When did the Church begin?
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Prior to Jesus you are correct. But Jesus had authority to forgive sin.
This man was made clean at the words Jesus spoke to him.
When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
This man was made clean by the words Jesus spoke to him.
Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."
This women was made clean by the words Jesus spoke to her.
You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”
Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
Let me ask it another way —
If you were to preach the Gospel on the street, what would you say?
JLB
Amen. Great scripture.
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. Galatians 3:8-9
Abraham was justified, declared to be righteous, right with God, when he believed and therefore obeyed the Gospel.
JLB
There are no statues of unknown Gods so that's out. And who Jesus is taught to be is well known in the US. So I guess it would be to ask, "do you know Jesus?" Would be a beginning.
If I were in a prison environment I would ask, "Do you want to do evil?" If answered No I have a beginning. People need to be willing to be healed. As in "do you want to get well?" If they are willing Jesus is willing. You can't force the gospel on others. They need to understand there is a resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous. And Jesus is the way "God" chose to forgive sin. That it is not for man to choose how to forgive sin. That leaves out other religions as a path to salvation. The salvation sent out or given by the Father is through Jesus Christ our Lord. And with that light of the gospel message God is holding all people accountable. Only if people are willing to listen can you get into any depth. I think forums and social media opens the door for such depth. Street preaching not so much as people will get annoyed.
These events you cite occurred BEFORE Christ died and shed His blood. John's baptism is said to remit sins (Mk 1:4) though it took place BEFORE Christ shed His blood. And Heb 9:22 says "without the shedding of blood there is no remission". So how can it be said that John's baptism remitted sins when there had been no shedding of blood yet?
The forgiveness/remission of sins that took place BEFORE Christ shed His blood was done in promise looking forward to when Christ did actually shed His blood. Those then who lived under the OT BEFORE CHrist shed His blood had to remain faithful to Christ in order to have their sins taken away by Christ's blood when He did eventually die and shed His blood. Notice in Rom 4:5 is says Abraham's faith was ACCOUNTED-CREDITED as righteousness. Those OT characters' righteousness was put on account, put on credit looking towards the day Christ would die and shed His blood THEN taking away their sins.
But we are washed, sanctified, and justified by water baptism...in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins.
Man does on, and God does the other.
Water baptism without that faith is just a bath.
1 Cor 6:11 says we are justified "in the name of the Lord Jesus AND by the Spirit of our God."
It is at our water baptism that we use the name of Jesus Christ.
I have been justified by faith, like Abraham, but with my water baptism into Christ for the remission of my past sins.
Faith without action is dead.
Look at it this way...The thief did exactly what we experiance at out water baptism into Christ for the remission of our past sins.
Rom 6:3-7..."Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
For he that is dead is freed from sin."
The thief partook in Christ's crucifixion, burial, and was promised resurrection the same day.
It is exactly what we endure at our water baptism into Christ, His death, His burial, and are raised with Him to walk in newness of life.
It is why we use the name of Jesus Christ at our baptism for the remission of sins.
Why?
Just not for entry into Christ and into His death, burial, and resurrection, for the remission of past sins and death of the old man with the affections and lusts?
I corrected your typo above, as I didn't think you actually believed we are saved by grace through faith in God's provided water baptism, as per Jesus in Matt 28:19.
Agreed...in one case designed to show the Jews that God had accepted the repentance of the Gentiles too.
Apart from receiving the Spirit after John's baptism unto repentance, but not apart from baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins.
No it isn't.
It is how the temple of God is sanctified for His residency.
It is how the old man is killed and the new creature is "raised with Christ to walk in newness of life".
It is how we suffer with Christ.
"Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;" (1 Peter 4:1)
The gift of the Holy Ghost IS the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
Christ in Paul did the "works".
So what?
It is what it is...the gift of the Holy Ghost Peter said would happen after a mans's repentance from sin and water baptism,
in Acts 2:38.
Too bad you deny the gift for yourself by clinging to that doctrine.
I wish you would change your mind.
Agreed.
But the OT had atonements for sin so they wouldn't all go to the lake of fire.
Because by the death and resurrection of Jesus we are not only freed from the penalty of past sins, like in the OT, but freed from committing sin itself.
The Jews looked for a Messiah to free them from Rome and other enemies, but the Messiah was sent to free all men from a far more insidious an enemy...sin itself.
What does the word "atonement" mean to you?
It was impossible.
But in Christ we can keep the Law, ie...love God above all else and our neighbors as ourselves.
Your doctrine leaves all the OT's righteous people out in the cold.
Joshua and Caleb, Samuel, Elijah, Zacharias and Elisabeth, Mary and Joseph.
They were able to be righteous because they had the Law's atonements for sin.
Were your doctrine true, Jesus was born from a polluted womb.
Is that what you really think?
Last edited:
At His death...but before His resurrection and the manifestation of His conquest of sin?
If it require Christ's blood to be shed before OT men could be counted as righteous, how did Moses and Elijah get to appear to Jesus and three disciples on the mountain top while still in sin, unclean, and damned?
Yes, the curtain was torn in two at that very moment.
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open.
I already told you Jesus or the Son of Man had authority to forgive sin.
Those people were clean because of the word Jesus spoke to them.
Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” Then the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.
Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized, and wash your sins away, calling on His name.
My name is OLIGOS
People couldn't be baptized into Christ's resurrection, (Rom 6:4-5), till after He was risen, so I opine the church, His body, started after His resurrection.
Depends on how you define church. There was a body of believers.
Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.
But not until Christ shed His blood could sins be taken completely away.
(See post #139 for more detail)
Last edited:
Where does the Bible say those OT characters were 'damned"????
Again, under the OT law the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, that took the blood of Christ. As long as they offered the sacrifices under the OT law their sins were rolled forward a year and every year there was a remembrance of those sins so they had to offer those sacrifices again year after year. Those who obediently offered these sacrifices sins were forgiven in promise looking toward the death of Christ but not taken away. So their sins were always in front of them and it took the blood of Christ to completely take those sins away which again is something the blood of bulls and goats could not do.
There seems to be some confusion over the fact the OT characters sins were forgiven yet at the same time the blood of bulls and goat could NOT take away sin. This is not contradictory for again, sins were forgiven in promise. God's plan before the world began look towards the death of Christ whereby men's sins would be taken away. It is a certainty those OT characters that obey God will have their sins taken away by Christ so God calls their sins forgiven based on the certainty of the promise that Christ's blood would take away their sins. See Rom 4:17 in how God calls those things that not be as though they were. So even though their sins had not yet been taken away by the blood of Christ they are said to already be forgiven based on the future certainty of those sins being taken away by Christ...they still needed redemption from their sins by Christ, Gal 4:4-5:
Although the Bible clearly teaches that forgiveness was available to those living in prior dispensations, it also instructs us that they needed redemption.
Note Paul’s explanation:
If the redemption of those who lived under the law of Moses had been achieved before the Savior’s death in the fullest sense of the term, why was the death of Jesus even necessary?
As Paul argued in the same epistle:
In other words, the forgiveness offered to those under the law still needed a redemption price to be paid.
Of special significance in the passage above is the phrase, “for the redemption of the transgressions.” In the original text, the term rendered by the English word “for,” is the Greek preposition eis. The word denotes a goal as yet not reached.
Prior to the death of Jesus, there was no redemption (in some sense) under the Mosaic system.
The Problem
Here, then, is our problem. One set of texts indicates there was forgiveness before the death of Christ, while another set suggests there was no pardon until after the Lord’s death.
Is there a contradiction? Which answer represents the truth?
In logic there exists a principle known as the “law of contradiction.” Basically, it says this:
It is this last phrase that presently engages our attention. In the problem at hand, it is possible for there to be both “forgiveness” and “non-forgiveness” — provided the “senses” are different.
In what way, then, are the senses different?
No forgiveness without Christ
There could have been no forgiveness available for fallen humanity without the historical incarnation and ultimate death of the Son of God.
Without the shedding of blood, there would have been no pardon for sin (Heb. 9:22). But the blood of animals could not provide actual atonement for sin (Heb. 10:4).
Those animal sacrifices under the former dispensations were typical (pictorial representations) of the “lamb of God” who was to come and provide a sacrificial offering for humanity (Jn. 1:29).
Had Jesus not died at Calvary, those offerings of ages gone by would have been worthless.
God’s Certainty
On the other hand, God knew that the death of his Son was certain ultimately, and on that basis, and that of his own fidelity to keep his promise of redemption, he could — and did — grant forgiveness to the faithful of those previous ages.
Conclusion
Practically speaking Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the saints of those earlier eras enjoyed the blessing of pardon for sin.
Ultimately, though, forgiveness was achieved at the cross.
Two different senses are under consideration:
- forgiveness contingently received based on the future death of Jesus, and
- forgiveness completely accomplished at the cross
When the theme is viewed from complementary vantage points, there is no difficulty in resolving the supposed conflict.
Works Cited
- Bruce, F. F. 1990. The Epistle to the Hebrews — Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
-
Was There Forgiveness Under the Law of Moses?
Why was forgiveness promised to the Israelites when the New Testament says their sacrifices could not provide forgiveness for sins?www.christiancourier.com