When did the first chuch come along? also questions on salvation.

[mattbballman19]

Don't know much about this subject. I'm must attempting to get something going.

The ekklesia is the church. If the church had already started when Jesus and his disciples decided to get together, why did Jesus tell Peter that (Matthew 16:18) upon this rock I will build my church. If the church had already begun from a social perspective, why did Jesus say I will build instead of I have built, or something else relating the past with the past?


The bible is absolutely clear that good works will not save a person from hell. But the bible is clear that certain steps are needed if a person is to be saved. Believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is necessary, but if a person believes, there are other things he must do.

If Acts 2:38 doesn't mean exactly what it says then why is it in the Bible? Can we leave out certain portions of scripture if we don't know exactly what they mean right away? Faith does save. It takes faith to know that there is a truck heading for a direct impact with you, but it also takes a little action to prevent the collision. Faith is a necessity, but since it was commanded, isn't baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues and repentance considered necessities as well? A person can't ignore commandments.



Also I found this...

Acts 10:44-48

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.



Here is says that Peter knew that these men, the gentiles, had received the Holy Ghost for vs. 47...they received the Holy Ghost as well as we.



Then later we see Peter talking to his pals about the experience. Because, prior to this, the gift of the Holy Ghost had not been given to the gentiles, and it truly was an experience.



Acts 11:15

And as I began to speak the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us in the beginning.



This to me is so awesome. It confirms to me what the Holy Ghost is. It is God's spirit dwelling inside of us! But that is the proof, the evidence, because Peter himself said it was proof, just as it had on us in the beginning.


How is tongues based on works? If it was a commandment I hardly consider it works. Jesus himself said in Luke 24:49...

49. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from oh high.



Jesus told them about the comming promise of the Father, which would be power. The Holy Ghost is power, but here it is re-enforced...

Acts 1:33 Therefore being exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.



Again promise is mentioned in reference wtih the Holy Ghost.



Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.



Isn't it so cool to know we have power? That power is given to us, but the only times in scripture that I have found concerning people receiving this "power" was when they received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Please correct me if I am wrong, because maybe I haven't read it yet, or God hasn't opened my understanding, I don't know. I am praying about this, and I hope you are too. God bless

matt

[Hitch]

03-10-2003 @ 07:05 PM
mattbballman19:

Don't know much about this subject. I'm must attempting to get something going.

The ekklesia is the church. If the church had already started when Jesus and his disciples decided to get together, why did Jesus tell Peter that (Matthew 16:18) upon this rock I will build my church. If the church had already begun from a social perspective, why did Jesus say I will build instead of I have built, or something else relating the past with the past? Ya think Jesus might have been alluding to the foundational nature of his earth;y work and that of the original disciples?


The bible is absolutely clear that good works will not save a person from hell. But the bible is clear that certain steps are needed if a person is to be saved. Believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is necessary, but if a person believes, there are other things he must do.

If Acts 2:38 doesn't mean exactly what it says then why is it in the Bible? Can we leave out certain portions of scripture if we don't know exactly what they mean right away? Faith does save. It takes faith to know that there is a truck heading for a direct impact with you, but it also takes a little action to prevent the collision. Faith is a necessity, but since it was commanded, isn't baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues and repentance considered necessities as well? A person can't ignore commandments.{{ Niether can a person ignore what Jesus said and when he spoke to a particular issue that fact alone is enough to show that his definition description or explanation is foremost and should set the statndard for any and all further comments . So when Jesus says 'he that believes has eternal life' that is the primary text to which all others must conform.



Also I found this...

Acts 10:44-48

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.



Here is says that Peter knew that these men, the gentiles, had received the Holy Ghost for vs. 47...they received the Holy Ghost as well as we.



Then later we see Peter talking to his pals about the experience. Because, prior to this, the gift of the Holy Ghost had not been given to the gentiles, and it truly was an experience.



Acts 11:15

And as I began to speak the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us in the beginning.



This to me is so awesome. It confirms to me what the Holy Ghost is. It is God's spirit dwelling inside of us! But that is the proof, the evidence, because Peter himself said it was proof, just as it had on us in the beginning.


How is tongues based on works? If it was a commandment I hardly consider it works. Jesus himself said in Luke 24:49...

49. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from oh high.



Jesus told them about the comming promise of the Father, which would be power. The Holy Ghost is power, but here it is re-enforced...

Acts 1:33 Therefore being exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.



Again promise is mentioned in reference wtih the Holy Ghost.

Being filled with the Holy Spirit need not be confirmed , evidenced etc with speaking in tongues . If you dont believe me take a quick look at the first chapter or two of Luke. You will notice examples of being 'filled with the Spirit' and no mention of tongues.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.



Isn't it so cool to know we have power? That power is given to us, but the only times in scripture that I have found concerning people receiving this "power" was when they received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Please correct me if I am wrong, because maybe I haven't read it yet, or God hasn't opened my understanding, I don't know. I am praying about this, and I hope you are too. God bless

matt I cant think of a healing or some demonstration of the supernatural recorded in Scripture, outside of Acts 2 that is preceeded by speaking in tongues. But I havent looked very hard.

[joelkaki]

Don't know much about this subject. I'm must attempting to get something going.

The ekklesia is the church. If the church had already started when Jesus and his disciples decided to get together, why did Jesus tell Peter that (Matthew 16:18) upon this rock I will build my church. If the church had already begun from a social perspective, why did Jesus say I will build instead of I have built, or something else relating the past with the past?

I will attempt to answer a little bit here.
There are basically two definitions for the church:
1. The invisible church--those who have saved by God through the blood of Christ through all ages.
2. The visible church--the outward form of the invisible church we see, or, in other words, the professing body of believers.

The invisible church has existed throughout all ages. It is called invisible because it includes those who are truly saved. We do not know who is truly saved because we can't read hearts, but God can, and so only He knows who every member of the invisible church is. The visible church is the body of people that we see who profess faith in Christ, some of whom are actually saved, and some aren't. The invisible church has never changed. It, throughout all the centuries, has been made up of people saved by the blood of Christ, the Seed of the Woman. The invisible church has changed, however. In the OT, the visible manifestation of the church was in the nation of Israel. That was the visible, professing body of God's people. Not all were saved; but the visible body was seen as the church in the OT (look at Acts 7:38--church in the wilderness).
However, when we get to the New Testament, the picture is somewhat different. The nation of Israel, the outward form of the church, was typological--a foreshadowing--of the universal, non-political church of God to come in the NT. The nation of Israel responded to the coming of Christ in mass unbelief, and thus the kingdom of God was taken away from them. (Matthew 21:43). The NT visible form of God's people is called the church. It is inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles. Inclusion in the church is still by salvation through the blood of Christ--the only thing changed is the outward manifestation of the body of God's people.
Now for some Scripture proof of what I have just said. Romans 11 clearly demonstrates this:

17 ¶ And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

So there is this olive tree of God's people. The context is clearly talking about the nation of Israel. Israel was visible body of God's people in the past, but because of unbelief, the mass body of the nation was broken off of the olive tree. However, the Gentiles are not made part of a different body than the Jews were. It is the same olive tree. The believing Gentiles are grafted into the olive tree of God's people. There is not a new olive tree called the church. The Gentiles are grafted into this same olive tree, this same church existing throughout all ages.


18 boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear:

21 for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

The Jews who believe are grafted back into the olive tree as well. So the visible manifestation of the body has changed, for no longer is it the nation of Israel. It is what we call the church, including both Jews and Gentiles. Believing Jews are grafted into this body. So there is this one body of God's people, God's church, throughout all ages, but the outward manifestation of it has changed from the OT to the NT.

Now to the specifics of your question regarding Matthew 16:18. Jesus said, "On this Rock I will build my church." The question remains then, what is the Rock on which the church is built? Ephesians 2:19-20

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens 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;

Jesus is the cornestone on which the church, the household of God is built. Now you may say, "Hold it. If Jesus said I WILL [future tense] build my church, then how could it have already existed?" As I said before, the outward manifestation of the body of God's people which we call the Church was not yet there at the time of Christ. So there was this sense in which it was yet a future building. But I believe the explanation goes much deeper as well. Let me explain...
We know from Hebrews 11:39-40 that those who believed God in the OT were saved--not made perfect apart from us. Now how could this happen if Christ had not yet come? It was on the basis of their faith in the coming of the future Messiah. While we look back to Christ, they looked ahead. (John 8:56--Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day.) So they were included in the yet future salvation. Now let's look at 1 Corinthians 10:4

4 and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Speaking of those accompanying Moses in the OT, Paul tells us that they drank of the spiritual ROCK which followed them, the Rock being Christ. So Christ was yet future, yet they "drank into Him." Now remember Matthew 16:18--"On this ROCK I will build my church." They drank of the Rock on which the church is built. So Christ was yet future, and in some sense the church was also yet future because Christ the cornerstone of it had not yet come, and they drank into Him. So they drank into Christ's body, the church, for they drank into Him, the Rock on which the Church is built.

If you have any more questions, please ask, and I will do my best on this issue. If I have time, I will address your other questions already stated as well.

Joel

[mattbballman19]

03-10-2003 @ 07:54 PM
Hitch:

Ya think Jesus might have been alluding to the foundational nature of his earth;y work and that of the original disciples?


Maybe. Why would you think so?


Niether can a person ignore what Jesus said and when he spoke to a particular issue that fact alone is enough to show that his definition description or explanation is foremost and should set the statndard for any and all further comments . So when Jesus says 'he that believes has eternal life' that is the primary text to which all others must conform.

That's a good point. My only question is that would it make a difference if our focus on what Jesus said about 'the only believing' way to salvation being applied to his audience in the gospels? When the actions in Acts 2 came along, do you think that command was expanded to baptizing and speaking in tounges as that evidence of your salvation.

Being filled with the Holy Spirit need not be confirmed , evidenced etc with speaking in tongues . If you dont believe me take a quick look at the first chapter or two of Luke. You will notice examples of being 'filled with the Spirit' and no mention of tongues.

Right, but what I'm asking as if that confirmation was expanded and/or complimented what the gospels affirm. Sort of like the NT compliments the OT. Would you say that Acts compliments the gospels in that it introduces a sort of expanded way in which people are saved and a new way in which the confirmation of that salvation is made evident?

I cant think of a healing or some demonstration of the supernatural recorded in Scripture, outside of Acts 2 that is preceeded by speaking in tongues. But I havent looked very hard.

Be that as it may, don't you think we should still notice it? Don't you think we should see what kind of effect it could have on the way we think salvation works?

Thanks for your answer, BTW

matt

[mattbballman19]

The NT visible form of God's people is called the church. It is inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles.
B]

Don't you mean invisible?

BTW, extremely good exposition on contrasting the different manifestations the church made from B.C. to A.D. Wasn't even aware of that.

Jesus is the cornestone on which the church, the household of God is built. Now you may say, "Hold it. If Jesus said I WILL [future tense] build my church, then how could it have already existed?" As I said before, the outward manifestation of the body of God's people which we call the Church was not yet there at the time of Christ. So there was this sense in which it was yet a future building. But I believe the explanation goes much deeper as well.

So your conclusion is that the 'this' in that Matthew verse refers to Jesus himself because of the verses you brought up made evident that He is the cornerstone. I get it. He was talking sort of indirectly to Peter (because, he was part of the foundation, since he was an apostle, but 'the rock' upon which the prophets and the apostles rested was Christ, the cheif cornerstone). Very good point.

We know from Hebrews 11:39-40 that those who believed God in the OT were saved--not made perfect apart from us. Now how could this happen if Christ had not yet come? It was on the basis of their faith in the coming of the future Messiah. While we look back to Christ, they looked ahead. (John 8:56--Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day.) So they were included in the yet future salvation.

I agree with you there; it's just I don't see the connection you're making.

Speaking of those accompanying Moses in the OT, Paul tells us that they drank of the spiritual ROCK which followed them, the Rock being Christ. So Christ was yet future, yet they "drank into Him." Now remember Matthew 16:18--"On this ROCK I will build my church." They drank of the Rock on which the church is built. So Christ was yet future, and in some sense the church was also yet future because Christ the cornerstone of it had not yet come, and they drank into Him. So they drank into Christ's body, the church, for they drank into Him, the Rock on which the Church is built.

Understand what you're saying. I got one speculative question. Is there any chance that the rock in Matthew was used any different than the one in 1 cor. If not, I think you settled my questions on that subject :thumb:

your bro in Christ

matt

[joelkaki]

No, I meant visible at that point. The VISIBLE form of the body of God's people in the NT is called the church.

I am not quite sure when you mean you are missing the connection. I was just saying that those in the OT had to look forward to Christ to be saved.

Some believe that the ROCK in Matthew 16:18 refers to the confession just made by Peter, "You are the Christ" etc. Others say that the rock is Peter himself, by the supposed play on words in the Greek (Gr word for rock=petra : Gr word for Peter= petros). I do not believe either one of those is accurate. I believe Rock in Matthew 16:18 refers to Christ, especially considering passages such as 1 Cor 10 and Eph 2. Not to mention that the apostles are part of the foundation, but JESUS IS THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE. (Eph 2:19-20)

Joel

[mattbballman19]

I just thought that when you were speaking on the subject of the pre-NT church and the post-NT/Acts church, the part where you said 'let me explain' was going to supplement the church topic. But you went on to explain how people were saved in the OT. I didn't see any connection between the latter and the former, even though I now agree with what you said:rockon:

matt

[joelkaki]

Oh, OK. The point of how people in the OT were saved was this:

Christ had not yet come, and yet they were saved by Him.
The full manifestation of his body which is called the church (the body of Christ) had not yet come, and yet they are part of His body.


Joel

[mattbballman19]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up!

Do you care to comment on the questions I raised involving salvation.

matt

[Hitch]

03-11-2003 @ 03:48 PM
mattbballman19:



Maybe. Why would you think so? Because Jesus had long before explained his Kingdom as an ongoing growing entity. Far from a once and its all done idea.



That's a good point. My only question is that would it make a difference if our focus on what Jesus said about 'the only believing' way to salvation being applied to his audience in the gospels? When the actions in Acts 2 came along, do you think that command was expanded to baptizing and speaking in tounges as that evidence of your salvation. Nope. baptizing was already a prominent feature while Jesus was alive. And and far as tongues,, if that is presented as 'evidence' that useasge is sorely lacking in Acts 2 as so far as I know the 3,000 converts of the day are never said to have spoken in tongues, and this would have been the prime example of such a notion.


Right, but what I'm asking as if that confirmation was expanded and/or complimented what the gospels affirm. Sort of like the NT compliments the OT. Would you say that Acts compliments the gospels in that it introduces a sort of expanded way in which people are saved and a new way in which the confirmation of that salvation is made evident? there was no need for any such 'confirmation'. Especially in the case of conveting jews. thair 'confirmation' is what Jesus had warned of long before and consisted of the division of families and even governmental persecutions. Certainly far more evidential confirmation than anything else.



Be that as it may, don't you think we should still notice it? Don't you think we should see what kind of effect it could have on the way we think salvation works? Well it is my personal experience that fairly shouts the oppsite. My background is pentecostal and for the most part the 'tongues speakers' I have known are second choise examples of christian thought and life. . A few obvious examples, Jim & Tammy, Bob Tilton, Jimmy Swaggart. With a few exceptions those I have known personally dont fare much better.

This of course does not mean that positive experiences are false . But let me put it this way..,

A devout women prayed for hours every day after her husband left for work. she was struck by terrible head-aches , that made her sick and she called every radio and TV evengelist asking for prayer. The pain and tension was rueneing her life.

The great and gentle God finally responded to her pleas . He sent an angel to supernaturally answer her cries of distress. This is where is gets wierd. she was watching her favorite TV preacher when suddenly he pointed to teh camers and said 'You have severe head-aches,, God has heard you and is answering your prayers right now!.

The door bell rang, ' Good morning ma'am, please allow me to give you these tylenol samples free of charge or abligation....'

I like miracles , the whole notion is wonderful, but the only miracles we really need and are really entitled to is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that is to be taken on faith not sight. All we need has been granted and is found in the Scriptures and study and longterm devotion are more passaable down through the generations than experiences as exciting as they may be.


Take care


Hitch

Thanks for your answer, BTW

matt

[joelkaki]

Matt, I will try to get back with you on your other questions.

Joel

[Rubia Warren]

03-11-2003 @ 05:12 PM
Hitch:

Because Jesus had long before explained his Kingdom as an ongoing growing entity. Far from a once and its all done idea. Nope. baptizing was already a prominent feature while Jesus was alive. And and far as tongues,, if that is presented as 'evidence' that useasge is sorely lacking in Acts 2 as so far as I know the 3,000 converts of the day are never said to have spoken in tongues, and this would have been the prime example of such a notion. there was no need for any such 'confirmation'. Especially in the case of conveting jews. thair 'confirmation' is what Jesus had warned of long before and consisted of the division of families and even governmental persecutions. Certainly far more evidential confirmation than anything else. Well it is my personal experience that fairly shouts the oppsite. My background is pentecostal and for the most part the 'tongues speakers' I have known are second choise examples of christian thought and life. . A few obvious examples, Jim & Tammy, Bob Tilton, Jimmy Swaggart. With a few exceptions those I have known personally dont fare much better.

This of course does not mean that positive experiences are false . But let me put it this way..,

A devout women prayed for hours every day after her husband left for work. she was struck by terrible head-aches , that made her sick and she called every radio and TV evengelist asking for prayer. The pain and tension was rueneing her life.

The great and gentle God finally responded to her pleas . He sent an angel to supernaturally answer her cries of distress. This is where is gets wierd. she was watching her favorite TV preacher when suddenly he pointed to teh camers and said 'You have severe head-aches,, God has heard you and is answering your prayers right now!.

The door bell rang, ' Good morning ma'am, please allow me to give you these tylenol samples free of charge or abligation....'

I like miracles , the whole notion is wonderful, but the only miracles we really need and are really entitled to is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that is to be taken on faith not sight. All we need has been granted and is found in the Scriptures and study and longterm devotion are more passaable down through the generations than experiences as exciting as they may be.


Take care


Hitch
No offense to you, personally, Hitch, but why is it that people who are not Pentecostal give these kinds of examples as to what Pentecostals are usually like? Do you actually think that most of us subscribe to the WoF beliefs or their goofy leaders?? *hiss* I get so tired of hearing the same ol' thing about pentecostals- maybe those of you who are painting us with such a broad brush should get out more. Most of us are not a bunch of snake-handling, incoherant, flaky, ignorant, belly-flopping hillbillies. Sorry if you've had that experience, but it just isn't so. In fact, the same thing could be said about the average person sitting on a pew in a non-pentecostal church (except the snake-handling, belly-flopping part. LOL)
Why don't you use a better example other than some weirdo on TV- it's too easy to do that, Hitch.

[Hitch]

03-12-2003 @ 02:00 AM
La Rubia:


No offense to you, personally, Hitch, but why is it that people who are not Pentecostal give these kinds of examples as to what Pentecostals are usually like? Do you actually think that most of us subscribe to the WoF beliefs or their goofy leaders?? *hiss* I get so tired of hearing the same ol' thing about pentecostals- maybe those of you who are painting us with such a broad brush should get out more. Most of us are not a bunch of snake-handling, incoherant, flaky, ignorant, belly-flopping hillbillies. Sorry if you've had that experience, but it just isn't so. In fact, the same thing could be said about the average person sitting on a pew in a non-pentecostal church (except the snake-handling, belly-flopping part. LOL)
Why don't you use a better example other than some weirdo on TV- it's too easy to do that, Hitch. I cant answer your frist question as my lifetime in pentcostalsim is a disqualification.

As to my examples. They were chosen for two reasons. They are well known and two of the three are associated with my own denomination, the AOG, and have no ties to the Word of Faith so far as I know. Tilton was included because I have noticed he is back on television.

Now as far as the person in the non -pentecostal pew. ( GITP) Niether he nor his denomination claim any special insights to the spiritual realm, which is the nature of pentecostalism. Following the pattern Jesus set down saying 'to whom much is given much will be required' , not only does this non -pentecostal have a right to expect better, in general terms, from his tongue speaking brethern, so does the world. In recent days its hard to think of anyone outside the Bakker,Hinn, TBN, clan claiming more power ,insight and understanding through the Spirit. I dont know of any Presbytarians going on national television to threaten 'God will call me home,,,unless you send money'. Of course I dont know of any snake handlers saying that iether, but a famous pentecostal comes to mind...

Take care

Hitch

[Mikeb]

I think the only Church was the one that gathered at the last supper to share Christ's sustanance and redemption.

After that came Paul and his Roman telling of a Jewish story. Since then the church, read all Christian churches, has been nothing more than a repository for God's Story, for the Gospel.. a place to keep the story until someone reads the story again.

[Hitch]

03-12-2003 @ 05:00 AM
Mikeb:

I think the only Church was the one that gathered at the last supper to share Christ's sustanance and redemption.

After that came Paul and his Roman telling of a Jewish story. Since then the church, read all Christian churches, has been nothing more than a repository for God's Story, for the Gospel.. a place to keep the story until someone reads the story again. I havent the foggiest.

H