When Did the Church Begin?

[percho]

Ok.. Here is a couple questions I have. Tom knows my answer (Acts 2) and we have a whole thread between us LONG AGO that hashed this out.. but I was curious about the questions below.

Can a group of people be considered a/the NT church if it does not believe in the resurrected Lord? Would we or scripture, consider them true believers if they held that the Messiah was dead and buried?

Yet that is exactly what the followers of Christ Jesus believed.. they did not believe. However this point is one of the unalterable prerequisits for eternal salvation declared by the NT that you believe Christ died, was buried, and rose again 3 days later.

However scripture notes that none of the disciples believed that He would rise or even that He was risen from dead after the women came back from the tomb.

Same with Luke 24 (they believed not)

The Gospel of Salvation that Paul (and all the others preached):


I'm curious at the answers.. I find them honestly a bit difficult in trying to reconcile them with being believers of the NT or New Covenant which requires faith in the Christ Jesus life, death, burial, AND resurrection.

I agree with you. None of them believed the resurrection until they stood next to Jesus. It was a week later following the resurrection before Thomas believed, that is before he stood next to Jesus and handled him. Now compare that with the choosing of a replacement for Judas.

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. Acts 1:21,22

Now look at what Jesus told Thomas.

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. John 20:28,29

How are they blessed. Why are they believers even though they have not seen the risen Jesus? Because they are given the Spirit of Truth unto belief.

I believe Paul saw the risen Jesus, however I ask did he see him before he was blind or after he received the Spirit. I did some research in Acts 9 and 22 and Gal. and I believe Paul did not see Jesus until after receiving the Spirit and he then spent time with him.

 

[Yeshua1]

In another thread, I commented that Jesus had endorsed the tithe after he established His church. webdog commented that he'd never heard of the idea that the church was established before Pentecost.

So this thread is explain the rationale for my view.

I recognize that the prevalent view is that the Holy Spirit formed the church at Pentecost in Acts 2. But we find nothing in those passages (or any other passage, for that matter) which says that.

One way to approach this is to ask, what did the church have AFTER the day of Pentecost that it did not have BEFORE Pentecost.

It certainly had a Head.
It had a gospel
It preached the gospel.
It had teams of evangelists with marching orders (the seventy in Luke 10)
It had power (Luke 10 "even the demons are subject to us")
It had baptism and the Lord's supper.
It had a Commission.
It had a treasurer (Judas)
It assembled.


Then there's Matthew 16:18, where Jesus said "On this rock I will build my church...."

Jesus said I will build my church. Now. While I'm here. And I'll do it.
He said I will build my church. Not establish, not found, but build.

Whatever was true of the church after the day of Pentecost was also true when Jesus spoke those words in Matthew 16:18--and it had to be true before he spoke those words.

So, can we pinpoint when the church came into existence? We find it in Luke 6:12-13


Here, I believe, is the point at which they became a body.

And truly, Jesus did build his church. By Pentecost, this little traveling band had grown to at least 120. We also know that it had a business meeting to select Matthias as the replacement for Judas. Before Pentecost.

Let's remember that on the Day of Pentecost, they were already assembled. That's what churches do more than anything--assemble.

Think the Apostles were part of the 'firstfruits", and that whilemthey would become the foundational layers over the cornerstone of Jesus, the actual "body ofChrist/Church", HAD to wait to be established upon the earth at pentacost, since messiah had to be ascended back tot he father before he could send back the Spirit to us!

 

[DHK]

Ok.. Here is a couple questions I have. Tom knows my answer (Acts 2) and we have a whole thread between us LONG AGO that hashed this out.. but I was curious about the questions below.

Can a group of people be considered a/the NT church if it does not believe in the resurrected Lord? Would we or scripture, consider them true believers if they held that the Messiah was dead and buried?

Not today. They wouldn't be believers if they didn't believe in the gospel which includes the resurrection. A denial of the resurrection is a denial of Christ--today.

Yet that is exactly what the followers of Christ Jesus believed.. they did not believe. However this point is one of the unalterable prerequisits for eternal salvation declared by the NT that you believe Christ died, was buried, and rose again 3 days later.

Not quite. Throughout the entire Bible salvation is being "justified by faith," a Scripture from the OT and quoted three times in the NT. Salvation is the same in the OT as it is in the NT, in that respect.
Secondly, the gospels and the Book of Acts are historical books. They record the life of Christ, and the acts of the apostles. A good example from the gospels is Peter. Jesus asked his disciples:
"Who do you say that I am"
Peter said: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of God."
Jesus said: "Blessed art thou Simon bar Jonah for flesh and blood has not reveled this unto you but my Father in heaven.
--What is Christ saying here? Can the Father commune with a spiritually "dead" person? No.
Peter was spiritually alive, quickened by the Holy Spirit, and thus was able to receive enlightenment from the Holy Spirit. He was a saved individual according the words of Jesus.

Another example is John the Baptist, the last of the OT prophets, the fore-runner of Christ, and one whom Jesus had nothing but praise for.

Concerning John, the angel told Zacharias:
Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
--How can that be? I thought the Spirit came only at Pentecost??

However scripture notes that none of the disciples believed that He would rise or even that He was risen from dead after the women came back from the tomb.

Same with Luke 24 (they believed not)

I believe it is more accurate to say that they doubted rather than "not believed." Were they saved. Yes. Did they have their doubts, their ups and downs, their times of discouragements, etc. We all do. They were human. In this respect they still (at that particular time) lived in OT times. Look at the "unbelief" of Thomas, and yet he is usually nicknamed as "Doubting Thomas."

The Gospel of Salvation that Paul (and all the others preached):

I'm curious at the answers.. I find them honestly a bit difficult in trying to reconcile them with being believers of the NT or New Covenant which requires faith in the Christ Jesus life, death, burial, AND resurrection.

The Book of Acts is a book of history and a book of transition--a book where Christianity was in transition from OT practices to NT polity.
Here are some of the things that took place in Acts that today we would find inconsistent:

Peter and John went to the Temple to pray at their regular hour of prayer, just as they were always accustomed to do. They had not made that break from Judaism yet. (Acts 3).
Paul, on all of his missionary journeys, went first to the synagogues to preach, and then to the Gentiles. He had not made a complete break from Judaism.
Paul had Timothy circumcised.
Paul took a Naziritic vow, and when the vow was finished, according to Mosaic Law, he shaved his head.
Near the end of Acts 19 we see Aquilla and Priscilla regularly attending synagogue worship, though they were believers.

We wouldn't do those things today nor advocate doing them. But this first century Christianity was an age of transition.
In the latter part of Acts 19 we find a "mighty preacher" called Apollos, who had a gift in expounding the OT Scriptures. He also had a problem. He knew about Christ either directly from John the Baptist or from a disciple of John the Baptist. His knowledge was limited. There is no question about his salvation. Aquilla and Priscilla take him aside and expound the truths of Christ to him more fully, and that would include the resurrection. One would consider him an OT saint with a limited knowledge of Christ, a follower of John the Baptist. But no one questioned his salvation.
--The book is a book of transition with many anomalies in it.

The Book of Romans, however, is a thorough treatise on soteriology. It was written in Corinth (ca. 57 A.D.) during Paul's three month stay there (see Acts 20:3 and 20:22), before he left for Jerusalem. That means that everything before chapter 20 in the book of Acts historically and chronologically had already happened.
The explanation of the gospel; belief in the resurrection, etc. That is all post-cross, resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost, and much of the Book of Acts. It is after decisions were made in Acts 15. Salvation was already cemented in Paul's mind.
I hope that helps.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not today. They wouldn't be believers if they didn't believe in the gospel which includes the resurrection. A denial of the resurrection is a denial of Christ--today.

Not quite. Throughout the entire Bible salvation is being "justified by faith," a Scripture from the OT and quoted three times in the NT. Salvation is the same in the OT as it is in the NT, in that respect.
Secondly, the gospels and the Book of Acts are historical books. They record the life of Christ, and the acts of the apostles. A good example from the gospels is Peter. Jesus asked his disciples:
"Who do you say that I am"
Peter said: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of God."
Jesus said: "Blessed art thou Simon bar Jonah for flesh and blood has not reveled this unto you but my Father in heaven.
--What is Christ saying here? Can the Father commune with a spiritually "dead" person? No.
Peter was spiritually alive, quickened by the Holy Spirit, and thus was able to receive enlightenment from the Holy Spirit. He was a saved individual according the words of Jesus.

Another example is John the Baptist, the last of the OT prophets, the fore-runner of Christ, and one whom Jesus had nothing but praise for.

Concerning John, the angel told Zacharias:
Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
--How can that be? I thought the Spirit came only at Pentecost??

I believe it is more accurate to say that they doubted rather than "not believed." Were they saved. Yes. Did they have their doubts, their ups and downs, their times of discouragements, etc. We all do. They were human. In this respect they still (at that particular time) lived in OT times. Look at the "unbelief" of Thomas, and yet he is usually nicknamed as "Doubting Thomas."

The Book of Acts is a book of history and a book of transition--a book where Christianity was in transition from OT practices to NT polity.
Here are some of the things that took place in Acts that today we would find inconsistent:

Peter and John went to the Temple to pray at their regular hour of prayer, just as they were always accustomed to do. They had not made that break from Judaism yet. (Acts 3).
Paul, on all of his missionary journeys, went first to the synagogues to preach, and then to the Gentiles. He had not made a complete break from Judaism.
Paul had Timothy circumcised.
Paul took a Naziritic vow, and when the vow was finished, according to Mosaic Law, he shaved his head.
Near the end of Acts 19 we see Aquilla and Priscilla regularly attending synagogue worship, though they were believers.

We wouldn't do those things today nor advocate doing them. But this first century Christianity was an age of transition.
In the latter part of Acts 19 we find a "mighty preacher" called Apollos, who had a gift in expounding the OT Scriptures. He also had a problem. He knew about Christ either directly from John the Baptist or from a disciple of John the Baptist. His knowledge was limited. There is no question about his salvation. Aquilla and Priscilla take him aside and expound the truths of Christ to him more fully, and that would include the resurrection. One would consider him an OT saint with a limited knowledge of Christ, a follower of John the Baptist. But no one questioned his salvation.
--The book is a book of transition with many anomalies in it.

The Book of Romans, however, is a thorough treatise on soteriology. It was written in Corinth (ca. 57 A.D.) during Paul's three month stay there (see Acts 20:3 and 20:22), before he left for Jerusalem. That means that everything before chapter 20 in the book of Acts historically and chronologically had already happened.
The explanation of the gospel; belief in the resurrection, etc. That is all post-cross, resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost, and much of the Book of Acts. It is after decisions were made in Acts 15. Salvation was already cemented in Paul's mind.
I hope that helps.

Paul the Apostle made it clear, that IF there has been NO resurrection of Jesus from the dead, if he did nnot raise upin bodily form, then we must rejectHim as a fraud, and burn all bibles!

thank God that he was risen, and has ascended to being the Lord over all!

 

[Allan]

Not today. They wouldn't be believers if they didn't believe in the gospel which includes the resurrection. A denial of the resurrection is a denial of Christ--today.

So you believe there were 2 gospels at that time?

I believe they were saved in accordance with the OT view of looking forward to the Messiah, but had not yet been given the full NT or New Covenant Gospel message till the resurrection of Jesus. Which, at that time, took the place of looking forward somewhere someday, but now looking at Christ Jesus here and now.

Not quite. Throughout the entire Bible salvation is being "justified by faith," a Scripture from the OT and quoted three times in the NT. Salvation is the same in the OT as it is in the NT, in that respect.

Salvation is 'Obtained' they same way (by grace through faith) but the message of salvation is distinctly different. Our salvation is not in the death and blood of a wooly lamb, but the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus the entire reason for a New Covenant which is greater than the previous one.

Secondly, the gospels and the Book of Acts are historical books.

Ok but this adds nothing to the discussion I posed.

They record the life of Christ, and the acts of the apostles. A good example from the gospels is Peter. Jesus asked his disciples:
"Who do you say that I am"
Peter said: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of God."
Jesus said: "Blessed art thou Simon bar Jonah for flesh and blood has not reveled this unto you but my Father in heaven.
--What is Christ saying here? Can the Father commune with a spiritually "dead" person? No.
Peter was spiritually alive, quickened by the Holy Spirit, and thus was able to receive enlightenment from the Holy Spirit.

Actually - Yes. If He cannot, then why was Spirit of God sent into the world to convict sinners (non-believers) if they cannot understand or hear Him. What is Romans 1 talking about when the Father personally makes known to unbelieving mankind sin, righteousness, and the Judgement to come (Rom 1:19). Being made alive, regenerate, IS salvation.

He was a saved individual according the words of Jesus.

Well, not quite. This statement can be argued because Jesus didn't say "Your Father in Heaven" nor "Our Father... but instead stated "MY Father in Heaven.."

Again, I'm not saying he was necessarily unsaved but not saved according the gospel of NT because Christ had not yet died and rose again. The new Man had not yet been made nor had the wall been torn down between man and God.

Concerning John, the angel told Zacharias:
Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
--How can that be? I thought the Spirit came only at Pentecost??

The Spirt came long before Pentacost - reference the OT but was not poured out to INDWELL God's children till Pentecost. However Johon was not saved before his birth. But it is noted that such phrasology often refers to being empowered or used by the Spirit of God for God's purposes. As such you have the babe jumping in the womb, who could NOT have known that Jesus near him with the Spirit using him to be an identifier.. and yet John STILL wasn't sure it was Jesus, thus John was sent baptizing to be shown who the Messiah actually was.. and then still wasn't sure because when he was about to be put to death he asked once more. However, If he was saved prior to faith, we now have a another new way to be saved that does not need faith!

I believe it is more accurate to say that they doubted rather than "not believed."

Unfortunately, that is not what the word means.
Here is Vines Expository Dictionary on the word:

Disbelieve:
"to be unbelieving" (a, negative, pistis, "faith;" cp. apistos, "unbelieving"), is translated "believed not," etc., in the AV (except in 1Pe 2:7, "be disobedient"); "disbelieve" (or "disbelieved") in the RV, in Mar 16:11, 16; Luk 24:11, 41; Act 28:24; "disbelieve" is the best rendering, implying that the unbeliever has had a full opportunity of believing and has rejected it; some mss. have apeitheo, "to be disobedient," in 1Pe 2:7; Rom 3:3, RV, "were without faith;" 2Ti 2:13, RV, "are faithless. Cp. DISOBEDIENT, C. see BELIEVE.

Were they saved. Yes.

Agreed but according to the OT view. In fact we even see Jesus state that God gave what was His to Christ in John 17:6.

Thus my distinction being drawn here is not that they saved but under which Covenant were they saved initially? They became the proclaimers of the New Covenant and full participants of it, but ONLY after they believed the full gospel message and recieved the full admission into the New Man via the bapitism of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost.

Did they have their doubts, their ups and downs, their times of discouragements, etc.

No. They did not believe (opposite or the negative of pistis/faith). They did NOT believe He had risen from the dead. They saw what was done to him.. they couldn't believe He came back from that.

Look at the "unbelief" of Thomas, and yet he is usually nicknamed as "Doubting Thomas."

Yes, he got a bad rap when he was no different than the others. Of which Jesus got on to them ALL for not believing, which I cited already.

The Book of Acts is a book of history and a book of transition--a book where Christianity was in transition from OT practices to NT polity.

Not sure why you keep bringing this up, it is noted the book of Acts is a historical and transitional book, but I think it is more than that but OT Jews to all the world.

Here are some of the things that took place in Acts that today we would find inconsistent:

Peter and John went to the Temple to pray at their regular hour of prayer, just as they were always accustomed to do. They had not made that break from Judaism yet. (Acts 3).
Paul, on all of his missionary journeys, went first to the synagogues to preach, and then to the Gentiles. He had not made a complete break from Judaism.
Paul had Timothy circumcised.
Paul took a Naziritic vow, and when the vow was finished, according to Mosaic Law, he shaved his head.
Near the end of Acts 19 we see Aquilla and Priscilla regularly attending synagogue worship, though they were believers.

Not at all. These things sould not be seen as inconsistant but completely consistant. Now if they were Gentiles.. I would agree. The Gentiles who were believers were not follow after the Jewish customs laid down by scripture and thus Paul was told that the Gentile believers were not to be given any greater burden to follow (in relation to saved Jews):

Act 15:29
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

There is nothing in scripture that states we must meet on Sundays or that we cannot meet on Tuesdays. They met on the first day to honor the resurrection of Christ Jesus. It became common practice but nothing is wrong with meeting in a synagog on Saturdays to hold services.

In the latter part of Acts 19 we find a "mighty preacher" called Apollos, who had a gift in expounding the OT Scriptures. He also had a problem. He knew about Christ either directly from John the Baptist or from a disciple of John the Baptist. His knowledge was limited. There is no question about his salvation. Aquilla and Priscilla take him aside and expound the truths of Christ to him more fully, and that would include the resurrection. One would consider him an OT saint with a limited knowledge of Christ, a follower of John the Baptist. But no one questioned his salvation.

Really, you think he was preaching the gospel of salvation? And how do you come away with - no questioned his salvation. Isn't that one of the primary reasons Aquila and Priscilla spoke with him? That he DID NOT have it correct. What we have from the scripture is that he preached what John preached and of the baptism of repetence that John preached. John preached the Messiah was coming, and Identified Jesus as the Messiah.. but we also take note that John did not follow Jesus nor do we find he sending his disciples to follow Jesus.

We do not see from the texts he proclaimed the gospel at all.. only OT repentance and that would cast one's faith upon the sacrificed animal. What he preached, I agree is the OT, in fact in much the same way as John preached the message of make straight the way of the Lord.. and that he taught the things OF the Lord - OT. But there is NO mention of Jesus, the gospel.

So here is my point on this.. How can we state he was saved? The Jewish Rabbi's believed what he did. Where they saved? If they could be saved by a different (but similar cause it is the OT) gospel.. why can the Jews today not be saved who place their faith in the slain lamb? If what he knew was enough to be saved then, it should be the same now. Aquila and Priscilla explained to him the 'way of the Lord more fully, which of necessity means they explained gospel of salvation (that is what the gospel is - news about salvation), with regard to what he did not know, and that was who the messiah was (not the conquering warrior) but the slain lamb/humble servant, and the resurrected Lord.

The explanation of the gospel; belief in the resurrection, etc. That is all post-cross, resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost, and much of the Book of Acts. It is after decisions were made in Acts 15. Salvation was already cemented in Paul's mind.
I hope that helps.

Acts chapter 1 is post-cross
The explanation of the gospel is apparently already understood LONG before Acts 20 because Peter gives it in Acts 2.

 

[Yeshua1]

were the OT believers saved by the Lord? yes, How? same method as we under NT are, by the death of jesus and receiving Him thru faith, but they were NOT of the NT Church, Bride of Christ...

can see arguements to be made either way from bible, that the Apostles were actually the beginning o fthe church, orelse atPentacost, but NOT the 'Church in theOT" view!

 

[DHK]

Really, you think he was preaching the gospel of salvation? And how do you come away with - no questioned his salvation. Isn't that one of the primary reasons Aquila and Priscilla spoke with him? That he DID NOT have it correct. What we have from the scripture is that he preached what John preached and of the baptism of repetence that John preached. John preached the Messiah was coming, and Identified Jesus as the Messiah.. but we also take note that John did not follow Jesus nor do we find he sending his disciples to follow Jesus.

We do not see from the texts he proclaimed the gospel at all.. only OT repentance and that would cast one's faith upon the sacrificed animal. What he preached, I agree is the OT, in fact in much the same way as John preached the message of make straight the way of the Lord.. and that he taught the things OF the Lord - OT. But there is NO mention of Jesus, the gospel.

So here is my point on this.. How can we state he was saved? The Jewish Rabbi's believed what he did. Where they saved? If they could be saved by a different (but similar cause it is the OT) gospel.. why can the Jews today not be saved who place their faith in the slain lamb? If what he knew was enough to be saved then, it should be the same now. Aquila and Priscilla explained to him the 'way of the Lord more fully, which of necessity means they explained gospel of salvation (that is what the gospel is - news about salvation), with regard to what he did not know, and that was who the messiah was (not the conquering warrior) but the slain lamb/humble servant, and the resurrected Lord.

Others believe he was saved and preaching as much as the gospel that he knew. We act on the light we know. Let me quote two staunch Calvinists for you (as if that matters or not)
Gill:

This man was instructed in the way of the Lord,… Which John, whose baptism he only knew, came to prepare: the word here used signifies "catechised"; and suggests, that he was trained up by his parents in this way, who might have been the disciples of John, though afterwards removed from Judea to Alexandria; and that he only had been taught the rudiments of the Christian religion, or doctrine of the Gospel; here called the way of the Lord, or which directs and leads unto him, as the only Saviour, and is the path of faith and truth; or as some copies read, "the word of the Lord"; and which accounts for what is afterwards said of him:
and being fervent in the spirit; either in or by the Spirit of God, being made so by him, who is, compared to fire, and who, in the form of cloven tongues of fire, sat upon the disciples at the day of Pentecost, and upon others; among whom this Apollos is by some thought to be, though without any reason; however, he might be inspired with zeal by the Spirit of God: or "in his own spirit", as the Ethiopic version renders it; his soul was inflamed with zeal for the glory of God, the honour of Christ, and the good of souls; his ministry was very affectionate, warm, and lively; see Ro 12:11 He spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord; or "of Jesus", as read the Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions; according to the measure of light and grace he had received, he spake out freely and fully, and taught the people with great industry, and with all the exactness he could, the things he knew concerning the person, offices, and grace of the Lord Jesus:
knowing only the baptism of John; which must be understood, not of the ordinance of baptism singly, as administered by John, but of the whole ministry of John; as of that ordinance, so of his doctrine concerning repentance and remission of sins; and concerning Christ that was to come, and concerning his being come, and who he was, whom John pointed at, and taught the people to believe in: but perhaps he might know very little, if anything, of the miracles of Christ, or of his death and resurrection from the dead, and the benefits and effects thereof; and of the pouring out of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles, and the light and knowledge which were communicated thereby.

Gill seems to think that "the way of the Lord" the Gospel, was being preached, and therefore he was a saved individual. His knowledge was incomplete, but that is no reason to write him off as an unregenerate.


Calvin:

25. He was instructed. That which Luke addeth shortly after seemeth not to agree with this commendation, to wit, that he knew only the baptism of John. But this latter member is added by way of correction. Nevertheless, these two agree very well together; that he understood the doctrine of the gospel, because he both knew that the Redeemer was given to the world, and also was well and sincerely instructed concerning the grace of reconciliation; and yet had he been trained up only in the principles of the gospel, so much as could be had out of John's institution. 1 For we know that John was in the midst between Christ and the prophets; and of his office doth both his father Zacharias intreat in his tongue, (Lu 1:76,16 and 17 and also the angel out of the prophecy of Malachi, (Mal 3:1.) Surely, seeing that he carried the light before Christ, and did highly extol his power, his disciples are for good causes said to have had knowledge of Christ. Moreover, the speech is worth the noting, that he knew the baptism of John. For thence we gather the true use of the sacraments; to wit, that they enter 2 us in some certain kind of doctrine, or that they establish that faith which we have embraced. Surely, it is wickedness and impious profanation to pull them away 3 from doctrine. Wherefore, that the sacraments may be rightly administered, the voice of the heavenly doctrine must sound there. For what is the baptism of John? Luke comprehendeth all his ministry under this word, not only because doctrine is annexed unto baptism, but also because it is the foundation and head thereof, without which it should be a vain and dead ceremony.



Being fervent in spirit he spake. Apollos hath another commendation given him in these words, that he was inflamed with an holy zeal to teach. Doctrine without zeal is either like a sword in the hand of a madman, or else it lieth still as cold and without use, or else it serveth for vain and wicked boasting. For we see that some learned men become slothful; other some (which is worse) become ambitious; other some (which is of all the worst) trouble the Church with contention and brawling. Therefore, that doctrine shall be unsavory which is not joined with zeal. But let us remember that Luke putteth the knowledge of the Scripture in the first place, which must be the moderation of zeal, 4 for we know that many are fervent without consideration, as the Jews did rage against the gospel, by reason of a perverse affection which they did bear toward the law; and even at this day we see what the Papists be, who carried headlong with furious violence, being pricked forward with an opinion unadvisedly conceived. Therefore, let knowledge be present that it may govern zeal. And now it is said that zeal was the cause of diligence, because Apollos gave himself to teach diligently. But and if that man, being not yet thoroughly and perfectly taught in the gospel, did preach Christ so diligently and freely, what excuse do those men hope to have, who know that more perfectly and fully, which he knew not as yet, if they do not endeavor so much as in them lieth to further and advance the kingdom of Christ? Luke doth attribute zeal to the Spirit, therefore, because it is a rare and peculiar gift; neither do I so expound it that Apollos was moved and pricked forward with the instinct of his mind, but by motion of the Holy Spirit.

Calvin's argument is twofold:
1. There was enough of the doctrine of Christ that he did have for a person to be saved, and:
2. No unsaved person could preach such doctrine as fervently as he did. The spirit in which he preached had to be of God, the Holy Spirit.



Most other commentators agree with the above.



Your hypothesis in general is too extreme.
You would have us believe that Jesus chose 12 wicked unregenerate men (as all unsaved men are), prepared them to carry out the Great Commission; lived, taught, discipled, them for more than 3 years; invested his life in them--and they were unsaved all this time. I am sorry but I find that position absurd. The only one that he calls unsaved is Judas Iscariot, "the son of perdition; the one who would betray him."



Of the others he says:
John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.



Jesus testified to the Father that not one of the eleven were lost. They did not have to wait for the resurrection.

 

[percho]

Others believe he was saved and preaching as much as the gospel that he knew. We act on the light we know. Let me quote two staunch Calvinists for you (as if that matters or not)
Gill:

Gill seems to think that "the way of the Lord" the Gospel, was being preached, and therefore he was a saved individual. His knowledge was incomplete, but that is no reason to write him off as an unregenerate.


Calvin:

Calvin's argument is twofold:
1. There was enough of the doctrine of Christ that he did have for a person to be saved, and:
2. No unsaved person could preach such doctrine as fervently as he did. The spirit in which he preached had to be of God, the Holy Spirit.



Most other commentators agree with the above.



Your hypothesis in general is too extreme.
You would have us believe that Jesus chose 12 wicked unregenerate men (as all unsaved men are), prepared them to carry out the Great Commission; lived, taught, discipled, them for more than 3 years; invested his life in them--and they were unsaved all this time. I am sorry but I find that position absurd. The only one that he calls unsaved is Judas Iscariot, "the son of perdition; the one who would betray him."



Of the others he says:
John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.



Jesus testified to the Father that not one of the eleven were lost. They did not have to wait for the resurrection.

Help me to understand.


Saved whether OT or NT.

Could anyone before or after OT NT actually be construed to be saved until Jesus actually laid down his life and was given life again.

Did the death and resurrection actually have to take place before anyone could actually be saved?

Did Jesus actually become obedient unto death even the death of the cross. Did Jesus actually learn obedience?

Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Heb 5:7,8

Was the only sin the Son of God could have committed that would have negated him being our savior to not be obedient unto death even the death of the cross?

Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Heb 12:4

Was Jesus striving against sin in the garden yet he learned and became obedient?

Had the Son of Man not been obedient unto death even the death of the cross, would he have died for his own sin rather than for ours and therefore God his Father would not have raised him from the dead?

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor 15:17

If Jesus is not raised then he did not die for our sins but for his own.

Just what do you think the righteousness of God is?

Just what is the grace of God that bringeth salvation?

Is it not the resurrection of Jesus who died for our sins?

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, (the death penalty) that the promise (of the Spirit see v14) by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

How is Jesus the Son of Man as he called himself the author of eternal salvation the author and finisher of the faith?

Because God his Father raised Jesus the Son of God from the dead.

Now those called by God in the OT and those called by God in the NT can bed saved. They now in Christ have an inheritance to be inherited?

 

[DHK]

Help me to understand.


Saved whether OT or NT.

Could anyone before or after OT NT actually be construed to be saved until Jesus actually laid down his life and was given life again.

Yes, why not? Do you really believe Peter was unsaved before the cross, when Christ declared that he was saved, literally "not lost." Are you not making Christ a liar?

Did the death and resurrection actually have to take place before anyone could actually be saved?

No. Why would it be necessary.
Hebrews 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
--They were saved through faith. The Bible is clear on that.

Did Jesus actually become obedient unto death even the death of the cross. Did Jesus actually learn obedience?

So the Bible tells us. Is it wrong?

Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Heb 5:7,8

Was the only sin the Son of God could have committed that would have negated him being our savior to not be obedient unto death even the death of the cross?

The Son of God would not have committed sin.
He told Peter that he could have called 12 legions of angels to protect him, but that wasn't the Father's will. He came to do the will of the Father.

Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Heb 12:4

You have a misunderstanding of this verse. He is writing to discouraged Hebrews who have been persecuted and want to return to Judaism. But they haven't been so persecuted that they have shed blood.
This is unlike those who Peter wrote to in his first epistle. Many of them had "resisted unto blood," that is, like Stephen, become martyrs for the faith. They had been cruelly treated, endured a terrible heavy-handed persecution. The Hebrews, though persecuted, had not been persecuted to that degree--not "having resisted unto blood."

Was Jesus striving against sin in the garden yet he learned and became obedient?

Jesus didn't have to "strive against sin." He was tempted in all points as we are. Where do you get the idea that he was striving. In his human flesh he didn't want to go the cross, but yet he willingly and gladly submitted to the will of the Father. "Nevertheless thy will be done and not my own."

Had the Son of Man not been obedient unto death even the death of the cross, would he have died for his own sin rather than for ours and therefore God his Father would not have raised him from the dead?

Jesus said: "I lay my life down; I take it up again. No man taketh it from me. He went willingly to the cross. The trinity doesn't work independently of each other. The Father raised him up. The Spirit raised him up. He raised himself up. You find all three statements in Scripture. Nevertheless he still died for the sins of the world. He could do that because he was God--the God-Man.

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor 15:17

If Jesus is not raised then he did not die for our sins but for his own.

Just what do you think the righteousness of God is?

It is the positional state which God puts me in wherein I am able to stand before God and He will not look upon my sin. I am righteous before Him.

Just what is the grace of God that bringeth salvation?

Most believe this is speaking of general knowledge of God that will eventually lead to salvation. It is found in Titus 2.
"The grace of God that brings salvation to all men.
Quote the entire context, and it brings a different light on the verse. Obviously, not all men have heard the gospel.

Is it not the resurrection of Jesus who died for our sins?

According to Titus 2:11, no.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, (the death penalty) that the promise (of the Spirit see v14) by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

How is Jesus the Son of Man as he called himself the author of eternal salvation the author and finisher of the faith?

Because he is the beginning of our faith and continues it to the very end (meaning eternally).

Because God his Father raised Jesus the Son of God from the dead.

Not related to the above question.

Now those called by God in the OT and those called by God in the NT can bed saved. They now in Christ have an inheritance to be inherited?

According to Hebrews 11, Abraham has an inheritance. Is he not saved?

 

[Revmitchell]

I am going to change my position somewhat and agree with Tom. It began with Jesus and the disciples. It was not inaugurated and sent out to fulfill its mission until Pentecost.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am going to change my position somewhat and agree with Tom. It began with Jesus and the disciples. It was not inaugurated and sent out to fulfill its mission until Pentecost.

Think that the Apostles, save forJudas, were "saved' by jesus while he was with them, but NOT part of the Body of Christ here on earth, as that aspect of the actually church itself being united with Christ by/in the Spirit had to wait until Pentacost!

So the Apostles to me were a symbolic representation of 12 tribes of isreal, of the New isreal to come, but were not actually 'the church" as that took event of pentacost to establish the fulness of that here on earth!

 

[Revmitchell]

Think that the Apostles, save forJudas, were "saved' by jesus while he was with them, but NOT part of the Body of Christ here on earth, as that aspect of the actually church itself being united with Christ by/in the Spirit had to wait until Pentacost!

So the Apostles to me were a symbolic representation of 12 tribes of isreal, of the New isreal to come, but were not actually 'the church" as that took event of pentacost to establish the fulness of that here on earth!

Where does scripture say that.

 

[Yeshua1]

Others believe he was saved and preaching as much as the gospel that he knew. We act on the light we know. Let me quote two staunch Calvinists for you (as if that matters or not)
Gill:

Gill seems to think that "the way of the Lord" the Gospel, was being preached, and therefore he was a saved individual. His knowledge was incomplete, but that is no reason to write him off as an unregenerate.


Calvin:

Calvin's argument is twofold:
1. There was enough of the doctrine of Christ that he did have for a person to be saved, and:
2. No unsaved person could preach such doctrine as fervently as he did. The spirit in which he preached had to be of God, the Holy Spirit.



Most other commentators agree with the above.



Your hypothesis in general is too extreme.
You would have us believe that Jesus chose 12 wicked unregenerate men (as all unsaved men are), prepared them to carry out the Great Commission; lived, taught, discipled, them for more than 3 years; invested his life in them--and they were unsaved all this time. I am sorry but I find that position absurd. The only one that he calls unsaved is Judas Iscariot, "the son of perdition; the one who would betray him."



Of the others he says:
John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.



Jesus testified to the Father that not one of the eleven were lost. They did not have to wait for the resurrection.

the Apsotles were the firstfruits of the new Covenant to be coming, but the Spirit qwas on them, not yet in them as now indwelling us, sealing us, as NOT doing that role until pentacost, when Jesus sent Him back in His fullness to earth, to 'baptize" the converted into his Body, the church!

 

[Allan]

Others believe he was saved and preaching as much as the gospel that he knew. We act on the light we know. Let me quote two staunch Calvinists for you (as if that matters or not)

Gill seems to think that "the way of the Lord" the Gospel, was being preached, and therefore he was a saved individual. His knowledge was incomplete, but that is no reason to write him off as an unregenerate.

Yes, I know there are some who hold he was saved but many others do not.
Here is another Staunch Calvinist for ya who holds the opposite view, Matthew Henry [Acts 18:24-28]:

4. Yet he knew only the baptism of John; he was instructed in the gospel of Christ as far as John's ministry would carry him, and no further; he knew the preparing of the way of the Lord by that voice crying in the wilderness, rather than the way of the Lord itself. We cannot but think he had heard of Christ's death and resurrection, but he was not let into the mystery of them, had not had opportunity of conversing with any of the apostles since the pouring out of the Spirit; or he had himself been baptized only with the baptism of John, but was not baptized with the Holy Ghost, as the disciples were at the day of pentecost.

Also another Staunch Calvinist and Greek Scholar, A.T. Robertson:

Taught carefully (edidasken akribōs). Imperfect active, was teaching or inchoative, began teaching, accurately. He taught accurately what he knew, a fine gift for any preacher.

Only the baptism of John (monon to baptisma Iōanou). It was a baptism of repentance (marked by repentance) as Paul said (Act_13:24; Act_19:4), as Peter said (Act_2:38) and as the Gospels tell (Mar_1:4, etc.). That is to say, Apollos knew only what the Baptist knew when he died, but John had preached the coming of the Messiah, had baptized him, had identified him as the Son of God, had proclaimed the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but had not seen the Cross, the Resurrection of Jesus, nor the great Day of Pentecost.

Thus he knew nothing of the work of the Cross, which without it, is no salvation. If holding to the OT sacrifices was enough to be saved then Peter should not have had to preach Christ and Him crusified on Petecost to those who were there for annual sacrifice of Atonement - who also knew of Christ Jesus and His death. They would have been saved, thus the only message Peter should have given was they need to be baptized.. yet that is not the message he gives; or at the very least Peter should have given the message to be baptized for those who believed in the OT version of Atonement and for those who didn't, place their faith in Christ to be saved in accordance with the New Covanent and then be baptised.

The problem is, you can't have it both ways. This guy was saved because he continued holding to the understanding of the OT sacrifices (after Christ's commissioning before His ascension ) but other Jews who hold to it are not. For me, for now, I see the disciples as the only ones who are in the transition point.. being saved in accordance with the Old Covanent but being brought into the NEW Covanent - wherewith all henceforth must be saved as it is the only way unto salvation.

Calvin's argument is twofold:
1. There was enough of the doctrine of Christ that he did have for a person to be saved, and:
2. No unsaved person could preach such doctrine as fervently as he did. The spirit in which he preached had to be of God, the Holy Spirit.

I disagree. The only thing we know that he knew, at most, what John taught, which did include Jesus was the Messiah, but the same kind of messiah everyone else was looking for - The Warrior King (so to speak) who would break the yoke of their oppressors, etc..

What Doctrine?.. He preached no doctrine of Jesus. He preached only what limited knowledge he had of Jesus - He was the promised Messiah.

Others that agree he either was not saved at the time, or that it is highly likely he was not saved:
Clarke:

Acts 18:25

This man was instructed in the way of the Lord - Κατηχημενος; He was catechized, initiated, in the way, the doctrine, of Jesus as the Christ.
Being fervent in the spirit - Being full of zeal to propagate the truth of God, he taught diligently, ακριβως accurately, (so the word should be translated), the things of Christ as far as he could know them through the ministry of John the Baptist; for it appears he knew nothing more of Christ than what John preached. Some suppose we should read ουκ, not, before ακριβως, correctly, or accurately, because it is said that Aquila and Priscilla expounded the way of the Lord, ακριβεϚερον, more perfectly, rather more accurately; but of this emendation there is not the slightest necessity; for surely it is possible for a man to teach accurately what he knows; and it is possible that another, who possesses more information on the subject than the former, may teach him more accurately, or give him a larger portion of knowledge. Apollo knew the baptism of John; but he knew nothing farther of Jesus Christ than that baptism taught; but, as far as he knew, he taught accurately. Aquila and Priscilla were acquainted with the whole doctrine of the Gospel: the doctrine of Christ dying for our sins, and rising again for our justification; and in this they instructed Apollo; and this was more accurate information than what he had before received, through the medium of John’s ministry.

Many other Commentaries agree, such as Barnes, Clarke, Jamieson, Fausett, and Brown, The People's New Testiment Commentaries, Darby, The Bible Knowledge Commentary (though notably it it leaves room for the possibility of him being a Christian), The Bible Readers Companion, The Nelson Study Bible, Ryrie Study Bible, and if you want another Calvinist - John MacArthur.. and many others I have.

Truthfully, what 'I have found' is that 'most' other commentators agree with the above.
Thus far for your view I have found much less than 'most' and in fact, only a few.

You would have us believe that Jesus chose 12 wicked unregenerate men (as all unsaved men are),

Please show me where I stated this. In fact I state the opposite of this:
- you asked - Were they saved. Yes.
---I stated -Agreed but according to the OT view. In fact we even see Jesus state that God gave what was His to Christ in John 17:6.

Thus my distinction being drawn here is not that they are saved but under which Covenant were they saved initially? They became the proclaimers of the New Covenant and full participants of it, but ONLY after they believed the full gospel message and recieved the full admission into the New Man via the bapitism of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. [emphasis mine]

prepared them to carry out the Great Commission; lived, taught, discipled, them for more than 3 years; invested his life in them--and they were unsaved all this time. I am sorry but I find that position absurd.

Of course you do cause it is not what I said. I said they were not fully believers of and in Christ yet. Testified by the Holy Spirit in the very words of Jesus that they did not believe what He both said and did - He rose from the dead. That is, as you agreed, essential to us today for become a Christian.

Of the others he says:
John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

Yes, I quoted this one.. they were God's BEFORE Christ came along and they were given to Jesus and they have continued in His word. They were saved under the OT Covenant (looking for that which is to come) but not yet Christians in the NT gospel sense (believing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus). This changes the old message to an incomplete one that no longer saves. It reveals where to look, but nothing more. It was enough before Christ, but it is no longer now that He has appeared and has been revealed.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

This goes exactly with what I am saying. The Church was not in existence during this time except that the materials were present to build it with. The foundation of whom Peter proclaimed Jesus was, was not a foundation he understood, as expressed by his betrayl by denying Him and after Jesus death, going back to his old life and fishing again.

Another way to put it - Just because I have all the materials for building a house, and the blue prints for it's construction, does not make a house. It must be established and complete for it to be a house (something a person can live in). Jesus stated, "I will build my Church..."; not "I will continue building my Church..". The later would prove the Church was already existing and will continue to be added to, the prior however states it is not YET built but will be soon. The very wording of Christ is explicit and is testified historically in Acts as to 'adding' of the Gentiles just as the Jews were added in Acts 2. Which means that between Christ's ministry (no Church) and the adding of the 3K 'to the Church'.. the Church came into existence.

The only notable event that transpired (and I believe testified throughout the NT) is that of the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the believers - WHICH places them into the body of Christ, making them... what? saved again? Or now believers of and in New Covenant and under it's seal via the Holy Spirit.. which is 'The Church'.

 

[percho]

The church of God.

Someone tell me.

What was the very first stone laid in the building of the church of the living God and exactly when was it laid?

 

[percho]

Yes, why not? Do you really believe Peter was unsaved before the cross, when Christ declared that he was saved, literally "not lost." Are you not making Christ a liar?

No. Why would it be necessary.
Hebrews 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
--They were saved through faith. The Bible is clear on that.

So the Bible tells us. Is it wrong?

The Son of God would not have committed sin.
He told Peter that he could have called 12 legions of angels to protect him, but that wasn't the Father's will. He came to do the will of the Father.

You have a misunderstanding of this verse. He is writing to discouraged Hebrews who have been persecuted and want to return to Judaism. But they haven't been so persecuted that they have shed blood.
This is unlike those who Peter wrote to in his first epistle. Many of them had "resisted unto blood," that is, like Stephen, become martyrs for the faith. They had been cruelly treated, endured a terrible heavy-handed persecution. The Hebrews, though persecuted, had not been persecuted to that degree--not "having resisted unto blood."

Jesus didn't have to "strive against sin." He was tempted in all points as we are. Where do you get the idea that he was striving. In his human flesh he didn't want to go the cross, but yet he willingly and gladly submitted to the will of the Father. "Nevertheless thy will be done and not my own."

Jesus said: "I lay my life down; I take it up again. No man taketh it from me. He went willingly to the cross. The trinity doesn't work independently of each other. The Father raised him up. The Spirit raised him up. He raised himself up. You find all three statements in Scripture. Nevertheless he still died for the sins of the world. He could do that because he was God--the God-Man.

It is the positional state which God puts me in wherein I am able to stand before God and He will not look upon my sin. I am righteous before Him.

Most believe this is speaking of general knowledge of God that will eventually lead to salvation. It is found in Titus 2.
"The grace of God that brings salvation to all men.
Quote the entire context, and it brings a different light on the verse. Obviously, not all men have heard the gospel.

According to Titus 2:11, no.

Because he is the beginning of our faith and continues it to the very end (meaning eternally).

Not related to the above question.

According to Hebrews 11, Abraham has an inheritance. Is he not saved?

I will answer with scripture.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before (The) faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Gal. 3:22,23

But after that (The) faith is come,

They were kept under the law, under the schoolmaster unto Christ.

Christ resurrected from the dead would become the faith by which they could be made heirs of the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:7
I will put that statement in better context. Jesus Christ washed in regeneration and renewed with the Holy Spirit would become the faith. The substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen, by which they could be made heirs.

And if children, then heirs; Rom 8:17
Verse 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?

 

[DHK]

Please show me where I stated this. In fact I state the opposite of this:
- you asked - Were they saved. Yes.
---I stated -Agreed but according to the OT view. In fact we even see Jesus state that God gave what was His to Christ in John 17:6.

Thus my distinction being drawn here is not that they are saved but under which Covenant were they saved initially? They became the proclaimers of the New Covenant and full participants of it, but ONLY after they believed the full gospel message and recieved the full admission into the New Man via the bapitism of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. [emphasis mine]

You can't have it both ways. They are either saved or they are not. According to John 17:6 they are saved. They are not "half saved" because His death and resurrection had not happened yet. Christ declared, "not one of them IS lost," not will be, but the present tense "is." They were saved at that moment and time that Christ was praying, and thus before that time as well.
Your the one that is coming up with this theology that one must receive a "baptism of the Holy Spirit" before they are saved. That sounds like Oneness Pentecostal doctrine the way it is worded. Where does the Bible teach this doctrine? Who made it up?
Salvation--Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God.
Did all the disciples doubt the resurrection?
There were 120 in the upper room praying, and some are mentioned by name, including Mary, the mother of Jesus.
Do you think she ever doubted that Christ would rise from the dead? The Bible doesn't say, but it doesn't say "they all doubted or they all did not believe." He appeared to over 500 "brethren." Did they ALL not believe he would rise? Were they all unbelievers before the resurrection? I think not!
The gospels are history books, and not all history is recorded. The history that is recorded is given by the Holy Spirit for our learning and benefit. We can't make absolute statements without all the facts. We have only a window into the lives of the some of the believers before the resurrection.

Of course you do cause it is not what I said. I said they were not fully believers of and in Christ yet.

What were they?
50% believers? 75% believers or only 25% believers?
How do you go about making such decisions and on what basis.
We are justified by faith, and so were they.

Testified by the Holy Spirit in the very words of Jesus that they did not believe what He both said and did - He rose from the dead. That is, as you agreed, essential to us today for become a Christian.

Today we have the entire canon of Scripture; then they did not. We live 2,000 years after the fact; they lived before the fact (of the resurrection).
They could testify of the actual words of Jesus for they heard them.
After the resurrection the Holy Spirit brought to their remembrance "all things whatsoever I have told you."
We have never heard the actual words of Jesus, but we do have His Word.
Again, who makes the decision that they had to be there at Pentecost in order to be saved. That is an odd theology.

Yes, I quoted this one.. they were God's BEFORE Christ came along and they were given to Jesus and they have continued in His word. They were saved under the OT Covenant (looking for that which is to come) but not yet Christians in the NT gospel sense (believing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus). This changes the old message to an incomplete one that no longer saves. It reveals where to look, but nothing more. It was enough before Christ, but it is no longer now that He has appeared and has been revealed.

If they were saved they were saved; one cannot be half-saved. They had put their faith both in a coming Messiah, and in the Messiah Himself. That is what salvation is all about. They knew who Christ was. A Christian is one who follows Christ, and that is what they did. "They left all and followed him."
Jesus sent them forth preaching the gospel. Was that an incomplete message that could not save? Was Jesus a failure and a deceiver to send them out with a false gospel that could not save?

Luke 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

Luke 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Luke 10:20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

Jesus went about preaching the "gospel of the kingdom." He gave the same message to the 70. They had the ability to heal, cast out demons, and do other miracles.
However Jesus testified of them: "Rejoice because your names are written in heaven."
That is much like NT terminology to me. How can you be any more "saved" than that--to know that your name is in the book of life--eternally secure.

This goes exactly with what I am saying. The Church was not in existence during this time except that the materials were present to build it with. The foundation of whom Peter proclaimed Jesus was, was not a foundation he understood, as expressed by his betrayl by denying Him and after Jesus death, going back to his old life and fishing again.

Peter was a believing Jew before he met Jesus.
After he met Jesus he put his faith in Christ.
From that point on he was a follower of Christ or a Christian. He had doubts along the way, but there is nothing to suggest that he was not a Christian. I have heard the testimonies of many in this day and age who have gone back to their old life (backslidden) only to come back to the Lord at a later date. This flies in the face of those who believe in Lordship salvation. But it happens, even today.

Another way to put it - Just because I have all the materials for building a house, and the blue prints for it's construction, does not make a house. It must be established and complete for it to be a house (something a person can live in). Jesus stated, "I will build my Church..."; not "I will continue building my Church..".

It is future. It is: I will build my church and will continue to build my church as he is still doing today.
He started with Peter and the apostles. The Bible specifically says that they are the foundation. The early believers built upon that foundation. Every local church does.

Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
--The church at Ephesus, as is every Bible-believing local church, had a foundation which consisted of the apostles and prophets (now the Bible), with Christ being the chief cornerstone. When do you think that all began? That is what the OP is.

The later would prove the Church was already existing and will continue to be added to, the prior however states it is not YET built but will be soon. The very wording of Christ is explicit and is testified historically in Acts as to 'adding' of the Gentiles just as the Jews were added in Acts 2. Which means that between Christ's ministry (no Church) and the adding of the 3K 'to the Church'.. the Church came into existence.

What were the 3,000 added to? They were added to the assembly of 120 that was already in existence in the upper room. Now the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem had an assembly of 3,120. There were 3,000 added to that assembly, even though the Holy Spirit had not yet come to them. They were already there conducting church business (choosing the 12th apostle).
There is no "The Church", only "churches." As Tom says, the disciples plus Christ for the most part make up an assembly (ekkesia), and that is when Christ said to Peter: "Upon this rock I will build my church." The sense of the passage seems to be, beginning now I will build and continue to build.

The only notable event that transpired (and I believe testified throughout the NT) is that of the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the believers - WHICH places them into the body of Christ, making them... what? saved again? Or now believers of and in New Covenant and under it's seal via the Holy Spirit.. which is 'The Church'.

You have a lot of terminology that either I don't use or use differently. So obviously we are going to disagree.
First note that Acts one does not speak of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
--The promise of the Father is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, who did come according to the promise of Christ. One might say that there was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I hesitate to use the word "baptize." He was promised, and the Holy Spirit came.

Secondly, when one is born again he becomes part of the family of God, the bride of Christ, or even the kingdom; but not "the body of Christ, or "The Church."
The term "body of Christ" refers to the "church" which is always local. Study 1Corinthians chapter 12 carefully here, and see how Paul compares the Corinthian church with a "body." This can only refer to a local body--the one at Corinth. As the Corinthian church was, every local church is--a body of Christ, and every member a part of it.

Pentecost has come and gone.
A similar event happened for the Samaritans, and then also for the Gentiles. There was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit on each group, as per Acts 1:8, for evidence to the Jews that the Gospel had reached them as well. This was "the promise of the Father."

 

[percho]

You can't have it both ways. They are either saved or they are not. According to John 17:6 they are saved. They are not "half saved" because His death and resurrection had not happened yet. Christ declared, "not one of them IS lost," not will be, but the present tense "is." They were saved at that moment and time that Christ was praying, and thus before that time as well.
Your the one that is coming up with this theology that one must receive a "baptism of the Holy Spirit" before they are saved. That sounds like Oneness Pentecostal doctrine the way it is worded. Where does the Bible teach this doctrine? Who made it up?
Salvation--Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God.
Did all the disciples doubt the resurrection?
There were 120 in the upper room praying, and some are mentioned by name, including Mary, the mother of Jesus.
Do you think she ever doubted that Christ would rise from the dead? The Bible doesn't say, but it doesn't say "they all doubted or they all did not believe." He appeared to over 500 "brethren." Did they ALL not believe he would rise? Were they all unbelievers before the resurrection? I think not!
The gospels are history books, and not all history is recorded. The history that is recorded is given by the Holy Spirit for our learning and benefit. We can't make absolute statements without all the facts. We have only a window into the lives of the some of the believers before the resurrection.
What were they?
50% believers? 75% believers or only 25% believers?
How do you go about making such decisions and on what basis.
We are justified by faith, and so were they.
Today we have the entire canon of Scripture; then they did not. We live 2,000 years after the fact; they lived before the fact (of the resurrection).
They could testify of the actual words of Jesus for they heard them.
After the resurrection the Holy Spirit brought to their remembrance "all things whatsoever I have told you."
We have never heard the actual words of Jesus, but we do have His Word.
Again, who makes the decision that they had to be there at Pentecost in order to be saved. That is an odd theology.
If they were saved they were saved; one cannot be half-saved. They had put their faith both in a coming Messiah, and in the Messiah Himself. That is what salvation is all about. They knew who Christ was. A Christian is one who follows Christ, and that is what they did. "They left all and followed him."
Jesus sent them forth preaching the gospel. Was that an incomplete message that could not save? Was Jesus a failure and a deceiver to send them out with a false gospel that could not save?

Luke 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

Luke 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Luke 10:20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

Jesus went about preaching the "gospel of the kingdom." He gave the same message to the 70. They had the ability to heal, cast out demons, and do other miracles.
However Jesus testified of them: "Rejoice because your names are written in heaven."
That is much like NT terminology to me. How can you be any more "saved" than that--to know that your name is in the book of life--eternally secure.
Peter was a believing Jew before he met Jesus.
After he met Jesus he put his faith in Christ.
From that point on he was a follower of Christ or a Christian. He had doubts along the way, but there is nothing to suggest that he was not a Christian. I have heard the testimonies of many in this day and age who have gone back to their old life (backslidden) only to come back to the Lord at a later date. This flies in the face of those who believe in Lordship salvation. But it happens, even today.
It is future. It is: I will build my church and will continue to build my church as he is still doing today.
He started with Peter and the apostles. The Bible specifically says that they are the foundation. The early believers built upon that foundation. Every local church does.

Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
--The church at Ephesus, as is every Bible-believing local church, had a foundation which consisted of the apostles and prophets (now the Bible), with Christ being the chief cornerstone. When do you think that all began? That is what the OP is.
What were the 3,000 added to? They were added to the assembly of 120 that was already in existence in the upper room. Now the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem had an assembly of 3,120. There were 3,000 added to that assembly, even though the Holy Spirit had not yet come to them. They were already there conducting church business (choosing the 12th apostle).
There is no "The Church", only "churches." As Tom says, the disciples plus Christ for the most part make up an assembly (ekkesia), and that is when Christ said to Peter: "Upon this rock I will build my church." The sense of the passage seems to be, beginning now I will build and continue to build.
You have a lot of terminology that either I don't use or use differently. So obviously we are going to disagree.
First note that Acts one does not speak of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
--The promise of the Father is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, who did come according to the promise of Christ. One might say that there was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I hesitate to use the word "baptize." He was promised, and the Holy Spirit came.

Secondly, when one is born again he becomes part of the family of God, the bride of Christ, or even the kingdom; but not "the body of Christ, or "The Church."
The term "body of Christ" refers to the "church" which is always local. Study 1Corinthians chapter 12 carefully here, and see how Paul compares the Corinthian church with a "body." This can only refer to a local body--the one at Corinth. As the Corinthian church was, every local church is--a body of Christ, and every member a part of it.

Pentecost has come and gone.
A similar event happened for the Samaritans, and then also for the Gentiles. There was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit on each group, as per Acts 1:8, for evidence to the Jews that the Gospel had reached them as well. This was "the promise of the Father."

In reality you are correct, because of this.

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
But God raised him from the dead:

That is the faith by which they were saved and that is the faith by which we are saved. Have faith of God.

Grace through the faith is what God said God would do from the foundation of the world.

Faith is not what you believe.

Faith is the fulfillment of the belief of God.

God the Father before the foundation of the world, before placed, his Son, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ to be born of woman as propitiation (the place of mercy) through the faith in the blood of him. That is what Romans 3:25 means.

It is God the Father through the Son of God born of woman giving his life and then being given eternal life from death by his Father. That is what happened and through death the works of Satan is destroyed and redemption is given.

 

[Yeshua1]

You can't have it both ways. They are either saved or they are not. According to John 17:6 they are saved. They are not "half saved" because His death and resurrection had not happened yet. Christ declared, "not one of them IS lost," not will be, but the present tense "is." They were saved at that moment and time that Christ was praying, and thus before that time as well.
Your the one that is coming up with this theology that one must receive a "baptism of the Holy Spirit" before they are saved. That sounds like Oneness Pentecostal doctrine the way it is worded. Where does the Bible teach this doctrine? Who made it up?
Salvation--Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God.
Did all the disciples doubt the resurrection?
There were 120 in the upper room praying, and some are mentioned by name, including Mary, the mother of Jesus.
Do you think she ever doubted that Christ would rise from the dead? The Bible doesn't say, but it doesn't say "they all doubted or they all did not believe." He appeared to over 500 "brethren." Did they ALL not believe he would rise? Were they all unbelievers before the resurrection? I think not!
The gospels are history books, and not all history is recorded. The history that is recorded is given by the Holy Spirit for our learning and benefit. We can't make absolute statements without all the facts. We have only a window into the lives of the some of the believers before the resurrection.
What were they?
50% believers? 75% believers or only 25% believers?
How do you go about making such decisions and on what basis.
We are justified by faith, and so were they.
Today we have the entire canon of Scripture; then they did not. We live 2,000 years after the fact; they lived before the fact (of the resurrection).
They could testify of the actual words of Jesus for they heard them.
After the resurrection the Holy Spirit brought to their remembrance "all things whatsoever I have told you."
We have never heard the actual words of Jesus, but we do have His Word.
Again, who makes the decision that they had to be there at Pentecost in order to be saved. That is an odd theology.
If they were saved they were saved; one cannot be half-saved. They had put their faith both in a coming Messiah, and in the Messiah Himself. That is what salvation is all about. They knew who Christ was. A Christian is one who follows Christ, and that is what they did. "They left all and followed him."
Jesus sent them forth preaching the gospel. Was that an incomplete message that could not save? Was Jesus a failure and a deceiver to send them out with a false gospel that could not save?

Luke 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

Luke 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Luke 10:20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

Jesus went about preaching the "gospel of the kingdom." He gave the same message to the 70. They had the ability to heal, cast out demons, and do other miracles.
However Jesus testified of them: "Rejoice because your names are written in heaven."
That is much like NT terminology to me. How can you be any more "saved" than that--to know that your name is in the book of life--eternally secure.
Peter was a believing Jew before he met Jesus.
After he met Jesus he put his faith in Christ.
From that point on he was a follower of Christ or a Christian. He had doubts along the way, but there is nothing to suggest that he was not a Christian. I have heard the testimonies of many in this day and age who have gone back to their old life (backslidden) only to come back to the Lord at a later date. This flies in the face of those who believe in Lordship salvation. But it happens, even today.
It is future. It is: I will build my church and will continue to build my church as he is still doing today.
He started with Peter and the apostles. The Bible specifically says that they are the foundation. The early believers built upon that foundation. Every local church does.

Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
--The church at Ephesus, as is every Bible-believing local church, had a foundation which consisted of the apostles and prophets (now the Bible), with Christ being the chief cornerstone. When do you think that all began? That is what the OP is.
What were the 3,000 added to? They were added to the assembly of 120 that was already in existence in the upper room. Now the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem had an assembly of 3,120. There were 3,000 added to that assembly, even though the Holy Spirit had not yet come to them. They were already there conducting church business (choosing the 12th apostle).
There is no "The Church", only "churches." As Tom says, the disciples plus Christ for the most part make up an assembly (ekkesia), and that is when Christ said to Peter: "Upon this rock I will build my church." The sense of the passage seems to be, beginning now I will build and continue to build.
You have a lot of terminology that either I don't use or use differently. So obviously we are going to disagree.
First note that Acts one does not speak of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
--The promise of the Father is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, who did come according to the promise of Christ. One might say that there was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I hesitate to use the word "baptize." He was promised, and the Holy Spirit came.

Secondly, when one is born again he becomes part of the family of God, the bride of Christ, or even the kingdom; but not "the body of Christ, or "The Church."
The term "body of Christ" refers to the "church" which is always local. Study 1Corinthians chapter 12 carefully here, and see how Paul compares the Corinthian church with a "body." This can only refer to a local body--the one at Corinth. As the Corinthian church was, every local church is--a body of Christ, and every member a part of it.

Pentecost has come and gone.
A similar event happened for the Samaritans, and then also for the Gentiles. There was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit on each group, as per Acts 1:8, for evidence to the Jews that the Gospel had reached them as well. This was "the promise of the Father."

think basic question is whether the Apostles had the Spirit indwelling them. sealing them before pentacost, and Jesus told them to wait until he came to do that, as they were to be filled/sealed/empowred by the Spirit when jesus left and sent Him back to take his place with us as another Comforter, one just as he is in role/function, but seperate and distinctfrom Him!

 

[Yeshua1]

Would say Appollos was one who heard John preach that Messiah was coming and had come, but he was still needing to know Jesus was that promised One!

He seems to me to be like those in Corinth who did not even know there was a Holy Spirit!

And when did the Apsotles get actually indwelt/filled with the Spirit, seems to be at pentacost!