Do you believe the Church started at Pentecost?

[Allan]

The Spirit of Christ was in them? 1 Peter 1:11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.

Ok.. now of whom is the passage speaking? All the saint or only the prophets who were writting the scriptures?
Was this being 'in' the indwelling? No it was not. According to the OT the prophets had the Spirit of God come upon them and leave. While they were doing the work or prophesing what God gave them, they were said to be in the spirit of God or He in them. The 'in them' relates to God the Holy Spirit 'moving them' or 'empowering' them, not once is it ever referenced as indwelling them. This same phrase was said of anyone whom the Lord was using at the moment.

But again it never states they were indwelt by the Spirit of God, in the sense He had taken up constant residence. This is evidenced not only by the fact that this was a fear of godly men in the OT (the SPirit of God leaving them) but is scripturally evident as well in the OT because God Himself tells them He will take away His spirit from them and we see the Spirit of God leaving men, and also scripturally since to indwell them means a permenant residence in that He will not leave them, and He does leave them. This is noted with the few whom He was upon and in. To even leave one person, at all for any length of time, in whom He was proves my very point. That person was not indwelt.

It was for this reason Jesus states I will never leave you nor forsake you.
This is an odd statement since Jesus going to leave, unless we understand this is directly related to the coming of the Holy Spirit and residing with them. HE will never leave them nor forsake them, and since He and Christ are one, where one is the other is also.

So Pharaoh asked them, "Can we find anyone like this man, one in whom is the spirit of God?" Gen. 41:38 So the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit Num. 27:18. Daniel 'O Belteshazzar,chief of the magicians, since I know that a spirit of the holy gods is in you and no mystery baffles you, tell me the visions of my dream which I have seen, along with its interpretation.

Note my above.

Luke 1: 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth"speaking of John the Baptist".

Being filled with the Spirit is not the same as being indwelt.
Secondly, being filled comes and goes and is not dependent upon being indwelt.

There are many,many more to be found in Old and New Testement.

I am sure, and I can deal with each one :smilewinkgrin:
My main point of contention is that indwelling refers to a permenant residence in which God will never leave nor forsake them.

Anyway have fun brother and enjoy your weekend.

 

[Allan]

We can parse the Greek "en" all day long, and reach different conclusions.

Brother, no matter how you wish to state it (in, by, or with) it still maintains the same meaning. IOW - there is not distinction in the context. The context marks out all men not all men of a particular congration.

If it is 'in' one Spirit you are baptized into the body.. Then it is 'by Him' you are baptized into Christ

Just to double check myself I went through my Greek books to see how this is to be taken. (see what you do to me :laugh: )I can find none that state this reference is to water baptism but in fact, they all state it is abundantly clear the reference here is to Spirit baptism. Even the ones I don't have but have access to online state the same. Do you know of any that illistrate this in the Greek to mean water baptism?

I also looked through my Reformed commentaries and can't find anyone attributing this verse to water baptism with the exception to Pink -who by the time had written his commentary on this passage had gone much far a field theologically and into some unorthodox and hyper type views.

But I am sticking with my view that I Cor 12:13 does not necessarily refer to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. Such an inference is just that and not supported by the text.

Again, I can prove my point by both the Greek and the English, and have every Greek scholar I can get my hands on agree with me, not to mention the very context of the passage (even in English) - which is ALL inclusive (of which it includes himself who was not a member of that church) establishes my view. So to state it isn't supported by the text seems to be willingly ignoring the large amounts of evidence that is does.

I do find this interesting though. One view is that the Holy Spirit baptized the church into existence. Another view is that the Spirit led believers to water baptism. I'm not a Greek scholar (or even a kindergartner) but didn't Jesus say HE would do the baptizing WITH the Holy Spirit?

Jesus also stated HE would never leave us nor forsake us, and then left but sent the Holy Spirit in His place so we would never be alone. OR that Jesus ascending gave gifts to men.. and then in another place we read that God gave these gifts to men.. and other such examples..
The fact the one does something for and on behalf of the other does not negate the the fact the one is not still the originator of it. Jesus IS doing the baptising with the Holy Spirit because He sent Him to do the work of baptising believers for Him.

Is there no distinction between in, by or with?

Not in the context no as I showed above. THe context incorporates an all inclusive language in which even Paul is accounted into, but Paul was not a member of that church - a baptised believer into that church. Thus unless we are to assume this means to be water baptised into the local church is to become apart of or one with the universal church as well..

I think there is a distinction, and it's not a small thing.

But you have not shown a distinction, or better why one is warrented, or that the rendering you are opting for is more correct.

 

[percho]

I believe the church that Jesus said he would build began being built on the day of Pentecost fifty days after the resurrection.

Allen does Acts 2:33 say Jesus the son received the Holy Spirit from the Father?

And by the way the is there. Does sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. NASB
mean the same as sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise YNG .
KJV has sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. What does that refer to?

 

[Allan]

One of the points we are disagreeing on is the point of time the boldness that took over the disciples. For example, Peter speaking in Acts 1:12-22 seems quite bold to me.

For me, I don't see how this is bold. Yes he stood up and spoke to his brothers who also were looking and praying for the same things. But I guess the question is to the point this way -'bold in what way and why?

Reading the story of Pentecost, I cannot picture Peter as a weak vessel right up until the moment of Pentecost, then poof, Peter gives a bold, firey sermon. The boldness, the spiritual growth, or maturity, whatever you want to call it, came at the encounter of a Risen Lord.

Yet, Jesus tells then to wait for the power of the Holy Spirit to be or to become His witnesses. Up till this point, even while He was with them being risen, they were not witnessing. I agree however there was a change at his meeting with Jesus but that change was that he finally believed what he never understood but was not yet filled nor empowered by the Holy Spirit and it was for that reason Jesus didn't allow them to go witnessing. There was an important element that was not yet apart of them, and kept Christ from allowing them to leave to do anything, even while He was there.

On the two ordinances, you basically speak of a Lords Supper without meaning at the time, and a Baptism with the death of the Lord occurring yet. The key it seems to your idea is the point in time. First of all, God is outside time.

Ok, I have heard this from people but can find no biblical evidence for it.
While God was before time, and is able to see all time (past, present, future) God Himself, heaven, things seen and unseen, are all in time now. This is why Christ was born in the right time and had to die 'in time', it is why God is patiently waiting (meaning that God and time are together) for all the elect to believe, etc..

God is not outside of time but since it's creation has been in it with all other creation, just as angels and demons, heaven and hell. This is why the term eternity is used, which is a reflection of a vast amount of time.

On the Lord's Supper, before the Last Supper was complete, the Lord had completely explained its meaning before the night was over.

True, but the disciples had no understanding of it at all. Again, what does Paul state about partaking of the Lords supper.. to do so discerning the Lords body. The disciples did not since they didn't think He was going to die much less rise again.

Also, on the Baptism issue, many times during his ministry the Lord foretold his death, and resurrection. It seems in the Bible the theme is quite common to look forward to something. A good example would be Abraham looking forward to the cross by believing God, and it was counted as righteousness to him.

Ok,, but what does that have to do with baptism.
That baptism the disciple gave, like Johns, was for repentance and to come back into the Jewish religion and thus back to it's God.

Lets say that you are correct about the point in time. The Lord died and rose from the dead some 50 days before Pentecost, so the ordinances would have had the meaning you suggest well before that point in time.

Yes, they would have but we find no where that either of them was done during that time. We DO however find them being done after Pentacost and as a matter of fact it some of the very first things the do.

The fact that the Catholics embrace this belief raises an automatic red flag to me.

They also embrace covenant theology, the trinity, Jesus being God, ect...
However they are not the only people who hold this view, as it has been one of the main views of church orthodoxy historically

Also, since we have two levels of the Church, the local congregation and the family of all believers in the Lord, is it possible this explains some of the differences of opinion?

I'm not entirely such of your question here. But IF I'm correct, I think some of the problem is in part due to views of the two aspects or maybe better due to our understandings of when scripture is speaking of one or the other.

By the way, neither the local congregation, nor the gathering of all believers explains the different denominations. That is a man made invention, springing from the "I am right and you are wrong" syndrome.

Somewhat more now-a-days though. Even in the scripture even though they were called the church, you will note even those congregations had their own differing views, even to the point of potentially shunning the apostles (namenly Paul) they didn't like and tried to disprove him as such. Some focused more on evangelsim like the church of the Thessalonians (of whom Paul said they should be our examples), or one that focused upon spiritual manifestions like the church of Corineth, or Galatians with doctrine.. ect..

Like many 'batpist' churches this is where we have differences, on those things we emphasize. Now which core doctrinal issues the early church had to deal with this also in some churches. They didn't call their churches after practices or people - just a church at... Today we are so labeled, most often not by ourselves but our opponents. I highly doubt Luther when out to create church named after him and yet today - Lutherians exist. The difference in names - yes is man made but for the purpose to distinquish core doctrines. That is why those of the same core doctrines (typically) only differ on their emphasis and side issues.

May God continue to bless your family and ministry.[/QUOTE]

 

[Allan]

Ok guys and gals (if any I'm speaking with), my time on here is out.

See you all Sunday night or Monday.

Blessing and love to you in Christ Jesus our Lord and God.
Allan

 

[Tom Butler]

Blessings on you and your family, too, Allan.

Man, I really hate to see you coming when you're on your game.

Debating with you makes my brain ache. You make me think too much.

Gotta go, too. I'm teaching Sunday, so have to prepare.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Ok.. now of whom is the passage speaking? All the saint or only the prophets who were writting the scriptures?
Was this being 'in' the indwelling? No it was not. According to the OT the prophets had the Spirit of God come upon them and leave. While they were doing the work or prophesing what God gave them, they were said to be in the spirit of God or He in them. The 'in them' relates to God the Holy Spirit 'moving them' or 'empowering' them, not once is it ever referenced as indwelling them. This same phrase was said of anyone whom the Lord was using at the moment.

But again it never states they were indwelt by the Spirit of God, in the sense He had taken up constant residence. This is evidenced not only by the fact that this was a fear of godly men in the OT (the SPirit of God leaving them) but is scripturally evident as well in the OT because God Himself tells them He will take away His spirit from them and we see the Spirit of God leaving men, and also scripturally since to indwell them means a permenant residence in that He will not leave them, and He does leave them. This is noted with the few whom He was upon and in. To even leave one person, at all for any length of time, in whom He was proves my very point. That person was not indwelt.

It was for this reason Jesus states I will never leave you nor forsake you.
This is an odd statement since Jesus going to leave, unless we understand this is directly related to the coming of the Holy Spirit and residing with them. HE will never leave them nor forsake them, and since He and Christ are one, where one is the other is also.


Note my above.



Being filled with the Spirit is not the same as being indwelt.
Secondly, being filled comes and goes and is not dependent upon being indwelt.


I am sure, and I can deal with each one :smilewinkgrin:
My main point of contention is that indwelling refers to a permenant residence in which God will never leave nor forsake them.

Anyway have fun brother and enjoy your weekend.

Wow,being filled is not the same as being indwelt? I think your reaching to far to prove your points. You can be indwelt and not be filled,but you CANNOT be filled without being indwelt.

 

[Eagle]

In answer to Onlybygrace, and to Allan...more to come.

I am finally able to get back to you. :type: My reply to Thayer's setting forth of possible definitions of 'ekklesia', it is obvious from the rank in the list (near or at the very bottom), that it is not by any means the primary use or definition of this word, and being a lesser use, all the more subject to whim of application.

You are wrong to assume that because it is listed as a use or definition, as such -- that it has always been an 'accepted' or universally agreed upon use.

The fact that some (or rather even - many) misuse this anglicized word and apply a meaning to it that was never inherent at all, is not surprising -- it is the very reason we are discussing it in the first place. Thayer merely offers proof that there is a serious misunderstanding, and/or misuse of the word -- not that it is a valid interpretation of it. I would just about have to argue that an intellectually honest lexicographer (dictionary/lexicon writer?) would have to say that some/many have applied the 'universal invisible' definition to the word. This doesn't make it correct, it is rather a MISUSE of the word.

Christ, The Word, Logos, understands the meaning & distinction of words quite well. He knows that little nuances in them can mean very different things. The Word would not clearly give us an understanding and application of any word (i.e., ekklesia), let's call this doctrinal teaching, and then misuse it to confuse such an important subject as His Body or ekklesia.

It is very much the same as the other extremely important 'debate,' if you will, concerning baptism. Tho I think that by classical use of the word itself, what it had always meant, and always been used for, prior to NT usage of it; as well as, how it is described and portrayed in scripture, as well as all the theological ramifications on other doctrines, I personally consider it not debatable. Nonetheless, many would say that sprinkling of infants is scripturally acceptable -- even provable -- and assign a meaning or definition to the anglicized word baptism -- that was never inherent in it. This in no way authenticates either the definition -- or least of all the doctrine.

Two good starting resources to research further on this topic are by B. H.Carroll, & George W. McDaniel:

http://www.theologue.org/Ecclesia/Ecclesia-BHCarroll.html

http://www.archive.org/stream/churchesofnewtes00mcda/churchesofnewtes00mcda_djvu.txt

I feel too many of these posts cover too much ground, become confusing, and are too hard (for me at least) to nail things down, if you will. I will therefore attempt to address other issues in other posts

 

[Eagle]

In response to Onlybygrace, your questions on Eph. 5 serves to point out that you really are trying to make universal church fit where it was never intended to - whether you realize it or not.

This is is one of the many instances where the church is referenced in the institutional or generic sense. Jesus wishes to have a beautiful & spotless, and effectual body prosecuting His will in the earth. He knows that many churches will fit into the categories of Rev., where there is generally something good, but also something bad about each (except one). Christ wants each to be just right, and has empowered them accordingly. Since He refers to them as separate, with separate issues, here in Rev., He does not then turn around and confuse the word ekklesia by applying it to some other institution. As a type, He wants to present it to himself as being successful, or in other words, He wants it to accomplish all that He empowered and commissioned it to do. Obviously, we see that each church is at different levels of success. The ideal is for cooperative unity between churches, around the truths, to the end goal. This is possible, to a large extent (tho not as things currently stand), but never exactly the same at exactly the same time.

Whether you are referring to different churches, institutionally, or if you are referring to all saved people -- when are they (we here on this board for instance?) going to be so unified and spotless as to fit the bill here?

There is no more strength either in the Greek here, or in consistent doctrine, to force this reference to Christ's church as all of a sudden meaning a universal invisible entity, that is no where else found. Kingdom of Heaven yes, ekklesia, no.

Remember to not lose sight of the point in this passage either -- it is that men should love their wives -- with a perfect example of how Christ loved us in all our filth -- anyway. That is the point and thrust here.

 

[Eagle]

Now to Allan, You throw much out there at us, and much that seems right, however, I prefer to try to break these matters down to simpler and easier understandings - where possible.

You said, "But I must ask.. If a believes Jesus is the messiah but not that he will rise from the dead. Are they believers? Are they believers/saved (in or under the NT sense) if they do not understand the work of Christ (either will do, or in our case - has done) which saves them?"

This seems akin to the 'Lordship' doctrine, that the disciples, and all others, must have complete understanding of Christ & His mission in order to be saved. Surely, we have much evidence that tho we should all 'count the cost' before stepping forward in faith, that we certainly don't have to know it all first. Else, how to grow in our knowledge, understanding & faith? Did the thief on the cross have this omniscience? The Roman Centurion? The woman with the bloody issue? ETC?

Then there is this:

Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

This was on the day of the resurrection. You seem to repeatedly make reference to the disciples not knowing, understanding, or believing prior to Pentecost, what of these references?

This, from John, seems parallel to, and occurred at essentially the same time as, the references from Luke:

Joh 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Joh 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

So, we seem to have two things here which throw a wrench in what you say you believe:

1) That the disciples did not "understand" or weren't able to function as the Lord's church.

2) The disciples were breathed on and received the Holy Spirit, long before their "indwelling" as you say, at Pentecost.

I must add this, which I alluded to much earlier in this thread:

Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Act 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Act 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

You make this church action, undertaken in the disciples own understanding of fulfillment of scripture (which Jesus gave them), an unauthorized act (by all 120 present who voted), since they were not yet Christ's church -- even tho He opened their understanding?

 

[Eagle]

Again to Allan, I have gotten the impression from your writings that there may be a misunderstanding as to 'whence cometh' Christian Baptism.

The ONLY baptism that has been authorized of God, was the baptism of John. When Christ ascended from the water and the Holy Spirit descended like a dove, and God said, 'this is my son in whom I am well pleased', it accomplished 2 things.

1) Authenticated Jesus as the Christ.
2) Authenticated John's baptism as from God.

Mat 21:23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
Mat 21:24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
Mat 21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
Mat 21:26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
Mat 21:27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

A parallel to this event is found in all 3 synoptic gospels. It is important. The Church of Christ is now the only authorized institution to propagate this baptism, but make no mistake -- it is the baptism of John that we propagate -- there is none other for Christians.

Joh 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
Joh 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

 

[Eagle]

Allan said:

"While Paul is speaking to the Corinithian Church about how the church spiritually opporates, and that all that is done is for the body. Paul then goes deeper to explain who the body is one being but has many parts, AND THEN Paul uses a universal word that includes him (and Paul was not a member of this church) to the baptism of the Holy Spirit placing us ALL into Christ."

"It is the parts that work together with the rest of the others that illistrate a functioning body. If we work by and for ourselves, there is no church for their is no body (which is made up of many to create the whole). The same is true for tangible churches. We, as churches, are many, each having our part and function in fulfilling the cause and purposes of Christ, the head of His body. Only He know what is needful and is coming to a single group and also to the whole. Controlling both at once. Getting people to work in fellowship (in our common language we call it partnership) to create a functioning body, and He does the same to churches. Getting them to work in fellowship/partnership to create a functioning body."

I pulled these 2 quotes from a rambling diatribe (it is hard not to do this, I know). To the first, it is quite apparent that Paul is once again speaking generically or institutionally, about Christ's ekklesia.

Paul, obviously, was a member of the church at Antioch. When he referred to being himself baptized into one body, he was, the body at Antioch. I too have been baptized into one body, I am not a member of your body, tho I perhaps could be by transferring a church letter -- which indicates that my baptism into my body was good and you can therefore let me in. The same Holy Spirit which led me into salvation, is the same that led me into baptism.

Why do we employ a church letter if I have already been baptized into the 'real' 'true' 'important' universal invisible body?

To the second quote, I must say that no matter how hard you say it, or how many times, this 'mythical' functioning together of the universal invisible church is impossible, and, I don't mean to offend, but it is absurd, to the very imagery that God gave us on how to make it work -- a body!

The 'secret' church in China, or any unknown to us Amazonian brothers, or any other number of reticent or weak brothers who may be saved "yet so as by fire," etc., totally incapable of gathering for business, discipline, cooperation, etc. Whom are the pastors & deacons of this church? Clearly, Christ's church has officers, that interact with the body/flock, over which they have the oversight.

Plainly put, Christ's ekklesia which He said He would build, did not get changed from exactly what that word meant to those who first heard Him say it in Matthew 16.

There is a kingdom of heaven, synonymous with kingdom of God, and kingdom of Christ, study them out. You can find all the saved in this, so, I implore you, quit trying to force a ridiculous and improper meaning into the word ekklesia. Jesus chose to write His revelation to us in Greek -- exactly because of the specificity of it. Ekklesia cannot be applied to some 'other' entity -- especially when Christ Himself did not do so.

 

[Allan]

I said -
But I must ask.. If a believes Jesus is the messiah but not that he will rise from the dead. Are they believers? Are they believers/saved (in or under the NT sense) if they do not understand the work of Christ (either will do, or in our case - has done) which saves them?

You then state -
This seems akin to the 'Lordship' doctrine, that the disciples, and all others, must have complete understanding of Christ & His mission in order to be saved.Surely, we have much evidence that tho we should all 'count the cost' before stepping forward in faith, that we certainly don't have to know it all first. Else, how to grow in our knowledge, understanding & faith?

No, not Lordship at all. We the disciples who followed Jesus because they believed him to be the messiah, and the turned at his hard saying - saved?
They believed he was the messiah. This issue isn't about 'that they believed' but what about Him, they believed. Note please that you assume a view of mine (incorrectly) and then proceed to errect it only to tear it down, not realizing this has nothing to do with what I said nor what I believe.

You don't have to 'everything' about Jesus before you can be saved but there are some certain things the are to be understood so that you faith is not in vain.

Did the thief on the cross have this omniscience? The Roman Centurion? The woman with the bloody issue? ETC?

Hear you seem to be equating faith that Jesus might/can heal with saving faith?
How many of the multitudes whom Jesus healed and cast demons out of - were saved?

This was on the day of the resurrection. You seem to repeatedly make reference to the disciples not knowing, understanding, or believing prior to Pentecost, what of these references?

Apparently you aren't reading my posts. Go back over them and you see that your above ascertion is not accurate.

Joh 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Joh 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

So, we seem to have two things here which throw a wrench in what you say you believe:

No brother no wrench thrown in to stop the works, but to tighten the bolts of my view even tighter - watch

1) That the disciples did not "understand" or weren't able to function as the Lord's church.

They did not understand prior to Christ's resurrection, Jesus himself states they did not believe He was to rise again. My point on their 'understanding' was contengent upon His resurrection and afterward having to show Himself and explain these things to the so they would believe because prior to then - they did not. And our gospel message hinges upon such a basic understanding.

The aspect of them 'functioning' as a church is evidenced in the fact they were not allowed to go and fulfill the functions of a NT church body (evanelizing, partaking of the Lords Supper, baptising, and discipleship) till they had recieved the Holy Spirit (Acts 1). And we see only after this reception of the Holy Spirit - all these aspects of the NT church (evangelizism, baptism, partaking of the Lord's Supper, discipleship) done, not prior to it.

2) The disciples were breathed on and received the Holy Spirit, long before their "indwelling" as you say, at Pentecost.

Most scholars agree that what Jesus did was not giving them the Holy Spirit but illistrating the manner in which He would come. This is based upon two main scriptures. 1. - the Holy Spirit CAN NOT come [to them] while He is still here with them. And 2. Jesus Himself stated in Acts they were to stay and wait for the promise of the Father - the Holy Spirit Himself, not empowering of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33 establishes this point). Therefore to me, I find it bibilcally beyond contestation they had received the Holy Spirit prior to Pentacost since Jesus Himself states they are to stay and wait for the promise of the Father which IS the Holy Spirit.

You make this church action, undertaken in the disciples own understanding of fulfillment of scripture (which Jesus gave them), an unauthorized act (by all 120 present who voted), since they were not yet Christ's church -- even tho He opened their understanding?

Not even remotely so brother. Please show how appointing another to Judas place was an unauthorized act according to my view. Second, please show where 120 'voted'
It doesn't tell us how they went about doing what they did only the results of what was done.

 

[Allan]

Again to Allan, I have gotten the impression from your writings that there may be a misunderstanding as to 'whence cometh' Christian Baptism.

The ONLY baptism that has been authorized of God, was the baptism of John. When Christ ascended from the water and the Holy Spirit descended like a dove, and God said, 'this is my son in whom I am well pleased', it accomplished 2 things.

1) Authenticated Jesus as the Christ.
2) Authenticated John's baptism as from God.

Mat 21:23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
Mat 21:24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
Mat 21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
Mat 21:26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
Mat 21:27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

A parallel to this event is found in all 3 synoptic gospels. It is important. The Church of Christ is now the only authorized institution to propagate this baptism, but make no mistake -- it is the baptism of John that we propagate -- there is none other for Christians.

Joh 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
Joh 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

So you believe that the water baptism of John is same as the water baptism of Christ?

What then are we to say to scripture via Paul of those baptised into Johns baptism in contrast to Christ's baptism:

Act 19:1 ¶ And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Act 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[Allan]

Paul, obviously, was a member of the church at Antioch. When he referred to being himself baptized into one body, he was, the body at Antioch. I too have been baptized into one body, I am not a member of your body, tho I perhaps could be by transferring a church letter -- which indicates that my baptism into my body was good and you can therefore let me in. The same Holy Spirit which led me into salvation, is the same that led me into baptism.

First, Paul was not being generic in that at some point have been baptized into a church body but rather is very specific in his writting here.

Secondly, I didn't not really wish to go into the Greek so much with Tom (wishing to keep it simple) because I don't like posting what others reading (not necessarily the one I'm writing/posting to) will have hard time keeping up with and understanding if they don't understand Greek in the first place. However since it is being argued now by two people who maintian this passage is refering being 'lead to be water baptized' I will pull out some known and reputable Greek scholar to show - this in NO way can even remotely be what Paul is saying. - but just to be CLEAR - this is not insinuating that niether you nor Tom can keep up or don't understand the Greek as well as I do, but is ONLY speaking of those reading whom I don't know and most likely have no understanding of what I am about to enter into.

On this issue I would note first, for references, the Greek construction of Matthew 3:11 and Acts 1:5 are practically identical to 1 Corinthians 12:13.
This is important as will be seen in the following.

Daniel B. Wallace in "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" (pages 373-374):

1. En + Dative for Personal Agency?

Some have suggested that either the naked dative or en + the dative can express personal agency in the NT. However, once a clear definition is given for personal agency, this will be seen to be a rare or nonexistent category. Williams defines the dative of agency as denoting “the agent (personal) by whom something is done. The only difference between means and agency is that means is impersonal, agency is personal.”

This definition is a little too general. It would be better to say that when en + the dative expresses the idea of means (a different category), the instrument is used by an agent. When agency is indicated, the agent so named is not used by another, but is the one who uses an instrument. (It may be noted here that an intermediate agent, usually expressed by dia + the genitive, is an agent who acts on behalf of another or in the place of another. This agent is not, strictly speaking, used by another as an instrument would be. Thus, en + dative to express means can be (and often is) used of persons, though they are conceived of as impersonal (i.e, used as an instrument by someone else). For example, in the sentence “God disciplined me by means of my parents,” “God” is the agent who used the “parents” as the means by which he accomplished something. The parents are, of course, persons. But they are conceived of as impersonal in that they are the instruments used by another.

According to our definition, if en + dative is used to express agency, the noun in the dative must not only be personal, but must also be the agent who performs the action. BDF accurately assess the NT situation of the naked dative used for personal agency: “Dative of agency is perhaps represented by only one genuine example in the NT and this with the perfect: Luke 23:15 .” In summary, we can say that there are no clear examples of the dative of agency in the NT, and even if the category does exist, it is, by all counts, exceedingly rare....

Then Wallace then gives two examples illustrating the above, and funny thing, both relate our subject passages:

1) Mark 1:8 “but He (Christ) shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit”

Here it is obvious that Christ is the agent (since “He [Christ]” is the subject) and the Holy Spirit is the means (and perhaps sphere) that the Lord uses to baptize.

2) 1 Cor. 12:13 “for by one Spirit we all were baptized into one body”

Our contention is that this is an illustration of en used for means. By calling “Spirit” means here does not deny the personality of the Holy Spirit. Rather , the Holy Spirit is the instrument that Christ uses to baptize, even though He is a Person. Since pneumatic hagio [Holy Spirit] clearly indicated means in Mark 1:8 (as in several other passages dealing with Spirit-baptism), it is surely not unreasonable to see “Spirit” as the means here. Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit is the agent in this text, there is a theological problem: When is the prophecy of Mark 1:8 fulfilled? When would Christ baptize with the Holy Spirit? Because of the grammatical improbability of pneumati [Spirit] expressing agent in 1 Cor. 12:13, it is better to see it as means and as the fulfillment of Mark 1:8. Thus, Christ is the unnamed agent. This also renders highly improbable one popular interpretation, viz, that there are two Spirit baptisms in the NT...

Thus, it is my opinion and many other, relating to the Greek, that the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is the Baptizer and that is not speaking, in any manner, of leading a person to be water baptised nor of there being two Spirit baptisms (which is not our argument here).

Also A.T.Robertson in his work - "Grammar of the Greek N.T", cites many examples of “en” with the dative being used in an instrumental sense but gives no examples of it being used for personal agency. This is not because he is overlooking it but because it isn't there. Thus this expresses the very point that the Spirit was the instrument Christ used to baptize believers but that the Spirit was not the personal Agent. IOW - The Spirit wasn't the actual baptizer except in the sense He instrument that Christ used to do this work.

Also we have in anothe work of A.T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis "A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament" (10th edition), we see the authors pointing out that hupo is used for the direct agent (personal agency). They then list four other prepositions which are sometimes used to express agency (apo, ek, para, pros) but en is not one of them.

Thus I have give at least 3 reputable, well known if not reknown Greek scholars who agree with what I have been saying (and can still give more if you wish). Therefore according to the Greek, and not Allan, there is no other way to understand the 1 Cor 12 passage in the Greek any other way but that Paul is speaking NOT of the being lead into baptism but that the in/by the Holy Spirit we are baptized in the body of Christ - and his universal language in connection to this establishes not to a local body but into 'one' body.

Why do we employ a church letter if I have already been baptized into the 'real' 'true' 'important' universal invisible body?

Because we are dealing with local assemblies. Does your church accept all church letters from any and all churches to mean these people must be saved because they have a letter from any and every church under the sun. No. There testimonies help us to identify whether or not they could be a believer and understanding the church or churches they are coming out of helps us to know the doctrines they were under. When we choose to accept them, the letter is only an authentication of their testimony that they were apart of a body we 'agree with' and that they are, again, potentially a member in good standing.

To the second quote, I must say that no matter how hard you say it, or how many times, this 'mythical' functioning together of the universal invisible church is impossible, and, I don't mean to offend, but it is absurd, to the very imagery that God gave us on how to make it work -- a body!

Since you don't understand it, I understand who you think the above.

The 'secret' church in China, or any unknown to us Amazonian brothers, or any other number of reticent or weak brothers who may be saved "yet so as by fire," etc., totally incapable of gathering for business, discipline, cooperation, etc. Whom are the pastors & deacons of this church? Clearly, Christ's church has officers, that interact with the body/flock, over which they have the oversight.

Statements like the above show you don't even understand the argument and the scriptural and historic basis for/of the view.

Plainly put, Christ's ekklesia which He said He would build, did not get changed from exactly what that word meant to those who first heard Him say it in Matthew 16.

What..? Huh..

There is a kingdom of heaven, synonymous with kingdom of God, and kingdom of Christ, study them out. You can find all the saved in this, so, I implore you, quit trying to force a ridiculous and improper meaning into the word ekklesia. Jesus chose to write His revelation to us in Greek -- exactly because of the specificity of it. Ekklesia cannot be applied to some 'other' entity -- especially when Christ Himself did not do so.

And I implore you to grasp a little more of what you apparently do not understand nor the argument against which you contending. I have already shown you that the Greek actually disagrees with your stance in 1 Cor and establish my view, in point of fact. But if you would to delve deeping into the Greek with me I game to do so, and am very capable to go as deep as you wish. I'm no scholar mind you, but I do tend to have just a little learning of it

 

[Allan]

Wow,being filled is not the same as being indwelt? I think your reaching to far to prove your points. You can be indwelt and not be filled,but you CANNOT be filled without being indwelt.

No, they are not the same.
Scripture commands we are to filled with the Spirit and that 'filling' is NOT perminant but something that must be continually keep being filled with Him. IOW - We can be indwelt AND not filled.

In the NT you can not be filled unless you are indwelt, but in the OT they were not indwelt but could be filled. We see only a rare few that are filled with God's Spirit in the OT. But we have NO scripture that even alludes to all believers in the OT being indwelt. Yet in the NT, we see the promise of His indwelling... why promise something that is already a guarantee? We see in the NT scriptures that speak to 'our' being indwelt, but nothing that states people in the OT were. It is something that is only connected with the NT.

 

[Jedi Knight]

No, they are not the same.

R 2... lol

 

[Allan]

R 2... lol

That is why I enjoy debating with you others. You know how to laugh and keep it light and you can go deep without getting mean :thumbs:.

 

[Eagle]

That is why I enjoy debating with you others. You know how to laugh and keep it light and you can go deep without getting mean :thumbs:.

Apparently this is a reference to me. I have already stated that I am not trying to offend, if some manner in which I debate with you is offensive, I apologize, for my own frailties mind you -- not for the truths I uphold. It is, I think, hard to not seem mean to some, when you are poking holes in what they believe. I probably go too far this way, and then too far that way. I will continue to do my best. Time is short, typing is not as easy for me, as it may be to you, thus I try not to mince (or waste) words, but get to the meat, or heart of the matter. You seem terse and short in your replies often as well. I am not playing tit for tat, only pointing out that you may not be all fun & games as much as you think. After all, you are a son of Adam, the same as me, and I hope, a child of God, the same as me! :thumbsup: Now, I will try to return to the meat!

 

[Eagle]

Allan said,

"No, not Lordship at all. We the disciples who followed Jesus because they believed him to be the messiah, and the turned at his hard saying - saved?
They believed he was the messiah. This issue isn't about 'that they believed' but what about Him, they believed. Note please that you assume a view of mine (incorrectly) and then proceed to errect it only to tear it down, not realizing this has nothing to do with what I said nor what I believe.

You don't have to 'everything' about Jesus before you can be saved but there are some certain things the are to be understood so that you faith is not in vain."

First, I must point out, that here is an instance where you have apparently taken offense, for no reason. I erected nothing to tear down. I clearly said, "this seems akin to..." I did not say this IS. My point is that it seems similar to.

It is for you to demonstrate why it is not the same, or help me to understand what you mean, IOW. And I have still heard nothing from you to demonstrate why it isn't similar, or exactly what you mean.

It is important to nail down each item as we go -- instead of throwing out a machine gun volley. This tends toward confusion, and unsettledness. Here is a scriptural axiom:

1Co 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

So here is a simple way for me to get a better grasp of what you mean -- just tell me. What exactly does someone have to "know" in order to have saving faith?