The Church - The Body of Christ

B

Benefactor

Guest
Some view the body of Christ as extending from Adam to the End of all ages. Others see the Christian Church the Body of Christ as strictly existing during the dispensation of grace. This thread is not about when anyone sees the church of Christ - the body of Christ starting in a very technical sense as some arguer for Acts 2, as I do and others later. Lets avoid that round of issues by which they are being discussed in another thread.

The point in this thread is to discuss the relevance of Matthews statement that the Church is future of the time in which the statement was made verses the belief that the Church being viewed as an extension of the Old Testament believers.

Matthew 16:18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

If you are one that see the church of Christ as an extension of the "so called church" of the OT then how do you deal with this clear statement by Christ that the church He is going to build does not exist at the time He makes this statement?
 

Terral

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2004
1,636
49
Visit site
✟21,357.00
Faith
Christian
Hi Benefactor:

Some view the body of Christ as extending from Adam to the End of all ages.

Those people would be wrong. The Mystery “Body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12) “His Body” Church (Col. 1:24) began with the Apostle Paul on the Road to Damascus, as explained on Dan’s Dispy Forum thread in Post #3 here.

Others see the Christian Church the Body of Christ as strictly existing during the dispensation of grace.

The ‘Dispensation of God’s Grace’ (Eph. 3:2) represents a ‘mode of dealing’ (Vine’s) and not any ‘time’ or ‘epoch,’ which represents an erroneous use of the term “oikonomia.”

This thread is not about when anyone sees the church of Christ - the body of Christ starting in a very technical sense as some arguer for Acts 2, as I do and others later. Lets avoid that round of issues by which they are being discussed in another thread.

Okie dokie then. Anyone starting our mystery church in Acts 2 has no case anyway . . . :0) Pentecost represents the ‘third and final’ offering of the Gospel of the Kingdom to Israel ONLY (Acts 2:14, 22, 36) on the way to Israel’s third strike and the ultimate ‘transgression’ (Rom. 11:11) whereby Paul’s “my gospel” (#2 here) was sent to the Gentiles. BTW, if anyone wants to challenge my "Two Gospels" thesis, then by all means click on the (#2 here) link and point out my errors. :0)

The point in this thread is to discuss the relevance of Matthews statement that the Church is future of the time in which the statement was made verses the belief that the Church being viewed as an extension of the Old Testament believers.

Matthew’s statement? :0) I think you are referring to Christ’s statement in Matthew’s Synoptic Gospel Account where you quote:

Matthew 16:18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Christ is referring to the Kingdom ‘Bride’ (John 3:29 = Church #1 here = same deal) saved via the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, etc. = Gospel #1). Paul’s Mystery ‘Body of Christ’ (Church #2) is a completely separate ‘dispensation’ called by God through Paul’s “Word of the Cross” (Gospel #2) gospel message for today. Has Christ died for anyone in Matthew 16? No! Okay then. :0) Those Kingdom ‘Disciples’ had sins forgiven through repentance, confession of sins and water baptism for the forgiveness of their sins (Mark 1:4-5), exactly like everyone saved at Pentecost in Acts 2. Peter will not find out about Paul’s “gospel I preach among the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:2), until the famous meeting between the Kingdom ‘Bride’ (Church #1) and Paul’s Mystery “Body of Christ” (Church #2) in Acts 15 in about 50 AD; or 20 years ‘after’ Pentecost.

If you are one that see the church of Christ as an extension of the "so called church" of the OT then how do you deal with this clear statement by Christ that the church He is going to build does not exist at the time He makes this statement?

Nobody from Genesis to Malachi is a Kingdom Disciple part of Peter’s Prophetic Kingdom “Bride” (Church #1), as NOBODY in the OT had any opportunity to be saved by obeying the “Gospel of the Kingdom.” Period. The very first disciples called by God through the Gospel of the Kingdom were baptized by John the Baptist (pic = in golden yellow) in the Jordan River to kick things off in Mark 1, or whichever of the Four Gospels you want to begin Christ’s Kingdom ‘Bride’ to fulfill such OT prophecies as we see in Hosea 2:19-20. Christ addresses His “My Church” throughout the Four Gospels (like in Matt. 18:17-18), as if our mystery Body of Christ would never even exist. After all, Israel was given time to accept OR reject the Earthly (John the Baptist) and Heavenly (Jesus Christ) Messiah (Matt. 17:12) ‘and’ their rejection of the Gospel of the Kingdom via the “Holy Spirit beginning at Pentecost, was ‘strike three’ and you are out! :0)

In Christ Jesus (Church #2),

Terral
 
Upvote 0
B

Benefactor

Guest
I was wondering if there are any Covenant Believers that have a well developed answer to Mathew 16:18? If you are there how do you deal with the future tense "I will build my church" Indicative future active? Christ is saying that it is a reality that He will actively build His church in the future. What are your arguments around this clear statement on Christ Church, the Bride of Christ?

This verse clearly states that His church the body of Christ is not in existence and that it will be in the future. How do you get away from this verse and equate the Christian church with Israel?
 
Upvote 0

Terral

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2004
1,636
49
Visit site
✟21,357.00
Faith
Christian
Hi Benefactor:

Interesting thoughts. Are you or do you consider yourself a dispensationalist of any kind?

I am a member of “Christ’s Body” (1Cor. 12:27, Col. 1:24) saved by God’s grace through faith apart from works (Eph. 2:8-10) and a ‘new creature’ from 2Cor. 5:16-17 already seated IN the heavenly places that are IN Christ Jesus. Eph. 2:6. I am called a ‘Dispensationalist’ by many of my debating adversaries on other Boards, but not generally considered a Dispy by the ones writing here at CF.com. Since I see our mystery rapture as taking place some 1000 years ‘before’ the Great Tribulation of Matt. 24:21 (Rev. 7:14-16) (my thread), and I see Christ’s Heavenly Kingdom (2Tim. 4:18) as being in heaven (my thread = not on this little earth), then you can see that my views are very different from the typical Dispy. Therefore, while I do interpret Scripture according to the appropriate ‘dispensations,’ I cannot place the tag of ‘Dispy’ upon my testimony, nor upon my person. My view is that everyone believing our gospel (#2) is a member of the “Body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12 = Church #2), whether they realize that today or not. :0)

Welcome to CF.com and GL in the Debates,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TheScottsMen

Veteran
Jul 8, 2003
1,239
14
Minneapolis, MN
✟8,995.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Thanks,

That said then I take it you don't believe in an earthly kingdom?

Would I be correct to state it this way, you are a Dispensational A-millennialist?


Come now! A Dispensational Amillennialist?!? I don't think those words work in the same sentence:)

I believe Tractor's theology is a modified version of Mid-Acts (Pauline) Dispensationalism
 
Upvote 0

TheScottsMen

Veteran
Jul 8, 2003
1,239
14
Minneapolis, MN
✟8,995.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Matthew 16:18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

If you are one that see the church of Christ as an extension of the "so called church" of the OT then how do you deal with this clear statement by Christ that the church He is going to build does not exist at the time He makes this statement?

Where does Jesus say that a "church" did not exist in the Old Testament? First off, the church is a community of all believers for ALL TIME.

Let me start first with a question. Who did Christ die for? Did he die only for those who were saved after his death? Did he die only for those beginning in Acts 2? Christ shed his blood for all believers... those in the OT and NT. Otherwise, on the faithful day of His return, do not expect to see Moses, Enoch, Job, or any other faithful believer found in the OT.

I think you would agree that Christ died for not only those after His death, but also before. I think you would agree (I know Mid-Acts Dispensationalist will not) that Paul believed the same thing. If you believe that Paul thought of Christ dieing for both OT and NT believers, how does he express it? Who does Paul say that Christ died for?

Paul says in Eph 5:25 "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" If we were to take your view of the church (starting after Christ death) did Paul simply forget that Christ also died for those before his church started? No, Paul says that Christ died for his church..that includes members that were before his death.

Paul did not say "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her..and he also died for those people before his church started"

With your view of the Church, would not Paul have had to say this? You tell me.. who did Christ die for?

I would even go as far as to say that Christ died only for the elect, but that's a whole new discussion.

I just got home from work, and need to relax a bit. I will respond in detail tomorrow. Anyways, I am sure that Terral and others will be quick with a reply. Considering I once thought as they do, I would expect nothing less:)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nilloc
Upvote 0

Terral

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2004
1,636
49
Visit site
✟21,357.00
Faith
Christian
Hi Benefactor and Scottsmen:

Thanks,

That said then I take it you don't believe in an earthly kingdom?

Of course there is an ‘earthly kingdom’ where ‘David himself’ (Eze. 34:23-25) rules over the Kingdom of God “on earth AS IT IS in heaven.” Matt. 6:10. Jesus Christ is the Lord OF HEAVEN. Isa. 66:1 (my thread). :0)

Would I be correct to state it this way, you are a Dispensational A-millennialist?

I am a member of the “Body of Christ.” Eph. 4:12. Christ’s Heavenly Kingdom (2Tim. 4:18) is NOT of this world and NOT even of this realm. John 18:36. Those trying to push a Christ’s Temporary 1000 Year Earthly Kingdom are selling MYTHS.

Come now! A Dispensational Amillennialist?!? I don't think those words work in the same sentence.

I believe Tractor's theology is a modified version of Mid-Acts (Pauline) Dispensationalism

Our mystery “His Body” Church (Col. 1:24) began with Paul on the Road to Damascus in Acts 9:15-16 no matter what Ultra-Dispys like C.R. Stam believe. The fact that some Dispys have some things right in NO WAY tosses me into their tiny little faction/sect, when the same people are DEAD WRONG about a myriad of other things contained in their broken theologies.

Where does Jesus say that a "church" did not exist in the Old Testament? First off, the church is a community of all believers for ALL TIME.

See what I mean? :0) Professing Dispy’s oftentimes make ridiculous statements like the one above, as if Christ’s “My Church” (Kingdom “Bride” = Church #1 here) could possibly have a beginning before John the Baptist (Matt. 11:13-14). OT Prophecy says that the Lord God (Christ) will send “My messenger” (Mal. 3:1) to “Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness” (Isa. 40:3), when the Lord is predicted to begin betrothing Israel to Himself (Hosea 2:19-20). A church is a ‘called out assembly’ (ekklesia #1577), but the Old Testament Hebrew/Aramaic has NO TERM translated into ‘church’ even once. The folly of your assertion above is seen by your use of the term ‘believers,’ as if any OT Bible Term is translated into ‘Gospel’ even once for anyone to actually ‘believe.’

Just how many times do we see the term “believer” used in the entire Old Testament (NASB)? The answer is also ZERO, because the concepts of anyone (Jew or Gentile) obtaining eternal life ‘and’ a heavenly citizenship ‘and’ immortality by obeying a ‘good news message’ is nonexistent in the Hebrew/Judaic mindset. Peter’s Prophetic (seen) Kingdom (fulfilling Ex. 19:5-6) Bride (John 3:29) is “MY CHURCH/Assembly” (Matt. 16:18 = Church #1) gathered through the preaching and obedience to the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, etc.) characterized as Gospel #1 here. Period! Those among you mixing Kingdom Doctrine and Grace Doctrine together are tearing down the ‘First Veil’ of God’s Living Word (pic), but those among you trying to merge Israel of the flesh (OT) with these ‘two’ NT churches are tearing down the “Second Veil” in direct defiance of ‘the truth’ of God’s Living Word.

Let me start first with a question. Who did Christ die for?

Stop being silly! Jesus Christ Himself is preaching the “Gospel of God” in Mark 1:14-15, but who has Christ died for in Mark 1? The answer is NOBODY. John the Baptist, Christ and the Twelve are all preaching the “Gospel of the Kingdom” to Israel ONLY (Matt. 15:24, 10:5-7, Acts 2:14, 22, 36), which Israel will eventually REJECT to bring about their ‘transgression’ (Rom. 11:11) by stumbling over Christ (Rom. 9:30-32). Your ‘starting off’ ignores ‘the truth’ that Jesus Christ Himself is preaching the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (Matt. 4:23, 9:35) that includes the precepts and WORKS of repentance, confession of sins and water baptism by a human being for the ‘forgiveness of sins’ (Mark 1:4-5, Acts 2:38).

Did he die only for those who were saved after his death?

If you are unsure, then by all means continue asking questions of everybody else. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone WHO BELIEVES. Romans 10:4, 1:16-17.

Did he die only for those beginning in Acts 2?

Everyone called to God at Pentecost (Acts 2) is obeying the “Gospel of the Kingdom” to become disciples of Peter’s Prophetic Kingdom “Bride” (Church #1). Paul will be raised up to receive ‘our gospel’ (#2) through a ‘revelation of Jesus Christ’ (Gal. 1:11-12) for the forming of the “Body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12) on the Road to Damascus in Acts 9.

Christ shed his blood for all believers... those in the OT and NT.

While Christ made the ‘provision’ for the resurrection of EVERYONE at Calvary, any ‘believers’ in our gospel (#2) are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27) to be “crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:20) to be raised up with Christ (Col. 3:1-4) to be seated IN the heavenly places that are IN Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6) having NOTHING to do with any OT saints and the disciples of Peter’s Prophetic Kingdom “Bride” (Church #1). Israel of the flesh belongs to a ‘dispensation’ (Vine's) taken from the Gentiles ‘and’ Peter’s Kingdom “Bride” is a completely different ‘dispensation’ taken from Israel of the flesh that includes Gentiles (like Cornelius’ family in Acts 10). Our mystery Body of Christ (Church #2) is yet another completely different ‘dispensation’ saved by God’s grace through faith apart from works (Eph. 2:8-10) already seated in the heavenly places that are IN Christ Jesus. Eph. 2:6 again. TheScottsMen is not authorized to include EVERYONE into the “Dispensation of God’s Grace” (Eph. 3:2), as if anyone in the OT, or in the Four Gospels, had the opportunity to hear (Rom. 10:17) and believe (Eph. 1:13-14) Paul’s “Word of the Cross” (1Cor. 1:18) gospel message.

Otherwise, on the faithful day of His return, do not expect to see Moses, Enoch, Job, or any other faithful believer found in the OT.

This is NONSENSE. Moses is just one ‘skin’ (Gen. 3:21) for your mother Eve like Noah, Sarah and Bathsheba, which is the reason that he/she appears at Christ’s side on the Mount of Transfiguration (Fig in blue) in Matthew 17:1-8. Elijah is just one ‘skin’ (2Kings 1:8) like John the Baptist (Mark 1:6) for your father Adam like Joshua, Abraham, David and the coming “prophet” from Acts 3:22-23. These are the two olive trees/lampstands standing before the Lord of the earth (Zech. 4:14, Rev. 11:4) that the Lord God (Christ) formed using His own two hands in the Garden “IN” whom everyone here DIED (1Cor. 15:22). Enoch was taken back to God’s Infinite Realm (Fig 1 = far left) where he has already “walked with God; and he was not, for God took him” (Gen. 5:24), so he is a poor example to include in your list of OT saints above. Job will be raised on the ‘last day’ (John 6:39-40) to receive his 'allotted portion/spoil' (see Dan. 12:11-13, Zech. 14:1) and a place in David’s ‘forever’ kingdom (Eze. 37:24-28, Jer. 30:9) in the “New Earth” of Revelation 21:1+ (pic = lower left). If you really want to point out a ‘believer’ in any ‘gospel’ in the Old Testament (nothing like that exists), then perhaps your theory will obtain an ounce of merit . . .

I think you would agree that Christ died for not only those after His death, but also before.

What men agree about has little to do with anything. The question is about what ‘you’ can prove (2Tim. 2:15) using support from God’s Living Word. 2Tim. 3:16-17.

I think you would agree (I know Mid-Acts Dispensationalist will not) that Paul believed the same thing.

Add true members of “Christ’s Body” (1Cor. 12:27 = Church #2) to your list of people unwilling to fall for your ridiculous hypothesis . . . :0)

[Continued] Link to Part 2 :0)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Terral

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2004
1,636
49
Visit site
✟21,357.00
Faith
Christian
Link to Part 1 :0)

If you believe that Paul thought of Christ dieing for both OT and NT believers, how does he express it? Who does Paul say that Christ died for?

If you ever wish to make a case for ANYTHING pertaining to our gospel and our mystery church, then by all means remove all of these question marks (?????) from your testimony ‘and’ begin making a case for something that makes one lick of Biblical sense.

Paul says in Eph 5:25 "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" . . .

Paul is writing about the members of the “Body of Christ” church (#2) who have obeyed his “Word of the Cross” (#2) gospel message.

If we were to take your view of the church (starting after Christ death) did Paul simply forget that Christ also died for those before his church started? No, Paul says that Christ died for his church..that includes members that were before his death.

No. Stop being ridiculous! Scripture says,

“In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.” Ephesians 1:13-14.
There was NOBODY to ‘preach’ Paul’s good news (1Cor. 15:3-4) about our redemption and forgiveness (Eph. 1:7) found only IN Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24) in the Old Testament, OR even in the Four Gospels. Anyone joining our mystery “Body of Christ” had to actually HEAR ‘our gospel’ in order to THEN have the opportunity to BELIEVE. There is no ‘back door’ into Christ Jesus, as if ANYONE can be grandfathered in. Period. Scripture says,

“How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” Romans 10:14-17.
Again, there is no ‘preacher’ in the OT, and no ‘preacher’ in the Four Gospels, that heralded the ‘good news’ that Jesus is Lord ‘and’ that God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9) on the third day (1Cor. 15:3-4) for anyone to BELIEVE. The reason is that the ‘faith of Jesus’ (Rom. 3:26 = Fig 1) had yet TO COME, because that ‘faith’ that comes by ‘hearing’ was bound up IN Christ; until God Himself milled that our ‘for us’ (believers) at CALVARY. Paul writes,

“But before faith came [OT + Four Gospels], we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come [by hearing!], we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ [sealed IN Him] have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you [believers] are all one “IN Christ Jesus.”” Galatians 3:23-28.
Nobody had the opportunity to be seated IN the heavenly places that are IN Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6), BEFORE FAITH CAME; which includes everyone in the Old Testament ‘and’ in the Four Gospels ‘and’ before the time of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9! The ‘power of God’ is manifested IN THE GOSPEL itself where the ‘faith to faith’ (Rom. 1:16-17) transaction takes place between the ‘preacher’ AND the ‘believer’ HEARING (obeying) the “Message Of Truth.” TheScottsMen is looking for an opportunity to add EVERYONE to Paul’s mystery “Body of Christ” Church (called out assembly), even though they had NO opportunity at all to even ‘hear’ our gospel.

Paul did not say "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her..and he also died for those people before his church started"?

Holy Cows! You are adding members to our mystery church, before Paul even receives our gospel through a ‘revelation of Jesus Christ’ (Gal. 1:11-12), which is nothing more than ridiculous!

With your view of the Church, would not Paul have had to say this? You tell me.. who did Christ die for?

Christ’s shed blood made the provision for the “New Covenant” (Luke 22:20) made between the Lord God (Christ) and the Houses of Israel and Judah (Heb. 8:8-12), which has NOTHING to do with those of us already IN Christ Jesus. Christ made the provision for EVERYONE to be raised on the last day, but the devil and all of his evil cronies will be tormented in the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20, 20:10-15) in their immortal bodies only wishing they could die and end their condemnation!

I would even go as far as to say that Christ died only for the elect, but that's a whole new discussion.

Only for which elect? Would that be for ‘the elect’ of Matthew 24:30-31 gathered only after Christ’s Glorious Return? That completely different ‘dispensation’ cannot possibly include the members of Christ’s Body (Church #2), because ‘we’ return with Christ in glory (Col. 3:4 = upper right)!

I just got home from work, and need to relax a bit. I will respond in detail tomorrow. Anyways, I am sure that Terral and others will be quick with a reply. Considering I once thought as they do, I would expect nothing less

TheScottsMen surely jests by trying to toss me into his dispy pile, as if he has ever shared my interpretations of God’s Living Word. Hopefully your reply will eliminate all of these rhetorical questions that work to lead others astray. I am,

In Christ Jesus right now,

Terral
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
B

Benefactor

Guest
Come now! A Dispensational Amillennialist?!? I don't think those words work in the same sentence:)

I believe Tractor's theology is a modified version of Mid-Acts (Pauline) Dispensationalism


Anything is possible. I was reading the other day where some Reform believers have 4 dispensations. If I can find it I will surely post it.
 
Upvote 0
B

Benefactor

Guest
Let me start first with a question. Who did Christ die for? Did he die only for those who were saved after his death? Did he die only for those beginning in Acts 2? Christ shed his blood for all believers... those in the OT and NT. Otherwise, on the faithful day of His return, do not expect to see Moses, Enoch, Job, or any other faithful believer found in the OT.

Yes and No - How is that for double talk - no not really - yes Christ died for all from beginning to end. However, (you saw that coming), as a dispensationalist of course the chruch of the OT is not the same as the NT Church whick I see as the Body of Christ. Jesus said I will build my church, which I take to mean a church seperated from that of any time in the past. Believe me I will not let the words drip from my lips that Jesus is not the savior of all who are elect according to my view. I had to slip that in!

I think you would agree that Christ died for not only those after His death, but also before. I think you would agree (I know Mid-Acts Dispensationalist will not) that Paul believed the same thing. If you believe that Paul thought of Christ dieing for both OT and NT believers, how does he express it? Who does Paul say that Christ died for?

Paul says in Eph 5:25 "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" If we were to take your view of the church (starting after Christ death) did Paul simply forget that Christ also died for those before his church started? No, Paul says that Christ died for his church..that includes members that were before his death.

Paul did not say "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her..and he also died for those people before his church started"

With your view of the Church, would not Paul have had to say this? You tell me.. who did Christ die for?

I would even go as far as to say that Christ died only for the elect, but that's a whole new discussion.

I just got home from work, and need to relax a bit. I will respond in detail tomorrow. Anyways, I am sure that Terral and others will be quick with a reply. Considering I once thought as they do, I would expect nothing less

We all have our proof text and I think that is what makes studying the Bible so rewarding. You make a good argument BUT I still like my position and understanding of God's word. Now, don't stop trying to convince others and me for that is what we need between the different views to make us work hard to study to show ourselves approved.

Here is an interesting take on Hebrews 11:40. This verse in my opinion is perhaps the strongest or closest verse one could argue for the Covenant side.

I personally agree with the content of the article for I believe its view has the greater proof vs. the Covenant position.

Enjoy: This line is blank for now but it will be filled shortly
 
Upvote 0

TheScottsMen

Veteran
Jul 8, 2003
1,239
14
Minneapolis, MN
✟8,995.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes and No - How is that for double talk - no not really - yes Christ died for all from beginning to end. However, (you saw that coming), as a dispensationalist of course the chruch of the OT is not the same as the NT Church whick I see as the Body of Christ. Jesus said I will build my church, which I take to mean a church seperated from that of any time in the past. Believe me I will not let the words drip from my lips that Jesus is not the savior of all who are elect according to my view. I had to slip that in!



We all have our proof text and I think that is what makes studying the Bible so rewarding. You make a good argument BUT I still like my position and understanding of God's word. Now, don't stop trying to convince others and me for that is what we need between the different views to make us work hard to study to show ourselves approved.

Here is an interesting take on Hebrews 11:40. This verse in my opinion is perhaps the strongest or closest verse one could argue for the Covenant side.

I personally agree with the content of the article for I believe its view has the greater proof vs. the Covenant position.

Enjoy: This line is blank for now but it will be filled shortly

HI Benefactor,
I will be able to respond this evening, I just wanted you to know how nice it is to be able to discuss a topic with someone without all the name calling:wave:

Kudos to you!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheScottsMen

Veteran
Jul 8, 2003
1,239
14
Minneapolis, MN
✟8,995.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes and No - How is that for double talk - no not really - yes Christ died for all from beginning to end. However, (you saw that coming), as a dispensationalist of course the chruch of the OT is not the same as the NT Church whick I see as the Body of Christ. Jesus said I will build my church, which I take to mean a church seperated from that of any time in the past. Believe me I will not let the words drip from my lips that Jesus is not the savior of all who are elect according to my view. I had to slip that in!



We all have our proof text and I think that is what makes studying the Bible so rewarding. You make a good argument BUT I still like my position and understanding of God's word. Now, don't stop trying to convince others and me for that is what we need between the different views to make us work hard to study to show ourselves approved.

Here is an interesting take on Hebrews 11:40. This verse in my opinion is perhaps the strongest or closest verse one could argue for the Covenant side.

I personally agree with the content of the article for I believe its view has the greater proof vs. the Covenant position.

Enjoy: This line is blank for now but it will be filled shortly

I would be interested in hearing your view of election as well! When my view was more inline with yours, that is a dispensational view (which i consider a valid theological position, though i may disagree with it) I still considered my view of election and grace as being in the reformed camp. I considered it compatible with Acts 2 dispensationalism from my own studies, and those today who I admire as great teachers ( John MacArthur, etc.)
 
Upvote 0
B

Benefactor

Guest
My Brother is a JM fan. I believe that God foresaw all who would believe God's message within their dispensation. The election I believe in is one that sees God knowing who will respond to the message of their time. For me it is the Gospel of Christ, and in the tribulation it will be the Gospel of the Kingdom. All salvation is by Grace through Faith in the Finished Work of Christ weather they know it or not as with the OT saints. All salvation from the beginning of the Church to the end of the 1MK must profess Christ according to Scripture.

Man is depraved and dead in sin and trespasses. My view does not equate deadness as inability. Dead in sin and trespasses is separation of a fellowship possibility until the heart is regenerated. Regeneration comes when a person who is sought by God hears the message and freely accepts it. The number of elect are set in "stone" because the foreknowledge of God is absolute and he is not surprised by the willful actions of any of his created creatures both man and beast. He knows everything from eternity to eternity.

As a betweener (The middle between JC and JA on the doctrine of salvation) that is if it can be consider the middle. Its how I coin it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums