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.)"

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

“Saved and then Baptized”

So, you don't know 'How God Saves Souls"?

Do you at least know of any reason a soul would need to be saved, in the first place?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

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.

I’m not sure why you’re treating the quantity or recency of commentaries as though that settles anything. The issue is not how many volumes you own or how recent the scholarship is. The issue is authority.

Commentaries, Greek interlinears, and critical texts are helps. They are not Scripture. They are not inspired. They are not preserved. They are not promised by God. They are tools, and like any tool, they must be kept in their proper place.

Psalm 12 does not promise the preservation of commentaries.
Psalm 12 does not promise the preservation of interlinears.
Psalm 12 does not promise the preservation of academic research.

Psalm 12 promises the preservation of God’s words.

“Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

That promise is about the words, not the scholarly apparatus surrounding them.

And historically, God has preserved His words through the translators He raised up, men who labored to give the Churches a stable, faithful text in the common tongue. The Bereans were commended for searching the Scriptures, not for consulting the latest commentary series.

I’m not dismissing scholarship. I’m saying scholarship is not the final court of appeal. The Scriptures are. And when we discuss a passage, the text itself must govern the conversation. Commentary can illuminate, but it cannot rule.

That’s the only point I’m making.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

I showed you that the church of Jesus Christ is dependent upon Jesus Christ being the "firstborn" from the dead.

"Those who are unwilling to admit Baptist perpetuity struggle desperately to show that the church was not in existence before Pentecost. Nothing else fits their theory of an “Invisible” Church.

"What, then, are the facts? When was the church begun?

"I shall not take the space to go into details, but will put the answer in one sentence:

"Out of material prepared by John the Baptist, Jesus organized and founded His church during the days of His personal ministry here on the earth..."

"Again, that the church existed before Pentecost is shown in that we are distinctly told that Christ sang praises in the midst of the church.

"Heb. 2:12 says, “I Will Declare Thy Name unto my brethren,
in the midst of the church I Will sing praises unto Thee.”

"This passage is quoted by the inspired writer of Hebrews from the twenty-second Psalm. To what incident in the life of Christ does it refer? what occasion did He sing praises in the midst of the church?

"Turn to Mark 14:26, and you will find the occasion mentioned. It was following the Institution of the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper that Jesus in the midst of His little church joined with them in singing a hymn.

"That Christ sang praises in the midst of the church before Pentecost, (as well as prior to Jesus' Resurrection), carries without saying that the church existed before that time."

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

 

[percho]

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.

From above; Luke 6:13 records the beginning of that building.

Is Luke 6:13-18 and Matt 10:1-4 describing the same event?

If yes then why did Jesus not say in Matt 18, " I am building my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it"? Instead of, "I shall build my church"?

Why the future in Matt 18 if the building began in Matt 10?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

From above; Luke 6:13 records the beginning of that building.

Is Luke 6:13-18 and Matt 10:1-4 describing the same event?

If yes then why did Jesus not say in Matt 18, " I am building my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it"? Instead of, "I shall build my church"?

Why the future in Matt 18 if the building began in Matt 10?

Luke 6:13 and Matthew 10:1–4 describe the same historical moment, Christ calling His disciples and naming the twelve apostles. That is the beginning of the group He gathers, organizes, and appoints. But that act of calling is not the same thing as the declarative promise in Matthew 16:18.

Matthew 16:18 is not Christ beginning to build. It is Christ announcing what He Himself will build. The future tense does not deny that He has already gathered the men who will be the foundation stones. It simply marks the distinction between the calling of the apostles and the full construction of the assembly under His headship.

Luke 6:13 shows Christ forming the group. Matthew 16:18 shows Christ declaring what that group will become.

There is no contradiction. The calling of the apostles is the first act in the building process, but the promise in Matthew 16:18 is Christ’s formal declaration of His purpose. The future tense marks the intention, not the absence of prior action. Christ often speaks this way, announcing in future tense what He is already initiating.

Matthew 18 does not need to say, “I am building My church,” because Christ is giving instructions to the group He has already gathered. He is shaping the assembly He will build, and He speaks of the building itself in Matthew 16. The grammar reflects the progression: calling, forming, organizing, then building.

Luke 6:13 records the beginning of that forming. Matthew 16:18 records the promise of what that forming will produce. Matthew 18 records instructions to the group already gathered.

The future tense in Matthew 16:18 is declarative, not chronological. It marks Christ’s intention, not a delay in His work.

 

[JD731]

JD, I’m going to stay on the single question I asked.

Where does Scripture state that the church began at the resurrection? Not infer it. Not construct it. Not assemble it from multiple doctrines. State it.

Anthony, I must say your argument does not make much sense but if you want to believe it I am not arguing against it no more that you are arguing for it. You are spending your time explaining why I am wrong, not why you are right.

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.”

7. So the question remains unanswered.

Colossians 1:18 does not say the church began at the resurrection.
Acts 13 does not say the church began at the resurrection.
Romans 8 does not say the church began at the resurrection.
Psalm 2 does not say the church began at the resurrection.

You have given interpretations, not a text.

So I will restate the question plainly:

What verse says the church began at the resurrection?

If Scripture states it, cite the verse.
If Scripture does not state it, then it is not a biblical claim.

I will give you more passages that tells us the church began after the resurrection of Jesus Christ but it will not change your mind and you will not believe it. Your mind is made up and I can see that.

Acts 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem,
11 And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me.
12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:
13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

This does not prove my theological position, it proves God said the beginning was when men began receiving the Holy Ghost into their bodies by faith to save them. This took place for the gentiles in AD 40, ten years after the initial pouring out on the Jews at Jerusalem. Peter had the keys to the door of faith and he unlocked the door to the Jews, the Samaritans and now, the gentiles. He was given these keys in MT 16 and if you do not believe he used these keys read what the other apostles said about it a few years later in Acts 15 after the first missionary journey to the gentiles.

Acts 14:27
And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Peter said this at the apostolic counsel in Jerusalem;

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the gentiles

One should read the whole context.


Jesus Christ is the head of the church at his resurrection and sinners began to be added to it when God poured out the Holy Ghost from heaven and men began being born again as sons of God by faith in what Jesus did for them.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (added to the the apostles and prophets who had received the Spirit in John 20 at the day of the resurrection)
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

The gift is the promise of the Holy Ghost to abide in the believer and that was impossible without the death of Christ because only innocent blood could atone for sin and the blood of Christ satisfied God's righteousness for us all who will come to him through Jesus Christ for salvation.
Isahre more about this marvelous truth later.

Acts 10:
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

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

There is one church, one body, one family and it began after the resurrection of Jesus Christ and because of it. Jesus Christ was the firstborn son of God from the dead, from which we all were born who are in the body.

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved).
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:


I have more to say on this subject, but meanwhile, Praise the Lord Jesus for what he has done.