Tonight at church, I finally voiced a thought about the birth (origin) of the church that I believe is not a bad analogy. While it is fun to talk about exactly when did the church begin, normally most people want to put the birth of the church at Pentecost. As I thought about it, I came up with a way to agree with this position and not compromise my own thoughts on the subject. Just as when a baby is born, it has been forming for nine months - so too, if one wishes to believe the church was born on the day of Pentecost - I would say - yes, as long as you realize that it had a formation period in the gospels. I feel that position clears up a lot of problems (e.g., why does Jesus give instructions on church discipline in chapter 18 of Matthew if in chapter 16 of Matthew, Jesus had not yet began forming the church) and it ties up things nicely from a moderate dispensational viewpoint that wants to keep the lines of distinction between church and Israel pretty well set. Whether you call this birth the institutional church or the invisible body is another debate topic. Suffice to say, Jesus has promised to protect His church from the gates of hell.
Posted on: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 02:37:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015