Do you believe the Church started at Pentecost?

The Church could not start until the atonement had been made. To be part of the body of Christ we have to believe and it is evident that the disciples didn't fully believe until after they had seen the risen Savior. The first one who actually believed the gospel was it's first member. Before the atonement was paid it was no use to believe that He came to die for our sin and and rise again on the thid day. Even most of the disciples didn't believe it until they had seen the Master that He is who He said He is. When ever the first one believed the gospel is when the Church began to take form. That had to be, before Pentacost
MB

 

Young's Literal Translation

Ephesians 1:13 in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth -- the good news of your salvation -- in whom also having believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise,
Galatians 3:16 and to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed; He doth not say, `And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, `And to thy seed,' which is Christ;
Acts 2:32,33 `This Jesus did God raise up, of which we are all witnesses; at the right hand then of God having been exalted -- also the promise of the Holy Spirit having received from the Father -- he was shedding forth this, which now ye see and hear;
Hebrews 12:2 looking to the author and perfecter of faith -- Jesus, who, over-against the joy set before him -- did endure a cross, shame having despised, on the right hand also of the throne of God did sit down;
Galatians 3:14 that to the nations the blessing of Abraham may come in Christ Jesus, that the promise of the Spirit we may receive through the faith.

I think the Greek of Hebrews 12:2 has of the faith. Do not know why Young left the out here.

Based on the above. Who's faith do you think is being spoken of in Galatians 3:14? How did Jesus become the first cause and perfecter of the faith and what does this say about chapter 11 of Hebrews?

Does this have anything to do with the OP and anything to do with the reason why death the gate into hell, the grave shall not prevail (implying some of it has gone there) against it?

 

Tongues of fire on their head.

 

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
I simply ask again, what did the church at Jerusalem have on the day of Pentecost that it did not have before Pentecost.

Aw, you caught me. You're much too slick for me to put one past you.

 

On what scriptural basis do you hold this view? Do you really hold that the twelve were lost (Judas was lost, of course)? Did not Peter's confession that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God, tell us anything?

When Jesus sent out the twelve, they preached the gospel and healed the sick, and saw results. What was that gospel? It was "repent." Preached with power. Before Pentecost. It was the same call to repentance that Peter preached on Pentecost. With power. It was the same call to repentance that Paul preached on Mars Hill. (Mark 6)

When Jesus sent out the seventy, they returned, saying, "even the devils are subject to us." Jesus answered, "...rather, rejoice because your names are written in heaven." (Luke 10) They were believers, bound for heaven. They were empowered. Before Pentecost.

We know there were 120 believers who assembled for ten days, who elected Judas' replacement. A church. A prayer meeting. A business meeting. Before Pentecost.

We know that the eleven fellowshipped with the risen Christ. He told Peter "feed my sheep." He gave them the Great Commission. They were the church. Before Pentecost.

 

I don't know if I will have the necessary time tonight or over the weekend (wife is going on a girls trip and I am watching our 5 children )

But with the above I would state:
1. The indwelling Holy Spirit
2. The baptism of the Holy Spirit
3. A dead, buried, and risen Messiah of which the church is baptised into.
4. The head of the church - becoming such only after the resurrection. (Eph 1:19-23)
5. Spiritual gifts given to every member of the body


I do agree a 'better' argument can be made for after the resurrection, but not prior to it. And yes, one of the main points is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which places us into the body of Christ.

I will address this however from your previous post to me:

Actually, that is not true, just look at my post to SaturnNeptune agian. However I will agree that it is one the main theological points of contestation.

There is no assumption to it brother. It states it both in plain English AND plain Greek.

I think you are leaning to heavily yourself on an assumption here brother.
I will explain better below because it is in relation to your next statement.

No sir, it would make no difference and would in wise change to the meaning to being only the Corinithian Church. I don't even see how you can make such an assumption really.

While Paul is speaking to the Corinithian Church about how the church spiritually opporates, and that all that is done is for the body. Paul then goes deeper to explain who the body is one being but has many parts, AND THEN Paul uses a universal word that includes him (and Paul was not a member of this church) to the baptism of the Holy Spirit placing us ALL into Christ.

Now here is your version - and it is seen also in the ESV:

Note that Paul states 'all' not 'all of them' but 'WE all' which is an inclusive statement of not only them but all others.

This emphasizes Pauls point of being being one body with many parts just as the Church is one body with many parts.

It is the parts that work together with the rest of the others that illistrate a functioning body. If we work by and for ourselves, there is no church for their is no body (which is made up of many to create the whole). The same is true for tangible churches. We, as churches, are many, each having our part and function in fulfilling the cause and purposes of Christ, the head of His body. Only He know what is needful and is coming to a single group and also to the whole. Controlling both at once. Getting people to work in fellowship (in our common language we call it partnership) to create a functioning body, and He does the same to churches. Getting them to work in fellowship/partnership to create a functioning body.

No, even in the Greek this is not an acceptable rendering.
You are adding much to this even if we use the word 'in'. Look at it again:

For in one Spirit..
The word 'in' or 'by' refer to the same action.. being placed into something, and that something is the Spirit, and that Spirit is only - one.


we were all..
Note, the terms 'we' and 'all' are inclusive of more than just the Corinithians at that particular church, as Paul places himself and - all - other believers into the same action being performed. Paul was not a member of this body but was an apostle watching over it and other churches he started and moved on from.

baptized..
The action which was spoken of just previously 'in or by' (both are true) the Holy Spirit. This is what the Holy Spirit is doing.

into one body...
Note again, we were all [everyone].. into one body. Not 'a' body thus seperating the individual churches but into 'one' body regarding all believers.

—Jews or Greeks, slaves* or free...
Here we see Paul being redundant, yet emphasizing his point.. we all.. no one has been left out in relation to 'we all'.


—and all were made to drink of one Spirit
Here again we see Paul shows the inclusiveness of his point regarding the body of Christ, not only physically but spiritually by ending in the same manner in which he began. summarized - One body, one spirit, one baptism, one faith.

Jesus said it and the Greek and English both emphasize the future tense of the creating/building of 'His' Church. Note that He does not state building up or anything that nature showing it already exists. But His wording actaully implies something not yet established and thus to be built.

So there is no stretching my brother, only taking the passage as it is given.

If it is such a stretch brother, why is it that the term for the church is never used again until Acts 5:11 where it states:
"And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard these things." After this you see it used very often.

Otherwise the only other mention of the church in the gospels is that Jesus will build His church. Why is it that Jesus never calls them His Church or convey to the disciples they are His church He is building?

Remember the conversation Jesus had with the disciples in chapter 16.
Who do you say that I am?
Peter - You are the Messiah.
Jesus - Upon this rock (truth) I will build my church.

Did they believe Him to be the Messiah that scripture fortold?
OR..
Did they believe Him to be the Messiah of their preconcieved view of who and what He will do?

IF the later then the faith they had was in a wrong understanding and in order for them to live by faith, teach the word to produce real faith, they had to be right on this issue because it was upon THIS truth (you are the Messiah) that Jesus would build His church. Scripture tells us that none of the disciples believed he would rise from dead, which also means none of them actaully believed He was going to die. He was supposed to be a conquering hero and King. How could He? But Jesus resurrection and coming to them to explain/expound the scriptures and his action and purpose. It was only then they truly believed not what He was - the Messiah (mingled with their own thoughts), but also 'who' He was - The Messiah scripture/God declared Him to be.

No, actually I never knew anything about it :laugh:
I asked my pastor back in college about when the church began,and he stated he did not know (one of many questions I made to pastors they couldn't answer), but he was sure it began in the NT, since church was something new / new man.

Lastly, yes - I am a dispensational - Premil view. Simply meaning I hold to a pretrib rapture prior to the great tribulation. Though would state I am also a closet Historic Premil view (meaning a post or end of Trib rapture) happening before the literal and physical return of Christ to rule for a literal 1000 years.

 

No problem and I understand the above view, I just don't share it is all.
I do agree that He (the Holy Spirit) did come upon and or filled 'some' (actaully very few) but this did not happen to all believers, and even then the Holy Spirit would leave them.

I don't know of an instance in the OT where the Spirit of God indwelt (meaning to take up residence and not leave) a person in the OT.
This is why you see very frequently in the OT, men of God, like King David (a man after God's own heart), asking for God not to take His Spirit from him (to leave or forsake him). Sampson is another example where the Spirit of God came upon him and left him also. King Saul, ect.. ect..

Not just from passages in the OT but from the NT.

The reason He was not yet given is because He is the seal of promise, the earnest/downpayment of His promises to us.

His being given to us is not just to empower or lead but to indwell or take up residence in us .. something that never was previously. This giving of the Holy Spirit by Father is intimately tied to the work Christ had done and is the only reason He could indwell them.

The OT sacrifices did not remove sin it only covered them, according to the book of Hebrews. Can light dwell in darkness, can that which is clean live untouched in that which still bears it's sin, even though it is covered up.. looking forward to that day when Christ will actaully take their sin away?

Jesus came to take our sins away and in so doing bringing us into union with God the Father. This union was only possible through Christ and it is due to this, according to 1 Cor, that we have been given the Spirit of God, because you were purchased and are Gods possesion.

This giving also has the intent of sealing, of which we never hear spoken of till the NT with the giving 'of the Holy Spirit to believers in Christ'.

These are just some of the passages.. now we might disagree but the above is some of the reason I do not hold to OT saints being 'indwelt' (HS taking up residence and never leaving).

 

Allen,
I must say, you have a unique gift of disagreeing with people and still making them feel good. Your posts are well thought out and pleasant. Thanks for that.

 

Allen

I know we disagree about the faith part of my post but I would be interested to know what you think about the coming about of the Spirit from the verses I quoted. You may prefer another translation.

 

Allan, I wonder how detailed your answer to my post would have been if you'd really had some time.:laugh:

Seriously though, thanks for taking the time.

You said the church at Pentecost had the following that it did not have before Pentecost.

My first observation is that the church had a dead, buried and risen Messiah before Pentecost.

My second observation is that requiring the indwelling Spirit and baptism of the Spirit before you can have a church seems to be arbitrary. Did the disciples have power without the indwelling or baptism of the Spirit before Pentecost? Obviously yes. It was power from the Messiah himself. And they were born again believers, regenerated, which is a work of the Holy Spirit. And those regenerated disciples baptized, had the Lord's Supper, evangelized. Sounds like a church to me.

My third observation is that Jesus was head of his church before Pentecost. I've always been intrigued by the inconsistent view that Jesus is head of the church (which is scriptural), which he had nothing to do with establishing.

My fourth observation is that the first members of the fledgling church all had spiritual gifts--before Pentecost. Unless preaching is not a spiritual gift. Now, I'm not sure what spiritual gifts the 120 had in the upper room, but to suggest that they had none is an argument from silence.

 

We can parse the Greek "en" all day long, and reach different conclusions. But I am sticking with my view that I Cor 12:13 does not necessarily refer to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. Such an inference is just that and not supported by the text.

I do find this interesting though. One view is that the Holy Spirit baptized the church into existence. Another view is that the Spirit led believers to water baptism. I'm not a Greek scholar (or even a kindergartner) but didn't Jesus say HE would do the baptizing WITH the Holy Spirit?

Is there no distinction between in, by or with?

I think there is a distinction, and it's not a small thing.

 

I'm not sure what you are wanting me to observe.
THe passage you quote with the Holy Spirit show he was not 'given' untill Christ. - Given in the sense of our possesion, and we, His.

 

Wow.. that is twice today I have been appreciated for being nice.. now watch me fall :laugh:

But in any case .. thank you for being the same.. and therefore easy to be kind and loving toward as well brother.

 

I am talking about God having made a promise to Abraham and his one seed.
Why would this one seed have to have any kind of a promise made to him?
Does that promise to Abraham and the one seed have anything to do with the Father giving to thou art my son this day have I begotten thee the Holy Spirit of promise that he gave to those to whom would not receive it if he did not go away.

In Eph 1:13 Why is it Holy Spirit of the promise?

 

You must have forgotten my 2 to 4 page posts huh?:laugh:

Yes, but not during Christ's earthly preaching and not till he had died, was buried and risen again.

If it was arbitrary brother then there would not be any scriptures equating to my position. Yet, as I have shown this is not the case and in fact there are more scriptures than what I gave.

Yes, so did Judas, a non-believer and thus one who was not saved.
Therefore this power given them was to go in the Jesus authority which Jesus gave to them, and it was upon whomever He chose to give it, irregardless of faith or salvation.

As I just showed this is not actaully truth.
Judas was one of them who was given power as well, to cast out demons, to heal the sick and preach. Thus not all who were empowered were saved, regenerate believers.

They did not evangelize in the sense of preaching the gospel but when to the Jews telling them to repent and return -return to the Jewish practices and their God. There was no good news (gospel) of salvation through Christ, yet.

But I must ask.. If a believes Jesus is the messiah but not that he will rise from the dead. Are they believers? Are they believers/saved (in or under the NT sense) if they do not understand the work of Christ (either will do, or in our case - has done) which saves them?

- FWIW - I do believe they were saved but not in the New Covenant sense but in the Old Covenant sense the New was not until after Christ's resurrection.

The disciples did not understand any of this but even Jesus states - they did not believe.

Yes, He was the head of the church prior to pentacost. He became the head after His ascension - as Eph tells us.

However, I have no idea what you are talking about regarding a view that Jesus did not establish the church. Never heard of it, and can't find any resorces on it such a view.

No, preaching is not a spiritual gift, just as evangelism is not one either.
The offices of pastor, apostle, prophet and evangelist are all gifts to the church (body) not spiritual giftings but 'callings'. Their spiritual gifts allow them function effectively in their callings.

No, it is an argument based upon scripture in which we know it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which places us/them into the body of Christ and thus gives to us/ them spiritual gifts for the building up and profitting of the body.

Now, do we know what spiritual gifts the 120 had and when they recieved them? Yes, we know they had a 'least' one gift (tongues) and they received it at the baptism to was to happen 'not many days hence/from now'.

I enjoy debating this subject with you... is this like the 3rd or 4th time over the last 2 or years :laugh:
Thus far I don't think either of us has changed our minds

 

Site one proves my point in the last portion.. he was with them till they quenched him.

And the second site however seems based on conjecture and postulation using the NT covenent and promises and trying to attach them to the OT believers. One main issue here is that there is no evidence from or in the OT stating they were indwelt, ever, and nothing in the NT tells us they ever were. But it does tell us that the believers in the NT are.

Secondly our spiritual life is not the Holy Spirit as the second site assumes. Jesus came to give us life and life more abundant.
John 17 states this is eternal life (the spiritual life) that we might know the one true God and His Son whom He sent.

However, peace and grace to you brother.
It is a difference of view on a minor subject.

 

First, God does not state "thou art my son this day have I begotten thee the Holy Spirit of promise". But yes, believers did receive Him after Christ went away as promised.

Second, there is no definate article 'the' before promise and thus it simply state the Holy Spirit of promise.

Yet in either case it still establishes my point the Holy Spirit was not given to the OT saints in the sense of indwelling them as this is something that would and could only transpire after the ascension of Christ.