The seven "ones" of Christian unity (Eph 4)

[Thinkingstuff]

Sorry to disappoint you Gerhard but I did no such thing. What I wrote was my own position and thoughts.

The Universal church is a complete myth that has not a shred of Biblical support. It is the invention of Augustine elaborated upon and expanded by Luther that most of Christendom as been suckered into and willingly so, since it is the doctrine that supports and defends schisms within the family and kingdom of God.

I noticed that everyone disagreed with me but no one attempted to challenge the reasons I put forward.

I think you misunderstood everyone supported what you typed initially with regard to Ephesians 4. However, No one bothered with your argument against your initial post. Everyone it seems agrees with the initial post and have made no comment on your later post debunking the first post. It seems you've made some assumptions with regard to Pauls intent that may not be the case.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I think you misunderstood everyone supported what you typed initially with regard to Ephesians 4. However, No one bothered with your argument against your initial post. Everyone it seems agrees with the initial post and have made no comment on your later post debunking the first post. It seems you've made some assumptions with regard to Pauls intent that may not be the case.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying! What did I misunderstand? Are you saying that I misunderstood their responses to my initial post with regard to Ephesians 4? Are you saying no one bothered to respond to my initial post because they are in agreement with it? Are you saying that my later posts debunked my former posts?????? Sorry if I am not following you, but please clarify?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying!

Ok

What did I misunderstand?

I think people's responces

Are you saying that I misunderstood their responses to my initial post with regard to Ephesians 4?

No.

Are you saying no one bothered to respond to my initial post because they are in agreement with it?

Yes

Are you saying that my later posts debunked my former posts??????

They were an attempt to.

Sorry if I am not following you, but please clarify?

Does this help. Also I asked a question earlier. Do you have an answer?

 

[Watermaker]

That's funny. I never brought it up at all.

But at least I got credit.

You don't seem too tore up about it, which is cool, but I will apologize if I was in error. Here's what my statement was based on. I don't recall exactly which page it was on, but...

...We guard the unity. It's something we already possess. Check Ephesians 4, especially 4:3, where we are to keep the unity. Something we already possess...

To my recall, you first brought Eph 4 into the discussion, so I gave you credit for it. Anyway, I hope we're cool on this.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ok I think people's responces No. Yes They were an attempt to. Does this help. Also I asked a question earlier. Do you have an answer?

As I understand you response, you think that my later posts were an attempt to repudiate my first post, is that correct?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As I understand you response, you think that my later posts were an attempt to repudiate my first post, is that correct?

Yes. But I'm sorry. I'm the one confused it was Water dude who made the 1st post. For some reason I thought it was you who made it. Maybe I misread the name at the bottom after you already posted. Ok I get it now. You're refutiating water dude. And you are responding in character to your beliefs. However, it seems most have disagreed with you.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Yes. But I'm sorry. I'm the one confused it was Water dude who made the 1st post. For some reason I thought it was you who made it. Maybe I misread the name at the bottom after you already posted. Ok I get it now. You're refutiating water dude. And you are responding in character to your beliefs. However, it seems most have disagreed with you.

Ok, now we are on the same page.

 

[billwald]

>Do you really buy into that kind of rationale??? Does God have more than one Savior, more than one kind of redemption? Are human beings different in nature from one dispensation to another?

NO! There is only one set of rules. Adam, Noah, The Patriarchs, the Prophets, Christians, misc. gentiles, and misc. Jews are all saved under the same rules. This is why it is foolish to think that modern unsaved Jews have different rules than unsaved gentiles.

 

[Dr. Walter]

>Do you really buy into that kind of rationale??? Does God have more than one Savior, more than one kind of redemption? Are human beings different in nature from one dispensation to another?

NO! There is only one set of rules. Adam, Noah, The Patriarchs, the Prophets, Christians, misc. gentiles, and misc. Jews are all saved under the same rules. This is why it is foolish to think that modern unsaved Jews have different rules than unsaved gentiles.

I agree. Modern Jews must be saved the same way as ancient Jews as man is man and has had the same problem since Eden and God is God and has the same solution to that problem and there is no other solution to that universal problem.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I agree. Modern Jews must be saved the same way as ancient Jews as man is man and has had the same problem since Eden and God is God and has the same solution to that problem and there is no other solution to that universal problem.

I don't understand how it follows that there is two different modes of salvation.

 

[Watermaker]

>No, I don't agree with this position at all. It has numerous problems. For example, are pre-Pentcostal saints OUTSIDE of Christ? If "in Christ" means in the body of Christ are they OUTSIDE of Christ.

In every dispensation God changes the rules? Every dispensation is a new ballgame? The dispensations are like a series of experiments. When one fails God starts a new dispensation?

I'm probably not the best one to expound on the different dispensations in the Bible, but here's the jist of my understanding of them.

Patriarchal - Adam to Moses. The father or patriarch served as the priest of the family and offered sacrifices according to God's instructions for himself and his family.

Mosaic - Moses to Christ. The Levitical priesthood acted as intercessors between God and the Israelites. They offered sacrifices according to God's instructions. The sacrifices themselves acted as a reminder of the weight of the sins of man and looked forward to the ultimate sacrifice of the Messiah.

Christian - Acts 2 'til 2nd Coming. Christ sacrificed Himself to atone for the sins of man. The New Testament in Jesus' blood applies to all men of every nation since then. All are saved by obeying the same gospel commands.

But the thread risks being sidetracked by this. Then again, why should this thread be any different from the rest?:tongue3:

 

[Watermaker]

How does this view stand up with your view of Christ not establishing a single church but independent churches from each other?

Jesus said He would build His church - singular.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

There were in the New Testament separate congregations wherever the gospel was preached, but they were all one church sharing (at least originally) the same doctrine and practices.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Jesus said He would build His church - singular.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

There were in the New Testament separate congregations wherever the gospel was preached, but they were all one church sharing (at least originally) the same doctrine and practices.

This goes against the standard baptistic views with regard to ecclesiology. The standard view is that Jesus established the church in Jerusalem only. The apostels established other churches. Independent but for the faith.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Jesus said He would build His church - singular.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

There were in the New Testament separate congregations wherever the gospel was preached, but they were all one church sharing (at least originally) the same doctrine and practices.

What Christ built is a new institution "my congregation" (Mt. 16:18; 18:17) of which he goes on to speak about in its concrete form or plural "congregations" (Rev. 1-3; 22:16).

The epistles were written to such congregations and therefore the historical contextual "we" in the epistles are the writer and readers who "all" have in common with each other the same kind of membership in the same kind of congregations with the same kind of ordinances or to say it another way they were "all" like faith and order with each other.

 

[Watermaker]

Okay! While there has been some disagreement, I will attempt to continue to the next of the seven "ones". Thanks by the way for the encouragement, and for the challenges. They are both appreciated. Dr. Walter, I'm not ignoring your posts, I simply want to continue the thread. I'll try to get back to you if you like.

"...even as ye are called in one hope of your calling..."

I submit this is the hope of the resurrection of the righteous, of Heaven, of redemption, of being forever with the Lord.

This hope saves us.

Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

We rejoice in this hope.

Rom 12:12 Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;

This hope is bolstered by our study of the Word of God.

Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

This hope is one of the three things that were left to replace tongues, prophecy, and supernatural knowledge.

1Co 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away...
1Co 13:13 ...And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

This hope is an anchor for our souls

Heb 6:19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

There are other Scriptures that apply. What thoughts?

 

[Watermaker]

What Christ built is a new institution "my congregation" (Mt. 16:18; 18:17) of which he goes on to speak about in its concrete form or plural "congregations" (Rev. 1-3; 22:16).

The epistles were written to such congregations and therefore the historical contextual "we" in the epistles are the writer and readers who "all" have in common with each other the same kind of membership in the same kind of congregations with the same kind of ordinances or to say it another way they were "all" like faith and order with each other.

I think we're on the same track. The separate congregations in different locations were independent of one another, yet they had unity with one another regarding faith and such. Am I understanding you correctly, sir?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Dr Walter, you posted...

(Bolding mine)

Sorry to disappoint you Gerhard but I did no such thing. What I wrote was my own position and thoughts.

The Universal church is a complete myth that has not a shred of Biblical support. It is the invention of Augustine elaborated upon and expanded by Luther that most of Christendom as been suckered into and willingly so, since it is the doctrine that supports and defends schisms within the family and kingdom of God.

Augustine penned THIS?....

Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Funny, I could have sworn those came from the scriptures. :thumbs:

 

[Watermaker]

This goes against the standard baptistic views with regard to ecclesiology. The standard view is that Jesus established the church in Jerusalem only. The apostels established other churches. Independent but for the faith.

I'm not familiar with the "standard baptistic views", but I'll take your word for it.

As of Matt 16:18, the church had not yet been built, or established. "...I will build my church...". Following this, there is a reference to the church regarding how discipline should be carried out.

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Aside from that, there is no mention of the church until Acts 2, when those who were being saved were added to it by the Lord.

Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Up until this point, the church is spoken of as something not yet, something to come in the future. From this point on, the church is referred to as something present.

Not sure how this squares with the standard baptistic view, but that's my understanding of it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I'm not familiar with the "standard baptistic views", but I'll take your word for it.

As of Matt 16:18, the church had not yet been built, or established. "...I will build my church...". Following this, there is a reference to the church regarding how discipline should be carried out.

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Aside from that, there is no mention of the church until Acts 2, when those who were being saved were added to it by the Lord.

Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Up until this point, the church is spoken of as something not yet, something to come in the future. From this point on, the church is referred to as something present.

Not sure how this squares with the standard baptistic view, but that's my understanding of it.

I'm just letting you know. The standard view by which some like Dr. Walter will disagree with your initial post. They view the verses you quoted as applying to Jerusalem and the apostlolic college.

Do you equate "Church" with "Kingdom"?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm probably not the best one to expound on the different dispensations in the Bible, but here's the jist of my understanding of them.

Patriarchal - Adam to Moses. The father or patriarch served as the priest of the family and offered sacrifices according to God's instructions for himself and his family.

Mosaic - Moses to Christ. The Levitical priesthood acted as intercessors between God and the Israelites. They offered sacrifices according to God's instructions. The sacrifices themselves acted as a reminder of the weight of the sins of man and looked forward to the ultimate sacrifice of the Messiah.

Christian - Acts 2 'til 2nd Coming. Christ sacrificed Himself to atone for the sins of man. The New Testament in Jesus' blood applies to all men of every nation since then. All are saved by obeying the same gospel commands.

But the thread risks being sidetracked by this. Then again, why should this thread be any different from the rest?:tongue3:

These are purely man made distinctions that the scriptures never explicitly state anywhere.

David was as much a "Christian" as we are. The term "Christ-ian" simly refers to a believer in "Christ" and "Christ" is the New Testament translation of the Old Testament "Messiah." Peter says that all the prophets preached that remission of sins were by faith in the Messiah. The writer of Hebrews explicitly states that Moses considered Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: - Hebrews 11:26

There may have been different human administrations (government, family altar, family preist, levitical priest, various ceremonial rites) that conveyed the same Savior, Same way of salvation and same gospel to the same kind of sinners but the Scriptures condemn as "accursed" any who teach there was another gospel, another Savior, another way of salvation than what Paul preached (Gal. 1:8-9) and he repeatedly says that his gospel, his way of salvation, his Savior is explicitly the same as preached by all the prophets:

Acts 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Hebrews 4:2 - For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Jesus denies that before Pentecost there was any other way than one way (Mt. 7:13-14) and that way was through him (Jn. 14:6) for all mankind in all ages and that is still confirmed after the cross (Acts 4:12).

There have been only one kind of man born into this world - sinful (Rom. 3:9-21) and there have been only two classes of men in the world (1) saved (2) lost; or (1) Children of God; (2) children of Satan; or (1) In spiritual union with God or (2) in spiritual union with Satan; or (1) Regenerated or (2) unregenerated or (1) in the Spirit or (2) in the flesh. There never has been or never will be a third class in regard to any of the couplets above.