Baptist?

[DaveW]

If the Apostles were the first church, who was the pastor of that church and how many pastors did they have?

[John81]

Some Baptists say the church began in Acts 2 with the outpouring of the Holy Ghost and Peter preaching with the result of 3,000 being added to them.

 

Some Baptists say the church began with Jesus and His disciples.

 

Some Baptists say the church began sometime after Peter's Pentecost sermon.

 

It seems odd there is so much disagreement on this.

[ASongOfDegrees]

Some Baptists say the church began in Acts 2 with the outpouring of the Holy Ghost and Peter preaching with the result of 3,000 being added to them.

 

Some Baptists say the church began with Jesus and His disciples.

 

Some Baptists say the church began sometime after Peter's Pentecost sermon.

 

It seems odd there is so much disagreement on this.

The church began at the cross since it was purchased with his blood. 

[Salyan]

See here is an example of your dishonesty.

I never said 'if you disagree with me',
or insinuated such, but rather that the practice of denying that Jesus was telling his church, in a private conversation with His church officers, less than 2 months before they became such, beyond any question by any of us, is AGENDA DRIVEN DISHONESTY.
Anishinaabe

No, it is not. Someone can disagree honestly, believe it or not.

To be frank, I'm not entirely sure that the church began back then. Could the church of Christ that was 'purchased with his own blood' have existed before He shed that blood? Was the Old Covenant complete before the Lamb was sacrificed? How could the disciples be part of that church under the New Covenant in His blood prior to the cross? The church could have started in Matt. 24, or at the Last Supper, or at the ascension. I don't know as I have a definite belief one way or the other. But my doubts as to the definitiveness of your view are honest and have no agenda. Other than perhaps the desire to defend an unjustly accused acquaintance.

[DaveW]

In Matthew 18 Jesus gives teaching to his disciples regarding handling of offenses within the church.
The language appears to be indicating something current, not something specifically for future reference only.

The twelve in particular were a called out assembly of baptised believers organised for the purpose of spreading the Gospel.
They had a pastor (Jesus), and a treasurer (Judas).

It seems to me that they fit the normally held definition of a church. Add to that the reference that Jesus made (above) and the Acts 2 reference that indicates people were added, not formed into, and I think the weight of evidence points to the disciples being the first church.

As to the purchase of the church - my car existed before I purchased it - the time of purchase has no bearing on the origin time of my car. Not a great illustration, I know, but......

[Dr James Ach]

Anyone who wants to, can download a copy of "After The Tribulation", an IFB film. From YouTube I am mentioned in the credits, because I spent hundreds of hours studying the Scriptures with Bro.Anderson. We started a couple of churches together. He has since planted 3 more. We are IFB Pre-Trib is Charismatic. Pre-Wrath is Bible. Anishinaabe

And while you're watching "Bro Anderson", call up your president and tell him you are praying for God to kill him (like Anderson did), and then go to your nearest border and provoke the police to tase you.  I also have a video clip of Anderson holding to the Pentacostal Oneness heresy, then trying to deny it in another video. Anderson is a NUT CASE not just a heretic. But your continued attacks against IFB even on this thread prove a valid point made in the OP.

[Dr James Ach]

Mat 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Mat 18:17
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church:but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


These 2 passages come before chapter 24, so No one can insinuate that Jesus wasn't talking to the Church, when he spoke to the disciples.

Elect are elect, regardless of race.

Rom 1:16
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Rom 10:12
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek:for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Gal 3:28-29
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female:for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Col 3:11
11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free:but Christ is all, and in all.


Dispensational nonsense used to be universally rejected among Baptists, until we got all mixed in with the Protestants.

Anishinaabe

 

There's an Old Testament and a NEW Testament for a reason, anyone who believes the Bible and believes that there is a difference between the testaments is at MINIMAL a 2 point dispensationalist no matter how much you scream about doctrines that you erroneously conclude are the result of dispensationalism. You claimed that you believed that Jesus is coming back "pre wrath". Well guess what you moron THAT'S STILL A DISPENSATIONAL BELIEF.

 

So go back to Steven Anderson's kindergarten class because you have not demonstrated that you have enough knowledge of the issues to even begin a critique of the IFB in ANY time period.

[Dr James Ach]

And Swathdiver, yes there are many here that identify with many of Ruckman's beliefs, including me-I certainly identify with Ruckman more than I do Jack Hyles, Jack Schaap, and Paul Chappell. I also identify quite a bit with David Cloud, as do many here. That being said, there are 4 main groups of "traditional Baptists" that are IFB on this forum if there MUST be a label for them: David Cloud, Jack Hyles and the FBC (which would include Shelton Smith and the SOTL crowd as well), Ruckman, and Chappell. There are some other influential IFB like Fugate, Stringer, Waite, and Ketchum, but those 4 have the biggest IFB following.

 

There are quite a few differences among those 4, and those main differences would be on soul winning (easy believism or quick prayerism), standards (CCM, dress), and the KJV (Textus Receptus and KJV defenders, or KJVO with so-called "double inspiration" that is attributed to Ruckman based on critics that quote him out of context which is then repeated by other critics who don't know what Ruckman means by "advanced revelation").

 

Now we can debate the differences among these groups (and usually do) until the cows come home, but there are certain things among these 4 groups (well, at least among all but Chappell for me) that make them all uniquely IFB as opposed to a full blown charismatic, Pentacostal, GARB, SBC, or Calvinist of any stripe. It is a general sentiment that is shared, felt, and understood by all of us that identify as IFB even if we don't all agree with everything among those other groups I can still fellowship with people from 3 of these groups, the latter I can not. It is THESE COMMONALITIES that Dave W and a large majority of us feel are being compromised on this forum by the influx and infiltration of numerous persons who are persistent in attacking these beliefs. It is the constant frustration of having to sit in the living room every day and sharing that room with people we would not have fellowship with outside of this forum that has most of us in an uproar.

 

Now you can tell us if we don't like it, we don't have to sit in the living room. That's fine, I have no prOBlem making another forum that is IFB only and it's already been suggested. But I like the motto if it's not broke don't fix it, and the OB forum WAS a good forum, and we would rather see it fixed-because it's got cracks in it now-then have to leave.

 

I'm sure the mods don't like my mannerisms either. There's a reason I argue the way that I do, and its normally against people that I have perceived and proven to be motivated by deliberately causing dissension among other IFB believers and for those who attack the KJV. These people have made it there mission to come to an IFB forum knowing what we all believe and day in and day out attack with their heresies, and I will not cease my manner of attacking back and defending sound doctrine and other weaker believers until either they or myself are removed from this forum.

[swathdiver]

If the Apostles were the first church, who was the pastor of that church and how many pastors did they have?

 

Jesus Christ was their pastor until his ascension and then James (or was it John?) took over as pastor of the 1st Baptist Church of Jerusalem.

 

Some Baptists say the church began in Acts 2 with the outpouring of the Holy Ghost and Peter preaching with the result of 3,000 being added to them.

 

Some Baptists say the church began with Jesus and His disciples.

 

Some Baptists say the church began sometime after Peter's Pentecost sermon.

 

It seems odd there is so much disagreement on this.

 

Point 1 = They're wrong.  You cannot add to something that didn't already exist.

 

Point 2 = BINGO!  Right on the shores of Galilee.

 

Point 3 = Wrong Again.  Christ said he would build his church and he did, not Paul or Peter.

 

Point 4 = It sure does John, it's because many are twisting the scriptures to fit their kookie doctrines.

[prophet1]

There's an Old Testament and a NEW Testament for a reason, anyone who believes the Bible and believes that there is a difference between the testaments is at MINIMAL a 2 point dispensationalist no matter how much you scream about doctrines that you erroneously conclude are the result of dispensationalism. You claimed that you believed that Jesus is coming back "pre wrath". Well guess what you moron THAT'S STILL A DISPENSATIONAL BELIEF. So go back to Steven Anderson's kindergarten class because you have not demonstrated that you have enough knowledge of the issues to even begin a critique of the IFB in ANY time period.

What, no Scripture? We are IFB, we have the Bible as our final authority . Try it, you may like it. Anishinaabe

[prophet1]

And while you're watching "Bro Anderson", call up your president and tell him you are praying for God to kill him (like Anderson did), and then go to your nearest border and provoke the police to tase you. I also have a video clip of Anderson holding to the Pentacostal Oneness heresy, then trying to deny it in another video. Anderson is a NUT CASE not just a heretic. But your continued attacks against IFB even on this thread prove a valid point made in the OP.

Debating Doctrine is now equal to attacking IFB, huh?

So now I'm not as IFB as you, because I don't like disingenuous arguments?

You sure aren't making a case for yours.

Salvation has always been by grace through faith plus nothing.

If we agree on that, then dispensational teaching has OBvious dangers, no?

FTR, Steven Anderson isn't any less IFB than you are, either.

You don't like him, so what, he's an IFB pastor, you can't change that.




Anishinaabe

[Dr James Ach]

What, no Scripture? We are IFB, we have the Bible as our final authority . Try it, you may like it. Anishinaabe

Seriously? You need a Bible verse to prove that there is an old and a new testament???? Not only is that an absurd comment, but there's actually quite a few verses that prove it:

 

"But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ." 2 Cor 3:14

 

And of course, I notice you didn't quote any Scripture in support of your comment that I didn't use any Scripture. Like I said, go back to kindergarten.

[Salyan]

I'm sure the mods don't like my mannerisms either. There's a reason I argue the way that I do, and its normally against people that I have perceived and proven to be motivated by deliberately causing dissension among other IFB believers and for those who attack the KJV. These people have made it there mission to come to an IFB forum knowing what we all believe and day in and day out attack with their heresies, and I will not cease my manner of attacking back and defending sound doctrine and other weaker believers until either they or myself are removed from this forum.

 

It's not the heresies that cause a ruckus so much as the attitudes, snide comments and outright rude remarks. As long as those are in evidence, from either side, there will be no peace.  I've prOBably contributed myself some too, from outright frustration, and I'm sorry for that.  That being said, we all need to learn to speak kindly and graciously. "Speaking the truth in love..."

First 'dishonest' and now 'kindergardeners'... this thread has devolved to name-calling from both sides, so it's time for it to close. Shame on you both.