When Did the Church Start?

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.

 

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)

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

 

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

 

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

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

Ed

 

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.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

You were Tom, in due time.

 

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!!!

 

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.