Whose Church is it? And Who is to be In It?

Paul speaking:

1 Corinthians 15:9  I’m the least of the apostles. I’m not even fit to be called an apostle because I persecuted God’s church. (GOD’S WORD)

Again Paul speaking:

Galatians 1:13  You heard about the way I once lived when I followed the Jewish religion. You heard how I violently persecuted God’s church and tried to destroy it. (GOD’S WORD)

Paul does something here that puzzles me.  For just a moment I’m going to do with the Scripture, what some like to do in their teachings in order to make “their” point.  In these passages, in case you hadn’t noticed, there is stated about “the Church”, that it is God’s Church.  Why did Paul say that, when Jesus had said to Peter, on this rock (this acknowledgement of yours Peter) on it I will build my Church.  Paraphrased

So, Holy Spirit, who inspired the very words used to teach us about the Church, He is making God’s point, that this Church is Mine (Father; Son and Holy Spirit).  In this telling, we see that Jesus is unarguably God, according to the Holy Spirit, within Paul.  He’s my Son, and I revealed this to Peter. I have upheld just who Jesus is, says the Father: He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.  So understand that this is God’s Church.  In it abides those walking in the Spirit of God, abiding in Christ Jesus as His bride, and adopted by the Father to be His sons.  Can I conclude all that from Paul’s calling the Church that he persecuted “Gods Church”?  How can I not conclude this? It’s all based upon Scripture. Not from one place, but a compiled message across its pages. 

So, why did God put this in His Word?  It’s certainly not to confuse us.  We are taught that the Church is Christ’s Bride and that it belongs to Christ, as His Bride.  But apart from Scripture there is a thinking brought forth causing us to question Israel’s place in the New Covenant, but why?  

It’s brought into question, because Dispensationalists attempt to have two brides (two PEOPLES, who cannot in their doctrine ever be one as the Scriptures teach).  

Could it be that our relationship (Israel and the Church as Christ’s bride, sons of the living God is to be the teaching of these end times?  A teaching to bring Israel to her Messiah?

Some of you just will not believe Paul when in the book of Ephesians in Chapter 2 he tells us that when we were saved there were certain things about us that changed from when we had been lost.  What was then true, is simply no longer true. Listen: 

Ephesians 2:12  [remember] that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the people of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (NASB2020)

There is a lot in this verse.  So here we find what not being saved excludes us from; but that also means that when we are among the saved that we are no longer excluded from these same things. 

We are now as saved people in Christ:   One with the people of Israel, who were saved before us and are in God’s Church.  We are no longer strangers but participants in God’s covenants.  We are no longer without God.  We are in the world, but no longer of it.  

We are thus based upon this verse not really two bodies of people: One being Israel, thought to be the Fathers bride, and the other being Jesus’ bride the Church.  But since God is one Father, Son And Holy Spirit so are we His people One new man as Paul tells us here in Ephesians. 

Jesus tells us that He is the only way to the Father. Paul tells us that there is only one gospel, and He makes his point very clear.  And the Holy Spirit has confirmed Himself as the only teacher that we need to lead us into all truth; and that the truth comes from His Word, and not from what man expresses as his belief about the word. 

Although I agree with you (Mr Dispensationalist) concerning replacement theology (The church was never intended to replace Israel); yet I’m finding it hard to understand why Dispensationalism is not also replacement theology?  Think about it. The New Covenant Church that is brought into existance by Jesus the Messiah of Israel, is said to be for gentiles, even though it was started by Jews. And it is then said that Israel must come to Christ by another kingdom gospel, a different gospel (not through the new covenant Church promised to them); which different gospel Paul says will make men bringing it’s message to then be Anathema. This he said is true, even if it is an angel bringing it.   

Either Paul is a false apostle or the Holy Spirit knew that someone in our day before Christ’s coming  would be teaching that the angel of Revelation would be teaching another gospel. One different from the one that we have all been saved by. 

I also must agree with some of what you say Mr Dispensationalist concerning the second coming of Christ to be before His millennial reign, but what about the one new man which is in Christ Jesus?  For He is the giver of Israel’s New Covenant, and The Holy Spirit uses it to provide salvation to the world (meaning all who will receive Him and His New Covenant provision). How then can it be for All except, the very ones for whom this covenant was promised (Israel). 

She alone is left out, according to your doctrine.  It seems that He (Jesus) intended to join the Jews and Gentiles who would come to Him.  They would be joined with the saints, whom He delivered from the belly of the earth and had brought into heaven; thus creating for Himself one new man as Paul says; and one flock with one shepherd over the flock as Jesus tells it in John: 

John 10:16  “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock [with] one shepherd. (NASB1995) 

To me it’s hard to overlook this idea of one new man, saved under the one New Covenant, which alone is given for man’s salvation. And since it is easy to prove from Scripture that O.T. Israel is also in Christ and was led from the belly of the earth into heaven even as you Dispensationalists admit on occasion;  for I have heard some of you teach such.  So then, where do you find a new division taking place requiring a gospel to be accepted that is other than the new covenant gospel, and one that returns Israel back to the law and the promised kingdom, which Paul condemns the churches in Galatians for wanting to do?

Please explain these discrepancies if you can.  Otherwise except that the Church did not replace Israel, but instead the Church is God’s promised gift to both Israel and the world fulfilling His promise not only to Israel but also to Abraham.