Do you believe the Church started at Pentecost?

Could you supply scripture showing the present Body of Christ is in covenant relationship with God other than the spiritual promises of the Abrahamic Covenant? (Gal 3:18)

I see in 2Cor 3:6 we are the ministers of the new testament:

2 Corinthians 3:6 (King James Version)
6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

And I see where Jesus Christ is presently the mediator of the new testament.

Hebrews 9:15 (King James Version)
15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

However I know of no scripture that places the present body of believers under a "new covenant".

There is mention in Jer and Heb of a new covenant God will make with the house of Israel and the house of Judah; but neither of those groups are the body of believers of today.

 

Well, that's what I am saying. No one in the OT is in the church. The OT saints are saved but the church did not come about until after Jesus came. So are you saying that the OT saints were put into the church retroactively?

Well, I would agree with that on essential issues. But this is hardly essential; it's an in-house debate and I do not consider it significant for unbelievers or even new believers. It is something to study and ponder as a more mature believer, imo.

Are you saying that for my benefit? That's kind of patronizing, an attitude I find quite common here, especially toward women.

 

There is no "Old Covenant Church" because there is no church with the Old Covenant.

 

Please see my replies in bold

---------------------------------

 

The Triune God is not polygamous. Can you present definitive Scripture that shows the local body of believers is defined as the body of Jesus Christ?

 

What's your take on Act 7:38?

 

This verse is referring to the congragation of Israel. From my understanding the greek equivalent to the Hebrew word translated congregation in the Old Testament is ekklesia which is translated here "church." So to be consistant this should be translated congregation and is referring to "the congregation of Israel" and is not referring to Christ's "My Church (congregation)." These are two different things based on two different Covenants.

 

I agree with Grace & Truth's post. The congregation in the OT was not the church. The NT church is the church.

The congregation in the OT was not baptized into and made one through the Holy Spirit.

 

Ekklesia is the word

1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
b) the assembly of the Israelites
c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
d) in a Christian sense
1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

AV — church 115, assembly 3
congregation 0

 

Baptism, water and Spirit, are signs of God's People in the New Covenant. Circumcision, animal blood, etc., were the signs of God's People in the Old Covenant. One body, here called "God's People", under two different administrations.

Israel is the Church of the Old Covenant, the Church is Israel of the New Covenant.

 

Yes assembly, those who are called out for a specific purpose such as to conduct business. The point being the Hebrew equivalent is translated congregation same difference meaning they congregated (or assembled) together. In the NT (Matthe16) Jesus calls His Ekklesia, "My Ekklesia" "My called out Assembly based on the New Covenant in His blood not the Old Covenant of Abraham.

 

Was not Abraham and the Israelites called out or chosen for a specific purpose?

 

Yes under the Abrahamic Covenant

 

I thought I already had. I Cor 12:27 "Now YE (the Corinth congregation) are the body of Christ."

 

No, I feel the Church is the Bride and the OT saints will be guests at the wedding.
IMO one way to discern a groups' end is to look at the promise God made that particular group for God will always keep His promises.
The OT saints were promised a land.
Members of the Bride are promised a Glorious Body in which to help the King rule and reign over the land promised to the OT saints.
Christ is not our King, He is the Head of the Body.

I agree it is not an essential of salvation.
However I feel since God in the scriptures always keeps the groups separate, then we should as well.
The Lord Jesus Christ through Paul speaks of three groups in 1Cor 10:32. These 3 groups are given different instructions at various times, different promises, and a different end.
Only by maintaining the difference can the whole body of scripture meld together without having adverse affect on the essentials of salvation.

However the amillennialist will argue the OT and NT saints are one because that foundation is needed to support their view of the future.
The amillennialist feels the NT saints have "Replaced" the Jew as God's chosen people so therefore the Church is to be the recipient of God's promise of a physical promised land.

This is why this seemingly non essential, in house debate is critical for it has to do with how one interprets the whole body of prophetic scripture.

But why would one feel prophecy has anything to do with the essentials of salvation?
IMO if it is argued that God will not keep His OT promises made to Israel, then that sets a basis for letting the world put in question as to whether God will keep His promises concerning even the basics of salvation.

First let me say I feel women are some of the very best basic Bible students, my mother quickly comes to mind.
IMO what I said has less application to women because women are not as "hard-headed" as men.

But what I said seems to have application to everyone here, including me, for it seems everyone is in a mode of quick "one-liners" without taking the time to develop the background proof of a statement.

 

I see you feel it alright to correct the Word of God so it fits your view.
Have you ever considered changing the view so it fits the Word?

In post 89 you seem to be very specific of how the AV uses the term "church", I wish you were just as specific of the AV's use of "testament" and "covenant".

How would you correct the following so it also would aline with your view?

Jeremiah 31:31-37 (King James Version)

31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

35Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

36If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

37Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

 

You're becoming irrational. I haven't changed any word in the Bible. I was showing you that "testament" and "covenant" are synonymous variations of the same Greek word. The same principle applies to "church" and "assembly". The fact that "testament" and "covenant" are interchangeable is established by the writer of Hebrews, who in one place refers to Christ as the mediator of the New Testament, and in another place, the mediator of the new covenant.

You must allow the Bible to determine your hermeneutic. The New Testament interprets the Old Testament by the authority of Christ and His apostles.

When the book of Hebrews warns Jews not to trust in Moses, the Old Covenant rituals, animal blood, Levitical priesthood, etc., lest they trample underfoot the Blood of Christ, and neglect so great a salvation, it does not speak of a future time in which they must obey Christ under the New Covenant, but they must obey Christ NOW. The Old Covenant is passing away (and did pass), and the New Covenant is established for God's People.

Yes, the New Covenant is made with the house of Judah and Israel, which has been expanded to include believing Gentiles, and by its nature excludes unbelieving Jews since the condition of the covenant is a circumcised heart.

Let me ask you, if the New Covenant is not for the present age, and/or does not represent the Church, then exactly what covenant are Jews today supposed to be under?

 

I hardly see how reading the Book exactly as it is written can be termed "irrational".
IMO when the Book says "testament" the Book means testament, and when the Book say "covenant" the Book means covenant.
And to avoid confusion the Book in Heb 9 defines the difference between the two.
A covenant is in effect between two living while a testament becomes effective after the death of one of the testators.
When the Book refers to Christ as mediator of a New Testament the Book is speaking of Christ's relationship to the Christian of today; but when the Book speaks of Christ as mediator of a New Covenant it is speaking about and to an entirely different group.
Words that are different, are different; and IMO one does well to let the Book maintain the difference it set forth.

I do let the Bible determine my hermeneutic; but I do not change the words of the Book to make it fit a given theology.

Here you are viewing and interpreting through the glass of a theology that replaces the Jew with the Christian.
I agree with your assessment of what the book of Hebrews is telling the Hebrews; but I do not agree that it is not speaking of a future time when again God will be dealing with the nation of Israel and doing so through the New Covenant.
I agree the Old Covenant is passed away and I do agree the New Covenant to the house of Israel and Judah would have shortly followed if all Israel had of accepted the prick of the Holy Spirit at the sermon of Stephen in Acts 7; but since all Israel did not believe, then the New Covenant is not yet because it is between God and Israel.

Here again, you are interpreting from the view of a replacement theology.
I feel the scriptures keep the Church separate from the Jew so therefore we should as well.

See above; but before you start asking questions, perhaps you could address the passage from Jer.