Why is the Doctrine of a Pretrib Rapture Unconfessional?

[Richard2YHWH]

The main vss dispensationialists say teaches a pre-tribulation rapture are 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, 1 Thessalonians 5:9, Revelation 4:1. They also use Noah and the ark as proof of a pre-trib rapture. Now, look at 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and show me where it explicitly teaches us a pre-trib rapture. All we know is He comes in the cloud, and as Dr. Kenneth Gentry, Jr. says, “That is one of the noisiest passages in all the Bible.” We read of a shout of an archangel, a trumpet sounding, ppl coming up from their graves, so if this rapture is secret, then how is it that no one who is here and lost at this time not hearing this trumpet blast, neither do they see the dead coming out of their graves?

1 Thessalonians 5:9 says we are not appointed to wrath. My pastor believes this and has used this a couple of times when we’ve discussed this topic. I told him I agreed with him on that vs. However, that does not mean we are raptured out prior to the rapture. I even used a passage against him, Noah and the Ark. I told him the ark went through God’s judgment. Then I told him the Jews went through God’s judgment upon Egypt, but they were protected in Goshen, and As far as I know, not one Jew was hurt.

Revelation 4:1 tells us John went up, and you can not find anywhere where the church was raptured up with him. That’s eisegesis, not exegesis. John was told, ”Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.” In no way, shape, form, or fashion, was the church involved in that. It was solely John, not John and the church.

The way I understand it, is that when Jesus comes for the church He calls them to the clouds. When Jesus comes in the second coming He steps foot on earth and separates the sheep from the goats before the 1000 year reign of Christ. Yes, Noah and the ark were in God's judgment; which was flood, and they were raised above it; it's a foreshadowing of taken out of the way.; at least that's the way I understand it. And wrath the way I understand it always is linked to God's judgment. And the church isn't appointed for wrath. As far as I also understand John was the only one called up. But because the church isn't seen or talked about until chapter 19, it's also a foreshadowing. The verse in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 doesn't specifically say it's pretrib, but when I use all of scripture together, I come up with that conclusion. This is just all I know and I'm just trying to make since of it all.

 

[Richard2YHWH]

For the sake of clarity, this thread mainly concerns the compatibility of a PreTrib Rapture with the WCF. Can a PreTrib Rapture be squeezed into the confession without contradiction or confusion?

That's a good question. I believe I will study the WCF in detail; maybe read it from a reformed commentary and then ask questions. As I believe you had mentioned to me before. I will do that before I answer that question. But I want an answer that is not bias to any theology. Just what the Bible says. I want do anymore discussing on this until I do more reading. Thank you all for your feed back. God Bless

 

[Sovereign Grace]

The way I understand it, is that when Jesus comes for the church He calls them to the clouds. When Jesus comes in the second coming He steps foot on earth and separates the sheep from the goats before the 1000 year reign of Christ. Yes, Noah and the ark were in God's judgment; which was flood, and they were raised above it; it's a foreshadowing of taken out of the way.; at least that's the way I understand it. And wrath the way I understand it always is linked to God's judgment. And the church isn't appointed for wrath. As far as I also understand John was the only one called up. But because the church isn't seen or talked about until chapter 19, it's also a foreshadowing. The verse in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 doesn't specifically say it's pretrib, but when I use all of scripture together, I come up with that conclusion. This is just all I know and I'm just trying to make since of it all.

Brother, the ark went THROUGH God’s judgment upon the earth. They were not lifted above it. To fit the pre-trib rapture, it would have to be lifted in a cloud above the rain.

 

[Eyedoc84]

But I want an answer that is not bias to any theology. Just what the Bible says.

We “confess” what the Westminster Standards say (or 3FU for the continental folks) because we believe they do teach “just what the Bible says.”

 

[Santos]

We “confess” what the Westminster Standards say (or 3FU for the continental folks) because we believe they do teach “just what the Bible says.”

Or LBCF

 

[Pilgrim]

Perhaps even moreso than eschatology, ecclesiology is where dispensationalism goes off the rails from a confessional standpoint. Dispensationalism teaches that the church only exists between Pentecost and the Rapture, whereas the confessions, both Presbyterian and Baptist, teach that the church consists of the elect of all ages. To give one example, MacArthur's statement of faith divvies up the redeemed into three classes: OT Saints, the Church, and Tribulation Saints.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Perhaps even moreso than eschatology, ecclesiology is where dispensationalism goes off the rails from a confessional standpoint. Dispensationalism teaches that the church only exists between Pentecost and the Rapture, whereas the confessions, both Presbyterian and Baptist, teach that the church consists of the elect of all ages. To give one example, MacArthur's statement of faith divvies up the redeemed into three classes: OT Saints, the Church, and Tribulation Saints.

They call it an intercalation.

 

[Pilgrim]

They call it an intercalation.

That was Chafer's term for the "Church Age," if I'm not mistaken, after which (in that scheme) God will go back to dealing with Israel.

 

[Steve Curtis]

When I was a Dispensationalist, what really shook (and, ultimately, dismantled) my view of the Rapture were these verses in Matthew's Gospel, which reverse the order of events that I had been taught:

From Matthew 24:

37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they [who's the "they"?] were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them [who's the "them"?] all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, [so, who's "taken"?] and the other left.

41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

From Matthew 13:

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

I believe that these are virtually contemporaneous events; nevertheless, the order is clear: the "wheat" is not taken first.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

That was Chafer's term for the "Church Age," if I'm not mistaken, after which (in that scheme) God will go back to dealing with Israel.

I wasn’t for sure which one said it, I was thinking Dr. Ice said it.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Perhaps even moreso than eschatology, ecclesiology is where dispensationalism goes off the rails from a confessional standpoint. Dispensationalism teaches that the church only exists between Pentecost and the Rapture, whereas the confessions, both Presbyterian and Baptist, teach that the church consists of the elect of all ages. To give one example, MacArthur's statement of faith divvies up the redeemed into three classes: OT Saints, the Church, and Tribulation Saints.

Exactly so. I think when people are coming out of dispensationalism and trying to make sense of eschatological views at variance with what they have always been taught, this is one of the things that tends to be the most difficult to process. Israel was the church in the OT. The church is the spiritual Israel. There is only one people (church) of God throughout all history.

That doesn't belie the fact that NT promises are made to Israel as a nation (most notably in Romans 11) but these are not separate from the church. These promises come to fruition when Israel (the nation) is grafted in again to their own olive tree (the church).

 

[Santos]

Perhaps even moreso than eschatology, ecclesiology is where dispensationalism goes off the rails from a confessional standpoint. Dispensationalism teaches that the church only exists between Pentecost and the Rapture, whereas the confessions, both Presbyterian and Baptist, teach that the church consists of the elect of all ages. To give one example, MacArthur's statement of faith divvies up the redeemed into three classes: OT Saints, the Church, and Tribulation Saints.

Ecclesiology is precisely what led me out of dispensationalism. I have yet to settle solidly on an eschatology, though I am leaning amil, but I have said before I know that it can NOT be dispensationalism.

 

[Richard2YHWH]

When I was a Dispensationalist, what really shook (and, ultimately, dismantled) my view of the Rapture were these verses in Matthew's Gospel, which reverse the order of events that I had been taught:

From Matthew 24:

37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they [who's the "they"?] were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them [who's the "them"?] all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, [so, who's "taken"?] and the other left.

41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

From Matthew 13:

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

I believe that these are virtually contemporaneous events; nevertheless, the order is clear: the "wheat" is not taken first.

That is speculative on that Matthew 13 verse isn't it? Pure speculation

 

[Richard2YHWH]

Exactly so. I think when people are coming out of dispensationalism and trying to make sense of eschatological views at variance with what they have always been taught, this is one of the things that tends to be the most difficult to process. Israel was the church in the OT. The church is the spiritual Israel. There is only one people (church) of God throughout all history.

That doesn't belie the fact that NT promises are made to Israel as a nation (most notably in Romans 11) but these are not separate from the church. These promises come to fruition when Israel (the nation) is grafted in again to their own olive tree (the church).

Israel was the church in the OT. The church is the spiritual Israel. There is only one people (church) of God throughout all history? I'm sorry brother, but show me one verse that says that Israel was the church in the Old Testament. There is only one church my friend; and it started in Acts. Romans 11 teaches that Israel is not the church. 11:11 & 25; "I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall (Israel), to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles (The Church)....For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." Yes Israel will be saved (not all), and yes they will receive the same thing in the long run as the church will. But they are not the same.

Romans 11:16-36 records the illustration of the olive tree. This passage speaks of Israel the (“natural” branches) being broken off from the olive tree, and the Church (“wild” branches or shoots) being grafted into the olive tree. Since Israel is referred to as branches, as well as the Church, it stands to reason that neither group is the “whole tree,” so to speak; rather, the whole tree represents God’s workings with mankind as a whole. Therefore, God’s program with Israel and God’s program with the Church are part of the outworking of His purpose among men in general. Of course, this is not intended to mean that either program is of little significance. As many commentators have noted, more space is given in the Bible regarding God’s programs with Israel and with the Church than any of God’s other dealings!

In Genesis 12 God promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation (the Jews), the Jews would possess a land, that nation would be blessed above all other nations, and all other nations would be blessed from Israel. So, from the beginning God revealed that Israel would be His chosen people on the earth, but that His blessing would not be limited to them exclusively. Galatians 3:14 identifies the nature of the blessing to come to all the other nations: “That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” All the nations of the world were blessed by Israel, through whom the Savior of the world came.

God’s plan of redemption is built upon the finished work of Jesus Christ, a descendant of David and Abraham. But Christ’s death on the cross is sufficient for the sins of the entire world, not just the Jews! Galatians 3:6-8 states, “Consider Abraham: ‘He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’” Galatians 3:29 says, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” In other words, in Christ, believers are counted righteous by faith in the same way that Abraham was (Galatians 3:6-8). If we are in Christ, then we are partakers of the blessing of Israel and all nations in the redemptive work of Christ. Believers become the spiritual descendants of Abraham. Believers do not become physical Jews, but they may enjoy the same type of blessings and privileges as the Jews.

Now, this does not contradict or nullify the revelation given in the Old Testament. God’s promises in the Old Testament are still valid, and God’s relationship with Israel as a chosen people points to the work of Christ as a Redeemer of the whole world. The Mosaic Law is still mandatory for all Jews who have not yet accepted Christ as their Messiah. Jesus did what they could not do—fulfill the Law in all its details (Matthew 5:17). As New Testament believers, we are no longer under the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:13), because Christ has taken that curse upon Himself on the cross. The Law served two purposes: to reveal sin and mankind’s inability (on his own merit) to do anything about it, and to point us to Christ, who fulfills the Law. His death on the cross completely satisfies God’s righteous requirement of perfection.

God’s unconditional promises are not invalidated by the unfaithfulness of man. Nothing we do is ever a surprise to God, and He does not need to adjust His plans according to the way we behave. No, God is sovereign over all things—past, present and future—and what He has foreordained for both Israel and the Church will come to pass, regardless of circumstances. Romans 3:3-4 explains that Israel’s unbelief would not nullify His promises concerning them: “What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: ‘So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.’"

Promises made to Israel are still going to be kept in the future. We can be sure that all God has said is true and will take place, because of His character and consistency. The Church does not replace Israel and should not expect a symbolic fulfillment of the promises of the Old Covenant. As one reads Scripture, it is necessary to keep Israel and the Church separate.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Israel was the church in the OT. The church is the spiritual Israel. There is only one people (church) of God throughout all history? I'm sorry brother, but show me one verse that says that Israel was the church in the Old Testament. There is only one church my friend; and it started in Acts. Romans 11 teaches that Israel is not the church. 11:11 & 25; "I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall (Israel), to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles (The Church)....For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." Yes Israel will be saved (not all), and yes they will receive the same thing in the long run as the church will. But they are not the same.

Romans 11:16-36 records the illustration of the olive tree. This passage speaks of Israel the (“natural” branches) being broken off from the olive tree, and the Church (“wild” branches or shoots) being grafted into the olive tree. Since Israel is referred to as branches, as well as the Church, it stands to reason that neither group is the “whole tree,” so to speak; rather, the whole tree represents God’s workings with mankind as a whole. Therefore, God’s program with Israel and God’s program with the Church are part of the outworking of His purpose among men in general. Of course, this is not intended to mean that either program is of little significance. As many commentators have noted, more space is given in the Bible regarding God’s programs with Israel and with the Church than any of God’s other dealings!

In Genesis 12 God promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation (the Jews), the Jews would possess a land, that nation would be blessed above all other nations, and all other nations would be blessed from Israel. So, from the beginning God revealed that Israel would be His chosen people on the earth, but that His blessing would not be limited to them exclusively. Galatians 3:14 identifies the nature of the blessing to come to all the other nations: “That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” All the nations of the world were blessed by Israel, through whom the Savior of the world came.

God’s plan of redemption is built upon the finished work of Jesus Christ, a descendant of David and Abraham. But Christ’s death on the cross is sufficient for the sins of the entire world, not just the Jews! Galatians 3:6-8 states, “Consider Abraham: ‘He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’” Galatians 3:29 says, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” In other words, in Christ, believers are counted righteous by faith in the same way that Abraham was (Galatians 3:6-8). If we are in Christ, then we are partakers of the blessing of Israel and all nations in the redemptive work of Christ. Believers become the spiritual descendants of Abraham. Believers do not become physical Jews, but they may enjoy the same type of blessings and privileges as the Jews.

Now, this does not contradict or nullify the revelation given in the Old Testament. God’s promises in the Old Testament are still valid, and God’s relationship with Israel as a chosen people points to the work of Christ as a Redeemer of the whole world. The Mosaic Law is still mandatory for all Jews who have not yet accepted Christ as their Messiah. Jesus did what they could not do—fulfill the Law in all its details (Matthew 5:17). As New Testament believers, we are no longer under the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:13), because Christ has taken that curse upon Himself on the cross. The Law served two purposes: to reveal sin and mankind’s inability (on his own merit) to do anything about it, and to point us to Christ, who fulfills the Law. His death on the cross completely satisfies God’s righteous requirement of perfection.

God’s unconditional promises are not invalidated by the unfaithfulness of man. Nothing we do is ever a surprise to God, and He does not need to adjust His plans according to the way we behave. No, God is sovereign over all things—past, present and future—and what He has foreordained for both Israel and the Church will come to pass, regardless of circumstances. Romans 3:3-4 explains that Israel’s unbelief would not nullify His promises concerning them: “What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: ‘So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.’"

Promises made to Israel are still going to be kept in the future. We can be sure that all God has said is true and will take place, because of His character and consistency. The Church does not replace Israel and should not expect a symbolic fulfillment of the promises of the Old Covenant. As one reads Scripture, it is necessary to keep Israel and the Church separate.

Dispensationialism attempts to erect the wall that Christ tore down. There is only one body of Christ. There is only one plan for the ppl of God. Dispensationialism denies both these claims.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

That is speculative on that Matthew 13 verse isn't it? Pure speculation

No it’s not speculation my Brother. Jesus speaks of Noah and the ark. Who remained and who was left alive on earth? Those eight ppl who were in the ark. Those outside the ark perished as they were swept away in the flood.

 

[Richard2YHWH]

Perhaps even moreso than eschatology, ecclesiology is where dispensationalism goes off the rails from a confessional standpoint. Dispensationalism teaches that the church only exists between Pentecost and the Rapture, whereas the confessions, both Presbyterian and Baptist, teach that the church consists of the elect of all ages. To give one example, MacArthur's statement of faith divvies up the redeemed into three classes: OT Saints, the Church, and Tribulation Saints.

 

[Eyedoc84]

MacArthur is not confessionally reformed. Again, brother, we adhere to confessional standards not because they are above scripture but because we believe they are faithful interpretations of scripture. Please study the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity. Keep your Bible open and look up the scripture references as you go.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

That is speculative on that Matthew 13 verse isn't it? Pure speculation

It isn't, because this is one of the few parables which Jesus actually interprets in scripture, just a little later in chapter 13. Jesus states specifically that "the tares are the children of the wicked one" and "the harvest is the end of the world".

As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:40‭-‬42

It's not speculative, it's plain teaching.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

.

There's a lot here, and I don't have time to respond to it all, but a few brief points:

1. If the church started in Acts, as you say, then who is Stephen referring to in Acts 7 when he speaks of "the church in the wilderness"? (Hint: read the previous couple of verses, he's talking about the people Moses was with). Also, why does Paul refer to the Israelites in the wilderness as the "fathers" of the (Gentile) church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 10:1)? I'm sure if you read through the NT you will find many more places demonstrating the same point, in fact you mentioned some from Galatians!

2. Where in Romans 11 do you get the idea that Paul is making a dichotomy between Israel and the church, or that the "wild olive tree grafted in" is the church? Neither of these ideas are present in the text, they're only there if we preconceive them and read them in. Paul is writing to Gentiles, the Gentiles are the wild branches, grafted into the olive tree (the church / the people of God) from which Israel, the natural (original) branches were broken off by unbelief. The promise is that Israel (the nation, that's the sense Paul uses Israel through Romans 9-11), will be grafted in again to their own olive tree, that is, when they come to faith in Christ they will be received again into the church (people of God).

3. A lot of the rest of what you say is fine as far as it goes, it just seems the conclusions you draw from it are contradictory to your reasoning (referring to the parts about Abraham's seed, where it's pretty clear that the Apostle is saying that Abraham is the father of the faithful, and that although in the OT those were found among Israel, in the NT they are found throughout all nations, and the promise to Abraham is a promise to all the faithful (not just the Jews), through his seed, that is Christ - this flatly contradicts the dispensational idea of two peoples of God).

4. When you say that the Mosaic law is mandatory for Jews who reject Christ, (assuming you mean the ceremonial, since the moral is mandatory for everyone, always) that's just plain wrong. Hebrews (written to Jews, for what it's worth) makes clear the ceremonial law is passed away, "for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof". Not only is it not mandatory, it is sinful (now since Christ has come) to observe the ceremonial law, as that entails rejection of Christ. Jews don't have a special option whether to receive Christ or keep the ceremonial law (maybe that's not quite what you meant, I'm not sure), they are in exactly the same position as Gentiles - the ceremonial law is unprofitable to them, and they must receive Christ or they will perish

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Israel was the church in the OT. The church is the spiritual Israel. There is only one people (church) of God throughout all history? I'm sorry brother, but show me one verse that says that Israel was the church in the Old Testament. There is only one church my friend; and it started in Acts. Romans 11 teaches that Israel is not the church. 11:11 & 25; "I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall (Israel), to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles (The Church)....For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." Yes Israel will be saved (not all), and yes they will receive the same thing in the long run as the church will. But they are not the same.

Romans 11:16-36 records the illustration of the olive tree. This passage speaks of Israel the (“natural” branches) being broken off from the olive tree, and the Church (“wild” branches or shoots) being grafted into the olive tree. Since Israel is referred to as branches, as well as the Church, it stands to reason that neither group is the “whole tree,” so to speak; rather, the whole tree represents God’s workings with mankind as a whole. Therefore, God’s program with Israel and God’s program with the Church are part of the outworking of His purpose among men in general. Of course, this is not intended to mean that either program is of little significance. As many commentators have noted, more space is given in the Bible regarding God’s programs with Israel and with the Church than any of God’s other dealings!

In Genesis 12 God promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation (the Jews), the Jews would possess a land, that nation would be blessed above all other nations, and all other nations would be blessed from Israel. So, from the beginning God revealed that Israel would be His chosen people on the earth, but that His blessing would not be limited to them exclusively. Galatians 3:14 identifies the nature of the blessing to come to all the other nations: “That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” All the nations of the world were blessed by Israel, through whom the Savior of the world came.

God’s plan of redemption is built upon the finished work of Jesus Christ, a descendant of David and Abraham. But Christ’s death on the cross is sufficient for the sins of the entire world, not just the Jews! Galatians 3:6-8 states, “Consider Abraham: ‘He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’” Galatians 3:29 says, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” In other words, in Christ, believers are counted righteous by faith in the same way that Abraham was (Galatians 3:6-8). If we are in Christ, then we are partakers of the blessing of Israel and all nations in the redemptive work of Christ. Believers become the spiritual descendants of Abraham. Believers do not become physical Jews, but they may enjoy the same type of blessings and privileges as the Jews.

Now, this does not contradict or nullify the revelation given in the Old Testament. God’s promises in the Old Testament are still valid, and God’s relationship with Israel as a chosen people points to the work of Christ as a Redeemer of the whole world. The Mosaic Law is still mandatory for all Jews who have not yet accepted Christ as their Messiah. Jesus did what they could not do—fulfill the Law in all its details (Matthew 5:17). As New Testament believers, we are no longer under the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:13), because Christ has taken that curse upon Himself on the cross. The Law served two purposes: to reveal sin and mankind’s inability (on his own merit) to do anything about it, and to point us to Christ, who fulfills the Law. His death on the cross completely satisfies God’s righteous requirement of perfection.

God’s unconditional promises are not invalidated by the unfaithfulness of man. Nothing we do is ever a surprise to God, and He does not need to adjust His plans according to the way we behave. No, God is sovereign over all things—past, present and future—and what He has foreordained for both Israel and the Church will come to pass, regardless of circumstances. Romans 3:3-4 explains that Israel’s unbelief would not nullify His promises concerning them: “What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: ‘So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.’"

Promises made to Israel are still going to be kept in the future. We can be sure that all God has said is true and will take place, because of His character and consistency. The Church does not replace Israel and should not expect a symbolic fulfillment of the promises of the Old Covenant. As one reads Scripture, it is necessary to keep Israel and the Church separate.

The Bible clearly states, in no uncertain terms, that the church is the body of Christ, He being their head. In John 15 we see Christ saying that He is the vine, and believers being the branches. Paul speaks of and explains this in Romans 11. So, to cut to the chase, were the OT Jews in Christ?

 

[Sovereign Grace]

There's a lot here, and I don't have time to respond to it all, but a few brief points:

1. If the church started in Acts, as you say, then who is Stephen referring to in Acts 7 when he speaks of "the church in the wilderness"? (Hint: read the previous couple of verses, he's talking about the people Moses was with). Also, why does Paul refer to the Israelites in the wilderness as the "fathers" of the (Gentile) church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 10:1)? I'm sure if you read through the NT you will find many more places demonstrating the same point, in fact you mentioned some from Galatians!

2. Where in Romans 11 do you get the idea that Paul is making a dichotomy between Israel and the church, or that the "wild olive tree grafted in" is the church? Neither of these ideas are present in the text, they're only there if we preconceive them and read them in. Paul is writing to Gentiles, the Gentiles are the wild branches, grafted into the olive tree (the church / the people of God) from which Israel, the natural (original) branches were broken off by unbelief. The promise is that Israel (the nation, that's the sense Paul uses Israel through Romans 9-11), will be grafted in again to their own olive tree, that is, when they come to faith in Christ they will be received again into the church (people of God).

3. A lot of the rest of what you say is fine as far as it goes, it just seems the conclusions you draw from it are contradictory to your reasoning (referring to the parts about Abraham's seed, where it's pretty clear that the Apostle is saying that Abraham is the father of the faithful, and that although in the OT those were found among Israel, in the NT they are found throughout all nations, and the promise to Abraham is a promise to all the faithful (not just the Jews), through his seed, that is Christ - this flatly contradicts the dispensational idea of two peoples of God).

4. When you say that the Mosaic law is mandatory for Jews who reject Christ, (assuming you mean the ceremonial, since the moral is mandatory for everyone, always) that's just plain wrong. Hebrews (written to Jews, for what it's worth) makes clear the ceremonial law is passed away, "for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof". Not only is it not mandatory, it is sinful (now since Christ has come) to observe the ceremonial law, as that entails rejection of Christ. Jews don't have a special option whether to receive Christ or keep the ceremonial law (maybe that's not quite what you meant, I'm not sure), they are in exactly the same position as Gentiles - the ceremonial law is unprofitable to them, and they must receive Christ or they will perish

Let me add Romans 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.[NASB]

 

[Richard2YHWH]

There's a lot here, and I don't have time to respond to it all, but a few brief points:

1. If the church started in Acts, as you say, then who is Stephen referring to in Acts 7 when he speaks of "the church in the wilderness"? (Hint: read the previous couple of verses, he's talking about the people Moses was with). Also, why does Paul refer to the Israelites in the wilderness as the "fathers" of the (Gentile) church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 10:1)? I'm sure if you read through the NT you will find many more places demonstrating the same point, in fact you mentioned some from Galatians!

2. Where in Romans 11 do you get the idea that Paul is making a dichotomy between Israel and the church, or that the "wild olive tree grafted in" is the church? Neither of these ideas are present in the text, they're only there if we preconceive them and read them in. Paul is writing to Gentiles, the Gentiles are the wild branches, grafted into the olive tree (the church / the people of God) from which Israel, the natural (original) branches were broken off by unbelief. The promise is that Israel (the nation, that's the sense Paul uses Israel through Romans 9-11), will be grafted in again to their own olive tree, that is, when they come to faith in Christ they will be received again into the church (people of God).

3. A lot of the rest of what you say is fine as far as it goes, it just seems the conclusions you draw from it are contradictory to your reasoning (referring to the parts about Abraham's seed, where it's pretty clear that the Apostle is saying that Abraham is the father of the faithful, and that although in the OT those were found among Israel, in the NT they are found throughout all nations, and the promise to Abraham is a promise to all the faithful (not just the Jews), through his seed, that is Christ - this flatly contradicts the dispensational idea of two peoples of God).

4. When you say that the Mosaic law is mandatory for Jews who reject Christ, (assuming you mean the ceremonial, since the moral is mandatory for everyone, always) that's just plain wrong. Hebrews (written to Jews, for what it's worth) makes clear the ceremonial law is passed away, "for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof". Not only is it not mandatory, it is sinful (now since Christ has come) to observe the ceremonial law, as that entails rejection of Christ. Jews don't have a special option whether to receive Christ or keep the ceremonial law (maybe that's not quite what you meant, I'm not sure), they are in exactly the same position as Gentiles - the ceremonial law is unprofitable to them, and they must receive Christ or they will perish

Acts chapter 7 where we see "the church in the wilderness" Verse 38. The word church, is a NT translation. That word can be better translated as a congregation, or assembly. It is interesting that all translations of this verse (The ones even worth reading) uses the word congregation or assembly. KJ is the only one that uses the word "Church". It's a bad translation; showing that even the beloved KJ translation has flaws. As far as 1 Corinthians 10:1, Paul used our fathers as an illustration of his roots here. Brother your inserting your theology into the text. Look at the context in the coming verses. Our fathers passed through the cloud; All passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses; All ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink; For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. Clearly these were not the fathers of the Gentiles who were in that Corinthian Church. We have to keep things in context.

I really don't understand how it can be missed in Romans 11 that there are three distinct figures here. In verse 1-10 Paul is talking about the Israelites. Then He brings in the (Gentile Church). We see there are two distinct people here. The “natural branches” represent individual Israelites – i.e., genetic Jews. The “wild olive shoots” represent Gentiles – i.e., people from other nations. The “root” of the tree represents God’s covenant promises to the patriarchs – Abraham, Issac and Jacob. I'm not sure why the confusion. Verse 25 & 26 make it real clear that we are talking about two groups; "For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." ....."And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” verse 6 isn't talking about the Gentile church, it's talking about the nation of Israel.

I'm not understanding when you say: "the conclusions that I draw from it are contradictory to my reasoning" Abraham is the father of the faithful in all generations, and that is only because of the seed of Abraham; which is Jesus; as you pointed out. It's only through Him that we can be part of the natural branch. It's only through Israel's disobedience that we even have a chance to be grafted in. You have Israel (The natural branch) that can only be saved through Jesus Christ. You have the gentiles (Non-Jew) that must be grafted in to be saved, and once they do that. then they are one with the Jew (The natural branch). If not they remain gentile (Non-Jew); unsaved. Two different people, that is until they become one and share in the the inheritance.

For an unsaved Jew the Mosaic law still stands (Which won't save them as we all know). The ceremonial law is passed away only when they put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. How does this make since? Because the unsaved Jew still holds to it. It only stand because of their unbelief. Unless they are saved, they are bound by the law. They are in bondage to it. That's what I meant by it's mandatory (In their eyes only). That's the curse of the law. It's mandatory because the unsaved Jew is still under the curse of it. I hope that cleared that up. God Bless brother

 

[Sovereign Grace]

@Richard2YHWH

Again…

The Bible clearly states, in no uncertain terms, that the church is the body of Christ, He being their head. In John 15 we see Christ saying that He is the vine, and believers being the branches. Paul speaks of and explains this in Romans 11. So, to cut to the chase, were the OT Jews in Christ?

 

[Sovereign Grace]

@Richard2YHWH


ἐκκλησίᾳ is used in both Acts 7:38 and Colossians 1:18, so what was said to you is valid. What Stephen said, and the KJV translators translated ἐκκλησίᾳ to mean “church” is valid. The ἐκκλησίᾳ is not a NT reality only, but also an OT reality as well.

 

[KMK]

Thread closed for obvious reasons.