Featured The church in the OT

As long as started sometime in the NT!

 

I think someone else in this thread stated that it wasn't something to go to the stake for...
I agree with him.

You win.

 

In America the term "independent Baptist" means solely those churches of a movement which is not connected to the main Baptist groups such as Southern Baptist, American Baptist, etc. There is no ind. Baptist headquarters, hierarchy, approved school, or anything like those. You do have some from this movement in England, but not many.

Then it is not speaking of a "church," an ekklesia.

If a gathering does not have or plan to have the list of local, NT church distinctives I mentioned, it is not a local, NT church. For example, it may not have a pastor and deacon at the time, but the validity and necessity of those offices must be recognized. Ergo, a synagogue is not a church, and no gathering or relationship in the OT represents a local, NT church.

Stephen was not arguing that any OT Israelite gathering was the same as a NT church. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Stephen did not even have a developed ecclesiology, since nothing in his discourse indicates that he did.

Exactly. If you must, call it a type of the church, not a church per se. Can't do that myself.

I don't know what this has to do with ecclesiolgy.

Amen!

 

The church was prefigured in the OT of Israel, but the actual Church was not here until NT times, as that had to wait until the messiah came to die/resurrect/ascend, and then have the Spirit come Himself to institute here on earth!

 

As they must to remain Baptist.

No, actually I am saying that there was no church (as per the NT definition) in the OT. When you use the word "church" in this discussion, you appear to be inventing a whole new definition.

But Christ is head of the church, and it is His body. If Christ is head of the church, and He was not yet incarnate in the OT, then no OT gathering can be what the NT church is.

Sorry, I see no way possible to discuss the term "church" in the Bible without some kind of ecclesiological argument. Simply discussing the term "church" is in and of itself ecclesiological.

I've always read the OT with awareness of individual faith, and been blessed 1000's of times by that. But I also read the OT with knowledge of how it speaks of the nation Israel. (How could it be otherwise?) it is not one or the other; we don't have to choose.

 

To be a true Church, have to have the NT ordinances being applied, and do not think OT Israel had them!

 

Two. And your point is?

 

Are suggesting that when any two or three Christians happen to meet together a church is formed? If that is your inference it is simply not correct. Note the word "again" in Matthew 18:19 which shows Christ is continuing a subject already introduced in the previous verses. He is not speaking about constituting a new church out of two or three but confirming that the process introduced in Matthew 18:17-19 (church discipline) will be confirmed by Christ even though the church administering it may be the smallest in number. One person cannot be an ekklesia as it takes a plurality to form an "assembly" and the smallest plurality is "two or three."

Second, the church is a New Testament revelation previously unknown and totally without existence prior to personal ministry of Christ and the apostles (Eph. 3:5) as its building cannot precede its own "foundation" which is constituted by Christ composed of the "apostles" FIRST and secondarily "prophets" (Eph. 2:20). These are New Testament prophets not Old Testament prophets just as Paul reaffirms in Ephesians 3:5 and 4:11 and 1 Cor. 12:28.

Third, the "church in the wilderness" does not refer to the church of Christ or the body of Christ but to the particular called (thus organized) assembly at the foot of Mount Sinai. Only as a TYPE does it prefigure the New Testament assembly, as all those assembled had been circumcised (type of regeneration) and brought through the red sea (baptized unto Moses - 1 Cor. 10:4). So, they were all in TYPE pictures of the New Testament assembly composed of professing baptized believers.

The term ekklesia can be properly applied to any organized assembly of people where a minimum of criteria for membership is demanded. However, it cannot be referred to the Body of Christ as the church previous to the institution of that congregational body and previous to the "foundation" it is instituted upon.

 

Answering for myself, "Yes".
A "church" is formed whenever two or three of His "lively stones" ( 1 Peter 2:5, with which God builds a spiritual "house" ) comes together in fellowship under the same roof.
Christ in them is magnified, and He is in the midst of them ( Matthew 18:20 ).

Agreed.

OK, I can go with that.
As long as it's kept in mind that the children of God include both Old and New Testament believers.
The "church"...the entity that gathers together in fellowship on earth, was not really mentioned in detail until Jesus' time.

But His Church ( the lively stones ) is a spiritual body composed of all believers, and has always been since Abel, as I see it.

Agreed.
It is also known as the tabernacle in the wilderness ( Exodus 25:8-9, Exodus 31:7, Exodus 35:10-11 ).

 

So, you would have a church formed in Matthew 18:16???? there were at least four and perhaps five assembled and yet Jesus did not consider that a church as he told the offender to go tell the church in verse 17. The term New Testament ekklesia is not simply an organism of living stones, but an ASSEMBLED organization with officers, membership, ordinances, discipline, and a coherent mission. Your kind of ekklesia has no existence in the NT.

The church IS the metaphorical "body" and where there is no church there is no metaphorical body of Christ and where there is no metaphorical body of Christ there is no church. No church, no body previous to the personal ministry of Christ. You are confusing the congregational body of Christ with the family of God.

 

No, I would have a "church" ( a body of believers ) formed according to Matthew 18:20.

A church, in the earthly sense, is the local body of believers in an area.
If there are only two or three, then that is a church.
If there are more than two or three, then that is a church.

The more believers there are, the more there is needed officers to put things in order.
I personally know of a little Baptist church in my area that has one deacon and one pastor / elder.
I know of others, that are much larger, that have several pastor / elders, and several deacons.

You see, we as broken men, believers living in this untrustworthy flesh that we fight with day to day, need all the discipline that we can get.
Therefore, God has instituted elders, deacons and so forth to help maintain that order and to serve the body.
If there are 3,000, for example, in Jerusalem, then there will necessarily need to be more officers to help maintain order.
If there are less, then there will be less needed.

Large numbers of people need large numbers of officers.
Small numbers don't need as many.
Where two or three are gathered together?
Perhaps one "officer"...or none.

Two or three need very little in the way of order maintained.

I agree.
It is an assembled organization with officers, "membership" ( they are members one of another, Romans 12:5 ) ordinances ( The Lord's Supper and Baptism ) and discipline.

As for a "coherent mission", would you please clarify?
I only see one mission of the local church...
The building up ( edification ) of those that God has called by His grace.

 

My kind of ekklesia ( a gathering of God's called-out ones ) has no existence in the New Testament?
What minimum size do you think it should be?

Should I stop assembling with the two or three and wait on God to add more, before we can consider ourselves a "church"?
Should I be overly concerned with "church growth"?

Again, perhaps I am misunderstanding you.
To me, if God puts two together, then they are a church in the Biblical sense.

I agree.
But not in the "Landmark" sense.

As I see it, there can be an area filled with hundreds of "churches", and two or three meeting in a home...and the ones in the home are God's children, while the rest are false brethren following false teachers.

Precise outward doctrine and practice in a publicly accessible and visibly seen building is not a determiner of where God's children are...His Holy Spirit being present in the people ( Romans 8:5-17 ) meeting under one roof, is.
Therefore, Matthew 18:20.

Do you believe that a person's being called by the Gospel is dependent upon other saved individuals being direct, face-to-face participants in that ministry?
If so, then I understand your position regarding baptism and re-baptizing in the other thread...but that doesn't mean that I agree with it.

What if a person in the middle of nowhere, hears the word of God on the radio, believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, and there's not a church for miles?
Are they any less saved?
Should they then pick up and move to where there is a gathering, get baptized and gather together?
Or should they wait on the Lord to call someone else, so they become a church and then one baptizes the other?

What happens, in their ignorance, if they get in with the wrong group of professing believers, get Scripturally baptized and then find out much later, that their baptism isn't recognized by another group that consider themselves as "the only group"?

Perhaps you should put more thought into the way you see the church as an extension of Christ's spiritual body.
As I see it, you're leaving too many questions and issues unanswered.

 

Not in the least.

From where I'm sitting, I think you're confusing what you see on the street corner ( the traditional church and the way it's "always been done" ) with the spiritual body of believers, and putting God in a box filled with certain expectations...but since we're not in front of each other discussing this face to face, then I may be wrong in my assumptions.

To me, you seem like a "Landmarker", and I don't agree with either James Robinson Graves or J.M. Carroll in their assumptions.
For example, the church at Sardis, despite having ( perhaps ) many believers at the outset, only had a few that were worthy of walking in white by the time the Lord had John write Revelation ( Revelation 3:4-6 ).
As I see it, the original believers were either dying off or leaving the area, and what was left behind was becoming an empty shell, spiritually.

Yet they were a "church".
Do you see the significance?
Matthew 18:20.



With all due respect, I don't see God having to operate specifically as He did at Corinth, Ephesus, or Jerusalem where there were larger bodies of believers.
He can and does operate like He did at Athens, Sardis and other places where not as many believed on Christ.

For example, at Philippi ( Acts of the Apostles 16:12-40 ) Lydia and her household ( however many there were ) and the Philippian jailer and his household, were the only believers in that city mentioned.
How many officers do you think are needed in a church of approximately 10-14?
One or two?

What is their mission?
To make disciples of the ones God calls by the Gospel, as I see it.
Their mission is not to "get others saved", because God adds to the church as He sees fit ( Acts of the Apostles 2:47 ), they do not.



Sir, the Lord does as He will, not as we will.
We as God's children then make adjustments according to His word and the working of His Holy Spirit, not according to our own personal desires.


May God bless you richly.

 

Back to the subject at hand...what was the "church" in the Old Testament?

Having read this thread further, and having contemplated the Scriptures further, I see that it didn't really exist in the local sense, because saved people joined themselves to Israel and followed the Law, participating in the sacrifices.
"Strangers" ( Gentile believers ) came to Israel and lived among the Jews, worshiping at first, the Tabernacle and then at the first and second Temples.

There was no indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a wholesale sense, which would have spiritually knit believers into one spiritual "house" where ever they were gathered under one roof.



But to me, "the Church" has always existed in the spiritual sense, at least as far back as Abel.

 

This text does not say wherever two or three are gathered in his name is a church. You are reading that into the text. Furthermore, you are ignoring the context which demonstrates that this text has nothing to say about any church "being formed" but rather is a continuation of the subject (vv. 15-18) concerning the church already introduced in verse 17. Note the word "again" in verse 19 which demands that the previous subject is continuing. Note the progresssion. (1) There is a problem of between two members of the said church who are in conflict with each other - v. 15; (2) other members are called to enter into this conflict in order to resolve it - v. 16; (3) finally the church is brought into this conflict in order to resolve it - v. 17a. (4) consequences are then described toward the guilty party who refuses to hear the verdict of that church - vv. 17b-18. (5) That church needs wisdom from above through prayer to handle such authority properly - v. 19; (6) regardless of the size of the church exercising this authority Christ will stand with it in this exercise of authority if that authority is used according to His will (in my name = in keeping with my will, according to my authority) - v. 20; (7) Forgiveness is always the right response when such members repent (vv, 21-29).

Just two or three believers do not make a church regardless if they are on a deserted island and no other human beings can be found for 2,000 miles. Christ did not authorize believers to baptize or organize churches in Matthew 28:19-20. Again, note the four different parties identified in the Great Commission. (1) The authorizer - Christ; (2) the authorized "ye...you" (3) the unevangelized - "all nations"; (4) the unbaptized, untaught, and unassembled believers "them.....them."

Those authorized to baptize believers, to assemble baptized believers for instruction in how to observe all things commanded are those who "have" already been through this process - they have already been evangelized, baptized and assembled to be taught how to observe all things commanded. They are not unbaptized believers. They are not untaught baptized believers. Christ gives no authority to baptize or form into an assembly those who are unbaptized, or untaught believers as the blind cannot lead the blind, the untaught cannot teach others.

The term ekklesia previous to the New Testament always referred to a visible assembly of persons and never at any time in its previous history, or secular usage during the period of the New Testament mean anything other than that. It can be used in the concrete sense, the abstract generic sense and the abstract institutional sense in Classical and Koine Greek (LXX; Apocrapha, etc.) writings prior to the New Testament. It was never ever used to mean "called out of" but from its very earliest usage it was always used to mean a "called out assemble" as it never can be found in its previous history unattached to an actual assembly of people.

In the New Testament there is not a single use that where the historical meaning does not make sense when the full range of usage is considered by an exegete (concrete, abstract generic, abstract institutional).

The New Testament ekklesia of Christ (not of the Jews, not of the gentiles) from the very first one found in the New Testament in not merely an organism of living people assembled together in "one place" (Acts 1:15-20; 2:1) but it is an organization as well (government, officers, ordinances, disciplinary standards, mission statement).

The mission statement is found in Matthew 28:19-20 in a very clear and orderly format. That mission is to reproduce after its own kind and that is precisely what we see in the New Testament - congregations preaching the SAME gospel, administering the SAME baptism and teaching the SAME faith and order.

 

A New Testament church always assembles "in one place" (Acts 2:1; 1 Cor. 11:17-18, 20; etc.) or else it is not an assembly.

For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.....
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

The church is a visible institution that requires only the PROFESSION of faith, baptism and adherence to the disciplinary standards. God set the apostles in the church (1 Cor. 12;28) including Judas (Lk. 6:12-13) knowing full well he was a lost professor (Jn. 6:64) and a "demon" from the beginning. Even lost members are set in the church by God for specific reasons to ultimately unify and build up the congregation (1 Cor. 11:19; Mt. 18:17-18).

When describing the membership of the assemblies, the New Testament writers addressed them according to their profession, according to the intent and design of the assembly or what theologians call "the language of accommodation" or language befitting their profession rather than what may have been their actual spiritual status which was unknown to men.

I agree with you concerning the necessity of the number of elders and deacons when it comes to post apostolic congregational size. However, New Testament congregations necessarily needed a plural of elders due to the fact that there was no written New Testament to guide them. In lieu, of inspired writings to guide them in church policy, the apostles laid hands on at least three men conveying the prophetic gifts so that when one claimed to receive direct revelation from God there were at least two more that could judge the prophecy (1 Cor. 14:29; Acts 13:1). Now that we have the completed inspired Bible the need for a plurality of elders with their particular prophetic and relvelatory gifts is not necessary for them to give leadership to the congregations.

 

The topic's definitely not of universal agreement:

Were OT Saints Indwelt?

"...“At least five positions have been taken on the issue of whether or not ordinary, individual members of the old covenant remnant were continually indwelt by the Spirit.

Some scholars assume that a sixth position exists, but I am yet to find an affirmation of this sixth position. Here I will list the five real and one alleged positions, giving a brief description and listing major proponents of each.

[1] On the issue of the Spirit’s role in the lives of believers, some scholars see basic continuity from the old to the new covenant. These authors argue that the old covenant remnant was both regenerate and indwelt by the Spirit. Adherents of this position include John Owen, B.B. Warfield, Sinclair Ferguson, Dan Fuller and Leon Wood.

[2] Another set of scholars agrees that old covenant believers experienced both regeneration and indwelling, but seek to incorporate texts like John 7:39 into their understanding by using language that allows for a greater or heightened experience of the Spirit under the new covenant. Nevertheless, these scholars see no fundamental change in the way believers experience the Spirit when the new covenant is inaugurated. Interpreters who can be placed here include Augustine, John Calvin, George Ladd, Dan Block and Wayne Grudem.

[3] The third position is the midpoint of the possible views. These scholars indicate that they see OT saints as regenerate by the Spirit but not indwelt by the Spirit. From statements in their writings, it seems best to place here Millard Erickson, J.I. Packer, Willem A. VanGemeren and Bruce Ware.

[4] The next position is for those who see the old covenant remnant as operated upon but not indwelt by the Spirit. Unlike those in the previous category, these scholars stop short of using the word regeneration with reference to the old covenant faithful. Articulators of this view include Martin Luther, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Craig Blaising, D.A. Carson and Michael Green.

[5] At the opposite end of the spectrum from those who affirm full continuity between the old and new covenant ministries of the Spirit would be those who affirm that the Spirit had nothing to do with the faithfulness of the old covenant remnant. Those who argue that OT saints were indwelt sometimes assume that this is the only alternative to their view, but I have not found anyone who takes this position...."

11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire: Mt 3