When Did the Church Start?

[mnw]

MNW says:

I would like to raise some issues with the following list:

Tom Butler
It had a Head--The Lord Jesus

MNW:That's right, after the resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Tom: Why not during his ministry? Except it doesn't fit dispensatonal thought.

My dispensational thoughts lead me to Ephesians 1:19-23:

"And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. "
(Eph 1:19-23)

Christ was given to be the head of the Church AFTER His resurrection and ascension. I can't see any way around this passage on this point. Actually, this whole chapter is a great dispensational chapter... But that's another subject, kind of.

It had an officer--Judas the treasurer

MNW: I know he carried the money, but to make him an officer in the NT Church seems a big jump to me.

Tom: I was thinking of an officer in the sense of today's SS Superintendent, Church Training Director, etc. Not as a deacon or pastor. But still a treasurer with specific responsibilities.

We do not know he had specific financial responsibilities. All I can think of is that he carried the bag of money. Christ decided how to spend it. It is interesting, to me, that when it came time to acquire a room and feast to observe the Passover he did not send the treasurer to purchase the things, but Peter and John. (Luke 22)

It had the ordinances--baptism from the beginning and eventually the Lord's Supper.

MNW: Christ also spoke of the organisation of the Millennial Reign in His earthly ministry, does that also apply now?

Tom: Jesus actually applied the ordinances by having his assembled disciples do them. Before Pentecost.

Are there any references to Christ baptising anyone? I know He promised He would do so in the future by the Holy Spirit, Acts 1. The Lord's Table we see before Pentecost, I'll give you that one.

It had a commission to preach, make disciples, baptize, and teach.

MNW: True, but I think this was still in the preparation stages of the NT Church.

Tom: Agreed to a point, except I'm thinking of preparation stages prior to Pentecost, and you're thinking of the Pentecost Day Founding.

Fair enough.

It had a congregational business meeting to choose Matthias as Judas' replacement.

MNW: Do you cast lots at your business meetings?

Tom: The point is not how they voted, but that they did it as a congregation.

Casting lots is not congregational voting. The word lots is never used in that sense. More than likely, it appears, the names were written down on two separate pieces of wood/stone or something. Place inside a jar and then which ever one came out was the "chosen" one. Kind of like bingo... However, I think lots were used of God in the OT period, and as this time was something of a transition, I would not have a problem with it.

BUt the more I think about this, perhaps pulling names and decisions out of a hat would be the quicker and simpler way of holding business meetings!

MNW: There seem to be irreconciliable differences between Israel and the church. Did Israel observe the NT Church ordinances? Baptism and the Lord's Table?

Tom: I'm going to avoid much discussion of dispy stuff, although I know that's your starting point. I'm trying my best not to make the scriptures fit my theology, ecclesiology and eschastology. Just the opposite.

Ah yes, the old, "Your theology is so confused with preconceptions and mine is so pure" argument.

Sorry, I enjoy you and your posts Tom, but when people hit with that one it kind of ruffles my feathers.

 

[Allan]

Tom: Jesus actually applied the ordinances by having his assembled disciples do them. Before Pentecost

Yes, but they had NO CLUE what the symbolism was literally for (His death) nor why they were required to do it in 'rememberence'. (see my post - 3 postings down)

So what they did was somewhat meaningless to them at that time but would IN TIME behold its meaning in light of His death.

Besides it had to be before pentacost and before He was crusified that the meaning and symbolism would be understood after the fact. But is not proof they were already the church because the Church understands what these elements sybolize and why they are to be done in 'rememberence' of Him.

Good and relevent points MNW.

 

[EdSutton]

JOHN 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

JOHN 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

REVELATION 19:11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war.

12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself.

13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

GENESIS 22:8 And Abraham said, The Word of the Lord will prepare for me a lamb; and if not, then thou art the offering, my son! And they went both of them together with a contrite heart.

Uh- "John I know, and Revelation I know, but who is Genesis?"

I have no clue what version Gen.22:8 purports to be, but this certainly is not the same KJV that I have, by any stretch! Nor is it close to any of the other twenty, or thereabouts, versions that I can quickly find. Not one of those has either the phrase "The Word of the Lord" (each and every one of them have "God", which is, I believe, the rendering of El/Elah/Elohim, although I admit to having no knowledge of Hebrew, and have to rely on others here), or anything in that verse about "with a contrite heart" in it. (That may or may not be "good theology", but it is here, at least, certainly "bad Bible"!)

And if I remember correctly, you (generally, at least) 'champion' the KJV (1769 edition, of course), which appears to here read (in context)

7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. (Gen. 22:7-9 - KJV)

Even after saying this, one question- What in the world do these verses have to do with "When Did the Church Start?" ? {scratch head}

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

My dispensational thoughts lead me to Ephesians 1:19-23:

"And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. "
(Eph 1:19-23)

Christ was given to be the head of the Church AFTER His resurrection and ascension. I can't see any way around this passage on this point. Actually, this whole chapter is a great dispensational chapter... But that's another subject, kind of.

Regardless of what one may or may not think about 'dispensations', (although Paul was certainly one who believed in Dispensations, FTR), this passage seems clear enough to me, as well. And here, I agree with mnw.

Ed

 

[mnw]

Thanks Ed.

 

[EdSutton]

Thanks Ed.

Yo' is sho' 'nuff welcome! :thumbsup:

(Just don't necessarily get used to it!) :BangHead: :laugh: {laugh} {laugh}

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdSutton
And actually without us, he, like Abraham, Moses, and Samson, to name three, could not even be complete. (Heb. 11:39-40).


You lost me here, what does this mean?

I really, have no exceedingly great insight, here. It's just what Scripture says:

9 And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us. (Heb. 11:39-40 - NKJV)

And as the word rendered perfect is "teleioo", which means "to bring to completeness", I rendered my words as "complete". The Message renders it this way, as well, so mark this day down as perhaps the first when I prefer the treatment of a word in The Message, over most others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdSutton
Yes, the Lord Jesus Christ is "to sit" on the throne of David. That has not yet occurred, but does occur during the 1000 year reign. The two passages in the NT, of which I'm aware, that speak of this both are in the future tense, - Lk. 1:32, and Acts 2:30, where Peter is recalling what was promosed to David, back when. Today, He is seated at the right hand of the Father. It is from there He comes with His saints in Rev. 19. After this, He sits on the Throne of David.



Why do you feel he doesn't assume the throne of David until he rerutns?

I believe that to be a prophetic promise. And as I just said, in what you quoted, today He is sitting down at the right hand of the Father, and that He did after His resurrection, and to my knowledge, the only time since then that He 'stood up' was to give Stephen a "standing ovation". There is a yet to be fulfilled promise of a 'physical kingdom', as I read Scripture, so it would have to still be future from where we are today. :thumbsup:

Ed

 

[rsr]

I have no clue what version Gen.22:8 purports to be, but this certainly is not the same KJV that I have, by any stretch! Nor is it close to any of the other twenty, or thereabouts, versions that I can quickly find.

The quote is from a Jerusalem Targum (an Aramaic translation of the Scripture) translated by J. W. Etheridge. The reading reflects the influence of Hellenization on Jewish thinking, with the Logos interposed between God and man.

But we digress.

 

[Brother Bob]

I digress too Ed;, and as you have said, I am a KJV person. Thanks,

Hebrews, chapter 9

"15": And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Galatians, chapter 3

"14": That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

 

[Tom Butler]

MNW, I'm enjoying our discussion. We've both made our points, I think, so I won't rehash everything. Well, maybe one or two things.

You asked,
MNW: Are there any references to Christ baptising anyone?

Tom: The answer is in John 4:2, where it says Jesus didn't baptize, but his disciples did. Actually, I see this as arguing for the existence of a church
before Pentecost.

MNW: Ah yes, the old, "Your theology is so confused with preconceptions and mine is so pure" argument.

Sorry, I enjoy you and your posts Tom, but when people hit with that one it kind of ruffles my feathers.

Tom: Yeah, it is a cheap shot of sorts, and adds nothing to the discussion. I take it back.

I guess I can't let the comment on Eph 1:19-23 go by without some remarks. Particularly "...And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

It seems reasonable to me, since Paul was writing to the church at Ephesus that the church referred to in v.23 is the one at Ephesus. A local congregation, a local body of Christ.

Also the verse doesn't say that God gave him to be head of the church after the resurrection. It says God gave him to be the head of all things to the church. Not exactly the same thing.

Finally, a couple of other observations.

Mark 1:1 speaks of the "beginning of the gospel." Preached during Jesus earthly ministry. The same gospel Jesus commissioned his church to preach. Before Pentecost.

And, I am still looking for a clear, unequivocal, not-subject-to-any-other-interpretation scripture passage which says the church started on the day of Pentecost. And I Cor 12:13 doesn't qualify.

 

[Tom Butler]

I wrote in an earlier post Jesus actually applied the ordinances by having his assembled disciples do them. Before Pentecost.

Allan responded:
Yes, but they had NO CLUE what the symbolism was literally for (His death) nor why they were required to do it in 'rememberence'. (see my post - 3 postings down)

So what they did was somewhat meaningless to them at that time but would IN TIME behold its meaning in light of His death.

Besides it had to be before pentacost and before He was crusified that the meaning and symbolism would be understood after the fact. But is not proof they were already the church because the Church understands what these elements sybolize and why they are to be done in 'rememberence' of Him

I do agree, Allan, that the ordinances took on a fuller meaning after the resurrection, but the fact remains that they still did them before Pentecost. And it was not a lack of instruction which led to their lack of understanding.

I disagree with your contention that the Church understands what these elements symbolize. The so-called "Church" is all over the lot with misunderstanding. Baptists are a small minority which actually gets it right. The large majority still call them sacraments, not ordinances. They attach saving efficacy to them, or at the very least a means by which grace is imparted. They're still doing this 2000 years later.

Even during apostolic times after Pentecost, Paul was forced to write to the church at Corinth to correct they way they were observing the Lord's Supper. (I Cor 11).

When Jesus gave his Great Commission, he told the assembled church to teach the new disciples to observe all the things he had commanded. That included baptism and the Lord's Supper. Before Pentecost.

 

[Brother Bob]

I thought Jesus was the Comforter when He was here and the Holy Ghost only become the Comforter to the Church after Jesus went back to Heaven.

If I build a castle out of sand, that sand is a major part of that castle.

 

[LeBuick]

I really, have no exceedingly great insight, here. It's just what Scripture says: And as the word rendered perfect is "teleioo", which means "to bring to completeness", I rendered my words as "complete". The Message renders it this way, as well, so mark this day down as perhaps the first when I prefer the treatment of a word in The Message, over most others.

Ed

I have always took this passage as referring to the completness of the body of Christ as opposed to a dependancy one has to another.

As for the throne of David, I felt Christ took the throne at his incarnation since prophecy said the Mesiah would inherant the throne. I can't make a solid argument one way or another so I must digress on this one.

 

[Allan]

Tom stated:
I disagree with your contention that the Church understands what these elements symbolize. The so-called "Church" is all over the lot with misunderstanding. Baptists are a small minority which actually gets it right. The large majority still call them sacraments, not ordinances. They attach saving efficacy to them, or at the very least a means by which grace is imparted. They're still doing this 2000 years later.

I see what you're saying, and yes there are many distortions to the Church and its teachings.
However, if a 'church' adds to salvation and that being by grace through faith alone, is it still the church since it is not dependent upon Christs suffiency and completeness of His atoning work?

I mean, if their understanding of salvation is wrong it is due to them not placing their faith in Christ for all things pertaining unto life, and therefore they are not the "Church" as it is a body of born agian believers who have placed their hope in Christ alone.

Would you consider a person saved who placed their faith in Christ AND the Sacraments to be their hope and propitiation?
Is this not a works based salvation? Are we not exclude those who have a works based religion from that salvation which is by grace through faith alone?

As far as the training the the disciples to be the church during His ministry I agree. But they could not be the church 'embodied' until the Holy Spirit came. In other words, you could say they were the 'church' in practice but not being yet. As for me I rest my opinion mostly upon what I stated in an earlier postings (please read 79 & 80 to better understand my position) It is impossible to be the church when you don't believe.

But also they could not do anything (after Jesus Comissioned them) until the Spirit come upon them and give them power or the (authority) right to do it. If they WERE the church they would have been able and allowed to do it from that point forward?

But we know the the Church IS and our (yours and mine) timeline is only off at most by three years and at least a year and a half so the points being made are somewhat semantical but good tools for digging into His Word. I have enjoyed speaking with you again Tom. :smilewinkgrin: and look forward to more conversations.

 

[LeBuick]

I mean, if their understanding of salvation is wrong it is due to them not placing their faith in Christ for all things pertaining unto life, and therefore they are not the "Church" as it is a body of born agian believers who have placed their hope in Christ alone..

Are you saying you're not in the body of christ if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ AND... And being some other condition like works etc...

I would think they are still saved by faith, they just have a bad theology.

 

[Allan]

Are you saying you're not in the body of christ if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ AND... And being some other condition like works etc...

I would think they are still saved by faith, they just have a bad theology.

I'm saying it depends on WHERE they place their faith. Faith in the saving merits of the Lords Supper is not saving Faith.
Ask that same person if Christ alone can save them if they never partook again?
If they say yes, you have a person who believes Christ but has a bad theology. But if you ask - say a Catholic for example - the same question the answer is a "no". They have placed their faith in something they deem equal with Christ to help save them. So here is my point - If they take all other stuff away is Christ still enough for the rest of their life.

If you believe there is ANYTHING that can help or add to the merits you have been given pertaining to salvation - you have no salvation.

Just because a person believes in Jesus and all He did and all it entails does not make that person any more saved than Satan who believes and trembles. But what makes a man saved is laying ALL their hope in Christ alone and what He has done as being perfectly suffienct. It is this belief that Satan will never have and that will be the dividing difference in those who say they are christian and those who truly are. IMO

 

[Tom Butler]

Allen responded to my earlier post:

I see what you're saying, and yes there are many distortions to the Church and its teachings.
However, if a 'church' adds to salvation and that being by grace through faith alone, is it still the church since it is not dependent upon Christs suffiency and completeness of His atoning work?

I mean, if their understanding of salvation is wrong it is due to them not placing their faith in Christ for all things pertaining unto life, and therefore they are not the "Church" as it is a body of born agian believers who have placed their hope in Christ alone.

Would you consider a person saved who placed their faith in Christ AND the Sacraments to be their hope and propitiation?
Is this not a works based salvation? Are we not exclude those who have a works based religion from that salvation which is by grace through faith alone?

As far as the training the the disciples to be the church during His ministry I agree. But they could not be the church 'embodied' until the Holy Spirit came. In other words, you could say they were the 'church' in practice but not being yet. As for me I rest my opinion mostly upon what I stated in an earlier postings (please read 79 & 80 to better understand my position) It is impossible to be the church when you don't believe.

But also they could not do anything (after Jesus Comissioned them) until the Spirit come upon them and give them power or the (authority) right to do it. If they WERE the church they would have been able and allowed to do it from that point forward?


Allan, I agree with a great deal of your comments. It is not politically correct to say this, but I believe you are correct. Any "church" which teaches other than salvation by grace through repentance and faith by definition is not a true New Testament Church. So it is with "churches" who attach saving efficacy to the Lord's Supper and baptism.

I am hesitant to judge anyone's salvation. I can say that anyone who belongs to a group which teaches another gospel may be saved, but only in spite of that group's teachings. Even if they are saved by God's grace, they are not members of a true NT church.

Now, just a few followup responses to your comments above re: Christ's church. You said the disciples could not be embodied as a church until the Holy Spirit came. Actually they could, since they had the Creator of the Universe right there with them to empower them Himself and to give them authority, which he did (the keys to the kingdom, Matthew 16.}

They also had some power. Remember the 70 who went out, and came back amazed that even the demons were subject to them?

They also had the Holy Spirit. John 20:23, Jesus told the disciples "Receive ye the Holy Spirit." But obviously not yet in full power.

One reason the disciples of the church did not go out was that Jesus instructed them to wait until the promised Holy Spirit would come on them in power. Boy, did he.

The only thing the church lacked on the day of Pentecost that it did not have before was the baptism of the Holy Spirit in great and mighty power. Earlier, it had a small foretaste while Jesus was present, but after he ascended, gangbusters.

Wish I coulda been there.

 

[Brother Bob]

You were Tom, in due time.

 

[Brother Bob]

1 Peter 3:
"18": For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

"19": By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

"20": Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Greatest preacher of all!!!

 

[LeBuick]

Now, just a few followup responses to your comments above re: Christ's church. You said the disciples could not be embodied as a church until the Holy Spirit came. Actually they could, since they had the Creator of the Universe right there with them to empower them Himself and to give them authority, which he did (the keys to the kingdom, Matthew 16.}.

You forget, Jesus and the fellas lived as Jews. It was at the passover meal that Jesus took the bread and instituted the communion. They were not acting as a Church in my view. They were Jews and practised all the customs of the Jews complete with worshipping in the synogague.

Now if Bro. Bob is right that Israel was a Church then you are correct also.