Dispensational Truth - In Time & Eternity

[Alan Dale Gross]

The point is, God does things on a time frame schedule. When he makes significant changes within a dispensation, like in Gal. 4:4 it is not a change of dispensations where he changes his operative principle of divine dealing to something entirely different but a transition within a dispensation usually to draw the purpose of that dispensation to fulfillment.

WHAT THE N.T. TEACHES AS TO FUTURE MERCY FOR THE JEWS

"Before turning to the New Testament for the purpose of considering certain passages that throw light upon the subject, we would remind the reader of the need of giving particular attention to what is written on that subject as we look in detail in the New Testament Scriptures.

"Chief among the reasons for this need is the fact that the Prophecies of the Old Testament are occupied principally with the coming of the Messiah, the Promised and long expected Son of David, for the Redemption of His people,

"as He Spake by the mouth of His Holy Prophets, which have been since the World began" (Luke 1:70).

"Those Prophecies did not, except in a few instances, look beyond the events of this Present Era of the Holy Spirit. In accordance with what had been predicted by the Prophets of Israel, "when the fullness of the time was come" - because the Fulfillment of their Prophecies -

"God Sent Forth His Son ... to Redeem them that were under the Law" (Galatians 4:4,5).

"But they had been taught by their "blind leaders" to look for a physical and political redemption, instead of a Spiritual Redemption from the Dominion of sin and death, which was what their prophets had foretold. Consequently when the Divine Redeemer "Came to His Own" [Creation/World] "His Own" [people the Nation of Israel ] "received Him not" (John 1:11); but rejected Him, betrayed Him, and compassed His death.

"Needless to say, this unparalleled crime brought about an entirely different situation from that which had previously existed respecting the relationship between God and the Jewish people of the Nation of Israel. Not that God was taken by surprise, and therefore constrained to re-shape His Plans; because all had been Foreseen; and all that happened was in strict accordance with the Determinate Counsel and Foreknowledge of God, and for the furtherance of the Eternal Purpose, which He had Purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord, before the World began, i.e., from Eternity Past.

:As to this there is no disagreement amongst those who hold the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith; and I think it is also generally agreed that, with the First Coming of Christ, and with His death, resurrection and Ascension, the Era began which had been Foretold by the Prophets, the Era when God would have another "people"; when He would Say to them which were not His people, "Thou art My people"; and they should say, "Thou art my God" (Hosea. 2:23).

"Indeed, the Apostle Paul cites this very Prophecy of Hosea and expounds it as referring to the people God is now calling to Himself out of all Nations through the Gospel; not from out "of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles" (Romans 9:24-26). And this quotation is from the passage in which Paul explains who the True "Israel" is, to whom the Promises were Made; and in which, after stating, in the plainest of words that "They are not all Israel which are of Israel" (v. 9), he shows that, in fact, but a few - "a remnant" (v. 27) of the naturally born Israelites, were embraced in the true "Israel," and that the full number of the people of God was to be made up of the saved from among the Gentiles. This is what Hosea and other prophets had foretold, though God Purposely enveloped the meaning of their Prophecies and His Full Purposes for the Gentiles, in "mystery," which mystery is now fully explained (Ephesians 3:1-6).

1; "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

2; "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the Grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

3; "How that by Revelation He Made Known unto me the Mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

4; "Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the Mystery of Christ)

5; "Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men,
as it is now Revealed unto His Holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit;

6; "That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body,
and Partakers of His Promise in Christ by the Gospel:"

"Evidently then, as regards the Purposes of God concerning the Jewish people after their rejection of that One through whom their Promised Redemption was to Come, we must look to what is Revealed in the New Testament; because there is where the Spirit of God has Revealed

"the fellowship of the Mystery" (Ephesians. 3:9),
that is, the Union of Jews and Gentiles to form the True Israel.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

First the Jews heard the gospel, then the Samaritans, then the gentiles and the whole world as a mission field. The gospel was the same for all people everywhere.

2 Cor 3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

"Let us recall, moreover, that the Covenant relations between God and "Israel after the flesh" were ended, even as had been foretold by their own Prophets, beginning with Moses and Joshua (Deuteronomy 4:26; 6:14, 15; 8:20; Joshua. 23:15,16); the Old Covenant was dissolved and "ready to vanish away"; every vestige of it was shortly to be obliterated; and therefore, of necessity, all Promises based upon that Covenant, had there been any as yet Unfulfilled, fell to the ground.

"But beside all that, God has now Brought Clearly to Light, as we have seen, what He had but dimly Revealed in Times Past, that the name ISRAEL belongs properly to His New-Covenant people. Therefore, it is not enough, for the settling of the question of God's Future Purposes for the Jews, that Prophecies concerning Israel be found which apparently have not yet been Fulfilled; because we must conclude, as to all such Prophecies - unless the contrary plainly appears - that they pertain to the True "Israel of God," and that their Fulfillment is in the Realm of things Spiritual and unseen.

What then does the New Testament say as to the Reconstitution hereafter of the Jewish Nation; as to the re-occupation by that Nation of the land of Canaan; as to its exaltation to the place of World-supremacy and headship over other Nations; as to the rebuilding of the Temple and the reconstitution of bloody sacrifices etc.?

"Not one word.

"This silence is itself sufficient to dispose of the question before us; but there is much more than that to be learned from the New Testament; for there are statements in it which make it utterly impossible that there should be any such Future in store for the Jewish Nation. Some of those New Testament statements have been quoted in the preceding portion of this volume, and other will be cited hereafter.

"Again it is particularly to be observed that, in "the Manifold Wisdom of God," and because of His Foreknowledge of the rejection of the Messiah by His nominal people, He saw fit to Conceal for a Time, in the form of "Mystery" (Ephesians 3:1-12 and "allegory" Galatians 4:22-26), the fact that the things Historical and Prophetic pertaining to "Israel after the flesh" were but the temporal foreshadowings (Hebrews 10:1) of things Eternal and Spiritual; which Mystery therefore

"in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men,
as it is now Revealed unto His Holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit" (Ephesians 3:5).

"That "Mystery" (which is not a mystery any longer) comprised several elements, whereof the most prominent (and the hardest for the Jewish mind to grasp) was the place which believing Gentiles were to have in "the commonwealth of Israel," and the share that was to be theirs in "the Covenants of Promise" (Eph. 2:12); that Gentiles were in the Eternal Purpose of God, Destined to be "joint-heirs" (with natural Israelites), "and joint-partakers of His Promise in Christ, by means of the Gospel" (literal rendering of Ephesians. 3:6).

"And what is particularly pertinent to our present inquiry is the previously hidden, but now clearly Revealed, fact, that the True "Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16), the True "seed of Abraham" who are the Heirs of all the Promises of God (Galatians 3:7, 29; 2 Cor. 1:20) are all those - whether by nature they are Jews or Gentiles - who are "of the Faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Romans 4:16).

"Because of this "Mystery of Christ" (Ephesians 3:4) which Paul was specially Commissioned to explain, it is most needful that we, in attempting the Interpretation of the Old Testament Prophecies concerning Israel, Zion, Jerusalem, etc., should take pains to ascertain whether it was the Earthly and natural people (or locality) the Prophet had in view, or the Heavenly and Spiritual counterpart thereof. Happily it is generally possible, in the light of the explanations given in the New Testament, to do this with some degree of certainty.

"Moreover, it will be found that, when we have set aside first all the Old Testament Prophecies and Promises concerning Israel that have been already Fulfilled,

"second, all that were conditional in character and hence have become null and void for failure by the Jews to perform the conditions on which they were based,

"and third, those that belong to "the Israel of God," there remains for the natural Israel no Promises of Blessing except "the common Salvation" (Jude 3) which is Proclaimed by the Gospel of Christ, and which God Bestows Freely upon all - Jews and Gentiles - who are Given the New Birth and the Blessing of "Repentance toward God and Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:21).

"Further, before taking up the passages of the New Testament that are relevant to our subject, we would recall to the reader's mind what is said in chapter II of this volume regarding what is commonly called the "literal" interpretation of the Prophecies. What we specially wish the reader to understand is that the literal interpretation of a prophecy may require it to be understood in the Spiritual sense. Since, as regards Israel, Zion, Jerusalem, the Land of Promise, etc. the Spiritual and Heavenly thing so designated is the Real Thing and is often (as the N.T. abundantly proves) what was literally intended.

"In Scripture the contrast is not between the literal and the Spiritual, but between the natural and the Spiritual; as it is written: "Howbeit that was not first which is Spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is Spiritual. The first man is of the Earth, Earthly; the Second Man is from the Lord from Heaven" (1 Corinthians 15:46,47). These words reveal the Rule or Principle of God's Order of Procedure in the Working Out of His Great Purpose.

"Accordingly there is first the natural humanity and afterward the Spiritual humanity; first the natural birth and afterward the Spiritual Birth; first the natural or Earthly Israel, Zion, Temple, Priesthood, sacrifices etc., and afterward their Spiritual and Heavenly counterparts. If therefore, there were nothing but this passage to guide us, it would be safe to conclude, in the absence of an express statement of Scripture to the contrary, that there is to be No Reversal of God's Settled Order of Procedure, no going back from the Spiritual to the natural. Hence there can be No Return hereafter to the natural Israel, the Earthly Jerusalem and the Earthly Temple, with its smoking altar, its Aaronic Priesthood and its animal sacrifices."

https://www.preteristcentral.com/pdf/pdf%20books/1922_mauro_hope-israel.pdf

 

[JD731]

"

https://www.preteristcentral.com/pdf/pdf%20books/1922_mauro_hope-israel.pdf

Alan, you are making an excuse for not believing what the scriptures say. You have found a man who has changed the words of the scriptures to prove this systematic scheme. You are a proponent for the KJV only because of it's simplicity and then go through these hoops with these lessons on the Greek word structures in order to deny what they actually say. I am charging you with hypocrisy and remind you how Christians who have humbled themselves through repentance and believed Christ's gospel are common people. The common people heard him gladly because he has spoken words they can understand and have believed them.

I Cor 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

God says his words are effective to those only who have the Spirit and no one else can understand them. The church is a mystery, hidden in plain sight to those who can see. He does not say that those without the Spirit yet write books and Bibles to instruct people on their own reasoning will admit it. Generally speaking, they are the most educated and charismatic among us.

1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but (in the words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

I cannot be convince that a Greek Scholar is a better teacher of the words of God than the Holy Spirit of God.

IMO, you need to rethink your theology and practice.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

IMO, you need to rethink your theology and practice.

Alan, you are making an excuse for not believing what the scriptures say.

I am charging you with hypocrisy

The common people heard him gladly because he has spoken words they can understand and have believed them.

If you are a common person, why aren't you "teachable", or have a "teachable Spirit"?

• Proverbs 12:1 declares, “Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid.”

• James 4:6 states, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

• Acts 17:11 notes the Bereans “examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true,” demonstrating their teachability by carefully assessing new information against Scripture.

and then go through these hoops with these lessons on the Greek word structures in order to deny what they actually say.

I cannot be convince that a Greek Scholar is a better teacher of the words of God than the Holy Spirit of God.

Are you trying to tell me that the Holy Spirit actually told you that someone was talking about Greek word structure so much that they are making the Word of God of none effect? "Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye".

If He didn't, who did overwhelm you so much as a Greek Scholar, because there isn't any Greek that's been talked about, except one John of Japan brought up from the Greek, to try and avoid the fact that the word 'dispense' is contained within the word 'dispensation' because that is the meaning of that word, according to its usage in the Bible .

"But there are other usages where the Greek word oikomenos (οἰκόμενος) is translated differently" - John of Japan.

Right, by 'usage' in modern theological definitions, now since the 'dispensationalists' have made a lapse in reality with it, by changing the meaning from a 'dispensing', to 'a period of time', even though you say they don't refer to 'a dispensation' as 'a period of time.'

WHAT IS A "DISPENSATION"?*​

And first, as regards the meaning of the word itself, it is easily to be seen, that the Biblical meaning thereof is radically different from that assigned to it by the "Scofield Bible," where it is stated that:--​

"A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect to some specific revelation of the Will of God" (note to Gen. 1:28).​

"But in our English Version of the Scriptures the word "dispensation" is not in a single instance used to designate a period of time. Paul says, "A dispensation of the Gospel is Committed to me" (I Corinthians 9:17);
that is to say, the Gospel had been entrusted to him to be dispensed by him,
BECAUSE PAUL HAD A DISPENSATION OF THE GOSPEL COMMITTED TO HIM, BY GOD.

"And the word has a like signification in other passages, all its occurrences being in the writings of the apostle Paul.

"Thus Ephesians 1:10 is a reference to "the dispensation of the fulness of the times";
and the Apostle is there speaking of that which God had Purposed to administer or dispense in these last days,
WHICH WAS THE GOSPEL, BECAUSE PAUL HAD A DISPENSATION OF THE GOSPEL COMMITTED TO HIM, BY GOD.

("The fulness of the time," according to Galatians 4:4, is the era when "God sent forth His Son.").

"Again in Ephesians 3:2 Paul speaks of "the dispensation of the Grace of God which is given me to you-ward";
the meaning being that the ministry given him was to dispense the Grace of God to the Gentiles,
BY PREACHING GOSPEL, BECAUSE PAUL HAD A DISPENSATION OF THE GOSPEL COMMITTED TO HIM, BY GOD.

"And lastly, in Colossians 1:25 he refers to "the dispensation of God,"
that had been given him, "to fulfil the Word of God";
AND SINCE PAUL HAD A DISPENSATION OF THE GOSPEL COMMITTED TO HIM, BY GOD
that reference is also to to THE GOSPEL, which God had Made him responsible to administer or dispense,
in fulfilment of the Word of God concerning His previously concealed purpose as to the Salvation of the Gentiles."

For revised dispensationalists to want to claim a 'dispensation', or 'administration' doesn't matter, because they say it is an essential tenet of the system that "in each dispensation God deals with man upon a plan different from the plan of the other dispensations. . . . Each dispensation is a thing entirely apart from the others, and, when one period succeeds another, there is a radical change of character and governing principles." (Rock or Sand, Which?, by Matthew Francis).

So, if all the revised dispensationalists can say is they have busied themselves with changing the errors of the first dispensationalists, do they think God gave them instruction in His Word to build on and keep what they say is now errors.
​

WHERE DID THIS MODERN SYSTEM COME FROM?​

As regards the origin of the system: the beginnings thereof and its leading features are found in the writings of those known as "Brethren" (sometimes called "Plymouth Brethren," from the name of the English city where the movement first attracted attention) though it is but fair to state that the best known and most spiritual leaders of that movement--as Darby, Kelly, Newberry, Chapman, Mueller and others, "whose names are in the Book of Life" "never held the "Jewish" character of the Kingdom preached by our Lord and John the Baptist, or the "Jewish" character of the Gospels (especially Matthew), or that the Sermon on the Mount is "law and not grace" and pertains to a future "Jewish" kingdom.

"From what I have been able to gather by inquiry of others, (who were "in Christ before me") the new system of doctrine we are now discussing was first brought to the vicinity of New York by a very gifted and godly man, Mr. Malachi Taylor, (one of the "Brethren") who taught it with much earnestness and plausibility. That was near the beginning of the past century, either a little before or a little after.

"And among those who heard and were captivated by it (for truly there is some strange fascination inherent in it) was the late Dr. C. I. Scofield, who was so infatuated with it that he proceeded forthwith to bring out a new edition of the entire Bible, having for its distinctive feature that the peculiar doctrines of this new dispensationalism are woven into the very warp and woof thereof, in the form of notes, headings, subheadings and summaries. There is no doubt whatever that it is mainly to this cleverly executed work that dispensationalism owes its present vogue. For without that aid it doubtless would be clearly seen by all who give close attention to the doctrine, that it is a humanly contrived system that has been imposed upon the Bible, and not a scheme of doctrine derived from it."​

​

​

 

[Ascetic X]

Sometimes the word “church” in the New Testament refers to one specific local assembly, but other times it means the universal church comprised of all members of the body of Christ.

Here are two verses that refer to the church as the entire body of Christ throughout history, not one local assembly.

Colossians 1:17

And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church.


Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

The common people heard him gladly because he has spoken words they can understand and have believed them.

A REVIVAL OF ANCIENT RABBINISM​

"Then as to what this modern system of teaching is, it will be a surprise to most of those who love the Lord Jesus Christ to learn that, in respect to the central and vitally important subject of the Kingdom of God, twentieth century dispensationalism is practically identical with first century rabbinism.

"Because the cardinal doctrine of the Jewish rabbis of Christ's day was that,
according to the predictions of the Prophets of Israel,
the purpose and result of Jesus' Mission as the Promised Messiah would be;

1.) the re-constituting of the Jewish nation;

2.)the re-occupation by them of the land of Palestine;

3.) "the setting up again of the Earthly throne of David;

4.) "and the exaltation of the people of Israel to the place of supremacy in the world.

"Now, seeing that a doctrine is known by its fruits, let us recall what effect this doctrine concerning the Kingdom of God had upon the orthodox Jews who so earnestly believed it in that day...

The effect then when Jesus first came to Earth was that, when;

A. Christ came to His Own people, proclaiming that the Kingdom of God was at hand,
B. but making it known that
that Kingdom did not correspond to their idea
of what Jesus the Messiah's Kingdom was supposed to be like
according to what they had in their head;
C. when He said, "My Kingdom is not of this World,"
D. and taught that, so far from being Jewish,
Jesus' Kingdom was the kind
that a man must be born of the Spirit in order to enter HIS KINGDOM,
E. then they rejected Him ("received Him not")
F. hated Him,
G. betrayed Him
H. and caused Him to be put to death."

So, all you're teaching is the same thing the Jews wanted and were expecting when Jesus Came the first time.

And they couldn't have been more dead wrong.

But you say every child of God prior to the Plymouth Brethren getting this modern new system from the Roman Catholic 'Church' were all wrong and just didn't realize the special little self-contradictory junk it is full of.

Well then, you will probably never believe this, until He tells you Himself,
but Jesus did actually say;

"My Kingdom is not of this World"

"It will be readily seen therefore, that we have here to do with a system of teaching which, whether true or false, is of the most radical sort. Hence if true, it is most astonishing that not one of the Godly and Spiritual teachers of all the Christian centuries had so much as a glimpse of it; and if false, it is high time its heretical character were exposed and the whole system dealt with accordingly.

"And inasmuch as it contradicts what every Christian teacher, without a known exception, has held to be the indisputable truth of Scripture concerning the Gospel of God and the Kingdom of God, it clearly belongs in the category of those "divers and strange doctrines," against which we are specially warned (Hebrews 13:9).

"Because it is undeniably diverse from all that has been hitherto taught the people of God, and it is altogether "strange" to their ears. This I deem worthy of special emphasis, and hence would ask the reader to keep constantly in mind the fact of the absolute novelty of dispensationalism. For here is modernism in the strictest sense; and it is all the more to be feared and shunned because it comes to us in the guise and garb of strict orthodoxy."
​

 

[Ascetic X]

A major criticism is that Replacement Theology implies God abandoned his unconditional covenants with the Jewish people, suggesting He can break promises.

Psalm 94:14

For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.

• It replaces the literal, physical promises of land and kingdom made to Israel with purely spiritual blessings for the church.
• Ignoring Romans 11: Critics argue this view ignores Paul’s warning not to be arrogant toward the "natural branches" (the Jewish people) and that they are still loved for the sake of their forefathers.
• Redefinition of the Olive Tree: It wrongly identifies the olive tree in Romans 11 as the Church, whereas critics argue it represents the covenants and promises to Israel, into which Gentiles are merely grafted.
• • Fuels Antisemitism: Historically, this theology has been used to justify persecution of the Jewish people, creating a mindset that views them as rejected by God, which contributed to tragic events like the Crusades and the Holocaust.
  • Arrogance and Pride: It fosters an arrogant attitude within the church, where Gentiles may look down on the Jewish people rather than appreciating their role in salvation history.
  • Devaluation of Old Testament Prophecy: It often fails to account for the ongoing fulfillment of biblical prophecies regarding the nation of Israel, including its existence today.

Biblical Rebuttals to Replacement Theology

• The Covenant is Eternal: Scripture describes God’s covenant with Israel as eternal, which cannot be annulled.
• Israel is "Beloved": Romans 11:28 states that regarding the gospel they are enemies, but regarding election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
• Grafting, Not Replacing: Romans 11 depicts Gentile believers as being grafted into the original tree, not replacing it.
• Israel's Continued Existence: The survival of the Jewish people and the re-establishment of the state of Israel are seen by critics as evidence that God has not finished his plans for them.

 

[JD731]

A major criticism is that Replacement Theology implies God abandoned his unconditional covenants with the Jewish people, suggesting He can break promises.

Psalm 94:14

For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.

• It replaces the literal, physical promises of land and kingdom made to Israel with purely spiritual blessings for the church.
• Ignoring Romans 11: Critics argue this view ignores Paul’s warning not to be arrogant toward the "natural branches" (the Jewish people) and that they are still loved for the sake of their forefathers.
• Redefinition of the Olive Tree: It wrongly identifies the olive tree in Romans 11 as the Church, whereas critics argue it represents the covenants and promises to Israel, into which Gentiles are merely grafted.
• • Fuels Antisemitism: Historically, this theology has been used to justify persecution of the Jewish people, creating a mindset that views them as rejected by God, which contributed to tragic events like the Crusades and the Holocaust.
  • Arrogance and Pride: It fosters an arrogant attitude within the church, where Gentiles may look down on the Jewish people rather than appreciating their role in salvation history.
  • Devaluation of Old Testament Prophecy: It often fails to account for the ongoing fulfillment of biblical prophecies regarding the nation of Israel, including its existence today.

Biblical Rebuttals to Replacement Theology

• The Covenant is Eternal: Scripture describes God’s covenant with Israel as eternal, which cannot be annulled.
• Israel is "Beloved": Romans 11:28 states that regarding the gospel they are enemies, but regarding election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
• Grafting, Not Replacing: Romans 11 depicts Gentile believers as being grafted into the original tree, not replacing it.
• Israel's Continued Existence: The survival of the Jewish people and the re-establishment of the state of Israel are seen by critics as evidence that God has not finished his plans for them.

Thank you Ascetic X

Sadly, those who believe and teach replacement theology want us to think it is a difference in opinion when, in fact, it is a different theology!

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 16:18.

In this verse Jesus said:

"And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I Will Build My church;
and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

"Jesus is using the word church here in the generic, abstract, or institutional sense. He refers to the church as a Divine Institution against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail. Yet it would have been understood by His hearers in a special sense as applicable to them.

Note: So, exactly what are we supposed to do with a sentence like "the Public school system teaches foolishness"?

Does that mean that you have determined that now 'the Public school system'
changed into one Worldwide and Invisible entity?

The words "Public school system" are being used in a generic, institutional sense,
like every English person talks every day.

"Jesus spoke here to His Disciples (Matt. 16:13), the company of baptized believers which followed Him from the baptism of John (Acts 1:21-22). It was to the same group of baptized Disciples He gave the rules of church Discipline, the Lord's Supper, and the Great Commission. There can be no doubt that Jesus addressed His words to a local, visible body of baptized believers who constitute the first New Testament church in the World.

"The ordinary sense makes perfectly good sense in Matthew 16:18.
First, the words were addressed to a local, visible body of baptized believers. They were not addressed to the elect of all ages.

"Second, those who heard these words would have understood 'ekklesia' in its primary and ordinary sense. I say this because I cannot believe the Master Teacher would have intended a common word to have a new meaning without some word of explanation.

Note: And when in the history of literature has a word been wiped out that someone was talking about, as if it never existed AND THEN a 'new word' got adopted for no apparent reason, but that 'new word' also has a meaning and definition that is just the exact and perfect opposite of the initial word that had been spoken; however, in this case the word meaning 'local assembly' is altered and edited to mean 'scattered Worldwide disbursement'?

Then, "see Jane run" is now said to mean that from now on Jane is going to be "INVISABLE"!

When, or where has either one of those two phenomena ever taken place?

Look up ANY word's anonym and tell that it should have been SUBSTITUTED instead, to completely erase the original word and that's just fine and dandy with everyone that is involve with that piece of writing.

"Tom jumped into the water" becomes "Tom jumped into the fire"?

This situation that took Satan 1500 years to SELL it to the masses is one of the most ignorant things to happen anywhere and its subject matter is WHERE AND HOW GOD IS TO BE WORSHIPPED, HIS BUINESS CARRIED OUT, AND HIS CHURCH PRESERVED, through baptism, the Lord's Supper, and church Discipline all being done Scripturally.

You guys have been robbed, I don't care what percentage of every Christian in the World are those who don't know what a church is. Jesus does and His churches are VERY DEAR TO HIM, THE APPLE OF HIS EYE.

"Third, by reading the Gospels and the Book of Acts, we see the kind of church which Christ Built. He Personally Built the church which later became known as the Jerusalem Church. Through this mother church He Built other churches, all such churches were local, visible bodies like the first church.

"The Fourth reason I believe 'ekklesia must be understood in its primary sense is because Jesus used this word 23 times, 3 times in Matthew and 20 times in Revelation. Twenty-one of these times the word is admitted by most as having the common meaning. Then why give it a new meaning in Matthew 16:18? Remember, the odds are 22 to 1 that Christ used the word 'ekklesia', for what He Called, "My church" assembled there in is most natural and primary meaning.

"It seems to me to be the height of folly to assume that our Lord announced He would build a universal, invisible church, and then He never mentioned this church again while speaking 22 other times about a church He never Promised to Build!"

 

[Ascetic X]

Matthew 16:18.

In this verse Jesus said:

"And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I Will Build My church;
and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

"Jesus is using the word church here in the generic, abstract, or institutional sense. He refers to the church as a Divine Institution against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail.


"Third, by reading the Gospels and the Book of Acts, we see the kind of church which Christ Built. He Personally Built the church which later became known as the Jerusalem Church. Through this mother church He Built other churches, all such churches were local, visible bodies like the first church.

"The Fourth reason I believe 'ekklesia must be understood in its primary sense is because Jesus used this word 23 times, 3 times in Matthew and 20 times in Revelation. Twenty-one of these times the word is admitted by most as having the common meaning. Then why give it a new meaning in Matthew 16:18? Remember, the odds are 22 to 1 that Christ used the word 'ekklesia', for what He Called, "My church" assembled there in is most natural and primary meaning.

"It seems to me to be the height of folly to assume that our Lord announced He would build a universal, invisible church, and then He never mentioned this church again while speaking 22 other times about a church He never Promised to Build!"

Ekklesia (Greek: ἐκκλησία) is a New Testament term derived from ek ("out of") and kaleo ("to call"), thus those who have been called out of the world of sinners to belong to Christ.

It can refer to a specific local assembly or to the total number of all born again Christians throughout history.

When Jesus said He would build His church, did He mean the Methodist church up the road? The Lutheran church across the street? The Universalist Unitarian church downtown? The Roman Catholic Church over here? The Greek Orthodox Church over there?

No, not any particular local church, but the universal collection of all the called out believers. These believers are past, present, and future, and are currently scattered among many denominations and localities, and mixed in with tares, but the genuine Christians are all one in spirit.

Church in the generic, abstract, or institutional sense is the universal church, the totality of all saved believers. Also known as the body of Christ.

Here are some verses that refer to the church as the entire body of Christ throughout history, not one local assembly.

Colossians 1:17

And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church.


Ephesians 1:22–23

And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

1 Timothy 3:15​

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.


Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

the universal church comprised of all members of the body of Christ.

If this is true, then words and any language that is ever used have absolutely no meaning at all.

That is what you are saying.

Black does not equal white.

"The word 'church' is used abstractly in some of these debatable verses, not referring to any particular church at any definite place, but to the church as an institution. When a concrete application of the word is made it must be to a particular local church somewhere. Most Bible scholars chose to ignore the abstract usage of the word church in the Bible, although they will freely concede such is true of other words. Rather than allowing the word to retain its common meaning throughout the New Testament, a most reasonable and logical thing to do, they ascribe a new meaning to the word. They say it must mean a universal, invisible church.

'ekklesia' never had such a meaning in the Greek writings. This new meaning is contrary to the primary and literal meaning of 'ekklesia'.

"If I can give a word a new meaning so as to fit my creed when the common meaning makes good sense,
then I can change the entire Bible to suit my fancy and the next person can do the same!

Here are two verses that refer to the church as the entire body of Christ throughout history, not one local assembly.

There are 112 usages of what Jesus Knows to be His kind of 'church' He always talks about and of those 112, 18 verses use the word church in the generic sense like it is here, in these two verses. In such a case the word may be singular and yet not refer to any particular object of the class but to every object of that class.

Let me illustrate what I mean by a word being used abstractly, or generically. "The home is a Divine institution." The word 'home' is used generically or abstractly in this sentence. The definite article with the word 'home' does not mean there is one particular home singled out from the rest that is only one being talked about. The word home has not taken on a new meaning; it retains its common meaning. There is no such thing as a 'universal, invisible home'.

Colossians 1:17

And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church.

If this is true, then numbers and any mathematics that are ever used have absolutely no meaning at all.

That is what you are saying.

Two does not equal one.

COLOSSIANS 1:18, 24;

"It is urged by some that Colossians 1:18 teaches the big church theory:

"And He is the Head of the body, the church:
Who is the Beginning, the Firstborn from the dead;
that in all things He might have the Preeminence."

"This means that Christ is the Head of each local church, just as He is the Head of every man (I Cor. 11:3).

"Colossians 1:24 reads:

"Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind
of the Afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body's sake, which is the church."

"Some make a big to do over the word body in this verse. They insist it means some big universal body consisting of the general community of all believers. I do not deny the church is the body of Christ. The Colossian Church was the body of Christ, and the church in the institutional sense is the body of Christ.

"To understand a symbol we must first understand the reality of the symbol. The body of a man is something both local and visible. The same may be said of the bodies of both plants and animals. Never does the word body mean a universal, invisible nothing. There is no such thing as a scattered, invisible, mystic, non-functioning body. A heap of heads, hands, and hearts do not make a body. Miscellaneous, scattered, unattached units do not make a body. Neither can invisible members scattered throughout the world and divided by centuries make up 'the body of Christ'.

"Every local church in the Apostolic Age was the body of Christ in that place. The Corinthian Church was "the body of Christ" in the city of Corinth (I Corinthians 12:27). The body in Ephesians 1:23; 4:4,12,16; 5:30 was the church body at Ephesus. Paul called the Ephesian Church "a building fitly framed together" (2:21), "built together" (2:2), and "fitly joined together" (4:16). Such togetherness can only be said of a local assembly of baptized believers. It cannot be said of some future church not yet joined together. Even so, the body in Colossians means the church at Colosse (1:1-2). All the body at Colosse was "knit together" (2:18), and they had all been "buried with Him in baptism" (2:12).

"According to Ephesians 4:4, "There is one body" as to kind in this Gospel Age. If it is the universal, invisible body, then there is no local and particular body. On the other hand, if it is the local body (a thing which harmonizes with the Bible's definition of the body of Christ in I Corinthians 12:27), then there is no such thing as a universal, invisible body. One must either give up the local church or the big church. There are no more two kinds of bodies of Christ than there are two kinds of Faith or two kinds of God. The baptism which puts one in the body in Ephesians 4:5 is water baptism, seeing it is a baptism which follows Faith: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." Water baptism puts one in a local church, not some invisible church.

One must either give up the local church or the big church.

"There is one body."

 

[Ascetic X]

You are trapped in either/or thinking. But the reality is both/and.

The church can mean a local assembly or what you call the abstract church the universal body of Christ composed of all believers throughout history.

You said :

Colossians 1:18

"And He is the Head of the body, the church:
Who is the Beginning, the Firstborn from the dead;
that in all things He might have the Preeminence."

QUOTE

"This means that Christ is the Head of each local church, just as He is the Head of every man.

END QUOTE

No, in this verse, it is the universal church, all believers throughout history.

 

[JD731]

There is a doctrine in the scriptures related to the church that does not get very much ink. It is the doctrine of being "in Christ." This means all those who have been born again are in Christ and are made one in his body. There are many people in the local church in any community or location who have not been born again but who hold membership in those congregations. The Lord knows his own but no one can be sure about who are saved and who are not. When the Lord comes for his own only those who are his will be taken. Here is the critical test.

Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. This new birth makes the believer in Christ a son of God.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

The leading of the Spirit is not from outside the body but from inside the body.

Looking at all the scriptures there are no other believers in the scriptures who are called the sons of God except those who are baptized into his body by the Spirit having believed on him for salvation from the penalty of their sins.

For a biblical perspective on this phase, "in Christ," let's take a look at how it is used.
It is a phrase that is in the scriptures 78 times in 77 verses. This means it is in one verse twice. The number seven is always used as complete things in the scriptures. Most everyone will agree with that. Seventy seven is like verily, verily. Every time it is used it is used by Paul in his letters except for 3 times. Paul before Felix in Acts 24:24 and two verses in 1 Peter 3:16 and 5:14. Peter was not writing to the church, the body of Christ, but to the strangers and foreigners in Asia minor and beyond. These are those who were those of Israel who were dispersed in 722 BC and driven out of their promised land and alienated from God. This does not mean the believers in Christ to whom Peter preached were not members of the church because they certainly were. All born again children of God are members of the church because the church is defined as the body of Christ and the prophet Hosea prophesied to this nation before they were scattered and promise that one day they would be called the sons of God. This is important to know. You gotta read this from Hosea 1 about 30 years before they were cast out;

6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah (no mercy): for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.
7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
8 Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son.
9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.
10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

Peter was not writing and preaching to the world of Jews and gentiles as was Paul but to a certain ethnicity group that Paul called the circumcision. Since a promise had been made specifically to them God intended to keep it. Here is how.

The Galatians were among this group: (this is why the law of Moses played such a role in the letter).

Ga 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

It is important for one to read the context and allow words to have accepted meanings. If one does, he will have light if he is saved.

The phrase (in Christ) then was a a subject that Paul used over and over and it appears in all his letters to the gentiles except for 2. It does not appear in 2 Thessalonians and there is a good reason for that. It does not appear in Titus. It appears in 11 of his thirteen letters multiple times in each.

Paul says this in Ephesians where he explains the church of Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

There is no local church in heaven but the church is there, those saved ones who trusted Christ since the cross and died before the gathering.
Those in Christ will be gathered together and that leaves local churches out as the meaning of this because some local churches have more unsaved people in them than saved people.

Here is another way of saying this same thing.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible (the one who has died and their bodies has gone back to dust) must put on incorruption, and this mortal (those still living in their weak bodies when he comes) must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption (raised from the dead), and this mortal shall have put on immortality (have his body glorified), then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

May the Lord be glorified by my treatment of this doctrine of being in Christ, the hope of glory. Amen!

 

[John of Japan]

If this is true, then words and any language that is ever used have absolutely no meaning at all.

That is what you are saying.

Black does not equal white.

"The word 'church' is used abstractly in some of these debatable verses, not referring to any particular church at any definite place, but to the church as an institution. When a concrete application of the word is made it must be to a particular local church somewhere. Most Bible scholars chose to ignore the abstract usage of the word church in the Bible, although they will freely concede such is true of other words. Rather than allowing the word to retain its common meaning throughout the New Testament, a most reasonable and logical thing to do, they ascribe a new meaning to the word. They say it must mean a universal, invisible church.

'ekklesia' never had such a meaning in the Greek writings. This new meaning is contrary to the primary and literal meaning of 'ekklesia'.

"If I can give a word a new meaning so as to fit my creed when the common meaning makes good sense,
then I can change the entire Bible to suit my fancy and the next person can do the same!


There are 112 usages of what Jesus Knows to be His kind of 'church' He always talks about and of those 112, 18 verses use the word church in the generic sense like it is here, in these two verses. In such a case the word may be singular and yet not refer to any particular object of the class but to every object of that class.

Let me illustrate what I mean by a word being used abstractly, or generically. "The home is a Divine institution." The word 'home' is used generically or abstractly in this sentence. The definite article with the word 'home' does not mean there is one particular home singled out from the rest that is only one being talked about. The word home has not taken on a new meaning; it retains its common meaning. There is no such thing as a 'universal, invisible home'.


If this is true, then numbers and any mathematics that are ever used have absolutely no meaning at all.

That is what you are saying.

Two does not equal one.

COLOSSIANS 1:18, 24;

"It is urged by some that Colossians 1:18 teaches the big church theory:

"And He is the Head of the body, the church:
Who is the Beginning, the Firstborn from the dead;
that in all things He might have the Preeminence."

"This means that Christ is the Head of each local church, just as He is the Head of every man (I Cor. 11:3).

"Colossians 1:24 reads:

"Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind
of the Afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body's sake, which is the church."

"Some make a big to do over the word body in this verse. They insist it means some big universal body consisting of the general community of all believers. I do not deny the church is the body of Christ. The Colossian Church was the body of Christ, and the church in the institutional sense is the body of Christ.

"To understand a symbol we must first understand the reality of the symbol. The body of a man is something both local and visible. The same may be said of the bodies of both plants and animals. Never does the word body mean a universal, invisible nothing. There is no such thing as a scattered, invisible, mystic, non-functioning body. A heap of heads, hands, and hearts do not make a body. Miscellaneous, scattered, unattached units do not make a body. Neither can invisible members scattered throughout the world and divided by centuries make up 'the body of Christ'.

"Every local church in the Apostolic Age was the body of Christ in that place. The Corinthian Church was "the body of Christ" in the city of Corinth (I Corinthians 12:27). The body in Ephesians 1:23; 4:4,12,16; 5:30 was the church body at Ephesus. Paul called the Ephesian Church "a building fitly framed together" (2:21), "built together" (2:2), and "fitly joined together" (4:16). Such togetherness can only be said of a local assembly of baptized believers. It cannot be said of some future church not yet joined together. Even so, the body in Colossians means the church at Colosse (1:1-2). All the body at Colosse was "knit together" (2:18), and they had all been "buried with Him in baptism" (2:12).

"According to Ephesians 4:4, "There is one body" as to kind in this Gospel Age. If it is the universal, invisible body, then there is no local and particular body. On the other hand, if it is the local body (a thing which harmonizes with the Bible's definition of the body of Christ in I Corinthians 12:27), then there is no such thing as a universal, invisible body. One must either give up the local church or the big church. There are no more two kinds of bodies of Christ than there are two kinds of Faith or two kinds of God. The baptism which puts one in the body in Ephesians 4:5 is water baptism, seeing it is a baptism which follows Faith: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." Water baptism puts one in a local church, not some invisible church.

One must either give up the local church or the big church.

"There is one body."

Please source your statements. How are we to know if your source is authoritative if we don't even know who they are? As a linguist and Greek prof I would be happy to interact, but I'm not going to interact with just any anonymous source you quote.

 

[John of Japan]

If this is true, then words and any language that is ever used have absolutely no meaning at all.

That is what you are saying.

Black does not equal white.

"The word 'church' is used abstractly in some of these debatable verses, not referring to any particular church at any definite place, but to the church as an institution. When a concrete application of the word is made it must be to a particular local church somewhere. Most Bible scholars chose to ignore the abstract usage of the word church in the Bible, although they will freely concede such is true of other words. Rather than allowing the word to retain its common meaning throughout the New Testament, a most reasonable and logical thing to do, they ascribe a new meaning to the word. They say it must mean a universal, invisible church.

'ekklesia' never had such a meaning in the Greek writings. This new meaning is contrary to the primary and literal meaning of 'ekklesia'.

Again, no sources for your quotes. I would fail a student of mine who did this for plagiarising.

But anyway, your Greek "expert" doesn't know (Dick) Butkis--unless you can tell me who it is, and I might respect them.

Concerning the actual assembly of the church "the body of Christ," (I don't like the terms "universal" and "invisible") that will take place in Heaven. An ekklesia can historically be called an assembly even when it has not met yet. The ekklesia of a Greek city-state was called that before it ever met! It was an elected body (all the adult male citizens of a city-state).

Here is the passage about the church, the body of Christ, meeting in Heaven: "To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect" (Heb. 12:23).