When Did the Church Start?

This is a thread for Baptists only.

 

The use of church (ekklesia) in Acts 7:37 is an illustration of the general meaning of the term in greek. It is found again as a general reference in when it refers to the assembly that met in Ephesus in Acts 19 to discuss what to do aboout the Christians there. It is not a reference to a New Testament church, but a local visible assembley that was in the wilderness.

 

Great Question. My answer would be, No.
Quote Allan: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.End Quote.:thumbs:

 

Acts, chapter 7
33: Then said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest is holy ground.
34: I have seen, I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send thee into Egypt.
35: This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.
36: He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years.
37: This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38: This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

 

For the record. I can see Bro. Bob's argument & I can also see the others. I have not fully positioned myself on this issue here. I guess you could call my position a progressive one, because I am still studying on it. I am pre - mil, & pre -trib, so as I said, I see the other side of this, but as to the division issue of the people of God, that is, the church & the Jews, I am not fully persuaded. I know that may seem contradictory to some, being pre - mil and all, but to me it is just being honest, and for those who have talked with me on the board, you know that I do not try to fit myself into any one mold. I have enjoyed reading most of these posts. Keep them coming! If thread closes, I would strongly encourage another on this issue!

 

Thx Jne;.............. I needed that

 

Glad to hear it Bro.:wavey:

 

It's a sign of old age, I guess. I read something by a poster that I wanted to comment on, got distracted, went back to look for it, and I can't find it. Don't even remember who the poster was.

What got my attention was the assertion that the local church and the Body of Christ are not the same. My guess is that he wanted to distinguish between the local, visible church and the universal church--the universal church being the Body of Christ.

I guess I've led a sheltered life because I've never heard this before. Anybody else here share that view?

Anybody who reads my stuff already knows that I hold that my local church is the Body of Christ, or at the very least a Body of Christ. And that the so-called universal church is a useless entity which has no purpose for existence. I seem to be alone in that view

I know that the concept of the universal church is the majority view on this board and probably every other board, as well. But I've never heard anyone who holds that view draw a distinction between the local assembly and the Body of Christ.

Ah, well, it's not the first strange view I've seen expressed on the BB by my beloved fellow Baptists. I've got to get out more.

 

Oh, by the way, to Atestring,

Welcome back. I checked your profile and you've been gone for six months or so. Glad to see you back in action.

 

You read me very well.

 

37: This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

38: This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

According to Scripture there was a church back under the Law Covenant!

When He said "upon this Rock, I build my church" I think He was talking about the Grace Church which is not to say there was not a church under the Law of which the Scriptures say there was. How can we deny the Scriptures.

 

You of course are right Brother Bob of that Covenant Church under the Law. But that "church" did not know the name of the only name that can save. That "covenant church" was under the Law.

I also see another Church, the same one you see, the "Kingdom Church" on the foundation of Jesus Christ, for until John was the Law and the Prophets. So I agree with you to a point for I cannot see the "grace through faith" gospel, for I don't believe it was known at this time. I agree Peter and all the earthly Apostles had the gospel not of "grace" but of the gospel of John the Baptist of "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins", for the "Kingdom is at Hand".

But we know there are two (2) foundations laid on the one foundation of Christ Jesus. Paul will not build on that foundation of the "Kingdom Church", but of the "Body Church", by which came the Grace of God through faith. "In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
23. If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
24. Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
25. Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26. Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27. To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
28. Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
29. Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily", Colossians 1:22-29.

 

I sure am glad someone whose opinion is respected on BB agreed with me finally that there was a Church under the Law. Of course they did not have the blood of Jesus Christ but were looking forward to the coming of the Messiah. They worshipped "by faith" and we "through faith. Jesus did appear in many forms in the OT such as the following and also as "Wisdom, Rock" and many other ways. Also, stood slain from the foundation of the World. You may not agree with this but I also believe He was and is the "Tree of Life" but that is another thread.
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.

It was by the same Spirit that raised Him from the dead that He went and preached to them in the days of Noah.
Also, He was there in days of Moses so He also was there under the Law but just had not come in the flesh and died and give His blood to establish the Grace Chruch but to also come to Israel.

37: This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38: This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Thanks again for giving your opinion, I felt like I was stranded on an island all by myself except for the other 4 who voted with me and I don’t know who they are.

Also, I believe when the Scripture says He came unto His own it was that Covenant Church, but only a remnant received Him but they were given the power to become the sons of God.

 

I haven't read though this whole thread so this may have been already offered:

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:​

HankD​

 

My whole issue on this is, If the Old covenant people looked forward to the shedding of the blood (not with the full knowledge we look back to it of course) & the fact that they were rescued from paradise only when The Lord Jesus Christ had shed his blood. We look to the same blood for salvation. Even though the remnant will be reconciled at the last time. They will be saved by the same blood. So how are they a different people of God? I may be asking for it, but I'll go ahead and say it, "I do not believe that the Old Covenant people were saved by works". So it must be the blood of Christ that opens heaven to them.

 

If He died for the sin of the whole world jne; it would mean them too. It is just how and when they receive the blood. The white robe comes from the blood of the Lamb, so I think that says it all. Their works and faith stayed their sins from year to year and if they died with faith when the fountain was opened it covered them also.

I am glad you are strong enough to say what you believe. I been on here seems all alone except the 4 who voted with me and I don't even know who they are, I wish I did, but according to Scripture there is no other name given under Heaven where a man can be saved. Why? would they be looking for Him it He was not needed?

Sometimes it is not the majority, nor is it popular but I stand and say what I believe. If it is wrong then the Lord knows I am trying.

 

Well, Bob, you know what I believe about the atonement. But I do see the fact that all of the hope of the Old Testament saints stood on the blood of The Lord Jesus Christ. I believe if he had not shed his precious blood, every Old Testament saint would have gone to hell. So that is what puts me in a big question mark on whether in the end the two camps Old & New can be classed as two different people of God. I know well what most Pre -mil believe, but I need some concrete Scripture on this. I know a lot of the argument is based on the word "church". Clearly we see the Old "church" & the New "church", but the Old depended on what would be accomplished on the cross , (No matter what their perception of what it meant) just as much as the New. All by the blood. But as I said, I am open to any light on the subject.

 

Well, this is what I live and believe by Jne;

Rev: 21
"10": And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

"11": Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

"12": And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

"13": On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.

"14": And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.



Ephesians, chapter 1



"1": Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

"2": Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

"3": Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

"4": According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

"5": Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

"6": To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

"7": In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

"8": Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

"9": Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

"10": That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

"11": In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

"12": That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

"13": In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,


I only see One!

 

Bob, there is not a problem in understanding the blood of Christ is upon both the OT saints and NT saints. They ARE one people IN Christ that being the Children of God through and by 'Faith'. The white robes are not symbolic of the Church brother but the very righteousness of Christ Himself upon us sybolizing there is no more stain through Him.

But here is a question for you:
Why did Christ have to offer up a "New" Covenant if we all (being all one people in ALL things both of Promise and Being) could still be covered by the Old to the same fulness of salvation and promises offered therein?? (ie... just as the OT saints are thus we to would be)

There would be no need for a "New" Covenant as the Old Covenant was or would be suffient for all according you and others. God did not do away with the Old Covenant as it was the Promise unto Abraham but succured and RE-Established unto Israel (Jacob) and his decendents. God can no more do away with the OLD Covenant promises any more than God could tell a lie. It must be fulfilled unto the people to whom it was given or God would be a liar.

BUT...There IS a New Covenant given unto those NOT under the Old Covenant as the time of the gentiles or Church age has (for a time) set that Old Covenant aside. That whosoever will may come unto Him, whether any individual Jew OR Gentile would come.
Why the New Cov., because God is not dealing with Israel as a Nation with Regard to the OT Covenant AT THIS TIME until the New Covenant enity (the Church) has fulfilled its purpose THEN God will deal once more with Israel via the Tribulation or Time of Jacobs (Israels) trouble.

And I might add that the Church is TO BE built future tense when Christ says

So the Church is still YET future or Christ Lied. Again not a possibility according to scripture.
And Peter also when he stated this in Acts 11:

At the beginning?? The beginning of what pray tell. It was the beginning of the Church where they were baptized by the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ known as the Church (as Christ stated - Not many days hence! - or after He went to the Father). How can we know this is the beginning referenced by Peter because it was in the same manner that THEY might KNOW the Gentiles were apart of this same promise of grace under this NEW COVENANT!

The two covenants are key in understanding much of scripture. We are the same people, as in people of faith unto God as His people. Yet we are distinct from each other in the promises given unto us and work God has called us to as Israel and as the Church. Much like the Human race - we are all the same but some are different colors but not unequal in any sense yet very distinct in WHO we are.

I can go into this in more detail later but as for now I am about to type up my sermon for the marrow. It's done just not typed yet.

 

I hope you still believe that after this post. You are in good company in the "Tree of Life" belief - an observation only.

Agree with your great understanding of His "Kingdom Church". But as one who believes in the "dispensational gospel of Paul", I see in Peter above "conditional salvation" justified by faith until through faith came. But we know that through faith was unknown, as was the "Body Church" until after Damascus Road. Those in "Hades" were in the holding place until Jesus Christ shed His blood and they now know His name. They were in holding by their obedient work of making "blood sacrifice of animals" until He, in blood came for them. We must believe God in the time we live. They could not believe as we, and we dare not believe as them, for I believe if we do, we would miss the "rapture" and go into that "tribulation period", before the "Kingdom can come". I'm not planning on my body being here whether alive or in the grave.

All before Damascus Road could not possibly have known what God had hidden, i.e. that the "uncircumcised" would now be justified through faith of Jesus Christ being admitted to His "Body Church". What we also now know, and those then became aware, is the "circumcised" can be saved just like we "uncircumcised". Witness Peter in Acts 15:11, "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."

Most of we "dispensationalist" know that truth and grace came by Jesus Christ, but no one knew then as Peter shows us. No one knew what God had kept secret until He revealed it, teaching personally our One Apostle Saul/Paul (to the Jew first, then the Gentile) in an Arabian desert, and over time His gospel. He gave to Paul His gospel, just as He gave Moses His Law. Scripture shows it is Moses' Law, and scripture also shows it is Paul's gospel in this "dispensation".

My opinion is not worth two (2) cents, and neither is yours. You understand the interpretation of the Holy Spirit regarding the "church in the wilderness".

Yes I agree, those of the "Kingdom Church" those espoused, chosen for marriage as Wife to God are also sons of God as are we in Christ Jesus, the Bridegroom.