Universal church - or whatever you want to call it.

[Iconoclast]

I think that if you listened to the sermons you would see he is not doing any of what you suggest here.
You are going somewhere that he doesn't suggest during his teaching.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Two excellent posts by Brother Joseph and Biblicist! Thank you, brothers.
These things are a reminder that however much we may love our Reformed Anglican or Presbyterian brethren, and however much we read their commentaries, there has to be a limit to our unity. The producers of the 1689 Confession were eager to emphasise the unity of all the Dissenters after the expulsion of James II, but they saw very clearly that the differences went further than baptism in itself, but pertain to the doctrine of the Church. They therefore made a point of distinguishing between Baptist and Paedobaptist ecclesiology. However many Presbyterian commentaries we may have on our bookshelves, we should make sure that we have ones written by a Baptist on Romans, Galatians and Hebrews.

A few years back, I spent long hours arguing with the Presbyterians over on the Puritan Board. One important point is that as soon as one accepts that the Church began with Abraham, one has a problem, because if Abraham founded the Church, he put infants into it. The people of God may begin with Abraham, but the Church begins at Pentecost. The Lord Jesus said, "I will build My Church......' The tense is future.

 

[TCassidy]

The people of God may begin with Abraham, but the Church begins at Pentecost. The Lord Jesus said, "I will build My Church......' The tense is future.

I believe the church started sometime during His earthly ministry, but I agree with your point. The church beginning with Abraham is just not supportable, in my not entirely humble opinion.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Me, I hold the church in embryo can be seen fleetingly in the Gospels. However, it was born on Pentecost.

I believe the church started sometime during His earthly ministry, but I agree with your point. The church beginning with Abraham is just not supportable, in my not entirely humble opinion.

 

[percho]

Two excellent posts by Brother Joseph and Biblicist! Thank you, brothers.
These things are a reminder that however much we may love our Reformed Anglican or Presbyterian brethren, and however much we read their commentaries, there has to be a limit to our unity. The producers of the 1689 Confession were eager to emphasise the unity of all the Dissenters after the expulsion of James II, but they saw very clearly that the differences went further than baptism in itself, but pertain to the doctrine of the Church. They therefore made a point of distinguishing between Baptist and Paedobaptist ecclesiology. However many Presbyterian commentaries we may have on our bookshelves, we should make sure that we have ones written by a Baptist on Romans, Galatians and Hebrews.

A few years back, I spent long hours arguing with the Presbyterians over on the Puritan Board. One important point is that as soon as one accepts that the Church began with Abraham, one has a problem, because if Abraham founded the Church, he put infants into it. The people of God may begin with Abraham, but the Church begins at Pentecost. The Lord Jesus said, "I will build My Church......' The tense is future.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, From Heb 1:1,2
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. John 12:49

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Is it Jesus, the Son of the living God, who builds or is Son speaking for God the Father and it is the Father who will build the church? Just what stone was being spoken of in Matt 16:18?

Consider: And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; Eph 2:20 When did the stone that had been rejected become the head of the corner? Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Acts 4:10,11 Was the stone rejected by being crucified and became the head of the corner by the resurrection?

Consider also: Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

When was the stone laid upon which the church would be built?

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;

 

[Iconoclast]

="The Biblicist,

In the Old Testament analogy the PROFESSING KINGDOM of Israel represents the whole elect. The city of Jerusalem represents the CAPITAL in the new heaven and earth where both God and the "house of God" are situated or located. Finally it REPRESENTS the hill on which the "house of God" is located or PUBLIC WORSHIP. The HOUSE OF PUBLIC WORSHIP is the most visible expression of God's kingdom and rule on earth because that is the ONLY place ordained by God where the rule of God is visibly manifested in the administration of the ordinances and teaching of God's Word.


The "house of God" REPRESENTS from Genesis to Revelation those three Biblical characteristics (1) appointed time for public worship; (2) appointed place for public worship; (3) Appointed means of public worship all three of which equal "the way of the Lord."

Revelation 21:1-2 explicity states that the previous heaven and earth have passed away. Hence, Revelation 21-22:3 is located in the post New Heaven and earth. Those who dwell in THE LAND or new earth are "saved" and called "nations" or "ethnos" because that is the consistent term for OUTSIDER. Those living in the New Jerusalem are also "saved" but the foundations are described in CHURCH language because the apostles are the "foundation" of the church. The "foundation" conveys permenant dwelling. The gates that give access and exit are described in the language of the 12 tribes of Israel the symbol for all the elect demonstrating access but not dwelling as it is OUTSIDE the "nations" of the saved "dwell." The nations have access to the tree of life but are not permitted to "eat" of that tree, only access to the leaves of that tree.

In the new heaven and earth there are those "saved" whose dwelling is not in the New Jerusalem but OUTSIDE on THE LAND whereas in direct contrast there are those who are "saved" dwelling INSIDE the New Jerusalem or CITY DWELLERS - (Levites who served in God's house or those since Genesis to Revelation who SERVED (not salvation) in "the way of the Lord" as described by the three characteristics of PUBLIC WORSHIP.

[/QUOTE]

Looks like your view was discussed here;
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/landmarkism.22107/

 

[The Biblicist]

Me, I hold the church in embryo can be seen fleetingly in the Gospels. However, it was born on Pentecost.

Have you considered Acts 1:21-22 and the fact that this demands a constant assembling with more than the apostles since the baptism of John, otherwise, no one else could meet these time qualifications "beginning from." In Luke 6:13 the twelve were chosen out of a larger body of disciples. This assembling in Act 1:21-22 is characterized as a building that someone could enter and exit.

Another thing to consider is that immersion in the Shekinah glory in direct relationship to the "house of God" was an event that occurred AFTER the "house of God" is said to have already been finished:

Ex. 40: 33 And he reared up the court round about the tabernacle and the altar, and set up the hanging of the court gate. So Moses finished the work.
34 ¶ Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

The same is true with the temple by Solomon, the immersion in the Shekinah glory occurred after Solomon had finished the work. The immersion simply signified that what had already been finished was "acceptable" for public worship because it conformed to the divine pattern.

When Jesus had instituted the last ordinance he said:"I have finished the work" the Father sent him to do but he had not yet gone to the cross and so he was not talking about the redemptive work. The writer of Hebrews claimed that Jesus sung a song in the church and the only record of Christ singing a song is in the same context of the institution of the Lord's Supper (Heb. 2:12).

Acts 2:41 says that those 3,000 believers were "added" to the church (Acts 2:41,46). How can you "add" to what does not already exist. For example, if you did not have a bank account, how could you "add" to it? What they added to was an assembly in Acts 2:1 that Luke had just previously described as habitually assembling "from the baptism of John" unto the ascension. It was that same assembly described in Acts 1:15-26 that gathered once more in Acts 2:1 and was "added unto" in Acts 2:41.

What text in Acts 2 claims the church was born on that day? None! When salvation and service are confused then all kinds of things are imagined. For example, arguing that the church could not exist prior to the cross is like arguing salvation could not exist prior to the cross and yet the Bible fully repudiates that idea and provides pre-Mosaic Abraham as the "father" of all who are justified by faith in Christ.

Arguing that the church could not exist prior to Pentecost is also like arguing that one could not be saved before Pentecost and yet the scriptures repudiate that idea.

The immersion in the Shekinah glory as Biblical precedent in God's word as something that occurs AFTER the house of God has been finished rather than the birth of God's house.

Why would you suggest the church was not born until Pentecost?

 

[The Biblicist]

I think that if you listened to the sermons you would see he is not doing any of what you suggest here.
You are going somewhere that he doesn't suggest during his teaching.

I didn't mean to imply that he was intentionally and consciously going that direction. I was just pointing out where his logic will ultimately lead and his complete failure to perceive that "the house of God" is a New Testament motiff (1 Tim. 3:15) that contextually refers to the public house of worship wherein a qualified ministry exists (1 Tim. 3:1-13). Remember, both Timothy and Paul were raised in Jewish households and the phrase "the house of God" had but one meaning that comes to mind to a person raised in a Jewish household - the appointed place for public worship and administration of the ordinances by a qualified ministry (Deut. 12).

In fact, the phrase "the house of God" is only found a total of 88 times in Scripture and 1 Timothy 3:15 is the 86th occurrence. Every single solitary occurrence prior to 1 Timothy 3:15 refers to the appointed place for public worship and administration of the ordinances.

He simply confuses what signifies PUBLIC WORSHIP with personal salvation. From Genesis to Revelation the two are never confounded by Biblical writers. Just because public place of worship provides all kinds of salvational declarations does not mean it is the fulfillment of those salvational declarations.

 

[Iconoclast]

Bethel is the first occurrence if I remember correctly. Is it in Gen 28?

 

[percho]

Have you considered Acts 1:21-22 and the fact that this demands a constant assembling with more than the apostles since the baptism of John, otherwise, no one else could meet these time qualifications "beginning from." In Luke 6:13 the twelve were chosen out of a larger body of disciples. This assembling in Act 1:21-22 is characterized as a building that someone could enter and exit.

Another thing to consider is that immersion in the Shekinah glory in direct relationship to the "house of God" was an event that occurred AFTER the "house of God" is said to have already been finished:

Ex. 40: 33 And he reared up the court round about the tabernacle and the altar, and set up the hanging of the court gate. So Moses finished the work.
34 ¶ Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

The same is true with the temple by Solomon, the immersion in the Shekinah glory occurred after Solomon had finished the work. The immersion simply signified that what had already been finished was "acceptable" for public worship because it conformed to the divine pattern.

When Jesus had instituted the last ordinance he said:"I have finished the work" the Father sent him to do but he had not yet gone to the cross and so he was not talking about the redemptive work. The writer of Hebrews claimed that Jesus sung a song in the church and the only record of Christ singing a song is in the same context of the institution of the Lord's Supper (Heb. 2:12).

Acts 2:41 says that those 3,000 believers were "added" to the church (Acts 2:41,46). How can you "add" to what does not already exist. For example, if you did not have a bank account, how could you "add" to it? What they added to was an assembly in Acts 2:1 that Luke had just previously described as habitually assembling "from the baptism of John" unto the ascension. It was that same assembly described in Acts 1:15-26 that gathered once more in Acts 2:1 and was "added unto" in Acts 2:41.

What text in Acts 2 claims the church was born on that day? None! When salvation and service are confused then all kinds of things are imagined. For example, arguing that the church could not exist prior to the cross is like arguing salvation could not exist prior to the cross and yet the Bible fully repudiates that idea and provides pre-Mosaic Abraham as the "father" of all who are justified by faith in Christ.

Arguing that the church could not exist prior to Pentecost is also like arguing that one could not be saved before Pentecost and yet the scriptures repudiate that idea.

The immersion in the Shekinah glory as Biblical precedent in God's word as something that occurs AFTER the house of God has been finished rather than the birth of God's house.

Why would you suggest the church was not born until Pentecost?

Questions? Will there be an end to the building of the church? When? Why? What if anything will follow? Is it the church that is being built by the receiving of, the firstfruit of the Spirit or something else?

Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: Jer 3:14

Does that verse speak of the building of the church or is it speaking of something else?

BTW these are just questions that come to mind. No particular reason for asking them other that to hear your or others thoughts. Thanks to all.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Acts 2:41 says that those 3,000 believers were "added" to the church (Acts 2:41,46). How can you "add" to what does not already exist. For example, if you did not have a bank account, how could you "add" to it? What they added to was an assembly in Acts 2:1 that Luke had just previously described as habitually assembling "from the baptism of John" unto the ascension. It was that same assembly described in Acts 1:15-26 that gathered once more in Acts 2:1 and was "added unto" in Acts 2:41.

Brother Biblicist,

I agree with what you have said in regards to Acts 2- one cannot "add to" something that had no prior existence, therefore the church contrary to popular did indeed exist prior to Pentecost. When do you believe is started, with Adam, Christ's earthly ministry, or none of the above?

 

[The Biblicist]

Brother Biblicist,

I agree with what you have said in regards to Acts 2- one cannot "add to" something that had no prior existence, therefore the church contrary to popular did indeed exist prior to Pentecost. When do you believe is started, with Adam, Christ's earthly ministry, or none of the above?

I believe it started when the first two or three baptized believers started assembling with Christ in John 1:35-53 when Acts 1:21-22 says "from the baptism of John."

 

[The Biblicist]

Bethel is the first occurrence if I remember correctly. Is it in Gen 28?

The first time the words "house of God" occurs but not the first time the concept of a designated place for public worship occurs. The first time the concept occurs is in Genesis 4 where there is an appointed time, an appointed place and an appointed means. The text says that Cain departed from the presence of the Lord. One cannot depart from an omnipresent God. It was the appointed place where man met God in public worship that Cain departed.

What is interesting is that the "firstborn" not only obtained a double portion but also acted as the appointed administrator for family public worship or was the priest in the family. God killed all the "firstborn" of Egypt as his final plague, thus removing all the family designated priests of this false religions from the families of Egypt. At the time of Moses, the tribe of Levi was taken in the place of the firstborn in all of Israel to do serve or minister in the public house of God. The New Testament church is identified as the church of the "firstborn ones" (literal Greek) or those who serve in the public house of worship.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The operative words in my comment are in embryo. So, the NT ekklesia was conceived (if you'll pardon my phraseology) in Matthew and born in Acts.

 

[The Biblicist]

Questions? Will there be an end to the building of the church? When? Why? What if anything will follow? Is it the church that is being built by the receiving of, the firstfruit of the Spirit or something else?

Immersion in the Shekinah glory signified that the house of God had previously been finished. Acts 2:1-3 signified that the new covenant house of God had already been finished. In John 17 Jesus declared at the institution of the Lord's Supper "I have finished the work" the Father sent him to do and yet he had not gone to the cross where the work of redemption was to be finished ("it is finished").

 

[The Biblicist]

The operative words in my comment are in embryo. So, the NT ekklesia was conceived (if you'll pardon my phraseology) in Matthew and born in Acts.

Your terminology is interesting. An embryo, in the process of child birth is unseen and still in the womb. However, in direct contrast Jesus tells his disciples with regard to personal offences "tell the church" using the present tense. Hebrews 2:12 says that Christ sang in the church and the only indication in Scripture where Jesus sang at all is after the institution of the Lord's Supper (Mt. 26:30). The immersion in the Shekinah glory has a consistent Old Testament precedent as an event that declares the "house of God" was finished prior to that event but you have its birth or manifestation from the womb on Pentecost. The common meaning of ekklesia prior to Pentecost and during the New Testament period was a corporeal and physical unity of people gathered for a common purpose and that is precisely the description given in Acts 1:21-22 "from the baptism of John."

Prior to Pentecost it was composed of baptized believers in Christ. Prior to Pentecost it had both ordinances. Prior to Pentecost it had appointed leadership. Prior to Pentecost it had been on a previous limited commission (Mt. 9) and later given a more extensive commission. Prior to Pentecost it had a qualified Pastor (Jesus). Prior to Pentecost it had a membership roll (Acts 1:15). Prior to Pentecost Jesus declared that "I" will build it not that the Holy Spirit would build it. In fact, the Holy Spirit is described as "another" comforter who would provide leadership for something already in existence due to His work. It would seem the church had long been "conceived" before Pentecost.

Where in Acts 2 do you find any rationale for the idea of embryo versus conceived?

 

[Iconoclast]

Bethel is the first occurrence if I remember correctly. Is it in Gen 28?

From Pastor Culver;

This was the physical and emotional context of God’s appearance, and it helps to bring out the significance of His words to Jacob and Jacob’s response to what he saw and heard. God affirmed to him that the covenant he had made with Abraham and Isaac applied to him as well. Despite the sinful circumstances of the blessing, Jacob was its rightful recipient, and the covenant standing it implied belonged to him. God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and his identity in the covenant was unaffected by where he was residing or what he was doing. God had set him apart and He would establish him. He would go with Jacob wherever he went, and He would one day bring him back to his homeland and fulfill the promise that the descendents of Abraham would possess it as an inheritance.
“The revelation was intended not only to stamp the blessing, with which Isaac had dismissed him from his home, with the seal of divine approval, but also to impress upon Jacob’s mind the fact that, although Jehovah would be near to protect and guide him even in a foreign land, the land of promise was the holy ground on which the God of his fathers would set up the covenant of His grace. On his departure from that land, he was to carry with him a sacred awe of the gracious presence of Jehovah there.” (Keil and Delitzsch)
Thus Jacob’s response was not an acknowledgement of divine omnipresence, but an exclamation of his astonishment that the God of his fathers would condescend to be near him in this foreign place and commit Himself to his welfare wherever he went and under whatever circumstances he should find himself. Having acknowledged God’s presence with him and His promises to him, Jacob took the stone he had used for a pillow, set it up as a pillar and poured oil over it to consecrate it as a memorial of God’s promise and mercy toward him.
He also renamed the nearby city Bethel, which means “house of God,” for he believed that he was standing at the very gate of heaven. Finally, Jacob made a vow to God, promising Him that if He would go with him and provide for the needs of his journey, and eventually bring him back to his father’s house, then he would be his God (vv. 20-22). While some have viewed Jacob’s vow as a rash act of insubordination in which he was putting God to the test, nothing could be further from the truth.
Jacob was not testing God or insisting upon personal benefit as the basis for allegiance and submission. God Himself had pledged His care, covenant blessing, and abiding faithfulness. He had promised Jacob that He would be with him and would bring him back to the land of his fathers. Jacob’s vow was merely his acknowledgment of God’s pledge and his own commitment to Him.
By performing what He had promised, this One who declared Himself to be the God of his fathers would certify His identity, thus showing Himself to be the true God who alone was worthy of Jacob’s devotion and service. Jacob’s vow was an act of affirmation, and that’s why later, when God was about to bring him and his family and possessions out of Haran, He reminded Jacob of it (31:1-13).
50
As Beersheba had been central to God’s relationship with Abraham and Isaac, Bethel became the focal point of His relationship with Jacob (ref. 31:13, 35:1-15). Like his fathers had done at Beersheba, Jacob made Bethel a shrine by erecting a monument to God and calling upon Him (28:18-22). Not unexpectedly, the theme of sacred space is developed in the shift of emphasis from Beersheba to Bethel:
- Beersheba represented God’s faithfulness to establish His covenant people in the land of promise. This is why Beersheba is associated with both of Jacob’s “exiles” out of Canaan and God’s covenant oath in relation to them (cf. 28:10-15, 46:1-7).
- On the other hand, Bethel represented God’s promise to be the God of His covenant people – not simply to bless them from afar, but to dwell in their midst (28:13-17). And so it was that God represented Bethel to Jacob as the place of the bridge between heaven and earth. In this way Bethel prefigures the sacred space of the Israelite sanctuary, and ultimately the true sanctuary that is Jesus Christ, who is Immanuel. Through Him, men become the dwelling of God in the Holy Spirit. Bruce Waltke observes:
“God’s presence not only gives our identity eternal dignity and meaning but also transforms our secular journey from a touring expedition into a sacred pilgrimage [just as was the case with Jacob]… Simply becoming aware of God’s presence transforms the meaning and sanctity of our chartered paths. Our life is not simply a solitary wandering but a journey to the holy city with the holy God.” (Commentary on Genesis)

 

[The Biblicist]

From Pastor Culver;

Again he is confusing Jacob's relationship with God with the place where Jacob met with God. The place was not his relationship but simply where Jacob MET with God. The place was not his salvation but merely where he gained greater knowledge of salvation. He called it the "gate to heaven" because it was the MEETING PLACE with God. The ekklesia of Christ at Corinth is the church "OF GOD" because it was the meeting place where the Corinthians met with God. In Hebrews 12:18-20 Mount Sinai was the MEETING PLACE with God, because it was where Israel assembled together to MEET with God and angels were present. The New Testament ekklesia is the MEETING PLACE between those who are enrolled in heaven, but who are still on earth but yet MEET with God and heaven. 1 Corinthians 11:10 and Ephesians 3:10 clearly teach us that angels are present in the assemblies of the saints, and God is present in the ekklesia (church OF GOD; temple OF THE HOLY SPIRIT) is the MEETING PLACE between the members and heaven.

However, the church is not heaven, it is not God, it is not salvation, it is not part of redemption, it is merely the MEETING PLACE between man and God. Bethel did not save Jacob, but Bethel is the PLACE where God revealed himself to Jacob. Pastor Culver crosses over the same line that Roman Catholics cross over when teaching about the church - he confuses the MEETING PLACE with REVELATION that occurs at the meeting place and thus merges both into salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

The idea that the church began on Pentecost has absolutely no Biblical foundation whatsoever! No text supports it. Nothing in Acts 2 supports it but everything in Acts 2 contradicts that idea.

That idea is not based upon Scripture but upon antibiblical inferences that salvation did not exist prior to Pentecost. Biblical salvation in relationship to the fall of man in Genesis is SPIRITUAL UNION with God because the Fall of man is SPIRITUAL SEPARATION from God. Where there is no SPIRITUAL union with God there is no life, no light and holiness, thus NO SALVATION.

That idea is based upon CHURCH SALVATION and is just another form of Roman Catholicism. Ordinarily the Roman Catholic doctrine is NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF ITS CHURCH. The Reformed doctrine of the church is the same - NO SALVATION OUTSIDE ITS CHURCH because they interpret "in Christ" to be SPIRITUAL UNION with God through Christ through the baptism in the Spirit and since neither the church or the baptism in the Spirit are Old Testament realities - hence, the Pentecost origin of both the church and salvation "in Christ" are the consequences.

The problem is a fundamental ignorance of the difference between the kingdom of God and the church of God and a fundamental ignorance of the most basic level of salvation.

 

[Iconoclast]

Again he is confusing Jacob's relationship with God with the place where Jacob met with God. The place was not his relationship but simply where Jacob MET with God. The place was not his salvation but merely where he gained greater knowledge of salvation. He called it the "gate to heaven" because it was the MEETING PLACE with God. The ekklesia of Christ at Corinth is the church "OF GOD" because it was the meeting place where the Corinthians met with God. In Hebrews 12:18-20 Mount Sinai was the MEETING PLACE with God, because it was where Israel assembled together to MEET with God and angels were present. The New Testament ekklesia is the MEETING PLACE between those who are enrolled in heaven, but who are still on earth but yet MEET with God and heaven. 1 Corinthians 11:10 and Ephesians 3:10 clearly teach us that angels are present in the assemblies of the saints, and God is present in the ekklesia (church OF GOD; temple OF THE HOLY SPIRIT) is the MEETING PLACE between the members and heaven.

However, the church is not heaven, it is not God, it is not salvation, it is not part of redemption, it is merely the MEETING PLACE between man and God. Bethel did not save Jacob, but Bethel is the PLACE where God revealed himself to Jacob. Pastor Culver crosses over the same line that Roman Catholics cross over when teaching about the church - he confuses the MEETING PLACE with REVELATION that occurs at the meeting place and thus merges both into salvation.

Sorry B
I forgot that you were a landmark er and as such I do not think you can get what is being offered by Pastor Culver because it clashes with your system.
I did not offer these ideas initially with you in mind.
It is clear you are missing what he is correctly teaching.
I will show it directly when I get to my computer.