My friend, I have finally gotten time to make my reply. Thanks for your patience. I hope these statements will be understandable. I have found from my e-mail that in some other posts I have evidently not been clear enough. Here goes!
Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
Did believers assemble? Yes. Were they what Christ and Paul called the church? No.
Why were they not what Christ and Paul called the church? Do you consider "an assembly of baptized believers" to even be one aspect of the definition of "church"? Did Christ and Paul never use that meaning of the word "church"?
1. The "church" in Matthew 16 is a prophecy of a future reality.
Even if I were to admit your interpretation, it still would not prove the church was born on the day of Pentecost. There are a number of
future days between Matthew 16 and Acts 2. Neither does this have to be taken in the sense that he is saying, "I will on one day in the future give birth to my church." In fact those words are just as applicable today for a church that is already in existence - "I will build my church."
The "church" in Matthew 18 is an assembly of people. There exists no evidence to assume it was what we use in reference to a N.T. church.
But below you say that "Jesus was giving the principles of church discipline." Where did you get the evidence to assume that it is a principle of church discipline? You can't have it both ways. If it's just for some old assembly of people, how is it a principle of church discipline?
I assume for the other references you are saying that flock is not the same flock, that bride is not the same bride, that house is not the same house, etc.?
2. That is a correct definition of the word. Believers are called out from the world. They also assemble together.
Yes, it is a correct definition of the word. Thank you for that admission. And these believers were called out of the world and assembled together before the day of Pentecost.
3. None of these passages have any bearing on either position. We all affirm that Christ called the disciples.
He not only called them, but also ordained twelve, authorized them and sent them out. Paul said that God set the office of apostle first in the church. When did He set the office in the church, before or after Pentecost? This has no bearing??
4. They had to be instituted before Pentecost because they had to know what they would be doing.
Notice, not only instituted, but also observed. Second, your statement proves nothing that would keep the church from existing before Pentecost.
5. The people that were ready for the Lord are those who welcomed Him (as all Jews should have).
Yes, some welcomed Him. They not only welcomed Him, but they were the baptized disciples of John the Baptist, who, when John pointed Christ out to them, left John and began to follow Christ.
6. The first commission was to Israel only (as you correctly pointed out). The second was given prior to His ascension. If you compare Scripture with Scripture, you will find the charge given in Acts 1. Right before the charge, He told them to wait for the baptism of the Spirit.
The charge is also given in Luke and Mark. Yes, He did tell them to wait for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not to wait for the birth of the church. That baptism would usher in a time of fulfilling the worldwide commission. The waiting did not mean they sat idle or completely inactive. They met together for prayer, worship, and study. But they did not start the commission; they waited on this just as He told them. It is often overlooked that they had the presence of the Spirit during that time before Pentecost - not the baptism, but some kind of receiving of the Spirit (see John 20:22)
7. The Hebrews 2:12 reference is to an assembly of believers. That by itself does not constitute a church though. If you walked into a seminary and sat in a room full of saved people, you would have walked into an assembly of believers. It would not be considered a church though.
Nor would I consider a group of believers who forsook their livelihoods and walked with Jesus daily for around three years to be the same kind of assembly as a group who by assignment of classes happened to be in the same room to study. Matthew 26 is the only scriptural reference of Jesus singing with His assembly. Either Heb. 2:12 refers to this, or it refers to some incident not recorded or explained in the Bible.
8. The last days refer to the time between the first and second coming of Christ.
Yes, and that certainly helps my position more than it does yours. This agrees with the Mark 1:1ff, where he places the beginning with a messenger coming to declare Christ. Certainly the last days start no later than the baptism of Christ. Your position starts the last days at the first coming of Christ and the church age with the day of Pentecost. So to you the two are not equivalent.
9. Jesus was giving the principles of church discipline. Just who would the disciples have been disciplining? They followed Christ everywhere and He never stayed in one town/city. Who were these members of this church?
Here you say this is the principle of church discipline, but above you say, "There exists no evidence to assume it was what we use in reference to a N.T. church." Which is it?
10. This was not a business meeting. It was a brash attempt by Peter to settle the issue of the twelfth disciple. God's pick was Paul awhile later.
Call it what you like, but Peter, in a body that was in one accord and one place both before and after his "brash attempt," led the church in an act what would fulfill O. T. prophecy. There is no condemnation here of Peter's act, and shortly after God pours out his Spirit on him (and the others, of course) and he preaches the great Pentecost sermon. Paul never claimed to have taken Judas' (nor Matthias') apostleship. He had his own calling as the apostle to the Gentiles. Also, the inspired Scriptures make several references to
the twelve which obviously do not include Paul. Are they wrong?
11. The Lord added 3,000 to the 120 members who were baptized when the Spirit first came. Remember, they were indwelt and then after Peter's preaching did the people get saved.
I'm not sure how the fact that the Lord added 3000 to the 120 (who existed before Pentecost) contradicts my position??? I should also explain that I do not understand the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of the Holy Spirit of the day of Pentecost as being the same thing. Peter equates the events at Cornelius' house as corresponding to what happened on the day of Pentecost, implying that such was not the case every time someone professed Christ.
12. Actually, according to 1 Cor. 1 and Eph. 4, Christ had to die, rise, and ascend before He was head of the church. So the Christ's church did not begin until after His resurrection.
What you have is not a necessary extension of logic when one is dealing with an eternal God. His headship of the church could be based on His death, burial, and resurrection and still exist in time before it. He is eternal King, Prince, Son, Head, Husband, etc.. Even in one of the references you give, Eph. 4, where Paul is talking of Christ's resurrection and giving of gifts, he mentions at least one gift that was definitely given before His resurrection (and before Pentecost) - the apostles (4:11). I would liken your position to believing (which you may) that Old Testament saints were not "saved" until Christ died, even though He stood a Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth.
13. Nothing in Scripture indicates the church was started before Pentecost.
Verses that speak of its existence before that time are hardly nothing!
Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
I am saying that on the day of Pentecost, the Spirit came and did something that had never been done before and united all believers into one body, namely Christ's.
But what Christ said was that the Spirit would come and endue them with power from on high for the fulfilling of the task to which He had called them (cf. Acts 1:5-8; Luke 24:46-49).
