Dispensationalism - yea or nay.

But the point I made was exactly from BDAG! Did you miss that? Words can have more than one meaning. Therefore, BDAG gave more than one meaning for ekklesia. Ergo, the OT Israelites assembling does not make a church in the same meaning that the NT saints assembling does.

 

“This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:” (Acts 7:38)

We cannot argue Stephen's use of the word however. (God's Word).

 

Sigh. You are still missing the point. You are obviously functionally illiterate in linguistics. You may even be KJV-Only--"The Bible says 'church' in Acts 7, so it's just like the other times the Bible says 'church.'"

Two things with the same word are not necessarily the same. Acts 7:38 is not the same "church" as Acts 2.

Tell you what. I'll start a regular debate thread with this theme.

 

There are some who hold to CT that also hold to Historical premil, as I and Spurgeon do, so would say the spiritual blessings promised in the OT now passed unto the Church, but also that National israel has still some dealings with God at time of the second coming event!

 

Congregation = church = assembly = gathering and so on. The definitions all match a common theme. Congregation of the Lord = Congregation of Jesus = Church of Jesus and so on.

 

So, when I was a pastor and a new person came in, were they automatically part of the church? Or just part of the congregation? Do you believe in a regenerate church membership (a Baptist distinctive)?

 

In the OT the Congregation (Church) of the Lord was a State Church. Made up of believers and unbelievers alike. When Jesus abolished circumcision, nothing remained to make one a physical member of Israel. It was on this principle of a regenerate believing membership Christ would now build his church.

 

Okay, so you are back to your old habit of not answering points, fleeing the posts of the other person, and then posting irrelevant answers. Have fun arguing with yourself. さよなら (Sayonara).

 

I understand your backing out of this discussion.

 

That's an easy dodge. But doesn't refute what I say.

 

I'm still here.

 

Dispensationalism is a distinctive Plymouth Brethren Doctrine. During the 19the Century it was mainly confined to the PB. In the late 19th c. it was still widely considered to be a heresy. It was only after it migrated to the USA and the publication of the Scofield Bible that it returned to the UK and became more widely accepted.

Those of us who are not dispenstionalists and who have been on the Oline Baptist board have been regularly called heretics, I was called a false teacher when I only quoted scripture.

 

Under the Old Covenant, both saved and lost were part of it, but now under the new One, only the saved are part of it!

 

You are back to giving Apostolic pronouncments, like your view settles it all!

 

Is it better to play with the problem or solve it? We can wade through error all day long, but there is nothing like a display of the truth to upstage it.

 

Truth of course being the way that you define it!