What is your belief about when the church started?

[ September 28, 2002, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: swordsman ]

 

I sure have been able to get you guys stirred up with the OT stuff, eh? Okay, seriously, for what I actually believe....

I believe that the "Church" starts in Matthew 26 when Jesus institutes communion and declares, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins..." (v. 28).

Rev. G

 

Maverick, It is with great satisfaction that I can say amen! to your words. Too often, I have found myself on the opposite firing line from you.

BTW, DocCas, How is it that you throw the word "heresy" around? When someone has unbiblical views on say.... the versions controversy, we must give them the benefit of courtesy and not call them heretics. BUT, when someone disagrees with your opinion of when the church started (with biblical reasoning), you charge them with heresy. There is a term for preaching one thing while practicing another but it would probably be deleted if used here.

In short, the heresy charges should be deleted and apologies given for the sake of consistency.

 

Just a thought but I Corinthians 12:28 tells us that "God hath set some in the church, first apostles..." When you go to Mark 4: 13-19 we find Jesus a group together and picking twelve to be apostles. This is a very good starting place for the church and it was during Jesus ministry here on earth not at Pentecost.

 

Acts 1:15 to 25 tells of the church "about an hundred and twenty" have a business meeting ahd choosing someone to replace Judus. At the end of that passage it says, "and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." Any way you put it the apsotles were before Pentecost. If they were called apostles here they had to know at some point what office the twelve held befor this meeting.

 

On what basis do we say they are apostles only after the resurrection? Mark 3:14 says, "And he ordained twelve..." That, especially taken with I Cor. 12:28 & Acts 1:26, sounds a lot like He set them in some kind of place long before Pentecost.

Matthew 10:1, "And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease."

This statement merely assumes what you must prove. Whether we say 'body of Christ' or 'church' we are speaking of the same thing.

 

John the Baptist.

 

Bro. Murph, though one might argue that it is part of the qualifications, it certainly is not part of the definition. I have a problem seeing this as anything more than semantics. The twelve were definitely called, set apart, ordained, empowered, recognized, etc. some time shortly after Jesus began His public ministry. ONLY AFTER Jesus' resurrection did being a witness of His resurrection become a necessary element for those who would be added as apostles (Matthias & Paul). I assume your reference is to Acts chapter 1. It would be wrong to read this back into the original qualifications. It seems quite obvious that these twelve were set apart. They are referred to as apostles in the Gospels (e.g. Matt. 10:2; Mark 6:30; Luke 9:10; 22:14; 24:10 and especially Luke 6:13, "...he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;"). I suppose one could argue that this was written in retrospect, projecting back into the Gospels what these men would be called later. But to me that would seem more like a tactic of those who challenge the integrity of the Scriptures.

 

Good point I never thought of it that way.
Murph

 

Besides, Paul was not one of the Apostles (capital A). He was an apostle (small a), or a "sent one." The replacement for Judas as one of the "twelve" (capital A Apostles) was Matthias (Acts 1:26).

 

Paul said he was the least of the apostles but he did say he was an apostle because he had seen the risen Lord.
Murph

 

Paul argued strenuously that he was no in any way inferior to the other apostles. He clearly included hislef as being an apostle in the same sense as the other 11 even though his call and comission came about through a differnt means.

Think of it this way: Jean Carnahan (D- Missouri) replaced her husband after he died in plane crash. Is she a "Senator" or a "senator"?

 

It is simple to determine who was the (capital "A" Apostle) replacement for Judas, Matthais or Paul. (By the way, there are 17 people in the bible called "apostle." The original 12 in Matt 10:2 and following. Matthaias in Acts 1:25, 26. Barnabus and Paul, Acts 14:14, James the brother of Jesus, Gal 1:19, and Jesus in Hebrews 3:1. If you fail to distinguish between the "Twelve" and the other five you will be sadly confused.) Let's see what the bible has to say on this issue (novel idea!)

In the bible the (captial "A") Apostles were called "the twelve" in several different places, but for purposes of illustration I will list only two, John 6:71 and 20:24.

However, after the death of Judas, they are no longer called "the twelve" but "the eleven" - Matthew 28:16, Mark 16;14, Luke 24:9, 24:33.

Now note Acts 1:26. "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." 11+1=12.

Now note Acts 2:14, "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, . . . " Peter, plus the other 10, plus Matthias makes 12. Peter plus eleven others.

Now notice Acts 6:2 "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables."

They were again the "twelve" in Acts 6, but Paul was not even saved until Acts 9! Therefore, Matthias is the twelfth Apostle, one of "the twelve." Paul was an apostle, a "sent one" to the Gentiles. A very special man with a very special calling, but not one of "the twelve." When we get to heaven and see the foundations of the Heavenly City, and the names of the Apostles on the twelve foundations, it will be the name of Matthias, not Paul, which is written there. Paul was not with them "Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, . . ." (Acts 1;22) and thus did not meet the biblical qualification to be one of "the twelve."

 

"It is simple to determine who was the (capital "A" Apostle) replacement for Judas, Matthais or Paul."

Funny, don't recall anyone questioning Mathias' place...

With due respect, Doc, I think you confuse things here.

I don't think anyone is saying that Paul was one of the 12. What is being said is that Paul was an Apostle. The twelve in Scripture is a subgroup of Apostles.

 

Agreed. Apostles are those who saw the risen Lord (this includes Paul) and were commissioned by him to build his church. The church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles. Surely Doccas, you would agree that Paul's writing and his pattern of ministry is essential to every local church.

 

All of the bible is essential to every local church (2 Timothy 3:16), but that does not mean all the writers were Apostles.