The Nature of the Church, OT and NT

[TCassidy]

The entire Oxford English Dictionary is also available online.

For a hefty subscription price.

I've cited it here numerous times, however 'InTheLight' has said of it:

Another topic ITL knows nothing about. The OED is updated periodically and now contains over 600,000 words including neologisms.

 

[John of Japan]

No, they are included into the body of Christ because they were saved same way we all were, but the death/resurrection of jhesus christ on their behalf!

So they are in the church, the body of Christ, but not in a local church? Doesn't make much sense to me. That's why Dispensationalism teaches a "church age," which makes sense of the term "church."

 

[1689Dave]

the fulness of God, but not the Father or the Holy Spirit, as he is seperate and distince from them!

This is not correct. The Athanasian Creed puts it this way: “Now this is the catholic faith: That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons, nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit, still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.”

 

[1689Dave]

NO, Jesus is the name for God the Son Only!

Jesus = YHWH the triune God's personal name in the OT. Example; Jesus told them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And this they did baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[1689Dave]

They would have been regenerated and saved, but not Indwelt by the Spirit as we are now...

Not according to Paul.

 

[loDebar]

So OT saints were baptized in the name of Jesus and celebrated the Lord's Supper? And some of them were pastors and deacons? And they met on Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Believing is being a Christian

 

[loDebar]

No, because this misunderstands the nature of a type, which uses an historical person or event as an illustration. (The Greek word tupos is sometimes translated as "example" or "ensample.") An institution or nation is not really a type.

i found this,, comments?


Though perhaps written in response to dispensationalism, it is often posted in response to baptists in order to promote Westminster Federalism, which believes that Israel and the Church are one. However, a slightly closer inspection reveals that Israel and the Church, though very related, are not one. Rather, Israel according to the flesh is a type of Israel according to the Spirit.

 

[1689Dave]

i found this,, comments?


Though perhaps written in response to dispensationalism, it is often posted in response to baptists in order to promote Westminster Federalism, which believes that Israel and the Church are one. However, a slightly closer inspection reveals that Israel and the Church, though very related, are not one. Rather, Israel according to the flesh is a type of Israel according to the Spirit.

The problem with this is that it lumps the unbelievers together with the believers of all time. The OT church (Israel) was a Church/State made up of believers and unbelievers. The NT Church (Israel) is believers only.

 

[Yeshua1]

So they are in the church, the body of Christ, but not in a local church? Doesn't make much sense to me. That's why Dispensationalism teaches a "church age," which makes sense of the term "church."

The true Church of Christ is made up of all of the redeemed since Adam forward, and after Tentacost, there are assemblies of local churches, who are part of that true Church of Christ

 

[Yeshua1]

This is not correct. The Athanasian Creed puts it this way: “Now this is the catholic faith: That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons, nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit, still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.”

Jesus is a Person of the Trinity, but neither the Father nor the Spirit are Him! he does not have the Father and Spirit in Him, as he is God by Himself!

 

[1689Dave]

Jesus os a Person of the trinity, but neither the Father nor the Spirit are Him!

God is one Spirit you cannot divide.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus = YHWH the triune God's personal name in the OT. Example; Jesus told them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And this they did baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ.

No! Jesus is not the father/Son and Spirit, he is just Jesus!

 

[Yeshua1]

God is one Spirit you cannot divide.

God is 3 Persons seperate and distinct, correct?

 

[1689Dave]

No! Jesus is not the father/Son and Spirit, he is just Jesus!

If you study the Ecumenical Creeds, they will help you understand the nature of the trinity. The are important. Because if we get it wrong there, we worship a false god.

 

[1689Dave]

God is 3 Persons seperate and distinct, correct?

The Athanasian Creed puts it this way: “Now this is the catholic faith:

That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons, nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit, still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.”

 

[rlvaughn]

Yes, as the Spirit worked among and with the prophets, priests, judges, kings, but seemed to be reserved for those in offical positions for God to do!

In that case Peter doesn't say among or with, but "in."

 

[rlvaughn]

He had a unique view on a lot of things! He was somewhat of a theological maverick. In the case of the church, though, I think his view was pretty much what he was taught at Baylor U. and Southwestern BTS back in the 1920's.

Interesting. I would have not guessed that at Southwestern in the early 1900s, but that was just an assumption on my part (based on what I think B. H. Carroll taught/held).

 

[Yeshua1]

If you study the Ecumenical Creeds, they will help you understand the nature of the trinity. The are important. Because if we get it wrong there, we worship a false god.

God is 3 Seperate and Distinct Persons, correct?
The name of Jesus is NOT the name for all 3 of them, correct?

 

[1689Dave]

God is 3 Seperate and Distinct Persons, correct?
The name of Jesus is NOT the name for all 3 of them, correct?

the doctrine of the Trinity can be summarized in seven statements. (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Athanasian Creed puts it this way: “Now this is the catholic faith:

That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons, nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit, still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.”

You seem to have been saying that the name of jesus is for all 3, of them though!