The Mosaic Covenant was established with physical Israel not with spiritual Israel?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
To try to state it more clearly:

The church, the body and bride of Christ, has existed since the first sinner believed the promise of Christ in Genesis 3:15. However, the church, the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, did not gather together as the church until Pentecost. The congregation in the wilderness, the nation of Israel, were not "those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints," although at least some saints were in their midst.

Brandon,
Are you reading what you are writing? The Israel of God has always been. The OT saints who were, by faith, in Christ Jesus, were as sanctified as you or I.
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Sophomore
All OT saints were saved the same way we were: through union with Christ. They were sanctified in Christ Jesus.

But the nation of Israel was not a gathering of all those who had been called out of the world and sanctified in Christ Jesus. The nation of Israel was a gathering of Abraham's physical descendants who had been redeemed out of Egypt.

You rather drastically missing the nuance in what I am saying.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
The congregation in the wilderness, the nation of Israel, were not "those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints," although at least some saints were in their midst.

It looks like u are saying that the OT saints 'were not "those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,....'
You quantify it a bit here by saying: 'although at least some saints were in their midst'.

In other words, the NT saint has a hand up on the OT saints-the number of believers in the OT were by far, innumerably less...This is what I am seeing. Am I mistaken?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
I am sure you agree that all the saints over the ages are considered the 'universal/invisible' church, no?
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Sophomore
I revised my statement to say "The congregation in the wilderness, the nation of Israel, was not a gathering of 'those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,' although at least some saints were in their midst."

Of course you will disagree. I am merely trying to communicate what I believe.

I am sure you agree that all the saints over the ages are considered the 'universal/invisible' church, no?

Yes, as I have stated several times.
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Junior
All of us here would be basing our theology upon the scriptures themselves, hopefully.
I think part of the "problem" here is that while i now look upon myself as being a Reformed baptist, my Baptist church is not one that holds to Confessions. as more akin to a "normal" Baptist church.
But the Scriptures do not warrant a "dedication ceremony" I must add my voice to the others here who abominate the foolishness of baby dedications.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
But that distinction 'church' did not count for them until the NT initiated it? Like, up until Christ's passion, they were not an invisible church until Christ died and rose again?
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Sophomore
Scott, I'm sorry, but you're just not reading what I'm writing. I think I have stated my view sufficiently. Have a good night.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Brandon,
Ok....I believe we are talking past each other now. I'm not trying to be difficult-I just want to understand how u have come to this conclusion. I will quote u again:

"The congregation in the wilderness, the nation of Israel, was not a gathering of 'those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,' although at least some saints were in their midst."

Are u making a distinction between those of the 'congregation in Israel' and the NT church-what defines them as not the church in the OT? I know u make mention that word studies are deficient (to which I disagree).

was not a gathering of 'those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,

Are u using this in that u believe everyone in the NT 'gatherings' were ALL believers, because we know that there is only one gospel and the OT saint had that same gospel and were as sanctified as any of us. Help me out.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
"...you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth". (Deuteronomy 7:6)

"Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ". (1 Corinthians 10:1-4).
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
I second Scott's encouragement to do a word study. Make sure to compare not just the similarities in use, but also the differences. The congregation of Israel was not the congregation of the first born who are enrolled in heaven (Heb 12:23). One was a type of the other.
The group in Israel were the assembles/called out group for God, but were not the same as the Church instituted at Pentecost. They were part of the saved of God, and were included in the Body of Christ, but were not at that time the Church yet to come, correct?
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
"...you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth". (Deuteronomy 7:6)

"Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ". (1 Corinthians 10:1-4).
This serves to once again highlights the real difference between how Baptists and Presbyterians view the concept of Covenant theology from the perspective of how much continuity/discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants of God.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
The Church of the NT would be the body of Christ, all of those who were Baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ, and would have just saved members within it, unlike Israel which had a mixture of saved/lost.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
But that distinction 'church' did not count for them until the NT initiated it? Like, up until Christ's passion, they were not an invisible church until Christ died and rose again?
The saved within Israel were part of the redeemed of the Lord, but only saved are part of the Church, as the Church proper was instituted on day of Pentecost.
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Sophomore
Scott, when you gather together with other families to watch your son's tee-ball game and there are other people from your church there, does that make it a gathering of the church? No. It's a gathering of tee-ball parents, some of whom happen to also be members of the church.

Same thing with the nation of Israel. It was not a gathering of the church, even though some of them happened to be members of the church.

Deut 7:6 - typology. See my previous quotes, particularly from Edwards and Erskine.

1 Cor 10 - see https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/1-cor-101-5-an-exposition/ and https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/1-cor-101-5-paedobaptist-false-inferences/
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
The saved within Israel were part of the redeemed of the Lord, but only saved are part of the Church, as the Church proper was instituted on day of Pentecost.

When Paul wrote to the "saints" in Corinth, was it to everyone present or only to the "saved" among those present?
 

Andrew P.C.

Puritan Board Junior
Scott, when you gather together with other families to watch your son's tee-ball game and there are other people from your church there, does that make it a gathering of the church? No. It's a gathering of tee-ball parents, some of whom happen to also be members of the church.

Same thing with the nation of Israel. It was not a gathering of the church, even though some of them happened to be members of the church.

Deut 7:6 - typology. See my previous quotes, particularly from Edwards and Erskine.

1 Cor 10 - see https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/1-cor-101-5-an-exposition/ and https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/1-cor-101-5-paedobaptist-false-inferences/


This is a horrible analogy. Israel was both ecclesia militans improprie et per synecdochen and politeuma (in the common sense of the word). In other words, "The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law) consists of all those, throughout the world, that profess the true religion, and of their children;and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ" (WCF 25.2). Also, the nation of Israel was a "body politic" (WCF 19.4).

Comparing church members to a secular game gathering doesn't adequately address the issues. Israel was both/and, not one or the other.

Another point is that one who professes to believe is a Christian. We can't judge intrinsically.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
The Church of the NT would be the body of Christ, all of those who were Baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ, and would have just saved members within it, unlike Israel which had a mixture of saved/lost.

U mean like Demas, Annanias and his wife, Sapphira? Or how about Simon Magus?
 
Last edited:

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
You need to reread what u have written as it makes no sense.
Sorry about that. The point was that the saved among the people of Israel will be part of the First Resurrection, will be glorified, but the Church proper on earth started on day of Pentecost.
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Sophomore
When Paul wrote to the "saints" in Corinth, was it to everyone present or only to the "saved" among those present?

I recommend reading John Murray's comments on this issue.
http://faculty.wts.edu/posts/free-ebook-infant-baptism/

The second danger that must be avoided is the tendency to define the church in such a way as would seem to eliminate or at least tone down the discrepancy or anomaly with which we are dealing. This again is a mistake. Our definition of the church must not be framed in terms of an accommodation by which we make provision, within our definition, for the inclusion of hypocrites, that is to say, of those who profess to be Christ’s but are not really his. Our definition of the church must be framed in terms of the constitutive principle, to wit, that the church consists of those who are united to Christ and are members of his body. It is the communion of saints. And it is precisely that body of believers in fellowship with Christ and with one another, associated together in the world in accordance with Christ’s institution, which is called in the New Testament “the church” and is what we often call the visible church. We may not abandon this constitutive principle, we may not accommodate our definition in order to make allowance for the fact that some make the profession who do not have the faith and who enter into the fellowship without the bond that constitutes it.*26

*26 It is very easy to fall into this kind of accommodation when we begin to apply the distinction between the church as invisible and the church as visible. And, indeed, it may appear to be necessary in order to avoid other pitfalls of the Romish doctrine of the church. In the esteem of the present writer this appears rather conspicuously in James Bannerman’s excellent work, The Church of Christ. His definition of the visible church is framed in terms that do not appear to be supported by New Testament usage (cf. op. cit. Vol. I, pp. 29ff). The terms in which Bannerman develops the distinction between visible and invisible and frames his definition of the visible church seem to provide us with a very simple and effective polemic against Rome. The controversy with Rome must, of course, be unabated, but it does not appear to be sound to conduct this controversy on the basis of a definition which does not find its counterpart in the Biblical usage with reference to the church.

I Cor. 1:1, 2… provides us with Paul’s concept of the church at Corinth, namely, those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be saints, and he does not conceive of the church in broader terms so as to distinguish between the church and those sanctified and called…

Paul recognised that there was old leaven in the church at Corinth, leaven which needed to be purged out. But when he addresses the church he does not address it as a community to be defined in terms of old leaven and new unleavened bread. He does not define the church in terms which would make allowance for both elements. No, he addresses the church as those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, and who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ…

It is true that hypocrites may secure admission to the church. As we have seen, the very administration which Christ has instituted for the admission of members allows for that. There are disciples who are not truly disciples, and there are branches in the vine which are not vitally and abidingly in the vine. But while we fully recognise this fact we must at the same time distinguish between the constitutive principle in terms of which the church is defined, on the one hand, and the de facto situation arising from the way in which Christ has chosen to administer the affairs of his church in the world, on the other. The inclusion and exclusion are in the hands of fallible men. This administration is of divine institution. Hence those who are not Christ’s gain admission.*27 Here is the anomaly. We have to recognise and contain it. It persists in its sharpness because we refuse to define the church in lower terms than the body of Christ and the communion of the saints. It is that definition that creates the anomaly and we may not revise the definition in order to relieve the tension…

*27 Cf. Calvin: Inst. IV, i, 7 and 8.
In refraining from the attempt to define the church in terms of an accommodation that will make allowance for the inclusion of hypocrites we are following the same lines as would have to be followed in defining the kingdom of God. We are not forgetful of the parables of the tares and the wheat and of the drag net. There is a mixture in the kingdom, and Christ will at the end gather out of his kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity. But we may not define the kingdom of God in terms of accommodation to this de facto situation. We must define it in terms of the rule and realm of righteousness, life, and peace.

For a more detailed answer, see https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/church-membership-de-jure-or-de-facto/
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Sophomore
This is a horrible analogy. Israel was both ecclesia militans improprie et per synecdochen and politeuma (in the common sense of the word). In other words, "The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law) consists of all those, throughout the world, that profess the true religion, and of their children;and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ" (WCF 25.2)

Lol brother. This is precisely what is being debated: Whether or not the nation of Israel was a gathering of the church.

Another point is that one who professes to believe is a Christian. We can't judge intrinsically.

This is 100% irrelevant to anything I've said.
 

Andrew P.C.

Puritan Board Junior
Whether or not the nation of Israel was a gathering of the church.

Your contention seems to indicate you view the church as purely believers with no visible expression. If a person becomes a member of a church by profession of faith, yet falls away, are you claiming that they were "never of us"? If so, my second portion is 100% relevant, and it would seem you don't understand the argument.
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Sophomore
Your contention seems to indicate you view the church as purely believers with no visible expression. If a person becomes a member of a church by profession of faith, yet falls away, are you claiming that they were "never of us"? If so, my second portion is 100% relevant, and it would seem you don't understand the argument.

Please see https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/church-membership-de-jure-or-de-facto/

But as for this present discussion, as Rutherford said above, most Israelites were known unbelievers. The judgment of charity does not extend to known unbelievers. They were not gathering as professing believers in the Messiah. They were gathering as the physical offspring of Abraham redeemed out of Egypt and given the land of Canaan.
 
Last edited:

Andrew P.C.

Puritan Board Junior
Please see https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/church-membership-de-jure-or-de-facto/

But as for this present discussion, as Rutherford said above, most Israelites were known unbelievers. The judgment of charity does not extend to known unbelievers. They were not gathering as professing believers in the Messiah. They were gathering as the physical offspring of Abraham redeemed out of Egypt and given the land of Canaan.


Instead pointing me to a website (which I personally do not like because of the many misquotations), I'd prefer you engage me here. If you cannot, then I will leave the conversation.

So, I'll ask again:

If a person makes a profession of faith, yet later falls away, are you claiming they were "never of us"? If so my second portion is relevant.

Also, I searched the thread (and I might have missed it) but where does Rutherford say that most Israelites were known unbelievers? (Cite the source too please)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top