Welcome Poimen.
The answer to this is:
1. Christ said "I will build" the context and language make it clear Christ spoke of a future event.
2. Christ said repeatedly that He would send the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit should be looked upon as, may I say, the method by which Christ started His church.
3. The repeated references to the coming of the HS, John 17 and Acts 1 all indicate a change in the Holy Spirit's ministry. He would be doing something unknown in the Old Testament era.
Your reference to Psalm 87 I would have to disagree with. I cannot see that this refers to the New Testament church. Where do we make the link between Sion/Zion and the Church?
If the church is a continuation of something in the OT why did Christ not simply say, "I am building" or "I will continue to build..."?
I think the Scriptures mentioned here move into the covenant/dispensational discussion.
I see this as preparation. Over in Ephesians 2:20 it speaks of the apostles and prophets being used of God as a foundation for the church. I believe this simply means the teachings given to them by Christ were the foundation. So, for them to be used to teach others they had to be taught themselves. This, I believe, occured in the earthly ministry of Christ.
Again, this reference seems shaky to me. I don't mean to attack you or your theology, well, maybe your theology... what I am trying to says is I am not looking to be offensive, I just can't see it in this passage.
As for referring to the City of God as the church I do not see that measures up with how the Bible describes it.
But surely that would mean the marriage supper of the Lamb spoken of as future in Revelation would be out of place, would it not?
May I ask if you cast lots as business meetings in your church? I actually think it would be a good system, no arguments, no discussions, just why the lot falls the decision is made!
Someone discussed this idea with me a few weeks ago, and it seems to say, with different words and in a round about way, that the church started at Pentecost. Saying it was concieved in Israel or with Christ just seems to merge the two ideas.
One of the best arguments for me is from Ephesians 1 where it speaks of Christ being the Head of the church, but He only took this position AFTER His resurrection and ascension.
Lastly, I Corinthians 12:13 speaks of us being baptised into one body, the church, by the Spirit. This did not occur until Pentecost. In Acts 1:5 Christ speaks of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a future event. However, Peter, in Acts 11:15 speaks of it as already having happened. Pentecost is the only time that fits as far as I can see.
I started this thread, and then left while it took off, so I am glad for the opportunity to get back into it, if only for a little while.
Poimen said:Hi there,
I think, despite our ideas on the nature of the church, that a plain reading and acceptance of the Scripture clearly indicates the church started in the earthly ministry of Christ.
First off, as has been alluded to already, He said He would be His church. He did not say the Holy Spirit would build it.
The answer to this is:
1. Christ said "I will build" the context and language make it clear Christ spoke of a future event.
2. Christ said repeatedly that He would send the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit should be looked upon as, may I say, the method by which Christ started His church.
3. The repeated references to the coming of the HS, John 17 and Acts 1 all indicate a change in the Holy Spirit's ministry. He would be doing something unknown in the Old Testament era.
I believe the OT actually prophesies this fact, as well as typifies the actual establishment.
Psalms 87:5b tells us the Lord himself would establish Zion. The Church is the true Sion/Zion of which Israel was a shadow.
The church is the temple of God, built, and continuing to be built/expanded, of which the OT temple was the shadow. We find reference to the house of God being established in the mountains in Isaiah 2:2 and Micah 4:1,2
Your reference to Psalm 87 I would have to disagree with. I cannot see that this refers to the New Testament church. Where do we make the link between Sion/Zion and the Church?
If the church is a continuation of something in the OT why did Christ not simply say, "I am building" or "I will continue to build..."?
I think the Scriptures mentioned here move into the covenant/dispensational discussion.
We see Jesus calling out and authorizing (the definition and function of ekklesia) the apostles -- setting them forth, an obvious organizational meeting, in a mountain in Mark 3:13-15
I see this as preparation. Over in Ephesians 2:20 it speaks of the apostles and prophets being used of God as a foundation for the church. I believe this simply means the teachings given to them by Christ were the foundation. So, for them to be used to teach others they had to be taught themselves. This, I believe, occured in the earthly ministry of Christ.
Psalms 72:16 seems to allude to this initial choosing of the apostles as well, designating them the handful of corn, who following the resurrection and the outpouring at Pentecost saw the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, the church spread like wild fire, like grass of the earth.
Again, this reference seems shaky to me. I don't mean to attack you or your theology, well, maybe your theology... what I am trying to says is I am not looking to be offensive, I just can't see it in this passage.
As for referring to the City of God as the church I do not see that measures up with how the Bible describes it.
In Ephesians we are taught that the church is the bride of Christ. We find in the gospels Christ fulfilling the common customs related to picking an marrying a Jewish bride in his day. Per that analogy we are now in the period of espousal. Christ chose her, made a covenant with her, sealed it with the cup of covenant, and paid the purchased price for her with his won blood. He very well didn't choose, covenant, drink with, and purchase a non existing bride.
But surely that would mean the marriage supper of the Lamb spoken of as future in Revelation would be out of place, would it not?
We see it having it's first business meeting to replace Judas with Matthias prior to Pentecost as well.
May I ask if you cast lots as business meetings in your church? I actually think it would be a good system, no arguments, no discussions, just why the lot falls the decision is made!
I see it as the church being conceived in Israel, but born on Pentecost. It existed prior to Pentecost, in the womb of Israel.
Someone discussed this idea with me a few weeks ago, and it seems to say, with different words and in a round about way, that the church started at Pentecost. Saying it was concieved in Israel or with Christ just seems to merge the two ideas.
One of the best arguments for me is from Ephesians 1 where it speaks of Christ being the Head of the church, but He only took this position AFTER His resurrection and ascension.
Lastly, I Corinthians 12:13 speaks of us being baptised into one body, the church, by the Spirit. This did not occur until Pentecost. In Acts 1:5 Christ speaks of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a future event. However, Peter, in Acts 11:15 speaks of it as already having happened. Pentecost is the only time that fits as far as I can see.
I started this thread, and then left while it took off, so I am glad for the opportunity to get back into it, if only for a little while.