The Beginning of the Church (Matthew 16:18)

This statement indicates that Jesus' sacrifice for the church was in the past; it does not indicate that the church was in the past.

 

The Scripture clearly states, "Husbands love ( present ) - Christ loved ( past ) - and gave ( past )" - obviously to the Church that was already in existence.

 

You are entitled to be wrong just as everyone else on this Forum. This time you are!

 

Joan

Thanks for your posts. As many times as I have read that Scripture I never saw it as you have explained. Very good. I believe that the statement in the Baptist Faith and Message is consistent with your interpretation.

The New Testament speaks also of the Church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

 

It is not obvious at all. Apart from Christ's love the church could never have existed.

BTW, the thread topic is "when did the church begin". Do you have an opinion as to when it began?

 

Since the Church as the Body of Christ includes all the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation; it began on earth with the redemption of the first sinner.

 

Old Regular, I'm assuming that you are baptist (sorry, could've checked your profile before I typed this, but I didn't). Most baptist churches hold to two offices: pastor and deacon. If the first person who got saved constituted the church, when did pastors and deacons come about?

And... since most baptist churches hold to two ordinances: baptism and communion, when did these come about?

And, since the scriptures say "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst", wouldn't you have to have had at least three people on earth who were saved before you could have had a church? I mean, it seems you would have to have three so that "two or three" would even be a possibility.

 

A couple of thoughts about that. One, in a sense the disciples did have the Holy Spirit before Pentecost. John 20 relates that Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit." This was post-resurrection, pre-Pentecost.

Second, Jesus indicated the the Holy Spirit's coming was to succeed him as administrator of the church, by indwelling every believer (in a way in which Jesus, as a human being, did not). That's why he told them to wait, after he ascended, for his promise of the coming power of the HS.

 

You are confusing the church in its New Testament form with the church in its Old Testament form. Furthermore you are confusing the local body of believers with the Universal Church, the total number of the redeemed and the Bride of Jesus Christ. If the Church consists of the redeemed of all time then the first person redeemed would be in that Universal Church. I assume those were Adam and Eve, that would make two, but I could be wrong. Good enough?

Also I would add that, first and foremost, the Church includes all the elect, those chosen by God before the foundation of the world to salvation in Jesus Christ.

 

The NT church began in Acts 2:4

1. Brown: What until Pentecost, the decisive date for the universal church, was the privilege of only a few individuals, is from that day forward the most important characteristic of the Jewish and subsequently (cf. Acts 10) the Gentile church (NIDNTT 1:739, Fullness).
2. Kittel: Concerning Acts 2:4, "This event is regarded by Luke as the birthday of the church" (TDNT 6:50, pentekoste).


In John 20:22 Christ was speaking prophetically.
1. The present tense is used prophetically for their mission began at Pentecost because they were told not to depart Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit descended on them at this time. Luke 24:49 is also in the present tense but is referring to a future reality.
2. "...it was symbolic of the Holy Spirit about to be sent in the world, and with the effect of their ministry of the gospel in the forgiveness of sins by the Spirit's power, or the retention of sins by the rejection of the message (vv. 23, 24). It was a prophetic act as well as symbolic (John: His Record of Christ, W.E. Vine, London: Oliphants, 1948, page 183).

What was lacking before Acts 2:4 was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They still resorted to the Old Covenant practice of casting lots (Acts 1:26 cf. Proverbs 16:33) before Matthias was chosen as an apostle before they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Butler
The BF&M is mistaken. Redeemed of all ages, from every tribe, and tongue and people and nation are the "kingdom."

I figured this would hit somebody's hot button, and I'm surprised that you're the only one so far.

Let me go even further. Not only is the BF&M mistaken, the Bible knows nothing of a universal, invisible church. The majority of references are to local congregations. Other references are in a generic or institutional sense, in the same way we speak of "the family." It's easy to see when it is done. And we also know that when we speak of "the family" in an institutional sense, such as the breakdown of the family, that only real, visible families can break down.

The Universal Church, were it to exist, is a useless, dysfunctional entity. It has never sent a missionary, never had a worship service, never gave a dime or ever had a meeting. It is fractured, and some of its members are affiliated with groups which teach false doctrine and heresy.

Only local churches are uniquely able to carry out the Great Commission, preach the gospel, witness to the lost, send missionaries, teach new disciples, have fellowship, observe the ordinances.

All those things, by the way, the first church was already doing during Jesus earthly ministry, before Pentecost. Except that it did not venture beyond Israel's borders. That didn't happen until God forced them out of the country because of persecution.

 

You did not hit my hot button. You are just wrong, period.

I am not surprised though perhaps I should be that you are more learned than all the folks in the Southern Baptist convention who adopted this definition. Actually given there are so many dispensationalists in the SBC I am surprised that it was adopted, but the Holy Spirit prevailed and it was.

You are wrong again.

What does Scripture mean when it speaks of the Bride of Jesus Christ? Is each of the local churches a Bride of Jesus Christ? Is Jesus Christ a polygamist?

What does Scripture mean when it states in Revelation 21:2? And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And in Revelation 21:10? And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

What does Scripture mean when it states in Ephesians 2:18-22?

18. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

What does Scripture mean when it states in Hebrews 11:8-10?

8. By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10. For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

In each of the above Scripture the reference is to the total body of the redeemed!

What does Scripture mean when it states in Acts 2:47?
47. Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Now who adds to the local church? The congregation or elders or whoever the ruling body is adds to the local church, and depending on the church even newborn infants. Are all members of a local church saved? No! Yet this Scripture states that the Lord added to the Church such as should be saved. That Church is the Bride of Jesus Christ, the New Jerusalem, the city whose builder and maker is God.

You are contradicting yourself. You say there is no universal Church and then say it is fractured ----- . How can something that does not exist be fractured? Besides I would say that a large portion of local churches teach false doctrine, some teach heresy.

The fact is that all the redeemed of all time constitute one body, one Bride of Jesus Christ, regardless of what age they lived or which local congregation they are associated with.

You are partially correct here. However the SBC sends out missionaries, not the local churches.

I won't differ with you here. The churches in Judea were disobedient to the commands of Jesus Christ so He used persuasion.

 

Your bolded line suggests to me that I did touch a nerve. Actually, the fact that a large majority of Southern Baptists hold to dispensationalism may be the reason that the SBC adopted the universal church position. The "Church" is essential to dispensationalism. The BF&M reflects a consensus of beliefs I support 99.9% of the BF&M.

There will come a day when all believers will be one, because they all will know the truth. It is in heaven. The passage you described is it. One church. All believers. But not until then.

This is the generic or institutional sense I mentioned. Apply it to each local congregation and it fits perfectly.

What does Scripture mean when it states in Hebrews 11:8-10?

8. By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10. For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.[/quote]

I know you speak of the church in the OT. I disagree. I don't see a church here.

I

Generic, institutional, prospective.

The Lord added to the only church in existence--the one at Jerusalem. The principle is true of every succeeding localo congregation. The Lord adds to it.

Every church has a mechanism by which it receives members. But all would confess that it is God's work.

We will see the fullest expression of the Bride analogy at the great General Assembly, and the Marriage Supper in heaven. And yes, each local New Testament congregation may rightfully call itself the Bride.

No contradiction. I said WERE IT TO EXIST, as you describe it, here is what it would look like. Fractured, disfunctional, etc. Sorry if I wasn't clear about what I meant.

 

The idea that the Church started at Pentecost is silly. All through the LXX, God refers to His "ekklesia".

When Jesus said that He would "Build" His Church, He did not mean He would "start" His church.
First, the word "Build" here, can simply mean to repair, or increase (Thayers:G3618).

Tell me, if I say "By these dumbells, I am going to build my muscles". Does that mean that my muscles do not already exist?

Act 7:37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, 'God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.'
Act 7:38 This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us.


That word "congregation" is the word "ekklesia", or Church. Moses was in the Church.

 

My previous post, #33, was getting a little long, so let me flesh out my view a bit more here.

I think we would all agree that there may be saved people in churches which teach error, or even heresy. I believe there are saved Catholics. for instance. So the so-called Universal Church (again, if it were to exist) includes some RCs, some Pentecostals, maybe even a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon.

How fractured is that?

Now, may I ask, for what purpose does the "Universal Church" exist? What, specifically justifies its existence? We all know what the purpose of the local congregation is. We all can see the evidence before us. Local congregations worship, fellowship, preach, evangelize, teach, and on an on. What does the Universal Church do?

Now there is such a group which involves all true believers. It's called the kingdom. All believers are subjects of the King.

And a little clarification here:

Actually, local churches are the heart of the SBC. Without them there is no SBC. Representatives of local churches meet each year to set policy, budgets, elect agency trustees. The boards which select the leaders of every SBC agency are elected by representatives of local churches. Every trustee, every leader must be an active member of a local church.

To say that the SBC, not local churches, sends out missionaries is not wrong, but it's an incomplete statement that needs perspective. Happy to oblige.

 

Several points that seem clear from Scripture.

1. The church is distinct from the kingdom. The church is already here; the kingdom is yet to come (2 Tim 4:1; with all the plethora of OT and NT teaching that defines the kingdom in such a way that it is obviously not present now, at the very least in its fullest form).

2. The church is both local and universal. The "local church only" idea has no basis in Scripture. There is clearly a relationship between various churches that make up the universal or invisible church. The Bible says that Jesus "gave himself for his church" (Eph 5), not for his churches, and not for some undefinable or generic entity. All believers of this age are a part of the body of which Christ is the head.

3. The church started at Pentecost. 1 Cor 12:13 clearly says that the body is formed by Spirit baptism which is still future in the gospels (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8), and occurs in Acts 2 at Pentecost. This alone should settle the matter. The appeal to the use of ekklesia in the LXX is meaningless since the word is used elsewhere as well. No one pretends that a word has one and only one usage, and that it only ever means the same thing. Almost all words have a semantic domain, a variety of usages that must be determined by context. The OT ekklesia is an assembly of God's people. But the NT clearly distinguishes the OT assembly from the NT church (cf. Gal 6:16; Rom 9-11; etc).

There is a lot of "theologizing" that goes on that does not fully reckon with Scripture.

 

I would say that this group would be more properly named "Israel". We are "called by" Israel's name, according to Paul. The "Kingdom", involves more than just the people of God: it involves all of Christ's sovereignty. But I guess I can see your point, though I don't exactly agree with it.

The "Body of Christ" and "Israel" are general terms, referring to all believers, while the word "Church" (assembly) is simply a portion of that body gathered together in one place. Anywhere where born again people gather together is the "assembly", not necessarily a brick building with Deacons, Pastors, etc. Conferences, such as T4G, Shepherds conference, etc., are the "assembly" (Church), even though they might be people from different denominations.

"Assembly" just means to be gathered together. This is why Jesus said where "Two or more"...

 

I am not aware of any place where Paul calls the church "Israel."

Actually "Israel" is used frequently for unbelievers such as in Rom 9-11.

No. The Biblical marks of a church (such as the practice of ordinances, biblical organization, discipline, etc) are not present at these conferences. The churhc is not simply a gathering. A church is a particular type of gathering ... baptized believers who rightly preach the gospel, rightly observe the ordinances, and rightly order the church.

 

I am going to address this one question. Anyone who has read Romans, knows this is incorrect.


Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel

To DISTINCT Israel's here. One is the "True" Israel, and the other is the "Israel according to the flesh". Two different bodies, although some of the second, belong to the first as well.

Rom 9:7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring,


Not everyone that is a part of this "True Israel", is part of it because they are physically descended from Abraham.

but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."


Everyone that is part of this "true Israel", is named according to Isaac's offspring, namely, Jacob (Israel).

Rom 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.


So, the group "True Israel" is not according to fleshly descent. Instead the Group "Children of the Promise" are COUNTED as offspring. This is the same word used for "counted as Righteous", used in other places. Why do we need to be "counted as" righteous? Because we are not actually righteous. Why do we need to be "counted as" offspring (Part of True Israel)? Because we are not, actually, offspring (Israel according to the Flesh).

Who are these "Children of the Promise"?

Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.


This is CRYSTAL clear. We ARE ISRAEL, along with those faithful Israelites (native born, as well as circumcised in) from ages past.

 

Old Regular said

So, let me get this strait, OR. There is one church. This church has existed since the very first person was redeemed, i.e. Adam. Yet, now you inform us that this one church that continues the same without distinction from the beginning of salvation history has two forms--and OT form and a NT form. Thanks for clearing that up. BTW, when did the NT form of the church begin?

Pastor Larry said

Point taken. I have "theologized" by making an analogy between birth and conception for a human and for the church. For me, this theologizing is an attempt on my part to explain what I believe in a cogent way. However, the illustration is not from the scripture, so it is not authoritative. An illustration serves to illustrate, but it does not serve as a proof.