Featured When Did the Church Begin? Pentecost? Earlier?

true,as many here seem to see Dispy theology as being stuck with say notes in Scofield bible, that seemed to indicate Church not in original plan of God, andthey were saved by Law under Old Covenant!

I am in the progressive wing of this, so tend to see more of the Church always in will and plans of God, just that the OT believers did not fully see a break between first/second comings, anf mystery revealed to paul was that jews and gentiles BOTH saved by same Messiah, and belong to One Body!

And ONLY ONE Gospel, all the Apsotles shared it, not jus paul for thegentiles, that is Hyper Dispy!

 

Uh ... no. It doesn't mean "let" or "letteth" (if you insist on using the KJV) at all. It means, as the NASB translates it, "restrains." The Greek katecho can only be translated "restrained." Many of the Reformed disciplines claimed it was the Roman government that "restrained," but as no man even remotely resembling the biblical antichrist has arisen to rule the entire world, that's obviously false. The only remaining choice is the Holy Spirit.

No, but the church leaves in the Rapture. Don't think that's odd, or makes salvation impossible in the Tribulation period, because it does not. Throughout the Old Testament men of true, saving faith rose, preached, were persecuted, etc., without the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Michael himself was restrained for three weeks in attempting to reach Daniel to explain the prophet's own revelation of the end times to him. The Prince of Persia restrained him. Not the human prince, the demonic presence who hung over and around the human prince. If Michael could not easily overcome a minion of Satan, how is he able to "restrain" Satan himself now? For Satan most certainly is the spirit of the antichrist, and awaits and manipulates events so that the timing is right for his placing the antichrist on Earth's throne.

But it isn't wrong. So neither is the doctrine.

No, He was not. This was Jesus' way of handing off to the apostles the gifts of the Spirit. But Jesus had said He must first go away before the Helper would come.

John 16, (NASB)
7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you [Emphasis added].
8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;
9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;
10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me [Emphasis added] ;
11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged." ​

The Helper did not come until Pentecost.

But it wasn't, so we can dispense with that argument. :smilewinkgrin:

 

hard to believe the restrainerstariner would be human govt, as that is already being ran under the current system as satan prefers ir, not Micheal, for he dared not rail against Satan over Moses, but"the Lord rebuke you!"

Still see it as being the Body of Christ on earth being removed, and the Spirit back to working as in OT times now!

 

I have no desire to enter into the debate as to exactly when the Holy Spirit actually came upon the Apostles.

What does have me wondering is that if the Son of God commanded the Apostles to teach and baptize people (the "Great Commission"), is there any Bible account of the Apostles actually doing this prior to Pentecost?

The only thing that I find in the Bible of the Apostles actually doing between the time of Jesus Christ giving them the "Great Commission" was their choosing of Matthias as a "replacement" for Judas Iscariot.

 

sus told the Apostles and disciples of his that they MUST tarry til the Spirit Himself came back, as they could do no work until the Spirit came and empowered them!

Imperative command from Jesus to them "You MUST wait!"

 

Yeshua 1:

I am not disputing the fact that Jesus told the Apostles to wait.

However, this does bring up the issue of whether or not the Apostles' selection of Matthias as a replacement for Judas Iscariot as an Apostle was (or was not) a "Holy Spirit led" act or not.

In this case, I would appreciate reading how you (or anyone else for that matter) view the Apostles' selection of Matthias as a replacement for Judas Iscariot--that is, was Matthias "really" an Apostle or not?

 

My apologies for jumping in late. At the risk of being labeled a heretic I, I would say that Christ being slain from the foundation of the world, and "knowing" who his people are as they were written in the lambs book from the foundation, established the church before the foundation of the world and has continued building it ever since.

 

I would say that he was an Apostle in the lesser sense of the term, as always have held that the Bible recorded down what they did to replace Judas, but that God already had the true replacement in saul of tarsus, greatest of all Apsotles!

 

I agree with you.

Acts 2:32,33 give the order. As you said unless he went away the Spirit would not come. He died, he was raised from the dead by the father, he ascended to the right hand of the Father and received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit. Who was the Holy Spirit promised to? See also Gal. 3:18,19,21.

To the seed of Abraham!

In thy seed, the Christ, shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.

The end of A2:33 he has poured out this which *ye* behold and hear. Darby

that to the nations the blessing of Abraham may come in Christ Jesus, that the promise of the Spirit we may receive through the faith.

Through the resurrected Jesus becoming the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. Heb. 11:1

BTW Titus 3:5,6 say the exact same thing concerning the path of the Holy Spirit. First to the regenerated Jesus then poured out abundantly on us.

 

What was also different after Pentecost was that the mystery of the church was revealed which was that Gentiles would be fellow heirs with Jews.

 

First, It was not Clouse who referred to the Church as an interruption or "parenthesis" in God's plan for Israel but dispensationalist Herman A. Hoyt!

Second, Dispensationalist Charles C. Ryrie, writing in his book, Dispensationalism states the following on page 134.

Third, God has only one people, those redeemed to Him through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That people constitute the Church and that is a Biblical fact. Dispensationalism has taken an obscure {difficult to interpret} verse 9:27 of Scripture from Daniel and twisted it to get an indeterminate period of time between the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the pre-trib rapture of the Church. The supposed pre-trib rapture of the Church is apparently based on a utterances by one Edward Irving in London, England according to Martyn Lloyd-Jones in The Church and Last Things, pages 137, 138.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones further asserts that John Darby {Founder of Dispensational Doctrine} was influenced by Edward Irving, a charismatic Scottish preacher, who established a new church in London called the Catholic Apostolic Church. As reported by Lloyd-Jones [page 138] the origin of ‘the secret rapture’ is the result of a prophetic utterance in the Catholic Apostolic Church. This utterance was supposedly in tongues, interpreted by someone and considered ‘a revelation’. There is much dispute as to whether the so-called revelation occurred in Irving’s church or elsewhere and was then discovered by Irving. The origin of this ‘revelation’ has been attributed to Margaret Macdonald of Port Glasgow, Scotland. Her revelation was first published in Robert Norton's Memoirs of James & George Macdonald, of Port Glasgow (1840), pp. 171-176. Norton published it again in The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets; In the Catholic Apostolic Church (1861), pp. 15-18. Whether all of this is historical truth is subject to debate. However, it is apparently historical fact that there was a split within the Plymouth Brethren as the result of Darby’s acceptance of the two event Second Coming and the ‘parenthesis church’.

Fourth, Some interesting comments from the former president of the Dallas Theological Seminary, John F. Walvoord. Writing on page 206, 207 of Major Bible Prophecies Walvoord states:

I would say so since there was no offer of an earthly Messianic Kingdom!

 

Was Noah under Grace?

 

Yes, But NOT under the New Covenant means of grace!

 

he was upon them, but at pentacost, would then be inside them, indwelling them, as being sealed by Him now!

 

The OT prophets saw the Messiah first/second coming, but didi not realise that God would have Church Age in between, as the church was always part of the eschatological Plan!

 

Are you writing Scripture or can you quote some to support that statement, that is:

1. First and second coming.

2. Church as part off eschatological plan

 

So Gos has different kinds of Grace?

 

No, same Grace, but different adminstartions of His grace, called Dispensations!

 

1. Isaiah foretold and predicted BOTH His coming as a babe, and as messiah at second coming, setting up reign on earth...

2. peter stated that we have more sure word of prophecy, as thet OT prophets wrote things not fully aware of what there were writting down and recoding, and the NT books written to ggive to us the 'full revealtion!"