Featured The “Rebaptisms” of Acts 19

Oneness groups take 2:38 as teaching to us baptgise in nmame of jesus only, Pentacostals wants to keep pentacost from being a one time event to being in each generation, so when one refuses to see that Acts is NOT written to give to usna normal way God operates today, but as recoding to us how he choose to in the days before the canon of scriptures were completed, and the Gospel recognized as valid for Jews and gentiles alike...

 

Which "Name" to Baptize in is somewhat moot when we understand that Christ was God manifest in the flesh, no? lol

And the understanding of Pentecost and subsequent acts given us is primarily based on their understanding of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. The question is, when we discuss with our Pentecostal and Charismatic brothers and sisters, are we ready to confront their doctrine? Do we have confidence that we can address the doctrine they teach?

As Baptists, lol, I think we should be ready for those discussions, and be able to give them something to think about.


God bless.

 

I know how that feels, lol, so no worries, because I am at a point where I need to take leave of this forum for a while. I usually just spend a little time here, and do so because this is one of the first forums I ran across when, to my delight, there was somewhere where someone like me could go to talk with people about Scripture. For me it's like being a kid in a candy store, lol, because in the field few really want to discuss Scripture, which to me is odd. I can't really understand how anyone who is born again...wouldn't want to.

I think in the two threads, this one and the thread concerning the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, there is more than enough to outline my own view, and the associated presentations that I feel validate that view. you might noticve that several said "None of the above" to the Poll, yet did not have a view that displaced "Immersion into God" as the correct choice, though they were asked to.

So you can, if you like, take a look at what has already been said. Perhaps at a future time we may engage in discussion where both of us can have given attention to the issue and be able to discuss it easier.

This is true, especially dealing with an issue that has to have a number of other issues understood in order to make sense of it.

First, an "Old Testament Saint," as defined my me, would be a believer (one of faith, justified by their faith (see Hebrews 11)), that fell under an economy or Dispensation rather than the one that began at Pentecost. For example, John was under (the Covenant of) Law from the time he was born until the time he died, because that was the only Covenant available for men to be in relationship with God through. Christ was made under (the Covenant of) Law, and ministered within that framework also.

So when we get to the Samarians, they are not "old Testament Saints in the sense that they lived within that economy/ies, but Old Testament Saints in the sense that they had not yet been brought into relationship with God through the only Covenant available in their day.

They are within a transitional period in history, and though they come to believe, like Cornelius, in the Risen Savior, they are not what might be termed "New Testament/Covenant Saints" until they are actually brought into Covenant relationship with God.

This is an underlying theme of Hebrews, who exhorts and warns his brethren (Jews) to embrace the New Covenant which was only promised and pictured in the "First Covenant" (Covenant of Law).

For some you are correct. Some use these forums as chat boards, and have no real motivation to study the Word of God, challenge their own views, and in general...grow in knowledge of God. But I suggest to you that there is no better way for accelerated learning and growth in understanding than a Doctrinal Discussion forum. Ever gone to a Sunday School class or listened to a sermon and wished you could take the teacher or preacher to the side and talk with him? Well, you can do that on a forum. And because every word is recorded there is only one way for your questions not to be answered...if they are ignored.

But as far as the Word of God goes in relation to my own forum campaigns, I am usually immersed in the Word of God and there is no separation from the Books of the Bible. How that relates to my statement is on this wise: there is a difference between simply looking to a commentator to affirm your position, and looking into the Word of God for that affirmation and validation.

Big difference.

We can see on the internet these days that no matter how kooky, crazy, or even blasphemous a doctrine might be, you can google it and find someone somewhere...that affirms it. That is why we see people on this forum, Baptists, teaching doctrines such as soul sleep, annihilation, and that men are angels that take up residence in human form. Can they justify those doctrines with Scripture? Some think they can, but, when they present commentary from others rather than simply presenting Scripture, does this make their doctrine any more valid?

And I don't really have that time either, lol. That is why I force myself to stop coming. I have a business to run as well as other projects and other forums to visit. I don't set up shop on one forum, but try to get to as many as I can. But as I said, this forum has a special interest to me, and it is the only one I come back to on a regular basis. Primarily because it is a Baptist Forum, and also because it is interesting to watch others grow. Some here don't know it, but they have changed over the nearly 6 years I have been coming here. I have made a study of human behavior, and have seen God working in the lives of many here.

My favorite spectator sport.



And besides, where else can I really get the chance to talk with other Baptists on such a large scale with as much diversity as we see among them. Before I came here, I though all Baptists were like the Independent Baptists I usually fellowship with.

Okay, RL, have to get going, and again, take your time. I would actually prefer that you give what I have said a little consideration before responding to it. There are a lot of things that need to be taken into consideration with just this one issue. That men are immersed when Baptized with the Holy Ghost is not something that I came to believe overnight, but has taken years of study, debate, and discussion to come to the point where I am confident that it cannot be invalidated. But as you say, it is hard to transfer what I understand in a few words.


Hence I do not try to clarify my view with a few words, lol. And sometimes there are those who are interested in addressing the points. Sadly, few do, but, when they do, it makes for great discussion. Recently my best antagonist has been a Seventh Day Adventist.


God bless.

 

Ah yes, the armor of God:


Ephesians 6:13-18

King James Version (KJV)


13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;


I am quite sure, had the internet been available to Paul that he would have no doubt included the Ignore Function...


God bless.

 

Think that while there are some in the pentacostal movemnent who still would hold to the real Gospel, who uphold salvation as we Baptists do, that a big piece of the modern day Charasmatic Movement, espewcially those in the so called Word of fauth/Health and wealth Gospel, along with oneness groups, are holding to doctrines of demons and false teachers...

 

I look at it like this: there are in these groups, and all groups, those who sincerely believe the beliefs they hold are valid doctrines, and in large part that is because they are following the leadership they are under. And as there are, in every group, those who are sincere in their faith in Christ and those who are not, it's best not to try to determine whether they are saved based on some of these doctrines. But when we have teachings that stray from a Biblical depiction of God and Christ, as well as a Biblical depiction of the Gospel, That's a little different. I think we can without doubt recognize a cult by what they teach concerning the Person of Christ, and I have seen some pretty cultic teachings in some of these charismatic groups, which the health/wealth group is a part of.

And it's odd that some would buy into doctrines such as men becoming gods or that God means for all believers to be healthy and wealthy, but, I think some of them, those who are truly sincere in their search for Biblical truth...will eventually figure it out. Because it will be the contradiction in a sincere faith in Christ and the lack of the promised health or wealth that will finally give them cause to question it.

When it comes to the preachers themselves, perhaps some of them are sincere in their belief, but, some of the outlandish stuff I have heard them "teach" boggles the mind.


God bless.

 

Those in the Word of faith that teach that we are little gods, that Jesus died as demon possessed, and had to get born again in hell, and who sees us as being essentially same as him have fully given into doctrines of demons, as they all claim that the Holy Spirit told them those truths!

many who follow them are sincere, but misguided and fall for those who advocate this spiritual garbage, due to them either not being saved themselves, or else placing tradition and smooth talking over the truth of the Bible!

 

And how many pages do your responses create? lol

Just because my responses are complete, doesn't mean you have to respond to them, which is usually the case. At the very least, try to understand the point being made and address that.

Why would not the actual baptism which is relevant to the texts you seek to understand...be off topic?

The Ephesian disciples are not re-baptized, they are in this event...saved. I have shown in Acts 11 that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is the time of Cornelius' salvation...why would it just be water baptism in Acts 19?

That is not the point, RL: the point is that these verses ascribe both eternal redemption and remission of sins to Christ's Work.

That is what most miss, and that is what you are skirting here.

Now go back and put that in the context in which it is given and see if you agree or disagree. This same issue is the heart of the problem which causes most to equate salvation under both Convenants, and this passage is a clear statement that sins were not forgiven under the Law on an eternal basis, but awaited Christ's Sacrifice.

And I have made it clear...I view the Old Testament Saints to have been saved by grace through faith.

But that does not mean they received the Promised Spirit, remission of sins, nor eternal redemption as we do in this Age.

Why did they all offer up sacrifice...and you don't?

Salvation in Christ is, though, because now men are commanded to have specific faith in the Risen Savior.

You do not see that in Abraham's faith. He had faith in the promise of God, but He did not know that the Seed in view was the Person of Christ.

Paul explains that:


Galatians 3:13-16

King James Version (KJV)


13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


Now, do you really want to say they did receive the promise of the Spirit? Before He was sent (John 7:38-39)? That they were trusting in Christ...

...rather than their heritage?

Do you see the fulfillment of promise in this verse, RL? When exactly did both Jew and Gentile receive the promises of God?


Continued...

 

And nothing I have ever said has implied the Spirit was inactive. You are creating a false argument which is likely due to not retaining what has already passed in the discussion:

This is the consistent position I take in every thread dealing with the differing ministries of the Holy Ghost between this Age under the New Covenant and those prior to this Age.

It means I am laughing, lol.

I really do find things funny, RL.

It is also to help show that there is no enmity or anger on my part, it's just a discussion.

On the contrary, RL...most are disagreeing.

And what is ironic is some of them agree with me:

Now look at this member's position against my own, and you will see the contradiction.

And that is the problem: people want to equate the provision of the Law with the provision of the New Covenant.

The same salvation, the same Spirit, and the same remission of sins.

Just not a Scriptural view, and the above quote is a good place for those who do this to start. They have not ignored Hebrews 9:12-15 because...

...they ignore it because it does not support their equation of God's Promises and Provision between the Covenants.

How is that relevant?

Every salvific event in Acts falls under the Provision of the New Covenant, RL.

The question is, is the Gospel preached to men in the Old Testament the revealed Mystery of the Gospel?

Is the Spirit of God doing precisely what He did in the Old Testament as He is doing in Acts?

If you say yes, then you are equating the coming of the Promised Spirit, which you acknowledge as not coming until Pentecost...with the ministry of the Spirit in the Old Testament.

Look, if it is okay for you to do long responses, yet not myself, could you explain why? If you want to chat about this, great. There are many here who will want to do the same.

If you want to pick one point and focus on that, great. Pick one.

But the fact is, when men received the Spirit that was Promised by the Father and taught of by Christ...they receive eternal salvation that was not occurring in the Old Testament. The primary element to understand is that it is the reconciliation of man to God, and man is, in Christ only...brought back into spiritual union with God.

That is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, that is what takes place in Acts 19, and these disciples of John are baptized in the Name of Christ for the first time.

They are not "re-baptized."

And by the way, these posts are just in answering a few of your own comments. Again I would ask why you complain about the length of my own yet it is okay for you to do long responses?


God bless.

 

Much of this would reflect back to on how one views the contiunuity netween Old/New Covenants...

many see it as basically being the new One enlarged and fulfilled the old One, now bringing to God Jews/gentiles both on an equal basis, as they would see the church in the OT, and isreal being now the church of the New, while those like me would tend to see it as superceded and being a brand new work of God... Church started at Pentacost....

 

Now go back and insert the relevant Scripture and see where your count is. (edited note, I had "where you lie but realized you might think I was referring to you lying rather than where your word count lie, lol).

So show what in my response does not address the statement of my antagonist.

I post it because it is relevant to the discussion.

It is irritating to have to repeat the same opints over and over, even as I am doing in this one.

If you can show it is irrelevant then you can say it is discordant.

It's not a two way street when only one person is anwering the assertions, questions, and statements.

That is the reality.

I guess you have missed it. I have been quite clear that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is what is in view in Acts 19. They receive the Spirit. We see in Acts 11 that receiving the Spirit is in fact salvation. It is said to be repentance unto life, which is contrasted with John's baptism unto repentance. That should clarify my position in regards to whether they were re-baptized or not.

None of that leads to a conclusion of "none of them were baptized with water," it leads to a conclusion of, for the first time, they are Baptized with the Holy Ghost and for the first time they were baptized in the Name of Christ, their identification shifting from being identified with John to being identified with Christ.


God bless.

 

It's okay...I live for that kind of irritation, lol.

That should be pretty obvious.




God bless.

 

I believe that Apollos had two flaws; (1) He did not know the baptism in the Spirit (although true born again saved believer) which accredited the church as the authorized administrator of the ordinances. (2) He did not know that Jesus of Nazereth was the Messiah. He believed in the gospel as presented in Acts 10:43 thus had believed in the Messiah/Christ for salvation. I believe he had been baptized by John BEFORE John revealed Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messiah.

After being more fully instructed. He was not rebaptized as the baptism of John was the "counsel of God" and only baptism Jesus and all the apostles and disicples received and was the baptism in the Great Commission and "one baptism".

The consequence is that he no longer worked as a free agent but worked in and through the Lord's churches AND he proved that "Jesus" was the Messiah of the Old Testament.

The same two flaws are found in the 12 disciples. Most likely Apollos baptized into the name of John. They also did not know about the baptism in the Spirit or that Jesus was the predicted Christ.

When they were properly informed about scriptural baptism - the baptism of John - and that John baptized in reference to Jesus as the Christ. They were baptized by a church authorized administrator.

In Acts 8, and 19 it is not the Person of the Spirit being received through the laying on of hands, but the confirming SIGN gifts of the Spirit or the temporary manifestations that would continue until the Bibical revelation was completed and the last person on whom the apostles laid hands died.

In Acts 10 the baptism in the Spirit occurred the second and last time in order to confirm Gentiles as proper subjects for water baptism and EQUAL members in the churches. I believe they had already been saved or converted to the gospel as preached by all the prophets (Acts 10:43) and manifested the fruits of the indwelling Spirit prior to God sending Peter.

1. Luke says the Spirit "fell" on them (v. 44) and that term is never used to describe initial salvation of anyone but empowerment as in being filled and gifted (v. 46).

2. Luke says the Spirit was "poured out" which is never used for regeneration by the Spirit but the visible signs of the Spirit - accreditation and sign gifts - v. 45

3. Peter is referring to the manifest sign gifts (tongues) which they heard in verse 45 and therefore "received" refers to the sign gifts not to the Person of the Spirit.

The term "save" and "salvation" is broader than the conversion experience but can refer to progressive sanctification or yet future glorification. Here it is speaking about their fitness for baptism and church membership or the salvation of their daily lives for the glory of God through the church.

3.

The term "saved" includes more than initial gospel conversion, but it also can be applied to baptism (into church membership "progressive sanctification" and in this case the salvation of their life of service through the Lord's church.

 

So those who were baptized by John had received "initial Gospel conversion?"

John distinguishes between his baptism with water, and the Baptizer's baptism with the Holy Ghost. If you say they were converted through John's baptism to "initial conversion," then you must also conclude John baptized with the Holy Ghost, because no-one who has not received the Spirit of God is converted.

Salvation can be applied to "baptism into church membership progressive sanctification?"

Could you explain that for me?

And I will have to come back to your response, have to get going.


God bless.