Do you believe the Church started at Pentecost?

In fact, there are numerous instances where "The Church" is spoken of in a generic or institutional sense. It is the same sense in which we speak of "the family," or "the press." But we know that such references are meaningless unless they take concrete expression in specific, real families, or specific, real newspapers, magazines and the like. And, we can also speak of the Church in a prospective sense, when we'll all gather in heaven as one body of believers.

Now, if you are going to quote Ephesians 4:4-5 in support of a single body, the Church, then we're going to run into some problems.

Let's go back to verse three: "..endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,
4 One body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling,
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

Now, how does that passage square against the obvious fact that there are thousands and thousands of local churches,each of which is a body of Christ. In fact, Paul also wrote to the church at Corinth and called it THE body of Christ (I Cor 12:27).

In Ephesians 4, Paul begins by calling on the local church to act according to its calling--longsuffering, forebearing, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit. That's it--unity. Ephesian Church, be one. One body.

One other point: We know the reason for the existence of the local church. Jesus himself told them in the Great Commission. The local church is uniquely qualified to go, preach, baptize, teach, etc.

In carrying out the Great Commission, the so-called Universal Church does what? The answer is, absolutely nothing. It never sent a missionary, never formed a Bible study, never gave a dime, never had a worship service. If the Universal Church existed, it would be a monumental failure as a unified entity. It is hopelessly fractured and riddled with error. It is a nice fantasy, but totally useless.

One final thought (I really mean it this time): The band of followers that made up the first church, established by Jesus while he was here, had all the earmarks of today's churches. It lacked nothing.

If you want to say it lacked power until Pentecost, be careful.

 

I think he was referring to this statement that you made:

I agree with him. I don't see a biblical basis for this at all. For one thing, soul and spirit are often used interchangeably. I don't think we can divide up our immaterial self: where is our mind? Where is the will and personality? Is our will part of the soul and/or spirit? Does the spirit contain personality? Etc, etc. It just gets very meaningless. There is no answer for the above that we know of.

We are material and immaterial. The immaterial is the soul/spirit. The brain is material but our mind (thinking and memories) and will are immaterial, at least in part.

 

Tom, while I understand what you are trying t say but please allow me to challenge your stance further. you say:

Now, how does that passage square against the obvious fact that there are thousands and thousands of local churches,each of which is a body of Christ. In fact, Paul also wrote to the church at Corinth and called it THE body of Christ (I Cor 12:27).

It sounds to me like you are evaluating scripture against the reality of the way the church manifests today but shouldn't scripture be the test of reality and perception, etc not the other way around. That scripture is what it is and says what it says, it doesnt matter that we may struggle to accept what it says based on the way we understand things to be. That does not cancel out the validity of the passage.
So I still don't beilieve you have concretely addressed the problem that particular scriture poses to your hypotheses. Why does it speak of ONE body and not many bodies?

Also, is there not the possibility that for the purpose operation the body of christ manifests itself physically through individual local assemblies but in God's eyes we exist as One body. I mean there are many red cross branches throughout the world but there is only one red cross as an organisation. The samee applies to banks and many other organisations. Could the same not apply to the church. Sometimes I think that a universal body philosophy is rejected by many fundamentals and evangelicals simply because of its roman catholic abuse not because it is not taught in scripture. So we say "ït can't be true because catholics subscribe to it"
Is that fair comment in your estimation?

 

Actually, you're making my argument for me. To use your example, the Red Cross is a world-wide organization. But the concrete expression of the Red Cross is a local chapter or branch. It is meaningless to refer to the Red Cross without reference to the specific branches. When we refer to the "Church" in an institutional sense, it means nothing unless we express it in terms of a real, live, assembling group.

Since the existence of those thousands of churches (bodies of Christ) around the world is an incontrovertible, undeniable fact, then the scripture reference to "one body" cannot mean there is only one. So we must look for another interpretation.

Incidentally, churches, by definition, assemble. The Universal Church, by definition, cannot.

 

olegig said:
I do see us as being triune just as the Godhead; but for now we cannot separate ourselves from the whole.
I see the spirit going to Heaven at conversion, the soul going to Heaven at death, and the body going to the grave to be later resurrected and joined again with the soul and spirit; but made new.

Man is triune with 3 distinct parts:

1 Thessalonians 5:23 (King James Version)
23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The part of man that makes him/her different from animals is the soul.

1 Corinthians 15:45 (King James Version)
45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

The soul has the same shape as the body, it has arms, wears a robe, and can speak:

Rev 6:
9And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

The soul is what leaves the body at physical death:

Matthew 10:28 (King James Version)
28And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Acts 2:31 (King James Version)
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

The body lays in the grave waiting to be raised and glorified with an incorruptible body.

1 Corinthians 15:52 (King James Version)
52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

The spirit will go back to which it came.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 (King James Version)
7Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

But the Christian's spirit is replaced by the indwelling Holy Spirit at conversion.

Eph 2:
6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Please note the tense in the above, "hath raised" "made us sit"........
We can certain tell by looking our physical bodies have not been raised or made to sit as yet, so this must refer to the spirit.

 

Totally disagree. Our spirits being seated in the heavenlies is positionally. I am not partly up in the heavenlies while the rest of me is here! That's bizarre.

I'm not going to debate it because it's off topic. This has come up before on the BB.

 

Don't really know what you mean by 'positional' but having my old spirit replaced by the Holy Spirit and now being the Temple of God is a position I don't mind at all.

1 Corinthians 3:16 (King James Version)
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Well, at least you didn't say it was not scriptural; but come to think of it, the resurrection of the dead is also a bit bizarre.

Glad to hear it has come up, but would be surprised if it was discussed to any length.
I don't mean to be rude with my next comment; but in the short time I have been here, I am a bit surprised that anything but the C vs A thing has been discussed to any length.

 

Marcia, excuse me for barging into the conversation. Olegig, do you stand before God without sin? Yes you do, positionaly, but no you don't practically. Do you see the difference? Your position in Christ is perfectly sinless thanks to His Blood; but your practice remains tainted by sin thanks to the flesh. Likewise, we are already seated in heaven positionally, or as it might be put, legally; but we are actually seated on earth, where we practice our faith.

I wonder if you can provide us a text that tells us that a man's spirit departs from him when he gets saved. As I recall, when the Bible speaks of someone’s spirit departing from them, it means they stopped breathing - they’re dead.

In light of your theory, how do you explain the passage that reads, "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" (1 Cor 14)?

 

Well said JD. :thumbs:

 

I agree, and thanks for your restatement. Sometimes it helps make a point to say things differently or in others words.
Yes, I understand the difference between positionally and practically; but I was hoping Marcia would frame it in her words.
As you say we are already seated in heaven positionally; so I ask what part of us do you feel is already in heaven?
When Eph 2 says:
6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
what part of us do you feel has been raised up and now made to sit in heavenly places?
(Many have never given this much thought.)

These would be the many text that speak of the Christian being placed "in Christ" and "Christ in us". Also the many passages that teach of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
For now the Christian is in the Body which is within the Kingdom of God which is a spiritual kingdom; however we are also promised a new body in the future and I believe we will view eternity as more physical than what we are experiencing in the present.

IMO these mentioned passages are not just words, but truth. If Christ comes in and man is made new, something old is replaced and leaves.
In your opinion what leaves if not the old spirit we had when we were born in Adam?

I am talking about more than just physical life here for IMO the spirit refers to more than just the air we breath.
God is spirit and I think He is more than just air for His breath gave more than just life, it made Adam a living soul.

What I am talking about goes a bit beyond a case of resuscitation.

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I suppose one could term the indwelling Holy Spirit a 'theory' since it is unproven, as are many things of the Bible.
The resurrection did have its witnesses.
Would you also term the resurrection a theory?

Concerning 1Cor 14:32 I don't think there is any such thing as a man getting so full the Holy Ghost that he should roll on the floor or kick over benches, if that is what you are implying.
I feel if one is saved, then one should be able to control all things in a mannerly fashion.

 

No "part" of us, matierially speaking, is in heaven. It may be properly said that we are in heaven "spiritually", but it is not proper to say that our spirits are in heaven.

And MANY people have given it MUCH thought. Brother, you need to take an inventory of your own spiritual bigotry. I say this as a known spiritual bigot, but trying to change.

 

Well thank you Allan. We've been on the opposite side of issues so much, it feels good to agree on something!

 

Are these thoughts of yours based in scripture or etiquette?
What do you feel happened to the old spirit when the Holy Spirit came to indwell the saved person?

I have no idea what you are saying here.
Could you define "spiritual bigotry" as you are using it?

 

I guess I'm just dense, but I can't find anything in the last seven or eight posts that speak to the OP question.

Can somebody help who's smarter than I am?

I guess this makes nine posts with nothing to do with the thread topic.

 

This all started at about #109 with trying to resolve issues raised by Heb 12:23 in relation to whom might be in the Church.

Hebrews 12:23 (King James Version)
23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Questions were raises as to whether the 'general assembly' and the 'church of the firstborn' are describing different groups or the same group.
Also questions were raised as to whether 'the spirits' are the same as the souls.

Do you have any input in theses matters?
Perhaps if we can differentiate between these groups, it will aid in the identification of the true Church.

 

1. It is proper etiquette to stir the soup to cool it rather than blowing on it as I do. It is biblically proper to say that living believers are in heaven "spiritually", but it is biblically improper to say that living believers' "spirits" are in heaven, as you do.

2. I believe that a person's spirit remains in the body until death separates them; and the body and spirit are reunited in the resurrection.

3. In regards to spiritual bigotry, maybe I'm misjudging you. But it seems to me that your attitude is something like "here's an important issue and I'm the only one around here that cares about it." If that is indeed the case, I can assure you that there are many people on the BB that is very interested in every Bible doctrine you can name. But we are more likely to expend energy and time on those issues that are more hotly contended, like C v A. It's just the way it is.

 

I don't have much to contribute to this question except to say that it appears to be future rather than present. The only time the General Assembly exists is in heaven, in the future. And churches, by definition, assemble.

If it doesn't assemble, it may be something, but it's not the "Church." Or a church.

 

I understand what you are saying; and what do you see as the path of man's soul?
And does the condition of a man's soul after NT conversion make him somehow different from an OT saint?
Do these things give us any clue as to who might be members of the Body, the true Church?

I have seen that to be true here; but don't know why it is.

The topic is when did the Church begin. IMO to answer this one must first discern who is in the Church and what scripture says places them in the Church.
Is one placed in the Church, the Body, because of what one believes, or is one placed in the Body because of which theology one follows?
Are folks placed in the Body because of what is in their head or what is in their heart?

Romans 8:5 (King James Version)
5For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

I agree it is future. But I also feel the 'general assembly' and the 'church of the first born' could be 2 different groups.
So I wonder if the Heb passage has anything to add in the quest of discerning exactly who is in the Church and therefore giving some indication of when the Church began.

 

I really think we're trying to make this too hard. And this is what happens when one insists on the existence of "The Church." We get hung up on the definition, which then leads to who's in it, and off we go.

So let me retrace my steps A church is a living, breathing group of people who gather to worship, fellowship, feed on the Word of God, and go out from there to carry out the Great Commission. We take our marching orders from that Great Commission, and we take a cue from that body of believers at Jerusalem. It preached, baptized, sent out evangelists and missionaries (as did Antioch), spent time together.

Acts 2:42 shows the way: "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayer."

Not only that, we have a pattern set early by Jesus himself, who, after choosing the twelve, almost immediately sent them out to preach, heal, the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead and cast out devils (Matt 10:9).

I suppose one could call that little band The Church, since it was the only one at the time. But until someone can tell me the purpose of the universal church on this earth, I'll continue to point to local congregations as that which Jesus established and which the Holy Spirit empowers.

And I will continue to ask for the location of the next earthly meeting of the universal church.

 

Your right. What term would you prefer to be used when one is speaking of the Church as Paul did in Col 1:18?

Could you show in scripture the evangelists sent out to all the world from the group of believers at Jerusalem?
And what message did they take with them to all the world?

AT the time, how much of the mysteries revealed by Paul did "they" know?

Do you feel these are the things we should be doing now?

The Bride of Christ, the Body is to be God's messengers to the world of the good news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Don't know the location; but when you hear the trump of God; then you will know you have a free ticket and transportation to the exact location.