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

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

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.

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.)

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).

 

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.

 

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.

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??

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.

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.

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 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.

 

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???​

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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).

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

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.