Scriptural Discussion - When did the church start?
- Thread starter RAIDER
- Start date
9:00am?
I believe the church was established with Jesus and His disciples and then empowered on the Day of Pentecost.
"praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." Acts 2:47
He didn't start the church on this day, He added to the previously established church.
"praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." Acts 2:47
He didn't start the church on this day, He added to the previously established church.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 8,299
- Reaction score
- 109
- Points
- 63
Citadel of Truth said:
Was the "body of Christ" being added to or the local church? Were these people who were saved from Jerusalem or were they from out of town and at Jerusalem for a special day?
The following is from a blog post (http://concerningjesus.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-founding-of-church.html I wrote on the life of Christ a few months ago:
I freely admit that the vast majority of Christians believe the Church started in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, Peter preached, and 3000 people were saved and baptized. But I also freely admit I'm an independent Baptist and we don't subscribe to what is, at its core, Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Roman Catholic theology insists the Church started in Acts 2, and thus places Peter as the founder of the Church, and as its first pope – which means the Church is universal and invisible, rather than local, visible, and independent; which means that the Church has a human headquarters; which means that said headquarters is in Rome; which means that the Roman Catholic Church becomes the orthodox and traditional expression of New Testament Christianity.
I am not a Catholic. I am an independent Baptist. I do not hold that Peter was the first pope, that the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, and that the Roman Catholic Church is the New Testament church. I do hold that Peter was a sinner, a married sinner coincidentally; that he was not the first pope but merely perhaps the pastor of the church at Rome for a time; that the present pope, Francis II, is not the vicar of Christ but, in the immortal words of Martin Luther, is the vicar of hell; and that the Roman Catholic Church is not the expression of New Testament Christianity but rather the great whore of Revelation which yokes up with the beast and the false prophet shortly before being destroyed in the Tribulation period. And I share the traditional, though out of step, Baptist position that the Church began, not in Acts 2 with Peter's preaching at Pentecost, but rather during the lifetime of Jesus Christ Himself.
Now, besides offending billions of Muslims and Catholics in two succeeding posts, what is my point? Simply this: that Peter didn't start the Church; Jesus did.
What both Catholicism and most of Protestant Christianity misses is the context of the first mention of the church in the Bible. 'And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church' (Matthew 16.18). To assert that there is here some play on words between Peter and rock, and to then point to Acts 2 as the occasion in which Peter became the rock on which the Church is built is to completely ignore when Jesus said it. Just prior to Matthew 16.18 is Peter's great confession of faith in Jesus. 'But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God' (Matthew 16.15-16). The rock upon which Jesus built His church was not Peter, but rather Peter's confession of faith. The fact that Peter happened to preach the message at Pentecost has nothing to do with it.
The truth is that the word church is first found in Matthew 16, not in Acts 2. The truth is that Acts 2 tells us specifically that at Pentecost three thousand believers were saved and baptized, and 'added' to the church (Acts 2.41, 47). In order to be added to something that something had to be in existence prior to that addition. The truth is that two chapters later we find Jesus giving instructions to His Apostles about how to deal with problems amongst the brethren, and He tells them to 'tell it unto the church' (Matthew 18.17). You can't take present problems 14 months forward in time to some future church that is not yet in existence.
No, beloved, Peter didn't found the Church. Jesus did, in the beautiful mountainous region around Caesarea Philippi in the summer before His death.
Doctrine. It's a beautiful thing, isn't it?
I freely admit that the vast majority of Christians believe the Church started in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, Peter preached, and 3000 people were saved and baptized. But I also freely admit I'm an independent Baptist and we don't subscribe to what is, at its core, Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Roman Catholic theology insists the Church started in Acts 2, and thus places Peter as the founder of the Church, and as its first pope – which means the Church is universal and invisible, rather than local, visible, and independent; which means that the Church has a human headquarters; which means that said headquarters is in Rome; which means that the Roman Catholic Church becomes the orthodox and traditional expression of New Testament Christianity.
I am not a Catholic. I am an independent Baptist. I do not hold that Peter was the first pope, that the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, and that the Roman Catholic Church is the New Testament church. I do hold that Peter was a sinner, a married sinner coincidentally; that he was not the first pope but merely perhaps the pastor of the church at Rome for a time; that the present pope, Francis II, is not the vicar of Christ but, in the immortal words of Martin Luther, is the vicar of hell; and that the Roman Catholic Church is not the expression of New Testament Christianity but rather the great whore of Revelation which yokes up with the beast and the false prophet shortly before being destroyed in the Tribulation period. And I share the traditional, though out of step, Baptist position that the Church began, not in Acts 2 with Peter's preaching at Pentecost, but rather during the lifetime of Jesus Christ Himself.
Now, besides offending billions of Muslims and Catholics in two succeeding posts, what is my point? Simply this: that Peter didn't start the Church; Jesus did.
What both Catholicism and most of Protestant Christianity misses is the context of the first mention of the church in the Bible. 'And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church' (Matthew 16.18). To assert that there is here some play on words between Peter and rock, and to then point to Acts 2 as the occasion in which Peter became the rock on which the Church is built is to completely ignore when Jesus said it. Just prior to Matthew 16.18 is Peter's great confession of faith in Jesus. 'But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God' (Matthew 16.15-16). The rock upon which Jesus built His church was not Peter, but rather Peter's confession of faith. The fact that Peter happened to preach the message at Pentecost has nothing to do with it.
The truth is that the word church is first found in Matthew 16, not in Acts 2. The truth is that Acts 2 tells us specifically that at Pentecost three thousand believers were saved and baptized, and 'added' to the church (Acts 2.41, 47). In order to be added to something that something had to be in existence prior to that addition. The truth is that two chapters later we find Jesus giving instructions to His Apostles about how to deal with problems amongst the brethren, and He tells them to 'tell it unto the church' (Matthew 18.17). You can't take present problems 14 months forward in time to some future church that is not yet in existence.
No, beloved, Peter didn't found the Church. Jesus did, in the beautiful mountainous region around Caesarea Philippi in the summer before His death.
Doctrine. It's a beautiful thing, isn't it?
RAIDER said:
Very valid question. I guess I've never stopped to consider if they were all added to the Church at Jerusalem. I definitely do not subscribe to a universal, invisible church philosophy. I'm going to go with, "I'm really not sure I have an answer" at this time.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
[quote author=Tom Brennan]Blah blah blah...You can't take present problems 14 months forward in time to some future church that is not yet in existence.[/quote]
The Great Whore isn't mentioned until Rev 17. You cannot hold to your pre-Trib rapture theology which would say that chapter hasn't even happened yet. You can't take present groups and forward them in time to a point in history that hasn't even happened yet.
Doctrine. It's a beautiful thing, isn't it?
Granted, you explicitly denied the universal church in your post, so you've already abandoned orthodox Christianity and shown that you aren't really all that concerned with what the Bible teaches anyways.
The Great Whore isn't mentioned until Rev 17. You cannot hold to your pre-Trib rapture theology which would say that chapter hasn't even happened yet. You can't take present groups and forward them in time to a point in history that hasn't even happened yet.
Doctrine. It's a beautiful thing, isn't it?
Granted, you explicitly denied the universal church in your post, so you've already abandoned orthodox Christianity and shown that you aren't really all that concerned with what the Bible teaches anyways.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 8,299
- Reaction score
- 109
- Points
- 63
Citadel of Truth said:
These questions were asked to me recently. I also have problems with the "universal church" philosophy as a whole. On the other hand, Christians are all a part of the body of Christ.
This fellow (who is a Baptist) asked me of what church do I believe they became a member. I said the church at Jerusalem. His comment was that the majority of these people were not even from Jerusalem. Interesting thoughts.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 8,299
- Reaction score
- 109
- Points
- 63
rsc2a said:
The Great Whore isn't mentioned until Rev 17. You cannot hold to your pre-Trib rapture theology which would say that chapter hasn't even happened yet. You can't take present groups and forward them in time to a point in history that hasn't even happened yet.
Doctrine. It's a beautiful thing, isn't it?
Granted, you explicitly denied the universal church in your post, so you've already abandoned orthodox Christianity and shown that you aren't really all that concerned with what the Bible teaches anyways.
[/quote]
rsc2a, while I enjoy some of your posts, you have a way of coming off like a real jerk. Is it possible for you to discuss a topic without attacking the person with whom you disagree? Just saying.....
rsc2a said:
-so since the Great Whore isn't mentioned until Rev 17 it doesn't exist until then? By that logic Jesus didn't exist until Matthew chapter one... Not to mention you totally missed the point. The Roman Catholic Church is most definitely NOT the true church. Jesus did not tell them to wait for some invisible, universal church to exist; He said to take it to the church now (the summer before He died)
-...and since I happen to disagree with your position on ecclesiology I am apparently not all that concerned with what the Bible says. Nothing like saying someone who disagrees with you does not care about the Bible. Nope, no arrogance there at all...
RAIDER said:
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
RAIDER said:
rsc2a, while I enjoy some of your posts, you have a way of coming off like a real jerk. Is it possible for you to discuss a topic without attacking the person with whom you disagree? Just saying.....[/quote]
Sure. I can do that. However, not when someone is declaring another believer in Christ to be an active and willing agent of Satan. Might want to have a chat with the guy who said he said out to offend billions of believers simply because he could.
RAIDER said:
No, many of them were not from Jerusalem, I agree. But what you need to remember is that there was only one church at the time - the church Jesus started the summer before which in Acts 1 assembled in the Upper Room. The only church in existence that it was possible to join was that church. Did they stay members of that church when they traveled home to Asia and Libya and Rome? Not for very long. They started churches everywhere they went. That is the whole tenor of the book of Acts. The church rapidly morphed from being singular, albeit localized, to being plural and spread all over the Mediterranean world. But there was only one possibility in Acts 2, so yes, they became members of that church for a short time.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
[quote author=Tom Brennan]so since the Great Whore isn't mentioned until Rev 17 it doesn't exist until then? By that logic Jesus didn't exist until Matthew chapter one...[/quote]
Jesus is mentioned in Genesis 1. :-X
And the Catholic Church has been around for the last 1000 years or so. Seems beyond strange that a major player in the world doesn't show up until the very end of Revelation, especially given the simplistic and strict "literal" understanding Tim LaHaye rapture theology requires. But then, consistency is a pretty good way to make those pretty charts and graphs look wrong.
[quote author=Tom Brennan]Not to mention you totally missed the point. The Roman Catholic Church is most definitely NOT the true church. Jesus did not tell them to wait for some invisible, universal church to exist; He said to take it to the church now (the summer before He died)[/quote]
I didn't miss the point at all. The RCC isn't the "true" church, but there are members of the RCC who are part of the true church...just like the Baptist folks, the Methodist folks, the Orthodox folks, the Pentacostal folks, the...
The Church is the body of Christ, the same body about which Paul declared this is only one. Or do you think Paul was a liar on this point? (I'm not even mentioning the mountains of other places where this is most clearly taught.)
[quote author=Tom Brennan]...and since I happen to disagree with your position on ecclesiology I am apparently not all that concerned with what the Bible says. Nothing like saying someone who disagrees with you does not care about the Bible. Nope, no arrogance there at all...[/quote]
No. You aren't that concerned with what the Bible says because you aren't concerned with what the Bible says. Whether you agree with my position on ecclesiology is completely irrelevant. In fact, there are Tim LaHaye-rapture folks who I think have a great amount of concern for what the Bible says instead of trying to force it into their own preconceived notions.
And arrogance? Oh...I know I have a problem with arrogance. I also do my best to love my neighbors. Granted, nothing says love like calling someone a representative of Satan...
Jesus is mentioned in Genesis 1. :-X
And the Catholic Church has been around for the last 1000 years or so. Seems beyond strange that a major player in the world doesn't show up until the very end of Revelation, especially given the simplistic and strict "literal" understanding Tim LaHaye rapture theology requires. But then, consistency is a pretty good way to make those pretty charts and graphs look wrong.
[quote author=Tom Brennan]Not to mention you totally missed the point. The Roman Catholic Church is most definitely NOT the true church. Jesus did not tell them to wait for some invisible, universal church to exist; He said to take it to the church now (the summer before He died)[/quote]
I didn't miss the point at all. The RCC isn't the "true" church, but there are members of the RCC who are part of the true church...just like the Baptist folks, the Methodist folks, the Orthodox folks, the Pentacostal folks, the...
The Church is the body of Christ, the same body about which Paul declared this is only one. Or do you think Paul was a liar on this point? (I'm not even mentioning the mountains of other places where this is most clearly taught.)
[quote author=Tom Brennan]...and since I happen to disagree with your position on ecclesiology I am apparently not all that concerned with what the Bible says. Nothing like saying someone who disagrees with you does not care about the Bible. Nope, no arrogance there at all...[/quote]
No. You aren't that concerned with what the Bible says because you aren't concerned with what the Bible says. Whether you agree with my position on ecclesiology is completely irrelevant. In fact, there are Tim LaHaye-rapture folks who I think have a great amount of concern for what the Bible says instead of trying to force it into their own preconceived notions.
And arrogance? Oh...I know I have a problem with arrogance. I also do my best to love my neighbors. Granted, nothing says love like calling someone a representative of Satan...
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Tom Brennan said:
Actually, based solely on doctrine, of all the Christian churches out there, the RCC would be the last one I would choose to belong to. When it comes to the weightier matters, you know mercy, love, kindness...many Catholic churches beat many Baptist churches by spades. But go ahead....keep thinking that Schaap et al are closer to Jesus because they happen to believe the right things than Francis. After all Francis seems to harp on that caring for the poor a lot while the former company seems to be more concerned with blaming a child for his sins. Might want to think about this as well...in the NT, the demons had rock solid theology. That doesn't mean they are the ones we should emulate.
IFB X-Files said:
You made me spit out my candy corn!