Doctrinal Differances

When Jesus ascended there were 120 disciples. Why didn't He give the GC to them all? Why only the 11? Were the others not part of the church? Obviously there is some significance to this. I may be wrong on the significance, but ya'll aren't even acknowledging it.

The Book of Acts is about the Acts of the Apostles in carrying out the Great Commission given to them. Yes, it is church history, but it is about what the apostles did through the grace of God, not about what the church did. I'm not
trying to do draw an absolute line of separation between the church and the ministry. In a sense the ministry is still part of the local assembly, but in an sense they have been separated (Paul's word). There are commands given to the ministry not given to all believers. The ministry are not superior to other beleivers, in fact Paul says we are debtors, and the very word minister means to serve. But, there are some things particularly meant for those whom God had set aside to preach the gospel of His Dear Son.

I also want to stress I say all of this in love, not meant in strife.

 

Then why did you come to the Fundamental Baptist Forum?

Our job is to arueth and fighteth with each other and
make fun of Saddleback!

:tonofbricks:

 

No. The eleven were the apostles through whom Christ founded the church.

"The ministry" is never a term associated with the eleven/twelve in the NT. It was given to the apostles because they were the ones through whom Chrst founded the church.

Yes, so long as they are designated by the congregation to baptize on behalf of the body.

Yes.

You got it, so long as it is done through the church. Baptism is a church ordinance.

Exactly. The church sent them out and the Bible says that was the sending of the Spirit. You see the Spirit working through the church. You see the same thing in Acts 15:22.

 

There was no church when he gave the commission. THe church didn't start until ACts 2.

I think the significance is in the leaders being charged about how to lead the church, and teach the church to do what God called them to do. If Christ had given it to all 120, you would probably complain that he didn't give it to the 3000.

In the NT, all believers are to be in ministry. This distinction you are drawing is not a biblical one.

 

So women are to be in the ministry?

 

Jesus did not only say "Go into All the World".

Matthew 9

37 Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;
38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.

You can pray for those in the harvest field no matter where they are in the ends of the earth, that the Lord of the harvest will send forth laborers.

HankD​

 

Absolutely. But only if they are believers.

You are equating ministry with the pastoral office. The two are not the same in the Bible.

 

I'm talking specifically about preaching ministry.

 

No, women are not to be in preaching ministry over men. But that doesn't stop them from making disciples. The GC involves much more than preaching.

 

The Great Commision is for all the church beginning with Jesus, passed on from Him to the 12-1, then add 1/Paul, then passed onto the 120 UR disciples and then into all the world.

 

Actually, there was a church, the one established during Jesus' earthly ministry. It had a Head, it was organized, it had marching orders (Matthew 9) it was involved in evangelism, the disciples were ordained (Mark 3). It's ministry, however, was confined to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. The Great Commission expanded that to include the world.

Before Pentecost, the church baptized, observed the Lord's Supper, received instruction on church discipline.

One might say that the church was empowered on the Day of Pentecost, but it was already empowered as long as Jesus was on the earth. Did the disciples tell Jesus after their mission trip that "even the demons are subject to us?"

Agree

 

Um, no. It wasn't Spirit-baptized, which is the forming act of the church (1 Cor 13:12). Spirit baptism, which is how we get into "one body" was still future in the time of Christ as Christ himself said (Matt 3:11||). There were groups of believers in during Christ's ministry, just as they were in the OT. But that is not a church, biblically speaking.

No it didn't, for the simple reason that there was no church.

Yes, but the NT never makes that the mark of the church.

 

Um, yes it is. I understand that you are filtering your view of the church through a dispensational lens. The church which Jesus established already had everything it needed on the day of Pentecost. It was already formed. Jesus, who empowered the church he founded, said the Holy Spirit would come to empower it after he ascended.

The passage you cite (I Cor 12:13) could just as easily speak of water baptism which places one into the local church.

 

No. I am taking what Scripture says about the church.

Except Spirit baptism.

Not exegetically. You have to make the passage stand on its head in a number of ways, and bring some completely foreign ideas into the text. Paul there is not talking about the local church, as is clear from his inclusion of himself. He wasn't baptized into the local church at Corinth and yet says "We all..." So you really end up putting Paul in a difficult position if you claim this means water baptism. The idea that this passage refers to water baptism has been soundly answered in numerous places.

The only way to get water baptism in 1 Cor 12 is to start with the idea that it has to be water baptism. If you have no other options, then you have to conclude it is water baptism, and you end up making the text get there one way or another. But if you don't start there, I don't think you would ever get there.

 

But this little band did actual preaching, actual healing, actual casting out demons, actual baptizing of actual converts, actual observance of the Lord's Supper. This appears to me, Squire, to be an entity already born--small, to be sure, but something more than embryonic.

 

Which isn't only a church age thing.

Which wasn't only a church age thing.

Which wasn't only a church age thing.

Which wasn't only a church age thing.

It was actually the Passover, which is different, and it was once, on the night before Jesus died.

On what basis? Most of what you list is not unique to the church age. The only one that is was actually the Passover which was unique to the OT.

So you haven't actually dealt with the exegetical argument or the historical ones. These things you mention were all present long before the church, even if you start it during the time of Christ.

 

I understand that, and don't question it. I simply differ about what I believe the Scripture says about the church.

Spirit baptism was designed to empower the church, and their actions following the experience bear that out. But while Jesus was on earth, the small congregation certainly had power, because the source of that power was personally with them.

Re: I Cor 12:13, which said could be water baptism, you said:

I Cor 12:13 could easily be translated "IN (Greek en) one Spirit, we are all...." This is consistent with the statements of John the Baptist (Matt 3:16) and Jesus in Acts 1:5 (you shall be baptized WITH (or in) the Holy Spirit not many days hence). John the Baptist clearly states that the baptizer will be the Christ himself. The Holy Spirit baptizes no one. This passage could be easily interpreted as follows: Under the power of the Holy Spirit we were all brought by the Lord to baptism, and thus were made members of His body. Therefore, baptism is the ceremonial door into the church, a local body.

If we also describe it as "immersion in the Holy Spirit" it makes more sense.

 

Of course the congregation had power. So did Elijah and Elisha, and Moses. But the existence of power doesn't mean the existence of the church.

Of course.

Not really. That is foreign to the context. The context is about spiritual gifts, and why we have them. It is not because we were baptized in water, but because we were baptized in the Spirit. That is why we all have spiritual gifts -- because we were all baptized in the one Spirit.

I wouldn't argue with that, but I don't see how that helps your point. It seems better to make mine. That it wasn't "immersion in water" but "immersion in the Spirit."