Just another FB conversation…………

From a Facebook post:

“Never once in the King James Bible do we find the term, “the Bride of Christ.” That is a religious term, and frankly, it is a core doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, never once does the Bible refer to the Church the Body of Christ as “the Bride of Christ.” This should indicate to us that it is nothing more than a man-made concept, a tradition of men, aimed at deceiving and robbing us of the clarity of God’s Word, and furthering a man-made theological system. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

We do find in our King James Bible the following phrases and terms: “the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:7,9), “the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Revelation 21:2), and “the Lamb’s wife” (Revelation 21:9). A marriage is certainly occurring in the closing chapters of the book of the Revelation, but who is marrying whom? We should not rip these verses out of their contexts and fabricate the identity of the bride and the groom (unless, of course, we seek to advance a denominational system rather than the simple teachings of Scripture!).”

Reader (Dan) Response:

So what is your exact point in all of that? You must have said it for a reason. We should never take passages out of their natural context, however given the many scripture passages with references to Christ and his Bride, it’s undeniable that Christ has a Bride. Eph 5:25-27 clearly identifies Christ’s bride as the church (called out body of all believers).

You said: “We should not rip these verses out of their contexts and fabricate the identity of the bride and the groom (unless, of course, we seek to advance a denominational system rather than the simple teachings of Scripture!).

The identity of Christ and His bride are CLEARLY defined in scripture, so again, what is your point?

NEVER MIND………….I just read that the purpose of this group is “TO PERSUADE BELIEVERS TO RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH…Persuade – to cause someone to do or believe by ‘reasoning’. Your point has to do with Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, and it begin with a gross misrepresentation of 2 Tim 2:15, literally “ripping it out of its context”.

Author Response:

Then why are you here Dan. Best you find a suitable group to join, instead of coming in here with your insults. If you believe the body of Christ is the Bride of Christ then you believe in Replacement Theology which is a damnable heresy.

Reader (Dan) Response:

First of all, I am NOT defending a personal opinion. I’m trying to get clarity. It wasn’t until some months ago that I first learned about Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and its definition of “Rightly dividing the word of truth.” I am not attacking M.A.D. doctrine nor defending it. I am however comparing its teachings with I believe the Bible teaches.

Concerning your statement, “If you believe the body of Christ is the Bride of Christ then you believe in Replacement Theology which is a damnable heresy.”:

Heresy is a strong word and one that I use sparingly. Replacement theology is the belief that the church has replaced the church in God’s plan. At best it’s just wrong and at worst it’s heresy, in my opinion, no matter who teaches it or believes it. God still has a plan for Israel.

I understand, from what seems to be plain in scripture, that the terms Body of Christ and Bride of Christ describe two aspects of the relationship between Jesus and His followers. Perhaps the clearest expression of the church as both the body and bride of Christ is in Paul’s own words:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.” (Eph 5:25-29)

That marriage metaphor also appears in Jesus’ own words:

“In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” (John 14:2-3)

However, M.A.D. doctrine tells us that Jesus was only speaking to the Jews and not to us Gentiles, which could support only Israel being the Bride. Or can it?

Back to Ephesus. It’s significant that when Paul visited Ephesus, he spent three months teaching in a synagogue in an effort to bring the Jews to accept union with the gentiles in Christianity, but without success. For the next two years he stayed in Ephesus seeking to convert Jews and gentiles and appears to have made many converts. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that, in his letter to the Ephesian church, he was speaking to both Jewish and Gentile believers.

The mystery of the gospel, revealed to Paul, along with the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit (v.5), is summed up in Eph 3:6:

“That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”

Paul was telling his Ephesian audience that right then and there, when He wrote that letter (60-61 A.D.), and from that day forward, Jews and Gentiles are one body, united in Christ.

Dan’s Conclusion: The church, the Body of Christ, which is composed of all of Jesus’ followers, will also the Bride of Christ at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

NOTE: I am not trying to convince anyone of anything; you will believe what you believe. My only goal here is to have clearly explained what I believe and why I believe it. When it comes to spiritual matters, the Holy Spirit is the grand persuader.

Have a nice day!

What blew me away was the insistence that believing that Christ is the Bride of Christ meant that I believed in Replacement theology, until I realized that M.A.D. doctrine was humming in the background. I used the KJV because it’s the only version some will even consider as a valid version. I guess I’m still trying to find at least one M.A.D. type who might be open to honest impartial, objective discussion. I’m batting .000 so far. Sadly I am adding preterists and KJV Only types to the list of those whose minds seem to be ‘rusted shut’. I know that sounds harsh, but it’s true. I’m getting better at just trying to talk things through………I hope.

Thoughts?