When did the Church start?

Dear Jerry,

You wrote:

While there he preached a gospel to the Jews (Acts 9:20-22). Then later Paul talks about another gospel that was revealed to him by the Lord Jesus personally (Gal.1:12) he immediately went into Arabia. So it is evident that the gospel he received before he immediately went into Jerusalem was different from the gospel which he preached to the Jews earlier.

No, I don’t agree with this at all. Where does it say he received a DIFFERENT Gospel? The only different Gospel I know of that Paul mentioned is a false Gospel.

Peter got his gospel from the Lord while he was here on earth. Paul had heard of this gospel and preached it. But later Paul was given not another Gospel, but the specialized Gospel he preached (i.e., the same Gospel adapted to the gentiles).

In I Cor. 15, Please note the following:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance

The atoning death, burial, and resurrection does not compromise the entire Gospel, only the part of the Gospel that is of FIRST IMPORTANCE. I have argued that Peter and Paul both preached this part of the Gospel. You disagree with this, I know. But at least understand where I am taking this. I am saying that in is in OTHER details of the Gospel that Paul received special revelation.

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

,

This happened before Paul was saved, and all the constituent parts of this had been stated. As a matter of fact, it is according to the OT Scriptures, though we cannot agree as to where those Scriptures are.

and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles

Jesus not only appeared to the disciples and other believers, but we learn in Acts that he spent 40 days teaching them.

and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Paul had missed out on Jesus instruction while Jesus was on earth, but Jesus tutored him in a special way when he was in the wilderness.

Note verse 11:

Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

This would have been Paul’s opportunity to distinguish “his” Gospel from “theirs.” But his argument is that it doesn’t matter whether the message was preached by them (the other apostles) or him. This doesn’t fit with your paradigm.

Because I say “my God” does not mean He is not “your God.” Even the books we call the Gospels are “according to….” They include different details, but they overlap on what is crucial.

If the Gospel is more than the mere message of how to be saved (which, I think, I have indicated above), Paul’s unique teachings certainly sharpen and adapt the Gospel to the gentile believer and the unity of the local church. But it is not in the areas of first importance where they differ. At least, that’s how I see it.

A couple of quick points and then I need to stop.

At the time Peter was preaching a gospel to the Jews one could not be baptized unless they believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

I don’t think that has changed. I would not baptize anyone who did not confess that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. Baptism is a public confession of Christ. To not confess Christ as the Son of God is to confess a false Christ. But part of Christ being the Son of God is his active and passive obedience for us. After the death and resurrection of Christ, I think it is impossible to confess Christ as the Son of God and that not include his death and resurrection. A Christ who didn’t die and rise again can’t save anyone. And if you don’t trust his death and resurrection as the payment for your sin, then you have to trust some other payment.

So when Peter said the following words he was addressing only those who already believed that Jesus was the Messiah

Where do you see this? If they believed this, it was because of the message of Peter convinced them, and that is my point. It was not a prior belief, but one that was a result of Peter’s preaching the message of the death and resurrection of Christ. The Spirit brought conviction through that message.

According to you they could not receive a forgiveness of sins unless they submitted to the rite of water baptism. … From what you say next it appears that the believers had to be baptized with water in order to be saved

I didn’t say that anywhere. I clarified the relationship of baptism and forgiveness. I personally believe it is causal: Be baptized because you have been forgiven, but it could be about the relationship. The one thing we do know is that baptism did not earn forgiveness.

Do you think that they could refuse to be baptized with water and still get saved?

Why would they? Baptism is the public confession of Christ. Someone who refused to get baptized would be calling their profession of faith into serious question I think.

Could these believers be added to the church if they refused to be baptized with water? … Again, could they be added to the church if they refused to be baptized?

No, but why would they refuse? The church is made up of believers, and believers are identified by their baptism. To have an unbaptized person in the church is to have someone who has not clearly confessed Christ.

He was indeed preaching another gospel but he was not accursed. … Paul does not say that there is only one gospel. He knew that there were two gospels and he also knew that those preaching the other gospel would not be preaching that gospel to the Gentiles or the churches which he founded

That’s a line that is not found in Scripture so far as I can tell. The gospel has always been salvation by grace. There is no other kind of salvation. If Peter was not preaching salvation by grace then he was preaching a false gospel.

So there is nothing written at Galatians 1:6-8 that proves that only one gospel was preached during the Acts period.

There is nothing in the NT that shows more than one gospel of salvation. I think you are confusing the gospel of the kingdom with salvation by grace. Entrance into the kingdom was still by grace. Except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God. The rebirth is an act of grace. And that was the gospel that was preached by Peter. Peter was not preaching salvation by anything other than grace. Whether or not Peter still had the idea of the kingdom in his head cannot be known, though it is entirely possible, particularly based on Acts 3. But he was preaching salvation by grace.

Gospel simply means good news and it can be used in different ways. But the gospel of salvation is always a gospel of grace. It is never by any other means. Entrance into the kingdom was by salvation, which was by grace.

BTW, the issue of “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Cor 15 is clearly the OT prophesying a death, burial, and resurrection. Isaiah 53, Psa 16, 22, and a host of others clearly testify to this.

The “three days” is not in the OT. It is the resurrection that is according to the Scriptures.

[Jerry Shugart]

[Greg Long] Jerry, all these sources that you cite…Ryrie, Walvoord, Chafer, Clarke, Anderson, Ironsides—do they agree with your position on this issue?

Greg, do you always answer a question with a question? You say that I am wrong but you refuse to cite anything from the Scriptures to back up your assertion that I am wrong.

Actually, I agree with the Scriptures Larry has cited. Now, will you answer my question?

[Jerry Shugart] Again, when you preach a gospel to the unsaved do you only tell them that the Lord Jesus died and rose from the dead and He is the Christ, the Son of God? Do you not tell them that whoever believes the gospel are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?

I may not necessarily mention the word “grace” every single time I share the Gospel without exception. But I certainly tell them about Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and his death on the cross and resurrection, and that salvation can be obtain by repentance and faith—just as Peter and Paul did.

BTW, Jesus clearly believed that the OT testified about His death and resurrection:

Luke 24:25-27, 44-49

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself…

44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” NIV

Quick correction.

Larry, according to you they could not receive a forgiveness of sins unless they submitted to the rite of water baptism:

Larry wrote:

Yes, and told them that they needed to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

But now you say:

Quote:

I didn’t say that anywhere.

I quoted you and even then you deny it.

Um, those weren’t my words. That was a quote of Peter from Acts 2:38. You omitted Peter’s words from your post so I wanted to remind us all of what Peter said.

Then I explained further, which somehow you neglected to quote: He told them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The baptism was because of their forgiveness most likely, or possibly because baptism and conversion were so closely linked. In any case, they received the word first, and then were baptized.

A friend of mine gave this definition of the church. Any thoughts concerning it?

The Church was foreshadowed and promised in OT as the Kingdom and as the New Covenant. It did not begin until Christ’s blood was shed and the Holy Spirit came. At that time, OT saints were “made perfect” with NT saints. All believers of all time are / will be part of the church. But the church did not begin until Pentecost.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost bringing in the Church.

Foreshadows of Christ in the Passover, The Church as the Temple, The elect as the seed of Abraham, etc.

This thread reminds me why when I’m asked when the church started, I usually say that Sunday School started at 9:30 and that church started at 10:30. :-)

It is an importand discussion though. I’ve seen people reinterpret the start of the church to justify why you have to be baptized in their Baptist church instead of another church that doesn’t believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit/universal church/church beginning at Pentecost. It can be an important discussion.

Sorry if this has been posted I will not tell you of the many books I could refer you to but i will show you what the Bible says. If we blieve that when the Bible talks of the Bride that is the Church and that when it talks of the Brigroom being Jesus then look at what John the Baptist says in John chapter 3 28Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.

29He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

30He must increase, but I must decrease.

so I am incline to believe it was here whan John the Baptist was here way before Pentecost. Also was Jesus says “Upon this rock I build my Church ” WELL isnt he still building it .It was and is a work in progess since the first baptism.

Something dawned on me here of late and I thought I would add it.

A few really good points have been made and yet seem to be overlooked in the heat of things. One of those being “What is the church”

Some have pointed to John the B and others to Acts 2 But in both cases gentiles were unclean and not allowed.

Those who would argue with that will have to explain to me how Jesus Christ could ignore the woman -

Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, [thou] Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Jesus spoke nothing but the truth.

Another question I would ask. When was it first preached that the believer was no longer under the law ?

Some will fuzz up like a stepped on cat at the thought of this but the law IMU has no place under the grace Gospel.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

So while you are looking, Maybe a really good place to start would be somewhere around the time the law no longer had any part in the preaching of the Gospel, and the time Peter was shown not to call a gentile unclean.

One more bit that may be important.

Hbr 5:6 As he saith also in another [place] , Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

While the Jews had priests that were for the Jews alone, Melchisedec was a priest before Israel. Now “we” once again have a priest.