Doctrinal Differances

Of course, if you hadn't, somebody else woulda' had to! :laugh:

Ed

 

Sounds like a circular argument to me, filtered through that dispy lens. The church age started on Pentecost, so even though it looks like a church, acts like a church, and has all the characteristics of a church, had Jesus the Christ as its leader, it can't the a church because the church didn't exist until Pentecost because nothing was New Testament before Pentecost, even if Jesus did describe the cup as at that moment being the "New Testament in my blood."

Also,a review of the accounts of the Upper Room scene, you'll find that it was indeed the Passover--and--the new thing, the Lord's Supper. Dipping the sop is not part of the Lord's Supper, and was given to Judas prior to the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the wine.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Butler I apologize for helping derail this thread.

Yep, you're right. After apologizing, I saw that it was too late, so I jumped back in, threw the next rail switch and kept it going off track to a different destination.

 

The temple veil was ripped before Pentecost.

The church actually did survive outside the womb. It was alive and kicking, and breathing on its own the day before Pentecost.

I find it curious that while affirming that Jesus Christ is Head of the church, dispies insist that Jesus could not have been anywhere around when the church came into existence.

 

Many including myself agree with Pastor Larry. Although important as this doctrine is it is akin to the proverbial question RE: angels dancing on the head of a pin or the Talmudic question whether an egg laid on the Sabbath could be lawfully eaten.

However, there are a couple of passages which have an impact:

One which Pastor Larry already mentioned:

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:​

and then this one:​

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.​

"I will build my church" : Future indicative active. Has not happened yet.​

If Matthew 3:11 and Matthew 16:18 are related (and I believe they are) then it seems that the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 is the foundational act of the building of His Church.

Not all of us. ​

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.​

He was therefore there with us in Acts 2.

HankD​

 

I don't quarrel with the idea that John the Baptist was talking about the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. What I'm looking for is a shred of evidence that this was the day the church was formed.

We're looking differently at "will build" in Matt 16:18. When Jesus said it, he said it to an already formed congregation of believers--his disciples. The "will build" of the future could more easily referred to the next day as to years in the future.

Jesus did not say "On this rock I will establish, start, found my church." Even today, when we speak of building a church, it can also mean the church has grown from a small group to a large congregation--already in existence.

Point granted regarding his presence. So you deny that Jesus founded his church; that he shed his blood for it (Acts 20:28) but left this earth to leave it to the HS to get things started?

 

By the way, the primary meaning of church is assembly or congregation. All the way through Jesus earthly ministry, the disciples assembled. They assembled to hear his teaching in Matthew 5-7. They assembled to feed the five thousand. They assembled the night the Lord Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper; They assembled right after the resurrection, when Jesus appeared in their midst; they assembled on the mount at his ascension. And after he was gone, they assembled regularly up to the day of Pentecost.

On the day of Pentecost, they were already assembled when the Holy Spirit arrived.

This morning, many of us assembled with others. Assemble is what a church does. Assemble is what the fledgling church did--a bunch--before Pentecost.

 

How so?

But there was no Spirit baptism. Perhaps (though all analogies fall short), it's like a couple living together before marriage. They share a house, a bed, bills, may even have kids. It looks like a marriage to everyone around. Is it a marriage? No, because it's not a marriage by definition. If Spirit baptism is necessary to being the body, as the Bible seems clearly to indicate, it doesn't matter what things "look like" prior to that.

Well, the Lord's supper was "in remembrance." What were the disciples remembering the night before? Again, we have deal with the Scriptures in context and with what they actually say.

Dispensationalists don't insist on that so far as I know. The argument is an exegetical one. It certainly could not have existed until after the resurrection for obvious reasons, since Jesus had not yet died and risen, but after the resurrection and prior to Pentecost it could have existed, but didn't.

But the fact of assembly doesn't make one a church. Many groups assemble and were not a church. Furthermore, the church is not always assembled (such as this afternoon).

So really, Tom, you are not actually dealing with the exegetical arguments.

But friends, I think I am going to bail out here for sake of time.

 

Tom said: Sounds like a circular argument to me, filtered through that dispy lens.

Dispensationalists, such as you and HankD, are convinced that the church came into being on the Day of Pentecost.You start there. It was accompanied by a "baptism" of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Spirit baptism is a sine qua non for identifying a church. No Spirit baptism, l no church. The Holy Spirit didn't show up until Pentecost, so everything up to then was Old Testament, and there was no church in the Old Testament, so it couldn't have been founded during Jesus ministry. That may not be a circular argument, but that apprears to be the argument, whatever you call it.

Ahh, the old "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, that doesn't mean it's a duck" argument. I agree with you, the analogy does fall short. And it brushes aside the fact that the fledgling congregation actually did have power because of the presence of its Head. And somehow you must explain away John 14 (Jesus said to the disciples "receive ye the Holy Spirit."

Well, I thought that's what I did

I appreciate your kind spirit, Pastor Larry. Look forward to your return.

 

Yes it's true Tom, I believe the church was born on the day of Pentecost. This is an issue that has come up more than once on the BB.

Personally I believe it's an important issue but don't consider it's differing views of earth shattering consequence compared to some other weightier doctrines.

You mentioned John 14 (actually it's john 20):

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:​

This passage is not specifically spoken of in the context of the church and is a general revelation concerning the role of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus had said (John 14) that the Holy Spirit was with them but would be in them. This I believe was the apostolic infilling of the Spirit but not the same as the baptism of the Spirit in Acts 2. There are specific apostolic ministries of the Holy Spirit apart from Acts 2 such as the ability to write an inspired record of the ministry of Christ.

There is no preaching immediately after the receiving of the Holy Spirit in John 20. A question arises then as to why there was there a need for another receiving of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 in which tongues of fire appeared on ther heads?

In Acts 2 the Baptism of the Spirit is within a specific context pretaining to the church:

Acts 2

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.​

...

47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.​

The tongues of fire signifying the promise of Matthew 3:11​

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:​

This Acts 2 baptism of the Spirit is Jesus Christ placing His Body the church into the Holy Spirit after which those who are saved are added to this body.​

Incidently, it is not just dispensationalists who view the Day of Penetcost as the birth of the church. Many of the mainstream Protestant denominations hold to this teaching as well.​

HankD​

 

Are you claiming that those who were the called out ones did not begin until after Jesus left? Seems to me that Jesus called them out.

How would you explain Eph. 2:20-22?

Eph. 2:20-22, "having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit."

 

HankD, thanks for correcting the reference I missed. There is a reference to the promise of the Comforter in John 14, but the John 20 passage is the one I quoted.

I confess that there are some gaps in my understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in say, Matthew 3, John 14, John 20 and Acts 2.

Maybe one of you can explain to me the difference between the "baptism with" the Holy Spirit and the "filling with" the HS. And why in Acts 2, Luke describes the coming of the HS on the 120--which many describe as the baptism spoken of by John the Baptist and Jesus himself; and then Luke describes them all (in Acts 2:4) as being "filled with" the Holy Spirit.

Further, why does any of this demand that the church couldn't have been formed until Pentecost? To say that the Spirit baptism had not come until then is not convincing to me. The Spirit of God was active during Jesus earthly ministry, starting with Jesus water baptism. The Son of God (The Head of the church) commissioned his disciples, organized them, ordained them, empowered them.

One might argue that one difference is that after the coming of the HS at Pentecost, they spoke in tongues. A logical explanation is that there were a lot of non-Hebrew (or Aramaic)-speaking Jews in Jerusalem. They all heard in their own language. Before that, the mission of the fledgling church was confined to Jews in Israel. No tongues needed.

And to reinforce gb93433's point--How can Jesus be the Chief Cornerstone of something non-existent?

 

Yes, admittedly there are difficuties with sorting out the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Especially in the Book of Acts in the transitioning from the age of law to the age of grace (Old Covenant to New Covenant).

But that must be the way He wants it since He had such an intimate part in the creation of the Scripture. I think these difficulties are meant to be an incentive to us to pursue the Scriptures diligently as we are to live by every word which proceeds out of His mouth.

The difficulties are ours of course and not His.

I'll make a kind of concession and say this about my view of the Church by way of analogy. It's not the best but it seems accurate to me.

I would liken the Church to the building of a ship.

Somewhere in eternity past the original plan was drawn up by the Architect.

The Chief Engineer came to earth with the blueprint and began it's actual construction in the time continuum approximately 2000 years ago.

Acts chapter 2 is the day of it's commissioning. Immediately afterward the passengers begin boarding and are doing so unto this very day.

RE: Baptism of the Holy Spirit vs. "infilling".

In my view I would say that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is what I refered to as the "commissioning" of the Church in which the Church is placed or immersed into the Holy Spirit (a one-time event).

The Infilling of the Spirit has to do with the filling of individual members as they come aboard in the passage of time until He returns and launches us off into eternity.


HankD

 

But Hank, passengers began boarding from the moment Jesus began his earthly ministry. Their names were Peter, Andrew, James, etc. They were doing exactly the same things that churches to today. They had a commission to evangelize the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Then later that commission was expanded to include the world. They had a Pastor (Shepherd), who preached and taught. They had social ministries (like feeding the hungry). They looked and acted like what we call a church. And they were not without power from God.

Regarding the Holy Spirit, when it came on Pentecost, and however we describe the significance, He still came to an existing assembly. In fact, that assembly was in a meeting at the time.

 

However Jesus uses the future tense when He reveals the fact the He will build His church in Matthew 16. Then again He uses the word church (ecclesia) one more time in Matthew 18 for future instructions concerning this future church.

These are the only two times in the Gospels that the word church is used.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me what anyone calls the group/gathering/whatever of Jesus and the 12 apostles along with up to 500 disciples who followed them. As I said it's not a "shibboleth" to me.

However IMO it was not the church per se and not even the fore-runner of the church. They (believers) were still within the bounds of the assembly of redeemed Israel.

In my view the day of pentecost was the day the doors of the church opened (so to speak) and entrance offered to believing Israel and whatever believing proselyte gentiles along with any unbelievers who might have been there to hear and believe the message.

The apostles, disciples and whoever else on that day (3000 all told) that believed were translated from the assembly of redeemed Israel into the church or those who had not previously believed were saved and then added to the church.

Actually pre-pentecost they were not doing what we do today.

They were keeping the Torah (with exceptions here and there).
Such as:
Keeping the kosher diet as witnessed by Peter's testimony in Acts 10.
On many occassions they performed legal duties of the law.
There are several records of them keeping the Jewish feasts.

They were not having the Lord's Supper until the Last Passover.

The Trintarian formula of water baptism commission by Jesus Christ was not instituted until after the resurrection
and therefore not being practised by them.

Admittedly this is a difficult area to analyze in this transitional period.
Admittedly there are areas of similarities and overlapping.

HankD

 

Of course he uses the future tense. The future will start the next day. And we'll just have to disagree about the future church. The instructions were not for a future church, but the church he was building.

I understand your point that the gospels were still Old Testament times, I just disagree with it, and wonder why they were placed in the New Testament canon if that's the case.

I have already listed a lot of things we do as churches today that the disciples were doing pre-Pentecost. If it looks like a duck.....

But before Pentecost

But they were baptizing. Just like today's churches.

On this we are agreed.

 

Good.

I think this is a good place to leave off.
Thank you for your excellent demeanor brother.

HankD

 

And I appreciate the manner in which you vigorously defend your view. You make me work too hard.

 

Thanks Tom, and I do appreciate your points which have given me pause to think.

Hopefully brethren will draw closer together in the sharing of their differing views with a mutual search of the Scriptures.

HankD