A Saviour unto Israel

That the NT Church and The OT Church are the same, because Believers in Christ under the New Covenant dispensation are the Spiritual Children of the OT Prophets - SBG

The prophets taught the true way of salvation and those in Acts 3:25 received their teachings and thus were their METAPHORICAL children in the sense of their PRODUCT due to receiving their teachings. Peter makes clear in Acts 10:43 that they taught the same way of salvation.

However, this text has nothing to do with the nature of the church or with being "spiritual" children of the "fathers" in the sense of actual spiritual begetting.

The same kind of phrase could be said and was said of 16th Century Anabaptists in regard to the Donatists and their teaching - and yet they were neither literal physical or spiritual descent.

Those he addressed in Acts 3 were ethnic Jews and therefore were PHYSICALLY descendents but that cannot be said of Gentiles in Acts 10.

You are simply perverting the scriptures to suit your fancy

 

I have answered this in detail! Neither Galatians 3:29 or Galatians 4:28 incorporate the term "Israel". Abraham's "seed" come from "MANY NATIONS" - the gentiles as well as from THE NATION of Israel - the jews; it is not one versus the other as you wrongly insist but BOTH. One does not replace the other. Gentiles are not his PHYSICAL "seed" as you wrongly teach.

Abraham is not the PHYSICAL father of the negroid nations. Abraham is not the PHYSICAL father of the Slavic Nations. Abraham is not the father of the Germanic nations.

Abraham is the father of the Arab nations through Ishmael. He is the father of the nation of Israel.

You are simply displaying your ignorance and you are perverting the scriptures.

You have built a straw man argument and burn it. Your argument is absurd and irrational. It would only make sense if Paul used the term "Israel" instead of "seed." It would have weight if Abraham was the literal physical father of ALL NATIONS but he is not. His "father" epitaph of "many nations" simply is a METAPHOR that he is the SOURCE in the sense of ROLE MODEL or EXAMPLE for all children of God in all ages. However, this simple expression is to complex for you to understand apparently.

 

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

The word seed here is the greek word sperma and means:

the product of this semen, seed, children, offspring, progeny

b) family, tribe, posterity

Acts 3:25-26

25Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

26Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Now even though Peter was specifically speaking to ethnic jews here, what he said was not restricted to them, for the criteria of him stating what he stated was The Promise God made to Abraham " And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed"[/QUOTE]

What you are ignoring is the clear figurative use of both "father's" and "children" and "seed."

Gentile Nations did not originate with Abraham or Isaac, or Jacob. Sorry, but that is the facts. Negroid nations did not. Slavic nations did not. Germanic nations did not. You simply are ignorant of basic Biblical and world history. These gentiles came through Noah's other son's NOT Shem as did Abraham and his decendents.

In regard to Literal spiritual origin there is only God the Father. All other uses of "father" in regard to "spiritual" are INSTRUMENTAL applications.

For example, Paul said he begat the Corinthians and claimed to be their spiritual father in that sense - instrumental father.

For example, We are begotten of the Word of God as the gospel is the power of God unto salvation and therefore is used INSTRUMENTALLY by God in our new birth.

The term "father" is also used metaphorical to REPRESENT the source or origin of something. Abraham is the Bibical source used by God as the EXAMPLE or ROLE model for all believers.

Like cults, you take advantage of various uses of terms in the Scripture and do not distinguish between clear different uses.

However, the evidence your use and interpretation is incorrect and abusive of the scritpural use of "father" "seed" and "children" is the fact that Abraham was not the literal historical father of those nations from which gentile elect originated from (negroid, slavic, germanic). YOU ARE FACTUALLY IN ERROR!

Above when you qualified your statement with the words, "because of faith" you condemn your literal physical interpretations of "father" and "children" and "seed" proving it is metaphorical not literal.

Second, this figurative use is common in the scriptures. We have already provided a list of scriptures that demonstrate this kind of obvious figurative use of these terms. YOU NEVER RESPONDED to this evidence to this date.

Third, Those saved under my ministry are my spiritual "children" and I am their spiritual "father" in the very same sense as Paul said the following words:

1Co 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Paul was not their LITERAL PHYSICAL father nor was it Paul that SPIRITUALLY begat them. Paul is using the term "fathers" in the common ordinary INSTRUMENTAL sense as a metaphor. The same is true in Acs 3:25 and this is obvious when used of gentiles.

The INSTRUMENTAL sense is METAPHORICAL not literal. When such terms are used of Gentiles in relationship with humans who are not their PHYSICAL father it is used INSTRUMENTAL and METAPHORICAL not literal.

ABSOLUTE PROOF: The Jewish father's have no geneological historical connection with saved negros, saved germanic tribes, saved slavs and a host of other Gentile nations. Such elect are simply METAPHORICAL children in that they are products of the promises, gospel the father's embraced BY FAITH not by geneological connections.

 

Most on this forum do not even give you any serious attention because your positions are so extreme and so seriously flawed and because you simply pick and choose what part of the Bible that suits you and simply ignore the rest, ignore proper hermeneutics.

You tell me how the terms "children" and "father" are used in the following scriptures. Are they to be taken LITERAL physical desriptions by direct geneological relationships through the birthing process or are they figurative:

1Co 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Ro 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

2Co 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.


Mt 9:15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

Lu 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Lu 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Joh 12:36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:


I could go on listing and listing Biblical example after example of the FIGURATIVE non-literal use of the terms "father" and "children."

No one takes your interpretations of scripture serious because you simply pick and choose what you want to believe while ignoring other Bibical evidence that if considered would dismantle your theories and reduce them to what they are - rediculous.

What is really rediculous is that you base your interpretation of the New Testament church as a Old Testament reality on such figurative expressions. Christ refers to the building of the church as future (Mt. 16:18) not something as past. Paul says the first to be "SET" in the church were apostles and the word "SET..in" has nothing to do with degree of illumination of doctrines as you attempt to intepret it. Paul says the apostles were the "foundation" of the church not the Old Testament prophets. The "prophets" mentioned in Ephesians 2:20 are the same "prophets" mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:28 which were "SET...in" the church "SECONDARILY" not first.

Your theory of the church simply does not stand up to the clear and explicit teachings of scripture. The only "church" in the Old Testament as the literal physical assembly of Israel at the foot of Mount Sinai and/or the congregation that assembled at the temple in Jerusalem when David and others went up to the house of God and it is in no manner inclusive or connected with the New Testament house of God.

 

First, your question rests on a FALSE premise. You are asking for one or the other when it is BOTH rather than either/or.

Second, your intepretation is FALSE. The text says "seed" it does not say "Israel." There are GENTILE "seed" and there are JEWISH "seed" but nowhere does the text say the "seed" is "Israel." You refuse to recognize that the promised seed come from TWO DISTINCT SOURCES - "many nations" or Gentiles is one source and "Israel" or ONE NATION is another source.

Third, you are proving that God's Word, context, principles of hermeneutics MEAN NOTHING to you as you are willing to PERVERT questions and God's Word to suit your vain imagination and satisfy your own belly (desires).

Fourth, you cannot deal with the evidence I gave you concerning the metaphorical use of "father" and "children." Instead you want to FORCE your interpretation upon God's Word to suit your seared conscience.

Now let me ask you a simply yes or no set of questions. Paul says in very context that Abraham is "the father of all them that believe" that Abraham is also the "father of circumcision."

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

QUESTION: Is Abraham the literal physical "father" of circumcision? Yes or no? Is "circumcision" a literal or spiritual child? Yes or no? Did Abraham's literal "seed" produce circumcision? Yes or No? Is circumcision an only child? Yes or no?


Lu 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

QUESTION: Since God can raise up children of Abraham from stones, would Abraham be the literal physical "father" of these stones? yes or no? Would these stones be only Jewish or Gentile in physical descent? What "seed" would beget these stones? Would they be part of "spiritual Israel"?

These verses prove that the terms "father" and "children" are used only as metaphors for a "relationship" that is based upon LIKENESS IN FAITH not in literal physical descent. No literal physical descent is required to be a "child of promise" or the "seed" of Abraham. It is a metaphorical expression that denotes solely a relationship BY FAITH not by any kind of physical connection. This means the term "father" is a metaphor that REPRESENTS a relationship between Abraham and all children of God that is based purely upon LIKE FAITH in the same gospel rather than LIKE ETHNCITY. He is a "father" in the sense of SOURCE by way of ROLE MODEL and EXAMPLE not a "father" in the sense of a literal physical source by way of reproduction. Neither is he our "father" in the sense of "spiritual" source as only God is our Father in that sense of spiritual begetting. The only sense that Abraham is our "spiritual" father is in the sense of SPIRITUAL LIKENESS based upon his role as the Biblical EXAMPLE and ROLE model God has chosen to characterize justification by grace alone thorugh faith alone in Christ alone. He is the Biblical source as far as EXAMPLE. We are his spiritual "children" by way of LIKENESS of his example.

The seed of Abraham come from two ethnic sources (1) "many nations = gentiles and (2) Israel - one specific nation = Jews - both are the promised "seed" of Abraham "by faith" in the Gospel whether Jew or Gentiles. God has promised an elect nation of promised seed from the loins of Abraham = Israel and God has promised a "seed" from "many nations" in addition to "Israel" of God.

 

Are you capable of reading????????? I not only answered your question but PROVED your interpetation is rediculous!

 

Readers,

SBG is not on this forum to engage in intelligent discussion. He is strictly here to proselyte others to his rediculous and unbiblical theories.

Post #46 completely answered his quesiton and exposed his logic and interpretation of scripture as irrational and rediculous. HE CAN'T RESPOND and so he LIES by saying I could not respond.

 

Another rediculous interpretation. The imediate context shows that he is addressing the elders of the local congregation at Ephesus:

Acts 20:17 ¶ And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

The context shows that "the church" in verse 17 is the same "the church" in verse 20. The same "elders" in verse 17 are the same "overseers" in verse 28. Moreover, the same "the flock" in verse 20 is the same "the flock" in verse 29:

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Paul is talking about "the church' located at Ephesus with its elders. What is true of the local congregation at Ephesus is true of every local congregation found in the New Testament. Hence, he is addressing "the church" in verse 28 in the institutional sense, which is applicable to each local congregation.

What SBG and other universalists fail to recognize is a common use of language whereby persons or congregations are addressed according to their profession. You cannot be a member of a New Testament congregation without profession that you have been redeemed by the blood of Christ as that is what is required to be baptized and accepted into the membership of a New Testament church. Hence, Paul simply acknowledges what the local congregation is by profession - "purchased by his own blood." Paul had organized this church and knew those who composed it.

Second, let us look at the rediculousness of such an interpretation that SBG gives this verse:


1. The Ephesians elders have been made overseers of all the elect? - "OVER which...made YOU overseers". They are charged with feeding ALL THE ELECT????

2. Wolves are able to enter into the universal invisible church and steal members, leading them out of it? - "enter in among you...the flock" - "not sparing the flock"?????

3. "The flock" is "the church" in verse 28 and only the Ephesian elders are its overseers and wolves can enter in and out of it and members of that flock can leave it following wolves - v. 30????

Finally, what practical application does Paul's warning have in verse 31 if this "flock" is the entire elect of God????? Did Paul go house to house in all ages to all the flock?????

SBG's interpretation is absurd! The context shows Paul is addressing the elders at the church in Ephesus and he is simply describing them according to their character in keeping with their profession of faith.

 

>Paul is talking about "the church' located at Ephesus with its elders. What is true of the local congregation at Ephesus is true of every local congregation found in the New Testament. Hence, he is addressing "the church" in verse 28 in the institutional sense, which is applicable to each local congregation.

Then is what James instructed Paul in Acts applicable to every local congregation found in the NT?

 

Can you be more specific? Are you going back to Acts 15? Are you talking about those things James is requesting Gentiles to avoid for the sake of being able to share the gospel with unbelieving Jews? If so, I fail to understand your argument.

 

No, the church is not Spiritual Israel. Ephesians 5:22-31 deals with the position of submission between the local congregation and Jesus Christ just as between a husband and wife. The term "head" simply means "authority" and the husband is "the head of the wife EVEN AS" Christ is the head of the church. That does not mean the man's physical head is transplanted on the woman's physical body any more than the physical "head" of Christ is transplanted on the church body. Indeed, the literal church body has a "head" distinct from Christ just as the woman has a head distinct from her husband's literal head:

1 Cor. 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

Where is the "eye" located? In the head. Note there is "the head" in the above text that is not Christ. Why? Because the term "head" simply means "authority." The church is not a headless body nor is the "head" of Christ transplanted on the church body. It is simply a metaphor for "authority."

The local church body has its own "head" or those in positions of authority over the body (Acts 20:28) just as a woman's body has her own physical head but she is in submission as a WHOLE body, head and all under the authority of the husband the local congregation as a WHOLE body, head and all are under the authoriity of Jesus Christ.

The New Testament Church as an institution had no existence prior to its "foundation" or those first "set" in the church (Eph. 2:20; I Cor. 12:28).

The local church body contains both Jews and Gentiles bond and free males and females in its membership as "one body" under the rule of Christ.

You simply do not know the difference between the church of God, the kingdom of God and the family of God. So you confuse them. Spiritual Isreal does not yet exist and won't exist until Christ comes again. Now there is only a spiritual "remnant" of Israel and some of that remnant can be found in the Lord's churches while some cannot be found in the body of Christ but all who are presently alive are in the kingdom of God on earth and all alive or departed are in the family of God on earth and in heaven.

 

Wrong! Israel was a type of the kingdom of God on earth. The temple among other things was a type of the church and thus the church is called "the house of God." Israel was never called "the house of God." Israel is a type of God's kingdom.

Neither is the church of God the same as the kingdom of God but rather the church is entrusted with the keys of the kingdom (Mt. 18:17-18).

Jesus is the builder of the church (Mt. 16:18) and the FOUNDATION is the first thing a builder lays and no such foundation was laid in the Old Testament (Eph. 2:10). God "set first" apostles in the church and there were no apostles previous the earthly ministry of Christ.

You simply pervert the scriptures to suit your own fancy.