Formal debate: Is there a distinction between Israel and the Church?

[Iosias]

Opening Statement: the affirming case

In answering the question “According to the clear teachings of Scripture, is there a distinction between Israel and the Church?” I am required to put forth scriptural evidence of the truth that Israel (descendents of Abraham) and the church (Body of Christ) are distinct. It is important to note that the question at hand is not whether the church is the ‘true’ Israel as held to by non-dispensationalists but as to whether a distinction be found, for if the church replaced Israel it would mean that there was a distinction in a de facto sense, i.e. the church as a distinct entity replaced Israel as a distinct entity and so the question of the church being ‘true’ Israel is irrelevant to this topic. Now I will proceed to outline my position.

At first glance it seems obvious to myself and to many others that if Israel began with the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12 saying “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee…” and the church began in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost then there must be a distinction between the two. However such simplicity is often overlooked and so the following is a more in depth analysis on how Israel and the church are distinct.

My first argument rests on the Biblical truth of the church as mystery. The fact that God was going to form one body made up of Jew and Gentile by the baptism of the Holy Ghost wherein the earthly distinction between them has disappeared was not revealed in the Old Testament. Quite the opposite is actually correct; the fact that God was to form ‘His church’ was hidden in the counsels of God unrevealed until the special ministry of the Apostle Paul. Therefore if the church, as a living organism indwelt by Christ wherein Jew and Gentile are on an equal footing, is described as a mystery, unknown in Old Testament times by the “word of truth”, then the church cannot have been constituted in those Old Testament times. Indeed, the mystery is revealed only in New Testament times. J Dwight Pentecost states in Things to Come that:

“this whole mystery was not revealed until the rejection of Christ by Israel. It was after the rejection on Matthew 12:23, 24 that the Lord first makes a prophesy of the coming church in Matthew 16:18. It is after the rejection of the Cross that the church had its inception in Acts 2. It was after the final rejection by Israel that God called out Paul to be the Apostle to the Gentiles through whom this mystery of the…church is revealed.”

And so it is safe to conclude from this evidence that owing to the church being a mystery unknown in Old Testament times it is inevitably distinct from Israel. I will finish this section off with a quote from Scofield “That the Gentiles were to be saved was no mystery (Romans 9:24-33; 10:19-21). The mystery, "hid in God", was the divine purpose to make of Jew and Gentile a wholly new thing -- "the church, which is his Christ's body," formed by the baptism with the Holy Spirit, (1Corinthians 12:12, 13), and in which the earthly distinction of Jew and Gentile disappears; (Eph 2:14, 15); (Col 3:10, 11). The revelation of this mystery, which was foretold, but not explained, by Christ (Mat 16:18) was committed to Paul. In his writings alone, we find the doctrine, position, walk, and destiny of the church.” Notice also the phraseology of Matthew 16:18 which states “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.” Notice that what Jesus says is “I will build My Church” The future tense of the verb indicates, that the building of the church had not yet begun when Jesus said these words. He did not say, “I have built My church” He did not say, “I am building My church” No, the building project had not yet begun and thus the Church was yet future. At the time Jesus spoke the words of Matthew 16:18 the church had not yet begun.

Now I turn to my second argument based upon the (unique) baptizing work of the Holy Ghost. The LORD Jesus Christ had spoken of this work of the Holy Ghost just before His ascension in Acts 1:5 as being yet future and unlike anything they had previously experienced saying “For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence”. Although Acts 2 does not expressly record that the baptism of the Holy Ghost occurred on the Day of Pentecost, it is said in Acts 11:15, 16 that it did happen on that day in fulfillment of the promise of the LORD as recorded in Acts 1:5. It is later within the Pauline epistles that we find fully revealed the doctrinal significance of this baptism that unites believers with Christ in to His Body (1 Corinthians 12:13 “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”). So in other words, on the Day of Pentecost men were first placed into the Body of Christ and since the church is the Body of Christ (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.”), the church could not have begun until Pentecost and therein from the evidence presented we can safely conclude that the church began on the Day of Pentecost.

There is also a third argument and that is that the church must be post-resurrection and post-ascension.Paul states in Ephesians that only in Christ was the dividing wall broken down between Jew and Gentile so that He could “reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross” (Ephesians 2:16). That was not done before the cross and therefore it is clear that the Body of Christ, the church wherein Jew and Gentile are on an equal footing could not have existed prior to the death of Christ. The church furthermore is built upon His resurrection for Jesus was made head of the church after God “raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places: (Ephesians 1:20; 22, 23). Also for the church to function properly it requires the gifts, the giving of which is dependent on the ascension of Christ (Ephesians 4:7-12).

To this we can add Ryrie’s argument that the church is distinct to Israel due to the end of the church. What I mean is this, in explaining the saint’s translation and resurrection, Paul uses the phrase “dead in Christ” (1 Thessalonians 4:16) which clearly distinguishes those who have died “in Christ” in this present age from those believers who died prior to Christ’s first advent, thereby marking off the church as distinct.

Therefore from these arguments the inevitable conclusion is that there be indeed a distinction between the two.

Word Count: 1210 words approx

[agenes]

Sine Qua Non
Without Which Not
Do the Scriptures teach that there is a clear distinction between Israel and the Church?

Peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God


It is best to define our terms from the outset of the debate, so as not to cause confusion. When I speak of ethnic, national, or physical Israel, I am speaking of that group of people known as the Hebrews, the Nation of Israel. When I speak of the Israel of God or Spiritual Israel, I am referring to the elect of God. This debate seeks to answer whether or not there is a distinction between Israel and the Church. The Dispensationalist will answer in the affirmative, for they see that both physical and spiritual Israel is one and the same. Both in their system refers to the Nation of Israel, the former being the physical offspring of Jacob, and the later being the literal recipients of the promised New Covenant, which is redeemed National Israel.



As for a definition of the Church, the Dispensationalist will assert that it is a parenthesis, if you will note the diagram:

<-------------- Israel, Prime Purpose (The Church - Interlude Purpose) -----------> Israel, Prime Purpose Resumes


As we can see from this definition, the implication is that the Church is a distinct and separate entity from Israel, and must be kept distinct and separate if any sense is to be made of the Scriptures.

The (Covenantalists) Reformed however, assert that the Church is the general assembly of the First Born, all those who have been redeemed by the precious blood of the Lamb, all those who possess true saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; the elect of God, which are the justified ones from the beginning of time, till the Second Advent of Christ. The Church in the Old Testament was a subgroup of national Israel, consisting of ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles. Therefore when the Scriptures refer to the Israel of God, or the true circumcision, or what it means to be a true Jew, we assert that it refers to the Church. This assertion will be substantiated by the close examination of key texts.


The underlying disagreement between the Covenantalist and the Dispensationalist is that I as a Covenantalist see the Church as comprised of the elect (of all ages), whether they are Jews or Gentiles, whereas my opponent sees the “The Church, which is His body”, beginning at Pentecost consummating at the Pre-tribulational Rapture, seven years before the Second Coming. It was an unforeseen, unprophesied body. This is the why the Dispensationalists call it a mystery.


If I am to be consistent in understanding Paul’s epistles in their historical-grammatical setting, I am forced by the texts themselves to conclude (by exegesis) that the Church, which is the body of Christ antedated Israel. ‘Believing exegesis’ might be the best way to depict what is offered here: exegesis that does not separate itself from the lordship of Christ but sees itself as a servant of the text and of the Lord who gave the text.


Instead of approaching it as merely another ancient document that is to be examined on naturalistic grounds, we engage in our task fully accepting the claims of the Lord who walks its every page. One cannot approach the writings of the resurrected Christ (for we believe it is His Spirit that has produced every word of Scripture, both Old and New Testament) as one would approach this morning’s newspaper or any document from any era produced by mere men.

Having defined the terms that are going to be used numerous times throughout this debate: let me give a summary of the terms I will be using, and their equivalents. I will use the terms ethnic, physical, or national to refer to the Hebrews as a Nation. I will use the terms Israel of God, Spiritual Israel, the true circumcision, the elect of God, the general assembly of the First Born, or the catholic (universal, not Roman) Church to refer to the Church as a called out group from every tribe, tongue, and nation, and that they are called out from the beginning of time until the Second Advent of Christ.

Romans 9:6-8
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.


John 8:37-39
I know that you are Abraham's descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father. They answered and said to Him, Abraham is our father. Jesus *said to them, If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham.


With these words from our Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul, we find a summary doctrinal statement concerning the Church universal, the Israel of God. This debate seeks to answer the question, “Do the Scriptures teach us that there is a distinction between Israel and the Church?” My opponent, a Dispensationalist, will be contending that there indeed is a distinction, and this distinction must be maintained in order for the Scriptures to make any sense to the serious student of the Word. I however, contend that the Israel of God is to be distinguished from ethnic/national Israel. The Israel of God is the Church. The Church has been from the beginning, and will be unto the end.


My opponent, however, will contend that in each instance where Israel is mentioned in Scripture, it always refers to the literal nation (ethnic group). When the Scriptures declare, “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel”, my opponent will, like C.I. Scofield cited below, assert that it is referring to two kinds of Israelites, not including the Gentiles. However, upon the exegesis of key passages, we will see that this starting premise of Dispensationalism finds no support from the Scriptures themselves, but rather finds its support from an incorrect hermeneutic, namely, literalism in spite of contextual evidence to the contrary.


Do the Scriptures teach us that there is a distinction between Israel and the Church? In a word, no they do not. But, if it were that simple, the debate that has been waged for nearly one hundred and seventy four years would have been over. Therefore, this dialogue between the two of us is necessary, not only for the benefit of our audience, but also for the defense of the unity of God’s people.


In order for my opponent to substantiate the veracity of the Dispensational position on this issue, he has to establish through exegesis that the Scriptures never refer to Israel in any other way but literally (physically, ethnically, and nationally). If he can establish this, I will throw down my gauntlet, waive my white flag, and run back to the Dispensational camp posthaste.


I, however, to substantiate the veracity of the Covenantal (Reformed) position on this issue, have to establish through exegesis that the Scriptures sometimes refer to Israel in a way other than literally (physically, ethnically, and nationally), that there is no distinction between Israel and the Church, if by Israel is meant Spiritual Israel. If I can establish this, then I not only invite my opponent to reconsider his position, but also for him to consider well other implications of the Covenantal (Reformed) position. By extension, if I establish that the Israel of God is the Church, then it must be accepted that the Church was born in the Old Testament and reaches its fulfillment in the New Testament.


We now turn to a summary of the leading Dispensational thought on the issue at hand:

C.I. Scofield, considering Romans 9:6-8, writes:

The distinction is between Israel after the flesh, the mere natural posterity of Abraham, and Israelites who, through faith, are also Abraham’s spiritual children. Gentiles who believe are also of Abraham’s spiritual seed; but here the apostle is not considering them, but only the two kinds of Israelites, the natural and the spiritual Israel (Rom. 4:1-3; Gal. 3:6-7. Cf. John 8:37-39). See Rom. 11. 1, note 1.

But herein, we find a contradiction, for we read:

The contrast, “I know that ye are Abraham’s seed” – “If ye were Abraham’s children,” is that between the natural and the spiritual posterity of Abraham. The Israelitish people and Israelitish people and Ishamelites are the former; all who are “of like precious faith with Abraham,” where Jews or Gentiles, are the latter (Rom. 9:6-8; Gal. 3:6-14. See “Abrahamic Covenant,” Gen. 15:18, note) 2.


While there are quite a number of Dispensationalists that would disagree with Scofield’s note on John 8:37-39, we notice something very subtle, yet very vital to this debate. One of the most fundamental hermeneutical principles espoused by the Dispensationalists is that of literalism. The plain sense is the sense of the text unless the plain sense does not make sense. Yet, we see one of the most influential leaders of the Dispensational camp engaging in a non-literal exegesis of the text. Where did our Lord change from talking to physical, national Israel to a group made up of ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles? (I must pause here to point out that I am raising an objection that most assuredly the Dispensationalist would raise at this point: I am not here saying whether I agree or disagree with the above exegesis, simply pointing out that the Dispensationalist fails to maintain his hermeneutical principle).


Concerning Romans 2:28-29, Scofield directs us to his notes on Romans 7:6 and Romans 9:6. We have already discussed his note on Romans 9:6 briefly, and more will be said later about it.

He does not offer any direct commentary on Romans 2:28-29, but instead directs us elsewhere. Other Dispensationalists have commented on Romans 2:28-29, and it matters little from which camp they come from, for all are in agreement on the point in which this debate is seeking to answer, else they would not rightfully be called Dispensationalists.



Romans 9 and the Dispensational Exegesis
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Dispensationalists normally consider that Romans chapters 9-11 is a discourse on National Israel, and therefore, when we turn to Romans 9, we are not to find individuals being elected here, but we are to find the nations being distinguished from ethnic Israel. Therefore, as we saw above, when we come to the phrase, “it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants”, their exegesis will be that Paul is here referring to two kinds of ethnic Jews. But can this exegesis hold up under intense examination?


One rightly observed:

6b ou gar oi ex Israhl outoi Israhl
8a ou ta tekna thV sarkoV tauta tekna tou qeou

The intended paralleling of “all those from Israel” with “the children of the flesh,” and “these are not Israel” with “these are not the children of God” is unmistakable. The implication of this interpretive paralleling is that Paul is not abandoning his initial concern expressed in 6b, namely, a concern with distinctions within Israel. Therefore, it goes against Paul’s intention to construe “children of God” in 9:8a to refer to persons who are “bound to God by all those ties which have been the privilege and characteristic of the chosen race” (Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 242). This view not only contradicts the parallelism that exists between “children of God” in 9:8b and a limited group within the chosen race in 9:6b; it also contradicts Paul’s uniform usage of tekna tou qeou. Everywhere else the term occurs in Paul (Rom 8:16,17,21; Eph 5:1; Phil 2:15) it refers to believers. The same is true for the synonymous phrase uioi tou qeou (Rom 8:14,19, 9:26; 2 Cor 6:18; Gal 3:26; 4:5). Therefore, whether Paul sees the election of Isaac (Rom 9:7b) as the election of an individual to salvation or as the election of his posterity for a historical task, the principle of unconditional election is immediately applied by Paul to the present concern, namely, who in reality does constitute true, spiritual “Israel” (9:6b), whose salvation is guaranteed by God’s Word?

The answer Paul gives in Rom 9:8b is “the children of the promise are reckoned as seed.” Besides the immediate context, there other texts in Paul (Gal 3:26-29; 4:21-31; Rom 2:25-29) offer valuable evidence for interpreting this sentence. It is clear from the parallelism of “children of God” and “seed” in 9:8 that “seed” here (unlike 9:7a) refers to the same spiritual group within Israel as “children of God” in 9:8a and the second “Israel” of 9:6b. The sequence of thought in Gal 3:26-29 confirms this identification of “children of God” and “seed of Abraham.” In Gal 3:26 Paul argues that “in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith” and concludes in 3:29, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.” This text confirms, therefore, not only the identity of “children of God” and “seed of Abraham” but also confirms our contention earlier that Paul’s reference in 9:8 is not to a group with theocratic or merely historical privileges (i.e. physical Israel) but rather to persons who are heirs of eternal salvation. 3


Therefore, we conclude, that the children of the promise, those who are the true “Israel”, can be none other than those who are heirs of eternal salvation, for if one belongs to Christ, he is the seed of Abraham, an heir of the promise. Therefore, those are members of the catholic Church are the true Israel of God.

[agenes]

Let us now turn to a brief examination of Ephesians 2:11-3:9.

Ephesians 2:11-3:9
Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been
brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone.

In whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-- if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power.

To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is
the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things.

The Nations (normatively) were once:

1.Separate from Christ
2.Alienated from the commonwealth of Israel
3.Strangers from the covenants of the promise
4.Having no hope
5.Without God in the world

Collectively what conclusion can be reached from these five statements of the Gentiles former state? It can be said they were lost, left in their blindness, sins, and transgressions, and left to their just punishment from God, and that they were on the fast highway to Hell.


The Gentiles were formerly strangers (from the covenants of the promise) and aliens {from the commonwealth of Israel} but now in Christ they are fellow-citizens, that is, they have received the full rights as the natural born citizen.

But before we go too far in this analogy, we must keep in mind that in Christ (that is to be justified in Christ, and have saving faith), there are no ethnical distinctions in Him.

Therefore, this commonwealth of Israel is not the geographical location on a map, the former or current State of Israel, but is, as Paul said elsewhere, the “Mother of us all. Galatians 4:22-31”

For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman. Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise. Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar.

Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now. Howbeit what saith the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman. Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman.


This is also keeping line with what Paul said but a chapter earlier in this Epistle (Galatians), namely, Galatians 3:29 If ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise. Paul also teaches the same truth in these passages (Romans 4:13-17, Romans 2:28-29, Colossians 2:9-15, Philippians 3:2-3 and Galatians 3:8-9).

As we will see in Chapter Three, this in Christ position the Gentiles have was in existence prior to the New Testament (despite the constant assertion to the contrary by the Dispensationalists), for those elect Gentiles to be heirs with them (the elect Jews), which inheritance had to logically pre-exist and precede the Gentiles.

The Gentiles are said to be are fellow-heirs and fellow-body members and fellow-partakers of the promise (please read above concerning the promise, and we will get more into it in Chapter Three) in Christ Jesus through the Gospel. This Church, which consists of all the elect of whatever age, was built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief cornerstone. The very foundation of the Church is the apostles teaching and the prophets teaching (that is, the entirety of God-Breathed Scriptures).

Now this is the heart of the clear testimony of Scripture, that the CHURCH – which is the family of God, the elect and saints is built on the Scriptures, and Christ Jesus is the chief cornerstone Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 28:16; Jeremiah 51:26; Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; Ephesians 2:20; 1Peter 2:6; 1Peter 2:7.


It is important that we grasp the significance of the phrase “For this cause {for this reason}.” Let’s say that I am writing to you concerning some important truth, and I briefly describe it, and then I say “For this cause, or for this reason, or because of which.” What did I intend to communicate in saying that particular phrase? That what I had said previously has no bearing on what I am going to say, or did I intend you to understand that for this reason, because of what preceded, that a=b and b=c then a=c?

I hope you answered in this manner, “I had intended you to understand that for this reason, because of what preceded, that a=b and b=c then a=c.”

Let us fill in the equation, so that we really grasp what I am trying to communicate here.

A=B and B=C then A=C.

We will substitute [the mystery of Christ] for C. We will substitute [the grafting in of the nations (Gentiles, heathen) into the body] for A. We will substitute [which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit] for B.

A=B and B=C then A=C


The grafting in of the nations (Gentiles, heathen) into the body = was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed and as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit = the mystery of Christ, then the grafting in of the nations (Gentiles, heathen) into the body = the mystery of Christ.

Was not made known to the sons of men AS it has now been revealed – It is not as though this mystery was not made known to the sons of men in the past, but what is being said here is that it was not made known as it has now been revealed. Again, going back to the solution of the problem, what is the mystery of Christ? The grafting in of the nations (Gentiles, heathen) into the body = the mystery of Christ. Notice again, the mystery is not an unforeseen Church, but the inclusion of the Gentiles as the normative into that Church.


As it is revealed now, does not mean we have different light than those in the Old Testament had, we simply have more of the same light. We must keep in mind, that the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself as He moved the men of God to write the Inspired God Breathed Word. The same Holy Spirit, who moved in Isaiah and Moses, is the same Holy Spirit that moved in Paul and Peter to write what they wrote.

When the Scriptures are viewed as a unified whole concerning a given subject of theology, they speak as one mighty voice, not as incongruous, diametrically opposed ideas, competing with each other for the stamp of approval.

But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY. Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war against the soul (1 Peter 2:9-11).

You were once not a people, but now you are the people of God. Who is Peter referring to here? Is he referring to the National Israel? Most certainly not! They were the Old Covenant people of God. Who then were once not a people? The very epistle we are studying (Ephesians) has already answered that:

Remember that you (Gentiles as normative; for there was Nineveh and Rahab to name but a few Gentiles saved under the Old Covenant) were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world (Ephesians 2:12).

The Gentiles were once not a people, but now are the people of God; that is, they are included and so identified with the redeemed Israelites, they are called the people of God, they are numbered among the sum total of the elect of God.

"I will sow her for Myself in the land. I will also have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion, And I will say to those who were not My people, 'You are My people!' And they will say, 'You are my God!'" (Hosea 2:23)

Not only does Peter quote this verse, Paul does as well; and both passages, 1 Peter 2:9-11, and Romans 9:24-26, have the exact same context, the Gentiles.

Even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. As He says also in Hosea, "I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, 'MY PEOPLE,' AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, 'BELOVED.'" "AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, 'YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,' THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD" (Romans 9:24-26).

Therefore, we conclude that the inclusion of the Gentiles into the number of the saints, the body, was veiled but revealed, not in whole as it is now, but in part, but the knowledge of it was there, and so was the existence of this body; for the elect are all those who possess true saving faith in Christ. Therefore, the catholic Church is the true Israel of God.

I have engaged in this dialogue out of my love for God’s truth and my firm conviction that the consistent testimony of God’s Word is that the Church, which is the body of Christ, had its beginning long before Israel as a nation came on the scene in the course of history. The redeemed are called out of the world, from every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Revelation 5:9), it therefore follows that the elect are properly called the Church Universal, the catholic Church. 4

I conclude with a quote from Steve Hays (substituting the word “Dispensationalist” for Fundamentalist.)

For a covenant theologian, the Church is comprised of the elect, be they Jews or Gentiles. For a Dispensationalist, Israel antedates the Church, but for a covenant theologian, the Church antedates Israel. For a covenant theologian, the distinction between promise and fulfillment applies, not so much to Israel and the Church, as it does to BC and AD, to the OT Church and the NT Church, to the Church before the advent of Christ and the Church after the advent of Christ.

For a covenant theologian, Israel was a part of the Church, a medium of the Messiah, a custodian of the covenants, and a type of Christ. It would be good to think of the relation between promise and fulfillment along the lines of testament and inheritance. A covenant is like a last will and testament. Christ is the heir, and the Church His inheritance.



Word Count: 4,665

1.C.I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible, (New York New York, NY: Oxford University Press., 1909, 1917, 1937, 1945), page 1202

2.C.I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible, (New York New York, NY: Oxford University Press., 1909, 1917, 1937, 1945), page 1127

3.John Piper, The Justification of God, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books., 1993) pp. 67-68

4. Charles Frazier, A polemic against Mid Acts Dispensationalism in defense of the perspicuity of Scripture (note, this is my work: footnoted it for the sake of reference), (2004), http://members.tripod.com/apokolupsis23/ephesians.doc

[Iosias]

First Rebuttal Statement

I wish to congratulate my fellow brother in Christ for his opining statement in which I found a well argued case. In my first rebuttal I wish to counter his argument in three areas. Firstly I shall begin with his faulty concept of the church. Secondly I will deal with his explanation of Romans 9:6-8 and finally I shall deal with his misunderstanding of Galatians 3:29.

A faulty concept of the church
In defining the church as “a called out group…called out from the beginning of time until the Second Advent of Christ” he believes that “the church was born in the Old Testament and reaches its fulfilment in the New Testament.” This is a gross error! This is due to two reasons:

(1) The distinctive feature of the church is that it is made up of all believers who have been baptised with the Holy Ghost and are now indwelt by Him. I stated in my opening statement that “on the day of Pentecost men were first placed into the body of Christ and since the church is the body of Christ…the church could not have begun until Pentecost…”Such a view is supported from scripture through which we find that Old Testament saints were not permanently indwelt by the Holy Ghost as illustrated by David’s cry in Psalm 51:11 of “take not thy holy spirit from me”. However believers within the church are indwelt permanently as we see in John 14:16.

(2) More obviously, the church could not have been “born in the Old Testament because in Matthew 16:18 Jesus states “I will build my church”. At the time Jesus spoke these words, the church did not exist as we see through the fact that the tense is future; “I will build my church” not “I have built my church” or “I am building my church” but “I will build my church”.

These two arguments show that the church is distinct from Israel on two grounds. Firstly, Israel was not permanently indwelt by the Holy Ghost whilst the church is. Secondly, when Jesus spoke the words of Matthew 16:18 Israel existed, however the church had not. Israel had existed since Genesis 12 however the church would not come into existence until Acts 2 and so two distinctions are highlighted.

Now I wish to move onto discuss Romans 9:6-8.

Romans 9:6-8
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

My brother in Christ has put forth one explanation of this passage, I wish to offer another. Charles Ryrie states in the Ryrie Study Bible that this passage means that “not all Israelites (physically) are Israel (spiritually)”. Pentecost in Things to Come states that “Jewish Christians, who would be a part of spiritual Israel, and Gentile Christians are contrasted in the New Testament (Rom 9:6, where Paul contrasts these promises which belong to Israel according to the flesh and those which belong to Israel who enter them by faith…)”. He goes on to say that “Paul has…declared (Rom 9:6) that God is not numbering all the physical seed of Abraham as descendants, but that the promises are to those who are in faith.” This becomes clearer when we have looked at Galatians 3:29.

Galatians 3:29
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

If I may be permitted to quote three scholars as they are far more eloquent than I.

I agree with Pentecost when he states that “the whole issue may be clarified if one observes that the scripture does not present just one kind of seed that is born to Abraham.” Indeed Walvoord in his Millenial series identifies “three different senses in which one can be a child of Abraham. First, there is natural lineage, or natural seed. This is limited largely to the descendents of Jacob in the twelve tribes…Second, there is the spiritual lineage within the natural. These are the Israelites who believed in God, who kept the laws, and who met the conditions for present enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant…Third, there is the spiritual seed of Abraham who are not natural Israelites. Here is where the promise to “all the families of the earth” comes in…the children of Abraham (spiritually) who come from the heathen or Gentiles fulfil that aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant which dealt with the gentiles in the first place, not the promises pertaining to Israel. The only sense in which gentiles can be Abraham’s seed in the context is to be “in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28)…they are Abraham’s seed in the spiritual sense only and heirs of the promise given “to all the families of the earth”.

Using Ryrie to build on the above we find that he states “Christ is the seed of Abraham (v.16); being in Christ makes the believer a seed of Abraham and heir of the promise of justification by faith (v.8). National promises made to Abraham as the father of the Jewish people are not in view in this verse, only the universal promise…” He states also that we need to “notice in Galatians 3:8 Paul focuses on only one promise in the Abrahamic Covenant, namely, “All the nations shall be blessed in you”” and “it is quite obvious that Christians are called the spiritual seed of Abraham (v.29). But that is so only because when one believes, he or she is baptised (by the Holy Spirit) into Christ (v.27), who is the seed of Abraham, thus making believers in Christ also Abraham’s seed. But the new Testament nowhere states that they are the heirs of the national promises made to the physical descendants or seed.”

Conclusion
In this rebuttal I aimed to show how my brother in Christ was wrong in his concept of the church and show how when we understand what the church is we come to see that there is indeed a distinction between itself and Israel. I also aimed to offer alternative views of both Romans 9:6-8 and Galatians 3:29 which I believe I have.

Word count: 1059 words approx.

[agenes]

I wish to clarify some issues that were brought up by my opponent in his opening statement. He insists that being baptized by the Holy Spirit is the necessary element that makes one a member of the Body of Christ. What exactly does it mean to be baptized by the Holy Spirit? If I know my opponents position, he would say that being baptized by the Holy Spirit is a synonymous phrase with “you must be born again.” I will deal with Matthew 16:18-19 in a later post.


Baptism and John 3:1-8

Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

I do not stand alone in how I am going to exegete this passage. 1 I do not hold that this passage is teaching that one is to be baptized into water. How, then, do I exegete this passage, you might be asking yourself?


I interpret the key phrase, “born of water and the Spirit” as being synonymous terms to describe being born again. The Holy Spirit is spoken of as the one who washes us (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5). Jesus teaches something very important in this passage; wind blows wherever it wishes, and no one can tell it where to blow or to blow. The Holy Spirit regenerates men, and it is solely on the basis of His (the Holy Spirit’s) desire, and no one tells Him who to regenerate or to do so, it is entirely His free choice.

You will note that the lack of the word “baptize” in this passage indicates that this passage is not teaching the sacrament at the very least. The passages in John that speaking of water baptism are (1:25,26,28,31,33; 3:22,23,26; 4:1,2;10:40).

Nicodemus was a Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin; the ruling class of the Jews. He came unto Jesus at night and said he knew that Jesus was a teacher come from God – why? Because no one had the ability to perform the signs Jesus did, except God was with Him.

How did Jesus respond to this? “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Unless one is regenerated by the sovereign work of the Triune God, he will not be (and will never be) able to see the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God (John 3:3,5; 18:36), is not of this world, because this world and its pleasures are fading away, but the kingdom of God is eternal. Flesh and blood, says the Apostle Paul, cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50).

The kingdom of God is in power (1 Corinthians 4:20). It is necessary to be born again to see this Kingdom, the kingdom of His (the Father’s) dear Son.


Nicodemus obviously missed the import of our Lord’s words here, for he was thinking along the lines of natural re-birth, being reborn from his mother’s womb. Our Lord was speaking of spiritual rebirth, because we are born dead in our sins (Ephesians 2:1-3). That which born of the flesh is flesh (natural birth –inheritors of original sin , unable to please God {Romans 8:5-8}); and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (the one new man, the new creature, the regenerated ones). The Holy Spirit is said to be the cause of our regeneration, our being made anew, being born again. It is His sovereign and free will (desire) that regenerates one and not another; He makes alive whom He wishes, like the wind blowing where it desires. No one can control either; they are both free to do whatever they please. The wind is an analogy for the Holy Spirit.

So then, we see that being baptized by the Holy Spirit (John 3:1-8; Ezekiel 36:25-27; and as we will see soon Galatians 4:29); is what makes us members of the Body of Christ (Messiah).


Galatians 4:29
But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.

As we have already seen, born according to the Spirit (born again, made a new creation in Christ) are all terms that are used to describe the Sovereign work of God’s free grace on our hearts of stone, to make them into hearts of flesh; to seal us forever for His Kingdom. We also note from this verse something that is often overlooked. We who are born again from above are persecuted by those who are still in the flesh (unregenerate). So it was then. You see, the Apostle Paul tells us the reverse in this verse; namely, “he who was born (regenerated) by the Holy Spirit was persecuted by him who was still yet unregenerated, and therefore, it is the same way now. What is meant by “at that time?”

In context, it is clearly concerning those living in Old Testament times. Therefore, I conclude that as it is now, so it was then; the only way to be a member of the Body of Christ (which is the Church Universal, for Christ is not divided) is to be baptized into it by the Holy Spirit. I am not saying they understood all we do today under the inaugurated New Covenant, but more light is not different light, for in Ezekiel 36 we read:

Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. Ezekiel 36:25-27

Flowing from this logical deduction, namely, one can only see and enter the Kingdom of God if he is born again (baptized by the Holy Spirit), let us briefly look at one more interesting passage, which normally is not discussed in a debate such as this.


Second Timothy 1:5
For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well.

2 Timothy 3:14-15
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

How does one come to possess sincere faith that indwells them? As we have already pointed out, by the sovereign operation of the Holy Spirit in applying the work of Christ to our behalf and in sealing us unto the Day of Redemption. Another question needs to be asked of this passage, namely, from whom did Timothy learn the Scriptures from his childhood? From his Grandmother Lois and his Mother Eunice. Assuming Timothy was a young man at the time Second Timothy was written (approximately A.D. 63) and Timothy at this time being around 30 years of age; and assuming the natural generational gaps between his Mother and Grandmother, this would necessitate that his Mother would have been 15-25 at the time of his birth, and his Grandmother being 35-40 at the time of his birth, we can arrive at two logical conclusions.

First, using simple mathematics, we can subtract A.D. 63 from 20 (taking the middle number of his Mother’s age) thus arriving at A.D. 43. Now we notice that the same sincere faith dwelt in his Grandmother Lois. Subtracting A.D. 43 from the age of which Lois gave birth to Eunice, we arrive at around A.D. 3. Before you object that I am reading too much into this context, let us be reminded that Timothy was trained in the Scriptures from childhood, and that his Mother and Grandmother both possessed saving faith back then, and since it is necessary for his Mother to have be trained in the Scriptures by a believing parent, this necessitates that Lois also possessed saving faith long before A.D. 30. Therefore, if we are to conclude that this faith “indwelt” them first, we are forced to conclude that the Holy Spirit indwelt them, that He gave them a heart of flesh as was promised from the passage in Ezekiel. Therefore, I conclude that they were members of the Body of Christ.


The Mystery
In the limited space I have left, I wish to address a crucial point in this debate. I would like to see a passage that clearly teaches that the “church, which is the Body of Christ” is the mystery referred to in Ephesians 3.

By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

This is the specific mystery referred to by Paul in Ephesians 3, that the Gentiles are fellow-body-member-partakers-heirs of the promise through the Gospel in Christ. In my debate with a Mid Acts Dispensationalist earlier this year, I pointed out that for someone to inherit an inheritance, that inheritance had to pre-exist the one obtaining it. Since the inheritance is to be found in the promise (see also Romans 4:13), and since the specific mention of the inclusion of the Gentiles into a body already in existence, how can we logically conclude that this body only began in Acts 2 (or in the case of my Mid Acts friend, Acts 9)?

In Acts 1-2, we read of thousands being added daily to the number of those who were being saved. For, the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself. As we note here (you and your children are the ethnic Jews) and all who are far off are the Gentiles. No distinction, from the very first major sermon recorded in Acts. If I add daily to something, how could I logically hold and assert that “that” something did not exist the day before Acts 2?

What does it mean to be “in Christ?” If it is a specific reference to those saved from Acts 2 until the catching away of this group of believers seven years prior to the Second Advent of Christ; what are we to do with those in the Old Testament? I offer this definition, as I have already offered it above: in Christ means that one is saved, and in the Church.

A Final Thought

If Christ foretells something to His sheep, will not His sheep hear His voice and understand what He foretold them? If the “mystery” was foretold by Christ as Scofield suggests (I believed it was revealed in shadows long before this however) how can he then go on to insist that the “mystery” was not explained by Christ (Matthew 13:11; Luke 8:10)?

As Paul said: Whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God. Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God (First Corinthians 3:22-4:1).

Word Count: 2,115
Footnote:

1. See John Gill’s commentary on John 3:1-8; and especially note, “The Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions read, "the Holy Spirit", and so Nonnus; and who doubtless is intended: by "water", is not meant material water, or baptismal water; for water baptism is never expressed by water only, without some additional word, which shows, that the ordinance of water baptism is intended: nor has baptism any regenerating influence in it; a person may be baptized, as Simon Magus was, and yet not born again; and it is so far from having any such virtue, that a person ought to be born again, before he is admitted to that ordinance: and though submission to it is necessary, in order to a person's entrance into a Gospel church state; yet it is not necessary to the kingdom of heaven, or to eternal life and salvation.” Also note Calvin’s commentary; http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol34/htm/ix.htm

[agenes]

1.Could you please exegete 1 Peter 2:9-11?
2.Could you please exegete Romans 9:6-8?
3.What is meant by the phrase “not a Jew” in Romans 2:27-29?

[Iosias]

1.Could you please exegete 1 Peter 2:9-11?
2.Could you please exegete Romans 9:6-8?
3.What is meant by the phrase “not a Jew” in Romans 2:27-29?
Reply to Question One

1 Peter 2
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
Scofield states that "in the dispensation of grace, all believers are unconditionally constituted a "kingdom of priests"...the distinction which Israel failed to achieve by works. The priesthood of the believer is...a birthright"

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
This is referring to Gentiles who once were not a people but who now "the people of God" for they are inside the Church, the Pearl.

Reply to Question Two
Charles Ryrie correctly states in his Ryrie Study Bible that this passage means that “not all Israelites (physically) are Israel (spiritually)”. Pentecost in Things to Come states that “Jewish Christians, who would be a part of spiritual Israel, and Gentile Christians are contrasted in the New Testament (Rom 9:6, where Paul contrasts these promises which belong to Israel according to the flesh and those which belong to Israel who enter them by faith…)”. He goes on to say that “Paul has…declared (Rom 9:6) that God is not numbering all the physical seed of Abraham as descendants, but that the promises are to those who are in faith.” God deals in remenants and he has elected a remenant from Israel (naturally) and these are true Israel hence "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel".

Reply to Question Three

Romans 2
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Scofield correctly states that "The distinction is between [a Jew] after the flesh, the mere natural posterity of Abraham, and [Jews] who, through faith, are also Abraham's spiritual children." That is to say, just because you are descended from Abraham naturally, you are not a part of Israel (spiritually) and in this way reflects Romans 9:6-8.

[Iosias]

1. Could you please exegete Matthew 16:18?

2. Could you please exegete Acts 11:15-18?

3. Considering that Israel began with the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12 saying “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee…” and the church began in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost how then is there no distinction between the two?

[agenes]

1. Could you please exegete Matthew 16:18?

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

As I have said in a previous debate Debate on Petrine Primacy (http://www.reachingforchrist.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=813):


Peter was not the first to utter the words “thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Nathanael, in John 1:49 said; “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel." Simeon as well confessed that the child Jesus was the Christ (Luke 2:25-35). Martha confessed that our Lord was the Christ (John 11:27). It was on this confession of true saving faith that Christ’s Church will be built. Notice, it is Christ’s Church, which is built on the confession of His Deity and Messiah-ship.


Furthermore, neither was Nathanael the first to confess faith in Messiah. We could but turn to Hebrews 11 to find a list of names of those who confessed true saving faith in Messiah. On these confessions Messiah would build His Church. This is an ongoing building, even when our Lord uttered those words recorded in Matthew 16. It is not as though there was never a called-out group before who were saved by Messiah. The very fact that Hebrews 11 records is that they were saved by faith, and faith alone, through the grace of God alone, is essential in understanding the nature of what we call the Church. As Paul said in Romans, nothing is able to separate us from the love of God in Christ (Messiah) Jesus. Do these words only apply to those in the New Covenant? I think not.

On the confession of people brought to saving faith in Messiah, He will build His Church. It matters not what epoch one lives in, the requirement for entrance into this assembly (this Church) is faith in Messiah and His work. This is the confession Christ will build His Church on. This confessing of faith in Messiah goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden itself, with Abel (who is the first recorded confessor of Christ outside of Adam and Eve; see Hebrews 11). Therefore, this Church has been undergoing construction since the dawn of creation itself, and reaches its height in this that we call the New Covenant.




2. Could you please exegete Acts 11:15-18?


And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' "Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way? When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.

The Holy Spirit is the gift specifically mentioned in this passage. Peter says the Gentiles received this gift the same way they did at the beginning. The beginning of what is surely the point of which my opponent is seeking to corner me in. In Ezekiel 36, the Lord promised to give those who He graced repentance to a heart of flesh and that He would place His Spirit within them, in order that they would walk in His statutes and law. There has been much debate throughout Church history as to the nature of the work the Holy Spirit played in the Old Covenant. I will agree that it was not until the New Covenant that He permanently indwelt those who were saved by grace through faith, but this in no way detracts from the existence of the Church prior to Acts 2; this only serves to prove that the gift of the Spirit would be poured out on all flesh (not just ethnic Jews) in the New Covenant. They received this gift because God granted to them repentance unto life. Does He not give this gift to all, of whatever age, to whom He grants repentance? He most assuredly does. Therefore, the beginning spoken of here is not so much a temporal indicator of the beginnings of the Church, for Acts 2 was a fulfillment of what came before (the prophecy of the Holy Spirit being poured out on all flesh). Even in Acts 2, we read the words “they were being added daily to the number of those…” which indicates to us that this was not the establishment of the Church, but rather the Church being sealed with the promised Holy Spirit. The Gentiles were formerly strangers from the covenants of the promise, but now they are fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ through the Gospel. In the Old Covenant, National Israel were the primary benefactors of the covenants of the promise; the promise being the Holy Spirit, which is the only permanent sign and seal of everlasting life. Since we know these covenants of promise antedated the New Covenant by some 1500 years, we therefore conclude that the promise existed and was given to those whom the Lord granted repentance. The Gentiles in this passage were given this same promised Holy Spirit as the sign and seal of the Covenant as those redeemed Jews were granted, from the beginning, which I posit to you was long before the Apostles.





3. Considering that Israel began with the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12 saying “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee…” and the church began in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost how then is there no distinction between the two?


Israel. As we have seen already in this debate, there are two mutually exclusive definitions of this most important word. Israel after the flesh, as Paul referred to it, was that which constituted National (ethnical) Hebrews. The other way this word is used is found in Galatians 6:16:

And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the [Rom 9:6; Gal 3:7, 29; Phil 3:3] Israel of God.

This “Israel” is those who are of the true circumcision made without hands, of God; those who belong to Christ. This Israel of God therefore is those who belong to Christ by grace through faith in the finished work of Messiah (Christ). Therefore, this use of the word can be applied to all those of all ages who confess and profess true saving faith in Christ.

As I have said before in this debate, there is a distinction between National and Spiritual Israel, the former being only temporal, and the later possessing everlasting life through Christ. The Israel of God (spiritual Israel) is all those who from all time until our Lord returns posses true saving faith in Messiah. Therefore, they are the Church. The Greek word for Church can be found in the LXX numerous times, applied to this called out group from among the nations, including national Israel. Therefore, there is no difference in the Israel of God and the Church. The two are synonyms of each other. As for the birth of the Church being in Acts 2, see one of my previous answers to your questions.

All those who belong to Christ are the seed of Abraham and therefore heirs to the promise and children of the covenants of that promise. Therefore, since Christ was the fulfillment of those covenants of promise, and since we belong to Christ, we are joint-heirs with Christ, as Paul says. Therefore, the promise made to Abraham is ours by faith in Christ; foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.

[Iosias]

My friend in his previous post misunderstands the Holy Scriptures. As I have previously said

More obviously, the church could not have been “born in the Old Testament because in Matthew 16:18 Jesus states “I will build my church”. At the time Jesus spoke these words, the church did not exist as we see through the fact that the tense is future; “I will build my church” not “I have built my church” or “I am building my church” but “I will build my church”.
Let us look at the grammatical meaning of 'will'. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines 'will' as a modal verb 1 expressing the future tense. 2 expressing a strong intention or assertion about the future. Encarta defines it thus (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861713314) will [ wil (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/Pronounce.aspx?search=will) ] CORE MEANING: a modal verb used to indicate future timeand so my friends insistence that a future tense can imply a past beginning is simply wrong and defies grammatical considerations.

In saying the following my friend runs into many a problem:

The Holy Spirit is the gift specifically mentioned in this passage. Peter says the Gentiles received this gift the same way they did at the beginning. The beginning of what is surely the point of which my opponent is seeking to corner me in... I will agree that it was not until the New Covenant that He permanently indwelt those who were saved by grace through faith, but this in no way detracts from the existence of the Church prior to Acts 2...The Gentiles in this passage were given this same promised Holy Spirit as the sign and seal of the Covenant as those redeemed Jews were granted, from the beginning, which I posit to you was long before the Apostles.My friend is seriously suggesting that when Peter says in Acts 11:15 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." In doing so he rejects again grammatical considerations. In saying 'us' and talking to the "apostles and brethren that were in Judaea" (Acts 11:1). Therefore there is only one event he can be reffering to and that is the Day of Pentecost for as Scofield says "On the day of Pentecost the Spirit came upon the whole body of believers Acts 2:1-4 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+2:1-4)" who goes on to say "After Pentecost, so long as the Gospel was preached to Jews only, the Spirit was imparted to such as believed by the laying on of hands Acts 8:17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+8:17); 9:17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+9:17)...When Peter opened the door of the kingdom to the Gentiles (Ac 10.), the Holy Spirit, without delay, or other condition than faith, was given to those who believed. Acts 10:44 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+10:44); 11:15-18 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+11:15-18). This is the permanent fact for the entire church age. Every believer is born of the Spirit ; John 3:3,6 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+3:3,6); 1 John 5:1 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1jo+5:1) indwelt by the Spirit, whose presence makes the believer's body a temple ; 1 Corinthians 6:19 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1co+6:19); Romans 8:9-15 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+8:9-15); 1 John 2:27 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1jo+2:27); Galatians 4:6 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ga+4:6) and baptized by the Spirit ; 1 Corinthians 12:12,13 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1co+12:12,13); 1 John 2:20,27 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1jo+2:20,27) thus sealing him for God ; Ephesians 1:13 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eph+1:13); 4:30 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eph+4:30)." It is the distinctive feature of the Church that its members are permanently indwelt by the Holy Ghost, indeed it is that which makes it the Church as distinct from Israel. In conceeding as he does I will agree that it was not until the New Covenant that He permanently indwelt those who were saved by grace through faith he proves my point. The Church is distinct from Israel! Hence I stated previously:

FIRSTLY: At first glance it seems obvious to myself and to many others that if Israel began with the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12 saying “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee…” and the church began in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost then there must be a distinction between the two.SECONDLY:
The distinctive feature of the church is that it is made up of all believers who have been baptised with the Holy Ghost and are now indwelt by Him. I stated in my opening statement that “on the day of Pentecost men were first placed into the body of Christ and since the church is the body of Christ…the church could not have begun until Pentecost…”Such a view is supported from scripture through which we find that Old Testament saints were not permanently indwelt by the Holy Ghost as illustrated by David’s cry in Psalm 51:11 of “take not thy holy spirit from me”. However believers within the church are indwelt permanently as we see in John 14:16.
THIRDLY: Now I turn to my second argument based upon the (unique) baptizing work of the Holy Ghost. The LORD Jesus Christ had spoken of this work of the Holy Ghost just before His ascension in Acts 1:5 as being yet future and unlike anything they had previously experienced saying “For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence”. Although Acts 2 does not expressly record that the baptism of the Holy Ghost occurred on the Day of Pentecost, it is said in Acts 11:15, 16 that it did happen on that day in fulfillment of the promise of the LORD as recorded in Acts 1:5. It is later within the Pauline epistles that we find fully revealed the doctrinal significance of this baptism that unites believers with Christ in to His Body (1 Corinthians 12:13 “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”). So in other words, on the Day of Pentecost men were first placed into the Body of Christ and since the church is the Body of Christ (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.”), the church could not have begun until Pentecost and therein from the evidence presented we can safely conclude that the church began on the Day of Pentecost.

[agenes]

More will be said later concerning our mutually exclusive definitions of the Church, but at this moment, I want to focus our attention on two key passages for a few moments. In my conclusion, I will address any remainders or loose ends.


If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. Galatians 3:29

How one begins to differentiate between three separate “descendants” from this verse is beyond me. In his first rebuttal, my opponent stated that one could be truly a descendant of Abraham if they believed in God by keeping “the laws, who met the conditions for present enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant.” The Scriptures are clear on this point; if righteousness (justification) could have been obtained by the law, then Christ died without a purpose. I do not think my opponent intentionally meant for this to be understood in this manner, but it was.

If you belong to Christ, you are Abraham’s descendants. If you justified by grace through faith solely by His sovereign mercy you belong to Christ. This is the only way one could ever be brought into saving knowledge of Messiah. No one was ever saved through, by, in, under, or over any other means.

Having thus noted that all those who belong to Christ by His sovereign mercy, we note that as such all those who belong to Christ are properly named “Abraham’s descendants.” Who else but the redeemed can claim to be Abraham’s descendants? Who else but those saved by Christ and Him alone can claim to belong to Him? The answer to both of these questions is the elect (of whatever age). Therefore, only the elect can lay hold on any claim to belonging to Christ and to being Abraham’s descendants. What are the elect called throughout Scripture but the Church?

This has been my point throughout this debate thus far; to insist on a dissimilarity between a person saved (while living in the Old Covenant era) with a person living in the New Covenant era by creating a distinction that does not exist in Scripture is not only exegetically untenable but it is also not consistent with the very passages we have turned to. The text plainly says, if you belong to Christ you are Abraham’s descendants, not if you are of groups one two and three you belong to Christ, but in different ways.


Since all those who belong to Christ are therefore Abraham’s descendants, all of them are heirs according to the promise. This promise of inheritance is only granted to those who belong to Christ, to the redeemed, to the elect, to the two of us in particular for the sake of this debate. This inheritance equally was granted to Adam and Eve and Abel as much as it is to us; although we do see more of the light (given the point in the unfolding of events). I am not saying we are given different light. We are all given the same light, but we have more of that light revealed to us more fully now.

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
Romans 9:6-8

If you insist that we are to understand the use of the word “Israel” in one manner and one manner only as you have suggested in your first rebuttal, we run into a major exegetical problem. If Israel in this passage is meant the literal physical descendants of Jacob and that a smaller portion of these literal physical descendants of Jacob constitute “spiritual Israel”, what is the point of saying “they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel,” or “nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants” or “it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God?” Conversely, the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. Who are the children of the promise? Are they the children of the flesh? According to the consistent usage of this phrase in the Pauline epistles, the children of the promise are those who belong to Christ (see comments above). So then, what is meant by the two distinct uses of the term “Israel” in this passage? As I have posited to you before, so now I do again. The first Israel is to be understood as the “Spiritual Israel” the Israel of God (the elect, the Church) and the second is to be understood as those who are the literal and physical descendants of Jacob.

In other words, they are not all the people of God who are the literal and physical descendants of Jacob. Only those who are the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. These children of the promise includes men (mankind) from every tribe, tongue, people and nation; therefore, the elect from all the nations including the Nation of Israel. Since God’s elect have existed prior to the Nation of Israel, (Hebrews 11 evidences this) ever being brought on the scene, it is logical to conclude that the Church (which are those who belong to Christ) antedated the Nation of Israel. If we were to trace the promise back to its origin in Scripture, we would not stop in Genesis 12 as many do, but we would stop in Genesis 3. Not all the physical descendants of Jacob are truly Israel (the Israel of God as Paul calls us) but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.


Word Count: 964

[agenes]

1.Who is being referred to in Romans 2:27-29?
2.Who belongs to Christ?
3.What promise are we looking for according to 2 Peter 3:13 (keeping in mind Romans 4:13)?

[Iosias]

1.Who is being referred to in Romans 2:27-29?Here the apostle is considering the two kinds of Israelites, the natural and the spiritual Israel.

2.Who belongs to Christ?3.What promise are we looking for according to 2 Peter 3:13 (keeping in mind Romans 4:13)?
2 Peter 3
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Romans 4
13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.