1 Cor. 12:13 and water baptism and local church body

[The Biblicist]

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
--There is nothing to say that in this verse he is speaking to the church collectively or as each one individually, as he does in other places.

Your response above is wrong for several reasons. First, this letter is not addressed to individuals per se but to the church at Corinth. Second he uses a plural pronoun "you" and the contextual antecedant has been the church not individual members. Third, the same idea of future presentation under the metaphor of a Jewish wife "espoused" is found in Ephesians 5:27 and it is the "church" not individuals. Fourth, the continuing context is not addressed to indivdiual's per se but to the church. Fifth, all your argumentations are simply attempts to escape the obvious and natural interpretation.

It is impossible for Paul to present them as a bride. That is the work of Christ (see Eph.5). Christ prepares his own bride. This is a work of discipleship, sanctification.

You are failing to grasp the fact that metaphorically he is acting as the agent in a Jewish marriage as John portrayed in himself between Christ and the church in John 3:29. John prepared a wife for Christ - the church - by first having authority behind his mission (Jn. 1:33; Mt. 21:15-17) and second by evangelizing them (Jn. 3:36) then baptizing them and then teaching them or disciplining them. The Great Commission is nothing more or less than AUTHORITY to the church through its ordained representatives to carry out the same espousal ministry.

Paul was "sent" out by the church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-3) to evangelize, baptize and then assemble the baptized believers around him to teach them how to observe all things Christ commanded. This is the espousal ministry.

To present them to Christ a "chaste virgin" merely refers to one of the "crowns" that he would cast at the feet of Jesus for doing exactly what he was doing by writing this letter and coming to them correcting their errors and guiding them back to truth - or doing his part to maintain their FAITHFULNESS to Christ as a New Testament church or metaphorical "virgin."

Where do you get that idea? I said very clearly that all the saved; all who are in Christ, are part of the Bride of Christ, no one excluded. That is not a difficult position.

You admitted that the Old Testament saints like John the Baptists were not part of Christ's bride and yet claimed that the bride consisted of all who are "in Christ" from Pentecost forward did you not? Think about the consequences of that statement. Your "in Christ" equals "bride" in that statement or why else exclude John the Baptist and all previous saints????

Secondly, I believe there is one interpretation of Eph.5 but more than one application.

I never denied there are mutiple applications but one of them is very obvious and that is the fact that it is the church yet to be "presented" to Christ in the figure of a Jewish wife. Only the Jewish metaphor regarded the woman presently as a legal wife before presentation. Hence, the church is described in this passage as a "bride" yet to be presented and not individuals.

Thirdly, by implication you have inferred that the thief on the cross and the Ethiopian Eunuch were never saved.

No sir, that is YOUR implication when you deny John the Baptist and all saints prior to Pentecost are included in the Bride which you make equal to being "in Christ".

What churches did they belong to? Church membership is a matter of obedience. It does not mean one is excluded from the bride.

Now you are taking up the Universal Invisible Church argument used against those who distinguish between the church and salvation as they argue on the basis there is no difference. I don't believe membership in a church has any relationship to salvation "in Christ". So why do you make that kind of argument against me as though I did make church and salvation synonmous???

There has been one gospel, one Savior, one way of salvation and one KIND of salvation - regeneration and indwelling by the Spirit of God, progressive sanctification, justification by faith since Genesis 3:16 to Revelation 19. Church membership, thus the metaphorical bride has NOTHING to do with salvation but with service.

Will all believers be raptured? All those believers that will be raptured will be a part of his bride. When Jesus comes again, he will come for his bride. No one will be left behind.

What scripture do you base all raptured equals the bride? You are arguing the very same way universalites argue over Acts 20:28 except just replace "purchased with his own blood" with "bride". Just because he comes for his bride does not mean all saints are in the bride any more than the church in Acts 20:38 purchased by his own blood means all saints must be in that church in that text.

Ephesians 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
--What is your point here? This is the conclusion to a magnificent prayer, almost like a benediction.

My point is that God has ordained that it is "in the church" that his Son should be glorified not merely in our present age but in all ages to come right into eternity. Note in Revelation 21:24-25 the "nations of the saved" bring their GLORY into the New Jerusalem which is named in honor of Christ's bride.

Ephesians 3:21 to him be the glory in the assembly and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen. (WEB)
--This perhaps is a more accurate translation. The "church" will last for the generations on this earth, but will cease to exist when the rapture occurs.[/QUOTE]

That is not a more accurate translation but an absolute perversion of the Greek text and its meaning. He first says "all generations" which refers to our present age and then duplicates "aionios" which is the strongest way for expresssing eternity especially after sahing "all generations." There is absolutely no stronger expression in the Greek language for ETERNAL than what is found in this text.

Again, you are attempting to EXPLAIN AWAY the obvious and natural.

Paul was speaking to the assembly at Ephesus. It is Christ who will be to all generations forever and ever.

The subject is glorifying Christ IN THE CHURCH as that is the very reason for the existence of the church. That glorifying will continue THROUGHOUT ALL GENERATIONS just as Christ promised to be with the chuch "until the end of the world" but glorifying Christ IN THE CHURCH will continue into eternity (Rev. 21-22:3) wherein "the nations of THE SAVED" are EXTERNAL to what is named in honor of the THE BRIDE (Rev. 21:24-25).

Nonsense! The belief or non-belief in the universal church does not affect one's belief in dispensations. That is a side issue.

It is not a side issue. You cannot possibly eqate "the bride" to be equal to "in Christ" salvation and not believe in a universal invisible church simply because there is no possible salvation of any kind OUTSIDE OF Christ. Hence, if "in Christ" is equal to salvation and equal to "bride" or the WIFE of Christ then that is a univeral invisible church as Epheisans 5:25-27 makes it clear that the FUTURE presentation of the "CHURCH" is as the future bride/wife of Christ.

First, Christ is preparing his bride.
Second, Christ presents his bride.
Third, this does not follow Jewish custom.

Where do you get the idea that Christ is either preparing or presenting his bride? That was the job of the Bridegrooms friend and that is precisely what John claimed and did. He prepared the bride and presented her to Jesus. He evangelized them, baptized them and presented them as that was his assignment "make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Lk. 1:17) to assemble (Jn. 1:35-50).

That is precisely what Paul is claiming to be in 2 Cor. 11:2 and that is the job of all church sent missionaries - evangelize them, baptize them and assemble them to be FAITHFUL to Christ and thus they are presenting the.m to Christ as the metaphor of "bride" or "chaste virgin" depicts

I don't find such a dichotomy.

You don't find it OR you choose to ignore the obvious:

Rev. 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

They live external to "it" or their kings would not have to bring their "glory and honor" INTO it! You make these words meaningless. Again, choosing to EXPLAIN AWAY the obvious and natural.

Second, look at Revelation 22:2 and ask who are the fruits for as the leaves are for "the nations"? Who are the fruits for (Rev. 2:7).

 

[The Biblicist]

continued

Like the thief on the cross?

This is the problem of all who claim "in Christ" equals "bride" and that is YOUR position in this matter not mine! I believe there is but one gospel, one way of salvation, one Savior, one KIND of salvation - spiritual union by regeneration thus indwelling, justification by faith, progressive sanctificaiton and utlimate glorification for every saint from Genesus 3:15 to Revelation 19. It is you and your position that denies the theif on the cross the same KIND of salvation by excluding all saints like John the Baptist from "the bride" which you equate to being "in Christ."

I believe John the Baptist is outside the bride not becuase the Bride equals "in Christ" but rather because the bride has NOTHING to do with "in Chirst" salvation but only with service by those "in Christ." Bride does not equal salvation any more than Church equals salvation. Both are positions of the universal invisible church theory.

Are you the arbitrary judge of God to determine who is faithful and who is not? What is your standard for faithfulness that you will impose on God?

God's Word is the arbritrary juge and all who refuse scriptural baptism through through a scriptural church are disobedient, unfaithful and outside the metaphorical body, bride of Christ in regard to REVEALED WAY OF FAITHFULNESS! Those within the metaphorical "body" and "bride" of Christ subject to church discipline are unfaithful removed from the metaphor of faithfulness - the Bride. The bride PREPARES HERSELF (Rev. 19:6-7) and MAKES HERSELF READY and her gown is made of PLURAL RIGHTEOUSNESS of the saints not the imputed SINGULAR righteousness of Christ. The imputed righteousness of Christ is never spoken of in the plural as it is singularly sufficent for all the elect.

If it were OT characters would Lot have been a "righteous and just person" in your eyes? Probably not, but he was in God's eyes.

Again, you take the same position as the works for salvationists and universal churchites. You choose to ignore salvation versus faithfulness to Christ. He was not faithful to Christ but he was saved. The bride has to do with faithfulness by saved people to Christ NOTHING to do with being saved or lost.

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

This is the New Testament church as the visible expression of the Kingdom of God just as Israel was the visible expression of the kingdom of God on earth but the kingdom was not equal as there were saved people outside of Israel (Ninevites, pre-Israelites - Gen. 3-12; etc.).

Most of your arguments fall into one of two categories:

1. Explain away the obvious and natural interpretation.

2. Adopting universal church arguments thus ignoring that the church and its metaphors have NOTHING to do with being saved or lost but with service of the saved.

 

[DHK]

Most of your arguments fall into one of two categories:

1. Explain away the obvious and natural interpretation.

2. Adopting universal church arguments thus ignoring that the church and its metaphors have NOTHING to do with being saved or lost but with service of the saved.

You are wrong again here.
First, it has been obvious to all who read my posts that I don't believe in a universal church. To accuse me of believing in one is just simply absurd.
Second, I don't explain away anything; you simply don't like my interpretation. That is alright. We can disagree.

The problem as I see it is that you have taken a few small portions of Scripture which talk of the bride, and used those as foundational verses to build an entire doctrine on the eternal state which the Bible speaks precious little about. It is all very speculative.

The order: the rapture, the Judgment Seat of Christ, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, the Millennial Kingdom, an uprising, the Great White Throne Judgment, the destruction of the old earth and the old heavens, the creation of a new earth and a new heaven, and then the eternal state.

Now, what do you know about that new earth and that new heaven? Almost nothing! You don't know the inhabitants. You don't know if there will be another race of people. Everything about it is completely speculative. Yet you are being dogmatic and building a theology about on just one or two verses of Scripture. You are reading into the Bible that which is not there.
You know nothing of the new heaven which is spoken of.
The Lord simply said that he would create a new earth and a new heaven; the old would be burned up with fire. Why speculate about it? It is in the eternal state to be sure. But I am not prepared to make dogmatic statements as you do about that period of time.

Next, the term "in Christ." I have used that term rather loosely to refer to NT Christians. But I do not suggest than any OT saint is unsaved. Why do unfairly suggest that I do. You know better than that. All the saints of God are saved the same way: justification by faith. Romans 4 makes that very clear.
Is John the Baptist, in spite of his great faithfulness to Christ, a part of the Bride of Christ? NO! He himself testified to that. He is a friend of the bridegroom. That is not part of the bride. He was the last of the OT prophets, and thus we could correctly deduce that all the OT saints would not be a part of the bride, but friends of the bridegroom.

Ephesians 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
--The metaphor is that Christ is preparing his bride, and will eventually present that bride (holy and without blemish) to himself. He comes for his bride. He will come again. He comes for his own. The time of his coming will be the rapture. All the saints in Christ will be raptured. All the saints will make up the bride--some disobedient and some not. Not one of us will be perfect. Are you perfect, sinless? (Check 1John 1:8,10). Some Christian's sins will be rebelling against baptism and church membership. That doesn't exclude them from the rapture or from the bride.

Some of those whom I spend the most time with are "adherents" of the church, saved but not yet baptized. They are faithful in many things, but disobedient in this one thing. They will give account of it. Will Christ cast them out of his bride for it. No.

I believe the judge of all the earth will do right, and we can't presume to know his judgments based on our own fallible reasoning.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are wrong again here.
First, it has been obvious to all who read my posts that I don't believe in a universal church. To accuse me of believing in one is just simply absurd.

I never accused you of believing in the Univesal Invisible Church theory. What I accused you of doing is adopting the same type of arguments they use against the local church theory. Please carefully reread what I said and you will see that was my point and my only point.

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree as it is obvious this discussion is at a dead end.

 

[Yeshua1]

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
--There is nothing to say that in this verse he is speaking to the church collectively or as each one individually, as he does in other places. He often speaks to them, for example as their father, and they his children. Thus he is jealous over them. It is impossible for Paul to present them as a bride. That is the work of Christ (see Eph.5). Christ prepares his own bride. This is a work of discipleship, sanctification.
Where do you get that idea? I said very clearly that all the saved; all who are in Christ, are part of the Bride of Christ, no one excluded. That is not a difficult position. I am not a Baptist-brider, which I believe is an extreme position.
First, I believe your interpretation of 2Cor.11:2 is wrong.
Secondly, I believe there is one interpretation of Eph.5 but more than one application.
Thirdly, by implication you have inferred that the thief on the cross and the Ethiopian Eunuch were never saved. What churches did they belong to? Church membership is a matter of obedience. It does not mean one is excluded from the bride.

Will all believers be raptured? All those believers that will be raptured will be a part of his bride. When Jesus comes again, he will come for his bride. No one will be left behind.
Ephesians 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
--What is your point here? This is the conclusion to a magnificent prayer, almost like a benediction.

Ephesians 3:21 to him be the glory in the assembly and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen. (WEB)
--This perhaps is a more accurate translation. The "church" will last for the generations on this earth, but will cease to exist when the rapture occurs. Paul was speaking to the assembly at Ephesus. It is Christ who will be to all generations forever and ever.
Nonsense! The belief or non-belief in the universal church does not affect one's belief in dispensations. That is a side issue.
First, Christ is preparing his bride.
Second, Christ presents his bride.
Third, this does not follow Jewish custom.
Fourth, this does not follow western custom.
Fifth, this follows what is written in the Word of God.
I don't find such a dichotomy. There will no doubt be the ability for the saints to go from one place to the other at that time. We are not given enough information to make such dogmatic statements as you have.
Like the thief on the cross?
Are you the arbitrary judge of God to determine who is faithful and who is not? What is your standard for faithfulness that you will impose on God?
If it were OT characters would Lot have been a "righteous and just person" in your eyes? Probably not, but he was in God's eyes.
Your whole system is arbitrary and man-made.
Our works will have been taken care of: first at the cross, and then again at the Judgment Seat of Christ. By the time some of these events take place we will already have been abiding in heaven, then reigning with Christ, heirs of God and joint heirs with him.

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

A person CANNOT NOT be part of the Bride of Christ and be saved, for when one get reborn, at that moment, they are in spiritual union with Chrsit, srealed by Spirit, and ALL saved will have their part in the Bride! OT saints are not even resurrected until after the Millinium, are they?

We do not hold to JUST we baptists being in the bride, do we?

 

[Yeshua1]

This is the problem of all who claim "in Christ" equals "bride" and that is YOUR position in this matter not mine! I believe there is but one gospel, one way of salvation, one Savior, one KIND of salvation - spiritual union by regeneration thus indwelling, justification by faith, progressive sanctificaiton and utlimate glorification for every saint from Genesus 3:15 to Revelation 19. It is you and your position that denies the theif on the cross the same KIND of salvation by excluding all saints like John the Baptist from "the bride" which you equate to being "in Christ."

I believe John the Baptist is outside the bride not becuase the Bride equals "in Christ" but rather because the bride has NOTHING to do with "in Chirst" salvation but only with service by those "in Christ." Bride does not equal salvation any more than Church equals salvation. Both are positions of the universal invisible church theory.




God's Word is the arbritrary juge and all who refuse scriptural baptism through through a scriptural church are disobedient, unfaithful and outside the metaphorical body, bride of Christ in regard to REVEALED WAY OF FAITHFULNESS! Those within the metaphorical "body" and "bride" of Christ subject to church discipline are unfaithful removed from the metaphor of faithfulness - the Bride. The bride PREPARES HERSELF (Rev. 19:6-7) and MAKES HERSELF READY and her gown is made of PLURAL RIGHTEOUSNESS of the saints not the imputed SINGULAR righteousness of Christ. The imputed righteousness of Christ is never spoken of in the plural as it is singularly sufficent for all the elect.



Again, you take the same position as the works for salvationists and universal churchites. You choose to ignore salvation versus faithfulness to Christ. He was not faithful to Christ but he was saved. The bride has to do with faithfulness by saved people to Christ NOTHING to do with being saved or lost.





This is the New Testament church as the visible expression of the Kingdom of God just as Israel was the visible expression of the kingdom of God on earth but the kingdom was not equal as there were saved people outside of Israel (Ninevites, pre-Israelites - Gen. 3-12; etc.).

Most of your arguments fall into one of two categories:

1. Explain away the obvious and natural interpretation.

2. Adopting universal church arguments thus ignoring that the church and its metaphors have NOTHING to do with being saved or lost but with service of the saved.

Don you hold to ONLY those in baptist churches are part of the Bride than?

i body/1 Bride, for NONE saved outside Christ!

 

[DHK]

A person CANNOT NOT be part of the Bride of Christ and be saved, for when one get reborn, at that moment, they are in spiritual union with Chrsit, srealed by Spirit, and ALL saved will have their part in the Bride! OT saints are not even resurrected until after the Millinium, are they?

We do not hold to JUST we baptists being in the bride, do we?

You sound very confused as to what I said.
What do you mean: "a person cannot be part of the Bride of Christ and be saved." Whoever said that? That is complete nonsense. No one here even suggested that.
I have said all along that all the saved (after the Cross) are the Bride of Christ.
That is my position and I stick by it. I never limited it to Baptists or any other group.
I do not believe that the OT saints will be resurrected at a different time then the NT saints. Where does the Bible indicate that? There are two resurrections: one for the just and one for the unjust. Those are the only two resurrections (outside of the resurrection of Christ) that I know of.

 

[Yeshua1]

You sound very confused as to what I said.
What do you mean: "a person cannot be part of the Bride of Christ and be saved." Whoever said that? That is complete nonsense. No one here even suggested that.
I have said all along that all the saved (after the Cross) are the Bride of Christ.
That is my position and I stick by it. I never limited it to Baptists or any other group.
I do not believe that the OT saints will be resurrected at a different time then the NT saints. Where does the Bible indicate that? There are two resurrections: one for the just and one for the unjust. Those are the only two resurrections (outside of the resurrection of Christ) that I know of.

Thanks, you and I see things same way in those points!