THE CHURCH IS NOT THE BRIDE OF CHRIST

[GracePeace]

He didn`t get kicked out. He knew very well what his inheritance would be - ruling over the 12 tribes of Israel.

It makes it more difficult to discuss things that our time zones are what they are--but I have to check out in the middle of our conversation. Sorry. It's late here.

 

[Marilyn C]

You said Peter was not in the Church. So, is he in, or did he get kicked out?

He was never `in.` He was told by the Lord that he and the other 11 apostles would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel.

 

[GracePeace]

He was never `in.` He was told by the Lord that he and the other 11 apostles would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel.

LOL! You all really are ridiculous. Jesus taught the disciples He would build His church, and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, and that if people misbehave, kick them out of the congregation, so they all had better behave... but Peter is not in the congregation, and he never was! LOL! My, my, my. So funny. I'll have to get back to you on this. It's just too late.

 

[Lizbeth]

I agree that the city is the community of people.

Now in one place you say we are the Bride, then in another the Body. Either we are IN Christ or out of Him. Which?

And where do you read we are joined to Israel?

We mustn't be too "logical" and literal about everything. Back in Genesis, being figures for Christ and the church, it speaks of Adam and Eve this way.....his bride/wife is bone of His bone and flesh of his flesh...hence the bride is his body also. The church is Christ's body and He is the Head of it....we are attached to each other...one with each other. He is in us and we are in Him. Both analogies, both body and bride, are speaking of the same thing, just highlighting different aspects of it, and don't contradict each other, unless one is being too literal about it. Because we're not literally a bride or a body....these are just parables, pictures to reveal a truth.

Gen 2:23
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

1Co 6:16-17
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

 

[Lizbeth]

And where do you read we are joined to Israel?

Eph 2:11-15

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;



And we have the analogy of being unnatural branches grafted into the tree of Israel (the Israel of God, which is believing Israel, not Israel after the flesh - which is unbelieving Israel) We are joined in with the believing faithful OT saints and patriarchs of Israel and present remnant…..being sons of promise, not sons of the flesh.

This is the Israel we are joined to, which is not Israel after the flesh, but we are joined with the Israel of God, sons of the promise:

Rom 9:1-11

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

 

[Lizbeth]

God purposed that Israel would rule the nations and they will in the millennium. God is giving mankind every opportunity to turn to Him. Mankind cannot say if you took away Satan and had a righteous rulership for us we would walk in your ways. No, God is showing that throughout the 7,000 years of time that man, nations, Israel, and even angels were found unworthy to rule. Jesus alone if the Worthy One.

Sister, with scripture we're told we need to be comparing spiritual with spiritual. And remember Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world. And 2 Peter 3 says this world will burn up at the return of Christ and we look for new heavens and new earth. In 1 Cor. 15 it says Jesus hands the kingdom back over to the Father when He returns. There will be no utopia on this earth. Jesus is ruling and reigning now and the saints with Him. All power/authority in heaven and earth (to rule) was given to Jesus after His resurrection.

By the way, the apostles were ruling over the Israel of God and its twelve tribes....they were the leaders/rulers of the early church (Israel of God). The church has twelve "tribes" in a manner of speaking, (as natural Israel was a picture of the church) I believe related to gifts and callings.

 

[Scott Downey]

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

And
Galatians 3:29
And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.

To compare us to Isaac, show that we are the promised children to God's Son Christ; that God gave to His Son, by promise, the promise of God by election, not according to the flesh, but by the Spirit of God according to the promise, which is a sovereign decree by the Father.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hebrews 1

10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both He who [g]sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 saying:

“I will declare Your name to My brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You.”
13 And again:

“I will put My trust in Him.”
And again:

“Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Galatians 4

Two Covenants​

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are [g]the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written:

“Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.

29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.”

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

 

[Lizbeth]

God purposed that Israel would rule the nations and they will in the millennium. God is giving mankind every opportunity to turn to Him. Mankind cannot say if you took away Satan and had a righteous rulership for us we would walk in your ways. No, God is showing that throughout the 7,000 years of time that man, nations, Israel, and even angels were found unworthy to rule. Jesus alone if the Worthy One.

Sister I don't want to overload you, as you're juggling more than one conversation. But we need to face reality.....this is why Paul was so heavy in his heart about his nation....realizing that not all of them would be saved. I know how he felt when I was coming to that same realization, and still do. Israel is like the Gentile nations in that only a remnant out of each will be saved. God is not sentimental the way we are.....He has given all mankind the gift of a temporal life on earth and doesn't owe anyone eternal life. The bible says "What is man that you are mindful of him" and that "mankind is like the beasts that perish". It is a very great and undeserved mercy that He has given the gift of eternal life to any at all. There are the "elect" taken out of both Israel and the Gentile nations, those who are "appointed to eternal life"...the rest sadly will perish when this temporal life is over. We need to get hold of heaven's point of view on these things, and look at the cup as being half full rather than half empty.

 

[Lizbeth]

The apostles were living stones. As all the saints are. By obeying Jesus' command to preach the gospel to the whole world.Thus saving souls growing the church.
They themselves were not to be built upon.
Jesus established His church through the preaching of the apostles
1Peter 2:5,
- you also as living stones are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ

Jesus is the builder,
Matthew 16:18-18,
- thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church


Jesus taught against this idea.
There were no greater or lesser apostles.

1Corinthians 15:9,
- for I am the least of the apostles who am not worthy to be called an apostle because I persecuted the church of God, Paul's words

In Luke 22:24-26 Jesus taught no apostle would be recognized as the Head
Peter is NOT apart of the foundation of the church,
1Corinthians 3:11,
- for no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ

Peter himself said there is only one chief Shepard,
1Peter 5:4,
- and when the chief Shepard appears you will receive the unfading crown of glory

The Holy Spirit through Peter made it known who the chief Shepard is.

John new this truth also,
John 10:16,
- and they shall become one flock with one Shepard

Peter never gave himself an inflated title. He was content to be another apostle,
- an apostle of Jesus Christ

When the apostles heard that Samaria had received the word of God they sent them Peter and John.
Acts 8::14,
Jesus tells us,
- neither is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him, John 13:16,

For this reason Peter who was sent could not be greater than the others who sent him.

No titles, I certainly agree......and all are to consider others as greater than themselves.....God's ways are not man's ways. But Peter was written about more than the other apostles and Paul did make a reference to "the chiefest of apostles", so some were more prominent than others I think it is safe to say. Peter's mistakes and foibles are there for us to plainly see.....and it makes me think how God chooses the weak things to shame the strong.

 

[Titus]

That actually means that no scripture is to be taken in isolation, but with all of scripture.

Since Scripture can only be understood in context any verse in isolation is out of context.
Therefore scripture cannot be understood or rightly divided if taken out of context.

God`s word says - `For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.` (1 Cor. 3: 11)

Peter is certainly NOT what the Lord is building on.

Jesus is the builder, Matthew 16:18-19.
All those living stones are being built up into a spiritual house. But they are not the foundation of Jesus' spiritual house.
Peter is one of those living stones.

If Peter is not in His church. Peter is then lost.

There can be only one church.
Notice,
- and I will build My church....
Singular.
Not churches.

How many churches did Jesus say He will build?

 

[Titus]

But Peter was written about more than the other apostles

This doesn't correlate with superiority.
Jesus taught no apostle was greater than the other. I believe what Jesus says.
John 13:16,
- verily I say unto you the servant is not greater than his Lord neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him

Acts 8:14,
- now when the apostles which were in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God they sent unto them Peter and John

and Paul did make a reference to "the chiefest of apostles", so some were more prominent than others I think it is safe to say.

Its dangerous to teach. Quote Paul.

 

[Doug]

This does not make sense Doug,
Since Peter's gospel saved the first gentiles to convert to Christianity that's One gospel, Peter's.
Then later Paul saves gentiles under his gospel, that another gospel for gentiles.

So it logically follows that there are two different gospels for gentiles.

You said there is 2 gospels for Gentiles and 1 for Jews
There was Peter's gospel where both Jew and Gentile were saved
There is Paul's gospel by which Jew and Gentiles are saved

 

[Titus]

You said there is 2 gospels for Gentiles and 1 for Jews
There was Peter's gospel where both Jew and Gentile were saved
There is Paul's gospel by which Jew and Gentiles are saved

That's good logic.
So two different gospels saved gentiles.
And two different gospels saved jews.
But poor hermeneutics.

 

[Doug]

So... you don't see a flaw in your logic? Christ says that Peter is the rock He builds His Church upon, meaning that Peter is both part of "believing Israel" and part of "the Church", making him, according to you, both part of "the bride" and not part of "the bride".

OOPSIE! LOL!

First of all when Christ said upon this rock I will build my church the rock is Christ not Peter

I dont get your logic

Peter was part of the believing remnant of Israel/ the church of God and also part of the bride

Peter was not part of the body of Christ church

 

[Doug]

1. You say that believing Israel was unsecure in their salvation, but we are secure, because John 15 says they could be cut off, yet, in "Paul's Gospel to the Gentiles", which you say differs from "Peter's Gospel to Israel", he also warns that those who do not persist in faith can be cut off (Ro 11:17-22).

Israel had eternal life if they believed on Christ......they had to believe on his name by believing he was Christ the Son of God (John 20:31)

They were not secure as far as having a position in the earthly kingdom..........they could be a cut off branch

In Romans the Gentiles that could be cut off as well were NOT Gentiles in the body of Christ they were Gentiles part of the remnant of Israel

 

[Doug]

3. You have to argue that the Gentiles referred to in Romans 10:12,13 are the Gentiles who believed in Peter's Gospel, but we have a better option--the Gentiles in Ro 13, whom Paul identifies as the "another people" God chooses to drive to jealous the people who made Him jealous by choosing another god, and it makes as much sense to define the people He chooses in their (Israel's) stead to make them (Israel) jealous as it does to say the god they chose in His stead was actually Him and that made Him jealous. No, these are people who are not the same people that made Him jealous, just as He was not the same god they chose.

I dont see this in Romans 13

 

[Lizbeth]

1Corinthians 3:11,
- for no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ

Yes, but we mustn't forget also the scripture that says the apostles and prophets are the foundation with Jesus being the chief cornerstone of it. I don't know Greek well enough to say for sure, but I suspect there was a bit of both being alluded to by Jesus in a play on words and speaking in spirit. No question He was talking about Peter being a rock, as that's what his name means, but if we think Peter or anybody could be anything without the Rock and foundation that is Christ, or that Jesus would have implied it, we'd be mistaken I'm sure. I've heard some say in the Greek petros was a little rock, whereas petra implied a big boulder, but I don't know whether that is true or not.

 

[GracePeace]

First of all when Christ said upon this rock I will build my church the rock is Christ not Peter

LOL! I thought you already conceded Peter was the rock He built His church on--it doesn't matter, though, because, at the end of the day, Peter is in the Church, and is given instructions for what to do with people who misbehave in the Church.

I dont get your logic

Literally no one but some silly woman "gets" your logic.

Peter was part of the believing remnant of Israel/ the church of God and also part of the bride

The title of the thread is "The Church Is Not The Bride Of Christ" LOL

Peter was not part of the body of Christ church

Where is the distinction made between a "body of Christ Church" and a "remnant of Israel Church"? LOL!

 

[GracePeace]

Israel had eternal life if they believed on Christ......they had to believe on his name by believing he was Christ the Son of God (John 20:31)

They were not secure as far as having a position in the earthly kingdom..........they could be a cut off branch

1. Before, you said that the difference between them and those who believe Paul's Gospel was that "we are secure in our salvation" but "they had no such assurance [of salvation]"...

You cant say that abiding in Christ is the same however because we are secure in our salvation

[Jhn 15:6 KJV] 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.

They had no such assurance

...but, now, you're changing your argument. LOL!
Could it be that you don't have a clue what you're talking about? That you don't know the Scriptures? That once the fact that we receive the same warning as they receive, that you realized you had done an "oopsie"?
So, which argument should I argue against? The former or the latter? Let me know.

2. Jesus says He conveys heavenly truths using earthly metaphors (John 3:12)--eg, "You must be born again" is a physical reality He uses to teach a spiritual reality--so, when Jesus uses the earthly metaphor of a branch being cut off from a vine, you know he's talking about a spiritual reality, not an earthly kingdom, because, again, as He said, His kingdom was "not of this world".
Note, also, that the "little children" are warned to abide in Him lest they shrink back in shame at His appearing, which shrinking back Hebrews 10 says is "unto destruction" (ie, the "fire" in John 15 is the "fire that will consume the adversaries" in Heb 10).

In Romans the Gentiles that could be cut off as well were NOT Gentiles in the body of Christ they were Gentiles part of the remnant of Israel

The Gentiles mentioned in Romans are, rather, the Gentiles in the Roman Church : the occasion for Romans having been written was that the Jewish believers were having a difficult time accepting and living together with their believing Gentile brothers in Christ. The Jews had been expelled from Rome, and, now that they were being allowed to return, they found their Church had been filled with Gentile believers, and there were theological issues to sort out.

 

[GracePeace]

Where did this come from?

At the time, I was trying to understand your position--because it's really fortuitous, has no actual logic or sense--on whether the so-called "remnant of Israel believers" were "in Christ".