Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: fortheDeclaration
More importantly, if you remove the distinctions between the Church and Israel, you have removed the essential element in Dispensationalism.

ftD, I understand the article to be saying differently that you have concluded. I see the article saying that the Church is NOT Israel. It draws clear distinctions between Church, Israel, and Spiritual Israel.

Spiritual Israel is not Israel, but they are Israelites. The Church incorporates Spiritual Israel but all believers are not part of Spiritual Israel....the Gentile believers are not Jewish. The eternal promises to Israel were made to believing Israel (Spiritual Israel) NOT to unbelievers. They were never intended for unbelievers, but they were intended for Jews.

This all seems to me a scripturally logical way to approach the issue.

As mentioned to Hank, though, it's important to distinguish between a construct and a certainty. This is not at the level of a doctrinal certainty. It is a construct.

14 posted on 08/31/2002 5:32:52 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: xzins; maestro
ftD, I understand the article to be saying differently that you have concluded. I see the article saying that the Church is NOT Israel. It draws clear distinctions between Church, Israel, and Spiritual Israel. Spiritual Israel is not Israel, but they are Israelites. The Church incorporates Spiritual Israel but all believers are not part of Spiritual Israel....the Gentile believers are not Jewish. The eternal promises to Israel were made to believing Israel (Spiritual Israel) NOT to unbelievers. They were never intended for unbelievers, but they were intended for Jews.

Below is what the Progressives say about the Church

Traditional dispensationalists use the word 'Church' to distinguish believers between Pentecost and the rapture from all other saints. This contemporary dispensational meaning is absolutely contrary to biblical and historical usage. The Greek word 'eklessia' is NOT used in the Bible exclusively of New Testament believers. Steven referred to Israel as "the church in the wilderness" in Acts 7:38. The writer of Hebrews quoted Psalm 22:22 (from the LXX), and used the Greek word 'eklessia' for congregation [Heb. 2:12]. Furthermore, the LXX - Greek translation (200BC) of the OT used by the Apostles and the early Christians - uses the word 'eklessia' many times in reference to the people of God in the Old Testament. Therefore, the early Christians who used this translation would NOT see this word as having exclusively post-Pentecost / pre-rapture connotations!

The reading as regards to Dispensationalism must go back to Paul, since to him and to him alone was the mystery of the Church revealed (Eph.3).

No matter what word was being used for church before Paul, after Paul it had a different connotation, that is a body of believers who were both Jews and Gentiles, thus a different group.

This uniqueness will go into eternity, since we have a different inheritance then any other group of saints and are married to Christ (Rev.19) (If everyone is the 'Church' they should therefore be the 'bride' then what would be John the Baptist be since he was just a 'friend of the bridegroom' but not the Bride.(Jn.3:29)

Progressive dispensationalists see the word 'church' (when used in the universal sense) in the biblical and historical context. Therefore, the universal 'Church' today is all saints of all ages, and includes ALL who's names are written in heaven [Heb. 12:23].

You can call everyone 'Church' (a Convenant designation) but they are not the church, the body of Christ (Eph.1:26) and His Bride (Eph.5:23-25)

Some, no doubt, will object that Jesus referred to "my Church" in the future tense [Matt. 16:18]. This is true. However, the building of Jesus' 'Church' is in reference to the Old Testament believers being brought under the blood of Christ after the crucifixion [Heb. 9:15]. The very first act of Jesus after His crucifixion was to gather the OT saints into the New Covenant. This occurred prior to Pentecost. Both Jew and Gentile from all dispensations must be brought under the New Covenant in order to partake of eternal life. The 'Church,' from a New Testament perspective, includes all saints who possess eternal salvation. Paul wrote of "those in heaven" (OT saints) and "those on earth" (NT saints of the first century) as being joined together "in Christ" [Eph. 1:9,10]. That this joining of both the Old Testament and New Testament saints had already occurred when Paul wrote is seen from his use of the present tense when referring to this united group of saints as "the whole family" in both heaven and earth named after Christ [Eph. 3:14,15].

Oh, no, that is totally bogus!

The church age believer is adopted into the family(Paul is the only one that uses that term,)(Rom.8:15) his body is made the temple of the Holy Spirit (1Cor.3:16) and brought into Union with Christ (Jn.17), which never happened to any Old Testament Saint.

This is from the Scofield notes:

That the Gentiles were to be saved was no mystery Romans 9:24-33; Romans 10:19-21. The mystery "hid in God" was the divine purpose to make of Jew and Gentile a wholly new thing--"the church, which is his Christ's body," formed by the baptism with the Holy Spirit 1 Corinthians 12:12,13 and in which the earthly distinction of Jew and Gentile disappears ; Ephesians 2:14,15; Colossians 3:10,11. The revelation of this mystery, which was foretold, but not explained by Christ Matthew 16:18 was committed to Paul. In his writings alone we find the doctrine, position, walk, and destiny of the church.

17 posted on 08/31/2002 10:31:37 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson