THE ONE TRUE CHURCH

[Evangelist]

You say that but your quote Romans 10:9-10 and even it tells us that we must do something to be saved.
It says we have to confess with the mouth (a works of man) and believe in our heart (more works of man as it requires us to do more than merely make a mental assent to the idea but actually incorporate His teachings into our life).  So the very verse you use to prove your point contradicts the very point you make.  And that verse is not alone there are dozens of verses that make it very clear that acceptance of the free gift is not done through faith alone.

Ahhhh.,..only from one who insists that we must "complete" the "incomplete" work of Christ could we see the understanding that the "work" of confession and belief is indeed a work of the flesh. Please consider:
Eph 2:8   For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9   Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Plainly declares that a gift (grace) saves us by faith, and that faith is not something that comes from us, but is also a gift (grace) from God. As Jesus said to Peter, "flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto you, but my Father which is in heaven". In addition, Jesus also said that "no man cometh (to me) except the Father draw him", which again removes it from the category of "works".
Finally, consider again what you say...."acceptance of the free gift is not done through faith alone", which is somewhat oxymoronic. If we must accomplish a task, or a series of tasks to receive a gift, then that gift is not free...it is being bought and paid for by the fulfillment of the tasks. A gift is either free, or it is not...it cannot be both (law of non-contradiction).
"Works" of grace are completely distinguishable from works of the flesh, or will.


*snip* long series of scriptures designed to "reinforce" the requirement of work to receive salvation.


   

No you are mistaken we must do something to accept the gift, otherwise we would all be saved.  That something would be a living faith, one inseparable from works.

As shown above, we do not "do", He does it....we acknowledge it....and that is not a "work", it is grace. That "works meet for repentence" flow naturally from the grace received is the living faith you refer to, but to reiterate...it comes from, rather than preceeding grace...and the grace is not contingent upon that living faith, since such contingency would automatically make it "works (upon which) man could boast".

But we have to realize that not all works imply merit.

Abundantly agreed. The preacher who preaches the same tired old sermon on the same day every year for 35 years just because a calendar says to falls into that category...the same as the person who makes a special donation to a church so that a new wing, or library, or book, or pew can be named after them.

If you give a helium balloon to your 3 year old and tell them to hold on tight and not let go - they do not suddenly merit this free gift, you gave them out of love, just because they obeyed you and accept the gift in the manner you instructed them to.  The same is true of the works we are told to do in the Gospel.

Why did I give my 3 year old a balloon? Because I loved him (her)? Or because they had done something special? And if I gave it to them out of love (as you specify), did I then accompany it with a long list of "honey-do's" before they could keep it? Pardon, but this is not a particularly good analogy...especially with the phraseology used.

Actually to think the play on words is Greek is a beginners understanding of the verse.  The play on words is in Aramaic and that is why your analysis that Peter is a movable form of stone is erroneous.

Just a quick note about the play being in Aramaic. There are no extant Aramaic texts considered to be original...only copies of well documented GREEK texts, which contain the "petros" "petras" appellations. Since the Aramaic also does not contain a gender pointer for "ke-phas", it was necessary to be translated (into Aramaic from the Greek) as identical in both instances.

The rock on which the Church is founded is not Peter, but Peter's confession, "thou art the Christ". (Matt. 16:16).  Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor. 10:4; Eph. 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8 unambiguously states that Christ is the Rock. Paul explicitly states, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". (1 Cor. 3:11). To take Peter as the foundation flatly contradicts this passage.
It is clear that a difference between Peter and the foundation is meant or the word "petros" would simply have been repeated. "Petros", therefore, shows Peter's instability, (e.g., Matt. 16:22-23) while "petra" indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, "thou art the Christ."

This is I do not deny.  The Church is all these things and I even some Popes may spend eternity in hell (it is not for me to judge though).  But the Church is something more than that, there are good leaders in the Church as well and God has promised that the Church (it's hierarchy who we go to for resolution of disagreements and who feed the sheep) will be protected from error in matters of doctrine.  That the Church as an organization would always be blessed with leaders who would be protected from leading Christ's Church into error and unorthodoxy.

How, if the RCC has been promised divine protection to prevent false leadership (and interpretation), could there be  "sme Popes (who) may spend eternity in hell..."?

The Church has always seen Jesus Christ as it's head.  They recognize salvation only comes through Christ.

Isn't this statement at odds with all the scriptures you posted concerning what we have to do?

Phi 2:10  That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
When was the last time you saw a Protestant do that routinely?

With ADR, let's please not do such body slams to scripture in wresting them completely out of context. Aside from that, is that the criteria for determining whether or not one belongs to Christ? Does bowing the knee at the mention of His name automatically make one a "better" or "more-saved" Christian?


Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura.
 

[ebia]

If you give a helium balloon to your 3 year old and tell them to hold on tight and not let go - they do not suddenly merit this free gift, you gave them out of love, just because they obeyed you and accept the gift in the manner you instructed them to.  The same is true of the works we are told to do in the Gospel.

Why did I give my 3 year old a balloon? Because I loved him (her)? Or because they had done something special? And if I gave it to them out of love (as you specify), did I then accompany it with a long list of "honey-do's" before they could keep it?

You might well say "don't let go".  Or wouldn't you?

Actually to think the play on words is Greek is a beginners understanding of the verse.  The play on words is in Aramaic and that is why your analysis that Peter is a movable form of stone is erroneous.

Just a quick note about the play being in Aramaic. There are no extant Aramaic texts considered to be original...only copies of well documented GREEK texts, which contain the "petros" "petras" appellations. Since the Aramaic also does not contain a gender pointer for "ke-phas", it was necessary to be translated (into Aramaic from the Greek) as identical in both instances.

So you think Christ made the original statement in Greek?  

The Church has always seen Jesus Christ as it's head.  They recognize salvation only comes through Christ.

Isn't this statement at odds with all the scriptures you posted concerning what we have to do?

No - it's at odds with your flawed understanding of what the RCC says.

[Evangelist]

So you think Christ made the original statement in Greek? 

Considering that Jesus was believed to have spoken Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, why would you suppose that He didn't? Considering that in the Gospels there are only a few definite statements that He spoke something in Aramaic, why would one suppose otherwise? Considering that the Gospels themselves, written by Hebrews who also understood Aramaic and Greek, wrote them in Greek, would you suppose that everything was spoken in Aramaic?

No - it's at odds with your flawed understanding of what the RCC says.

Then please, elucidate upon what the RCC says, show me how it is consistent with what Michael said in posting the scriptures followed by an obviously  contradictory statement, then explain what it is I "flawedly understand" about what the RCC says.....especially in light of what I've posted concerning what the RCC says.  Can you show me a quote?

And since we're being obtuse;

Quote from: blackeyedpeas on Today at 03:58:26am
Your claim that the Catholic church is THE CHURCH is so ridiculous and ignorant that I don't know that I could have this discussion in a civil manner.

Whether you agree with the Michael's interpretation or not, its a bit over the top to claim something is "ridiculous and ignorant" when it has been the interpretation accepted by the the vast majority of Christians for the vast majority of 2000 years.  Whether it's right or wrong, its got far more scholarship behind it than everyone here combined (Michael included) could throw a stick at.

Argumentum ad populum......hardly a recommended method of determining that something is true. Last I heard, Christianity (and Christ) was not something determined by popular vote....or democratic concensus.

[nChrist]

Evangelist Said:

The rock on which the Church is founded is not Peter, but Peter's confession, "thou art the Christ". (Matt. 16:16).  Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor. 10:4; Eph. 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8 unambiguously states that Christ is the Rock. Paul explicitly states, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". (1 Cor. 3:11). To take Peter as the foundation flatly contradicts this passage.
It is clear that a difference between Peter and the foundation is meant or the word "petros" would simply have been repeated. "Petros", therefore, shows Peter's instability, (e.g., Matt. 16:22-23) while "petra" indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, "thou art the Christ."

AMEN EVANGELIST!

EXACTLY!  A man only has THE TRUTH when that man is talking about having Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour. A man only has THE WORD in a similar manner, but this could be talking about having or holding the Holy Bible. A man only has THE WAY through Jesus Christ, and no other, certainly not involving anything a man does especially self.

Peter was just a man, but he finally understood what Jesus told him in Matthew 15:18. Peter fully understood that he wasn't the foundation of anything, but Peter knew who that foundation was, JESUS CHRIST, HIS LORD AND SAVIOUR!  Peter was just a small stone, but he knew the UNMOVABLE ROCK! See below:

____________________

1 Peter 2:4  To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
1 Peter 2:5  Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:6  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1 Peter 2:7  Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1 Peter 2:8  And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1 Peter 2:9  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
____________________

Love In Christ,
Tom

[ebia]

So you think Christ made the original statement in Greek? 

Considering that Jesus was believed to have spoken Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, why would you suppose that He didn't?

Because greek wasn't the normal spoken language of his people in that time and place.   He may well have been capable of speaking in Greek, he may well have made some statements in greek, but I'd want some pretty solid evidence before I'd assume that he had normal conversations with his friends in a foreign language.

Considering that in the Gospels there are only a few definite statements that He spoke something in Aramaic, why would one suppose otherwise? Considering that the Gospels themselves, written by Hebrews who also understood Aramaic and Greek, wrote them in Greek, would you suppose that everything was spoken in Aramaic?

Because:
a.  with the exception of Matthew, the gospels were initially written to audiences outside of Palestaine, for whom greek would be the appropriate

written

language.
b.  at least one gospel writer wasn't even a hebrew (Luke).
c.  greek was the normal scholarly written language in the world where most of the NT was written and (more importantly) read, and was the language that the OT was read in, in that world.
Greek is the language you would expect the NT to be written in, given when and where it was written, by whom and for whom.   Aramaic is the language you would expect Jesus to have spoken in every day life.  Therefore, if you are going to base your whole ecclesiology on the assumption that something was originally said in greek, you ought to have some pretty solid evidence to show that it was, and that evidence isn't there.

No - it's at odds with your flawed understanding of what the RCC says.

Then please, elucidate upon what the RCC says, show me how it is consistent with what Michael said in posting the scriptures followed by an obviously  contradictory statement, then explain what it is I "flawedly understand" about what the RCC says.....especially in light of what I've posted concerning what the RCC says.  Can you show me a quote?

How can the statement "The Church has always seen Jesus Christ as it's head.  They recognize salvation only comes through Christ." be contradictory to Scripture?  Which are you disagreeing with - Scripture or the statement that Christ is the head of the Church?

Argumentum ad populum......hardly a recommended method of determining that something is true. Last I heard, Christianity (and Christ) was not something determined by popular vote....or democratic concensus.

Try reading what I said - I never said the RCC view was right or wrong.  I said that to pretend it is naive (as BEP did) is absurd given that many great men who have spent their whole lives studying the bible have supported that view.

[nChrist]

Ebia Said:

Try reading what I said - I never said the RCC view was right or wrong.  I said that to pretend it is naive (as BEP did) is absurd given that many great men who have spent their whole lives studying the bible have supported that view.

Ebia,

I said nothing about it being naive to think that the Catholic Church is THE CHURCH.  I said that it was ridiculous and ignorant to even hint that the Catholic Church is THE CHURCH! I'll try to be more blunt the next time.

[Evangelist]

Because greek wasn't the normal spoken language of his people in that time and place.  He may well have been capable of speaking in Greek, he may well have made some statements in greek, but I'd want some pretty solid evidence before I'd assume that he had normal conversations with his friends in a foreign language

Quite the contrary. Because of the success of Alexander, Greek became the normal patois for the vast majority of the known world by 150BC, including Palestine. Greek was the everyday language of the Hebrews, whereas Aramaic was a little used dialect of the northeastern peoples if Israel.  Outside of the far reaches of the old Assyrian and Sumerian empires, Aramaic was the foreign language. Note also that when Jesus said (in Aramaic), "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani", the HEBREW speaking witnesses misunderstood Him.....because the use of Aramaic was highly unusual. The evidence is there.

Because:
a.  with the exception of Matthew, the gospels were initially written to audiences outside of Palestaine, for whom greek would be the appropriate
Quote:
written
language.
b.  at least one gospel writer wasn't even a hebrew (Luke).
c.  greek was the normal scholarly written language in the world where most of the NT was written and (more importantly) read, and was the language that the OT was read in, in that world.
Greek is the language you would expect the NT to be written in, given when and where it was written, by whom and for whom. 

Astute observation....except for the part about the OT being read in Greek. The Septuagint was considered "trash" by the Hebrews of Israel....they neither trusted nor appreciated it, since it came from Alexandria, and they continued to rely on their trusty old original Hebrew scrolls.....reading from them in the Hebrew.

Aramaic is the language you would expect Jesus to have spoken in every day life.  Therefore, if you are going to base your whole ecclesiology on the assumption that something was originally said in greek, you ought to have some pretty solid evidence to show that it was, and that evidence isn't there

Aramaic is NOT the language you would expect Jesus to have spoken in every day life.  Again, the evidence indicates that Greek was the normal everyday language of Palestine and the world....Hebrew was secondary, and used primarily in Israel during business transactions that did not involve "gentiles", and in the Temple rites. Latin ran a distant third, and Aramaic was considered a regional dialect of a dead language that very few spoke.

How can the statement "The Church has always seen Jesus Christ as it's head.  They recognize salvation only comes through Christ." be contradictory to Scripture?  Which are you disagreeing with - Scripture or the statement that Christ is the head of the Church?

Why don't you try reading what was posted? Michael posted a slew of scriptures to "prove" that works for salvation are required...which takes it out of the court of "only through Christ". That is the contradiction, and I would thank you to pay closer attention to the arguments before replying, and do not attempt to twist what is said into that which is NOT said.
"It is foolish to answer a question that you do not understand."  G. Polya

Try reading what I said - I never said the RCC view was right or wrong.  I said that to pretend it is naive (as BEP did) is absurd given that many great men who have spent their whole lives studying the bible have supported that view

Joseph Smith spent the vast majority of his life studying the Bible. So did Armstrong, and Koresh, and a multitude of others. Even Ghandi spent more time studying the Bible than he did reading his own works. So what? 10,000 people over 15 centuries that get it wrong still get it wrong....even if they all agree (well, almost agree).

And finally, re the

You might well say "don't let go".  Or wouldn't you?

Nice try. No, I believe that I would do the same thing my Heavenly Father has done for me. Out of genuine love and concern, and recognition that this poor 3 year old doesn't have a fully functioning brain yet, I would tie the balloon SECURELY to him, with an UNBREAKABLE cord, thus GUARANTEEING that even if he should unclasp his little fist, or get tired, or fall asleep, that balloon would FOREVER be with him...SAFELY AND SECURELY ATTACHED.  

[michael_legna]

I am sorry I cannot get right back to you on this I began preparing a response to your post last evening but did not finish it.

Starting today and going through the weekend I am converting 4 servers on my network from Novell to Microsoft (yes I am going over tot he dark side) and will be to busy to finish but I will get back to you hopefully by Monday.

[Evangelist]

I am sorry I cannot get right back to you on this I began preparing a response to your post last evening but did not finish it.

Thank you. I appreciate your tone, and look forward to some brotherly (and scholarly) jousting.  

Starting today and going through the weekend I am converting 4 servers on my network from Novell to Microsoft (yes I am going over tot he dark side) and will be to busy to finish but I will get back to you hopefully by Monday.

Oh my.....Luke, Luke, where art thou Luke (Skywalker, that is). I like the new Linux Lightsabers.......makes hash out of Darth Gates.

No es problema....whenever is convenient.

[Sower]

In this present dispensation of the grace of God there is only one church, which is called the body of Christ. It consists of all those who are saved and it had its beginning with the salvation of the Apostle Paul (Rom. 11:11; I Cor. 12:13, 27; Eph. 1:22-23, 3:1-11, 4:12; Col. 1:18, 24-25; I Tim.1:14-16).

"It consists of all those who are saved and it had its beginning with the salvation of the Apostle Paul"  

If the church had its beginning with the salvation of Paul then what church was in existence for such as should be saved in Acts 2:47?
What church is refered to in Acts 2? Was it before Pauls conversion? What church did Saul persecute if it began with Paul?

Ollie

Excellent points, Bro. Ollie:

Satan would have us believe that the Church of the living God is something other than what is revealed in ALL the Scriptures.

The Church is the BODY OF CHRIST since the day of Pentecost, in which there is no Jew nor Gentile.  It is the Holy Spirit who baptizes each one of us INTO the Body of Christ, and those who responded to the Gospel on the day of Pentecost received the gift of the Holy Ghost, as does each one who believes, repents, and receives Christ.

[Warrior For Christ]

In this present dispensation of the grace of God there is only one church, which is called the body of Christ. It consists of all those who are saved and it had its beginning with the salvation of the Apostle Paul (Rom. 11:11; I Cor. 12:13, 27; Eph. 1:22-23, 3:1-11, 4:12; Col. 1:18, 24-25; I Tim.1:14-16).

"It consists of all those who are saved and it had its beginning with the salvation of the Apostle Paul"  

If the church had its beginning with the salvation of Paul then what church was in existence for such as should be saved in Acts 2:47?
What church is refered to in Acts 2? Was it before Pauls conversion? What church did Saul persecute if it began with Paul?

Ollie

Excellent points, Bro. Ollie:

Satan would have us believe that the Church of the living God is something other than what is revealed in ALL the Scriptures.

The Church is the BODY OF CHRIST since the day of Pentecost, in which there is no Jew nor Gentile.  It is the Holy Spirit who baptizes each one of us INTO the Body of Christ, and those who responded to the Gospel on the day of Pentecost received the gift of the Holy Ghost, as does each one who believes, repents, and receives Christ.

I just read Acts chapter 2 three times, and I only see the men of Israel, no Gentiles.

[ollie]

In this present dispensation of the grace of God there is only one church, which is called the body of Christ. It consists of all those who are saved and it had its beginning with the salvation of the Apostle Paul (Rom. 11:11; I Cor. 12:13, 27; Eph. 1:22-23, 3:1-11, 4:12; Col. 1:18, 24-25; I Tim.1:14-16).

"It consists of all those who are saved and it had its beginning with the salvation of the Apostle Paul"  

If the church had its beginning with the salvation of Paul then what church was in existence for such as should be saved in Acts 2:47?
What church is refered to in Acts 2? Was it before Pauls conversion? What church did Saul persecute if it began with Paul?

Ollie

Excellent points, Bro. Ollie:

Satan would have us believe that the Church of the living God is something other than what is revealed in ALL the Scriptures.

The Church is the BODY OF CHRIST since the day of Pentecost, in which there is no Jew nor Gentile.  It is the Holy Spirit who baptizes each one of us INTO the Body of Christ, and those who responded to the Gospel on the day of Pentecost received the gift of the Holy Ghost, as does each one who believes, repents, and receives Christ.

I just read Acts chapter 2 three times, and I only see the men of Israel, no Gentiles.

True, but men of Israel came to Christ first and were added to the church such as should be saved.  In Him there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but one in Christ.

Gentiles come later as revealed in Acts with Peter and Cornelius.

There is not a church of the men of Israel and a church of the gentiles. There is one church, believers in Christ. It did not start with Paul, but with Peter, the other apostles and those that believed Peter's preaching about Jesus Christ as revealed in Acts :2.

[Warrior For Christ]

Did The Body Of Christ Begin At Pentecost?

By Clyde L. Pilkington, Jr.

Many Christians assume that the Body of Christ began on the day of Pentecost. Without ever stopping to prove why (I Thessalonians 5:21) they then move ahead to establish their doctrines concerning this dispensation with this as their key. Have you ever considered what actually took place on the day of Pentecost? What follows is a list of fourteen reasons why the church, the body of Christ, could not have begun at Pentecost.

1) There was already a church in existence on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41, 47). This church was not the church which is His Body (Ephesians 1:22-23), because this was hid until it was revealed to Paul (Ephesians 3). This church, to which the believers of Pentecost were added, was the Israel’s kingdom church and was based on the confession of Peter that Jesus was the Christ (or Messiah). Peter was then given the keys to this kingdom church and power to "bind" and "loose" (Matthew 16:15-20; cf John 20:23).

2) Peter preached the "Last Days" of Israel on Pentecost and not the first days of the church which is His Body (Acts 2:16-17).

3) There is no indication in Acts 2, or anywhere in scripture, that the Body of Christ is being formed on Pentecost.

4) Pentecost was a Jewish feast day given in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 23; Deuteronomy 16). In the dispensation of the Grace of God there is no observance of days and they are spoken of as "weak and beggarly elements" and "bondage" (Galatians 4:9-11). It is inconceivable that the Lord would begin a church on a feast day which He had for another economy.

5) There was no casting off of the nation Israel on the day of Pentecost, as was necessary for the establishing of the Body of Christ (Romans 11:11-15, 32). On the contrary, the first real offer of the kingdom was made by Peter on Pentecost. The kingdom was not offered during the Gospels, it was only said to be "at hand." It actually was impossible for it to have been offered until after the New Testament was established by the death of Christ (Luke 17:24-25; 24:26). Christ must first have suffered and then have entered into His glory (I Peter 1:11).

6) The Body of Christ is a joint body of Jews and Gentiles. Peter only addressed Jews at Pentecost. Notice the identifying phrases, "Ye men of Judea" (vs. 14), "Ye men of Israel" (vs. 22), "Men and Brethren" (vs. 29), and the "House of Israel" (vs. 36).

7) Part of the Pentecostal celebration was the two wave loaves of Leviticus 23. They are attempted to be used as a type of the "Jews and Gentiles" by many dispensationalists, but they cannot match the clear teaching of I Corinthians 10:17, which shows that the body of Christ is one bread.

Part of the message that Peter preached on Pentecost involved water baptism as a requirement for salvation (Acts 2:38). Water baptism has no part in the gospel message committed to Paul for the Body of Christ (I Corinthians 1:17; Ephesians 4:5).

9) On the day of Pentecost the promise of the Father was fulfilled to Israel. This was a spiritual baptism where Christ was the baptizer, and Israel was baptized into the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11-12; Acts 1:5). This spiritual baptism is quite different from the baptism of this dispensation of grace, where the Holy Spirit is the baptizer and the believer is baptized into the Body of Christ. The student of the Bible should learn to make a difference where God makes a difference. There are two different spiritual baptisms: one is to Israel’s kingdom church, the other is to the church which is His Body. One is associated with signs and wonders, and the other is not (I Corinthians 12:13; Romans 6:3-4).

10) Pentecost was a fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 2:16, 33; 3:24), whereas the body of Christ was a mystery which had been kept secret since the world began (Romans 16:15; Colossians 1:24-26).

11) If there was any dispensational change, the Apostles were completely unaware of it, for they continued at the Jewish Temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1, 3, 8, 11; 5:20-21, 25, 42).

12) The Twelve and Israel’s kingdom church at Jerusalem also continued, throughout the book of Acts, to observe the Law (Acts 21:20-25; 22:12).

13) Israel’s kingdom church, in accordance with the kingdom teachings of Christ, sold their possessions and established a common treasury (Acts 2:44-45; 3:6; 4:32-35).

14) Peter, in his message on the day of Pentecost, did not preach the Gospel of the Grace of God, which is the clear and distinctive message of Paul given to him by revelation (Acts 20:24; Romans 16:25).

Some would argue at this point that God started the Body of Christ here, despite the accounts given in Acts 2, and that Peter was simply ignorant of it being formed. This is hard to believe since Peter had his understanding opened (Luke 24:45), the indwelling of the Spirit (John 20:22), the Baptism of the Holy Ghost (Acts 1:5), and the filling with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4). No, Peter was not ignorant – he was completely aware of the program which Christ was carrying out at Pentecost and was right on target.

© 1989, 2000

Pilkington & Sons 111 Charity Lane, Gladstone, VA 24553

Phone: 804.946.2750 / Fax: 804.946.2315 / Toll Free: 888.316.8608

E-mail: Books@Pilkingtonandsons.com

www.pilkingtonandsons.com

[Evangelist]

I believe that all, regardless of "dispensational" leanings, would agree that, according to scripture, an enormous event took place on the day of Pentecost.

Act 2:1   And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Act 2:2   And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3   And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4   And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

This event signified two things in particular: (1) the fulfillment of the promise made by Jesus to send another comforter, and (2) the setting of the new covenant standard of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit to allbelievers.


Then we will notice what Paul later declares:
1Cr 12:13   For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

What man recognizes as having been done by God is not the criteria for determining when God did it.  We can say that Peter did this,  or Paul declared that, or whatever...but  again, the sole determination as to what God has declared is dependent ONLY upon what God did...not on our perception.

On the day of Pentecost, God sent His Holy Spirit to confirm His new covenant with mankind. On that day, the Jews who preached at Jerusalem, and those who believed at Jerusalem, were baptized, by that Spirit, into one body...the Body of Christ, His Church.

[ollie]

There is not a church of the men of Israel and a church of the gentiles. There is one church, believers in Christ. It did not start with Paul, but with Peter, the other apostles and those that believed Peter's preaching about Jesus Christ as revealed in Acts :2.

WFC,
You have not answered my questions from a previoues post.


If the church had its beginning with the salvation of Paul then what church was in existence for such as should be saved in Acts 2:47?
What church is refered to in Acts 2? Was it before Pauls conversion? What church did Saul persecute if it began with Paul?

Ollie