The beginning of the church in light of baptist bridism

Jesus told his followers to "tell it to the church."

Oh, so Jesus had this group preachers who He had instructed to baptize new converts to the group, but they weren't a church. Again I ask, how am I supposed to respond to such reasoning?

Jesus took His supper with His disciples therefore they had the ordinance; that is the significance of this. Something else they did that night was went out and and sang a hymn, as it was prophesied of Christ,

"In the midst of the churchwill I sing praise unto thee."

In which "church" - congregation - did Christ sing praise to God? Was it the congregation of Israel? No, for they rejected Him. It was in the midst of that little baptized assembly with whom He had just observed His first supper!

It doesn't make any difference if Paul is talking about priority or chronology; the fact remains that the apostles were set "in the church." You say there were not gifts given until after the resurrection. This is simply not so. The apostles, as well as others, were already gifted with powers of exoricism and healing. What happened on Pentecost is that these gifts were distributed abroad in the church.

No, I was not joking. Christ told them what to do. The only thing that stops you from believing that He meant for them to do it before the Pentecost is your preconceived notion that the church did not exist prior to that time.

Are you saying Christ did not choose Judas to be an officer in the church? If so, then you need to tell us in which institution Judas was an officer? I mistakenly said that Peter used the term "office." Actually, the term "office" is used in the Psalm and Peter interpreted that to mean "bishoprick" - which in modern English means "overseer."

So I ask again, in which institution was Judas - along with the other apostles - made an officer, bishop, or overseer?

The apostles had already been commissioned to baptized as I have previously proven. The only thing new about the "great commission" is that it broadened the scope of their ministry to the ends of the world. Both this commission and the Lord's supper were given before the day of Pentecost.

So I don't see anything here to support your contention that the church did not begin till Pentecost. I state again, and have throughly prove, that before Pentecost we have a church with:

officers
common treasury
baptism
communion
discipline (which also entails membership)
commission

Sounds like a New Testament church to me.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Daniel David,

I don't have time to answer your post in full right now; but while you are waiting for my response, I'd still like to have an answer to my question: in which institution was Judas ordained to the office of "bishop" or "overseer"?

Since Judas held the office of overseer by virtue of his ordination as an apostle, so were all the other apostles overseers. In which institution were they overseers?

Mark Osgatharp

 

So what is your point? I did not say that Christ laid hands on the apostles; I said he ordained them, which means to appoint them to an offical position; to set them apart. As it is written in Mark,

"And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach."

I have been laboring under the assumption (apparently a false assumption) that you actually knew something about the subject at hand. Here is what the book of Acts actually says about it.

"For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."

Mark Osgatharp

 

So I ask again, what is your point? I am not arguing for the use of the term "bishoprick." I am arguing that Judas held an office which the New Testament calls an "overseer." But you said,

I think Peter acted rightly in leading the church to ordain an overseer to take the place of Judas. They did not leave Jerusalem to do that and the fact that Mathias isn't discussed anymore proves no more than the fact that most of the other apostles were not mentioned any more.

If you cast doubt on the propriety of Peter's actions in this case you cast doubt on every thing he did that isn't explicitly said to be in error. You thus assume to know more about it than Peter did, because Peter was under the distinct impression that it was their duty to choose a replacement for Mathias.

Notwithstanding, even if Peter did act without authority in this case, it does not change the fact that the Psalm explicitly says Judas held an office, which office the New Testament identifies as "overseer." Furthermore, we know this to be the same office held by the other apostles.

So my question remains: in which institution did the apostles hold the office of overseer?

Mark Osgatharp

 

So you say, but you have not proven it with any Scripture. I say the church was marked off by water baptism and empowered by Spirit baptism on the day of Pentecost. Such is the obvious implication of the words of John the Baptist:

"I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."

"Obviously" you say? But Jesus said,

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

So what makes you think He didn't intend for them to practice that when He commanded it, save your preconceived idea that the church wasn't born till Pentecost?

As you point out in your next statment, "church" means "assembly." So we all admit that Jesus had a baptized assembly prior to Pentecost. That ought to settle the question. The only thing new at Pentecost was the empowerment of the Holy Spirit - that doesn't mean the church was born that day, it means the church was empowered that day. To use your words, "How hard is that?"

I know the difference between the New Testament assembly and the Old Testament assembly. That is why I asked the question which you did not answer: in which assembly did Jesus sing? The assembly of Israel or the New Testament assembly - which we commonly call "the church"?

Yes, Christ gave gifts to men when He ascended up on high. That does not mean He didn't give any gifts before He ascended up on high.

You do believe that Jesus gave the gifts of healing and exorcism to the apostles, don't you?

But the office of apostle, the ordinance of baptism and the Lord's supper, the bag held by Judas, the discipline commanded by Christ, and the great commission were not features of the nation of Israel. So I ask, in which institution did these things exist? If not Israel and if not the New Testament church, then what?

Mark Osgatharp

 

DD from middle earth, I think I'm confused now. It appeared that you were arguing that Judas held no office, but now you are saying that the Lord chose Paul to fill his office?? We all know what office Paul held. If you claim Paul filled Judas' office, are you now admitting that Judas was an apostle?

 

You are right on two counts: this is going nowhere and I will continue to say it is just preconceived ideas.

The only Scripture you have given that might be construed to mean that the church would be established after Christ's personal ministry is when He said "I will build my church." But when we consider that the word "build" means to edify it is clear that Christ was talking about the church that already existed. He was simply telling Peter that He would edify, or build up, the church on Himself.

If you argue that to "build" means to start or establish, then you must ignore the Scriptures which state that Christ continues to "build" His churches, both in numbers and in spirituality.

You said,

But Peter said,

"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of the resurrection."

Now who am I to believe, you or Peter?

Since I have said enough about this subject to convince any unbiased mind, I have nothing else to say about.

Mark Osgatharp

 

DD, I'm glad you're keeping me/us apprised of how handily you're winning the "debate", since I certainly wouldn't know it if you didn't tell me.

Your position or desire to argue seems to have caused you to take some unusual positions (if I'm understanding you correctly) - that Christ didn't appoint Judas as an apostle, that Christ didn't give gifts until after the resurrection (and then admit He did, but think that if they were for one mission it doesn't contradict what you first said), that we can pick and choose to believe whatever parts we wish to believe concerning Peter's actions in Acts ch. 1, and that by giving 5 definitions for build you prove the only possibility of the origin of the church is on Pentecost - to hoot at bethelassoc's mention that the Holy Spirit was received in some way before Pentecost according to John 20:22, and to incorrectly imply that believing the church started before Pentecost is a result of believing in a Baptist Bride.

 

I know I said I was through with this one, but I can't pass this by: are you saying that they DIDN'T have a business meeting? If they didn't then the term "business meeting" has not meaning whatsoever!

And what this has to do with "Baptist bridism" I cannot discern. Yes, we Baptist briders believe the church started before Pentecost because the Bible teaches it; but neither one necessarily depends on the other.

Roman Catholics, for example, believe in a sort of "baptist bridism" but they also believe the church started on Pentecost. Does that mean we can now accuse you of being half Roman Catholic? The church of God of Prophecy correctly believes the church started during Christ's personal ministry but that it later died out and was re-established by Mr. Tomlinson in the early 20th century. But they believe all the saved will be in the bride. Does that mean you are half Holy Roller? You said,

Simon the sorcerer was still lost? The word of God says, "Simon himself believed also; and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip."

And you interpret this to mean that Simon was an unbeliever? I think we are seeing a patter here that you just make the Bible say whatever you want it to say.

Oh no! LOL!

Mark Osgatharp

 

Daniel David's comment:

No, I don't. I don't know what that has to do with this discussion.

And yes, I've read your comments about it. Alot of assuming.

Oh, and I'm neither BB nor Landmark, if that matters.

 

Luke 6:13-16 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

Matthew 10:1ff, for example, is not about the 70, and, though it is associated with the limited commission, is not about a one-time mission trip: And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses...

The seventy is another case - Luke 10, e.g. The language implies more than a one-time trip. BTW, I believe the idea of Matt. 17 is that it was the remaining 9 of the 12 who could not cast out the demon rather than the 70.

To say Peter got it wrong is to also say Luke got it wrong. Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: Acts 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Should we believe that God just kept inspiring Luke to call Matthias one of the 12 when he wasn't?

Even if one were to admit that the use here could only mean future AND something not yet begun, it would fall short of proving that the church started on Pentecost, seeing there were a lot of future times between Matthew 16 and Acts 2.

Could it be that Peter could discern the sorcerer but not concerning Matthias and scripture fulfillment? I doubt it.

But ultimately, regardless of what we think about this passage (and I agree it is somewhat hard), Jesus did not say "receive the ability to", but "receive the Holy Ghost". John 20:22.

I suppose all Landmarkers believe the church was started before Pentecost, but those beliefs are not inseparable. One does not have to be either a landmarker or a baptist brider to believe the church was started before Pentecost. I suspect that Baptists have been greatly influenced by dispensationalists and other Prostestant groups (and C. I. Scofield's Bible especially) to leave the church before Pentecost idea for the church born on Pentecost idea. I haven't surveyed it historically, but I suspect that is what one would find.

Using "guilt by association" terminology does nothing to strengthen your case. Was this thread intended to be about baptist bridism or when the church started? Whether the church began on or before Pentecost is not part of baptist bridism.