.

The doctrine of the universal/invisible church (those who profess the true religion is a confessional (see most if not ALL of the reformed confessions), reformed doctrine that is derived from the scriptures.

Your friendly neighborhood Moderator,

Jeff
 
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Originally posted by lwadkins
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk

But...it doesn't specifically state infants.

Brian,
Yes you are correct. However it also does not say that all in the household except infants were baptized. Household in that time would have been understood by those receiving the teaching as multigenerational familial units headed by a patriarchal figure and would have been assumed to have contained infants and servants. Far different from how we would view a household today.

[Edited on 9-5-2006 by lwadkins]

True. Therefore we are both in the same predicament. We have no proof for our belief then. But...wouldn't the burden of proof be upon you to prove that infants were included in the "household", rather than upon me to prove that they weren't?

History and culture show the proof FOR infants. If a household was destroyed, that was everyone including infants. If a household moved, that was everyone including infants. No one is ever left out of a household. It includes everyone from the youngest to the oldest as well as servants.


On multiple wives: Adam would not have run out of ribs...the lower hanging rib is the only bone that can completely grow back. The OT examples show the problems of polygamy and for someone to be an elder or minister they are commanded to only have one wife...thus the precedent...



I intentionally used an old dictionary...what better way to understand what is meant by those before us?

Oh, and I don't interact with all the threads here, so I wasn't aware of that thread. Please take into consideration that I limit the threads I'm on due to managing a large household (no easy task).
 
The church is the community of all true believers for all time. This definition understands the church to be made of all those who are truly saved. Paul says, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Eph 2:25). Here the term "the church" is used to apply to all those whom Christ died to redeem, all those who are saved by the death of Christ. But that must include all true believers for all time, both believers in the New Testament age and believers in the Old Testament age as well. (Grudem)
 
All -

Tone down your posts.

They are far too provocative in dealing with "brothers" in the Lord.

The statements of "people like you" and such are uncalled for.

If it continues, I'll close the thread and take priveldges away from those that continue speaking to one another like this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top