Do you believe the Church started at Pentecost?

[Onlybygrace]

Tom you said:
It is meaningless to refer to the Red Cross without reference to the specific branches.
That is not true though. You can speak of its principles and policies and refer to its national goals and objectives,etc Surely it would not be nonsensical to speak of those things not refering to a specific branch. I think that is a weak argument.
Also when it comes to the passage in Ephesians let's do look at the context in which one body is mentioned:
endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,
4 One body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling,
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism."
There are 6 things mentioned that are preceded by the word ONE. To maintain the integrity of your interpretation you are going to have to either change the interpretation of all 6 to mean a single local physical entity amongst many or accept that all of them mean what they say ONE.
So according to you there are many spirits that manifest physically and locally, we all have our own personal hopes that we are called to, we serve many lords, eeach one excercises his own kind of faith and has experienced his own baptist...apart of course from the blatant fact that each of those concepts are clearly preceded by the word ONE!

 

[Eagle]

Tom you said:
It is meaningless to refer to the Red Cross without reference to the specific branches.
That is not true though. You can speak of its principles and policies and refer to its national goals and objectives,etc Surely it would not be nonsensical to speak of those things not refering to a specific branch. I think that is a weak argument.
Also when it comes to the passage in Ephesians let's do look at the context in which one body is mentioned:
endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,
4 One body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling,
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism."
There are 6 things mentioned that are preceded by the word ONE. To maintain the integrity of your interpretation you are going to have to either change the interpretation of all 6 to mean a single local physical entity amongst many or accept that all of them mean what they say ONE.
So according to you there are many spirits that manifest physically and locally, we all have our own personal hopes that we are called to, we serve many lords, eeach one excercises his own kind of faith and has experienced his own baptist...apart of course from the blatant fact that each of those concepts are clearly preceded by the word ONE!

I have patiently read thru this thread, seeing if anyone addresses the main points of the OP. Tom Butler and BMA Preacher have hit on them -- but there is so much more plain simple proofs out there.

I am not trying to condescend, but it seems as tho I am not on a Baptist theology study page.

1st, Onlybygrace, there is from this same book of Ephesians, vs. 17-23: (emphasis mine)

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Here, Paul (or Christ, the true author), who almost exclusively gives us the NT imagery of a "body" equates church to the Body of Christ. One and the same entity, discussion over. If the very word itself "ekklessia" means local assembly, and if Jesus calls this same entity "His Body" -- then clearly the body of Christ is a local assembly.

To this are the numerous NT references to the churches (plural), or the church AT such & such a place, and also this:

Rev 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

Here is an imagery of Christ, the Head, standing in the midst of His candlesticks (or lampholders), called churches (plural). We could also call these 7 bodies, as to how they function -- which is representing Christ before the world -- subject each the same to their one, same HEAD.

As to the reference from Ephesians 4, it is obviously referring to a single type of body, just as it lists one baptism, by TYPE. You and I did not receive the one & same baptism at the same time, place etc., however, we may well have both received Believer's Baptism, via immersion, by an authorized agent of the the Lord's True Church (a local body)!

Study on these, please. This is Baptist Doctrine.

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom you said:
It is meaningless to refer to the Red Cross without reference to the specific branches.
That is not true though. You can speak of its principles and policies and refer to its national goals and objectives,etc Surely it would not be nonsensical to speak of those things not refering to a specific branch. I think that is a weak argument.

Of course, we can't agree about this if you hold that local congregations are branches of the universal church. My view is, remember, that there are only local churches, and that the U-Church does not exist.

Your comment does beg the questions, what are the principles and policies of the Universal Church? And at what meeting were those principles and policies adopted?

The Red Cross, on the other hand, is an international organization, with policies set at the top. It is a visible international organization, by the way. The Universal Church invisible with no visible purpose on this earth.

 

[Eagle]

I will attempt to address two other issues stemming from this thread, both from the following passage, Luke 2:44-53:

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
And ye are witnesses of these things.
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

First, did OT Saints have opportunity to, or did they actually believe in Jesus the Christ (or Messiah). In v. 44, a resurrected Christ tells members of His Church in Jerusalem (vs. 13,52), about the scriptures concerning HIM, from Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. The OT pointed the way to the promised Messiah & OT Saints trusted in His coming. The NT points the way back to the finished work of the "anointed one" & NT Saints trust in His having come.

Second, v. 45 tells us that Jesus "opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures."

This ties in with Acts 1 & following, & how Christ's Church, with Peter taking leadership, v.15, was gathered together (assembled, locally) & made decisions on behalf of their Lord (the body representing the Head to the world) concerning naming another apostle to replace the 12 -- according to their understanding of, and fulfillment of prophetic scripture.

Here they were functioning perfectly as Christ's Church, Body, Ekklessia -- before Pentecost. As has been stated by others here, the apostles were first placed in the church -- during Jesus earthly ministry.They were hand-picked, and hand-taught, much more even than what has been revealed to us thru God's written revelation.

Yes, the Church was empowered in a miraculous way on Pentecost, that kept them "on fire", if you will, but they were already meeting & conducting His affairs, and not hiding in a corner. There were after all, about 120 of them there for that purpose.

The real reason for what happened on Pentecost however, is the notification that this was the latest (and last) manifestation of the "House of God". If we remember, when both first the Tabernacle, and then the Temple, were complete and ready for God to fill -- He did so with a Sign & Wonder, on a magnitude with, and similar to that of Pentecost.

So all the people in the world would know that the Tabernacle was the place, or "House" among the people of God to properly represent Him to the world, so everyone would know that it was not simply something Moses came up with, God filled the tabernacle with His Glory, a cloud of smoke by day, and a pillar of fire by night. This after it was built exactly according to His blueprints, even the naming of the master-builders to construct it.

When the need for a more permanent "House of God" arose, God again had it built according to His precise blueprints, naming the builders, and even who couldn't build it, David. When it was complete there was a similar Sign & Wonder as to the Tabernacle, so that all the people would know most assuredly, that this was now the House of God. It took a similar Sign & Wonder -- because everyone knew by the first that the Tabernacle was truly of God -- Solomon's saying this new Temple was of God was not sufficient, without God's authentication.

The curtain into "the holy of holies," signifying where God dwelt was torn from top to bottom at the crucifiction of Jesus, it's use in representing God to the world was now ended.

The Sign & Wonder of Pentecost was God's filling & authenticating His new "House of God" to the whole world. The only authorized institution for this purpose on the face of the earth. The Church was legitimate & even functioning before Pentecost, but now the world knows most assuredly who & what represents Him to the world today.

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

 

[Tom Butler]

What many call the Church (universal) is actually the Kingdom--composed of subjects of the King.

Our Church of Christ friends hold that they are one and the same.

The main difference I see is that one exists and the other does not. And even Kingdom work is done through local churches.

 

[Eagle]

What many call the Church (universal) is actually the Kingdom--composed of subjects of the King.

Our Church of Christ friends hold that they are one and the same.

The main difference I see is that one exists and the other does not. And even Kingdom work is done through local churches.

I agree with you on this Tom, and I noticed that your point has not actually been addressed by anyone on this thread. The two terms "kingdom of God" & "kingdom of Heaven" appear to be synonymous and interchangeable in the NT.

The parable of the wheat & tares (Matt. 13:24-42) is illustrative of the inherent differences in Church theology (Ecclesiology) and I suppose you would categorize things pertaining to heaven as Soteriology?

God has instituted church discipline, obviously, to deal with sin, or problems within the church, but there is no mechanism for dealing with sin outside it (as in the example of tares from the devil and good seed from God). For the sake of the good seed, God holds off judgment on the tares. Clearly, this is not speaking of His church.

It does, however, appear to be an acknowledgment of a class of people, who have missed the boat about the Lord's church. The inferences from these parables seem to apply across the board to saved people in general.

Hard to believe, but some people still get confused about church membership vs. salvation. One can be saved and not in the Lord's church, and in fact there are probably many, based on false Catholic and Protestant beliefs (i.e. Infant Baptism, etc.). I would not want to be counted among them -- and they are missing out on so much -- by misrepresenting God to the world.

Bottom line here, this kingdom of Heaven/God would be the institution many think of as the "Church Universal." It is oftimes easier to twist the very words of scripture to mean something impossible, than to just let God's Word say what it says. Of course, that is also the function of Pastors & Teachers, to enlighten us & show the way!

 

[Tom Butler]

God has instituted church discipline

And I would add that church discipline can be practiced only in the context of a local congregation.

 

[Onlybygrace]

Eagle, thank you for your candid response, Please allow me the courtesy of challenging your thinking:

You said:
Here, Paul (or Christ, the true author), who almost exclusively gives us the NT imagery of a "body" equates church to the Body of Christ. One and the same entity, discussion over. If the very word itself "ekklessia" means local assembly, and if Jesus calls this same entity "His Body" -- then clearly the body of Christ is a local assembly.

I agree with you on that point in that I am not saying that ekklesia does not refer to the local assembly, what I am questioning is whether that is all it refers to.
Neither am I arguing that the church is not synonomous with the body of Christ.
I can tell from your response that you are a scholar so I have no doubt that you are aware of the fact that the term ekklesia and its usage predates pentecost and there predates the localised assembly as you are arguing it. In fact here is a definition of ekklesia from a Thayers greek lexicon:

-a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
-an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
-the assembly of the Israelites
-any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
in a Christian sense
-an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
-a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
-those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
-the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
-the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

You can see from that definition that ekklesia never has been used exclusively of the local church to begin with so yes the term can be APPLIED in a sense to the local church but it would be an erroneous assumption that it is the ONLY sense in which it is used in the bible.

I would also like to point out to you another passage in Ephesians that uses the terminology, Ephesians 5:25 - 31:

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body.
You are obviously a greek scholar, how do you explain away the singular pronouns and definite articles?
Surely if God's word is inerrant, which it is, if He meant more than one He would have inspired Paul to use the plural?
How is it possible that we have license and latitude to explain away grammatical specifics that challenge our personal theological bias in one area of scripture but remain dogmatic in other areas? Is that not poor hemeneutics?

For example, when Jesus :"I am the way..." in John 14:6 could that be interpreted genrically meaning many localised ways or did God allow the writer to use the definite article to leave no doubt as to the exclusivity of Christ's claim...thus He is the one and only way!

In the Ephesians 5 passage then is Paul saying that Jesus sacrificed Himself for many localised assemblies?

Do you believe Paul is teaching that Jesus did this to eventually present many localised assemblies to Himself spotless? That would apply that everyone in a localised assembly will be perfect and go to heaven. Is this true?

What of those who have died in the Lord from Pentecost till now? They no longer belong to a localised assembly so where do they fit in to the picture?

You also said:
I am not trying to condescend, but it seems as tho I am not on a Baptist theology study page.
My dear friend I would hope that we all are not chiefly motivated hermeneutically by our desire to Baptist but rather, more importantly, by our desire to be Biblical.
Being Baptist in my humble opinion is not synonomous with being Biblical, neither is it synonomous with being accurate hermeneutically or correct theologically.

We cannot approach scripture with preconceived denominational glasses on and then expect to see truth for what it is and when we don't find what we are looking for respond by squeezing things into our theological mold. I am not accusing you of doing that but I am saying that we all are in danger of falling into that trap.

What do you think?

 

[Tom Butler]

Onlybygrace, while we await Eagle's response, I'll share some thoughts.

I find three ways that ekklesia is used in the New Testament:
1. To describe a local congregation--which, of course, congregates.
2. A generic or institutional sense, in the same way we would refer to "the family."
3. A prospective sense, such as the great general assembly in heaven.

In that regard, we can see Ephesians 5:25-27 in this light:
When a husband and wife are likened to Jesus and the church, we understand that it's a real husband who loves and gives himself for a real, live wife--not some generic wife.

In the same way Jesus gave himself for the church, we find Paul, in Acts 20:28 speaking of Jesus' shedding his blood for the congregation at Ephesus. A real, live congregation. That's the same church over which the Holy Spirit had set the elders as overseers and pastors. Not some generic, institutional (or prospective) church, but a visible, active assembly.

In the same way, Paul described the congregation at Corinth as "THE body of Christ." (I Cor 12:27).

There will come a day when there'll be one body, one assembly; we'll all be unified, and we'll all know the truth. But such a body does not exist today. I'll say again, if such a body exists, it is hopelessly fractured, and virtually useless in carrying out the Great Commission.

Until then, it is the local church which is uniquely qualified, equipped and commissioned to carry out that commission. And, by the way, it always assembles, something the U-church does not and cannot do.

BTW, I thank you for your reasoned discourse. We disagree, but not disagreeably.

 

[Onlybygrace]

Hi Tom, thank you for your response it has been enlightening.

Just a few of questions:

1. When Christians from different local assemblies work together on a project or in a missions organisation are they not displaying unity? But if there isn't one body then what are they united in because it isn't one assembly working?

2. When Paul wrote his epistles he addressed it "to THE church" singular but we are well aware of the fact there were many house churches meeting in homes so why did he not say the CHURCHES?

3. In Jesus' high priestly prayer in John 17:20-23 He prays for all believers and asks that the Father make them ONE as the trinity is one...distinct but one! What is your interpretation of that and what bearing does it have on your understanding of unity in the body of Christ?

 

[Tom Butler]

I'll take a stab at your questions, which are good ones, by the way.

Just a few of questions:

1. When Christians from different local assemblies work together on a project or in a missions organisation are they not displaying unity? But if there isn't one body then what are they united in because it isn't one assembly working?

Tom's answer: You have described the way Baptists operate. Local churches join together to cooperate in a number of ways: through associations, state conventions, and the SBC. They are cooperative ventures in which local churches pool their resources to have a larger impact. That's why they are called associations and conventions. And they are run by representatives of local churches at every level. All voluntarily cooperate with each other. In each case they are not called "The Southern Baptist Church" or a church at all.

2. When Paul wrote his epistles he addressed it "to THE church" singular but we are well aware of the fact there were many house churches meeting in homes so why did he not say the CHURCHES?

Tom's answer: He did, in fact, in Romans 16:16 "...the churches of Christ salute you." In Jerusalem, with several thousand members, there were several preaching stations ("house to house"), but the leadership was over one church

3. In Jesus' high priestly prayer in John 17:20-23 He prays for all believers and asks that the Father make them ONE as the trinity is one...distinct but one! What is your interpretation of that and what bearing does it have on your understanding of unity in the body of Christ?

Tom's answer: The fact that Jesus prayed for them to be one indicates that they either were not, or eventually, would not be one.
The stated desire of Jesus and Biblical ideal is that all Christians would be united. It is obvious even today that they are not. Certainly, the so-called "Universal Church" is not. If it existed, it would be filled with those who believe error.

One day, Christians will be united when we all gather in the great General Assembly. Until then, the local congregation is the only one which comes close to being united as one body.

I see how one might wonder how you can have one body, yet have the local congregations be one body, or be many bodies.

I think we're talking about unity in each body, rather than being one single body.

 

[Eagle]

Eagle, thank you for your candid response, Please allow me the courtesy of challenging your thinking:

You also said:
I am not trying to condescend, but it seems as tho I am not on a Baptist theology study page.
My dear friend I would hope that we all are not chiefly motivated hermeneutically by our desire to Baptist but rather, more importantly, by our desire to be Biblical.
Being Baptist in my humble opinion is not synonomous with being Biblical, neither is it synonomous with being accurate hermeneutically or correct theologically.

We cannot approach scripture with preconceived denominational glasses on and then expect to see truth for what it is and when we don't find what we are looking for respond by squeezing things into our theological mold. I am not accusing you of doing that but I am saying that we all are in danger of falling into that trap.

What do you think?

Hey Onlybygrace, thank-you for the thoughtful "challenge" to my thinking! I must agree with Tom Butler, that you are not being disagreeable

.

I have not been to visit BB since 4-4-10, according to my log-in info, else I would have tried to respond sooner. I had thought these threads were drying up, but I am happy to discover, not!

I will have to devote more time than I have now (and clear-headedness) to address the many 'challenges' you set forth. However, I would like to address this lesser (?) issue at this time.

Tho, technically (and actually) you may be right, that I am Biblical before Baptist, HOWEVER, a thorough study over many years concerning the various doctrines, or 'truths' held by various denominations, leads one inexorably, and consistently, to the facts that the Baptists are right, and therefore hold fast 'THE TRUTH' in a churning sea of so many 'other truths'. Therefore, I readily, proudly, and most happily, call myself a Baptist, period. I wish no one to in any way mix me up with any protestant denomination, period, because of what the Bible teaches -- and not from forcing my pre-conceived notions into it. I was not always a Baptist -- I choose it.

This is not to say, that all Baptists have all things completely right, or that they have not been wrong in some things. We are all subject to our fallen natures.

To attempt to clarify, by analogy: some would say, "I was in the military." Some would say, "I served in our nation's armed forces." etc., etc. On the other hand, what I generally like to say is, "I was a Marine." Tho all statements may be true, the specificity I use says what I mean it to say, or imply. This in no way says Marines are perfect, or without mistakes.

Another example is that neither do I say that 'I am a citizen of the world' or 'I am one of Adam's descendants, and brother to all mankind.' What I say is that "I am an American." This is not to say that America is perfect -- by any stretch. I none-the-less happily and most readily represent myself in this manner, tho the other statements may be equally true.

As to me being a scholar, perhaps, in the vein of Abraham Lincoln, who purportedly read, studied, and was self taught. I in no way diminish the wealth of knowledge that I have learned from many pastors, teachers, professors, and 'Joes' on the job site. I only want to be forthright, that tho I have attended 3 colleges, and taken many church based "preacher boy" classes -- I hold no paper.

Diligent personal study and research, as you have obviously entertained to do, will go a long way toward equipping you.

I am soundly, and thoroughly, a Baptist, the Bible makes me one. I come to sites like BB hungering & thirsting for more strong Baptist 'communion' and mutual encouragement, etc. If I can also 'help out' another along the way, Praise The Lord!

I will attempt to answer your many other queries soon, and thanks for caring enough to seriously seek.

 

[Tom Butler]

My dear friend I would hope that we all are not chiefly motivated hermeneutically by our desire to Baptist but rather, more importantly, by our desire to be Biblical.
Being Baptist in my humble opinion is not synonomous with being Biblical, neither is it synonomous with being accurate hermeneutically or correct theologically.

I know you directed this to Eagle, but I'd like to offer my two cents worth, as well.

My answer is a bit more hard-line than Eagle's. I, in fact, do believer being biblical and being Baptist are essentially the same. Now there are several stripes of Baptists, with differences in ecclesiology and eschatology. And a few off-brand Baptists are wrong on soteriology. But on the essentials, the historic doctrines, Baptists are right on everything.

It as become fashionable these days even some of my fellow Baptists to say that we're not right on everything. But none of them ever says what it is that we get wrong. I really think what they're saying is that it is impossible for us to be perfectly right in every aspect, because we're not perfect.

Maybe not. But I'm talking about the historic doctrines, which, if you added them up, you'd say, "why that's a Baptist." And the folks who believe what Baptists believe were around well before Pentecost.

 

[Tom Butler]

Even the first church, the one Jesus established during his earthly ministry, made up of the twelve, was not perfect.

One of the members was an unsaved thief.

 

[saturneptune]

I usually agree with you, Tom, but not here. The Twelve did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at this time, which I think is one of the marks of the Church, in the sense that it is the church of Jesus Christ.

After all, look at how they scattered when Jesus was arrested and how Peter denied Jesus. But look at how they persisted, preached, and endured imprisonment and even death once they had the indwelling Holy Spirit.

I do not think the church of Jesus exists without its members (believers) indwelt by the Holy Spirit, which is also why I do not think the assembly in the OT was the church.

Lots of times I disagree with Tom, but agree with him here. The Twelve did not need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at the time, they had Jesus Christ, the Son of God, right in their presence. That is all the Divine power they needed. God is God.

As far as the disciples being scattered, that is true, but it had to do with an understanding of the Gospel, not the role or power of Jesus compared to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has been the power of the Church for 0ver 2000 years, and we have lots of believers that scatter for various reasons, whether it be not going to church or struck by the things of this world. The power of any part of the Trinity is equal. How we scatter or do not is a function of our faith, not the power of the Lord.

As far as Peter goes, yes, he also did deny the Lord. We all know the story. You contend that the church did not start until Pentecost because of evidence that the disciples scattered before hand. What about the restoration of Peter in John 21:15-23? The Lord took him through a series of questions that brought a commitment from Peter, which very strongly suggests that his commitment to the Lord was established firmly then to the point of death. The Lord even told Peter in v 18 how he would die. Evidence also suggests that Thomas had that commitment at the appearance of the Risen Lord. In Matt 28:14, the Lord rebuked all eleven disciples for their unbelief and hardness of their hearts, right before He gave them the great commission. Again, it seems a Word from the Lord put all of them in their right minds. Their is no evidence of scattering or being scared between that point and Pentecost. Even if there were, it is a function of them, not the power of the Lord.

If the church was established at Pentecost, how do you explain Matt 18:17, where the Lord mentions the church in relation to church discipline. Both Baptism and the Lord's Supper are present, spreading the Gospel is present, there was a functional form of offering and helping the poor, so what is missing?

I would hate to be in a position of evaluating how well the Holy Spirit is doing with the Church today based on the average commitment of Christians today, especially in this country. How many of us would stand firm for the Lord today with a gun pointed to our head or our children's head if we did not deny the Lord? 99.9% of us do not have a clue as to what these Twelve went through, because we have never approached a situation beginning to understand what they went through.

In the Book of Acts, Chapter 1 v 12 says they (the Disciples) went from Mt. Olivet to Jerusalem to an upper room in one accord in prayer, before Pentecost. It does not say they were locked behind closed doors fearing for their lives. V 15 goes on to say that Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples and said "Men and bretheren (believers), this Scripture had to be fulfilled......" through v 22. Those sound like bold words to me, not a coward, before Pentecost.

It could also be pointed out that the change and boldness in Paul came from an encounter with the Lord Jesus.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Good responses gang! Well I do stick to my guns and believe every believer had the Holy Spirit indwelling them in the Old and New Testement. Scripture strongly support that the anointing and power of the Holy Spirt coming upon believers through history to do Gods will is not always the same as being indwelt. Even today believers can be indwelt but not be filled or walking in the power as needed for a certain tasks or calling.

 

[Allan]

If the church was established at Pentecost, how do you explain Matt 18:17, where the Lord mentions the church in relation to church discipline. Both Baptism and the Lord's Supper are present, spreading the Gospel is present, there was a functional form of offering and helping the poor, so what is missing?

I'm not going to get back into the whole debate aspect of this issue but some question you give here brother, I would like to address.. if I may?

First, while the Lords supper is present.. it had no meaning for the disciples as they did not understand nor did they believe He would die and rise again. Jesus was showing them what it was and how to do it, but the meaning of it only came later when He rose from the dead. Scripture tells us that when we partake of the Lords supper we should do so with great care, discerning what it means. Thus Christ instituted the Lords supper but at that moment and that particular supper it was more about teaching them for a later date when understanding was revealed.

Second, the term church you find in Matt 18:17 isn't speaking of the body of Christ existing at that moment though I do believe he is refering their particular gathering of persons who 'will be' this NT Church that will be later. Let me explain -
The Greek word used here does not always mean or refer to specifically the body of Christ, which we know is the church. It actaully has various aspects ranging from a simple local gathering as governing body, to even a gathering of pagan believers (a religious gathering), and even a gathering of like minded believers in the name of Jesus.. the church. (we find all of these uses for this Greek word in the NT, most specifically in the book of Acts)

Thus while it is truth that Jesus is speaking the disciples of 'their' gathered group, it was not yet the church scripture speaks to and defines in the NT.
What is most important is not that there was a gathering with Jesus, but makes that gathering different from other religious gatherings.

According to scripture, the body of Christ is made up of 1. Spirit indwelt believers who are 2. baptised INTO the death, burial, AND resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ. 3. This 'baptism' is a spiritual baptism is done by the Holy Spirit but it could only be done after Christ died, was buried, rose again.. and left. The Holy Spirit did and could not come to seal them (for we are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise), baptise them, nor indwell them till after Christ accended into heaven, so the He would come.

And you are correct that the disciples did baptise. But the baptism the disciples did, prior to Christ death, was not into Jesus death, burial and resurrection because we know for a fact, that 1. they didn't understand it and 2. we know they didn't understand this because none of the disciples believed Jesus was going to rise from the dead. We know this becuase Jesus tells us that none of them believed.. and therefore the Messiah they were believing in was not truly or fully the one Jesus came to be. Yet when He rose again and revealed the truth to them, they then believed He was the messiah that scripture promised He would be and that Jesus told them He was.

What they were doing (baptising) was much like the baptism of John the Baptist was doing which was in accordance with the OT Law, regarding pagans and or Jews who left their faith,coming repenting to God and submitting themselves to Him alone and the Jewish faith.
Did you ever wonder why Jesus never baptised anyone?

The predominant case for when the Church began resides in Spirit baptism however and to me the very definer of the entire argumet, of which the above can not and would not have transpired till after Jesus death, burial, resurrection and ascention:

1Cr 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

However even John the Baptist stated His baptism wasn't enough for salvation but that Jesus had a baptism that will:

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire” (Matt. 3:11).

Notice it was still yet future and in fact we know when it was carried out .. at pentacost (Acts 2).
Again, even Jesus states that He "will build" His CHurch.. yet future. The verb tense here is specific in that it is not yet been built but is still to come.
Acts 1:5 Jesus states the Spirits baptism was still yet future.

The church can not exist without the Spirit baptism. We know that Christ Jesus didn't baptise anyone with the Spirit of God till after Pentacost as show in Acts 11:

And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning [on the Day of Pentecost]. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 11:15-16).

We also know that our very salvation is tied intimately with the Spirit's baptism as revealed in Titus 3:

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which [the word ‘which’ refers to the Holy Spirit] He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour” (Titus 3:5-6).

In order to be washed of all sin (making alive) and thus a renewing (making it new again) there has to be the shed blood of Christ applied to it. Christ died to 'take away' our sins. This taking away of our sin is seen described in Romans 5 with respect to physical baptism while also explaining the spiritual aspect brought about by the Spirit's baptism.

We see in Ephesians 1:19-23 the Father gave Christ to be the Head of the Church, but God the Father did this only after the resurrection and ascension. The Church cannot exist apart from its Head. Thus it is my opinion the Church could not begin until after the ascension.

We also know that spiritual gifts are given to every member of the body of Christ because scripture states the Holy Spirit gives gives to each person as He so chooses (my paraphrase).

In the Book of Acts, Chapter 1 v 12 says they (the Disciples) went from Mt. Olivet to Jerusalem to an upper room in one accord in prayer, before Pentecost. It does not say they were locked behind closed doors fearing for their lives. V 15 goes on to say that Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples and said "Men and bretheren (believers), this Scripture had to be fulfilled......"

I'm not sure your meaning here but it appears you are trying to make a distinction between 'men' and brethren'. Please understand there is no distiction between "men' and "brethren" here. It is actaully identifying them as one and the same, evidenced by the fact he did so in the midst or the middle of the disciples all of which were gathered together in the upper room numbering about 120 (believers). Remember they come there because Jesus told them go and wait for the [baptism] of the Holy Spirit.

through v 22. Those sound like bold words to me, not a coward, before Pentecost.

First, who said he was being a coward here abd hiding out?
Him, like the other 119 believers were obeying what Jesus told them to do - go..and wait.

Second, we see Peters boldness, not in his speaking to other believers but when the power of the Holy Spirit came upon him, just like the others and they went out to the non-believers and began to witness - just as Jesus said they would.

It could also be pointed out that the change and boldness in Paul came from an encounter with the Lord Jesus.

Mmmm... Not entirely. Again a change did come over Peter with his encounter with Jesus.. He finally understood the truth of who scripture stated He really was and had come to do. But his boldness was not evident until Pentacost when Jesus told all the believers, they would become witnesses of Him when the power of the Holy Spirit comes upon you. It somewhat easy to bold in our own strength when you are around your friends and those of like mind (Peter was a prime example of this pre-garden, but afterward when the Spirit had come upon him it was no longer his strength that produced boldness but the Spirit of the living God now indwelling him and all the others as well.

Ok.. Ok.. I'll shut up now. So much for not wanting to get involved :laugh:

 

[saturneptune]

I'm not going to get back into the whole debate aspect of this issue but some question you give here brother, I would like to address.. if I may?

First, while the Lords supper is present.. it had no meaning for the disciples as they did not understand nor did they believe He would die and rise again. Jesus was showing them what it was and how to do it, but the meaning of it only came later when He rose from the dead. Scripture tells us that when we partake of the Lords supper we should do so with great care, discerning what it means. Thus Christ instituted the Lords supper but at that moment and that particular supper it was more about teaching them for a later date when understanding was revealed.

Second, the term church you find in Matt 18:17 isn't speaking of the body of Christ existing at that moment though I do believe he is refering their particular gathering of persons who 'will be' this NT Church that will be later. Let me explain -
The Greek word used here does not always mean or refer to specifically the body of Christ, which we know is the church. It actaully has various aspects ranging from a simple local gathering as governing body, to even a gathering of pagan believers (a religious gathering), and even a gathering of like minded believers in the name of Jesus.. the church. (we find all of these uses for this Greek word in the NT, most specifically in the book of Acts)

Thus while it is truth that Jesus is speaking the disciples of 'their' gathered group, it was not yet the church scripture speaks to and defines in the NT.
What is most important is not that there was a gathering with Jesus, but makes that gathering different from other religious gatherings.

According to scripture, the body of Christ is made up of 1. Spirit indwelt believers who are 2. baptised INTO the death, burial, AND resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ. 3. This 'baptism' is a spiritual baptism is done by the Holy Spirit but it could only be done after Christ died, was buried, rose again.. and left. The Holy Spirit did and could not come to seal them (for we are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise), baptise them, nor indwell them till after Christ accended into heaven, so the He would come.

And you are correct that the disciples did baptise. But the baptism the disciples did, prior to Christ death, was not into Jesus death, burial and resurrection because we know for a fact, that 1. they didn't understand it and 2. we know they didn't understand this because none of the disciples believed Jesus was going to rise from the dead. We know this becuase Jesus tells us that none of them believed.. and therefore the Messiah they were believing in was not truly or fully the one Jesus came to be. Yet when He rose again and revealed the truth to them, they then believed He was the messiah that scripture promised He would be and that Jesus told them He was.

What they were doing (baptising) was much like the baptism of John the Baptist was doing which was in accordance with the OT Law, regarding pagans and or Jews who left their faith,coming repenting to God and submitting themselves to Him alone and the Jewish faith.
Did you ever wonder why Jesus never baptised anyone?

The predominant case for when the Church began resides in Spirit baptism however and to me the very definer of the entire argumet, of which the above can not and would not have transpired till after Jesus death, burial, resurrection and ascention:

However even John the Baptist stated His baptism wasn't enough for salvation but that Jesus had a baptism that will:

Notice it was still yet future and in fact we know when it was carried out .. at pentacost (Acts 2).
Again, even Jesus states that He "will build" His CHurch.. yet future. The verb tense here is specific in that it is not yet been built but is still to come.
Acts 1:5 Jesus states the Spirits baptism was still yet future.

The church can not exist without the Spirit baptism. We know that Christ Jesus didn't baptise anyone with the Spirit of God till after Pentacost as show in Acts 11:

We also know that our very salvation is tied intimately with the Spirit's baptism as revealed in Titus 3:

In order to be washed of all sin (making alive) and thus a renewing (making it new again) there has to be the shed blood of Christ applied to it. Christ died to 'take away' our sins. This taking away of our sin is seen described in Romans 5 with respect to physical baptism while also explaining the spiritual aspect brought about by the Spirit's baptism.

We see in Ephesians 1:19-23 the Father gave Christ to be the Head of the Church, but God the Father did this only after the resurrection and ascension. The Church cannot exist apart from its Head. Thus it is my opinion the Church could not begin until after the ascension.

We also know that spiritual gifts are given to every member of the body of Christ because scripture states the Holy Spirit gives gives to each person as He so chooses (my paraphrase).


I'm not sure your meaning here but it appears you are trying to make a distinction between 'men' and brethren'. Please understand there is no distiction between "men' and "brethren" here. It is actaully identifying them as one and the same, evidenced by the fact he did so in the midst or the middle of the disciples all of which were gathered together in the upper room numbering about 120 (believers). Remember they come there because Jesus told them go and wait for the [baptism] of the Holy Spirit.


First, who said he was being a coward here abd hiding out?
Him, like the other 119 believers were obeying what Jesus told them to do - go..and wait.

Second, we see Peters boldness, not in his speaking to other believers but when the power of the Holy Spirit came upon him, just like the others and they went out to the non-believers and began to witness - just as Jesus said they would.


Mmmm... Not entirely. Again a change did come over Peter with his encounter with Jesus.. He finally understood the truth of who scripture stated He really was and had come to do. But his boldness was not evident until Pentacost when Jesus told all the believers, they would become witnesses of Him when the power of the Holy Spirit comes upon you. It somewhat easy to bold in our own strength when you are around your friends and those of like mind (Peter was a prime example of this pre-garden, but afterward when the Spirit had come upon him it was no longer his strength that produced boldness but the Spirit of the living God now indwelling him and all the others as well.

Ok.. Ok.. I'll shut up now. So much for not wanting to get involved :laugh:

No, you should be very involved. You are not easy to debate theologically, and cause many to rethink their positions, which is a compliment.

One of the points we are disagreeing on is the point of time the boldness that took over the disciples. For example, Peter speaking in Acts 1:12-22 seems quite bold to me. Reading the story of Pentecost, I cannot picture Peter as a weak vessel right up until the moment of Pentecost, then poof, Peter gives a bold, firey sermon. The boldness, the spiritual growth, or maturity, whatever you want to call it, came at the encounter of a Risen Lord.

On the two ordinances, you basically speak of a Lords Supper without meaning at the time, and a Baptism with the death of the Lord occurring yet. The key it seems to your idea is the point in time. First of all, God is outside time. On the Lord's Supper, before the Last Supper was complete, the Lord had completely explained its meaning before the night was over. Also, on the Baptism issue, many times during his ministry the Lord foretold his death, and resurrection. It seems in the Bible the theme is quite common to look forward to something. A good example would be Abraham looking forward to the cross by believing God, and it was counted as righteousness to him.

Lets say that you are correct about the point in time. The Lord died and rose from the dead some 50 days before Pentecost, so the ordinances would have had the meaning you suggest well before that point in time.

A while back, we went to what we thought was going to be a Catholic baptism for a great nephew. We got there, and it turned out to be an entire mass, at which a sermon on Pentecost was preached. (getting through that service without knowing what was going on or what to do is the subject of another story) The point the priest made was that God established His church on the day of Pentecost, but of course, and he left no doubt about it, that was the establishment of the Roman Catholic church as the only true church. We could go on ad nauseum of those denominations or groups that think they have exclusive membership in the family of God. The fact that the Catholics embrace this belief raises an automatic red flag to me.

Also, since we have two levels of the Church, the local congregation and the family of all believers in the Lord, is it possible this explains some of the differences of opinion? By the way, neither the local congregation, nor the gathering of all believers explains the different denominations. That is a man made invention, springing from the "I am right and you are wrong" syndrome.

May God continue to bless your family and ministry.

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm not going to get back into the whole debate aspect of this issue but some question you give here brother, I would like to address.. if I may?

Allan, you and I are a lot alike. We vow to stay out of a thread, but somebody touches a hot button and here we go.

Refresh my memory for me. I don't remember if you are a dispensationalist or not. I ask because your view of the church and baptism seems to be right out of the Scofield Reference Bible. To be sure, a lot of folks share your view, and not many share mine.

Without going into a detailed treatise on your post, let me make a few observations.

The Pentecost-day founding of the church is built mainly around one scripture verse: I Corinthians 12:13. "For by one spirit, we have all been baptized into the body..." It is simply assumed that this is a reference to the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. What if this is a mistranslation designed to reflect the biases of the scholars who translated the KJV?

What if the Greek "en" is translated, "For in one spirit we are all baptized...."? That would mean we're talking about water baptism. And then "the body" would be a direct reference to the congregation at Corinth.

So, the passage means that in the power of the Spirit, or being led by the Spirit, we are all brought to water baptism, and thus are made members of the local church.

Now, to Matthew 16:18. It's quite a stretch to make "will build my church" refer to something three years or so in the future. It's also quite a stretch to make Matthew 18:16 also refer to sometime way off in the future. It seems as if you determined that the church was founded on the day of Pentecost and all other scriptures must fall into place behind that assumption.

I simply ask again, what did the church at Jerusalem have on the day of Pentecost that it did not have before Pentecost?

 

[percho]

I have not read all of these post however read Young's Literal Translation of Ephesians 1:13 and ask if the Holy Spirit in this context is different say from the Holy Spirit in the OT or prior to the seating of Christ on the right hand of the Father.