R.J.S said:
Question one: There was already a church in existence at Pentecost. The Scripture does not say that the believers at Pentecost were formed into the church. It says they were added to the church (Acts 2:41). A thing must first exist before anything can be added to it (Baker, A Dispensational Theology, p. 483).
ANSWER: Baker fails to distinguish between two clear-cut groups that are found present on the day of Pentecost. First there was the group that was assembled in Acts 2:1 which was made up of the 120 disciples mentioned in Acts 1:15. It was on these that the Spirit was poured out in such a remarkable way as recorded in Acts 2:2-13. These 120 disciples were the first recipients of the Spirit and thus the first members of the church. The second clear-cut group at Pentecost was the multitude of unsaved Jews out of which about 3000 were saved as the result of Peters preaching (Acts 2:41). So it makes good sense to say that the 3000 were added to the saved body of 120 that already existed.
The context of Acts 2:41 concerns those
who received his (Peters) word
. This would be the multitude (Acts 2:5-6) not those in the house (Acts 2:2). The Body of Christ or church was born in Acts 2:1-4 and later in the day three thousand souls (Acts 2:41) were added to the church (added to the core group of 120).
The Scriptures clearly teach that the believers at Pentecost were formed into the church. The proof is found in a correct, Biblical understanding of the doctrine of Spirit baptism.
The key passage on Spirit baptism is found in 1 Corinthians 12:13For 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. The ONE BODY spoken of in this verse refers to the CHURCH (see 1 Cor. 12:27-28; Eph. 1:22-23; 5:30-32; Col. 1:18), the Body of which Christ is the Head. Spirit baptism is defined in 1Corinthians 12:13 as that work of God whereby believers are baptized (immersed, placed) into Christs body, the church. How then does a believer become a member of the body of Christ? It is by Spirit baptism. (SNIP)
Being I haven't read every post in this thread, I would like to respond to one of the first ones by R.J.S.
There was a Church at Pentecost and it was the Jewish Church. Those that were "added" to the Church were added to the Jewish Church.
It is my contention that the Church (the Body of Christ) was not formed until
AFTER the stoning of Stephen, in Acts 7 and the raising up of Saul/Paul in Acts 9.
The Body of Christ consists of believing "set aside" Jews and Gentiles. Also, they on equal footing and without distinction, and no longer under the Law. This condition never existed until revealed to the Apostle Paul. Therefore, the Church, the Body of Christ was not present at Pentecost; neither was it started at Pentecost.
In his web-site on Acts 2 Problems, Robert C. Brock wrote the following article:
PROBLEM NO. 9 --THAT THE DAY OF PENTECOST IS THE BEGINNING OF THE CHURCH, THE BODY OF CHRIST. THIS INCLUDES THE DISPENSATION OF THE GRACE OF GOD
This is the doctrine that gives Acts 2 brethren their name - Acts 2 Dispensationalists. This is the most popular form of Dispensationalism.
Their main argument for starting the Church in Acts 2 is the baptism of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Acts 2:4 and in Acts 11:15-16. They say that this 'baptism' places believers into the Body of Christ, thereby equating this with the 'baptism' of 1 Cor. 12:13 (Dispensationalism Today by C.C. Ryrie, pages 136,137; Moody Press; 1965).
They also point to the word 'church' in Acts 2:47 of the King James Bible. Of course, they believe that Peter preached Christianity on this day and that he presented the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for salvation; in other words, Peter preached the Gospel of the grace of God.
THE TRUTH
The only way and the Scriptural way to solve the many problems that Acts 2 causes is to move over from Acts 2 to Acts 9 (just7 chapters), and begin the Church and this Dispensation of grace with the salvation of Saul/Paul. In making this simple little move, one's whole outlook and perspective changes in how to view and understand the Word of God, especially in the book of Acts. Instead of starting things on a very controversial Jewish festival day and dream up human interpretations to defend it, it is best to start things when God did something different. And certainly the salvation of Saul was different from anything that had happened before it or after it. It was unique (1 Tim. 1:15-16).
In making this move, the doctrines of the Bible are enhanced rather than lost or given up. Truth about the Church becomes clearer. This move allows the Holy Spirit to work in us according to His teaching ministry to believers. And most of all, our RISEN Lord and Head, Christ Jesus, is honored and glorified when we preach Him according to His heavenly ministry for this Age of grace.
Charles F. Baker, in his 'A Dispensational Theology,' pages 483-486, gives 12 Scriptural reasons why the Church, the Body of Christ, could not have begun on the Day of Pentecost. Instead of quoting from his theology, we will look at the more obvious reasons taken from Acts 2 and 3. The Day of Pentecost covers two whole chapters - Acts 2 and 3.
1. The Day of Pentecost was one of the important feast days in Israel's calendar (Lev. 15:22). This religious feast day belonged to Israel alone. It was one of the three great annual festivals, the other two being the Passover and Tabernacles.
Now I realize that believers today in this Age of grace can learn a lot from the Old Testament. This is one thing that the Apostle Paul wrote about to the assembly at Rome (Romans 15:4 - "For whatsoever things were written aforetime [before] were written for our learning ... " 'learning' refers to 'teaching,' indicating that the Old Testament is important for the Christian. But please notice that this verse DOES NOT SAY that the Old Testament Scriptures are for our obedience.. To 'obey' the Old Testament Scriptures is impossible in the light of the cross of Christ (Col. 2:14).
Therefore, to bring this major Jewish festival of the Old Testament into Christianity and make it a major doctrine of Christianity, causes believers to become inconsistent in their doctrine and walk before the Lord. Bringing Pentecost into Christianity mixes Judaism with Christianity. It is-this part of the Word of God that causes all the problems that the Acts 2 position teaches. Acts 2 brethren NEED to remove the Church from Acts 2 and place it in Acts 9 where it belongs. Then they will be able to rightly divide the Word of truth consistently.
2. The baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16) was administered by the Lord Jesus Christ just as John the Baptist said He would do, as recorded in Matt. 3:11, "...He [Jesus] shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit..." This baptizing ministry of our Lord was done on the Day of Pentecost. This baptism was NOT performed by the Holy Spirit like we read about in 1 Cor. 12:13, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body..." Acts 2 Dispensationalists cannot understand that the two baptisms mentioned here are DIFFERENT BAPTISMS performed by two different members of the Godhead. The verse in 1 Cor. 12:13 does not relate to the Day of Pentecost. They confuse the ministry of Christ with the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Their arguments for putting 1 Cor. 12:13 into Acts 2 are very weak.
3. Peter's two messages in Acts 2 and 3 are related to the DAY OF THE LORD (Acts 2:17-21; 3:19-23). This particular period of time is part of the LAST DAYS of Israel rather than to the first days of the Church, the Body of Christ. The Day of the Lord covers the Tribulation Period and the Millennium, not this Dispensation of the grace of God.
4. The gospel message that Peter used to close his two messages was the Gospel of the Kingdom, the only gospel Peter knew, as seen in Acts 2:38-39 especially (also Acts 3:19). They were to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and then the Holy Spirit would be given to those who believed. Repentance was NATIONAL as well as INDIVIDUAL, and had to take place FIRST before any of God's blessings would come (Joel 2:12-17).
How did Peter proclaim the death and resurrection of Christ?
First of all, the Apostle Peter accused the Nation of murdering their Messiah. He told them twice that they killed Him (Acts 2:23), and they killed the Prince of life (Acts 3:15).
Second, in relation to the resurrection, Peter said that God raised Him from the dead in order to sit on David's throne (Acts 2:30). This is one of the reasons for the resurrection of Christ.
The Apostle Paul did not teach about the death and resurrection of Christ like Peter did.
The Gospel of the Kingdom is NOT God's message for this Age of grace. Acts 2 brethren know this but do not know what to do with it. They do not like what Peter taught about being baptized in water MR the forgiveness of sins. They realize that this is not the same thing that Paul wrote in Eph. 1:7 and in Col. 1:14, that forgiveness of sins is NOW by the blood of Christ.
One of America's greatest Greek scholars, A.T. Robertson, a very strong Baptist teacher, strongly disliked Acts 2:38. He taught that the 'for' in the phrase 'be baptized ... FOR the remission of sins' means 'because of.' The Greek preposition for 'for' is EIS. He used Matt. 12:41 as the proof, where it is stated 'they repented at [EIS] the preaching of Jonah.' He also said in his book 'A Grammar of the-Greek New Testament' on page 592 in relation to Acts 2:38, that the right translation of this verse depended on the interpreter instead of the grammarian (translator). In a list of meanings for EIS, he left out 'for,' a legitimate meaning that the Greek lexicons recognize. The meaning of 'because of' is not recognized by the lexicons for EIS.
What can be said about this? The answer is that if the meaning of 'because of' was the intended meaning in Acts 2:38 and in Matt. 12:41, then the Holy Spirit would have guided Luke and Matthew to use the Greek preposition DIA in the accusative case, for DIA in the accusative case means 'because of.' But it is EIS that is used instead, and so we must accept the meaning of 'for' as making more sense than the other meanings of EIS. Besides, the meaning of 'for' is consistent with its use in describing the work of John the Baptist (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Matt. 26:28) and our Lord's teaching.
Another problem that Acts 2 brethren have is that they believe in only one gospel. Hence, they have to change the obvious meaning of Acts 2:38 so that it fits into the Gospel of the grace of God. And they do this by attacking the Greek preposition EIS.
5. All the Jewish believers on the Day of Pentecost had everything in common (Acts 2:44-45). They shared everything they had with one another so that no one lacked anything.
Had not the Lord told His disciples earlier to sell all that they had and to follow Him? (Luke 12:1,29-34). Matthew's record of this teaching is found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6:31-34). On another occasion the Lord had said the same thing to a rich young ruler (Mark 10:21). Could it have been possible that this rich young ruler was born again on the Day of Pentecost and shared all his possessions with the Jewish believers? The Lord had sown the seed in his heart, and after thinking about it for some time, he could have accepted Peter's invitation of Acts 2:38-39 and been saved. Many thousands were born again back then (at least 5,000 men - Acts 2:41; 4:4), and it would have taken a lot of earthly possessions in order to meet everyone's needs.
Is this condition of 'sharing' going on now? Absolutely not! As a matter of fact, it didn't last too long in the book of Acts, just a few years, maybe 10-20 at the most. Paul wrote in Rom. 15:26 about the POOR SAINTS that were in Jerusalem. He and sanefrom the Gentile churches in Greece wanted to help them out, which they did. Something had happened in the book of Acts that led to their being poor - probably the unbelief of the Jewish Nation, and the beginning of God's heavenly purpose through the Apostle of the Gentiles, the Apostle Paul (Rom. 11:13).
6. In Acts 3, the Apostle Peter said that their Messiah would come back if they would repent and be converted (Acts 3:19-21).Peter did not offer the earthly Kingdom of God to the Church. He offered it to the Nation of Israel! This was an honest, genuineoffer of the Kingdom to Israel. He went to Moses and to all the prophets from Samuel onwards, and even back to Abraham, showing them that this was God's plan for them IF they really believed it. But we know that they did not believe it.
The Body of Christ is not a part of Old Testament prophecy or history. The Body of Christ was kept secret in God, hidden in Him until revealed to the Apostle Paul (Ran. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 3:9).
So then, here are six very good reasons why the Body of Christ did not begin on the Day of Pentecost. There is just no reason to put it in Acts 2 under those circumstances. And believe me, it becomes a wonderful blessing when you do get it OUT of Acts2 and place it in Acts 9 where it belongs.
This Dispensation of the grace of God was given to the Apostle Paul, as is so clearly stated in Eph. 3:2, "If [Seeing that] you have heard of the Dispensation of the grace of God which is given to me for you." Peter did not write this! John did not write this! Paul wrote it, but Christendom does not want to accept it. If Christendom would sincerely accept the truth of this verse, it would start a world-wide revival with millions of people saved. But until it does, confusion will abound among believers because of unbelief.
God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!