Dispensationalism

[Naomi25]

I would agree with a lot of this, while I do think that Israel and the church are definitely separate in Scripture.

I think we see the Church and Israel being depicted separately in scripture as well, but only so far as Paul is making his points about 'spiritual Israel' (the church) and the Israel being broken off the Olive tree (For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring -Romans 9:6–7)
There must be, in effort of making such points, a separation between the two. Because when one 'group' of people believe they are 'saved' by means of their blood connection to the 'forefathers' and law alone, Paul must explain that no, this other 'group' of people are, in fact, heirs to the promise. There remains a descriptory separation there because Paul makes the point that 'blood' Israel may, in fact, be grafted back into 'spiritual Israel' if they come to Christ.
But, I do not think that this 'separate' description if 'Israel' in scripture can point to some sort of separate plan of redemption for them. It is still clear that for these people who have been 'broken off', the only way for them to be saved, is to be grafted back in. Into what? The Olive tree...where the Church is. That means they become believers just like us, part of the body. And that means that there is no separate salvation plan or time that includes temple sacrifices or what have you.

 

[Naomi25]

I agree with the born again aspect and tend not to hold that the OT saints were born again. Anyhow, Jesus said in Mat 16:18, "I WILL BUILD my Church indicating a future time (unless build has the connotation of assemble, thereby include OT believers). But assuming it was a future entity, I see no other explanation to Acts 20:28 where He purchased His Church with His blood as indicating His death at Calvary giving birth to that entity called the Church. IOW, That's when we, the Church, were redeemed, by His blood at Calvary. Eve was taken out of Adam's side and the Church from Christ's side...

John 19:34 KJV
[34] But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

No...I don't necessarily think the OT Saints were 'born again'. I think that is resevered for those who are 'born of the Spirit', which we see uniquely in the NT after Pentecost. But, we do see that their faith and trust was 'credited to them as righteousness'. Which means that they were not saved by blood or by law, but by faith.

And, I still think that while the cross was pivitol in securing the Church, we cannot say it was until the Holy Spirit started convicting people of sin and making them new, that the Church was truly born.
When we look at Acts 20:28, we see that the word actually used is "purchased": περιεποιήσατο, periepoiēsato. Which we could say means to 'Obtain or achieve with effort or suffering'. However, when we 'buy' something, just because it becomes ours, we have 'secured it', doesn't mean we have it to hand immediately. Sometimes we must wait.
Christ paid for our sins, and his victory was sure. The fact that the Church would be built was sure. But he had promised the Spirit, he told his Disciples that the Spirit was necessary for new birth, understanding and spiritual life. We ourselves know that unless the Spirit opens our eyes, we cannot see our need for redemption, repentance, or acceptance to Christ's offer. We are not part of the Church until we see those things, accept those things and are born again.

However...when it really comes down to it, I'm not sure it matters too much. Christ's work on the cross was so pivitol, so necessary to the formation and birth of the Church, that it and the coming of The Spirit are probably very much intertwined. We wouldn't have one without the other and vise versa. So...it's probably just semantics in a way.

 

[prism]

However...when it really comes down to it, I'm not sure it matters too much. Christ's work on the cross was so pivitol, so necessary to the formation and birth of the Church, that it and the coming of The Spirit are probably very much intertwined. We wouldn't have one without the other and vise versa. So...it's probably just semantics in a way.

 

[CoreIssue]