Legalist heresy

[digthemup]

I have come across this while reading our sticky titled Fellowship among foes started several years ago. This cut me to the core, and upon reading it, I was compelled in spirit to bring to light its false doctrine, since I have heard of this type of legalism still being taught in many other areas of what they call doctrine instead of tradition or even cult practice to this day.

Now here is a illustration of how people are to worship. In the matter of immersion for the remission of sins. Many believe that if they are "baptized" as an infant then they are saved. The "baptism" they experienced as an infant was sprinkling and they were not penitent sinners.
Six points on this:
1) They have not been immersed and are not in truth saved.-We are saved by the blood of Christ at the cross. All of our sins were paid in full by His very words ' It is finished.'
2) Their "baptism" was not because they were penitent believers- Baptism as a baby, is a dedication on to GOD allowing the Holy Spirit to abide in us, and thought we all sin many times after that point, we do ask for forgiveness praying unto GOD as Jesus bade us so to do in private, without a need of a confessional and penance.
3) They are still lost
4) They don't know they are lost.- This is what cults use to manipulate others into accepting their heresy.
5) They need the gospel of Jesus preached to them- This is only valid if preaching to people that have never heard the Word of Christ, which in our country would be a very sad excuse. Yet, Paul, in the Spirit, teaches different in Romans addressing the questions about those that have never heard.
6) They need to believe, repent and obey in immersion.-I guess this makes that song ' 2 out of 3 ain't bad', since immersion is a tradition and NOT A REQUIREMENT in your sins being forgiven. Blessed are they who shall not have seen yet believed, and Jesus full explanation to Nicodemus about being born again or the thief at the cross.

This is a situation where men are worshipping God and are NOT worshipping in truth. They may be worshipping from the heart and be worshipping in Spirit, but they are still just as lost and share no part in the fellowship of the gospel.-If you are worshipping from the heart, meaning that you truly believe Jesus Christ is the begotten Son Of GOD. and in Spirit, meaning that you truly believe that He died on the cross that your sins may be removed as the East is from the West forgiven by GOD forever, you are most surely saved and your name is in the Book of The Lamb.

Immersion for remission of sins- this goes back to John the Baptizer, who by his own words teaches us that a greater that he would follow and Jesus asked him to baptize Him to dispel this when John said 'Behold the Lamb of GOD how takes away the sins of the world.'

I am but a simple kinda of man, not well read in the Scriptures, perhaps only but a few times, thoroughly in prayer, fully read through them, full of faults and troubles made to stumble amany of times, yet I know assuredly by the blood of Christ and my believe in Him being the begotten Son of GOD wholeheartedly asking Him for His intersession onto the Father to forgive my debts as I shall forgive my debtors, that gives me assurance I am a forgiven child of GOD.

May our Lord bless and prosper all the brethren and their families cleaving them on to Him till we behold Him onto His face before the Father.

[msethsmile]

I can only tell you what my fellowship believes, teaches and confesses (that's why I'm a member). Immersion vs sprinkle / adult vs infant is a hornets nest. Is one side damned and not the other? Nope, they're just missing out on another avenue of grace.
Salvation is pretty straight forward--
Mark 16:16 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

¹⁶ He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Some believe Baptism is a dedication to the Lord. That would be Law--something you must do. We believe Baptism is Gospel--something God does for us:

"Repent and be bapitized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." (Acts 2:38) Words and grammar mean things. "be baptized"--why is that passive? Because God is the actor. Thru baptism God delivers faith and forgiveness--previously beyond our grasp. Before Baptism we were spiritually blind, deaf, and enemies of God. (Eph 2:1-2)

My fellowship likes to say, "Baptism is an unsinkable boat." Then why are some who are baptized still not saved?--Because they jump out of the boat.

We teach objective and subjective justification. When Christ said, "It is finished."-- all mankind of all time was justified before God (delared not guilty)--objective justification. God then delivers that justification to each individual by means of grace (word and sacraments). (subjective justification)

In the Church Service (Divine Service)--Who does the serving? God does and delights in it. Is there enough grace for salvation when God serves us through the Absolution? Yes. (Hopefully your pastor has an Absolution) Is there enough grace in the Scripture reading for salvation? Yes. Is there enough grace in the sermon for salvation? Yes. Is there enough grace in Baptism for salvation? Yes. Is there enough grace in the Lord's Supper for salvation? Yes.

Why does God provide so many avenues to grace when one is enough?
1. We are spiritually weak and sinful and constantly need to be reminded of grace.
2. God cannot contain His love. It simply gushes forth in many forms--all grace. "There is a fountain filled with blood, Drawn from Immanuel's veins. And sinners plunged beneath that flood Lose all their guilty stains." More like a tidal wave.

I know many will disagree with some of the points here. I have expressed the nuts and bolts of Baptism as clearly as I can. Probably not a great forum for Baptism as it could easily exceed 100 pages.

[digthemup]

I can only tell you what my fellowship believes, teaches and confesses (that's why I'm a member). Immersion vs sprinkle / adult vs infant is a hornets nest. Is one side damned and not the other? Nope, they're just missing out on another avenue of grace.
Salvation is pretty straight forward--
Mark 16:16 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

¹⁶ He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Some believe Baptism is a dedication to the Lord. That would be Law--something you must do. We believe Baptism is Gospel--something God does for us:

"Repent and be bapitized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." (Acts 2:38) Words and grammar mean things. "be baptized"--why is that passive? Because God is the actor. Thru baptism God delivers faith and forgiveness--previously beyond our grasp. Before Baptism we were spiritually blind, deaf, and enemies of God. (Eph 2:1-2)

My fellowship likes to say, "Baptism is an unsinkable boat." Then why are some who are baptized still not saved?--Because they jump out of the boat.

We teach objective and subjective justification. When Christ said, "It is finished."-- all mankind of all time was justified before God (declared not guilty)--objective justification. God then delivers that justification to each individual by means of grace (word and sacraments). (subjective justification)

In the Church Service (Divine Service)--Who does the serving? God does and delights in it. Is there enough grace for salvation when God serves us through the Absolution? Yes. (Hopefully your pastor has an Absolution) Is there enough grace in the Scripture reading for salvation? Yes. Is there enough grace in the sermon for salvation? Yes. Is there enough grace in Baptism for salvation? Yes. Is there enough grace in the Lord's Supper for salvation? Yes.

Why does God provide so many avenues to grace when one is enough?
1. We are spiritually weak and sinful and constantly need to be reminded of grace.
2. God cannot contain His love. It simply gushes forth in many forms--all grace. "There is a fountain filled with blood, Drawn from Immanuel's veins. And sinners plunged beneath that flood Lose all their guilty stains." More like a tidal wave.

I know many will disagree with some of the points here. I have expressed the nuts and bolts of Baptism as clearly as I can. Probably not a great forum for Baptism as it could easily exceed 100 pages.

Based on your inclusive reply, I can only narrow it down to 2 believes, that you are either a Catholic or a Lutheran, which still bare many core believes from its origin prior to the 99 points of schism by Martin Luther.
No offense intended, since I am married to a born in the Lutheran faith several generations deep, and Christ keeps me in service at St Paul Lutheran Hilton, NY, though I was born a Catholic and attended their school system to 12 grade. During those years, I had many conflicting discussion, which I would say they are in line with our discussion on theology, believes and traditions.
Sadly, I find in many cases that those 3 things greatly deviate from scriptures, but then again who am I to debate theology since I have never been compelled toward religion and the traditions attached to them.
The clear point I brought out to my posting is that, based on what I have read (KJV 1611, NKJV versions) and compiled my opinion after much prayer, immersion baptism was just a method which was used and may still be used, BUT IN NO WAY, it is a requirement to wash away your sins or you are still in debt to GOD; Anyone that teaches such is teaching heresy and creating a cult following, especially to say that you are still lost and never receive salvation unless you are immersed. In no way I am saying that baptism immersion, apart from being a method is heresy.
Jesus said to Nicodemus that he needed to be born again and explained in detail. I believe that could be said of the tradition of conformation practice, which strengthens and reaffirms baptismal vows hence rebirth in Spirit. Yet, we know that with GOD all thing are possible, hence, the thief at the cross, Abraham, Moses, Lazarus, etc.
I strongly believe that we are all going to Heaven - Romans 14:11-12, and GOD will decide your permanent residence after everyone has given account to Him, whether or not you may believe in the unsinkable boat.
Any time we uphold anything that is tradition, religious practice, needing a confessional or confessor to absolve your sins, etc. as necessary for salvation, we are at risk of hell's fire. Romans 14:13.

[godsdozer]

Interesting

[msethsmile]

Very few Lutherans practice Lutheranism anymore. Very few Calvinists actually practice Reformed theology anymore. Society (the world) has invaded the Church, Catholics included. What is the general state of Christianity in Europe? Dead, dead, dead. (there are pockets). Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al would be appalled at the state of Christianity in Europe. God cannot be mocked. Of coarse, N. America is better--right? Someone once said, The Holy Spirit moves like a rainstorm. It may be raining here today but not tomorrow.

Read between the lines of my post on Baptism. The Word is what gives Baptism power. God's promise of forgiveness of sins and faith thru Baptism. (The mode is relatively unimportant). "Baptism now saves you." 1Pet 3:21

As for my view of Baptism, no teaching occurs in a vacuum. Scripture and its teachings are an organic whole. One teaching relates to another. We believe, teach and confess total depravity (which ties in with our view of Baptism). I suspect only 5% of Christianity in North America teach this. Total depravity: When man first sinned, he didn't spiritually fall down and skin his knee. He did a header off the top of the Grand Canyon. Please read Gen 6:5--"only evil all the time." describing man. Woof. Rom 3:10-11 "There is no one righteous, ...no one understands, no one who seeks God." Eph 2:1 "dead in your...sins."

Since man is spiritually helpless (dead), God did the heavy lifting. He provides Baptism to give us a new heart. He gives us Absolution, the Word, Lord's Supper to sustain that new heart. Notice where all the glory resides--God's doing. Soli Deo Gloria.

[digthemup]

[QUOTE;10714025]Very few Lutherans practice Lutheranism anymore. Very few Calvinists actually practice Reformed theology anymore. Society (the world) has invaded the Church, Catholics included. What is the general state of Christianity in Europe? Dead, dead, dead. (there are pockets). Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al would be appalled at the state of Christianity in Europe. God cannot be mocked. Of coarse, N. America is better--right? Someone once said, The Holy Spirit moves like a rainstorm. It may be raining here today but not tomorrow.
Fully agree to the above

Read between the lines of my post on Baptism. The Word (Christ resurrection)is what gives Baptism power. God's promise of forgiveness of sins and faith thru Baptism. (The mode is relatively unimportant). "Baptism now saves you." 1Pet 3:21- Please read 1 Peter 3: 13-22

As for my view of Baptism, no teaching occurs in a vacuum. Scripture and its teachings are an organic whole. One teaching relates to another. We believe, teach and confess total depravity (innate corruption of humanity) (which ties in with our view of Baptism). I suspect only 5% of Christianity in North America teach this. Total depravity: When man first sinned, he didn't spiritually fall down and skin his knee. He did a header off the top of the Grand Canyon. Please read Gen 6:5--"only evil all the time." describing man. Woof. Rom 3:10-11 "There is no one righteous, ...no one understands, no one who seeks God." Eph 2:1 "dead in your...sins."

Since man is spiritually helpless (dead), God did the heavy lifting.- He provided His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ (John 3: 16-18) to give us a new heart. He gives us Absolution, the Word, Lord's Supper to sustain that new heart. Notice where all the glory resides--God's doing. Soli Deo Gloria.[/QUOTE]

You are right that Soli (only) Deo (GOD) Gloria ( the glory). It is been a long time since I have had to read Latin.
ONLY TO GOD GOES THE GLORY. Amen, amen, amen.

[Crazy 4 Fishin]

OK - Dig you are saying that you must be baptized or that it does not matter since Christ died on the cross for us......

[digthemup]

OK - Dig you are saying that you must be baptized or that it does not matter since Christ died on the cross for us......

I am saying that YOU DO NOT NEED IMMERSION to be baptized. Since Christ himself asked to be baptized by John the Baptizer, I believe that it answers the question on baptism. However, Christ sacrifice and His blood on the cross assures our filthy sins have been paid by His suffering, death, and resurrection.
John 3: 16-18

[godsdozer]

A study of "The time of restoration".....................…"

diorthosis". Would simplify this topic.

[digthemup]

A study of "The time of restoration".....................…"

diorthosis". Would simplify this topic.

Dozer,
If you would like to know how GOD feels about men giving their limited opinions on His works and thoughts, you would do yourself a great service by reading Job 38-41.

FWIW, my thoughts on men giving their limited opinions on His great love for us expressed in the Holy Scriptures, is as follows:
Blind men in a dark room looking for a black cat that is or not there.

[msethsmile]

If you want to agree, disagree, add to, or take away from what I wrote--that's cool. Butttt, you don't get to rewrite my quotes. To those reading, The white quote section in post #6 attributed to me---I never wrote that. Ex 20:16

[godsdozer]

Good morning Dig, I very rarely give opinions here on this forum. Typically my post consist of scripture after scripture after scripture and I have been chastized by some on here of writing books. haha

The "time of restoration" is NOT an opinion, it was an event in the scriptures which included several things and like I said earlier it would simplify this topic. Most on this forum are living in the "already not yet" theological thought and the "already not yet" theology is destructive to theology/biblical interpretation, peoples lives and local churches.

I would point you back to my thread a few days ago "when" he would return. I posted 101 scriptures which showed the "imminence" of Christ second appearing as taught by the apostles and Jesus himself. You did not refute 1 of the 101 scriptures. Did you read all of those scriptures ? You seemed more concerned with knowing who David Green was than reading and understanding the scriptures .

[godsdozer]

The question of when the Law of Moses passed away continues torage. The futurist view is that the Law of Moses was “nailed to the cross,”with appeal to Colossians 2:14-16. Unfortunately for the futurist view,Colossians does not actually say what it is claimed!
The purpose of this study is to show that the Law of Moses didnot pass away until it was all fulfilled – precisely as Jesus taught in Matthew5:17-18. That did not happen until the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70.
Let us not forget those wordsof Jesus: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the prophets. I didnot come to destroy, but to fulfill. Verily I say unto you that until heavenand earth passes, not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until it isall fulfilled.”
Words could hardly beclearer, more explicit, more undeniable. The sad reality is, however, that manytoday do in fact openly deny these words of our Lord. They even go so far as tosay that the fall – the judgment of Jerusalem – had nothing whatsoever to dowith the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets. But, once again, the words ofJesus could not be clearer, as he spoke of that coming catastrophe: “Thesebe the days of vengeance in which all things that are written must befulfilled” (Luke 21:22).
Much, much more could be saidof this, but, for our purposes here, I want to focus on Hebrews 9:8-10:
“TheHoly Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was notyet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. It wassymbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offeredwhich cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to theconscience— concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshlyordinances imposed until the time of reformation.”
Let’s be very clear aboutwhat these verses say:
✔ The Law of Moses with all of its attendant cultic practices,could not provide forgiveness.
✔Because the Law of Moses could never remove sin, and make the worshiper “perfect as regards theconscience” the Law of Moses could never bring man into the Most HolyPlace, the presence of God.
✔The inability to provide forgiveness and bring man into the MHP was what was“wrong” with the Law of Moses.
✔The Law of Moses would remain imposed (from epikeimai) “until the time of reformation” (reformation is fromdiorthosis).
✔ The time of reformation, the“diorthosis” was when what was “wrong” with the Law of Moses would be setright, corrected.
✔Thus, the time of reformation would be when forgiveness would become a realityand man could enter into the MHP, the presence of God.
It ismy intention to show that “the time of reformation” wasnothing other than the second appearing of Christ for salvation of Hebrews 9:28.It was not at the cross. It was not at the confirming of the New Covenantthrough Jesus’ death, although that was, to be sure, part of the initiation ofthe reformation / restoration. If I am able to establish this as true, it willprove several things:
1. The law of Moses, with allof its attendant cultic practics, including the sacrifices, the washings, the“carnal ordinances” and the entire Jewish festal calendar, remains imposeduntil the second appearing of Christ.
2. It will prove that thedominant view of evangelical Christianity, that the Law of Moses was “nailed tothe cross,” is in fact erroneous.
3. It will prove that if thesecond appearing of Christ has not yet taken place, the Law of Moses remains“imposed.”
4. It will prove that if thesecond appearing of Christ has not taken place that there is today noforgiveness of sin and therefore, no entrance into the Most Holy Place.
First of all, it should benoted that these verses, verses 6f, use the present active indicative todescribe the Temple cultus at the time of the writing of the book of Hebrews.Thus, v. 9 is literally “it is symbolic of the present time” proving thatthe Temple cultus was still serving as a type and shadow of the comingrealities of Christ. It is not that those things had been shadows of whathad now fully come. That is confirmed when chapter 10:1 says that the Lawstill had (present active indicative) a shadow of the good things that wereabout to come.
A reading of verse 11 in sometranslations has led some to believe that the shadows had already become areality, since it says Christ had come as “the High Priest of the good thingsthat have come (genomenon).” However, that reading is at least questionable as acomparison with other translations reveals. The translations are about even inrendering the text as “have come” or “to come.” There is in fact a variantreading that says Christ had come as a High Priest of the good things “about tocome” And there is good reason to accept the “about to come” rendering:
1. The indisputable presentactive indicatives of v. 6f that speak of the still present typological meaningof the cultus. The absurdity of claiming that even today, those things serve astypes and shadows of what is yet to come should be more than obvious. If whatthey typified has become a reality, then most assuredly are not still shadows!
2. The contextual certaintyof the “about to be” concept as found in Hebrews 10:1-2 where the writersclearly says that Christ had to come again the second time, fulfilling theAtonement typology, “for the law, having a shadow of the good things about tocome (mellontown).” Notice that “for” at the beginning of verse 1 because itgives the reason why Christ had to come the second time. And that reason wasbecause the Law was still, when Hebrews was written, a shadow of the goodthings about to come.
3. In Colossians 2:16 theapostle declares in no uncertain terms that the cultus, with its “new moons,feast days and Sabbaths” was, when he wrote “are (present active) shadows ofthe good things about to come (mellontown).”
So,when Hebrews was written, the cultus was still a shadow of good things aboutto come. The law had not yet been fulfilled. The types and shadows ofthat cultus were still anticipating fulfillment. The time of reformation has not fullycome! This cannot be over-emphasized.

[godsdozer]

What we have in Hebrews is a powerful demonstration of the “already-but-not-yet” transition period, the time when the Old Covenant and system was growing old, growing obsolete, and was nigh (engus) unto vanishing away. This transitional period is how and why the NT writers could speak of the eschatological tenets as already present, but then, turn around and say they were coming. They were living in the time of fulfillment.
Jesus said that until every jot and every tittle of the Law was fulfilled (until every “shadow” became a reality) the Law would remain valid – it would remain “imposed.” (“Imposed” is epikeimai, ἐπικείμενα , Strong’s #1945).
Hebrews and Colossians tell us that the cultus, the feast days, the Sabbaths, the new moons, the foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances were still present, still unfulfilled when they were written.
Therefore, until the typological, shadow form of the feast days, the Sabbaths, the new moons, the foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances was fulfilled, they would not and could not pass away. They were “imposed until the time of reformation.”
(This fact is devastating to the Sabbatarian paradigm, that claims that those “ceremonial” praxis ceased at the cross – which they (along with other futurists) identify as the time of reformation. But, as we will show, the time of reformation is in fact the time of Christ’s second appearing! If this is true, the Sabbatarian paradigm of delineating between the “ceremonial law” which they insist ended at the Cross, and the “moral law” which they say never ends, is falsified. If the cultus, with its sacrifices would be “imposed” until the time of reformation, and if the time of reformation is the time of Christ’s second coming, then the entire cultus would remain imposed, valid and binding, until Christ’s second appearing!)
The text says that as long as Torah, and its cultic praxis, stood valid / imposed, there was no forgiveness of sin – those things could never make the worshiper clean in regard to the conscience. As long as there was no forgiveness of sin, there could be no entrance into the Most Holy Place. This is what was “wrong” with the Law of Moses. Something had to change that and provide for forgiveness and entrance into the MHP.
Thus, those cultic actions were only “imposed until the time of reformation” meaning that when the “time of reformation” (correction, reform, putting right) arrived, there would be forgiveness, and with forgiveness would come entrance into the MHP! The time of reformation therefore, is the time when things would change. It would be when there would be forgiveness. And with forgiveness would come entrance into the MHP! The time of reformation is the time of salvation.
The entire point of his discussion is the weakness and inability of Torah to bring forgiveness and salvation, and thus, to restore man to the Presence of God. Torah would remain “standing,” would still have standing / validity and would still be “imposed” (epikeimai) until the time of reformation.
So, as long as the Law of Moses was “imposed” there was no forgiveness.
As long as the Law of Moses was imposed the worshipers never found cleansing of conscience.
As long as the Law of Moses was imposed (having standing) there was no entrance into the MHP.
As long as the Law of Moses was imposed (having standing) there was no salvation.
But, when the time of reformation came:
There would be forgiveness.
There would be the cleansing of conscience.
There would be entrance into the MHP.
There would be salvation.
The time of reformation would provide everything that could not be obtained or given through Torah. This is what “reformation” (diorthosis) meant. It was setting right what was broken, what needed to be corrected.
I should note that many times the discussion of Hebrews 9:6f centers around the word “standing” (Greek stasin, στάσιν , Strong’s #4714). Some have mistakenly argued that what the writer was saying is that as long as the temple stood physically that there was no forgiveness. But that once it was destroyed, that would bring redemption. But, that is not what the text is saying. See my book, The Passing of the Law of Moses: From Torah To Telos, for a full discussion of “standing.” Numerous scholars have recognized that the word “stasin” refers to legal standing, continuing validity.
Forgiveness, and more specifically, the abiding validity of Torah, was not dependent on the physical presence of the temple. After all, the temple was destroyed in BC 586, in the Babylonian destruction, but, that did not mean that Torah had passed away, and it did not mean that forgiveness had come!
The word stasin is being used as virtually synonymous with “imposed” (epikeimai / epikeimena, present participle in Hebrews 9:10). As long as Torah was imposed, valid and binding, i.e. having standing, there was no forgiveness for those under the Law.
So, in reality, there can be no serious doubt that Hebrews was stating in the clearest terms that as long as the Law of Moses remained imposed and having standing, there could be no forgiveness. If and since there could be no forgiveness, there could be no entrance into the Most Holy Place, the Presence of the Lord. There was no salvation.
Since the time of reformation is the time when Torah would no longer have standing, no longer be imposed, and thus, forgiveness and salvation would be a reality, this leaves but one thing to be determined, what was, or is, “the time of reformation”?

[godsdozer]

The writer of Hebrews said that the Law of Moses, including the entire cultic world of sacrifices, festal observances, washings and meats and drinks, was “imposed” (From epikeimai / epikeimena, ἐπικείμενα , Strong’s #1945) “until the time for reformation.” The word reformation is from diorthoseos, διορθώσεως, Strongs’s #1347).
Many, if not most, commentators posit the full arrival of the time of reformation at the cross. This is not the case, and cannot be the case, however. A comparison of Hebrews 9 and Acts 3 proves this.
In Acts 3:19-24 Peter anticipated the arrival of the “restoration of all things.” The word restoration is from apokatastasis, (ἀποκαταστάσεως, Strong’s #605) which means to put back in order, to restore, to make things right. Both diorthosis and apokatastasis are often used in external sources to speak of setting a broken bone. It was used of political reforms as well. In the Tanakh, the word was used to speak of the literal restoration of Israel from exile, the return from Assyria or Babylonian captivity.
In Jeremiah 16:13-15 Jeremiah told Judah that they were about to be removed from their beloved land. Yet he also promised, “I will bring them back (LXX, apokatastasis) into their land which I gave to their fathers” (My emphasis, See also 24:6). This promise was fulfilled under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 1;5;6; Nehemiah 9:36f). (The roman numerals LXX (70) stands for the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT The number 70 traditionally represents the number of Jewish scholars that did the translation work).
But, apokatastasis was also used to speak of the restoration of Israel under the Messiah. For instance, Jehovah also promised to restore Israel under the righteous “Branch,” of the line of David, under whom Judah and Israel would be restored (Jeremiah 23:5f). This is the true restoration of Israel. There are several such Messianic uses of apokatastasis in the Tanakh (cf. Jeremiah 23:8).
One of the most significant predictions of the “restoration” is found in Malachi 4:5-6. The Lord said that Elijah was to come and, “he will turn (apokatastasis ) the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”
Elijah, the restorer, was to urge Israel to, “remember the Law of Moses.” Thus, the framework of “restoration” was within the confines of Israel’s world. He was not to be a prophet to the nations per se.
The work of Elijah was eschatological; he was to appear before the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord (Malachi 4:5-6). (See my book, Elijah Has Already Come; A Solution for Romans 11:25-27 for a full discussion of the work of John the Baptizer as Elijah. Thus, the work of restoration anticipated – and pointed to – the Day of the Lord– the time of reformation in Hebrews 9:6-28! Thus, restoration before parousia, not parousia then restoration. This fits well with the context of Acts 3. Peter says Christ would come at the climax of restoration. Notice that Peter said the restoration of all things was the object of the prophets, and they “spoke of these days”(Acts 3:24) – the days before the parousia. Peter’s “these days” were not far distant days. They were Peter’s days.
In 1 Peter, that same author / speaker, anticipating the arrival of the eternal inheritance, said that it was “ready (hetoimos) to be revealed (1 Peter 1:5f) at the parousia of Christ. In chapter 4, he stated in unequivocal terms “the end of all things has drawn near”; “the (appointed) time has come for (the) judgment” (1 Peter 4:5, 17). Now, unless one is able to demonstrate that the about to be revealed parousia, to bring the eternal inheritance, which would be at the time of the end, that was upon them, then this means that the climactic restoration of all things – no matter how we wish to define it – was upon them – 2000 years ago. Was Peter anticipating a totally different eternal inheritance from the restoration of all things? Where is the proof?
In a FaceBook exchange with Mr. William Vincent, in July of 2018, (Preterist Discussion and Debate) I took note of the restoration work of John as Elijah, being the same as the restoration anticipated by Peter in Acts 3. Amazingly, Mr. William Vincent rejoined that since the word “restore,” used by Jesus to describe John’s work as Elijah, was a verbal form of apokatastasis, whereas, in Acts 3, it is a noun this meant that these must be different restorations! To say this is specious is an understatement. John’s “restoration” work was to prepare for the Great Day of the Lord. The restoration of Acts 3 would take place before the Day of the Lord but would be consummated at that event. So, to suggest that these are two radically different restorations has no merit. Mr. Vincent’s suggestion would demand two different comings of the Lord, would it not?
The point is that in the Messianic prophetic literature, apokatastasis was used of the coming Messianic Kingdom – Israel’s restoration (radical transformation!) through the New Covenant and Messiah.
Likewise, the word translated as “time of reformation” (Hebrews 9:10, from diorthosis) is a synonym for the restoration. Like the “restoration” this time of reformation was the goal of Israel’s prophetic hope. It was the time when God would restore her. It was the time when she would finally receive forgiveness, and God would bring man into His presence. Her exile would be over.
In Isaiah 62:7, in the LXX, Jehovah promised the restoration of Israel. Jerusalem would be established (diorthosis). This restoration would occur at the coming of Jehovah in judgment and salvation (Isaiah 62:11f). This would be the time when the Lord would “remarry” Israel (Isaiah 62:4f). Isaiah’s promise of the coming of Jehovah in judgment is the basis of Jesus’ promise that he was coming in judgment (Matthew 16:27).
So, the diorthosis was the time of Israel’s restoration. The Old Covenant prophets, in speaking of the restoration of Israel under the Messiah, used apokatastasis and diorthosis as synonyms. These words are used interchangeably in the prophetic corpus.

[godsdozer]

Dig, since you didnt like my previous terse comments I thougth i would expound . Enjoy !

[digthemup]

If you want to agree, disagree, add to, or take away from what I wrote--that's cool. Butttt, you don't get to rewrite my quotes. To those reading, The white quote section in post #6 attributed to me---I never wrote that. Ex 20:16

Msethsmile,
You can clearly see the your post, #5 is still as you post it, and my post,#6, is a reply to your post. I am NOT trying to pirate your words or post, just didn't see the need to rewrite what was already there. I am sorry if you feel offended, and I will make it my priority to avoid any replies to any of your post.

BTW, I hope that you truly understand Ex 20:16, since I know that I did IN NO WAY BARE FALSE WITNESS AGAIN YOU.
I hope that now you feel vindicated. Be well and be bless.

[msethsmile]

"Originally Posted by msethsmile" means just that--not something I did not say or intend. Not so clearly seen by someone reading just your post--and attributing it to me (my name is on it). If you want to say, "msethsmile says this and I say that."--that's cool. Ya never know who's reading this stuff or worse screen shotting something I didn't say. All is well on the western front.

[digthemup]

Dig, since you didnt like my previous terse comments I thougth i would expound . Enjoy !

Interesting, very interesting post no doubt.