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

[Iconoclast]

I state the truth so clearly here and so simply that it is hard to respond to isn't it?

The issue is not death to life......
The issue is what gathers saints from all time into one body..
You avoid that issue talking all around it.....that's what is pretty simple....
1 Cor says Spirit Baptism.......you suggest union by regeneration alone....no need for Spirit Baptism in your view really.....

 

[The Biblicist]

The issue is not death to life......
The issue is what gathers saints from all time into one body..
You avoid that issue talking all around it.....that's what is pretty simple....
1 Cor says Spirit Baptism.......you suggest union by regeneration alone....no need for Spirit Baptism in your view really.....

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist,

Iconoclast has admitted the OP is correct as far as its exegetical character proving the body of Christ that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians is not an INVISIBLE or UNIVERSAL entity but consists of PHYSICAL BODIES (spirits within) of water baptized professing believers in Christ that is spiritual in the sense of its work, worship and mission.

I have said all along I hold....{a local church view, not yours, but similar to an extent}

However, he then contradicts his concession by claiming another kind of body or congregation now meeting in heaven based upon improper exegesis of the terms "have come" in Hebrews 12.

My view does not have to concede anything as it is not either or, or both and as you would suggest.

Here is what was offered;

1]There is nothing in the word ecclesia itself to forbid its application to "the Spirits of the just made perfect" now in heaven and continually receiving accessions.

2]They are an assembly in fact.

3]And Thayer seems to so understand Hebrews 12:23. I do not agree with him in making "general assembly and church of the first born" synonymous with "the spirits of the just made perfect." To my mind, they represent two very distinct ideas. But he is certainly right in supposing that the assembled spirits of the righteous dead may be called an ecclesia.
4]"But ye are come to Mount Sion." By this, then, we understand, First, that in being brought to Christ, the believer comes to the antitypical, the spiritual, Sion.

see part2;

 

[Iconoclast]

We see Biblicist dismissed John Owen hastily. He might do well to consider and re-think this hasty action and perhaps embrace this other perspective and here is why I say this;
and here is John Owen;.....on Zion-
First, the place of God's habitation, where He dwells forever: Psalm 9:11; 76:2.

Second, it is the seat of the throne, reign and kingdom of Christ: Psalm 2:6; Isaiah 24:23.

Third, it is the object of Divine promises innumerable: Psalm 125:1; 128:5 , of Christ Himself: Isaiah 59:20.

Fourth, thence did the Gospel proceed and the law of Christ come forth: Isaiah 40:9 , Micah 4:2.

Fifth, it was the object of God's especial love, and the place of the birth of His elect: Psalm 87:2 , 5.

Sixth, the joy of the whole earth: Psalm 48:2.

Seventh, salvation and all blessings came forth out of Zion: Psalm 14:7; 110:2; 128:5.

Now these things were not spoken of nor accomplished towards that Mount Zion which was in Jerusalem absolutely,

but only as it was typical of believers under the Gospel;

so the meaning of the apostle Isaiah , that by the Gospel believers do come to that state wherein they have an interest in and a right to all the blessed and glorious things that are spoken in the Scriptures concerning and to Zion.

All the privileges ascribed, all the promises made to it, are theirs.

Zion is the place of God's especial gracious residence, of the throne of Christ in His reign, the object of all promises. This is the first privilege of believers under the Gospel. They come to Mount Zion, they are interested in the promises of God recorded in the Scriptures made to Zion; in all the love and care of God expressed towards it, in all the spiritual glories assigned to it.

The things spoken of it were never accomplished in the earthly Zion, but only typically; spiritually, and in their reality, they belong to believers under the new testament" (John Owen).

I believe an examination of all these promises that belong to believers, demonstrate of necessity the failures of this aspect of the Landmark position as it seeks to divorce itself from all promises made to Zion which is above, where King Jesus exercises his reign.
I will develop this as i continue to respond to the posting of B.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist,

Brother, they believed in "Messiah" (Christ) so what do you call people who believe in Messiah (Christ)???? - Acts 10:43 They believed in Jehovah is salvation (Jesus) so what would you call them?

I would call them OT saints.
I would call them those who entered into His rest.
I would call them elect
I would call them Covenant keepers
I would call them circumcised in heart.
I would call them spirits of just men made perfect.

NOW BEFORE YOU RESPOND what would you call those who believed in Christ between Acts 2 and Acts 10???

I would call them believers
I would call them saved sheep
I would call them the objects of mercy
i would call them repentant
I would call them the elect remnant.
i would call them the objects of Covenant love.

keep in mind B...it is you who want to suggest they are not part of the church, how the church did not start till pentecost ......
what you do not explain is this.....if you see them as "CHRISTIANS" why do you violently reject the suggestion that by virtue of Spirit baptism are all saints placed into the eternal body....the church that will exist throughout time???
it seems to me that is what this verse among others means;
Heb11
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:


40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

or here;
Heb 3
4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

I do not think you should narrow the focus, when God is building it together....

 

[Iconoclast]

I state the truth so clearly here and so simply that it is hard to respond to isn't it?

That is not the part of the discussion that people have major disagreement with...so why do you expect we are going to argue against the work of the Spirit in regeneration?

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist,

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).

You say the foundation is only NT persons.....

Do you think the church has an expiration date?
If there is no expiration date....do OT> saints get to become part of it?
What makes an OT.saint, part of the one true church?

Do they ever become part of the church at all.....or do they in your view only become family members by adoption, or new birth?

So you have no church, thus no "body" previous to its foundation.

There is no Nt. church in the OT> however that is what I just asked...

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.

No saints in the body???? Where in the OT. does it say they were family as you are using it.

It is FAMILY SPIRITUAL UNION by BIRTH. Always has been and always will be.

Where does the OT. use this language that you employ here?

The church = body has NOTHING to do with spiritual union or birth or salvation but is simply REPRESENTATIVE union with Christ.

Most of the professed churches do not agree with this.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist,


I have said all along I hold....{a local church view, not yours, but similar to an extent}



My view does not have to concede anything as it is not either or, or both and as you would suggest.

Here is what was offered;

1]There is nothing in the word ecclesia itself to forbid its application to "the Spirits of the just made perfect" now in heaven and continually receiving accessions.

2]They are an assembly in fact.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

We see Biblicist dismissed John Owen hastily. He might do well to consider and re-think this hasty action and perhaps embrace this other perspective and here is why I say this;
and here is John Owen;.....on Zion-
First, the place of God's habitation, where He dwells forever: Psalm 9:11; 76:2.

Second, it is the seat of the throne, reign and kingdom of Christ: Psalm 2:6; Isaiah 24:23.

Third, it is the object of Divine promises innumerable: Psalm 125:1; 128:5 , of Christ Himself: Isaiah 59:20.

Fourth, thence did the Gospel proceed and the law of Christ come forth: Isaiah 40:9 , Micah 4:2.

Fifth, it was the object of God's especial love, and the place of the birth of His elect: Psalm 87:2 , 5.

Sixth, the joy of the whole earth: Psalm 48:2.

Seventh, salvation and all blessings came forth out of Zion: Psalm 14:7; 110:2; 128:5.

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.

Now these things were not spoken of nor accomplished towards that Mount Zion which was in Jerusalem absolutely,

but only as it was typical of believers under the Gospel;

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.

Zion is the place of God's especial gracious residence, of the throne of Christ in His reign, the object of all promises. This is the first privilege of believers under the Gospel. They come to Mount Zion, they are interested in the promises of God recorded in the Scriptures made to Zion; in all the love and care of God expressed towards it, in all the spiritual glories assigned to it.

The things spoken of it were never accomplished in the earthly Zion, but only typically; spiritually, and in their reality, they belong to believers under the new testament" (John Owen).

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).

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist,


You say the foundation is only NT persons.....

Do you think the church has an expiration date?
If there is no expiration date....do OT> saints get to become part of it?
What makes an OT.saint, part of the one true church?

Do they ever become part of the church at all.....or do they in your view only become family members by adoption, or new birth?

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."

 

[Iconoclast]

Biblicist said

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

We know all about the context...

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

You go out of your way to suggest such distinctions but this is not warranted.

Is there anyone in the "family of God" who is not going to be in the one true church that assembles on the last day?

Is there anyone in the church that is not in the "family of God"?

Are the elect from all ages not going to be in the eternal church?
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.

14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
You

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist said

We know all about the context...


You go out of your way to suggest such distinctions but this is not warranted.

Is there anyone in the "family of God" who is not going to be in the one true church that assembles on the last day?

Is there anyone in the church that is not in the "family of God"?

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?

 

[The Biblicist]

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

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist,



I would call them OT saints.
I would call them those who entered into His rest.
I would call them elect
I would call them Covenant keepers
I would call them circumcised in heart.
I would call them spirits of just men made perfect.



I would call them believers
I would call them saved sheep
I would call them the objects of mercy
i would call them repentant
I would call them the elect remnant.
i would call them the objects of Covenant love.

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.

Heb11
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:


40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

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.

or here;

Heb 3
4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

I do not think you should narrow the focus, when God is building it together....

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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

 

[Iconoclast]

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

I also have that book.He is not a landmarker.....I asked him face to face...lol.
He does believe in the local church view however.
He does not agree on the fancy speculation you suggest with the whole overcomer scenerio you lay out.

He is a busy man, but if you email him with serious questions he would respond as time permits....I know he is writing several books as we speak.
I try not to bother him, but do enjoy fellowship and prayer from those brethren.
I am amazed that he makes time to fellowship with me, but he Is both gracious and patient with me.

 

[Iconoclast]

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

You divide up the redeemed persons almost as much as a Dispy does...
I have all on equal footing in Christ..
Let me ask you like this....
A member of the first Baptist Church if Clackamas Oregon leaves this earth as he has lived his full amount of time here.....
He no longer assembles with his local assembly on earth....
Do you believe he goes to limbo?
Or do you believe he is immediately in God's presence ?
If he is in God's presence . ....is he isolated . ...or does he assemble with others?
If he assembles....there....is that not a church with the head Himself right there?

 

[The Biblicist]

I also have that book.He is not a landmarker.....I asked him face to face...lol.
He does believe in the local church view however.
He does not agree on the fancy speculation you suggest with the whole overcomer scenerio you lay out.

sorry to hear that.

 

[Iconoclast]

sorry to hear that.

Nothing to be sorry about.
HE has a similar view, but believes that Landmark ism is an over reaction....I do not want to attempt to speak for him as he is far wiser and more gifted than I will ever be in this life.
B...
I and others hold a local church view....but do not go everywhere you go.
NOW I see your view on end times and the Kingdom is affected by it....so is mine....that is why we differ.
When I can get online I will show why I think your last few posts cannot hold up.

I believe all saints from all time are equal and one....

 

[Iconoclast]

Because the church is God's visible institution now....does not negate that it is the people assembled and not a place.
I believe the foundation eph 2 :20....includes the ot.prophets. other than Agabus warning Paul we do not have any real imput from nt.ones.
In post 154....you suggest ot.saints are not in God's house....I believe they are.
Not in physical earthly assembly . ...but in the Heavenly assembly..we see it in rev 19