Featured 1 Cor. 6:15 defines the nature of the TRUE body of Christ

The church is the body and the church cannot precede its foundation and its foundation consists of only New Testament persons (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28). So you have no church, thus no "body" previous to its foundation. Therefore, you have no "body" existing between Genesis to Malachi, and so there are no saints in the body between Genesis and Malachi only saints in THE FAMILY and that is BIRTH not by baptism. It is FAMILY SPIRITUAL UNION by BIRTH. Always has been and always will be. The church = body has NOTHING to do with spiritual union or birth or salvation but is simply REPRESENTATIVE union with Christ.

 

Which is it? Is it an ekklesia on earth as dmitted in your first statement above OR is it an ekklesia in heaven as your points (1,2) try to defend. You have TWO different kinds of ekklesias you are trying to defend and they cannot be defended as one and the same. The one on earth (1 Cor. 6:15) is a PHYSICAL ekklesia as it is an assembly of PHYSICAL bodies, where as the one in heaven is composed of "spirits" without physical bodies. One is on earth and the other is in heaven. One is sinless members and the other is sinful members. You are confusing the FAMILY of God which based on the condition of spirits by NEW BIRTH which is on earth and in heaven (Eph. 3;15) with the ekklesia of Christ which is on earth.

Your dual view here disregards the overal and immediate context. The overall context is that these Hebrew Christians are contemplating forsaking the New Covenant ADMINISTRATION and returning back under the Old Covenant ADMINISTRATION, and this is visibly manifested by forsaking the assembling of themselves together ON EARTH in the NT ekklesia (Heb. 10:25-30). Paul is encouraging them not to do so by providing them OT examples of those who continued to be faithful (Heb. 11) who are now IN HEAVEN AS THE GREAT CROWD of witnesses watching them ON EARTH (Heb. 12:1). He encourages them by the example of Jesus (Heb. 12;2-4). He warns them of chastening (Heb. 12:5-10). He warns them by the example of firstborn ones who had failed (Esau and Israel (Heb. 12:11-21). At this point with the example of the second firstborn who failed (Israel) we have the use of the first verb perfect tense "have come" (v. 18). They "have come" in the presence of God angels and all heaven as an ekklesia assembled at the foot of Mount Sinai but .still their ekklesia was ON EARTH. Likewise, when these saints assemble ON EARTH they have come in the presence of God(as the house of God) and angels and all heaven. Their names are in heaven but they are on earth. Here is conclusion of why they should not "forsake the assembling of themselves as the manner of some is" (Heb. 10:25) because in that act they are forsaking the New Covenant ADMINISTRATION and failing in their priviledge as "firstborn ones" just as the Jewish ekklesia failed in the wilderness.

The NT ekklesia is the visible administration of the New Covenant ON EARTH and the New Testament teaches over and over again that God and angels are present in its assemblies ON EARTH as it is called "the house OF GOD" or the "churches OF GOD" and angels are present in the assemblies (1 Cor. 10:10; Eph. 3:10). The act of forsaking the assembly in NT. times was the act of forsaking the New Covenant altogether as visible Christianity had its manifestation in the assembly. There were no multidenominations then, the norm of Christianity was to be a member of the assembly as that was the visible expression of the God's administrative rule on earth.

So your commentators and you fail the overall context, fail the immediate context.

 

God has always dwelt there before he ever laid the "foundation" of the NT ekklesia from NT materials (apostles and prophets). However, after laying that foundation and building the NT ekklesia he also dwells in it ON EARTH as the "house OF GOD" or the "churches OF GOD".

Owen is wrong in his application as he makes the ekklesia of Christ equal to the family of God or the elect in all ages when in fact the first to be added to the ekklesia of Christ was not Adam or Eve or even the first prophet Abel but THE APOSTLES (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28). Hence, he is confusing the family of God consisting of all the elect in heaven and earth with the church of God. He is confusing spiritual union by new birth with doctrinal union by Great Commission obedience.

Absolutely false! He actually dwelt in the OT tabernacle and Temple, just as he actually dwells in the NT "house OF GOD" ON EARTH. When saints assembled at the OT houses of God they came before the presence of God, angels and heaven just as they do in the NT house of God. Of course both are typical of the eternal state where man dwells with God on a new earth in a new heaven but that is NOT A PRESENT REALITY but only a future hope.

They do not come to heaven literally. This gospel privilege was just as true between Genesis and Malachi as it is between Matthew and Revelation. However, no one between Genesis and Revelation has come to the antitypical application in Revelation 21:1-22:3 as that is yet future. The only sense anyone ON EARTH has come to the presence of God is when they are assembled in the house "OF GOD" where God, angels and all heaven are present. Even the justified "spirits of men" in heaven have not yet come to this antitypical fulfillment as they are still waiting with us (Heb. 11:39-40).

 

Think about what you are saying?? Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Cor. 12:28 were written long after the resurrection of Christ, and long after Pentecost. If they were not part of it by then, they are not part of it by now and never will be part of it. You are confusing the FAMILY of God with the church of God. They were never meant to be part of the church of Christ as that was a NT institution as the very materials of the "foundation" prove. OT saints and NT saints are ONE FAMILY because of the NEW BIRTH as that is the mechanism for SPIRITUAL UNION or SPIRITUAL LIFE as "spiritual union" is synonymous with "spiritual life" just as "spiritual separation" is synonymous with "spiritual death."

 

If the "foundation" of the church is not even laid until the NT times, then what do you think? Nobody prior to the laying of the foundation can be in the church! You skip Ephesians 2:20 and jump to Ephesians 3:9-15 and make an unwarranted assumption that Ephesians 3:9-15 contradicts Ephesians 2:20 as you PIT one against the other. That is no sound hermeneutics.

The Family of God is far larger than the church of God. In the new heaven and earth not all the saved will dwell in the New Jerusalem where the Bride of Christ dwells and Revelation 21:24 is absolute proof of that. Notice there are "saved" over whom "kings" rule just as Christ promised overcomers in local NT churches they would "rule" over others in the new earth (Rev. 2:26-27).

1. Church overcomers are promised the fruit of the tree while the nations obtain the leaves - Rev. 2:7; 22:3

2. Church overcomes are promised to rule over the nations and thus are the "kings" while the nations are "saved" but live outside the city - Rev. 21:24

3. Church overcomes are promised to dwell in the city while the "saved nations" dwell outside the city on the new earth.

4. Church overcomers make up the bride as her garment is defined as her righteousnesses (plural) rather than the imputed righteousness (singular) of Christ while other saints are the "guests" - Rev. 19:6-9.

5. Family is composed by BIRTH whereas the church is composed by BAPTIZED beleivers.

6. Family is in heaven and in earth but church is only located on earth until Second advent.

7. Church is given an age long commission whose foundation consists of apostles while family began with Adam, Eve, Abel.

8. The manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the church unto angels as 1 Cor. 11:10 and Ephesians 3:10 explicitly state they are present in the services ON EARTH.

Your whole theory confuses salvation with service and has the church predating its own "foundation". If your view were correct Paul would have said "God hath set first in the church Saints (Adam, Eve) secondarily prophets (Abel the very first prophet)" but the text does not say that does it??? You have to first reject what it says and then pervert it to include what your theory demands was set first in the church don't you?

 

Again, the issue is so simple:

1. Spiritual separation = spiritual death
2. Spiritual union = spiritual life = quickening = new birth = family of God member

You are confusing the family of God or spiritual union by BIRTH with the church and baptism. You are confusing salvation with service

1. Institutional immersion in the Spirit after "house of God' is finished (tabernacle, temple, church)
2. Individual immersion in water of believers as members of the church - 1 Cor. 6:15

The Promise of the Spirit involves many different facets that characterize the administration of a new covenant.

1. Public confirmation of a new Public house of worship with ministry and ordinances
2. Public confirmation of a new set of scriptures and new prophets with temporal revelatory and sign gifts until scriptures completed
3. The public confirmation of the apostolic office - 2 Cor. 12;12
4. The change of sphere of redemption from Jewish to Gentile

 

So the former are not believers in the Christ gospel (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2) but the latter are? So the former are "saints" but the latter are not? So the former are circumcised "in heart" but the latter are not (Col. 2:12)? So the former are Covenant "keepers" (justified by works) but the latter are not even though Abraham is the gold standard for "all who are of faith" and yet lived formerly???? So there is one gospel kind of salvation for the former and another for the latter (Heb. 4:2)????

Can't you see that your "church" theory does not even fit your distinctions here?????????????? Come on, it is so obvious your views are soooooo wrong!

If you can't see that your system is all messed up, self-contradictory and making God the author of confusion then it is hopeless to continue this discussion.

The preceding context defines that promise!! They were looking for a city whose builder and maker was God and they were looking for it ON EARTH. One day it will come down on earth (Rev. 21:1-2) but we along with them are STILL WAITING FOR IT as that promised has yet to be fulfilled.

Just keep reading and you will see there is ONE COMMON GOSPEL of salvation (Heb. 4:1-2) even though the former are not in Christ's house - the church - while the latter are (Heb. 10:25). Yet all are in the FAMILY OF GOD BY NEW BIRTH. You are confusing the family with the church, confusing salvation which is common for both with the church which is not common for both.

 

I had W.R. Downings book on the church and it agreed with my position. Has he changed his ecclesiology?

 

sorry to hear that.