Featured Baptist Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead

So you would have the Church here on earth BEFORE the messiah/head over her came, and before Day Of pentacost?

How can there be the Church without the founding Apostles and Mesiah here as of yet?

 

My understanding is that the Church as a visible entity, a distinct assembly of redeemed believers in the Lord, was not in existence until Pentecost. The nation of Israel was largely unbelieving, but the remnant who believed were saved by the then future atonement of the Messiah just as we are saved by his atonement.

So while it is anachronistic to call them the Church, it isn't necessarily inaccurate either. Particularly in light of the fact that it was always God's predetermined plan to sacrifice his Son.

 

I agree that the Church is the total number of the redeemed from all ages. But the Church as we know it, the body of believers under the New Covenant, had a historic beginning at Pentecost. So the OT believers were, arguably, not properly the church in their day, but they are included now, post-Pentecost.

 

That is why there has always been a debate on just when the OT believers get their resurrection form God...

And the Church did start at pentacost, or during the times of Christ/Apostles, so no way it existed in the wilderness under say moses!

 

My first advice to you is to study up on the theology of Isaac Watts. He was more than just a hymn writer. He was a theologian. Scofield's dispensationalism could be more accurately attributed to Watts than falsely attributed to Darby. Watts lived well before either one of them.

More importantly, however, is your concept of "church." The word is ekklesia, and must be translated "assembly."
That makes your definition of universal church impossible and shoots your theory of "the church" being an extension of Israel" in the foot. The concept is nonsense and foolishness.
Consider:
Paul wrote 13 epistles. Each one of them was to a local church or a pastor of a local church.
He went on 3 missionary journeys and in that time established over 100 local churches.
God ordained the local church as one of His institutions. It is the God-ordained institution out of which He works today, and blesses today.

There is no such thing as an invisible church, that monster that you refer to as "The Church." How can it be? The word is ekklesia. It means assembly--all the time. There is no esoteric, invisible, universal, undefinable, purposeless and meaningless "Church." It doesn't exist and is not in Scripture. If you read your "beloved" Darby translation you will find that every time ekklesia is found, he rightly translates the word "assembly." There would be a lot less confusion in ecclesiology if all our translations did the same.

Since there is no universal church, there can be no "Church" being an extension of Israel. That is obvious. Your doctrine fails on that one point alone. "Churches" and Israel are separate entities and always have been.

"The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem" began on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. It clearly says in verse 41: They that heard the word were baptized and added to the ekklesia (local assembly).
--They then assembled together and were taught of the apostles doctrine, prayed, broke bread, etc.
--And the Lord added to their assembly such as should be saved. This was the local church at Jerusalem. There was no other church. This was not an extension of Israel. In fact the very ones that Peter was preaching to were Israelites, some of whom were the exact ones that had crucified Christ--the Sanhedrin. They were present that day. Israel existed alongside the churches.

That is probably what you would like us to believe. It is more your opinion than anything else. I highly doubt that it is the predominant teaching of Baptists. It is not the predominant teaching of "The Church" since no such thing exists.
But local churches do exist, and they are all independent of each other. Which church or churches made up the 1689 London Confession Faith, or was that composed primarily of Spurgeon? If so that is representative of just one man, not the majority of Baptists.

Do you really think that these few documents speak for the majority of Baptists? Really?

"the heavenly Jerusalem." What is it speaking of? It is not speaking of the OT. It is speaking of a time to come.
Every believer is "heavenly." We are on a journey to a "heavenly Jerusalem." Some have already reached there; we are still pilgrims and strangers traveling through this foreign land. Someday we will all be assembled together in heaven, but we are not assembled today. There is no general assembly now. There will be sometime in the future after the resurrection takes place, but not now. You need to do some more study on this scripture.

 

I generally agree with DHK regarding his view of the church as a visible assembly.

I part company with him regarding the timing of the establishment of the church. I hold that it existed before Pentecost, founded by Jesus Himself during His earthly ministry.

I agree with DHK that there is no such thing as a universal, invisible church. Such an entity has no reason for existence. The gospel message, the ordinances, and the Great Commission were given to local assemblies.

Hmmm, are we getting off track from the OP, or does any of this have relevance to the subject?

 

Terminology is very important.
All believers make up the bride. Where does John call "the church" the Bride? In Revelation we see Christ addressing 7 churches.
Here are the facts about the word "church" in the book of Revelation:
The word "church" is used seven times, all in chapters 2 and 3 referring to 7 actual historical churches.
The word "churches" is used 12 times, 11 of which are mentioned in chapters 1-3, none of which describe a so-called universal church.
The very last mention of the word "churches" in the NT is:
Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
--There is no universal church. John never referred to "the Church" as the Bride. However the Bride is composed of all NT believers.
There is no "universal church."
There will be a "Heavenly Jerusalem," or "New Jerusalem" for all believers NT and OT.

That body is the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem. It had its foundation in Acts chapter one.
Look at why they were added (verse 41 and 47)
Acts 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
--It doesn't say that the number of people or even believers were 120, but the number of "names," indicating some kind of membership roll, or at least a record of those who were in attendance. Then in verses 41 and 47 they were added to this number. They were not added to some mysterious, unknowable, undefinable, invisible, universal church. There is just no such thing in Scripture.

The derivation of a word does not give its meaning. It only helps give extra information.
Does Sunday mean that you worship the sun on that day, or that you worship the moon on Monday. Yet that is the derivation of those words: Sunday, Monday.
What is your real first name. Look up the meaning of it, that is, where it comes from, its derivation. It probable "means" quite a bit different than what you think or what defines you as a person.

Ek (out of) kalew (to call) = to call out. Helpful information, but not the meaning.
The meaning of ekklesia is ASSEMBLY, all the time.
It is correctly translated here:
Acts 19:39 But if ye inquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.

 

First, I will debate you, not Ice or Walvoord. As you say, they are other dispensationalists. I am not interested in what other dispensationalists. say. You are not interested in learning either. Forget about what they say. They don't have the Bible under lock and key. They aren't God's spokesmen for our position.

In 2Cor.11:2 Paul is speaking the the Corinthian Church. Context is first and foremost important.
Secondly, Paul is using a metaphor. It is his metaphor.
Thirdly, Paul started the church. We learn this both from his first letter and from Acts 18. This history you can look up yourself.
He was as a father to them. He prepared them. As new believers in Christ they were as virgins, pure in doctrine. Now they stood in peril.

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

There are some among them that are about to listen to false teachers and are ready to apostatize from the faith. The devil is about to corrupt their minds. There are some that are preaching a false gospel. They are now at the crossroads.

These are false teachers they are about to follow, teachers that have been speaking against Paul to the extent that he must now defend his apostleship, which he now does:
2 Corinthians 11:11 Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth.
2 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

Read the entire chapter. He defends himself as an Apostle. This is where he gives his testimony. He speaks harshly against those that oppose him.

Paul has been their spiritual father preparing these believers and making them ready to meet the Lord. Now some are trying to undo all the work, the time he has invested in them.
Thus when Paul uses this metaphor:

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
--It is Paul that is jealous over the Corinthians with a godly jealousy.
It is Paul that espoused them to one husband. He prepared them.
He prepared them to present them as a chaste virgin to Christ.
Now they are at peril of losing their virginity (not their salvation), being corrupted by false doctrine.

 

Basically, it seems the debate centers on was the Church just a continuation of israel, and so would be spiritual israel now, or was the New Covenant a brand new relationship that was the Church, between God and man?

 

Not once is the unbiblical concept of the so-called invisible Church mentioned. God made a covenant with Israel. That is mentioned throughout this passage. (The covenants were given to Israel). The only other covenant, and that which he is describing here is, is the one to individual believers. He washes away our sins. He forgives our sins. He died for our sins. We as individuals, each, trust him as Saviour. It is a personal, not corporate decision. There is no corporate decision here. It is an individual decision to trust Christ. There is no comparison to Israel corporately.
Your idea of the non-existent "the Church" is clearly a false doctrine, that the Bible doesn't teach. This universal "Church" is not even taught in Scripture. You can't even prove that, much less prove that it is an extension of Israel. One false premise leads to another false conclusion.

 

RE: Your OP: "Throughout history...Baptist confessions."
Perhaps you should define some terms, like "history," since you haven't gone very far back in your OP.
And "Baptists," since some of us believe they go back as far as the apostles though under different names.
And "confessions," and why they are so important to you. There are other sources of what Baptists believed that are far more ancient than these confessions that are comparatively recent in the light of all history.

 

One cannot conclusively determine from that confession that it was teaching a General Confession. In fact it seems that the opposite was true:

In the main part of the confession the only reference to the resurrection is here:

[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]It is hardly definitive, and can be interpreted either way.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]Then right before the conclusion is a quote from scripture concerning the resurrection, which as Dr. Bob pointed out, leaves room for gaps of time. It does not point to one general resurrection:[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]

[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]There is a failure on your part to use this confession to teach one general resurrection. It doesn't.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]