I Will Build My Church 2

[Craigbythesea]

Not only one instance at all. When the Ethiopian asked Philip for baptism, we read:

NKJV Act 8:37 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Act 8:38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

Comparing that to the instance of the Philippian jailer, we see that believing on the Lord Jesus Christ was what was required to be saved:

NKJV Act 16:30 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Afterwards, we read that he and his household did indeed believe, and were baptized:

NKJV Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.
Act 16:34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

Acts 2:35. Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
36. As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
37. [And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
38. And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.

This passage says absolutely nothing about the eunuch being saved before he was baptized, but it does tell us that the eunuch very much wanted to be baptizes. Why:

Because he wanted to be saved!

Acts 16:27. When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.
28. But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!”
29. And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,
30. and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31. They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
32. And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.
33. And he took them that {very} hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his {household.}
34. And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household. (NASB, 1995)

This passage says absolutely nothing about the jailer being saved before he was baptized, but it does tell us that the jailer very much wanted to be baptized. Why:

Because he wanted to be saved! And immediately he was baptized, he and all his {household.} Why the urgensy? Because water baptism is not merely an outward, symbolic ordinance but the actual means of grace.

1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NASB, 1995)

There is only one instance in the New Testament of someone being saved and then Baptized: Acts 10:44-48; and that instance is based upon the assumption that Cornelius and those who were listening to the message were saved because the circumcised believers who came with Peter were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.

For those people who may have a desire to become more familiar with the book of Acts, Craig S. Keener has given to the church an excellent exegetical commentary on that book of the Bible:

Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: (Introduction and Acts 1:1-28:31, 4 Volumes of a Comprehensive Cultural & Contextual Exegesis of the Acts of the Apostles)

• Publisher: ‎ Baker Academic
• Publication date: ‎ October 13, 2015
• Edition ‏ : ‎ Har/Cdr
• Language: ‎ English
• Print length: ‎ 4,640 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0801039894
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0801039898
• Item Weight: ‎ 20 pounds
• Dimensions: ‎ 11.7 x 7 x 15 inches

I have a copy this commentary here in my study and I highly recommend it to everyone who loves the Bible and who is physically able to handle the four large and very heavy volumes.

 

[Aaron]

6. Scripture does explicitly place the church before the resurrection. Christ said during His earthly ministry:

“I will build My church.” (Matt. 16:18)

And in Luke 6:13 He:

called the apostles,
gathered them,
named them,
and constituted them as the foundation stones (Eph. 2:20).

That is the first assembly under Christ’s authority. Nothing in Scripture says:

“The church began at the resurrection.”

The Church began long before then. Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

 

[360watt]

The Church began long before then. Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

That isn't the New Testament church described in Mathew 16:18.

That's Israel gathered in the wilderness. It is a church in the assembly sense, but not the local NT assembly.

 

[JD731]

Acts 2:35. Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
36. As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
37. [And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
38. And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.

This passage says absolutely nothing about the eunuch being saved before he was baptized, but it does tell us that the eunuch very much wanted to be baptizes. Why:

Because he wanted to be saved!

Acts 16:27. When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.
28. But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!”
29. And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,
30. and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31. They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
32. And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.
33. And he took them that {very} hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his {household.}
34. And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household. (NASB, 1995)

This passage says absolutely nothing about the jailer being saved before he was baptized, but it does tell us that the jailer very much wanted to be baptized. Why:

Because he wanted to be saved! And immediately he was baptized, he and all his {household.} Why the urgensy? Because water baptism is not merely an outward, symbolic ordinance but the actual means of grace.

1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NASB, 1995)

There is only one instance in the New Testament of someone being saved and then Baptized: Acts 10:44-48; and that instance is based upon the assumption that Cornelius and those who were listening to the message were saved because the circumcised believers who came with Peter were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.

For those people who may have a desire to become more familiar with the book of Acts, Craig S. Keener has given to the church an excellent exegetical commentary on that book of the Bible:

Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: (Introduction and Acts 1:1-28:31, 4 Volumes of a Comprehensive Cultural & Contextual Exegesis of the Acts of the Apostles)

• Publisher: ‎ Baker Academic
• Publication date: ‎ October 13, 2015
• Edition ‏ : ‎ Har/Cdr
• Language: ‎ English
• Print length: ‎ 4,640 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0801039894
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0801039898
• Item Weight: ‎ 20 pounds
• Dimensions: ‎ 11.7 x 7 x 15 inches

I have a copy this commentary here in my study and I highly recommend it to everyone who loves the Bible and who is physically able to handle the four large and very heavy volumes.

Baptist Debate Forums (Baptist Only)​

Baptists settled the baptism question long ago and this subject may be the only biblical subject that is not open for debate among us.

Philip had just been to Samaria preaching Jesus Christ and him crucified as the way of salvation. They believed the preaching of Philip concerning Jesus Christ and were baptized but they did not receive the Holy Spirit. Peter and John, apostles, came down from Jerusalem and the gift of God, the Holy Spirit, was given by their authority when they laid hands on them, except one baptized man whom Peter discerned was a tare. The Holy Spirit is life and he is not received into the body by being baptized in water. A man is made in the image of God by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Why would anybody, reading these two accounts of the ministry of Phillip, think the Eunuch was given the Holy Ghost by him when he did not have the authority to do so in Samaria? Every person recorded as believing in the gospel of John said they believed the exact same thing as him, that Jesus Christ is the son of God, including Peter in Acts 16, but that is not what saves anyone, it justifies but it does not save. The gospel, I believe Jesus Christ died for my sins, was buried, and rose again is the gospel that will save you when salvation is defined correctly. It is done without water.

Salvation is defined by receiving the Spirit from God to dwell in our bodies eternally and baptism identifies us as followers of Christ. The door would not be opened to gentiles until Acts 10.

Acts is a history of the transitions of the Christian era and is a dangerous place to get your doctrine if you are not aware of it.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

This passage says absolutely nothing about the eunuch being saved before he was baptized, but it does tell us that the eunuch very much wanted to be baptizes.

Both passages you cite actually establish the same order: belief first, baptism after. The text does this not by inserting a separate salvation statement before baptism, but by giving explicit conditions and doctrinal declarations that define the order.

In Acts 8, Philip places a condition upon baptism: “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” That conditional clause establishes belief as the prerequisite. The eunuch answers, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Only after the condition is met does Philip baptize him. The text does not need to narrate “and he was saved before baptism” because the condition itself already defines the order. Belief is first; baptism follows as the response of one who has believed.

Acts 16 follows the same pattern with even greater clarity. When the jailer asks, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” the apostolic answer is doctrinal: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Salvation is conditioned upon belief, not upon baptism. The promise to his household is not automatic; it is contingent upon their believing as well. Luke confirms this by recording the next step: “And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” His family was not saved by his belief, nor by his baptism. They were evangelized. They heard the word preached to them personally.

Only after the preaching of the word do we read, “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” Baptism follows the preaching of the word because baptism is the response of those who have believed the word. Luke then gives the interpretive summary: the jailer “rejoiced, having believed in God with all his house.” This confirms the order already established by the apostolic answer. They believed, and having believed, they were baptized.

In both accounts, the grammar is consistent. Belief is the condition. Salvation is the promise. Baptism is the obedient response. The household in Acts 16 was not saved automatically, nor were they baptized as a means to obtain salvation. They heard the word, they believed the word, and then they were baptized. The order is clear in the text itself.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The Church began long before then. Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Acts 7:38 does not place Christ’s church in the wilderness. Stephen is describing Israel assembled under Moses at Sinai. The word “church” in that verse is simply the Greek term ekklesia, meaning an assembly or congregation. It is used in Acts 19 for a civic gathering in Ephesus, and throughout Scripture for any assembled group. It does not mean the body Christ said He Himself would build.

Christ’s statement in Matthew 16:18 is precise: “I will build My church.” He is not referring to Moses’ congregation, nor to Israel as a nation, nor to any prior assembly. He is announcing something that belongs uniquely to Him, something He Himself will construct. The possessive pronoun marks the distinction. Moses did not build Christ’s church. Israel in the wilderness was not Christ’s church. Christ is declaring the beginning of His own assembly under His own authority.

Luke records the first act of that building in Luke 6:13. Christ called His disciples, gathered them, and named the twelve apostles. Paul later identifies these men as the foundation stones of Christ’s church (Eph. 2:20). That is the first constituted assembly under Christ’s direct headship. Nothing in Scripture says the church began in the wilderness, and nothing in Scripture says the church began at the resurrection. Christ began building His assembly during His earthly ministry, exactly as He said He would.

Acts 7:38 describes Israel gathered under Moses. Matthew 16:18 describes an assembly Christ Himself will build. Luke 6:13 records the beginning of that building. The two assemblies are not the same, and the text itself makes the distinction clear.

 

[Craigbythesea]

The Church began long before then. Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

I do not believe that the congregation in the wilderness was in anyway the New Testament church.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I do not believe that the congregation in the wilderness was in anyway the New Testament church.

My apologies, it was the way I read it as well.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Both passages you cite actually establish the same order: belief first, baptism after. The text does this not by inserting a separate salvation statement before baptism, but by giving explicit conditions and doctrinal declarations that define the order.

In Acts 8, Philip places a condition upon baptism: “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” That conditional clause establishes belief as the prerequisite. The eunuch answers, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Only after the condition is met does Philip baptize him. The text does not need to narrate “and he was saved before baptism” because the condition itself already defines the order. Belief is first; baptism follows as the response of one who has believed.

Acts 16 follows the same pattern with even greater clarity. When the jailer asks, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” the apostolic answer is doctrinal: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Salvation is conditioned upon belief, not upon baptism. The promise to his household is not automatic; it is contingent upon their believing as well. Luke confirms this by recording the next step: “And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” His family was not saved by his belief, nor by his baptism. They were evangelized. They heard the word preached to them personally.

Only after the preaching of the word do we read, “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” Baptism follows the preaching of the word because baptism is the response of those who have believed the word. Luke then gives the interpretive summary: the jailer “rejoiced, having believed in God with all his house.” This confirms the order already established by the apostolic answer. They believed, and having believed, they were baptized.

In both accounts, the grammar is consistent. Belief is the condition. Salvation is the promise. Baptism is the obedient response. The household in Acts 16 was not saved automatically, nor were they baptized as a means to obtain salvation. They heard the word, they believed the word, and then they were baptized. The order is clear in the text itself.

The New Testament order is belief, baptism, salvation.

1 Peter 3:21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism saves! This was the interpretation of the entire church for over 1,500 year and it is still today the interpretation by the huge majority of the church, and the syntax of our English translations prove that this is the correct interpretation.

In verse 21, we have one main clause, “baptism now saves you,” and four subordinate clauses (also called a dependent clauses):

1. which this prefigured
2. not as a removal of dirt from the body
3. but as an appeal to God for a good conscience
4. through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Subordinate clause #2 tells us what baptism is not
Subordinate clause #3 tells us what baptism is
The main clause tells us what baptism does—it saves the recipient of baptism!

Subordinate clause #2 CANNOT nullify the main clause because it is dependent upon it.

The commentaries on 1 Peter by Donelson, 2010; Elliott, 2000; Davids, 1990; Michaels, 1988; Kelly, 1969; and Reicke, 1964 all agree! Baptism saves!

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The New Testament order is belief, baptism, salvation.

1 Peter 3:21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism saves! This was the interpretation of the entire church for over 1,500 year and it is still today the interpretation by the huge majority of the church, and the syntax of our English translations prove that this is the correct interpretation.

In verse 21, we have one main clause, “baptism now saves you,” and four subordinate clauses (also called a dependent clauses):

1. which this prefigured
2. not as a removal of dirt from the body
3. but as an appeal to God for a good conscience
4. through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Subordinate clause #2 tells us what baptism is not
Subordinate clause #3 tells us what baptism is
The main clause tells us what baptism does—it saves the recipient of baptism!

Subordinate clause #2 CANNOT nullify the main clause because it is dependent upon it.

The commentaries on 1 Peter by Donelson, 2010; Elliott, 2000; Davids, 1990; Michaels, 1988; Kelly, 1969; and Reicke, 1964 all agree! Baptism saves!

The New Testament does not teach the order “belief, baptism, salvation.” It teaches the order “belief, salvation, baptism.” The passages themselves define the sequence, and the grammar of 1 Peter 3:21 does not overturn the apostolic pattern.

In Acts 8, Philip places a condition on baptism: “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” That condition establishes belief as the prerequisite. The eunuch confesses Christ, and only then is he baptized. The text does not present baptism as the means of salvation; it presents it as the response of one who has already believed.

Acts 16 is even clearer. When the jailer asks, “What must I do to be saved?” the apostolic answer is doctrinal: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Salvation is promised upon belief. Baptism follows after the preaching of the word, and Luke’s summary confirms the order: the jailer rejoiced, “having believed in God with all his house.” Belief is the condition; salvation is the result; baptism is the response.

1 Peter 3:21 does not contradict this. Peter explicitly says what baptism is not: “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God…” He then defines what baptism is: "the answer of a good conscience toward God" The saving power in the verse is not the water, nor the act, but “the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The subordinate clauses explain the nature of baptism; they do not redefine the apostolic order already established in Acts.

Commentaries are not Scripture. The apostolic pattern is Scripture. And the apostolic pattern is consistent: belief first, salvation as the promised result, and baptism as the obedient response of those who have believed.

The words of Donelson, Elliott, Davids, Michaels, Kelly, and Reicke are not scripture.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Commentaries are not Scripture. . . .

The words of Donelson, Elliott, Davids, Michaels, Kelly, and Reicke are not scripture.

“No, but that does not make them any less true. The truth will always be the truth wherever it is found. A few words about commentaries,

In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not for those great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear that the expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, but the existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. The temptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty of sentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them, in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt….”

Spurgeon, C. H. Commenting & Commentaries. 1876.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

“No, but that does not make them any less true. The truth will always be the truth wherever it is found. A few words about commentaries,

In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not for those great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear that the expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, but the existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. The temptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty of sentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them, in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt….”

Spurgeon, C. H. Commenting & Commentaries. 1876.

I’m not sure why you’re framing this as though I’m dismissing commentaries or unaware of their value. I’ve been studying the Scriptures for nearly five decades, and I know precisely how to use a commentary, and just as importantly, how not to use one. They are helps, not authorities.

You quoted Spurgeon, but even Spurgeon’s point doesn’t contradict what I said. He valued commentaries as tools, not as sources of doctrine. That’s all I was saying. Commentaries are not Scripture, and therefore they are not the ground upon which convictions are built. They can illuminate, clarify, and sometimes correct our blind spots, but they do not carry divine authority.

My concern is simply this: when we’re discussing a text, the text itself must govern the conversation. Commentary can support the discussion, but it cannot settle it. The Bereans weren’t commended for checking what “holy men taught of God” said, they were commended for searching the Scriptures.

So yes, I appreciate commentaries. I use them. I benefit from them. But I don’t treat them as determinative, and I won’t be “corrected” by them as though they stand above the Word itself.

That’s the only point I was making.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I’m not sure why you’re framing this as though I’m dismissing commentaries or unaware of their value. I’ve been studying the Scriptures for nearly five decades, and I know precisely how to use a commentary, and just as importantly, how not to use one. They are helps, not authorities.

You quoted Spurgeon, but even Spurgeon’s point doesn’t contradict what I said. He valued commentaries as tools, not as sources of doctrine. That’s all I was saying. Commentaries are not Scripture, and therefore they are not the ground upon which convictions are built. They can illuminate, clarify, and sometimes correct our blind spots, but they do not carry divine authority.

My concern is simply this: when we’re discussing a text, the text itself must govern the conversation. Commentary can support the discussion, but it cannot settle it. The Bereans weren’t commended for checking what “holy men taught of God” said, they were commended for searching the Scriptures.

So yes, I appreciate commentaries. I use them. I benefit from them. But I don’t treat them as determinative, and I won’t be “corrected” by them as though they stand above the Word itself.

That’s the only point I was making.

I do not know what kind of commentaries you are familiar with, but based upon what you have written here, it is clear to me that you are not familiar with commentaries on the Greek text of the New Testament that are up to date on current New Testament research. I have here in my study commentaries on the Greek text of each of the 27 books of the New Testament that are less than 25 years old and others that are nearly as resent that. Indeed, for the Greek text of Philemon I have the commentaries by McKnight. 2017; Cousar, 2009; Moo, 2008; Norndling, 2004; Fitzmyer, 2000; Barth and Blanke, 2000; Dunn, 1996; Bruce, 1984; O'Brien, 1982; Lohse, 1968; Muller, 1955. There is only one chapter in Philemon—25 verses—but a lot of recent research that is important to the understanding and appreciation of those 25 verses. The truth is important to God and it should be important to us. He, in His infinite wisdom, has made it available to us and we need to make good used of it.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Acts 2 Pentecost is a church empowered, not the beginning of the NT church.

A.P. asked,

Where does Scripture state that the church began at the resurrection?

From: https://www.academia.edu/105292756/...Mason_Th_D?email_work_card=abstract-read-more

“It is certainly true that Christ in His Own Personal Ministry established His church.”

"A lengthy chapter could be written to prove my statement, but I must confine myself to a few reasons.

"First, let me ask, did not they have all of the essential things that go to make up a church before Pentecost?

(speaking of a Biblical church, which Jesus actually spoke of, and not a fantasy of sin-cursed man, to glorify Satan.)

"Let us see:
"1. They had the Gospel (Mark 1: 1).
"2. They were baptized believers. The apostles had been disciples of John, having been baptized by him (Acts 1:22). Of John's baptism, we are told that it was from Heaven (John 1:33).
"3. They had an organization. They even had a treasurer, though be turned out to be a dishonest one.
"4. They had the same Head that the church of today has, Christ.
"5. They had the Ordinance of baptism.
"6. They had the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper.
"7. They had the Great Commission.
"8. They met together as a church for prayer preceding Pentecost.
"9. Moreover, they even had a business meeting and selected one to take Judas' place."

"(In an attempt to discredit this action of the church, Dr. Scofield (Scofield Bible notes) makes the claim that the disciples erred in doing this. He claims that God ignored their choice by later calling Paul for this place, and affirms that we find no further mention of Matthias in the New Testament. In this he casts an unwarranted aspersion upon that New Testament church. Moreover, his statement about Matthias is not true to the Scriptures, for in a later chapter (Acts 6:2-61 the Holy Spirit recognizes Matthias as an apostle by mentioning him as one of the twelve. Dr. Scofield seeks to fit the incident of Matthias' selection with his theory that the church began on the day of Pentecost, and his effort merely betrays how far men will go in order to seek to sustain a theory.)"