What is Acts 9 Dispensationalism?

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Nimrod
You should go back and read your own post!

In Ezekiel 44:27
And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering, saith the Lord GOD.

If you are true to dispensationalism, which your are one.

Again, I'm not convinced you have a clue about what I believe. So far, it appears you're not in any position to critique my view. For example, you write:

Then you take the literal approach to understanding Scriptures.

What's that mean? Do you know what a literal approach entails? If you're interested in my hermeneutic, read this link: The Normative Hermeneutic.

Originally posted by Nimrod
This verse speaks about the future millennium temple (so you say above). Notice it does not say "memorial" offering, but sin offering

Exactly. All sin offerings were symbolic of the Messiah's efficacious sacrifice. What part are you not understanding about this?

Originally posted by Nimrod
There is no word "celebrate" either. How did you come up to this conclusion, when the Bible specifically says sin offering?

Do you really think the blood of bulls, goats, rams and sheep was sufficient to save?

Originally posted by Nimrod
How do you get by what the Bible clearly and literaly says?

Do you agree with what Ezekiel wrote, or not?

Hilston asked: Nimrod, do you believe all without exception will be saved?

And then, obviously not being able to follow the question or line of reasoning, Nimrod writes:

Originally posted by Nimrod
Huh?
No.

Remember that you wrote this?:

This is what dispensationalism teaches. Christ's atonement work was not sufficient for all.

If Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, then all will be saved. That's what your statement implies. I don't believe it was sufficient for all, but for the elect only. Since you do not believe all without exception will be saved, then it is you whose view of the atonement is insufficient. If any single person goes to hell, then the atonement was not sufficient for them. Get it?

 

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Hilston

What's that mean? Do you know what a literal approach entails? If you're interested in my hermeneutic, read this link: The Normative Hermeneutic.

From the website, Normative hereneutic
B. Phrases and Grammatical Constructions:
Rules: Unless something in the context dictates otherwise, a phrase or grammatical construction is assigned the interpretation that is consistent with its Biblical usage elsewhere in that type of context, its usage in parallel passages, its usage in the LXX, its secular usage, its root meaning, etc.

Ok now let me give you an example from Ezekiel. sin offering.
Go ahead Hilston, check every reference in the Bible for sin offering. For you to take Ezekiel and apply it to the future millennium temple and give it a meaning of a 'memorial sacrafice', would destroy YOUR OWN HERENEUTICS!!!

Stick to this topic, no rabbit trails please. Do you or do you not believe the Scriptures quoted in Eziekel (see previous post) apply to the future millenium? Do you or do you not see the phrase sin offering? How do you interpret from your own system of hereneutics, the Normative hereneutic, that it does not mean what it says?

Originally posted by Hilston
Exactly. All sin offerings were symbolic of the Messiah's efficacious sacrifice. What part are you not understanding about this?

Your belief that Ezekiel wrote sin offering in his description of the future millenium temple. Your normal interpretation says it is for sin and not for celebration/memorial.
You see, you are not following your own hereneutic. How do you interpret the phrase sin offering in Eziekiel?

Originally posted by Hilston
Do you really think the blood of bulls, goats, rams and sheep was sufficient to save?

No I do not, by the way How do you interpret sin offering in Ezekiel?

Originally posted by Hilston
Do you agree with what Ezekiel wrote, or not?

Yes, it was fulfilled long ago. How did I come up with that conclusion? I used the Normal hereneutic. I use the same hereneutic for interpretating sin offering in Ezekiel.

Originally posted by Hilston
Nimrod, do you believe all without exception will be saved?

Remember that you wrote this?:If Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, then all will be saved. That's what your statement implies. I don't believe it was sufficient for all, but for the elect only.

Sorry if I misspoke about that, or caused you confusion. Christ atonement was sufficient ONLY for those who are His/believers/elect.

 

[elohiym]

Originally posted by Hilston

I have. Twice. Once as an infant. And once as a misguided young believer. I renounce both of them and those sins are forgiven.

You renounce both of your baptisms, and consider it sin to be water baptized? How strange, and unbiblical.

Originally posted by Hilston

I find it fascinating that you chose to use Israel's scriptures about their future kingdom to prove water baptism for today. Notice where your logic leads. If Ezekiel's message affirms water baptism for today, then it affirms blood sacrifice and burnt offering as well.

Israel's scriptures? You mean those books Paul quoted all the time?

Let's look at what Paul said, Hilston.

Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ... 19 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.

Better, "therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens, of the saints, and of the houshold of God." So, as Paul clearly states, without any ambiguity, Gentiles are now "fellowcitizens" of Israel.

So where are the "Body's scriptures", Hilston? Can you direct me to them?

Originally posted by Hilston

Those are a small sample of passages from Ezekiel's prophecy. There are tons more. By your logic, burnt offerings and blood sacrifice should be observed as well.

No. That's your logic, not mine.

Jesus Christ was the final sacrifice. The Jewish people will NEVER be asked by God to offer animal sacrifices for sin again. Let's look closely at what the LORD tells Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 43:10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern. 11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

The if in the statement makes it conditional. They never met the condition. You points about animal sacrifices, or any future temple worship, are mute.

Originally posted by Hilston

You presume to understand the counsel of God. It is scripture that prohibits water baptism; not me.

I've never read that in my Bible. Perhaps you can point out specifically where that prohibition can be found?

Frankly, verses like...

Ro 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

...don't make any sense, in light of you spirit-only-baptism. Care to explain how someone is buried in spirit, and then risen out of the spirit into newness of life?

Originally posted by Hilston

Here's another passage from Ezekiel that you should compare with other scripture:

Ezekiel 45:17
And it shall be the prince's part [to give] burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

Compare that to the following:
Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

This is a prohibition. Do not let anyone regulate you, judge you, impose upon you anything of a ceremonial, sacramental, or religious nature, including the very things found in Israel's scriptures.

As I already pointed out, Ezekiel 45:17 is a conditional command. The conditions were never met, thus the "rules" you quote will NEVER be implemented.

As for Colossians 2:16,17, it is not a prohibition against "anything of a ceremonial, sacramental, or religious nature" as you claim. Note verse 17 which clearly calls holydays, new moons, and the sabbath as a shadow of things to come, which is the future. Therefore, as unfulfilled types, logically Paul is not claiming that holy days, new moons, and sabbaths have no place in the body of Christ.

Note Isaiah:

Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Since the LORD in the book of Isaiah is speaking of the new earth in that verse, we can see that Paul was correct in stating that new moons and the sabbath were a shadow of things to come.

So basically, Hilston, you haven't made any points yet; but you have confessed to renouncing both your water baptisms as sin. Interesting.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Nimrod
Ok now let me give you an example from Ezekiel. sin offering.
Go ahead Hilston, check every reference in the Bible for sin offering. For you to take Ezekiel and apply it to the future millennium temple and give it a meaning of a 'memorial sacrafice', would destroy YOUR OWN HERENEUTICS!!!

Since I haven't given it a meaning of "memorial sacrifice," or even "memorial sacrafice," whatever that means, your argument is junk. I haven't used the term; not even once. Save your exclamation points for when you actually have something that makes sense, Nimrod.

Originally posted by Nimrod
Stick to this topic, no rabbit trails please. Do you or do you not believe the Scriptures quoted in Eziekel (see previous post) apply to the future millenium?

Duh, Nimrod. Of course I do.

Originally posted by Nimrod
Do you or do you not see the phrase sin offering?

I do. Do you or do you not believe that sin offerings were symbolic?

Originally posted by Nimrod
How do you interpret from your own system of hereneutics, the Normative hereneutic, that it does not mean what it says?

It does mean what it says. What planet are you from, Nimrod? Is English your second language?

Originally posted by Nimrod
Your belief that Ezekiel wrote sin offering in his description of the future millenium temple. Your normal interpretation says it is for sin and not for celebration/memorial.
You see, you are not following your own hereneutic. How do you interpret the phrase sin offering in Eziekiel?

It is for sin, Nimrod. But it doesn't actually cleanse from sin. Christ's blood alone does that. It is symbolic of Christ's atoning work; it celebrates it; it is an outward expression of one's faith in Messiah's sacrifice. This is basic stuff, Nimrod. Why am I having to explain this to you?

Hilston asked: Do you agree with what Ezekiel wrote, or not?

Originally posted by Nimrod
Yes, it was fulfilled long ago. How did I come up with that conclusion? I used the Normal hereneutic. I use the same hereneutic for interpretating sin offering in Ezekiel.

Do you believe in water baptism for today, Nimrod? If so, why do you continue to endorse water baptism since it, too, was fulfilled long ago?

Hilston wrote: Remember that you wrote this?: "If Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, then all will be saved. That's what your statement implies. I don't believe it was sufficient for all, but for the elect only."

Originally posted by Nimrod
Sorry if I misspoke about that, or caused you confusion. Christ atonement was sufficient ONLY for those who are His/believers/elect.

At least we agree on particular redemption. Given that agreement, you need to re-think your charge that I somehow do not believe Christ's sacrifice was sufficient.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by elohiym

You renounce both of your baptisms, and consider it sin to be water baptized? How strange, and unbiblical.

Not at all. Very normative. Very biblical.

Originally posted by elohiym
Israel's scriptures? You mean those books Paul quoted all the time?

Of course. Paul didn't write in a vacuum. Paul also quoted the pagan Greek poet Aratus in Acts 17. Big deal. The point is that Paul taught the Mystery in comparison and constrast to Israel's gospel. So naturally he would quote Israel's scriptures.

Originally posted by elohiym
Let's look at what Paul said, Hilston.

Better, "therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens, of the saints, and of the houshold of God." So, as Paul clearly states, without any ambiguity, Gentiles are now "fellowcitizens" of Israel.

The point is, there is no longer Jew nor Gentile in the Body of Christ. Complete unity. No ethnic divisions. Paul's gospel is different from Peter's. Peter's gospel (that of the kingdom of Israel) required ethnic distinctions. The earthly Jesus taught this very thing, making distinctions between Jews and Gentiles in His kingdom (in Mt. 25, Jesus calls the Gentiles "dogs"). In the Body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

Originally posted by elohiym
So where are the "Body's scriptures", Hilston? Can you direct me to them?

The writings of Paul contain a distinctly different message than the rest of the New Testament corpus. Paul's writings are the Body's scriptures. No other author of scripture talks about this group of God's elect. Search and see.

Hilston wrote: Those are a small sample of passages from Ezekiel's prophecy. There are tons more. By your logic, burnt offerings and blood sacrifice should be observed as well.

Originally posted by elohiym
No. That's your logic, not mine.

What a short memory you have, elohiym. You are the one who wanted to use Ezekiel to prove water baptism for today. On that logic, blood sacrifices should be observed today as well. So now that you've proved your argument to be self-refuting and arbitrary, how will you explain yourself? Is water baptism for today or not? If so, then on what grounds do you reject blood sacrifice for today?

Originally posted by elohiym
Jesus Christ was the final sacrifice. The Jewish people will NEVER be asked by God to offer animal sacrifices for sin again.

Oh really? Then why did Paul honor Israel's program by offering animal sacrifices in the Temple in Acts 22:23-26 (cf 24:18)? Why did Peter and John go to Temple to offer their sacrifices at the hour of prayer in Acts 3? Why does Jesus command the disciples to do everything whatsoever He commanded them, including the offerings in the Temple (Mt. 28:19,20)? Why did Jesus command them to do what the pharisees say, including tithes and offerings (Mt. 23:1-3)? The earthly Jesus never repealed these commmands, yet the glorified Jesus, through Paul's writings, abrogates them completely.

Originally posted by elohiym
Let's look closely at what the LORD tells Ezekiel:The if in the statement makes it conditional. They never met the condition. You points about animal sacrifices, or any future temple worship, are mute.

Oh, I see. Your view is that the last dozen chapters of Ezekiel are meaningless detail that have nothing to do with reality past, present or future?

Hilston writes: It is scripture that prohibits water baptism; not me.

Originally posted by elohiym
I've never read that in my Bible. Perhaps you can point out specifically where that prohibition can be found?

Read this link and you'll see plenty of specifics regarding the prohibition of water baptism:

The Prohibition of Water Baptism.

Originally posted by elohiym
Frankly, verses like......

Ro 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead

... don't make any sense, in light of you spirit-only-baptism. Care to explain how someone is buried in spirit, and then risen out of the spirit into newness of life?

Paul uses the Greek term "jointly buried," just as elsewhere he uses such terms as "jointly seated" "jointly risen" "jointly glorified" "jointly quickened" "jointly fitted". Each of these is rich with meaning without the requirement of some symbolic ritual.

Originally posted by elohiym
As I already pointed out, Ezekiel 45:17 is a conditional command. The conditions were never met, thus the "rules" you quote will NEVER be implemented.

You have a strange and superfluous view of God's word. Are there any other parts you throw out as meaningless drivel based this fatuous logic? What do you do with Jer 31:31ff/Heb 8:8ff? Do you believe the church is somehow the fulfillment of these passages? If so, then why don't Ezekiel's prophecies apply to us?

Originally posted by elohiym
As for Colossians 2:16,17, it is not a prohibition against "anything of a ceremonial, sacramental, or religious nature" as you claim. Note verse 17 which clearly calls holydays, new moons, and the sabbath as a shadow of things to come, which is the future. Therefore, as unfulfilled types, logically Paul is not claiming that holy days, new moons, and sabbaths have no place in the body of Christ.

You're quite mistaken. Each of these is a snare which Paul explicitly warns them against, saying "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, ..." Such practices (religious holydays, new moon and sabbath observances, etc.) are tantamount to angel worship, and since the Body of Christ is above angels in administrative hierarchy (1Co 6:3 Eph 3:10), it is therefore wrong to observe such things.

Furthermore, Paul warns against the ceremonialism of ritual symbolisms, such as we see in modern Eucharist observances. Note the similiarityies:

Colossians 2:20-23
Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

Touch and taste regulations, the very thing you see in Eucharistic observances, are prohibited by Paul. All ceremonialism is repudiated.

Originally posted by elohiym
Note Isaiah:

Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Since the LORD in the book of Isaiah is speaking of the new earth in that verse, we can see that Paul was correct in stating that new moons and the sabbath were a shadow of things to come.

Those are a shadow of things to come of Israel, not for the Body of Christ. Paul prohibits Sabbaths and New Moon observances because they are Israel's shadows, not the Body of Christ's. That's the point.

Originally posted by elohiym
So basically, Hilston, you haven't made any points yet; but you have confessed to renouncing both your water baptisms as sin. Interesting.

I've made plenty of points elohiym. You don't have to agree with them to acknowledge that points have been made. Everyone one of your protests has been answered with scripture, but I wouldn't be so foolish to say you haven't made any points. It reminds me of how little kids play guns. One kid rounds a corner and sprays the other kid with a full clip of imaginary bullets and the other kid just stands there and says, "Ha ha! You missed me!" The difference here is that the bullets are quite real, and your silly claim of "haven't made any points yet" is obviously inane and everybody sees it.

 

[elohiym]

Originally posted by Hilston

What a short memory you have, elohiym. You are the one who wanted to use Ezekiel to prove water baptism for today. On that logic, blood sacrifices should be observed today as well. So now that you've proved your argument to be self-refuting and arbitrary, how will you explain yourself? Is water baptism for today or not? If so, then on what grounds do you reject blood sacrifice for today?

My memory is fine, Hilston. You brought up Ezekiel's temple, not me.

God does not say "IF" you do such-and-such, "I will sprinkle clean water..." It's NOT conditional.

Regarding the animal sacrifices in Ezekiel's vision, the LORD made that conditional, as I have clearly shown.

Originally posted by Hilston

Oh really? Then why did Paul honor Israel's program by offering animal sacrifices in the Temple in Acts 22:23-26 (cf 24:18)? Why did Peter and John go to Temple to offer their sacrifices at the hour of prayer in Acts 3? Why does Jesus command the disciples to do everything whatsoever He commanded them, including the offerings in the Temple (Mt. 28:19,20)? Why did Jesus command them to do what the pharisees say, including tithes and offerings (Mt. 23:1-3)? The earthly Jesus never repealed these commmands, yet the glorified Jesus, through Paul's writings, abrogates them completely.

I guess you'll have to ask Paul, Peter and John why they did what they did. We could speculate, I guess. As for Jesus, why do you think he would teach anyone to break the law? Before he died on the cross, what would you expect him to say, Hilston?

Originally posted by Hilston

Oh, I see. Your view is that the last dozen chapters of Ezekiel are meaningless detail that have nothing to do with reality past, present or future?

Is that my view? Can you show me where I expressed that? Nice try, Hilston.

What I did notice is that you have ignored the conditional element of Ezekiel's vision I pointed out. Correct?

Look, Hilston, let's get this one thing sorted out first: Do you agree that the "IF" in the following scripture makes the sacrifices of Ezekiel's temple conditional?

Ezekiel 43:10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern. 11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

That was conditional. What is promised by the LORD in Ezekiel 36 is NOT conditional. I hope you see the difference.

Originally posted by Hilston

You have a strange and superfluous view of God's word. Are there any other parts you throw out as meaningless drivel based this fatuous logic?

Wow. I really must have nailed you with the conditional element of Ezekiel's vision. :chuckle:

If it is conditional, and the condition was not met, it isn't going to happen. Because I believe that simple concept, you claim I throw out scripture as "meaningless drivel based on fatuous logic"? Get real, Hilston.

Originally posted by Hilston

What do you do with Jer 31:31ff/Heb 8:8ff? Do you believe the church is somehow the fulfillment of these passages?

Jeremiah 31:31ff/Hebrews 8:8ff describe the new covenant, as does Ezekiel 36. They are describing the same new covenant, for all believers.

Originally posted by Hilston

If so, then why don't Ezekiel's prophecies apply to us?

I never said they didn't. YOU seem to be the one implying that Ezekiel's prophecies don't apply to YOU.

Originally posted by Hilston

You're quite mistaken. Each of these is a snare which Paul explicitly warns them against...

Those are a shadow of things to come of Israel, not for the Body of Christ. Paul prohibits Sabbaths and New Moon observances because they are Israel's shadows, not the Body of Christ's. That's the point.

So why does Israel get snares for types, instead of a warning against them? You aren't making sense, Hilston.

Originally posted by Hilston

I've made plenty of points elohiym. You don't have to agree with them to acknowledge that points have been made.

Can you summarize your points, Hilston?

I have shown that Ezekiel's vision has a conditional element that was never met, negating its use as a future prophecy. Have you refuted that point yet?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Hilston
Touch and taste regulations, the very thing you see in Eucharistic observances, are prohibited by Paul. All ceremonialism is repudiated.

how is the Eucharist a touch and taste regulation?

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

how is the Eucharist a touch and taste regulation?

If I came to your church, GIT, would it be OK if I took a handful of wafers and ate them as a snack during the sermon? Would it be OK if I gargled the wine/juice before I swallowed it? Would I be allowed to take a couple of shotglasses if I were especially thirsty? What if I wanted to pocket a few extra wafers for later, would that be OK?

How would you answer these questions?

 

[elohiym]

Originally posted by Hilston

If I came to your church, GIT, would it be OK if I took a handful of wafers and ate them as a snack during the sermon? Would it be OK if I gargled the wine/juice before I swallowed it? Would I be allowed to take a couple of shotglasses if I were especially thirsty? What if I wanted to pocket a few extra wafers for later, would that be OK?

How would you answer these questions?

What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 1 Corinthians 11:22

Then I might say something like this...

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 1 Corinthians 11:27-31

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Hilston

If I came to your church, GIT, would it be OK if I took a handful of wafers and ate them as a snack during the sermon? Would it be OK if I gargled the wine/juice before I swallowed it? Would I be allowed to take a couple of shotglasses if I were especially thirsty? What if I wanted to pocket a few extra wafers for later, would that be OK?

How would you answer these questions?

is it OK to be rude?

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by elohiym
What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 1 Corinthians 11:22

How does that apply? Are you saying that Paul is making a "touch not, taste not" regulation here?

Originally posted by elohiym
Then I might say something like this ...

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

How is someone "unworthy" if they take some extra Jesus crackers and an extra shotglass? As long as there is enough to go around, what's the big deal? Or are you putting a "touch not, taste not" regulation on the participant?

Originally posted by GIT
is it OK to be rude?

How is what I've described "rude"? As long as there is enough to go around, what is rude about grabbing some extra to snack on later?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Hilston
How is what I've described "rude"? As long as there is enough to go around, what is rude about grabbing some extra to snack on later?

the same reason talking loudly on your cellphone in a movie is rude.

edited to add:

as for grabbing extra, it would be the equivalent of eating dinner at a friends house and taking much of their food home to your house after you were done.

 

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote: What a short memory you have, elohiym. You are the one who wanted to use Ezekiel to prove water baptism for today. On that logic, blood sacrifices should be observed today as well. So now that you've proved your argument to be self-refuting and arbitrary, how will you explain yourself? Is water baptism for today or not? If so, then on what grounds do you reject blood sacrifice for today?

Elohiym writes:
My memory is fine, Hilston. You brought up Ezekiel's temple, not me.

No, your memory is quite flawed. You're the one who wanted to use Ezekiel to prove water baptism is for today. Read this: Evidence of Elohiym's flawed memory

Elohiym writes:
God does not say "IF" you do such-and-such, "I will sprinkle clean water..." It's NOT conditional.

Regarding the animal sacrifices in Ezekiel's vision, the LORD made that conditional, as I have clearly shown.

I see; so obedient Israel would have to do blood sacrifices in its future Kingdom, but disobedient Israel gets a pass?

Hilston wrote: Oh really? Then why did Paul honor Israel's program by offering animal sacrifices in the Temple in Acts 22:23-26 (cf 24:18)? Why did Peter and John go to Temple to offer their sacrifices at the hour of prayer in Acts 3? Why does Jesus command the disciples to do everything whatsoever He commanded them, including the offerings in the Temple (Mt. 28:19,20)? Why did Jesus command them to do what the pharisees say, including tithes and offerings (Mt. 23:1-3)? The earthly Jesus never repealed these commmands, yet the glorified Jesus, through Paul's writings, abrogates them completely.

Elohiym writes:
I guess you'll have to ask Paul, Peter and John why they did what they did. We could speculate, I guess.

There you go. Good grief.

Elohiym writes:
As for Jesus, why do you think he would teach anyone to break the law? Before he died on the cross, what would you expect him to say, Hilston?

After Jesus died on the cross, He commanded His disciples to observe and obey everything whatsoever He commanded them, which included offering sacrifices, paying spice tithes, observing food laws and dietary restrictions, and to keep the Sabbath. Paul teaches the Body of Christ to break every one of those laws. Jesus gave a different Law to Paul, and He commanded Paul and the Body of Christ to obey it and to disobey the Law of Moses wherever they conflicted.

Elohiym writes:
Look, Hilston, let's get this one thing sorted out first: Do you agree that the "IF" in the following scripture makes the sacrifices of Ezekiel's temple conditional?

Of course, but you miss the point. Every conditional promise that God made to Israel for His Name's sake will come to pass because God is the one who sprinkles them with clean water, forgives their sins, and establishes them in their Land. It is conditional, but no less certain because of His Name's sake. Israel's future kingdom is secure and inevitable, as is the Millennial Temple baptisms and blood sacrifices.

Elohiym writes:
If it is conditional, and the condition was not met, it isn't going to happen.

But the condition will be met. That is God's promise to Israel.

Hilston asked: What do you do with Jer 31:31ff/Heb 8:8ff? Do you believe the church is somehow the fulfillment of these passages?

Elohiym writes:
Jeremiah 31:31ff/Hebrews 8:8ff describe the new covenant, as does Ezekiel 36. They are describing the same new covenant, for all believers.

Ooooo kay. Fine. Nice knowing ya, elohiym.

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:

Hilston asked:
If so, then why don't Ezekiel's prophecies apply to us?

Elohiym writes:
I never said they didn't.

I see. So if YOU meet the conditions of Ezekiel 40-48, YOU get to offer blood sacrifices in the future?

Elohiym writes:
YOU seem to be the one implying that Ezekiel's prophecies don't apply to YOU.

Duh, elohiym! Of course they don't apply to me. I'm not a Jew of the Nation of Israel.

Hilston wrote: You're quite mistaken. Each of these is a snare which Paul explicitly warns them against ... Those are a shadow of things to come of Israel, not for the Body of Christ. Paul prohibits Sabbaths and New Moon observances because they are Israel's shadows, not the Body of Christ's. That's the point.

Elohiym writes:
So why does Israel get snares for types, instead of a warning against them? You aren't making sense, Hilston.

They were not snares for Israel, but proper and necessary. Paul is warning the Body of Christ about adopting Israel's ceremonial practices. Judaizers were trying to entice Body saints to submit to Jewish ritual. Galatians 1 isn't about a true gospel versus a false gospel, but rather the Mystery gospel versus the Kingdom gospel.

Elohiym writes:
Can you summarize your points, Hilston?

My points are summarized here: Points Summarized

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

the same reason talking loudly on your cellphone in a movie is rude.

Please explain. Why would it be rude to take extra crackers or an extra shotglass, especially if there's plenty to go around?

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
edited to add:

as for grabbing extra, it would be the equivalent of eating dinner at a friends house and taking much of their food home to your house after you were done.

Where do you get this, GIT? If there's extra wafers, plenty to go around, what's the harm in grabbing a handful and munching on them later during the football game? Or maybe saving them for later to dip them in milk? Or maybe throwing them into a beef and barley Progresso for a mid-afternoon snack?

Please explain to me, as clearly as you can, what's wrong with doing this.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Hilston
Please explain. Why would it be rude to take extra crackers or an extra shotglass, especially if there's plenty to go around?

if you are the only one, it comes off as rude. when everyone else around you partakes together of the one, and you sit there guzzling down as you please, it shows disunity and is rude to everyone else.

Where do you get this, GIT? If there's extra wafers, plenty to go around, what's the harm in grabbing a handful and munching on them later during the football game? Or maybe saving them for later to dip them in milk? Or maybe throwing them into a beef and barley Progresso for a mid-afternoon snack?

Please explain to me, as clearly as you can, what's wrong with doing this.

it's contrary to the intention of the one providing it.

it's not that eating wafers during a football game or dipping them into milk is wrong. there is certainly nothing that prohibits it (unless you are lactose intolerant perhaps ). however, when the focus and idea of the practice is to show unity and remembrence, it seems odd to take that home with you where it won't be done in the same purpose.

 

[elohiym]

Hilston asked: "If I came to your church, GIT, would it be OK if I took a handful of wafers and ate them as a snack during the sermon? Would it be OK if I gargled the wine/juice before I swallowed it? Would I be allowed to take a couple of shotglasses if I were especially thirsty? What if I wanted to pocket a few extra wafers for later, would that be OK?

How would you answer these questions?

Elohiym answered: "What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 1 Corinthians 11:22

Then I might say something like this...

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 1 Corinthians 11:27-31

To which Hilston now responds:

Originally posted by Hilston

How does that apply? Are you saying that Paul is making a "touch not, taste not" regulation here?

Paul was dealing in those verses with problems very similar to your line of questioning. Read the context, Hilston.

Originally posted by Hilston

How is someone "unworthy" if they take some extra Jesus crackers and an extra shotglass? As long as there is enough to go around, what's the big deal? Or are you putting a "touch not, taste not" regulation on the participant?

How is what I've described "rude"? As long as there is enough to go around, what is rude about grabbing some extra to snack on later?

Ask Paul.

 

[elohiym]

Originally posted by Hilston

Ooooo kay. Fine. Nice knowing ya, elohiym.

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:

If you're in Christ, that would be you. Is Christ not the house of Judah? In Christ are you not Abraham's seed?

Ga 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham‘s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Pretty clear to me.

Nice to be aware of you, Hilston. See ya around.

 

[Lighthouse]

Re: Hilton admits in the Future, Christ's atonement will not be sufficeint for salvat

Re: Hilton admits in the Future, Christ's atonement will not be sufficeint for salvat

Originally posted by Nimrod

Hilston just admitted to all that in the future, Israel will have their sins forgiven by blood sacrafice. He rejects the idea that Christ's sacrafice was the end of all sacrafices.

This is what dispensationalism teaches. Christ's atonement work was not sufficient for all. :kookoo:

First of all, Calvinism is what teaches that Christ's work was not sufficient for all, and Hilston is just that. But dispensationalism does not teach such a thing. Well, I don't know that you can say it teaches either, because Hilston is also an Acts 9 dispensationalist. But I have not heard, ever, from any dispensationalist that Christ's sacrafice was not final.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by 1PeaceMaker

Lighthouse wrote;





What are you talking about????

The 40 year exile was before the laws of sacrafice were set in place.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by 1PeaceMaker

By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight, for BY THE LAW is the knowledge of sin.

NOT by baptism is the knowledge of sin! :doh:

Baptism is akin to confession.

No it isn't. There is only one confession that saves, and that is the confession that Jesus is Lord. Baptism saves no one.