Is Prophecy Being Fulfilled in the Dispensation of Grace?

[glorydaz]

Since you are a big fan of prophecy, you should look into the prophecy of LO-AMMI.

Clearly you missed the point on that one. let’s see your proof that it supports your claim, and what, exactly do you claim?

That the Israel we see today has nothing to do with the Israel of God?

 

[Right Divider]

Oh, please

MY continued insults?

”false claims”
”vague opinions”
”shallow”

Those things are actually FACTS.

Again, I made lengthy post to demonstrate that the church of today (the one that Paul calls the body of Christ) did NOT begin on that lawfully required Jewish feast day.

You completely ignored everything that I said, which clearly showed your confusion (along with much of Churchianity). Then you made FALSE claims about me.

So, YES, that is being shallow.

 

[Clete]

When Did the Church Begin?​

From: https://graceambassadors.com/midacts/when-did-the-church-begin

Justin Johnson

When the church began is an age old debate. But what is meant by “when did the church begin?”
To ask when the church began is not to ask when the church was first in the mind of God. This would not distinguish it from the beginning of all things, since God purposed all things before the world began (1 Cor 2:7; 2 Tim 1:9).
It is not to ask when did Christ begin, since that is an altogether different question. Christ as the Son is eternal and has no beginning. His humanity began with the virgin conception. The glorified Christ in heaven began with his resurrection and ascension.
To ask when the church began is a search for the first potentiality of church ministry. The beginning of the church cannot be found where the ministry of the church is absent or impossible.
However, the most popular theories regarding when the church began do just that.

Theory: The church began at the first mention of a people of God.

If this be true, then we would find a church in the wilderness with Moses (Acts 7:35). After all, ‘church’ simply means congregation of God’s people. This is the position held by those who believe in only one people of God throughout the Bible.
This simplistic view of the church neglects to appreciate the vast differences in nature and operation of Israel then and the church today.
It could be said the only way the church today resembles the church of the wilderness (Israel) is that both are of God.
Israel in the wilderness is hardly the ministry pattern for the church today.

Theory: The church began when Christ was first preached.

If this be true, then the church began with John the Baptist, the forerunner, and the Messiah’s ministry of the kingdom before the cross.
Whereas Israel had not yet received its Messiah, Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, the promised Messiah (Matt 16:16-18).
However, at this time there is still a general absence of the church’s ministry as evidenced from Peter’s ignorance of the cross (Matt 16:21-23).
In the Messiah’s ministry, salvation was of the Jews (John 4:22); ministry did not include the Gentiles (Matt 10:5; Matt 15:24-26); they were under the law (Matt 5:17-19, 23:2-3); and, most importantly, when they preached the gospel of the kingdom they did not understand the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Mark 9:31-32)!
The work of the cross would most definitely be required for the church to minister Christ and him crucified (1 Cor 2:2). No, that the church began before the cross will not work.

Theory: The church began when Christ resurrected and sent the Holy Ghost from heaven.

If this be true then the church began with Peter and the disciples at Pentecost. This is the most popular answer to when the church began.
Peter and the disciples knew of Christ’s death and resurrection according to the scriptures. The resurrection of Christ is necessary for the church to exist.
They were baptized with the Holy Ghost empowering them to speak and to act. The Spirit is necessary for the church to exist.
Certainly the church could not begin earlier than this point. However, the presence of things that are necessary for the church to operate does not mean the church is in operation.
A look at the ministry of the “church in Jerusalem” at Pentecost will reveal that its operation does not align with that given to church today.
Nothing that happened in Peter’s Pentecostal ministry was according to the mystery of Christ and the church. Nothing Peter preached at Pentecost was the subject of the mystery of Christ.
Everything he preached about Christ, his death, and resurrection was spoken by the prophets since the world began (Acts 2:16, 2:25, 3:21).
Peter did not expound on the nature of the new creature of Christ (2 Cor 5:17); or the unsearchable riches of God’s grace (Eph 3:8); or the union of the church with Christ, the fellowship of the mystery (Eph 3:9; Eph 4:3-6; 1 Cor 10:16).
He spoke only of those things that were foretold by the prophets about Christ, the kingdom, and salvation (Acts 3:24, 4:12).
The church which is the body of Christ operates according to the mystery of Christ (Eph 5:32, 1 Cor 2:7, Rom 16:25).
Filled with the Spirit, the disciples in Acts 2 sold all their possessions (Acts 2:44-45); continued in the temple (Acts 3:1); ministered to Israel only (Acts 2:22, 3:12); preached prophecy (Acts 3:18-22); and performed the supernatural signs of the kingdom (Acts 4:22).
Their ministry was a continuation of what had been preached before (Acts 1:22). Their message had changed, but only slightly, and it was certainly no mystery hidden from ages past (Col 1:26).
They were not operating according to the spiritual realities of the mystery church when Peter slew Ananias and Sapphira in the Spirit (Acts 5:1-10).
If the church began at Pentecost the Spirit that empowered them certainly did not want these apostles to know about it.

Theory: The church began when God revealed it.


The origin of the church’s ministry cannot be found in the wilderness with Moses, in Israel with the Messiah, or in Jerusalem at Pentecost.
When God revealed the knowledge of the mystery concerning Christ and His church to Paul, the ministry of the church began, and with it the pattern and origin of the church of today.

Before Paul the mystery operation of the church was kept secret. It was not possible anyone could minister according to it.
The confusion over when the church began can be attributed to the general ignorance of the mystery of Christ and His church revealed to the apostle Paul.

Published: July 19, 2014
Last Modified: April 14, 2018

The first part of your essay addresses this to some degree but I've always thought that the question, "When did the church begin?" cannot be answered as asked. It's like asking, "What is the gospel?". The answers to these questions have to start by asking "Which church? or "Which gospel?" It matters what someone means by "church".

In the broadest sense, I'd say that the church began with Abraham but even that would require a fairly detailed explanation to make sense to most people.

 

[Right Divider]

Clearly you missed the point on that one. let’s see your proof that it supports your claim, and what, exactly do you claim?

My point is that currently Israel is NOT God's people. (that is what LO-AMMI means).

They are FALLEN, per scripture.

God has not spoken to THEM in almost 2000 years (much like the 400 year gap before Christ's incarnation).

That the Israel we see today has nothing to do with the Israel of God?

Until you provide more than just a repeated claims, I'll continue to believe that Israel's rebirth is yet future.

 

[Right Divider]

The first part of your essay addresses this to some degree but I've always thought that the question, "When did the church begin?" cannot be answered as asked. It's like asking, "What is the gospel?". The answers to these questions have to start by asking "Which church? or "Which gospel?" It matters what someone means by "church".

Yes, that's why I make clear that it is "the church which is His body, the body of Christ" that I'm talking about.

Also, no church of any kind started on the "day of Pentecost" in Acts 1 and 2

In the broadest sense, I'd say that the church began with Abraham but even that would require a fairly detailed explanation to make sense to most people.

I'd like know what you would call that church.

Regardless, it's not the body of Christ per Paul.

 

[Right Divider]

I have, and it only proves that God is always faithful to Israel.

Nobody that I know of has claimed that God will not be faithful to Israel in the end.

Israel is currently LO-AMMI (ie., not His people).

 

[glorydaz]

You haven't read the book and so this is an understandable response. The fact is that he didn't set a specific date, which was part of his own argument. He wasn't a kook or a cult leader. He was a very normal, highly intelligent pew sitting Christian that happened to have a passion for end times prophecy and who made what really amounts to a single error in regards to a major premise which in turn lead to incorrect doctrine and eventually to writing a book filled with 88 incorrect reasons to believe that the rapture was about to occur.


Which prophecy does that fulfill? Be specific.


Predicted where? Be specific.


Most people see what they want to see, whether there's any good reason to see it is another question.

I can‘t really debate what I haven’t read. I’m just trying to read the Bible and watch what’s going on around me. I do know, and it seems clear that we are fast approaching what Paul spoke of regarding the rapture. It isn’t a question of seeing what I want to see, but of what I am seeing. Signs of the times - lining up with prophecy. Nothing to do with doctrine.

 

[glorydaz]

Nobody that I know of has claimed that God will not be faithful to Israel in the end.

Israel is currently LO-AMMI (ie., not His people).

They are always His people. Even when they are not His people, they are His people. That’s the point of the “story”.

 

[Right Divider]

They are always His people. Even when they are not His people, they are His people. That’s the point of the “story”.

I agree that God will restore them in the end. But currently, God is not dealing with them.

Rom 11:15 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:15) For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?​

​

Paul equates the nation of Israel as dead (presently).
But they will be restored to life in the future.

 

[glorydaz]

I can’t respond to each point because I can’t figure out how to do it, sorry.

There are a lot of prophecies concerning these last days. I don’t imagine any will be accepted without knowing that Israel matters. They are Jews. They know they are Jews. They are back in the land after a 2000 year exile, and it’s all happening as predicted. It’s only when something happens that you realize a prophecy has been fulfilled. Isaiah 66:8 and Ezek both speak of it.

 

[glorydaz]

I agree that God will restore them in the end. But currently, God is not dealing with them.

Rom 11:15 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:15) For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?​

​

Paul equates the nation of Israel as dead (presently).
But they will be restored to life in the future.

They’re dry bones, but the sinews are coming together….gathering.

 

[glorydaz]

Those things are actually FACTS.

Again, I made lengthy post to demonstrate that the church of today (the one that Paul calls the body of Christ) did NOT begin on that lawfully required Jewish feast day.

You completely ignored everything that I said, which clearly showed your confusion (along with much of Churchianity). Then you made FALSE claims about me.

So, YES, that is being shallow.

You’re mistaken. I was a MAD for years. I posted right here with you guys. I didn’t bother to read your lengthy post today because I’ve read it before. I used the common term church age and you pounced on it. I’m just not as concerned with doctrine as I am with the soon coming return(s).

 

[Clete]

Yes, that's why I make clear that it is "the church which is His body, the body of Christ" that I'm talking about.

I got that. I was just articulating the point in my own words.

Also, no church of any kind started on the "day of Pentecost" in Acts 1 and 2

Agreed. Pentecost was just the next step in Israel's prophesied program.

I'd like know what you would call that church.

I wouldn't attempt to name it. I just know that we are sons of Abraham who was saved first by faith alone apart from circumcision (i.e. the law).

​

Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.​

​

Regardless, it's not the body of Christ per Paul.

Paul, being the first to believe what he would later call "my gospel", was the first member of the Body of Christ (with the possible exception of Abraham, who is at least possibly an honorary member of that Body if not one outright), which was inaugurated with his conversion on the Damascus Road in Acts 9.

 

[Clete]

I can‘t really debate what I haven’t read. I’m just trying to read the Bible and watch what’s going on around me. I do know, and it seems clear that we are fast approaching what Paul spoke of regarding the rapture. It isn’t a question of seeing what I want to see, but of what I am seeing. Signs of the times - lining up with prophecy. Nothing to do with doctrine.

And yet you seem incapable of telling me which prophesies you are referring to.

 

[Right Divider]

Paul, being the first to believe what he would later call "my gospel", was the first member of the Body of Christ (with the possible exception of Abraham, who is at least possibly an honorary member of that Body if not one outright), which was inaugurated with his conversion on the Damascus Road in Acts 9.

Paul says that he is our pattern, not Abraham.

Nonetheless, I do get your point.

 

[Clete]

You’re mistaken. I was a MAD for years. I posted right here with you guys. I didn’t bother to read your lengthy post today because I’ve read it before. I used the common term church age and you pounced on it. I’m just not as concerned with doctrine as I am with the soon coming return(s).

What you see as "soon coming return(s)" is based on, defined by and seen through the lens of your doctrine. That's just the entire point here.

 

[Clete]

Paul says that he is our pattern, not Abraham.

Nonetheless, I do get your point.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Christ also is our pattern.

 

[Right Divider]

@Clete It's too bad that so many Christians seems to think that doctrine is just some trivial side topic.

 

[Right Divider]

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Christ also is our pattern.

What scripture would you use for that one?