The Book of Acts isn't just for Dispensationalists!!!

Alithis

Disciple of Jesus .
Nov 11, 2010
15,750
2,180
Mobile
✟94,492.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi, Dan P.

Trick question coming your way.

Were Jesus and His 12 Apostles "Christians" in the Gospels?

Take this with a grain of salt, as it's based on the old Sunday School study question fun time principle.
they were self named as "followers of the way"
They were new creations in christ. they had a lot if Jewish custom by reason of thier upbringing but by the power of God they were no longer followers of Judaism..(jews) proven by the fact the jews sought always to murder them ( always the end goal of man ruled religious institutions)
Later the people at Antioch coined the phrase Christian.... The disciples never at first called themselves that.
They , we summize , were called that by the onlookers because they looked spoke acted and did works just like Christ did...
So i hold to the view..if our life does not look ,speak act and do the works like christ ..and so not "Christlike" we have no right to call ourselves " Christian" ...
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Grip Docility
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,425
1,720
North America
✟83,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
they were self named as "followers of the way"
They were new creations in christ. they had a lot if Jewish custom by reason of thier upbringing but by the power of God they were no longer followers of Judaism..(jews) proven by the fact the jews sought always to murder them ( always the end goal of man ruled religious institutions)
Later the people at Antioch coined the phrase Christian.... The disciples never at first called themselves that.
They , we summize , were called that by the onlookers because they looked spoke acted and did works just like Christ did...
So i hold to the view..if our life does not look ,speak act and do the works like christ ..and so not "Christlike" we have no right to call ourselves " Christian" ...

I can respect this. I maintain they were Jews until Paul.. and only IN Christ after Pentecost.

But you laid your perspective out, very clearly.

I appreciate it.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,215.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
They became Christians, At Pentecost.

Pentecost was the fulfillment of the promise that Christ would baptize "with the Holy Spirit and with fire" as that was the day when the Spirit was poured out on all flesh, even as the Prophet Joel had spoken. So that was the inauguration of the Church's mission. But these were the same people, the same followers of Jesus on and after as they were before. Christ established His Church with His Apostles; we speak of Pentecost often as the birth of the Church, but the Church existed before Pentecost--it was established by Jesus while He was on earth, in the midst of His Apostles; "On this rock I will build My Church".

They were no longer Jews, after Paul. Peter and Paul had a heated argument that was discussed in Galatians... No?

"Paul replied, 'I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no obscure city. I beg you, permit me to speak to the people.'" - Acts 21:39

"I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin." - Romans 11:1

"though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:4-8

Paul was still a Jew. Just as all the original Jewish Apostles were and remained Jews. Just as all early Jewish Christians continued to be Jews. Christians consist of both Jews and Gentiles, together, as one People, in Jesus Christ.

Of course they were still Jews. The dispute between Paul and Peter was that Peter had been intimidated by the envoy from Jerusalem, and so he compromised the integrity of his ministry--St. Paul rightly and correctly called him out on this and rebuked him for it. It doesn't change the fact that both Paul and Peter were Jews, and that there were both Jews and Gentiles in the churches of Galatia.

Were they not under the Law, while they were Pre-DBR? Religiously speeking... They didn't become Christians until Post Pentecost.

Religiously speaking they never changed religions. They were devout observers of the Jewish religion during Christ's earthly ministry, and devout observers of the Jewish religion afterward; but their understanding of what that religion meant and entailed was radically and forever changed by their experience with Jesus, because Jesus is the Christ. Of course everything must now change, the Messiah has come and brought with Him the kingdom of God, and with Him the redemption of the whole world. For the Messianic Kingdom has come and with it peace with God, salvation, forgiveness of sin, and the Gospel to all nations.

The early followers of Jesus would never have considered their religious identity and affiliation as changed, they had not abandoned the religion of Abraham, Moses, and all the Prophets; they were of this religion which has its fullness here in the Person of God's Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,578
7,775
63
Martinez
✟894,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How many people have REALLY studied the Book of Acts of the Apostles?

I'm going to venture to say that many Christians, actually don't study the book. I'm going to hurt some feelings here, because the book of Acts is literally THE TRUE FORMATION OF THE EARLY CHURCH.

Before skisms and Isms... We have Acts of the Apostles... But I warn you... Acts will actually confirm several things...

1) The shift form Judaism to Christianity wasn't an easy matter.
2) The 11 Apostles weren't Christians, but Jews... long into the book of Acts.
3) Paul was the turning point of it all.
4) Israel and the BOC aren't the same entity.

So, yes, the Book of Acts isn't just for Dispi's!!! But, I've got to warn you.... by the time you've read from Acts of the Apostles 1 - Acts of the Apostles 28 ... You might end up infected with a more ancient form of Dispensationalism.

NO! I'm not talking about 2P2P... All of the books are for all of God's people!

But! CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT!!!!!!
The Book of Acts is simply a dissertation of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and His Body known as the Church. All fulfilled. All inclusive. All in the will of God.
Blessings
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,425
1,720
North America
✟83,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Book of Acts is simply a dissertation of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and His Body known as the Church. All fulfilled. All inclusive. All in the will of God.
Blessings

What exactly do we see happening in Acts of the Apostles 7?
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,425
1,720
North America
✟83,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Pentecost was the fulfillment of the promise that Christ would baptize "with the Holy Spirit and with fire" as that was the day when the Spirit was poured out on all flesh, even as the Prophet Joel had spoken. So that was the inauguration of the Church's mission. But these were the same people, the same followers of Jesus on and after as they were before. Christ established His Church with His Apostles; we speak of Pentecost often as the birth of the Church, but the Church existed before Pentecost--it was established by Jesus while He was on earth, in the midst of His Apostles; "On this rock I will build My Church".



"Paul replied, 'I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no obscure city. I beg you, permit me to speak to the people.'" - Acts 21:39

"I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin." - Romans 11:1

"though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:4-8

Paul was still a Jew. Just as all the original Jewish Apostles were and remained Jews. Just as all early Jewish Christians continued to be Jews. Christians consist of both Jews and Gentiles, together, as one People, in Jesus Christ.

Of course they were still Jews. The dispute between Paul and Peter was that Peter had been intimidated by the envoy from Jerusalem, and so he compromised the integrity of his ministry--St. Paul rightly and correctly called him out on this and rebuked him for it. It doesn't change the fact that both Paul and Peter were Jews, and that there were both Jews and Gentiles in the churches of Galatia.



Religiously speaking they never changed religions. They were devout observers of the Jewish religion during Christ's earthly ministry, and devout observers of the Jewish religion afterward; but their understanding of what that religion meant and entailed was radically and forever changed by their experience with Jesus, because Jesus is the Christ. Of course everything must now change, the Messiah has come and brought with Him the kingdom of God, and with Him the redemption of the whole world. For the Messianic Kingdom has come and with it peace with God, salvation, forgiveness of sin, and the Gospel to all nations.

The early followers of Jesus would never have considered their religious identity and affiliation as changed, they had not abandoned the religion of Abraham, Moses, and all the Prophets; they were of this religion which has its fullness here in the Person of God's Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

-CryptoLutheran

So... What do you make of these verses?

Hebrews 11:39-40

Nothing changed when Jesus DBR'ed?
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,578
7,775
63
Martinez
✟894,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What exactly do we see happening in Acts of the Apostles 7?
With tears, it is Stephen proclaiming the fulfilment of scripture by our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The Messiah and King of the Jews , Gentiles and most importantly The Kingdom of God.
Blessings
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,425
1,720
North America
✟83,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
With tears, it is Stephen proclaiming the fulfilment of scripture by our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The Messiah and King of the Jews , Gentiles and most importantly The Kingdom of God.
Blessings

Steven was amazing. What of that one man that guarded the cloaks of those who stoned him?

Acts of the Apostles 22:20
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,578
7,775
63
Martinez
✟894,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Steven was amazing. What of that one man that guarded the cloaks of those who stoned him?

Acts of the Apostles 22:20
Saul's sin turned to Paul's thorn that God never took away though, redeemed Him. There are consequences to sin. Paul was not immune to his guilt and God never took away that memory.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,215.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
So... What do you make of these verses?

Hebrews 11:39-40

Nothing changed when Jesus DBR'ed?

Everything changed, but it wasn't the creation of a brand new religion disconnected from all which came before; it was the fulfilling, the making full of, all which had come before.

That's the point of Hebrews 11, read through it again; yes God has given us something better, for what all they looked forward to has now come. Go back to the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son".

Remember what Christ said? "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." (John 8:56) how did Abraham see it? He saw it in faith, in the promise that was made to him in ancient times, now fulfilled in Jesus, the Seed of Abraham. But Christ was also there present for Abraham, "Before Abraham was, I AM". Abraham was not chosen purely at random, but was chosen in Christ to be the father of nations through Christ. So He who was before is now through, He who gave the promise is the promise.

-CryptoLutheran
 
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

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,425
1,720
North America
✟83,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Saul's sin and Paul's thorn that God never took away though redeemed Him. There are consequences to sin. Paul was not immune to his guilt and God never took away that memory.

Paul's Thorn was never identified... but... I like the way you are evaluating this.

I, IMO, personally, see Paul's Thorn as a matter of showing our need for Grace, perpetually...

But... what you have shared is a beautiful way of reading it.
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,425
1,720
North America
✟83,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Everything changed, but it wasn't the creation of a brand new religion disconnected from all which came before; it was the fulfilling, the making full of, all which had come before.

That's the point of Hebrews 11, read through it again; yes God has given us something better, for what all they looked forward to has now come. Go back to the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son".

Remember what Christ said? "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." (John 8:56) how did Abraham see it? He saw it in faith, in the promise that was made to him in ancient times, now fulfilled in Jesus, the Seed of Abraham. But Christ was also there present for Abraham, "Before Abraham was, I AM". Abraham was not chosen purely at random, but was chosen in Christ to be the father of nations through Christ. So He who was before is now through, He who gave the promise is the promise.

-CryptoLutheran

Everything changed, but the Name of God's Institution?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,215.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Everything changed, but the Name of God's Institution?

God's elect people, all who are His, are His in Christ. That includes Abraham our father in the faith. As well as Moses, and David, indeed all the holy and blessed saints of God. This is His Church from all ages and all times. The Church of Jesus Christ which, in these last days, He established by His Apostles. The one body, the one humanity, the Church and Israel of God which is in Jesus Christ, hidden in ages past and now made known in these last days as the Apostle St. Paul himself speaks of in his epistle to the Ephesians.

-CryptoLuthearn
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Christianity was "Socialist" in it's initial inception... :D

Texas Preachers would get stoned for pointing this out! :p
Socialist... as in a government entity controlling what was given to whom, who worked where, how much they made, etc. etc. etc.? The early church was community centered (as was Israel... who, by the way, is called "ekklesia" at Sinai in the LXX) and gave to those in need but it was out of the goodness of their heart... not because a central government agency took from them and gave to others. THAT is socialism... what the early church did well, that you are referencing, is called love. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grip Docility
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,425
1,720
North America
✟83,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Socialist... as in a government entity controlling what was given to whom, who worked where, how much they made, etc. etc. etc.? The early church was community centered (as was Israel... who, by the way, is called "ekklesia" at Sinai in the LXX) and gave to those in need but it was out of the goodness of their heart... not because a central government agency took from them and gave to others. THAT is socialism... what the early church did well, that you are referencing, is called love. :)

I was being a bit humorous on that response. :)

But absolutely! The 1 Corinthians 13 of the matter was strong.
 
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

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,215.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Socialist... as in a government entity controlling what was given to whom, who worked where, how much they made, etc. etc. etc.? The early church was community centered (as was Israel... who, by the way, is called "ekklesia" at Sinai in the LXX) and gave to those in need but it was out of the goodness of their heart... not because a central government agency took from them and gave to others. THAT is socialism... what the early church did well, that you are referencing, is called love. :)

Technically, this is an errant definition of "socialism", by technical definition socialistic ideas refer to the idea of collective ownership by the people. Most modern societies that aren't completely totalitarian and autocratic have socialist implementation already, in the United States for example we have public libraries, public roads, public schools--ostensibly these public institutions are freely available to all of us--the government functions to maintain these things for our common benefit. The alternative to socialism in these cases would be private roads, private schools, and private libraries; because they are owned by private institutions or persons. In earlier times landed gentry were the property-owners, as such the king owned the land, leased to the lords who payed fealty to the king, and the peasantry worked the land giving a portion of the fruits of their labor to their lord in exchange (at least in theory) for protection. In an autocratic government this is much the same: all is owned and controlled by the autocrat (such as the king), and it is only by the good will of the king that use of it may be had by others; constitutional reforms of autocratic societies came into existence to mitigate the power of the monarchy by delegating and redistributing power in other ways, such as the parliamentary system which developed in Britain. In an oligarchic society power is invested in the few, as opposed to the one. In a democracy, at least on paper, it is the demos, the people, who are are invested with the power which is exercised by a representational government which acts in the interests of the people, and constitutionally safeguarding certain protections, mitigating and delegating powers. Almost by necessity a democratic society necessitates at least some socialist principle for the good of the people, otherwise things almost inevitably will devolve into oligarchy. This is what we are presently seeing in the United States currently, as our democracy is slowly giving way to functional oligarchy; as favor is given to a handful of powerful. Some sort of socialistic implementation is necessary to mitigate against corruption and tyranny.

Soft socialism, such as Democratic Socialism, is not Authoritarian Statism, it is the opposite of that, the remedy against that; the mitigation against Authoritarianism by redistribution of power away from the few to the many, and the mitigation of power of the few over the many--that society may benefit from liberty. Slavery of the people to powerful oligarchies is not liberty, which is precisely what keeping people enslaved to powerful corporations which control their lives amounts to. Paying for expensive medical care and insurance, and exorbitant prices for medicine is not liberty. Liberty is freeing the people to the right of healthcare for all.

At any rate, this isn't a political thread, so I'll try not to say more on these topics. But it irks me how often terms are used freely and without regard for objective meaning.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,425
1,720
North America
✟83,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Technically, this is an errant definition of "socialism", by technical definition socialistic ideas refer to the idea of collective ownership by the people. Most modern societies that aren't completely totalitarian and autocratic have socialist implementation already, in the United States for example we have public libraries, public roads, public schools--ostensibly these public institutions are freely available to all of us--the government functions to maintain these things for our common benefit. The alternative to socialism in these cases would be private roads, private schools, and private libraries; because they are owned by private institutions or persons. In earlier times landed gentry were the property-owners, as such the king owned the land, leased to the lords who payed fealty to the king, and the peasantry worked the land giving a portion of the fruits of their labor to their lord in exchange (at least in theory) for protection. In an autocratic government this is much the same: all is owned and controlled by the autocrat (such as the king), and it is only by the good will of the king that use of it may be had by others; constitutional reforms of autocratic societies came into existence to mitigate the power of the monarchy by delegating and redistributing power in other ways, such as the parliamentary system which developed in Britain. In an oligarchic society power is invested in the few, as opposed to the one. In a democracy, at least on paper, it is the demos, the people, who are are invested with the power which is exercised by a representational government which acts in the interests of the people, and constitutionally safeguarding certain protections, mitigating and delegating powers. Almost by necessity a democratic society necessitates at least some socialist principle for the good of the people, otherwise things almost inevitably will devolve into oligarchy. This is what we are presently seeing in the United States currently, as our democracy is slowly giving way to functional oligarchy; as favor is given to a handful of powerful. Some sort of socialistic implementation is necessary to mitigate against corruption and tyranny.

Soft socialism, such as Democratic Socialism, is not Authoritarian Statism, it is the opposite of that, the remedy against that; the mitigation against Authoritarianism by redistribution of power away from the few to the many, and the mitigation of power of the few over the many--that society may benefit from liberty. Slavery of the people to powerful oligarchies is not liberty, which is precisely what keeping people enslaved to powerful corporations which control their lives amounts to. Paying for expensive medical care and insurance, and exorbitant prices for medicine is not liberty. Liberty is freeing the people to the right of healthcare for all.

At any rate, this isn't a political thread, so I'll try not to say more on these topics. But it irks me how often terms are used freely and without regard for objective meaning.

-CryptoLutheran

Not going to lie. Impressive! And yes... that is the type of Socialism I was actually referring to... the other reference towards Texas was a way of taking the term into the more modern definition, while displaying the difference.

Well written!

I will say this... Ken was correct to point out the Love of the matter. But, I know you were connecting the order of Early Church business with the correct governing term...

When a thread is made, the things that can be unexpectedly learned are innumerable!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mkgal1
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,425
1,720
North America
✟83,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Socialist... as in a government entity controlling what was given to whom, who worked where, how much they made, etc. etc. etc.? The early church was community centered (as was Israel... who, by the way, is called "ekklesia" at Sinai in the LXX) and gave to those in need but it was out of the goodness of their heart... not because a central government agency took from them and gave to others. THAT is socialism... what the early church did well, that you are referencing, is called love. :)

Ahhhh... after several reads, I understand. And yes... “ekklesia” is the “Ecclesiastical” term.

This is an interesting term, as it stands divided from the term Israel and the BOC, yet is bound to both of them.

Right you are on the Love, matter.

:)
 
Upvote 0

Mel333

Active Member
May 27, 2019
313
309
Brisbane
✟34,753.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Christianity was "Socialist" in it's initial inception... :D

Texas Preachers would get stoned for pointing this out! :p

It does look socialist but it also looks more like a patronage system.

I think it's a patronage system. Where his ministry was funded in return of his service to his community.

Socialism just gives free candy out to make people dependant on the government.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Grip Docility
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

notreligus

Member
Supporter
Jun 19, 2006
481
116
✟97,792.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I was nearly turned off with the Dispensational approach with all it's timelines, charts, predictions, scissor cuttings etc., until I found out a true Dispensational approach takes a more literal approach to Scripture and by that sees that there is a difference between Israel and the Church and one day in the future, God will once again be dealing directly with His people the Jews...

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. (Act 1:6-7)




I hate to read this. It seems that you just traded ditches.

I was Dispensational for over 40 years. Hyper-Dispensational (Mid-Acts) for about 12 of those years. I believed the false teaching of two Gospels with two separate plans of salvation with two separate destinations for these two people. Israel should receive her earthly blessings and remain on the Earth. The Church will receive her heavenly blessings and remain in Heaven (for now) and on the new planet, the New Jerusalem, which will come down to the Earth but never be on the Earth. After the church is raptured she'll never be back to Earth. That's Full Dispensationalism. Scofield taught Dispensationalism Light or Partial Dispensationalism. According to Dispensationals the Mosaic Law (613 commandments) and animal sacrifices will again be practiced in the Temple. Forget Grace, or the fact that Jesus died to reconcile all of mankind. He was God's own provision. You can't really believe in Grace and claim that Law will be restored. They don't coexist. The Law demands a payment; Grace made the provision. It's already done.

The Bible is one book, with one main Character, Jesus Christ, and the one main message is the reconciliation of mankind. God has one people. He always had but one people, the Church, which He envisioned before the foundation of the world.

There are nearly 100 references to the fact that salvation was to come through the finished work of Christ in Genesis! Get out of Dispensationalism and look for Jesus as you read the Bible. It's about Him!! Genesis 3:21 refers to how Christ's future sacrifice would provide the covering for mankind's sin. It would be come a permanent covering!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mkgal1
Upvote 0