Featured 1 Cor. 12:13 and water baptism and local church body

Your response above is wrong for several reasons. First, this letter is not addressed to individuals per se but to the church at Corinth. Second he uses a plural pronoun "you" and the contextual antecedant has been the church not individual members. Third, the same idea of future presentation under the metaphor of a Jewish wife "espoused" is found in Ephesians 5:27 and it is the "church" not individuals. Fourth, the continuing context is not addressed to indivdiual's per se but to the church. Fifth, all your argumentations are simply attempts to escape the obvious and natural interpretation.

You are failing to grasp the fact that metaphorically he is acting as the agent in a Jewish marriage as John portrayed in himself between Christ and the church in John 3:29. John prepared a wife for Christ - the church - by first having authority behind his mission (Jn. 1:33; Mt. 21:15-17) and second by evangelizing them (Jn. 3:36) then baptizing them and then teaching them or disciplining them. The Great Commission is nothing more or less than AUTHORITY to the church through its ordained representatives to carry out the same espousal ministry.

Paul was "sent" out by the church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-3) to evangelize, baptize and then assemble the baptized believers around him to teach them how to observe all things Christ commanded. This is the espousal ministry.

To present them to Christ a "chaste virgin" merely refers to one of the "crowns" that he would cast at the feet of Jesus for doing exactly what he was doing by writing this letter and coming to them correcting their errors and guiding them back to truth - or doing his part to maintain their FAITHFULNESS to Christ as a New Testament church or metaphorical "virgin."

You admitted that the Old Testament saints like John the Baptists were not part of Christ's bride and yet claimed that the bride consisted of all who are "in Christ" from Pentecost forward did you not? Think about the consequences of that statement. Your "in Christ" equals "bride" in that statement or why else exclude John the Baptist and all previous saints????

I never denied there are mutiple applications but one of them is very obvious and that is the fact that it is the church yet to be "presented" to Christ in the figure of a Jewish wife. Only the Jewish metaphor regarded the woman presently as a legal wife before presentation. Hence, the church is described in this passage as a "bride" yet to be presented and not individuals.

No sir, that is YOUR implication when you deny John the Baptist and all saints prior to Pentecost are included in the Bride which you make equal to being "in Christ".

Now you are taking up the Universal Invisible Church argument used against those who distinguish between the church and salvation as they argue on the basis there is no difference. I don't believe membership in a church has any relationship to salvation "in Christ". So why do you make that kind of argument against me as though I did make church and salvation synonmous???

There has been one gospel, one Savior, one way of salvation and one KIND of salvation - regeneration and indwelling by the Spirit of God, progressive sanctification, justification by faith since Genesis 3:16 to Revelation 19. Church membership, thus the metaphorical bride has NOTHING to do with salvation but with service.

What scripture do you base all raptured equals the bride? You are arguing the very same way universalites argue over Acts 20:28 except just replace "purchased with his own blood" with "bride". Just because he comes for his bride does not mean all saints are in the bride any more than the church in Acts 20:38 purchased by his own blood means all saints must be in that church in that text.

My point is that God has ordained that it is "in the church" that his Son should be glorified not merely in our present age but in all ages to come right into eternity. Note in Revelation 21:24-25 the "nations of the saved" bring their GLORY into the New Jerusalem which is named in honor of Christ's bride.

Ephesians 3:21 to him be the glory in the assembly and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen. (WEB)
--This perhaps is a more accurate translation. The "church" will last for the generations on this earth, but will cease to exist when the rapture occurs.[/QUOTE]

That is not a more accurate translation but an absolute perversion of the Greek text and its meaning. He first says "all generations" which refers to our present age and then duplicates "aionios" which is the strongest way for expresssing eternity especially after sahing "all generations." There is absolutely no stronger expression in the Greek language for ETERNAL than what is found in this text.

Again, you are attempting to EXPLAIN AWAY the obvious and natural.

The subject is glorifying Christ IN THE CHURCH as that is the very reason for the existence of the church. That glorifying will continue THROUGHOUT ALL GENERATIONS just as Christ promised to be with the chuch "until the end of the world" but glorifying Christ IN THE CHURCH will continue into eternity (Rev. 21-22:3) wherein "the nations of THE SAVED" are EXTERNAL to what is named in honor of the THE BRIDE (Rev. 21:24-25).

It is not a side issue. You cannot possibly eqate "the bride" to be equal to "in Christ" salvation and not believe in a universal invisible church simply because there is no possible salvation of any kind OUTSIDE OF Christ. Hence, if "in Christ" is equal to salvation and equal to "bride" or the WIFE of Christ then that is a univeral invisible church as Epheisans 5:25-27 makes it clear that the FUTURE presentation of the "CHURCH" is as the future bride/wife of Christ.

Where do you get the idea that Christ is either preparing or presenting his bride? That was the job of the Bridegrooms friend and that is precisely what John claimed and did. He prepared the bride and presented her to Jesus. He evangelized them, baptized them and presented them as that was his assignment "make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Lk. 1:17) to assemble (Jn. 1:35-50).

That is precisely what Paul is claiming to be in 2 Cor. 11:2 and that is the job of all church sent missionaries - evangelize them, baptize them and assemble them to be FAITHFUL to Christ and thus they are presenting the.m to Christ as the metaphor of "bride" or "chaste virgin" depicts

You don't find it OR you choose to ignore the obvious:

Rev. 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

They live external to "it" or their kings would not have to bring their "glory and honor" INTO it! You make these words meaningless. Again, choosing to EXPLAIN AWAY the obvious and natural.

Second, look at Revelation 22:2 and ask who are the fruits for as the leaves are for "the nations"? Who are the fruits for (Rev. 2:7).

 

continued

This is the problem of all who claim "in Christ" equals "bride" and that is YOUR position in this matter not mine! I believe there is but one gospel, one way of salvation, one Savior, one KIND of salvation - spiritual union by regeneration thus indwelling, justification by faith, progressive sanctificaiton and utlimate glorification for every saint from Genesus 3:15 to Revelation 19. It is you and your position that denies the theif on the cross the same KIND of salvation by excluding all saints like John the Baptist from "the bride" which you equate to being "in Christ."

I believe John the Baptist is outside the bride not becuase the Bride equals "in Christ" but rather because the bride has NOTHING to do with "in Chirst" salvation but only with service by those "in Christ." Bride does not equal salvation any more than Church equals salvation. Both are positions of the universal invisible church theory.

God's Word is the arbritrary juge and all who refuse scriptural baptism through through a scriptural church are disobedient, unfaithful and outside the metaphorical body, bride of Christ in regard to REVEALED WAY OF FAITHFULNESS! Those within the metaphorical "body" and "bride" of Christ subject to church discipline are unfaithful removed from the metaphor of faithfulness - the Bride. The bride PREPARES HERSELF (Rev. 19:6-7) and MAKES HERSELF READY and her gown is made of PLURAL RIGHTEOUSNESS of the saints not the imputed SINGULAR righteousness of Christ. The imputed righteousness of Christ is never spoken of in the plural as it is singularly sufficent for all the elect.

Again, you take the same position as the works for salvationists and universal churchites. You choose to ignore salvation versus faithfulness to Christ. He was not faithful to Christ but he was saved. The bride has to do with faithfulness by saved people to Christ NOTHING to do with being saved or lost.

This is the New Testament church as the visible expression of the Kingdom of God just as Israel was the visible expression of the kingdom of God on earth but the kingdom was not equal as there were saved people outside of Israel (Ninevites, pre-Israelites - Gen. 3-12; etc.).

Most of your arguments fall into one of two categories:

1. Explain away the obvious and natural interpretation.

2. Adopting universal church arguments thus ignoring that the church and its metaphors have NOTHING to do with being saved or lost but with service of the saved.

 

I never accused you of believing in the Univesal Invisible Church theory. What I accused you of doing is adopting the same type of arguments they use against the local church theory. Please carefully reread what I said and you will see that was my point and my only point.

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree as it is obvious this discussion is at a dead end.