The Church BEFORE Pentecost

Complete agreement.
Man nothing for me to debate. Where's the fun in that?

 

Amen!

Keep up the good work!

Out like an invisible church member.

 

I totally agree too! Great post.

 

I will post my response to each of your statements and also answer whether they affect the position of the invisible church. None of the thirteen points had any affect on the teaching that the Christ's church began at Pentecost. Did believers assemble? Yes. Were they what Christ and Paul called the church? No.

1. The "church" in Matthew 16 is a prophecy of a future reality. The "church" in Matthew 18 is an assembly of people. There exists no evidence to assume it was what we use in reference to a N.T. church.
2. That is a correct definition of the word. Believers are called out from the world. They also assemble together.
3. None of these passages have any bearing on either position. We all affirm that Christ called the disciples.
4. They had to be instituted before Pentecost because they had to know what they would be doing.
5. The people that were ready for the Lord are those who welcomed Him (as all Jews should have).
6. The first commission was to Israel only (as you correctly pointed out). The second was given prior to His ascension. If you compare Scripture with Scripture, you will find the charge given in Acts 1. Right before the charge, He told them to wait for the baptism of the Spirit.
7. The Hebrews 2:12 reference is to an assembly of believers. That by itself does not constitute a church though. If you walked into a seminary and sat in a room full of saved people, you would have walked into an assembly of believers. It would not be considered a church though.
8. The last days refer to the time between the first and second coming of Christ.
9. Jesus was giving the principles of church discipline. Just who would the disciples have been disciplining? They followed Christ everywhere and He never stayed in one town/city. Who were these members of this church?
10. This was not a business meeting. It was a brash attempt by Peter to settle the issue of the twelfth disciple. God's pick was Paul awhile later.
11. The Lord added 3,000 to the 120 members who were baptized when the Spirit first came. Remember, they were indwelt and then after Peter's preaching did the people get saved.
12. Actually, according to 1 Cor. 1 and Eph. 4, Christ had to die, rise, and ascend before He was head of the church. So the Christ's church did not begin until after His resurrection.
13. Nothing in Scripture indicates the church was started before Pentecost. As you can see, I answered each point and it had no bearing on the teaching of the invisible church.

Out like objections to the invisible church.

 

I do not deny that an assembly of believers were before the day of Pentecost. I am saying that on the day of Pentecost, the Spirit came and did something that had never been done before and united all believers into one body, namely Christ's. I am part of the body of Christ. So are you and so is everyone saved in this age. That is on an individual basis.

On a corporate basis, several guidlines must be adhered to for the sake of order and honoring the commands of Christ. The local church is a manifestation of the universal, invisible church.

I do not believe that "mystical" is an accurate description for the invisible church. It by no means is something out there that no one can grasp. There is nothing mystical about it (except why people deny it, I guess).

Out like that fly that stepped in the spider's parlor.

 

I agree, Pentecost was the empowering of the church to boldly go and preach the gospel.

 

Your only problem is that the bible disagrees with you. The bibles says that Christ baptized the church into the Holy Spirit, not the other way around. Sorry.

 

Your only problem is that the bible disagrees with you. The bibles says that Christ baptized the church into the Holy Spirit, not the other way around. Sorry. </font>[/QUOTE]That has not bearing on the doctrine of the invisible church or on what I said. However, does not 1 Corinthians 12:13 say the following:

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body?

How about Galatians 3:27:

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Those verses say that the Spirit baptized us into Christ. Sorry.

Out like local church only doctrine.

 

John 14:20:

At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

Two things will happen. Christ will be in believers and believers will be in Christ.

Question: If this was a present reality, why did Christ speak of it as future?

Out like mercy toward Osama.

 

Your only problem is that neither verse says any such thing! 1 Cor 12:13 says that by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. It was by the leading of the Holy Spirit that all the members of the Corinthian church were baptized into the membership of that church. Remember context! 1 Corinthians is about the lack of unity in the church at Corinth! Paul is telling them their unity is opposed to the leading of the Holy Spirit! One Spirit led them to be baptized (in water by immersion) into one body, the local body of believers at Corinth. Paul is emphasizing the one of unity as opposed to the "many" of the divisions. Context. Context. Context.

And Galatians 3:27 is saying about the same thing. Those of us who have made a public profession of faith in Christ by following Him in public believers baptism have put on Christ. We now wear Him publicly as a robe for all to see. We openly proclaim, by our water baptism, that we are no longer our own, but we now belong to Him. Again, context, context, context.

Sorry, but still no "baptized by the Holy Spirit into" anything!

 

What about Mark 1:8, Matt 3:11, Luke 3:16, and John 1:33?

How do you get gar evn eni pneumati hemeis pantes eis en swma evbaptisthemen to read something like "lead by the Spirit" that you seem to indicate? That passage, at face value, indicates that the Baptism was by the Spirit, not "led into by the Spirit and performed by someone else." I think you are absolutely right about the context being unity but the Spirit baptism seems to make more sense in the immediate context. The Spirit gave gifts to each one as he wished. That same Spirit baptized them into one body. Therefore, their gifts are not reasons for divisions in the body; they are reasons for unity in the Body because they come from the same Spirit that baptized them.

 

"How do you get gar evn eni pneumati hemeis pantes eis en swma evbaptisthemen to read something like "lead by the Spirit" that you seem to indicate? That passage, at face value, indicates that the Baptism was by the Spirit, not "led into by the Spirit and performed by someone else." I think you are absolutely right about the context being unity but the Spirit baptism seems to make more sense in the immediate context. The Spirit gave gifts to each one as he wished. That same Spirit baptized them into one body. Therefore, their gifts are not reasons for divisions in the body; they are reasons for unity in the Body because they come from the same Spirit that baptized them."

Pastor Larry,

Exactly. The context clearly has, as one focus, the activity of the Spirit. Spiritual baptism is indicated as one of these in 1Co. 12:13.

 

In order to understand what I wrote, you have to actually read what I wrote!

 

Yup. Read it. Understood it.... Yup, still wrong.

The context does not lead one to think that this is about the Holy Spirit leading a person to undergo water baptism.

 

Then you obviously did not understand it! The entire context of 1 Corinthians deals with the lack of unity in the church at Corinth. Paul uses the fact that all were baptized because of the working of one spirit into the one local body to teach them about spiritual unity. I am sorry you have having such a hard time laying aside the false doctrine you have been taught and just taking the word of God at face value. I had a similar problem about 35 years ago. Raised a Protestant, I too believed all the Protestant dogma about "spirit baptism" and the "universal, invisible church" and the "body of Christ made up of all believers." It took years to learn Greek, then more years of careful study to see what the bible was really saying. But once it finally became clear to me, it was like an epiphany! It cleared up a lot of problems with the idea of all in the body being commanded to unity with one another, yet the bible also teaching that we are to separate from a brother who walks in a disorderly fashion. You can't do both and believe in Protestant ecclesiology! But if you believe Baptist ecclesiology, you recognize the command is for unity within the local church, and separation from the disorderly brethren! Now, it's no problem at all! Properly understanding the bible clears up a lot of confusion!

 

"Then you obviously did not understand it!"

Of course! if I don't agree then I must not have understood! Gotcha!

"The entire context of 1 Corinthians deals with the lack of unity in the church at Corinth."

Yes. I agree. But this does not require that we see water baptism here. Indeed the immediate context does not suggest it at all.

"Paul uses the fact that all were baptized because of the working of one spirit into the one local body to teach them about spiritual unity."

Yes, baptised. But in water? There is no contextual reason to think this. You are going to have to do better than that.

"I am sorry you have having such a hard time laying aside the false doctrine you have been taught and just taking the word of God at face value."

No apologies necessary Doc, as I have no such problem. I do take the text at face value. It is you who are reading in water baptism where there is no contextual indicator of such.

"I had a similar problem about 35 years ago. Raised a Protestant, I too believed all the Protestant dogma about "spirit baptism" and the "universal, invisible church" and the "body of Christ made up of all believers." It took years to learn Greek, then more years of careful study to see what the bible was really saying."

Of course they must not have your learning or credentials to have conme to a differing conclusion... Come on Doc! Get real! There are people who know the Greek (better than you and I put together I expect) that come to a different conclusion!

Face it! this isn't about prejudice but exegesis. Your view is possible, but in light of the fact that the context does not prepare us for it, unlikely relative to the more obvious meanign of being baptised by th Spirit intot he Body of Christ.

"But once it finally became clear to me, it was like an epiphany! It cleared up a lot of problems with the idea of all in the body being commanded to unity with one another, yet the bible also teaching that we are to separate from a brother who walks in a disorderly fashion. You can't do both and believe in Protestant ecclesiology! But if you believe Baptist ecclesiology, you recognize the command is for unity within the local church, and separation from the disorderly brethren! Now, it's no problem at all! Properly understanding the bible clears up a lot of confusion"

There is no conflict between baptist ecclesiology and spirit baptism.

 

And that is, or course, the crux of the whole matter. The bible says there is "one baptism." You say there are two baptisms. Who should I believe? Well, the bible, of course!

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism." I can't do any better than that. I don't wish to sound unkind, but you either take it or leave it when the bible speaks. I choose to take it. You may leave it if you wish.

Of course there is! I have already pointed it out.