Out of Whose Womb

[OldRegular]

I have been falsely accused on another thread of believing that the Church for which Jesus Christ died is a "parenthesis" Church!

Some years ago I started a thread regarding the claim by certain theologians of Classic Dispensational persuasion that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, was a parenthesis, an intercalation, in God’s program for Israel. At that time many Board members took great umbrage at that claim. The vitriol expressed in some responses was intense to say the least but I cannot say I was surprised. Many who claim to be of pre-trib-dispensational persuasion are apparently of the “Rapture Ready” type and not conversant with the teachings of Classic Dispensationalism, a doctrine first formalized by John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth [England] Brethern.{http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf}

Following are remarks by three prominent Classic Dispensationalists, Chafer, Ryrie, and Ironside. Lewis Sperry Chafer founded and served as the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and was an influential proponent of Christian Dispensationalism in the early 20th century. Charles C. Ryrie is a Christian writer and theologian who served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary He is also the author of the Ryrie Study Bible.

"But for the Church intercalation -- which was wholly unforeseen and is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it. In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term parenthetical, commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalation" [emphasis added] (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:41; 5:348-349).


Charles Ryrie says the same thing: "Classic dispensationalists used the words 'parenthesis' or 'intercalation' to describe the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God's program for Israel. An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar, and a parenthesis in one sense is defined as an interlude or interval (which in turn is defined as an intervening or interruptive period). So either or both words can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in God's program for Israel (as clearly taught in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks in 9:24-27)" [emphasis added] (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995] p.134).

Then there are the remarks of Harry A. Ironside former pastor of the Moody Memorial Church in Chicago. The quote is from the preface to his book, The Great Parenthesis.

The contents of the present volume are really an enlargement of lectures on Bible prophecy that have been given at various conferences during the past few years. It was never convenient to have these stenographically reported at the time of their delivery, and so the substance of the addresses has been very carefully gone over and is now presented for the consideration of those who are interested in the revelation which the Spirit of God has given concerning things to come.It is the author's fervent conviction that the failure to understand what is revealed in Scripture concerning the Great Parenthesis between Messiah's rejection, with the consequent setting aside of Israel nationally, and the regathering of God's earthly people and recognition by the Lord in the last days, is the fundamental cause for many conflicting and unscriptural prophetic teachings. Once this parenthetical period is understood and the present work of God during this age is apprehended, the whole prophetic program unfolds with amazing clearness.

http://www.biblesupport.com/e-sword-downloads/file/7931-ironside-harry-a-the-great-parenthesis/

I must state as forcefully as I can that I find the doctrine of the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, as a parenthesis or an intercalation, in God’s program for Israel to be not only repugnant. but blasphemous, and I reject it completely. Now many pre-trib-"snatching away" folks will be disturbed but the truth is that the concept of the Church as a "parenthesis" in Gods program is the direct result of the pre-trib doctrine of John Nelson Darby. Whether dispensationalists want to acknowledge it or not the doctrine of a "parenthesis" Church came out of the womb of John Nelson Darby's pre-trib-dispensational doctrine!

On an earlier thread I posted remarks by the great song writer, Isaac Watts, regarding the Church and National Israel. They are appropriate here:

WATTS’S VIEW OF ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH

The answer to the previous question will become clearer in considering how Watts views the relationship between Israel and the church. In several cases Watts calls Israel “the church,” proclaims the “church or nation of the Jews” to be a “type or figure of the whole invisible church of God,” and explains that for Israel “the church was their whole nation, for it was ordained of God to be a national church.” This does not necessarily indicate a blurring of the two, however, for dispensationalists are not immune from calling Israel a “church”— both Darby and Scofield do so. For example, Darby mentions the “Jewish church (i.e., assembly) or nation” in his writings, and like- wise, Scofield says, “It [‘church’] is thus appropriately used, not only of the New Testament church and of the New Testament churches, but also of Israel in the wilderness (Acts vii : 38), and of the town meeting of Ephesus (Acts xix : 32, 39, 41, ‘assembly’).” As both of them high- light the underlying meaning of “assembly,” however, they seem to be using the term in its general sense rather than specifically referring to the New Testament body. Watts, however, appears to use the term more specifically and sees at least a typological relationship between the two bodies and very likely a replacement of Israel by the church.

Watts manifests this replacement emphasis in several places. He argues that God has rejected Israel as his people because of their sin and has replaced them with the Christian church:

God has fulfilled his word, and cut them off according to his threatenings, from his relation to him as their God, nor are they any longer his people; they have left their names for a curse to his chosen people, that is, the gospel church made up chiefly of Gentiles, who esteem the name of a Jew a reproach or a curse, and God has called his people, by another name, that is, christians, as he threatened so plainly by Isaiah, his prophet, chapter lxv. 15.​

These were the children of the kingdom concerning whom our Savior foretels, that they should not sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, but should be cast out into outer darkness; Mat. viii. 11, 12.52​

The church, according to Watts, inherits all of the promises God made to Israel, albeit in spiritual form:

As those Gentiles who do, really and inwardly, receive the Messiah, and practise his religion in faith and holiness, come into all these inward, real, and spiritual privileges and blessings; so all that make a visible and credible profession of faith, and holiness, and universal subjection to Christ, come into all the outward privileges of the visible church, under the gospel: Some few of which privileges are continued from the Jewish church, but the greatest part of them are abolished, because the gospel state is more spiritual than the dispensation of the levitical law, and not such a typical state as that was; and none are to be admitted into this visible church, and esteemed complete members of it, but those who make such a declaration and profession of their faith in Christ, and their avowed subjection to him, as may be supposed, in a judgment of charity, to manifest them to be real believers in Christ, the true subjects of his spiritual kingdom, and members of the invisible church.​

http://scottaniol.com/wp-content/uploads/Aniol2.pdf

Watts states unequivocally that GOD has rejected National Israel just as I have stated on this BB numerous times presenting the following as Scriptural proof:

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

 

[blessedwife318]

I will back you up on this OR. I have been in Dispensational Churches my whole life and went to a very Dispensational Bible College and that is exactly what I was taught. When we went through the 7 Dispensations even my chart in my notes that the Church age in Parentheses. Also there was no shying away from the fact that Darby was the one that systematized Dispensational teaching and the Scofield was influential in getting it to the masses.

Now full disclosure I still consider myself part of the Dispensational camp, although its becoming less and less true. I am very Pre-Mill in my Eschatology but I have never been Pre-trib despite growing up in side Pre-trib Dispensational circles. I have been studying Convent Theology here more of late and find it intriguing although I still can't wrap my head around A-Mill Eschatology. But you are not wrong in what you have stated about the history of Dispensationalism.

 

[OldRegular]

I will back you up on this OR. I have been in Dispensational Churches my whole life and went to a very Dispensational Bible College and that is exactly what I was taught. When we went through the 7 Dispensations even my chart in my notes that the Church age in Parentheses. Also there was no shying away from the fact that Darby was the one that systematized Dispensational teaching and the Scofield was influential in getting it to the masses.

Now full disclosure I still consider myself part of the Dispensational camp, although its becoming less and less true. I am very Pre-Mill in my Eschatology but I have never been Pre-trib despite growing up in side Pre-trib Dispensational circles. I have been studying Convent Theology here more of late and find it intriguing although I still can't wrap my head around A-Mill Eschatology. But you are not wrong in what you have stated about the history of Dispensationalism.

Thanks very much Dear Lady. Your kind remarks are appreciated more than you know.

 

[blessedwife318]

Thanks very much Dear Lady. Your kind remarks are appreciated more than you know.

You are most welcome.

 

[Jerome]

I have been studying Convent Theology here more of late and find it intriguing

Been watching Mother Angelica reruns, eh?

 

[blessedwife318]

Been watching Mother Angelica reruns, eh?

I'm sorry I'm missing the joke. I don't know who that is.

 

[Iconoclast]

I will back you up on this OR. I have been in Dispensational Churches my whole life and went to a very Dispensational Bible College and that is exactly what I was taught. When we went through the 7 Dispensations even my chart in my notes that the Church age in Parentheses. Also there was no shying away from the fact that Darby was the one that systematized Dispensational teaching and the Scofield was influential in getting it to the masses.

Now full disclosure I still consider myself part of the Dispensational camp, although its becoming less and less true. I am very Pre-Mill in my Eschatology but I have never been Pre-trib despite growing up in side Pre-trib Dispensational circles. I have been studying Convent Theology here more of late and find it intriguing although I still can't wrap my head around A-Mill Eschatology. But you are not wrong in what you have stated about the history of Dispensationalism.

Most of us have learned the premill ideas first.....but then when you study more you see other things....
The Covenants are central to the unfolding of redemption. It unifies all 66 books while dispensational teaching divides and fragments the truth.

 

[OldRegular]

Most of us have learned the premill ideas first.....but then when you study more you see other things....
The Covenants are central to the unfolding of redemption. It unifies all 66 books while dispensational teaching divides and fragments the truth.

Scofield wrote a book "Rightly Dividing the Truth". Pre-trib-dispensationalism splinters the truth and even worse makes the Church for which Jesus Christ died a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for national Israel. The pre-tribbers on this forum rabidly deny belief in the "parenthesis" Church but also rabidly embrace a Jewish millennium and the return of National Israel! But that doctrine as the OP shows dictates the doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church.

Prominent pre-trib-dispensationalist John F. Walvoord writes, regarding the definition of the church, [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]:

“If the question be asked: Will the church be raptured before end-time events? it becomes very important to define the church as an entity that is distinct from Israel or saints in general. In prophetic passages concerning the Tribulation, both Israelites and Gentiles are described, and some of them have faith in Christ and form a godly remnant. If they are part of the church, then the church is in the Tribulation, and the whole question as to whether the church goes through the Tribulation becomes moot. Many posttribulationists, in an attempt to establish their own point of view, beg the question at the very beginning by assuming that the church includes saints of all ages. The concept that the church is distinct from Israel is a part of dispensational truth that distinguishes the work of God in the Old Testament under the Mosaic Law, the work of God in the present age as he calls out both Jews and Gentiles to form the church as the body of Christ, and the millennial kingdom in which the saints of all ages participate in various ways but maintain their individual and corporate identity. Hence, the church will be raptured or resurrected, and will reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom, but the saved of Israel as well as the saved of the Gentiles who are not part of the church will also be part of the millennial kingdom. Distinguishing the church from saints of other periods that precede or follow the present age is essential to a correct answer on the pretribulational issue. It is not too much to say that the doctrine of the church, or ecclesiology, determines this aspect of eschatology.”

 

[Jerome]

"With all our admiration for these great standard Divines, we are not prepared to shut ourselves up in their little iron cages. We say, “Open the door and let me fly—let me still feel that I am at liberty. Increase my faith and help me to believe a little more.” I know I can say I have had an increase of faith in one or two respects within the last few months. I could not, for a long time, see anything like the Millennium in the Scriptures. I could not much rejoice in the Second Coming of Christ, though I did believe it. But gradually my faith began to open to that subject and I find it now a part of my meat and drink, to be looking for, as well as hastening unto, the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ!" —Charles Spurgeon, "The Necessity of Increased Faith"

 

[OldRegular]

"With all our admiration for these great standard Divines, we are not prepared to shut ourselves up in their little iron cages. We say, “Open the door and let me fly—let me still feel that I am at liberty. Increase my faith and help me to believe a little more.” I know I can say I have had an increase of faith in one or two respects within the last few months. I could not, for a long time, see anything like the Millennium in the Scriptures. I could not much rejoice in the Second Coming of Christ, though I did believe it. But gradually my faith began to open to that subject and I find it now a part of my meat and drink, to be looking for, as well as hastening unto, the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ!" —Charles Spurgeon, "The Necessity of Increased Faith"

And the LORD came for Charles Spurgeon at the age of young age of 58!

I would also note that Spurgeon thought Darby a heretic because of Darby's view of the atonement!

 

[percho]

And the LORD came for Charles Spurgeon at the age of young age of 58!

I would also note that Spurgeon thought Darby a heretic because of Darby's view of the atonement!

and so shall we ever be with the Lord. kjv

Has Charles Spurgeon qualified for the above in the context of that above from the verse whence it was taken?

I guess I am asking has the following relative to Charles Spurgeon or me and you taken place?

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 1 Thes 4:16

Does the trumpet sound when we die?

 

[OldRegular]

and so shall we ever be with the Lord. kjv

Has Charles Spurgeon qualified for the above in the context of that above from the verse whence it was taken?

I guess I am asking has the following relative to Charles Spurgeon or me and you taken place?

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 1 Thes 4:16

Does the trumpet sound when we die?

No! Only the soul of Spurgeon is with the LORD. I am simply saying at death the soul goes to be with GOD awaiting the resurrection of the body!!

 

[OldRegular]

A little more on the non-dispensationalism of Isaac Watts from the link graciously provided by DHK. {http://scottaniol.com/wp-content/uploads/Aniol2.pdf}

Was Issac Watts a Proto-dispensationalist?

ANALYSIS

From a survey of Isaac Watts’s writings and hymns, it is apparent that he did not possess enough of dispensationalism’s essential charac- teristics, even in seed form, to consider him a proto-dispensationalist. Although he believes in a literal return and reign of Christ on the earth in the future and articulates a system of age divisions in God’s plan for mankind, he nevertheless renegotiates much of Old Testament proph- ecy in light of New Testament revelation. This leads him to see the church as simply the next stage in Israel’s development, inheriting the promises and blessings made to the nation in spiritual form, rather than seeing the two groups as distinct. Finally, Watts understands the covenant of grace to be the organizational structure of Scripture and human history, and his dispensational divisions are simply progressive stages in the development of the covenant. Rather than demonstrating early dispensational distinctives, Watts is simply a covenantal premil- lennialist with a well-developed system of historical ages.

CONCLUSION

Isaac Watts was a faithful student of Scripture, a gifted author, and an influential hymn-writer, but he was no proto-dispensationalist. Yet what he shares with the dispensationalist is a love of Scripture, a belief that God has a sovereign and unified plan for human history, and a desire to understand the progress of God’s revelation to mankind. But perhaps best of all, Watts shares a deep hope and longing for that day in which Christ Jesus will return to rule among his people:

How long, dear Savior, O how long,
Shall this bright hour delay!
Fly swifter round, ye wheels of time,
And bring the welcome day.​

 

[OldRegular]

From Dr Thomas Ice: {http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/TheUniquenessofTheChurch.html}

Mischaracterization

It is common to hear from anti-dispensationalist, such as Dr. Kenneth Gentry, saying that dispensationalists believe that Israel was God' s plan A, which failed, so He belatedly came up with plan B- the church.[1] Dr. Gentry quotes from the late Dr. John Walvoord as follows:

It becomes apparent that a new thing has been formed- the body of Christ. It did not exist before Pentecost, as there was no work of the baptism of the Spirit to form it. The concept of the body is foreign to the Old Testament and to Israel' s promises. Something new had begun. . . . there is good evidence that the age itself is a parenthesis in the divine program of God as it was revealed in the Old Testament. . . . the present age as an unexpected and unpredicted parenthesis as far as Old Testament prophecy is concerned.

Dr. Gentry then provides the following spin on Dr. Walvoord' s statement:

What he is saying here is that God had an original plan A. It had to do with the program for Israel. God' s special program was for Israel. Israel is the apple of God' s eye and God' s concern was initially with them. . . . The church of Jew and Gentile mixed together is something, according to Walvoord, totally unknown. . . . It makes the church an unknown entity and a temporary interruption in the main plan of God. . . . Dispensationalists say the church is unknown, its temporary, its an aside in the plan of God.

Conclusion

We have seen from Ephesians 3 that Paul teaches that the church age is a unique phase in God' s master plan, contrary to Dr. Gentry' s claims. This Pauline revealed mystery concerning the Body of Christ does support the notion that the church is a parenthesis in God' s plan. Not an afterthought, but a temporary intercalation in God' s program for Israel! In concert with Paul' s mystery, James said in Acts 15:14-16 that God is " taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name" (verse 14), then He will return and restore Israel (verse 16). Coupled with Paul' s teaching in Ephesians 2 and 3, we know that those elect Gentiles of this church age are combined in a co-equal way with the Jewish remnant of the same period. When God' s purpose for the church is complete He will end this temporary age with the rapture before the tribulation. Then He will work through Israel to bring her into the bond of the covenant and then all redeemed peoples of the ages will reign in their own order with Messiah in the millennial kingdom. Maranatha!

 

[OldRegular]

The purpose of this thread is to show that the concept of the Church as a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for national/ethnic Israel is the invention of pre-trib-dispensationalists. Following are remarks by dispensational scholar John Walvoord:{http://www.walvoord.com/article/152}

The Church Age as a Parenthesis

One of the important questions raised by the amillenarians is whether the present age is predicted in the Old Testament. This they confidently affirm and find the kingdom promises fulfilled in the present church age. Premillenarians have not always given a clear answer to the amillennial position. While dispensationalists have regarded the present age as a parenthesis unexpected and without specific prediction in the Old Testament, some premillenarians have tended to strike a compromise interpretation in which part of the Old Testament predictions are fulfilled now and part in the future. In some cases they have conceded so much to the amillenarians that for all practical purposes they have surrendered premillennialism as well. It is the purpose of the present investigation to show the reasonableness and Scriptural support of the parenthesis concept.

Daniel’ s seventieth week for Israel. One of the classic passages related to this problem is Daniel 9:27, defining the last of Daniel’s weeks for the fulfillment of Israel’s program. As generally interpreted the time unit in the “weeks” or “sevens” is taken to be a year. Conservative scholars usually trace the fulfillment of the first sixty-nine sevens of years as culminating in the crucifixion of Christ, predicted in the terms that “the anointed one be cut off and shall have nothing” (Dan 9:26). While the most literal interpretation of the first sixty-nine sevens is thus afforded a literal fulfillment, nothing can be found in history that provides a literal fulfillment of the last seven or the seventieth week. It has been taken by many that this indicates a postponement of the fulfillment of the last seven years of the prophecy to the future preceding the second advent. If so, a parenthesis of time involving the whole present age is indicated.

This proposal has been rejected by the liberal, by the amillenarian, and by some premillenarians, particularly those who are not dispensationalists. Philip Mauro, an amillenarian, states flatly, “Never has a specified number of time-units, making up a described stretch of time, been taken to mean anything but continuous or consecutive time units.” [5] Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, p. 95.

It should be obvious to careful students of the Bible that Mauro is not only begging the question but is overlooking abundant evidence to the contrary. Nothing should be plainer to one reading the Old Testament than that the foreview therein provided did not predict a period of time between the two advents. This very fact confused even the prophets (cf. 1 Pet 1:10-12). At best such a time interval was only implied. In the very passage involved, Daniel 9:24-27, it is indicated that there would be a time interval. The anointed one, or the Messiah, is cut off after the sixty-ninth week, but not in the seventieth. Such a circumstance could be true only if there were a time interval between these two periods.

Many illustrations of parentheses in the Old Testament. As H. A. Ironside has made clear in his thorough study of this problem, [6] H. A. Ironside, The Great Parenthesis, 131 pp. there are more than a dozen instances of parenthetical periods in the divine program. In Luke 4:18-20, quoting Isaiah 61:2, obviously the present age now extending over 1900 years intervenes between the “acceptable year of the Lord” and the “day of vengeance of our God.” There is no indication in the Isaiah passage of any interval at all, but Christ stopped abruptly in the middle of the sentence in His quotation in Luke thus indicating the division. A similar spanning of the entire church age is found in Hosea 3:4 as compared to 3:5 and Hosea 5:15 as compared with 6:1 . Psalm 22 predicts the sufferings of Christ (Ps 22:1-21), anticipates the resurrection of Christ (Ps 22:22), and then in the remainder of the psalm deals with millennial conditions without a reference to the present age. This characteristic is found in much of Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament.

The prophetic foreview of Daniel 2 in Nebuchadnezzar’s image and the fourth beast of Daniel 7:23-27 likewise ignores the present age. Daniel 8:24 seems to refer to Antiochus Epiphanes (B.C. 170), whereas Daniel 8:25 leaps the entire present age to discuss the future beast of Revelation 13 who will appear after the church age is concluded. A similar instance is found in Daniel 11:35 as compared with Daniel 11:36. Psalm 110:1 speaks of Christ in heaven and Psalm 110:2 refers to His ultimate triumph at His second advent.

Ironside suggests that Peter stops in the middle of his quotation of Psalm 34:12-16 in 1 Peter 3:10-12 because the last part of Psalm 34:16 seems to refer to future dealings of God with sin in contrast to present discipline. [7] Ibid., p. 44. The truth of a parenthesis is implied in Matthew 24 where the present age is described as preceding and intervening between the cross and the sign foretold by Daniel 9:27 (cf. Matt 24:15). Acts 15:13-21, discussed in previous study of premillenniilism, makes sense when it is understood that the present age intervenes between the cross and the future blessing of Israel in the millennium.

Even in types, the interval is anticipated. The yearly schedule of feasts for Israel separates widely those prefiguring the death and resurrection of Christ and those anticipating Israel’s regathering and glory. In the New Testament, the use of the olive tree as a figure in Romans 11 involves the three stages: (1) Israel in the place of blessing; (2) Israel cut off and the Gentiles in the place of blessing; (3) the Gentiles cut off and Israel grafted in again. The present age and Israel’s time of discipline and judgment coincide and constitute a parenthesis in the divine program for Israel.

Sir Robert Anderson in regard to 1 Kings 6:1 finds the discrepancy of 480 years as opposed to 573 years, which was the actual length of time for the period from the departure from Egypt to the building of the temple, is solved by subtracting 93 years during which Israel was cast off as a nation—five different periods of time (Judg 3:8, 14; 4:2-3 ; 6:1 ; 13:1 ). If Anderson’s findings are accepted, it provides a clear illustration of time intervals embedded in a chronological program of the Old Testament.

The ultimate proof of the teaching that the present age is a parenthesis is in the positive revelation concerning the church as the body of Christ, the study of which will be undertaken next. The evidence for a parenthesis in the present age interrupting God’s predicted program for Jew and Gentile as revealed in the Old Testament is extensive, however. The evidence if interpreted literally leads inevitably to the parenthesis doctrine. The kingdom predictions of the Old Testament do not conform to the pattern of this present age. Amillenarians from Augustine down to the present make no pretense of interpreting these prophecies in the same literal way as premillenarians. Those among the premillennial group who see clearly the issues involved would do well to divorce themselves from the amillennial method in dealing with the prophetic word, and interpret the prophecies of the Old Testament in relation to the millennium rather than the present age.

Dallas, Texas

 

[convicted1]

I'm sorry I'm missing the joke. I don't know who that is.

In your first post in this thread, you stated you were studying 'Convent' theology and not 'Covenant theology', hence the joke by Bro. Jerome...

 

[blessedwife318]

In your first post in this thread, you stated you were studying 'Convent' theology and not 'Covenant theology', hence the joke by Bro. Jerome...

Oh OK thanks. Yeah my spelling can be bad when I'm using my phone.

 

[convicted1]

From Dr Thomas Ice: {http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/TheUniquenessofTheChurch.html}

Soooooo....'Dr.' Ice didn't believe the church was/is the body of Christ???

 

[OldRegular]

Soooooo....'Dr.' Ice didn't believe the church was/is the body of Christ???

It seems that Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord, and Ironside had an unbiblical view of the Church. Perhaps they never got around to reading Ephesians 2:11-22!

 

[Darrell C]

Soooooo....'Dr.' Ice didn't believe the church was/is the body of Christ???

Could you post what you saw that led you to this conclusion?


God bless.