Twenty Proofs the Church Existed Prior to Pentecost

That's the weakest attempt I have seen in a long time.

 

Though I don't agree 100% and question some of his references, I thought it was very good. Unfortunately he did not go back far enough in time. The Church was empowered with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. To deny that the Church existed prior to Pentecost is to make Jesus Christ a liar.

 

That's a very strong statement, OR. Jesus never said the church existed prior to Pentecost. In fact, in Matt 16, the church was still future. If you actually look at his references, you will find that very few of them say anything about the church. They talk about believers, and individuals, but not about the church. But of course, don't let the words of Scripture mess up your theology.

 

Church is not religion, nor a building, nor an organization or sect. Church means congregation, called out, and God's people. Acts 7:38 proves, that Moses was in the church in the wilderness. That word is actual 'ekkeklesia'(lousy spelling for Greek word) #1577. It tells us, Moses was in the congregation.

Interesting during A.V. 1611 translation, King James I wanted 'congregation' to be removed, and put word, 'church' in the New Testament. That why it caused confusion because of dispensationalism movement.

I read another discussion forum, a posttribber found Latin word for that word in the Old Testament, it appeared about 70 times. Later next week, I will show you the link proves that 'ekkelsia' found 70 times in the Old Testament.

I will show you a passage in the Old Testament that fits with Matt. 16:18-19 so clear - next week.

Galatians chapter 3 telling us, Abraham was saved by his faith, just same as we have faith in Christ. Abraham and Old Testament saints are on the same boat which we are on it by through our faith. God only have one family either Jew or Gentile, whosoever believeth upon Christ.

Next week, I will discuss more about church and Israel with dispensationalism issue.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

I would have to be a dispensationalist in order for that to happen.

 

What does that mean, OR? You know very well that isn't true.

Acts 7:38 says that there was a called out group in the OT. That proves nothing about a church. A church has a specific definition that, at a minimum, includes Spirit baptism (cf 1 Cor 13:12). No one referenced in Acts 7:38 was Spirit baptized (since it was still future during the time of Christ), and therefore were not in the church. You see, it is easy when you read the words of Scripture.

Seriously folks, this list was a bad list. "The church had a treasurer"???? That was coffee spitting material right there. Christian standup.

 

Pastor Larry,

Church is same defintion as called out, congregation.

Yes, we are called out by God. Just same as Abraham was called out of his country and follow Christ.

2 Peter 2:9 says, "But YE are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that YE should shew forth the prises of him who hath CALLED you OUT of darkness into his marvelous light."

This verse is not just for Jews only, also, it speaks to us as followers either Jew or Gentile whosoever believth in Jesus Christ, and called us out of the world, and follow his light.

Obivously, this is speak for the Church.

Abraham was called out by the Lord, that He commanded Abraham to leave his country and to follow Him. Just same with us, that the Lord called us out of the world, and to follow His light.

Abraham is part of the Church, because he already have faith in Christ same we have faith in Him. No difference.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Yes, but the word ekklesia has a technical use as the NT church, distinct from its use generically.

That the OT people were "called out" is not the issue. (In all these discussions, you routinely and repeatedly address non-issues). We do not disagree that the OT people were "called out." But they were not the Church. They could not have been in light of the clear Scriptural teaching.

You say Abraham was part of the Church. But Scripture never says that. Why do you? You say that he had faith in Christ. But Scripture never says that. Why do you?

Again, you are taking your theology and superimposing it on Scripture, rather than doing the exegesis of Scripture. That is why this continues to be a problem.

 

Larry,

You deny "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." - Galatians 3:14. It tells us, Abraham believed in Christ by through faith just same as we believe in Christ through faith share the same promise.

Gal. 3:6 tells us, Abraham was saved believe in God through the faith only, not of works. Same as we are saved by believe in Christ through the faith, not of good works.

Larry, isn't Jesus, the deity of God?

Jesus told them, that Abraham was rejoiced to see Him in that day. Obivously, Abraham already met Christ just before the destruction of Sodom.

Also, Moses already met Christ at the flaming tree. CHrist told Moses, 'I AM', that is Jesus Christ!

Isn't Jesus, the deity of God?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Why is this so important? Who cares?

 

Which part of that says that Abraham believed on Christ? It doesn't say that, does it? Be honest now ... read the verse, and say what the verse says, not what your theology would like it to say.

You see, here is exactly the problem. You don't actually read the verse for what it says.

Here you have it right. Abraham believed God. Never is Christ said to be the content of Abraham's faith. But this is completely and totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. It has nothing to do with when the church started.

Yes, but that is off topic.

Two problems. Your "obvious conclusion" isn't obvious. That could be a statement of Abraham's eternal life. He "saw Jesus day" from heaven where he was with God. Second, when he met "the angel of hte Lord" (which I believe is the preincarnate Christ), there is nothign said about saving faith at that point. Now again, you have to be honest and deal with what the text says.

This is why I say over and over again this is about exegesis. You guys simply will not practice it.

The text doesn't say that does it? Of course not. "I AM" is YHWH. That is where the name YHWH comes from, the Hebrew letters of I AM.

yes, but irrelevant to this topic.

 

Several points:

1) This is not an issue of Baptist vs. non-Baptist. It is totally unconnected from Baptist polity and doctrine. Baptist does mean something and I am unapologetically and uncompromisingly Baptist.

2) To call me liberal is completely unwarranted and out of place. I could go line by line and disprove all twenty of your points. As I said, this was among the weakest arguments I have ever read for this position.

3) This has nothing to do with weakness or compromising. This is a matter of what the text says. It is a matter of exegesis. Your exegesis is simply wrong. The text does not say what you tried to make it say.

In short, the church did not start before Pentecost. It is impossible. 1 Cor 12:13 says that Spirit baptism is how you get into the body of Christ, the church. Christ said that Spirit baptism was future during his earthly ministry, and said that the church was future. Acts 2 (Pentecost) records for us the initial Spirit baptism.

As a simple refutation of yet another point, you say that the 3000 were "added" to an already existent church. No kidding. The 120 were Spirit baptized at Pentecost in ACts 2 prior to the 3000 being saved. So your point does not require that the church start before Pentecost. It is completely consistent with a church that starts at Pentecost, just as the Scripture describes.

In the end, this is an issue of exegesis. Scripture teaches that the Church began at Pentecost.

 

I agree with Ps104_33--why does it matter? I think that the church proper didn't begin until Pentacost (and my church growing up was Fundamental Baptist, by the way) so maybe I'm missing something. . . Why is the belief that the church began before Pentacost so significant that it requires calling other people weak, compromising liberals?

 

DeafPosttrib says:

The ancient Greek translation of the OT Scriptures (LXX) uses this word ekklesia approximately 100 times and is translated as "assembly" or "congregation" but never "church" in the KJV OT.

In Acts 19 this word (ekklesia) is used 3 times of a gathering of people and translated as "assembly" twice and a "concourse" once to describe a mob and a riot.

It is not a strictly theological NT word.

As a side issue, I'm very curious as to what the radical dispensational KJVO do with the Acts 7:38 passage seeing that a strictly literal view of the English text of this passage would teach no distinction between Israel and the Church.

Does anyone know?

HankD

 

I don't think it matters a great amount for many things, although there are some implications. If you believe the church started in the OT, then you are more likely to change the promises God made to Israel and spiritualize them, apply them to people with whom they were not made.

But there is certainly nothing worthy of charges like weak, compromising liberals.

Hank, I am not a radical KJVO or a radical dispensationalist for that matter, but I see nothing in Acts 7:38 that denies a distinction between Isreal and the Church. What am I missing?

 

This passage is the only place where the KJV translators used the word "church" as a replacement word for their usual "congregation" or "assembly" in reference to the Nation of Israel.

In my way of thinking it confounds the difference and can cause some confusion (which is evidenced by at least one of the remarks in this thread), they should have used the usual word "assembly" or "congregation".

HankD

 

Good morning bigczardaddy,

Please define each of your terms "open,close or closed".

Thanks.

HankD