When did the Church begin?

[Ernest T. Bass]

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?

I have said those OT characters sins were forgiven...but forgiven in promised based upon the certainty of Christ dying and shed his blood.

I agree the OT characters sins were forgiven but at the same time Heb 10:1-4 that says blood of bulls and goats does NOT take away sin must also be taken into consideration. Again, Heb 9:15 they needed their sins to be redeemed by Christ. Why would they need this redemption thru Christ if, according to you, their sins were already redeemed BEFORE Christ shed His blood???

Your theology makes Christ shedding His blood in vain.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

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.

Matt 3:11 only Christ could baptize men with the Holy Spirit. And by the Lord baptizing Jews (Apostles) in Acts 2 and Gentiles (Cornelius) in Acts 10 than ;all flesh' was baptized with the Holy Spirit fulfilling ending Joel's prophecy. No one today is baptized with the Holy Spirit although many make claims they have been though cannot prove it...it is just unproven claims while violating Eph 4:4-5 trying to make there be more than ONE baptism in effect today.

Paul water baptized men which is the one baptism of Eph 4:4-5.

 

[Randy]

But not until Christ shed His blood could sins be taken completely away.

(See post #139 for more detail)

The guilt was taken away at Jesus's word. Unlike any before Him He had authority to forgive sins.
He said they were already clean because of the word He spoke to them, He had a body of believers who followed Him before He was crucified.

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

This is not a major issue to me. I have no problem considering the start of the church that we now hold to "crucified and resurrected on the 3rd day" after that event.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

The guilt was taken away at Jesus's word. Unlike any before Him He had authority to forgive sins.
He said they were already clean because of the word He spoke to them, He had a body of believers who followed Him before He was crucified.

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

This is not a major issue to me. I have no problem considering the start of the church that we now hold to "crucified and resurrected on the 3rd day" after that event.

God forgave sins of those under the OT. But how could their sins be washed away by the blood of Christ when that blood had not yet been shed?

Again, God forgave sins of those under the OT yet AT THE SAME TIME the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins (Heb 10:1-4) and those under the OT law needed to still be redeemed ny Christ even though forgiven (Heb 9:15).

So how will you reconcile this?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

The guilt was taken away at Jesus's word. Unlike any before Him He had authority to forgive sins.
He said they were already clean because of the word He spoke to them, He had a body of believers who followed Him before He was crucified.

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

This is not a major issue to me. I have no problem considering the start of the church that we now hold to "crucified and resurrected on the 3rd day" after that event.

Sins are washed away by the blood of Christ, Rev 1:5. So how could sins of those OT characters be forgiven/washed away by Christ's blood when Christ's blood had not yet been shed?

Again, their sins were forgiven in promise based upon the certainty of Christ dying and shedding His blood in the future. When Christ did die, then those OT characters sins were forgiven in reality.

 

[Randy]

Sins are washed away by the blood of Christ, Rev 1:5. So how could sins of those OT characters be forgiven/washed away by Christ's blood when Christ's blood had not yet been shed?

Again, their sins were forgiven in promise based upon the certainty of Christ dying and shedding His blood in the future. When Christ did die, then those OT characters sins were forgiven in reality.

I didn't read in promise. I read Jesus had authority to forgive sins.
First of all I didn't bring up OT characters. I stated "Jesus" had authority to forgive sins. They were clean because He took their guilt away. He forgave their sins. I gave examples.
2nd of all I am willing to concede the church, as we have today, has in its statements and beliefs about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. So that could not have begun until after the resurrection.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance a : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

 

[Hopeful]

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.

I define "church" as "His body".
Before we could be "baptized into Christ" (and for a short time thereafter) the disciples of Jesus were all Jewish.

 

[Hopeful]

Where does the Bible say those OT characters were 'damned"????

It doesn't.
I was trying to make it clear that some were "saved" before Christ was raised from the dead.
His blood didn't "go back in time" to cleanse them from sins.

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.

"Rolled forward a year"?
I think you are jumping to conclusions.

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:

I am not "confused" by your premise at all.
They walked in the flesh and committed sins.
The Mosaic Law provided atonements for their sins.
If Moses and Elijah needed a future atonement for their past sins they would not have been sent to converse with Jesus on the mountain top.

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

F. F. Bruce, in slightly different language, describes the matter as follows:
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

Very imaginative, but it is a bandage for a fake "conflict".

 

[Hopeful]

I have said those OT characters sins were forgiven...but forgiven in promised based upon the certainty of Christ dying and shed his blood.

I agree the OT characters sins were forgiven but at the same time Heb 10:1-4 that says blood of bulls and goats does NOT take away sin must also be taken into consideration. Again, Heb 9:15 they needed their sins to be redeemed by Christ. Why would they need this redemption thru Christ if, according to you, their sins were already redeemed BEFORE Christ shed His blood???

Your theology makes Christ shedding His blood in vain.

I never mentioned the word "redeemed".
Not at all in vain.
Without His blood covering the sins of men who didn't have the atonements of the Mosaic Law, all non-Jews would perish.
However, His death and resurrection also provided the NT men with a way to cease from sin entirely.
Instead of just forgiveness, as available in the OT, we now have the ability to permanently turn from sin.
That wasn't available in the OT.
They walked in the flesh we can now crucify with the affections and lusts.
We can now, thanks to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, walk in the Spirit instead of in the flesh.
By His blood, not only are past sins forgiven, but sin itself is taken away.

 

[JLB]

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.

Do you believe if a person has the Spirit of Christ within him, that he is Christ’s and is part of the Church?



JLB

 

[JLB]

His blood didn't "go back in time" to cleanse them from sins.

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8


Nevertheless, I tend to agree with you because the Old Testament saints were preserved in paradise, in the heart of the earth, until Jesus descended and rose from the dead.


Now saints go on to heaven, because their sins have been taken away. Even so many of the Old Testament saints walked in covenant relationship with the Lord before He became flesh, in which they had His Spirit within them.


I personally believe that paradise was “nicknamed” after the first member of the Church. My opinion.

Abraham’s Bosom.


JLB

 

[jerry63935]

There is ONE baptism in effect today

you better read up on that because your wrong baptism of the spirit occurs the moment we get saved

 

[JLB]

So how could sins of those OT characters be forgiven/washed away by Christ's blood when Christ's blood had not yet been shed?

By faith. The obedience of faith.

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.” Galatians 3:8


JLB

 

[Hopeful]

Do you believe if a person has the Spirit of Christ within him, that he is Christ’s and is part of the Church?

Yes .
If that person is a NT person.
As there was no Christian church in those days, they couldn't be part of the church of the NT.

 

[Hopeful]

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8

I hope you realize this verse refers to the Beast who is worshipped.

Nevertheless, I tend to agree with you because the Old Testament saints were preserved in paradise, in the heart of the earth, until Jesus descended and rose from the dead.

That isn't a statement I made.
I feel the OT folks await the return of Christ to be raised from their graves.

Now saints go on to heaven, because their sins have been taken away. Even so many of the Old Testament saints walked in covenant relationship with the Lord before He became flesh, in which they had His Spirit within them.

Back in OT days Jesus was still the Word.
Their covenant was with God.

I personally believe that paradise was “nicknamed” after the first member of the Church. My opinion.
Abraham’s Bosom.

 

[JLB]

Yes .
If that person is a NT person.
As there was no Christian church in those days, they couldn't be part of the church of the NT.

Ok, so if a person is walking in Covenant Relationship with the Lord, in which they have His Spirit within them so that they are one with Him, thereby obeying Him, they are not a part of the Church because there was “no Christian church“ in those days?


What kind of church was there in those days?


This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: Acts 7:38


Do you believe a person must be baptized with the Holy Spirit as on the Day of Pentecost to be part of the Church?



JLB

 

[JLB]

I hope you realize this verse refers to the Beast who is worshipped.

The Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world is Jesus Christ the Lord, not the beast.

 

[JLB]

Back in OT days Jesus was still the Word.
Their covenant was with God.

Jesus was, is and always will be God’s Message of salvation.


When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. Genesis 17:1


This LORD, YHWH the Lord God, is Jesus Christ.



JLB

 

[JLB]

That isn't a statement I made.
I feel the OT folks await the return of Christ to be raised from their graves.

Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. Matthew 27:51-53



JLB

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

By faith. The obedience of faith.

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.” Galatians 3:8


JLB

The blood of Christ could not take away the sins of those OT characters if that blood had not yet been shed... no matter how much faith they had. So the forgiveness of sins under the OT was in promise looking toward the day Christ would shed His blood. Those that had an obedient faith THEN had their sins removed by the shed blood of Christ.