The baptism in Fire

[Butch5]

Jesus knew all who belonged to him.

He didn't know anyone else?

 

[Butch5]

The "Body of Christ" is the only name God uses for his Church, not any man-made organizations.

Correct. However, within the body of Christ there are myriad of beliefs. Many of which are wrong. How is the Holy Spirit teaching all of these Cristians and yet so many are wrong? Again, which group has the truth?

 

[B-A-C]

Correct. However, within the body of Christ there are myriad of beliefs. Many of which are wrong. How is the Holy Spirit teaching all of these Cristians and yet so many are wrong? Again, which group has the truth?

This is true, but yet for things like the Nicene creed, everyone pretty much agrees.
This is a pretty good baseline. The mainstream denominations use it as a baseline.
For example, Baptists, Foursquare, Assembly of God, Church of Christ, and Apostolic denominations disagree with each other on many things. But they all adhere to the Nicene creed.
They may disagree on OSAS, speaking in tongues, when the rapture happens, soul-sleep and things like that... But they all agree on the trinity and the deity of Jesus.
Most all Pentecostals would say that Baptists are saved. Most foursquare would say that Assembly of God is saved, and so on...

There are some groups who call themselves Christians... Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Christian Scientists, etc.. that don't adhere to the Nicene creed, which is why
they are not accepted by the mainstream denominations as Christian denominations.

 

[Brad Huber]

Correct. However, within the body of Christ there are myriad of beliefs. Many of which are wrong. How is the Holy Spirit teaching all of these Cristians and yet so many are wrong? Again, which group has the truth?

Mankind always wants immediate answers to all of our questions, perhaps due to our short time on earth which many see as critical to find as much knowledge as possible during it. But this only makes us grasp at straws often and while eating that fruit of good and evil, eat some of the evil which is the wrong conclusions we jump to.

The early church had alot of the same problems we do today. Mankind often seems circular in its wonderings in search for a truth, not seeing history for the lessons available, and perhaps the answers to some of those questions. There was so much false teaching, that the church gathered together christian scholars and they basically voted on what was the correct teachings in the things that caused the most divisiveness issues. This gathering was called the council of Nicaea I believe. After a majority of christian scholars agreed to certain truths, the other beliefs began to shrink in power and in numbers. They rarely go away completely because evil hasnt gone away completely, and we are too gullible to learn from the past quite often.

My point is, a majority of christians picked out what was the truth was and the church grew more from these conclusions. Today unfortunately the only believers who gather together from different faiths are the false ones to create something like the one world church. Too much divisiveness, and too much distrust to gather together to try and come to a majority rules decision in this day and age.

 

[Butch5]

@complete

Hi Chris,

Here are a few passages that deal with the ransom.

12 The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin is hid.
13 The sorrows of a travailing woman shall come upon him: he is an unwise son; for he should not stay long in the place of the breaking forth of children.
14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. (Hos. 13:12-14 KJV)

In this passage, God said He would ransom Ephraim, or Israel, from the grave and from death. Who had the power of death?

12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Heb. 2:12-15 KJV)

God said He would redeem them from death. The devil had the power of death. Therefore God had to redeem them from the devil. Who was it that killed Christ? Many say the Jews, but they were a tool.

6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
(1 Cor. 2:6-8 NKJ)

Who are the rulers of this age? It wasn't Pilot or the Romans. They haven't lasted for the age. We know who the ruler of this age is. Paul tells us.

3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. (2 Cor. 4:3-4 NKJ)

The ruler or god of this age is the devil. He's the one who killed Christ. Christ was the ransom that was paid. It was the devil that received the payment. By doing so Christ redeemed mankind and brought him back to God.

Jesus spoke of being of being the ransom.

28 "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matt. 20:28 NKJ)

Paul also speaks of it.

5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,
(1 Tim. 2:5-6 NKJ)

Here's a quote from Irenaeus. Irenaeus was a disciple of a man named Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. So, the guy who discipled Irenaeus, was discipled by the apostle John.

CONCEITS OF VALENTINUS AND EBION.

1. FOR in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person “knew the mind of the Lord,” or who else “has become His counsellor?” Again, we could have learned in no other way than by seeing our Teacher, and hearing His voice with our own ears, that, having become imitators of His works as well as doers of His words, we may have communion with Him, receiving increase from the perfect One, and from Him who is prior to all creation. We—who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation—have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh,2 and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God,—all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.


Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 526–527.

This was the original understanding of the Atonement.

 

[Butch5]

This is true, but yet for things like the Nicene creed, everyone pretty much agrees.
This is a pretty good baseline. The mainstream denominations use it as a baseline.
For example, Baptists, Foursquare, Assembly of God, Church of Christ, and Apostolic denominations disagree with each other on many things. But they all adhere to the Nicene creed.
They may disagree on OSAS, speaking in tongues, when the rapture happens, soul-sleep and things like that... But they all agree on the trinity and the deity of Jesus.
Most all Pentecostals would say that Baptists are saved. Most foursquare would say that Assembly of God is saved, and so on...

There are some groups who call themselves Christians... Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Christ Scientists, etc.. that don't adhere to the Nicene creed, which is why
they are not accepted by the mainstream denominations as Christian denominations.

I would submit that they don't agree with the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed does not agree with the Trinity doctrine. However, the point I was making is that if all Christians are being taught by the Holy Spirit all Christians should be in agreement. Sure no one would argue that the Holy Spirit leads one church to believe OSAS and the church down the street to disbelieve in it.

It seems to me there are only two options. If the Spirit teaches all, then all should be in agreement. The other option is the Spirit isn't teaching everyone everything.

 

[Butch5]

Mankind always wants immediate answers to all of our questions, perhaps due to our short time on earth which many see as critical to find as much knowledge as possible during it. But this only makes us grasp at straws often and while eating that fruit of good and evil, eat some of the evil which is the wrong conclusions we jump to.

The early church had alot of the same problems we do today. Mankind often seems circular in its wonderings in search for a truth, not seeing history for the lessons available, and perhaps the answers to some of those questions. There was so much false teaching, that the church gathered together christian scholars and they basically voted on what was the correct teachings in the things that caused the most divisiveness issues. This gathering was called the council of Nicaea I believe. After a majority of christian scholars agreed to certain truths, the other beliefs began to shrink in power and in numbers. They rarely go away completely because evil hasnt gone away completely, and we are too gullible to learn from the past quite often.

My point is, a majority of christians picked out what was the truth was and the church grew more from these conclusions. Today unfortunately the only believers who gather together from different faiths are the false ones to create something like the one world church. Too much divisiveness, and too much distrust to gather together to try and come to a majority rules decision in this day and age.

I agree in part. The council of Nicea was to address Ariansim. Arius lost the debate. As a result of the conflict, the Nicene Creed was established to show what the church believed. The early church did get together to decide which of the letters were real and which weren't. That's how we know who wrote the Gospels. That's why the gospels of Peter and Thomas are not in the New Testament.

My point in this is to try to get Christians to look at the inconsistencies in their beliefs rather than look past them .

 

[Butch5]

The Reformers believed the CC was no longer teaching the truth. The atonement was one of those areas.

It's not that the penal substitution belief came into existence after the Reformers nailed it down, but it had been lost through the CC.

The theme of Scripture screams out penal substitution. Sorry we disagree on this, but it is what it is.

Actually, they didn't think that the Catholic church had the Atonement wrong. The Penal model is very similar to the Satisfaction model that the Catholic church held. There was a Catholic leader named Anselm of Canterbury. He must have been pretty influential because he is the one who introduced the Satisfaction model and somehow got the Catholic church to switch from the Ransom view to the Satisfaction view. But, again, that was around 1100 ad. That's still 1000 years later.

But more to the point. You said the Reformers believed the Catholic church got some things wrong. Ok. Do you know what they were and do you know if they were really wrong? Just because the Reformers said some things were wrong, doesn't mean they actually were wrong. It's very possible that the Reformers themselves were wrong. And, they were. The Reformers had quite a bit wrong. This suggests they didn't have a good grasp of the Scriptures. So, why should we believe what they say? So, the Reformers say the Catholics are wrong and the Catholics say the Reformers are wrong. Why should we believe either group?

Instead, why not go to the source? The early Christians?

 

[Brad Huber]

I agree in part. The council of Nicea was to address Ariansim. Arius lost the debate. As a result of the conflict, the Nicene Creed was established to show what the church believed. The early church did get together to decide which of the letters were real and which weren't. That's who we know who wrote the Gospels. That's why the gospels of Peter and Thomas are not in the New Testament.

My point in this is to try to get Christians to look at the inconsistencies in their beliefs rather than look past them .

A little more on it.... "The Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical debate held by the early Christian church, concludes with the establishment of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Convened by Roman Emperor Constantine I in May, the council also deemed the Arian belief of Christ as inferior to God as heretical, thus resolving an early church crisis.

"The controversy began when Arius, an Alexandrian priest, questioned the full divinity of Christ because, unlike God, Christ was born and had a beginning. What began as an academic theological debate spread to Christian congregations throughout the empire, threatening a schism in the early Christian church. Roman Emperor Constantine I, who converted to Christianity in 312, called bishops from all over his empire to resolve the crisis and urged the adoption of a new creed that would resolve the ambiguities between Christ and God.

"Meeting at Nicaea in present-day Turkey, the council established the equality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity and asserted that only the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ. The Arian leaders were subsequently banished from their churches for heresy. The Emperor Constantine presided over the opening of the council and contributed to the discussion."

From: Council of Nicaea concludes

 

[complete]

@complete

Hi Chris,

Here are a few passages that deal with the ransom.

12 The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin is hid.
13 The sorrows of a travailing woman shall come upon him: he is an unwise son; for he should not stay long in the place of the breaking forth of children.
14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. (Hos. 13:12-14 KJV)

In this passage, God said He would ransom Ephraim, or Israel, from the grave and from death. Who had the power of death?

12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Heb. 2:12-15 KJV)

God said He would redeem them from death. The devil had the power of death. Therefore God had to redeem them from the devil. Who was it that killed Christ? Many say the Jews, but they were a tool.

6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
(1 Cor. 2:6-8 NKJ)

Who are the rulers of this age? It wasn't Pilot or the Romans. They haven't lasted for the age. We know who the ruler of this age is. Paul tells us.

3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. (2 Cor. 4:3-4 NKJ)

The ruler or god of this age is the devil. He's the one who killed Christ. Christ was the ransom that was paid. It was the devil that received the payment. By doing so Christ redeemed mankind and brought him back to God.

Jesus spoke of being of being the ransom.

28 "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matt. 20:28 NKJ)

Paul also speaks of it.

5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,
(1 Tim. 2:5-6 NKJ)

Here's a quote from Irenaeus. Irenaeus was a disciple of a man named Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. So, the guy who discipled Irenaeus, was discipled by the apostle John.

CONCEITS OF VALENTINUS AND EBION.

1. FOR in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person “knew the mind of the Lord,” or who else “has become His counsellor?” Again, we could have learned in no other way than by seeing our Teacher, and hearing His voice with our own ears, that, having become imitators of His works as well as doers of His words, we may have communion with Him, receiving increase from the perfect One, and from Him who is prior to all creation. We—who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation—have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh,2 and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God,—all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.


Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 526–527.

This was the original understanding of the Atonement.

Thank you, @Butch5,

 

[Butch5]

Thank you, @Butch5,

You're Welcome!

 

[Butch5]

Thank you, @Butch5,

HI Chris,

Here's another passage I somehow forgot to mention. Here Paul actually states it. We saw from Scripture that man fell under Satan's control when he ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Irenaeus also acknowledged this. In Colossians 1 Paul speaks directly to the redemption.

9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; 11 Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; 12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Col 1:9–14.

Here Paul, speaking of believers, says that God has delivered them. Not from God, but from the power of darkness. We know who had the power of darkness. It was Satan. Remember, Paul said,

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Heb 2:14–15

Paul says in Colossians 1 that God had delivered them from the power of darkness into the Kingdom of His Son. Then he says they have redemption through His blood. So, because of the redemption that is found through Christ's blood, the believer has been translated or redeemed out of the kingdom of darkness and into the Kingdom of Christ. Paul said the wrath of God abides on unrighteousness.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ro 1:18–19.

The Devil is the poster child for unrighteousness. So, men in the kingdom of darkness are in a kingdom of unrighteousness. Thus the wrath of God is revealed against them. The redemption that is found through the blood of Christ is being translated or redeemed out of the kingdom of darkness and into the Kingdom of Christ. This is how Christ's sacrifice has delivered man from God's wrath.

This is how we can understand Christ's sacrifice, in our place, as a ransom, and not a payment to appease the wrath of God. To me the ransom view portrays a truly loving God who allowed His own Son to lay down His life to redeem God's creation. I find this much more in line with God's character. The Penal model portrays a god who must be appeased. It portrays the idea of a god who though he said he would forgive sins, doesn't. Instead, he demands the death of his own son in place of man.

Which view sounds more like the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ?

 

[complete]

@Butch5:-
This is how we can understand Christ's sacrifice, in our place, as a ransom, and not a payment to appease the wrath of God. To me the ransom view portrays a truly loving God who allowed His own Son to lay down His life to redeem God's creation. I find this much more in line with God's character. The Penal model portrays a god who must be appeased. It portrays the idea of a god who though he said he would forgive sins, doesn't. Instead, he demands the death of his own son in place of man.

Which view sounds more like the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ?

'Grace be to you and peace
from God the Father, and
from our Lord Jesus Christ,
Who gave Himself for our sins,
that He might deliver us
from this present evil world,
according to the will of God and our Father:
To Whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.'
(Gal 1:3-5)

Hello @Butch5,

I can understand your reasoning, and my flesh desires to agree, but I am being held back from doing so in my spirit, and the child in me is saying plaintively, 'I am not skilled to understand what God has willed what God has planned, I only know at His right hand stands One Who is my Saviour' - for I do not feel sufficiently informed to respond adequately.

The word 'Ransom' , 'loosing-money', is the price paid for letting loose, or setting free; hence, expiation, atonement, with especial reference to the result rather than to the means. The ransom price is an expiation, or (Num. 35:31) an equivalent for the punishment due, and therefore frees from the consequences of guilt. (ref:- Concordance/Lexicon)

'Even as the Son of man came
not to be ministered unto, but to minister,
and to give His life a ransom for many.'
(Mat 20:28)

'For there is one God,
and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus;
Who gave Himself a ransom for all,
to be testified in due time.'
(1Tim 2:5-6)

* In the Vine's Expository Dictionary it says (quote):-

'Lutron' (Str. 3083) lit., 'a means of loosing' (from luo, 'to loose'), occurs frequently in the Sept., where it is used to signify 'equivalence'. Thus it is used of the 'ransom' for a life, eg., Exod. 21:30, of the redemption price of a slave, eg., Lev. 19:20, of land, 25:24, of the price of a captive, Isa. 45:13. In the NT it occurs in Matt. 20:28 and Mark 10:45, where it is used of Christ's gift of Himself, as 'a ransom for many.' Some interpreters have regarded the 'ransom' price as being paid to Satan; others, to an impersonal power such as death, or evil, or 'that ultimate necessity which has made the whole course of things what it has been,' Such ideas are largely conjectural, the result of an attempt to press the details of certain Old Testament illustrations beyond the actual statements of New Testament doctrines.

That Christ gave up His life in expiatory sacrifice under God's judgment upon sin and thus provided a 'ransom' whereby those who receive Him on this ground obtain deliverance from the penalty due to sin, is what Scripture teaches. What the Lord states in the two passages mentioned involves this essential character of His death. In these passages the preposition is anti, which has a vicarious significance, indicating that the 'ransom' holds good for those who, accepting it as such, no longer remain in death since Christ suffered death in their stead. The change of preposition in 1 Tim. 2:6, where the word antilutron, a substitutionary 'ransom,' is used in significant. There the preposition is huper, 'on behalf of', and the statement is made that He 'gave Himself a ransom for all', indication that the 'ransom' was provisionally universal, while being of a vicarious character. Thus the three passages consistently show that while the provision was universal, for Christ died for all men, yet it is actual for those only who accept God's conditions, and who are described in the Gospel statements as 'the many.' The giving of His life was the giving of His entire person, and while His death under divine judgment was alone expiatory, it cannot be disassociated from the character of His life which, being sinless, gave virtue to His death and was a testimony to the fact that His death must be of a vicarious nature.'

Thank you @Butch5,
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[complete]

'But God will redeem my soul
from the power of the grave:
for He shall receive me.'
(Psa 49:15)

Praise God!