When did the N.T. church begin?

J.T., could you be more obvious with what you are getting at?

In Ephesians 4, Paul is saying that there are several reasons why believers have unity. He is talking about Spirit Baptism (which happens at conversion).

If he was talking about water baptism, then that would not be something that all believers have. Further, that would be something that you have to do in order to CREATE unity.

Paul says that unity exists. So, for the sake of unity, only one baptism exists, that is the baptism of the Spirit.

 

Spirit baptism unites all believers to Christ. That is why unity already exists in Eph. 4.

 

Fair enough. I will not assume you are pushing a position. Your questions did indicate knowledge/belief in the classical landmark position.

 

As for baptism, Spirit baptism is given to every believer at conversion. That is how one gets into the boyd of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). It is, however, not an "experience;" it is a judicial declaration of God. Acts 2 was an experience because it was the formative rite of the church. Water baptism is a symbol of Spirit baptism, a visible testimony of participation in the death and resurrection of God, and a initiatory rite into the local church.

The Great Commission was given to teh apostles and by extension, to believers after them. It was not given to "the church" per se.

 

Exactly.

 

No wonder we have such denominationalism. There is nothing but chaos.

If all are baptized into the body at salvation, then there is no reason to teach or administer water baptism, certainly the Spirit baptism would supercede this 'symbol' when the believer is already in the 'church'. Further, how do you propose to teach anything as doctrinal truth when there is no particular recognized body of truth and how can you deny to me that the gifts of tongues etc are now past when I am spiritually baptized into an invisible body, this just generates chaos.

Bro. Dallas

 

1. Hardly. I am a diehard Baptist. People who read my posts know I am hard on truth and do not vary. No confusion on my part. Larry? Dr. Bob? Scott J?

2. What in the world does water baptism have to do with salvation?

3. My authority as a preacher is from the word of God. It is NEVER from a church body.

4. Because of Scripture. My appeal is always to the Scripture. Peter said that the Scripture is what was left behind for believers. The apostles died off. The authority they had is in the Scripture, not some church.

Landmarkism is baptism catholicism, plain and simple. In its quest for authority, it turns the church into the final authority.

 

I have been around here enough to know this is true.

If you would be kind enough to read the context, we were discussing the Spirit baptism of believers when they are saved. I said nothing here of 'water' baptism having anything to do with salvation. And I have never said this.

I agree, as is my own; we find this true from scripture in the example of Paul:

At the same time, Paul was not without recognition by the church through the body at Antioch

This is the same as #3 IMO, if I am wrong, please tell me.

This is wrong. Landmarkism does not deny the autonomy of the local church, in fact, I would say that it is Landmarkism that defends it against catholicism, which is taught by the belief that all believers are part of the church through Spirit baptism. If this is the case, then I can't understand why Christ saw the need to institute water baptism at all as an identification, isn't a profession of faith and evidence of Grace enough to receive members? It would be if all were already members of the church through some Spirit baptism.

As I said above I do value your responses and I do believe you are sound, but I cannot agree with you on this point. To do so in MHO makes the church universal and this is just not so, if it is, then no church can claim an authority to discipline members.

Bro. Dallas

 

Where does it say that though? Peter explicitly put the beginning at Pentecost.

 

Confusion would be a better term, IMO.

Non-sequitur. Water baptism brings one into the local church and is a public testimony. Spirit baptism, which precedes water baptism, brings one into the invisible body which every believer is a part of. There is no public testimony in Spirit baptism.

Who said there was no recognized body of truth? Did I miss something. I believe that we all agree that the Scriptures are the recognized body of truth.

I have no idea what you are saying here. Spirit baptism is independent of the gift of tongues. The gift of tongues in Acts 2 came at Spirit baptism as a confirmation that these preachers were the preachers of teh true message of Christ. It was only peripherally related to Spirit baptism. Paul says that "we were all baptized into one body," not just those who spoke in tongues. The chaos, if there is any, is due to this apparent assertion that Spirit baptism cannot exist when the gift of tongues does not.

 

Larry, I think he means by what authority does one person say it is not for today when another person within the universal church does.

 

[edited to remove the last paragraph of Pastor Larry's post that is answered below]

What ever you wish to call it, makes no difference to me.

exactly, water baptism does exactly that, Spirit baptism then cannot bring believers into a visible body, but must bring them into the family of God.

OK, this was unfair on my part to assert. But still, teaching that all are a part of the church removes the need for following Christ in baptism, IMHO.

OK, I deserved that, As far as I Cor. 12.13 I see this as you do, but it is not speaking of the church, the church is not able to be assembled if any part of it is invisible; what I see in I Cor. 12.13 is the one body being that of the family of God.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

I agree. But water baptism still brings them into the local body.

[/qb]I don't follow your logic here. We are made a part of the body by faith in Christ, not by water baptism. Water baptism is a step of obedience for the person who is already saved.

The body is the church (Eph 2; Col 1). The family of God in teh NT era is the church. To say that one is being brought into the family of God is the same as saying that they are being brought into the church. The invisible church is the total number of believers of this age, regardless fo their location. Just because believers in South America or Asia cannot assemble with us here does not mean that they are not in the body which is his church. And one day, all those will be assembled because they are the church, not in order to be the church. That does not minimize the local church in anyway.

 

Where in Acts 2 is the word "begin/began" used? Where in Acts 2 is there any statement about anything starting?
On the other hand (OTOH?), Acts 1:1 says that the first volume of Dr. Luke's 2-vol. history of early Christianity was a record of "all that Jesus BEGAN both to do (practice) and to teach (doctrine)." In short, Acts opens with the reminder that Christ-ianity BEGINS with Christ. Everything about Christ-ianity BEGINS with Christ.
He "called to Himself whom He would," and from those He chose 12 and "set some in the church, first apostles" whom He ordained as He built the very first NT church (congregation/assembly) from material prepared by John Baptist. (Recall that Moses prepared the material, Bezaleel [filled with the Spirit!] built the tabernacle, it was dedicated with blood sacrifice & filled with the Spirit. David prepared the materials, Solomon [thru Hiram] built the temple, it was dedicated with blood sacrifice & filled with the Spirit. Make the analogy; the church had to be present to be dedicated with the blood sacrifice of Christ.)
Mt. 16:18 (Gr. vb.) = "I will continue to edify" - verb never used of beginning anything, or of laying a foundation, but (as in Eph. 2) of further developing an existing something. Gr. "ek" plus "kaleo" = "called-out-and-called-together," "assembly" or "congregation," see the 3 refs. in Acts 19 at Ephesus to the governing "ekklesia" of that city-state.

R. Charles Blair - Ro. 8:28

 

Consider Acts 11:15-16. According to Peter, that was the beginning. Don't forget that Christ said the baptism of the Spirit would happen shortly after the ascension.

 

No one disputes that. But that is not the issue here.

Perhpas you would be willing to suppport this with Scripture.

The church wasn't dedicated with the blood sacrifice of Christ. It was purchased according to the text. This OT stuff is really reaching.

Did you search on this word? I found numerous places where it is used of building something new, Like Matt 7:24ff., Matt 21:33, 42, etc. There are too many to list here. Suffice it to say that this simply isn't true.

So what? We don't disagree with that. But by the tikme of the first century, "ekklesia" has a techincal meaning of "church" that cannot necessarily be reduced to the sum of its parts, any more than "pineapple" can.

 

Note also Acts 10.37

37  That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

Peter also says it began here.

you know---know is present
He abides--also present
will be in you--future, after the ascension, the baptism of the already assembled church.

Before this they already did know him and He already did abide with them. They were awaiting the baptism of the Spirit upon the church that was assembled on pentecost that occurred in Acts 2.

The church was established and organized prior to the death of Christ.

Bro. Dallas