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

[Iconoclast]

In the heb.3 passage.....Moses and his house I believe are added in to the Heavenly house of which we are apart.
Again....they do not assemble with us here but in heaven.If you believe all Saints are regenerated,which you do.....I do not see why you go to great lengths to suggest these divisions.

 

[The Biblicist]

Because the church is God's visible institution now....does not negate that it is the people assembled and not a place.

Because it is visible and local it is both as Acts 2:1 and 1 Cor.11;20 demonstrate.

I believe the foundation eph 2 :20....includes the ot.prophets.

It does not include OT prophet and that can be proven by two clear contextual based reasons:

1. The order, apostles precede prophets
2. Paul explicitly repeats this same order in 1 Cor. 12:28 and specifically states "secondarily prophets"
3. In both cases it is a NT. Context.

In post 154....you suggest ot.saints are not in God's house....I believe they are.

No, I don't. I just pointed out your glaring contradictions between the two listings. You deny pre-cross saints were believers in Christ (same word translated "Messiah" or Annointed) when such a denial is gross ignorance of the pre-cross gospel and hope (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23; Rom. 10:16; Lk. 24:44-45; etc.)

Not in physical earthly assembly . ...but in the Heavenly assembly..we see it in rev 19

That assembly has not yet assembled because that heaven and earth has not yet been created. Abraham was ON EARTH looking for that city, as the fulfillment will be ON EARTH as the New Jerusalem "CAME DOWN" (Rev. 21:1-2).

 

[The Biblicist]

Again....they do not assemble with us here but in heaven.If you believe all Saints are regenerated,which you do.....I do not see why you go to great lengths to suggest these divisions.

And here is your major point of blindness. You can't distinguish between salvation and service when the Bible clearly does. You want to use the very same term for BOTH (church). You admit in a local visible church body that cannot save anyone and yet you want to use the exact same term to be synonymous with salvation. That duplicity the Scriptures deny. The scriptures provide the term "FAMILY" for all who share the same birth source NOT "church." Birth (regeneration) has NOTHING to do with "church" membership and never will.

The church Jesus built is an INSTITUTION and it has every characteristic of an institution, government, membership qualifications, ordinances, mission statement, disciplinary procedures, officers, etc. It is by its very nature VISIBLE and PHYSICAL (1 Cor. 6:15).

The church is treated and described according to its design,purpose and profession and Acts 20:28-30 is indisputable proof that redemptive language is ascribed to a local visible institution that MAY contain lost members, but the redemptive language is applied due to its design, purpose and profession. The exact very same "flock" that is redeemed by the blood of God in verse 28 is the very exact same "flock" in verses 29-30 that can contain potential apostates who leave it and take members out of it as well as enter it and pervert it.

It is the specified "elders" at Ephesus (v. 17) who have been made overseers of this kind of church in verse 28. Therefore to argue that this "church" or "flock" in verse 28 cannot include false professors because of the redemptive language used to describe it is contradicted by the very context. This is merely the common way of addressing churches and Christians, according to their profession and we do the same thing today. When you meet a person for the first time and they profess to be a Christians and say the right things you address them as "brother" because that fits their profession, although, they MAY not be actually saved. Paul addresses the churches he founded in the very same manner.

Your view is wrong, although very popular.

 

[Iconoclast]

"The Biblicist,

[No, I don't. I just pointed out your glaring contradictions between the two listings. You deny pre-cross saints were believers in Christ (same word translated "Messiah" or Annointed) when such a denial is gross ignorance of the pre-cross gospel and hope (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23; Rom. 10:16; Lk. 24:44-45; etc.)]

This false accusation would not be made if you read.my responses starting at post 80.

Post 100.....118....post 130...145.....

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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).

Rev. 21:24, NKJV. 'And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honour into it.
The imagery in some of these verses is difficult, but what it cannot mean is that there are two classes of Christian. We are all fellow-citizens, being built into one building, built together for a dwelling-place of God (Ephesians 2:19-22). We are all brethren with one teacher (Matthew 23:8). We shall all likewise reign with Christ so long as we endure to the end (1 Timothy 2:12; cf. Matthew 24:13). We shall all receive a crown of righteousness at Christ's appearing (2 Timothy 4:8). Christians, all Christians are the kings of the earth. We just haven't come into our kingdom yet.

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

Rev. 2:7. 'To him who overcomes, I will give to eat from the tree of life....' The promise is to everyone who overcomes.

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.

'Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates of the city. But outside are the dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practises a lie' (Rev. 22:14-15). The are only two sorts of people- the saved and the unsaved. The saved are inside; the unsaved are outside.

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.

On this basis, John the Baptist won't be a 'church overcomer' because he described himself as the friend of the bridegroom, rather than the bride.

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

Both family and the Church are composed of those who have been born again (1 Peter 1:3-5).

There is only one people of God, which is what I constantly tell the JWs.

 

[The Biblicist]

Rev. 21:24, NKJV. 'And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honour into it.
The imagery in some of these verses is difficult, but what it cannot mean is that there are two classes of Christian. We are all fellow-citizens, being built into one building, built together for a dwelling-place of God (Ephesians 2:19-22). We are all brethren with one teacher (Matthew 23:8). We shall all likewise reign with Christ so long as we endure to the end (1 Timothy 2:12; cf. Matthew 24:13). We shall all receive a crown of righteousness at Christ's appearing (2 Timothy 4:8). Christians, all Christians are the kings of the earth. We just haven't come into our kingdom yet.

Again, you don't know the difference between salvation and service and confuse the two. Not all Christians are faithful and thus not all are characterized by the term "espoused virgn" as there are many whom Christ identifies with the metaphor of a harlot (Rev. 18:4). Not all saints are in the church as the very characterization of its "foundation" denies all prior to the ministry of Christ are part of the church, thus not part of the bride (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28).

Like many, you can't exegete scripture properly because you are willfully blinded by false doctrines and so you spiritualize what does not fit with your soteriology or ecclesiology or eschatalogy.

Rev. 2:7. 'To him who overcomes, I will give to eat from the tree of life....' The promise is to everyone who overcomes.

Again, who taught you how to exegete scripture?? Who is he talking to? Not "everyone" but members of NT. Churches plural (he that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the CHURCHES). I suppose that does not suit your soterilogy/ecclesiology/eschatology either huh, so just spiritualize it away. What is he talking about? "I know THY WORKS" not thy salvation. However, since you deny any difference between salvation and service, just spiritualize that away also huh?? Many of these promises for overcomers can't be accomplished by individuals but are congregational problems that must be overcome by the majority in the assembly. But since you refuse to distinguish between salvation and service, you can just spiritualize that away also huh??

'Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates of the city. But outside are the dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practises a lie'

(Rev. 22:14-15). The are only two sorts of people- the saved and the unsaved. The saved are inside; the unsaved are outside.

Again, who taught you how to exegete. There is more outside the New Jerusalem than just the lake of fire. There is the new earth upon which "the saved nations" walk and live (Rev. 21:24) which you just spiritualize away because it does not suite you. Do you have any exegetical based evidence it is just mere imagery? No! Can you tell us what that kind of words would be an image of? No! It just does not suite your soteriology/ecclesiology/eschatolgoy and so you simply it trash it without any substantive evidence or reasons.

If there is a difference between faithfulness and unfaithfulness, what descriptions would unfaithfulness require? The saved Seriphonecian woman was called a "dog" which was simply a figure of speech for some one OUTSIDE. Those dwelling outside on the new earth are called "nations" which was also a term used for those OUTSIDE. How would Lot be described with regard to his state of faithfulness? How would Solomon with 1000 women be called with regard to his faithfulness. Of course none of these things matter to you at all because they are inconvenient and uncomfortable for your biases.

On this basis, John the Baptist won't be a 'church overcomer' because he described himself as the friend of the bridegroom, rather than the bride.

That is correct, he will not be in the bride nor will any other one outside the Lord's churches so the laugh is on you.

Both family and the Church are composed of those who have been born again (1 Peter 1:3-5).

No, the family is composed of those who are actually born again, while churches are composed only of those who PROFESS to be born again.

There is only one people of God, which is what I constantly tell the JWs.

There is your smear tactic again. Of course there is only one family of God but just as in any other family there are different relationships. The bride is part of that family but she is not the entire family. The bible speaks of those called to the wedding and you never call a bride to a wedding as it is her wedding. Of course, like I tell the JW's I keep telling you, you need to learn the abc's of proper exegetical methods.

 

[Iconoclast]

And here is your major point of blindness. You can't distinguish between salvation and service when the Bible clearly does. You want to use the very same term for BOTH (church). You admit in a local visible church body that cannot save anyone and yet you want to use the exact same term to be synonymous with salvation. That duplicity the Scriptures deny. The scriptures provide the term "FAMILY" for all who share the same birth source NOT "church." Birth (regeneration) has NOTHING to do with "church" membership and never will.

The church Jesus built is an INSTITUTION and it has every characteristic of an institution, government, membership qualifications, ordinances, mission statement, disciplinary procedures, officers, etc. It is by its very nature VISIBLE and PHYSICAL (1 Cor. 6:15).

The church is treated and described according to its design,purpose and profession and Acts 20:28-30 is indisputable proof that redemptive language is ascribed to a local visible institution that MAY contain lost members, but the redemptive language is applied due to its design, purpose and profession. The exact very same "flock" that is redeemed by the blood of God in verse 28 is the very exact same "flock" in verses 29-30 that can contain potential apostates who leave it and take members out of it as well as enter it and pervert it.

It is the specified "elders" at Ephesus (v. 17) who have been made overseers of this kind of church in verse 28. Therefore to argue that this "church" or "flock" in verse 28 cannot include false professors because of the redemptive language used to describe it is contradicted by the very context. This is merely the common way of addressing churches and Christians, according to their profession and we do the same thing today. When you meet a person for the first time and they profess to be a Christians and say the right things you address them as "brother" because that fits their profession, although, they MAY not be actually saved. Paul addresses the churches he founded in the very same manner.

Your view is wrong, although very popular.

Another in a series of wrong conclusions.
Jesus did not die for the false professors
This inconsistency points to foundational defects..

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Again, you don't know the difference between salvation and service and confuse the two. Not all Christians are faithful and thus not all are characterized by the term "espoused virgn" as there are many whom Christ identifies with the metaphor of a harlot (Rev. 18:4).

Not all (any) Christians are perfect, but all are faithful (eg. 2 Timothy 2:11-13; Hebrews 6:4-8). Revelation 18:4 calls upon Christians to separate themselves from the anti-Christian world described in 1 John 2:15-17. Those who do not do so are not Christians because they are not overcoming the world (1 John 5:4-5). This is the difference between Lot and Lot's wife.

Not all saints are in the church as the very characterization of its "foundation" denies all prior to the ministry of Christ are part of the church, thus not part of the bride (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28).

The O.T. saints were never able to join a church, but they will be found to be in the universal Church of Christ on the last day (Revelation 21:12).

Like many, you can't exegete scripture properly because you are willfully blinded by false doctrines and so you spiritualize what does not fit with your soteriology or ecclesiology or eschatology.

John 6:63. "The words I speak to you are spirit and they are life." It was the Pharisees who adopted a crassly literal interpretation of our Lord's words (John 2:20; 3:4; 6:52 etc.). When you see a creature with seven heads and ten horns etc. coming up out of the sea off Rhode Island, you be sure and let me know.

Again, who taught you how to exegete scripture??

Funny! I was going to ask you the same question.

Who is he talking to? Not "everyone" but members of NT. Churches plural (he that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the CHURCHES). I suppose that does not suit your soterilogy/ecclesiology/eschatology either huh, so just spiritualize it away.

Just answer this then: who is called upon to hear? No spiritualizing, just a straight answer. Matthew 13:9 may help you.

What is he talking about? "I know THY WORKS" not thy salvation. However, since you deny any difference between salvation and service, just spiritualize that away also huh??

You are like a stuck record. If there are no works, there has been no salvation (Ephesians 2:10; James 2:14-26 etc.). We are not saved by our works, but we are saved for works. I hadn't realised that you are into Carnal Christianity.

Many of these promises for overcomers can't be accomplished by individuals but are congregational problems that must be overcome by the majority in the assembly. But since you refuse to distinguish between salvation and service, you can just spiritualize that away also huh??

The stuck record goes on and on. Every Christian should be in a church (Hebrews 10:24-25).

Again, who taught you how to exegete. There is more outside the New Jerusalem than just the lake of fire. There is the new earth upon which "the saved nations" walk and live (Rev. 21:24).
OK. Let's write Rev. 21:24 out again and add verse 23 since you don't seem to understand context. 'The city had no need of the sun or the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb gives it light. And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light.......' Right. The Lamb gives the city light, and the nations walk in its light. So where are the nations? In the city!!

which you just spiritualize away because it does not suite you. Do you have any exegetical based evidence it is just mere imagery? No! Can you tell us what that kind of words would be an image of? No! It just does not suite your soteriology/ecclesiology/eschatolgoy and so you simply it trash it without any substantive evidence or reasons.

If there is a difference between faithfulness and unfaithfulness, what descriptions would unfaithfulness require? The saved Seriphonecian [sic] woman was called a "dog" which was simply a figure of speech for some one OUTSIDE.

It was the name that the Jews often gave to the gentiles. But the Syro-Phoenician woman was no longer a dog, because she was saved by faith (Ephesians 2:11-18).

Those dwelling outside on the new earth are called "nations" which was also a term used for those OUTSIDE.

The Gentiles are frequently called 'the nations', but these are the nations of those who are saved. 'But now in Christ you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.'

How would Lot be described with regard to his state of faithfulness?

Well I think the last reference to him in the Bible calls him a 'righteous man' and godly' (2 Peter 2:7-9). I suppose you are going to 'spiritualize' that and make Peter say that he's a 'dog'? 'What God has cleansed, you must not call common.'

How would Solomon with 1000 women be called with regard to his faithfulness. Of course none of these things matter to you at all because they are inconvenient and uncomfortable for your biases.

Well I notice that the Lord Jesus Christ was not ashamed to compare Himself with Solomon (Luke 12:27). However, if you find anywhere in the Bible where Solomon is called a 'dog,' be sure and let me know.

That is correct, he will not be in the bride nor will any other one outside the Lord's churches so the laugh is on you.

But of course, you will be there. How proud you must feel!

No, the family is composed of those who are actually born again, while churches are composed only of those who PROFESS to be born again.

Your view of the Church of Christ is much too low.
The Baptist Confession's teaching is much better (XXVI:2):
All people throughout the world who profess the faith of the Gospel and obedience to Christ on its terms, and who do not destroy their profession by any errors which contradict or overthrow Gospel fundamentals, or by unholy behaviour, are visible saints and may be regarded as such (1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26). All individual congregations ought to be constituted of such people (Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22).
Simple profession of faith does not make a Christian (Matthew 7:21).

There is your smear tactic again. Of course there is only one family of God but just as in any other family there are different relationships. The bride is part of that family but she is not the entire family. The bible speaks of those called to the wedding and you never call a bride to a wedding as it is her wedding. Of course, like I tell the JW's I keep telling you, you need to learn the abc's of proper exegetical methods.

The JW teaching, with its idea of two peoples of God, strikes me as being rather similar to yours. However, at least today's JWs are modest enough to give the higher place to others, not to themselves (Luke 14:7-11).

 

[Yeshua1]

No!

All,every single member in local churches are saved, redeemed BY PROFESSION and that is the ONLY basis for receiving members. Nowhere, does the Bible command the church to receive only PROVEN regenerated saints as members as no one is capable of proving it. That is why the true churches of Christ base membership on PROFESSION of salvation ONLY.

Again, there is te Body of Christ comprised of all saved by Jesu, and sme ofthose are alo in the local churches!

 

[The Biblicist]

Not all (any) Christians are perfect, but all are faithful (eg. 2 Timothy 2:11-13; Hebrews 6:4-8).

So Chastening is for "faithful" Christians (Heb. 12:5-10)? So the Corinthians were written unto because they were "faithful" in all things (not perfect but faithful)? So we are exhorted to be what we cannot help being - faithful??? So those in Revelation 18:4 are faithful? So there is no such thing as an unfaithful Christian? And what version do you get this from the NWT???​

Revelation 18:4 calls upon Christians to separate themselves from the anti-Christian world described in 1 John 2:15-17. Those who do not do so are not Christians because they are not overcoming the world (1 John 5:4-5). This is the difference between Lot and Lot's wife.

The Great Whore is in a direct contrast to the Bride (Rev. 17-21). Her clothing is her righteousnesses (plural) not the singular imputed righteousness of Christ which is found in the singular even when applied to a plurality of persons. Overcoming the world by faith in Christ is one thing, overcoming the world by faithfulness is another thing, as one deals with initial salvation and the other with service.

The O.T. saints were never able to join a church, but they will be found to be in the universal Church of Christ on the last day (Revelation 21:12).

There is no universal church on the last day as there are those living outside Jerusalem (Rev. 21:24). Funny you want to spiritualize one and literalize the other??? There are "guests" at the wedding. All saints have access to the New Jerusalem but all do not dwell there. All have access to the tree of life but not all have the same portion. All believers are in the eternal state but not all are rewarded equally. All believers are "joint-heirs" with Christ but not all are equal heirs with Christ, just as children in a Jewish family were joint-heirs together, but not all were equal heirs (first-born double portion). All are equal in salvation but not all are equal in service and differences in rewards prove that as they are rewarded "according to" their works.

J

ohn 6:63. "The words I speak to you are spirit and they are life." It was the Pharisees who adopted a crassly literal interpretation of our Lord's words (John 2:20; 3:4; 6:52 etc.). When you see a creature with seven heads and ten horns etc. coming up out of the sea off Rhode Island, you be sure and let me know.

That is absurdly ridiculous as that gives you license to spiritualize everything in the book. Everything must be taken in its absolute literal sense unless the common meaning won't make sense, and only then does one look for another meaning consistent with the context. To follow your rule would give license to interpret scripture anyway you please. John 6 provides a context that makes it crystal clear he is using metaphors.

Funny! I was going to ask you the same question.

Just answer this then: who is called upon to hear? No spiritualizing, just a straight answer. Matthew 13:9 may help you.

It is not one or the other but both. It is directed to the churches and within the context of the churches it is further addressed to those who have ears to hear and it is the "works" rather than their salvation that is in view. Jesus could have just as easily said, "I know who is saved and who is not" but he did not say that. He did not need anyone to tell him who is saved and who is lost. The fact that he further addressed it to those who "have ears to hear" proves it is not salvation he is concerned about but rather faithfulness of those who have ears to hear.

You are like a stuck record. If there are no works, there has been no salvation (Ephesians 2:10; James 2:14-26 etc.). We are not saved by our works, but we are saved for works. I hadn't realised that you are into Carnal Christianity.

Salvation is not about any certain degree/percentage of works only that works manifest it. However, with regard to degree of works there are various degrees of growth (child/young man/father) there are different degrees of grace and faith given, there are different degrees in the stages of sanctification. There are unfaithful Children of God that chastisement EVEN UNTO PHYSICAL DEATH is called for.

Every Christian should be in a church (Hebrews 10:24-25).

Not according to your eschatalogical view as those who are disobedient to church membeship are JUST AS FAITHFUL AS THOSE WHO ARE OBEDIENT.


Finally, you are attempting to derail this thread from the subject of the OP which you have NEVER addressed! Try addressing the OP as my exegesis of that text thoroughly exposes your position as false.

 

[The Biblicist]

Another in a series of wrong conclusions.
Jesus did not die for the false professors
This inconsistency points to foundational defects..

Quit asserting your personal opinions and prove my exegesis of Acts 20:17-30 is wrong or else you should say nothing - put up or shut up as the old saying goes.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, there is te Body of Christ comprised of all saved by Jesu, and sme ofthose are alo in the local churches!

Your assertions are simply that, assertions. Prove my exegesis of 1 Cor. 6:15 is wrong as my exposition proves your assertions are false.

 

[The Biblicist]

Gentleman, it is quite obvious that you cannot deal with any text I have opened up a thread and provided an exposition. Instead, you run as fast as you can from it and start pitting other texts against the exposition of the text while unable to overturn the exegesis of that text. The same would be true if I followed your rabbit trails and we took out a thread for the proper exegesis of the texts you are using to pit against this text. Deal with the OP in such a way you can prove my exposition is false. Don't say you have done it, because no one has. I give Iconoclast full credit for trying, however, I have shown the inconsistency of Iconoclast attempt to do so.He admits it is the local visible congregational body of Christ the text refers. It is the first mention of the body of Christ in that book and therefore, there is no basis to claim any other kind of body of Christ is even mentioned in this book (or any other book).

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist,

And here is your major point of blindness.

As your positions are exposed you amp up this kind of language.
Suggesting to Martin this;

Like many, you can't exegete scripture properly because you are willfully blinded by false doctrines and so you spiritualize what does not fit with your soteriology or ecclesiology or eschatalogy.

We do not agree with part of your view, or how you exegete many portions of scripture. As we respond and show how many do not agree you dismiss them all.

No, the family is composed of those who are actually born again, while churches are composed only of those who PROFESS to be born again.

The actual Church are those Christ died for.No more, no less.
Impostors are not who Jesus died for. False brethren while a plague to any church sometimes go undetected in this life....Yes we understand that they assemble with and mimic the actual church....but they are not "of us";
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

You can't distinguish between salvation and service when the Bible clearly does.

Actually.... I can. It seems that way to you because of your narrow definitions. I will show you here-

You want to use the very same term for BOTH (church). You admit in a local visible church body that cannot save anyone and yet you want to use the exact same term to be synonymous with salvation

.
The church belongs to God. He calls believers to service as the saints are set apart by Him.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
The true Church does this......carnal false professors do not, but you subscribe to the carnal Christian heresy so it fits into your scheme.
The great whore in rev 18, most likely is apostate Jerusalem in the first century, contrasted with the faithful bride.

That duplicity the Scriptures deny. The scriptures provide the term "FAMILY" for all who share the same birth source NOT "church."

The church is born of God and is family. The issue is solved if you abandon the carnal Christian heresy.

Birth (regeneration) has NOTHING to do with "church" membership and never will.

Another false declaration. Every TRUE Church member is born of God. No new birth, no heaven.Those regenerated are in a local assembly on earth, or in heaven.

The church Jesus built is an INSTITUTION and it has every characteristic of an institution, government, membership qualifications, ordinances, mission statement, disciplinary procedures, officers, etc. It is by its very nature VISIBLE and PHYSICAL (1 Cor. 6:15).

no one disagrees with this except to qualify it as also Spiritual.

The church is treated and described according to its design,purpose and profession and Acts 20:28-30 is indisputable proof that redemptive language is ascribed to a local visible institution that MAY contain lost members,

This has been shown to be wrong....

but the redemptive language is applied due to its design, purpose and profession.

only to you.

The exact very same "flock" that is redeemed by the blood of God in verse 28 is the very exact same "flock" in verses 29-30 that can contain potential apostates who leave it and take members out of it as well as enter it and pervert it.

Shown to be error and rejected.

It is the specified "elders" at Ephesus (v. 17) who have been made overseers of this kind of church in verse 28.

You do not "define the Church" scripture does. Your explanation does not match

Therefore to argue that this "church" or "flock" in verse 28 cannot include false professors because of the redemptive language used to describe it is contradicted by the very context.

not at all.

This is merely the common way of addressing churches and Christians, according to their profession and we do the same thing today. When you meet a person for the first time and they profess to be a Christians and say the right things you address them as "brother" because that fits their profession, although, they MAY not be actually saved. Paul addresses the churches he founded in the very same manner.

We do this...not being able to see the heart, and yet God does see it.
Paul would not qualify his statement here in 1 cor 5 if he held your view;
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Your view is wrong,that is why it is not popular.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist,

As your positions are exposed you amp up this kind of language.
Suggesting to Martin this;

We do not agree with part of your view, or how you exegete many portions of scripture. As we respond and show how many do not agree you dismiss them all.

The actual Church are those Christ died for.No more, no less.
Impostors are not who Jesus died for. False brethren while a plague to any church sometimes go undetected in this life....Yes we understand that they assemble with and mimic the actual church....but they are not "of us";
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Actually.... I can. It seems that way to you because of your narrow definitions. I will show you here-
.
The church belongs to God. He calls believers to service as the saints are set apart by Him.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
The true Church does this......carnal false professors do not, but you subscribe to the carnal Christian heresy so it fits into your scheme.
The great whore in rev 18, most likely is apostate Jerusalem in the first century, contrasted with the faithful bride.

The church is born of God and is family. The issue is solved if you abandon the carnal Christian heresy.

Another false declaration. Every TRUE Church member is born of God. No new birth, no heaven.Those regenerated are in a local assembly on earth, or in heaven.

no one disagrees with this except to qualify it as also Spiritual.

This has been shown to be wrong....

only to you.

Shown to be error and rejected.

You do not "define the Church" scripture does. Your explanation does not match

not at all.

We do this...not being able to see the heart, and yet God does see it.
Paul would not qualify his statement here in 1 cor 5 if he held your view;
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Your view is wrong,that is why it is not popular.

Another useless response jumping here and there making more proof text assertions. Deal with the contextual evidences I provided in Acts 20:17-30. You did not deal with a single one and the reason is obvious - you can't.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist,

Gentleman, it is quite obvious that you cannot deal with any text I have opened up a thread and provided an exposition. Instead, you run as fast as you can from it and start pitting other texts against the exposition of the text while unable to overturn the exegesis of that text.

This is not so B. Each text has been addressed. You might not agree but they have been.

The same would be true if I followed your rabbit trails and we took out a thread for the proper exegesis of the texts you are using to pit against this text.

What you refer to as rabbit trails are those very things that expose the defective flawed parts of your position. You do not answer because to do so displays it.
Not everything you post is wrong or flawed. There would be more chance of agreement except you suggest an all or nothing approach to whatever you offer, which is against some major theological people who are quite capable of handling the scriptures.

Deal with the OP in such a way you can prove my exposition is false. Don't say you have done it, because no one has.

B...that is the nature of a difference theologically. You are not satisfied that we have convinced you...we believe we have.

I give Iconoclast full credit for trying, however, I have shown the inconsistency of Iconoclast attempt to do so

.
I can only do what I can B. I admit some of my views are a work in progress.You have raised some issues that I will have to re-visit as I do like some of your focus, and even some of the distinctions.
What you suggest are inconsistencies might be, or, that might be the very areas where you go over the "LINE"[whatever scripture defines the LINE AS]
I told you early on that I hold a local church view....for the earthly assemblies. That being said, I hold that OT saints, and NT. saints once they leave this body assemble in heaven. Not fully until the last day, but they do not just disappear.....you never answered about the departed saint from Clackamas Baptist church who no longer assembles on earth....where is he? and does he assemble in that place?

He admits it is the local visible congregational body of Christ the text refers. It is the first mention of the body of Christ in that book and therefore, there is no basis to claim any other kind of body of Christ is even mentioned in this book (or any other book).

Of course I admit this, why would I deny it?

 

[Iconoclast]

Another useless response jumping here and there making more proof text assertions. Deal with the contextual evidences I provided in Acts 20:17-30. You did not deal with a single one and the reason is obvious - you can't.

Let me make it clear for you B.
Describe particular redemption as it refers to goats, tares,and apostate reprobates.....tell me how Jesus died for not elect persons
We will see who cannot do it.

 

[The Biblicist]

And here is your major point of blindness. You can't distinguish between salvation and service when the Bible clearly does. You want to use the very same term for BOTH (church). You admit in a local visible church body that cannot save anyone and yet you want to use the exact same term to be synonymous with salvation. That duplicity the Scriptures deny. The scriptures provide the term "FAMILY" for all who share the same birth source NOT "church." Birth (regeneration) has NOTHING to do with "church" membership and never will.

The church Jesus built is an INSTITUTION and it has every characteristic of an institution, government, membership qualifications, ordinances, mission statement, disciplinary procedures, officers, etc. It is by its very nature VISIBLE and PHYSICAL (1 Cor. 6:15).

The church is treated and described according to its design,purpose and profession and Acts 20:28-30 is indisputable proof that redemptive language is ascribed to a local visible institution that MAY contain lost members, but the redemptive language is applied due to its design, purpose and profession. The exact very same "flock" that is redeemed by the blood of God in verse 28 is the very exact same "flock" in verses 29-30 that can contain potential apostates who leave it and take members out of it as well as enter it and pervert it.

It is the specified "elders" at Ephesus (v. 17) who have been made overseers of this kind of church in verse 28. Therefore to argue that this "church" or "flock" in verse 28 cannot include false professors because of the redemptive language used to describe it is contradicted by the very context. This is merely the common way of addressing churches and Christians, according to their profession and we do the same thing today. When you meet a person for the first time and they profess to be a Christians and say the right things you address them as "brother" because that fits their profession, although, they MAY not be actually saved. Paul addresses the churches he founded in the very same manner.

Your view is wrong, although very popular.

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood.
29 For I know this: that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.


1. Those appointed as overseers of the flock in verse 28 are the Ephesian elders - as "you" has for its contextual antecedent with elders in verse 17. So your universal invisible church is pastored by Christ or by these ephesian elders?????? How do we contact these elders the Holy Spirit made overseers of this kind of church?

;2. The "flock" in verse 28 is the same "flock" in verse 29-30 which wolves can "ENTER IN". Can wolves "enter in" your universal invisible church? If so, how?

3. Is it wrong for these elders to return to Ephesus and tell the congregation of Ephesus that Christ "purchased with his own blood" that congregation? If so, why?

4. Members of this flock can depart from it "not sparing the flock.......draw away." How can members of your universal invisible flock be drawn away from it?

 

[The Biblicist]

Let me make it clear for you B.
Describe particular redemption as it refers to goats, tares,and apostate reprobates.....tell me how Jesus died for not elect persons
We will see who cannot do it.

This is so simplisitic and I have so thoroughly explained it already I am utterly amazed you even dare ask again???????? Since telling you outright has no effect let me use you and your congregation as an example. When your congregation allows someone to join, what is the basis for membership? Is it to ask God to come out of heaven and verify this is a true born again person????? No! You take that person upon their PROFESSION? What kind of profession? A profession that Christ has saved them, they have been purchased by the blood and are saved! Correct? Now, how do you treat them after that profession and acceptance? Do you refuse to call them Brother or sister until God comes down out of heaven and personally verifies their salvation? That is a redemptive title you know? Do you refuse to characterize your congregation according to their PROFESSION until God comes down out of heaven and confirms every member is really saved before you apply such redemptive language to them from the pulpit or in person?

Paul constituted these congregations himself and knew them personally. Why would he address them in any other language but redemptive language? You don't have him qualifying himself, saying that "Christ purchased the church with his blood, what I mean, is the universal invisible church, not this church"!!! Nowhere does he do that, he simply describes them and treats them according to their profession, JUST AS YOUR PASTOR DOES when he addresses his congregational members.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist,

This is not so B. Each text has been addressed. You might not agree but they have been.

Listen, do you accept just ANY KIND of response whether it is true to the text or not when someone responds to your OP and claims they have answered it? No! I don't either, indeed, I go farther, I point out precisely where their response fails and therefore is no response at all. Just as I have with your response to Acts 20:28. Can you respond in like detail. Not yet?

What you refer to as rabbit trails are those very things that expose the defective flawed parts of your position. You do not answer because to do so displays it.

I don't answer them because I have answered such texts countless of times and never get a proper response - it is a waste of time because all you are doing is PITTING one text against another text without providing a true response.

Of course, if you really believe your charge then I invite you to take any of those texts you are complaining that I simply refuse to be side tracked by and open up a thread on it and then see if I don't respond in a contextual based exegetical fashion POINT FOR POINT. Do it! Stop making these false charges and back up what you are charging if you think I can't respond POINT FOR POINT. I invite you to prove your point.