The “Rebaptisms” of Acts 19

[The Biblicist]

Shouting does not make the nonsense you teach any more valid. You need to learn some manners.

But I guess someone who thinks he can rewrite what Scripture actually states would not have a problem rewriting forum etiquette.


God bless.

Just emphasis not shouting. However, even emphasis did not registrar in your mind. Your response to this obvious flaw in your thinking proves it is futile to continue this discussion. I will just place you back on "ignore" mode. Oh what a blessing that mode is!

 

[Darrell C]

I run into people who are genuinely saved today by simple faith in the simple gospel but who are yet having problems understanding the fuller revelations of the gospel - LIKE YOU! Yet I don't doubt their salvation because they lack understanding in areas.

Yes, they are saved by simple faith in the Gospel. In this Age understanding of the Mystery is given unto men.

Not so in the Old Testament Eras.

According to the gospel you preach...simple faith doesn't have to include faith in the Risen Savior...at all.

This is not a matter of understanding deeper truths of the Spirit, it is simply a matter of believing that Christ died, arose again, and is the remedy for the condition we are born into.

The house of Cornelius, Apollos and no doubt many other truly born again persons AFTER PENTECOST needed to know the progressive revelation that JESUS OF NAZARETH was the Christ and had fulfilled it through the cross. As with Apollos they knew the way of the Lord, but needed to know more perfectly or fully the gospel of their salvation.

Why emphasize "after Pentecost?" You have already said they were saved and had received reconciliation and the indwelling of the Spirit of God through John's baptism. You have said they were saved even though they didn't know...Christ died for them.

Your gospel excludes the Cross of Christ.

My friend...that is the Gospel.

I know very few today who understand the fullness of the gospel even after its completed fulfillment. To SAVINGLY understand the gospel and to FULLY understand the gospel are two different birds. The latter is not necessary to be saved. You don't need to understand what is NOT REVEALED, but only what IS REVEALED to be saved as Peter says they could "believe" and could have "remission of sins" and so what they DID UNDERSTAND was sufficient to save them.

Maybe if you actually learn what the fullness of the Gospel means, you will better be able to gauge who understands it and who does not.

While it is true men were saved in the Old Testament apart from having had the Gospel Mystery revealed to them, to continue to preach that is how men can be saved according to New Covenant standards is a false gospel. Jews are not born again and inducted into the Body of Christ while rejecting Jesus Christ and awaiting on the Messiah they see preached in the Law, Psalms, and Prophets.

If you weren't so busy creating false arguments and carnal commentary...you might see that salvation was incomplete in the Old Testament, and made complete through Christ Himself.

Peter stood in direct opposition of the Gospel of Christ, the Lord making this clear in Matthew 16:20-23. That Jesus was the Christ was revealed to Peter and the disciples, but, this is not equated to undertanding, much less receiving the Gospel. Peter says "Be it far from thee Lord...this shall never happen unto thee!" Peter takes up a sword in the Garden of Gethsemane in an attempt, with physical means, to keep Christ from going to the Cross. Peter denies he even knows the Lord...to save his own skin.

Yeah, really got a great picture of someone savingly understanding the Gospel there, Biblicist.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Just emphasis not shouting. However, even emphasis did not registrar in your mind. Your response to this obvious flaw in your thinking proves it is futile to continue this discussion. I will just place you back on "ignore" mode. Oh what a blessing that mode is!

Not sure how cowardice is related to blessing.

But that's okay, Biblicist, hopefully some day you will understand the carnal nature of your gospel, and how it minimizes the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Again I ask if anyone here has the courage to afirm that which Biblicist is teaching.

Anyone?


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

And this is a basic principle in my teaching, Biblicist: God will judge every man according to their obedience to His revealed will.

You have already denied this principle for Gentiles who did not have the Law but performed the works of the Law which were written on their hearts. Men have always been saved by grace through faith, and the Gospel has always been the revealed will of God to men.

That does not nullify the fact that the Gsopel of Jesus Christ was a Mystery not revealed in prior Ages.


.

Here is what you don't get, the Old Testament prophets did preach "the gospel OF CHRIST" ("to HIM" - contextual antecedent is "him" - v. 40) and its was just as sufficient to save as it is now. The SAME gospel according to Hebrews 4:2, the same salvation as there can be no other kind (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; Heb. 4:2). The "mystery" did not make the gospel any more saving now than then! The gospel now does not save any differently then as now and Abraham is the absolute proof that justification/regeneration remains the same as the whole essence of justification is based upon the cross as much as regeneration and yet Abraham is the OMNI-dispensational proof of ONE salvation, ONE Savior, ONE way rather than your TWO different kinds of salvation, TWO different kinds of gospels (one that cannot justify and regenerate and another tha can). PERIOD! Back on ignore!

 

[The Biblicist]

Not sure how cowardice is related to blessing.

But that's okay, Biblicist, hopefully some day you will understand the carnal nature of your gospel, and how it minimizes the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


God bless.

Nobody is going to respond because they know it is useless to respond to you as you simply repeat the same worthless arguments over and over again.

However, if you really want to put this to a test, ask how many side with you (not counting Van or Jeshua1)???

 

[rlvaughn]

Again I ask if anyone here has the courage to afirm that which Biblicist is teaching.

Anyone?

I haven't read everything either one of you have posted. But regarding what I have read I generally agree with Biblicist's teaching and generally disagree with yours.

 

[Darrell C]

Here is what you don't get, the Old Testament prophets did preach "the gospel OF CHRIST"

I've said that numerous times.


False Arguments:

1: Darrell teaches the Gospel is not in the Old Testament.

2: Darrell's teaching is "perverted Roman Catholic Sacramental church salvation doctrine."

3: Darrell does not include relevant portions of the passages he uses to proof-text his doctrine.

4: Implication that I am teaching one cannot be saved apart from tongues...when I never even mentioned tongues.

5: Darrell teaches men were not saved in the Old Testament.

6: Darrell denies the consistency of the Gospel between Post-Pentecost preaching of the Gospel and Pre-Pentecost Preaching of the Gospel.

("to HIM" - contextual antecedent is "him" - v. 40) and its was just as sufficient to save as it is now

I agree.

What has that to do with whether men were born again before Pentecost or not, or, received the Spirit so clearly said not to come until after Christ is glorified and specifically after Christ had returned to Heaven?

The SAME gospel according to Hebrews 4:2,

So the Proto Evangelium is the same thing as the Gospel of the Kingdom and that too is the same thing as the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Could you show me where those in the wilderness were taught that Jesus was the Christ and that He would die for their sins?

The closest you are going to get is the Old Testament picture of Redemption in Christ as found in the Law.

The Gospel was not revealed to them.

Another thing to consider is that Moses did not enter into the rest promised to them...which was physical. Doesn't mean Moses wasn't saved, it simply means that the rest of the Gospel they had revealed to them and the Rest we, who have been made perfect (contrasted to them, who had not been made perfect) receive...are two entirely different rests.

One is physical, one is eternal.

Manna was physical, the True Bread was eternal.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

the same salvation as there can be no other kind (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; Heb. 4:2).

Is the salvation we have when we are glorified different from the salvation we have now?

Of course not.

But because you have so imprinted your own false arguments into this discussion...you can't understand when some tells you directly...we are not talking about men being saved throughout Scripture, we are talking specifically about men being born again and receiving the eternal indwelling of God.

You refuse to acknowledge that the Spirit of God came upon men differently in the Old Testament than He does in this Age.

The "mystery" did not make the gospel any more saving now than then!

Salvation is not the issue, lol.

The Old Testament Saints were saved like as we, by grace through faith. I have said that directly numerous times, and still your argument fails to understand that.

That doesn't mean they received the promises that only those under the New Covenant were prophesied to receive. That includes eternal remission of sins (the Law and all other sacrifices prior to the Law could not take away sins), eternal redemption (which is accomplished through God reconciling men to Himself through Christ), or regeneration (which is the cleansing and will for obedience through the indwelling of God).


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

The gospel now does not save any differently then as now and Abraham is the absolute proof that justification/regeneration

And there it is...you equate salvation under the Law (and prior to the Law) with salvation in Christ.

There is no difference between dying not having had your sins redeemed and having your sins redeemed while you are yet alive?

There is no difference between the Comforter being with believers for ever and the Spirit of God leaving men (such as Saul)?

There is no difference between being under the New Covenant and being under the Covenant of Law?

There is no difference between being in relationship with God through heritage and being in relationship with God through the eternal indwelling?

There is no difference between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost indwelling believers and the absolute lack of knowledge of the Trinity in the Old Testament?

Those are the differences in the salvation of the Old and New Testament Saint. We are made perfect...they are not.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

remains the same as the whole essence of justification is based upon the cross as much as regeneration and yet Abraham is the OMNI-dispensational proof of ONE salvation,

From an eternal perspective, yes, but not from a temporal perspective.

The difference, Biblicist, is that Abraham, David, and John the Baptist all died having offered up vicarious sacrifice of animals. If Christ's Sacrifice had been imputed to them...

...why did they offer up sacrifice?

You honestly see no difference?

ONE Savior,

In the Old Testament, Israel trusted in a Monotheistic God, for He told them "I am One."

In the New Testament we understand that God manifest in the flesh and died upon the Cross to die in our place. We understand that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are still the same God that was the God of Israel. This one point is why Israel rejected Christ. They sought to kill Him because He "made Himself God."

Was this understanding given to men in the Old Testament, Biblicist?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

ONE way rather than your TWO different kinds of salvation,

I'm not the one making Christ's sacrifice a mere formality, but the one showing from Scripture the difference between God making promise of the New Covenant, men being under the Covenant of Law, and men being brought into relationship with God through the establishment of the New Covenant.

TWO different kinds of gospels

Your the one with two gospels, my friend. Men were saved identically in the Old Testament as they are in the New, despite the fact that they awaited the promise of Messiah, the promise of the Spirit, and the promise of salvation from sin.

They were justified by faith, true, but that does not mean we ignore the fact that they still had to be redeemed from the bondage of sin.

You are teaching that the saved of the Old Testament were Jews, and that Gentiles were allowed to partake of that salvation. That is another gospel. Both Jew and Greek were inducted into the House of Christ beginning at Pentecost. Your view, which is popular around here, that the faithful were members of the Body of Christ...is not a Scriptural view. Jews were Jews, Gentiles were Gentiles, and in Christ that distinction no longer exists.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

(one that cannot justify and regenerate and another tha can).

Same salvation, different benefits.

I have said for quite some time the same thing to numerous members here: you are imposing the realization of the Promises of the New Covenant into a period when the New Covenant and it's promises were not yet given.

You effectively nullify the fact that a promise is a promise until fulfilled.

And the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is one of those promises:


Acts 1:4-5

King James Version (KJV)


4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

PERIOD! Back on ignore!

I doubt seriously your pride will allow for that, lol.

But it's really no loss to me, Biblicist, you have been ignoring me the entire discussion. You have actually been debating the false arguments you have created in an attempt to make the gospel you preach seem plausible.

Nobody is going to respond because they know it is useless to respond to you as you simply repeat the same worthless arguments over and over again.

On the contrary, you are providing more and more false arguments for me to field, lol.

However, if you really want to put this to a test, ask how many side with you (not counting Van or Jeshua1)???

Most here disagree with me, I already know that, lol. But what others think doesn't change my doctrine, Biblicist, because I am not catering to people because I want them to agree with me. I want them to agree with the Word of God, and like you, few here have the stamina to thresh this out.

If you could lose the false arguments and actually address the Scripture, perhaps you might begin to understand that there were no Christians until Pentecost.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I haven't read everything either one of you have posted. But regarding what I have read I generally agree with Biblicist's teaching and generally disagree with yours.

First, I would ask why you would think you agreeing with Biblicist without actually having read the posts...should mean anything?

But, I am glad that you have stepped up, I will now ask you to affirm Biblicist's doctrine, since you have decided that you generally agree with him.

Let's start with something simple: you affirm that Cornelius was already saved when Peter preached unto him the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

You affirm that being a proselyte to Judaism is equal to being a Christian?


God bless.

 

[rlvaughn]

First, I would ask why you would think you agreeing with Biblicist without actually having read the posts...should mean anything?

Seriously? Sometimes I think you only see what you want to see. Everything and anything are not the same. I did not say I agree "with Biblicist without actually having read the posts." I haven't read everything he has written in this thread. So I am not going to say I agree with something I haven't read or may not be sure I understand. But let's not play dumb here; I think you can see from what I have discussed with you and what Biblicist has discussed with you that I am close to his position and far from yours. I've answered your question and don't intend to play ring around the rosy with the same material again.

 

[Darrell C]

I haven't read everything either one of you have posted. But regarding what I have read I generally agree with Biblicist's teaching and generally disagree with yours.

Here's something else I would ask you to clarify that you agree with Biblicist on:

6. The term "saved" is used in reference to baptism as in Mark 16:16
a. The issue was the administration of water baptism (Acts 10:46-48)
b. Church membership is God's revealed way to serve God - progressive sanctification
c. Water baptism is "the baptism of repentance" meaning that "fruits of repentance" are required as prerequisite to water baptism. "Repentance unto life" is the declaration of water baptism and for the Gentiles to receive water baptism not only makes them EQUAL members in the church but DECLARES they have received eternal life or are believers.

Do you affirm his teaching here?

Is the salvation here...


Acts 11:12-18

King James Version (KJV)


12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:

13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


...really just a public accreditation that they were already saved?

Let's look at what you generally agree with:

6. The term "saved" is used in reference to baptism as in Mark 16:16
a. The issue was the administration of water baptism (Acts 10:46-48)

Is water baptism the "issue?"

In either of those teo passages?

b. Church membership is God's revealed way to serve God - progressive sanctification

You affirm this? Church membership is how God reveals we serve Him? Progressive sanctification is through membership in the Church? Water baptism affirms this?

c. Water baptism is "the baptism of repentance" meaning that "fruits of repentance" are required as prerequisite to water baptism. "Repentance unto life" is the declaration of water baptism and for the Gentiles to receive water baptism not only makes them EQUAL members in the church but DECLARES they have received eternal life or are believers.

Water baptism is the "baptism of repentance?" That it proves men have evidenced they have repented by being water baptized?

Repentance granted by God has anything at all...to do with water baptism?

The gentiles are acknowledged in Acts 10 and 11 as having been made equal members of the Body of Christ...because they are water baptized?

We know they received eternal life, which according to Biblicist they already had...because they were water baptized?

6. The term "saved" is used in reference to baptism as in Mark 16:16
a. The issue was the administration of water baptism (Acts 10:46-48)

Let's look at the reference given:


Mark 16:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


Does this mean that men are saved by being baptized? That water baptism means what Biblicist insists it does above?

Do you really agree with this?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Because teaching error in a public forum...is serious business.

Sometimes I think you only see what you want to see.

At the very least what cannot be said is that I have ignored anything.

I do not take sides with someone because they sorta believe what I want to believe.

Everything and anything are not the same. I did not say I agree "with Biblicist without actually having read the posts

Here is what you said:

I haven't read everything either one of you have posted. But regarding what I have read I generally agree with Biblicist's teaching and generally disagree with yours.

Here is my response:

First, I would ask why you would think you agreeing with Biblicist without actually having read the posts...should mean anything?

If you want to split hairs and think that reading some of the posts qualifies you to draw a reasonable conclusion, feel free.

That you are similar to Biblicist is quite evident in the OP.

So you can affirm that you too believe that men were saved identically by being baptized by John and being baptized by Paul in Acts 19. Biblicist does. Biblicist believes Cornelius was already a born again believer eternally indwelt.

Do you affirm that teaching?

I haven't read everything he has written in this thread. So I am not going to say I agree with something I haven't read or may not be sure I understand.

Which is why I am giving you the opportunity to now affirm Biblicist's teaching. Your post supports the gospel he preaches, so now, if you are willing, you can affirm that which you imply in saying you generally agree with Biblicist.

And if you really want to make it interesting, you can step up to show what it is you disagree with in my own teaching.

But don't think you are going to make comments like this without being asked to back them up.

But let's not play dumb here; I think you can see from what I have discussed with you and what Biblicist has discussed with you that I am close to his position and far from yours.

Why do you think I am addressing both of you.

Because your doctrine completely shrouds the very simple truth that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is when men are immersed into God.

I've answered your question and don't intend to play ring around the rosy with the same material again.

What question have you answered?

Let me ask this one again:

But, I am glad that you have stepped up, I will now ask you to affirm Biblicist's doctrine, since you have decided that you generally agree with him.

Let's start with something simple: you affirm that Cornelius was already saved when Peter preached unto him the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

You affirm that being a proselyte to Judaism is equal to being a Christian?

Please answer the question.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I haven't read everything either one of you have posted. But regarding what I have read I generally agree with Biblicist's teaching and generally disagree with yours.

Tell me if you affirm this:

Why don't you slow down and actually read what I said and think about it before responding with nonsense? I said that the term "fell" is further described as "the gift of the Spirit" which is the conclusion of the observers because they "heard" them speak in tongues

Do you affirm that there is a consistency in Biblicist's teaching? Does this correlate to Cornelius or the Ephesian believers already being born again believers indwelt by the Promised Spirit?

So yes, what occurred is what occurred in Acts 2:2-4 upon already water baptized believers in the former case.

Do you agree that their former baptism by John ha anything to do with the salvation that takes place in Acts 2 or 10?

Are not both groups baptized in the Name of Christ?

However, these believers COULD NOT obtain water baptism because the ALL JEWISH congregation would not administer it to them because they were GENTILES and refused to allow them EQUALITY in the house of God WITHOUT DIVINE INTERVENTION.

Do you affirm Biblicist's teaching that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is simply so these poor born again believers...could be water baptized?

Does that even make any sense seeing he calls them "already baptized believers" just prior to making this statement?

The threefold vision to Peter and the Baptism in the Spirit with accompanying signs (tongues) provided that DIVINE INTERVENTION in order to force the all Jewish church to recognize them as proper subjects for baptism and equal membership.

Were Cornelius, his household, and the Ephesian disciples baptized with the Holy Ghost so the Jewish Church was forced to recognize them as proper subjects of water baptism?

Is there a Jewish Church and a Gentile Church in reality?

The "saved" refers to "baptism", not that baptism obtained literal savlation but DECLARED they already were had "life" as baptism is the baptism of repentance or the declaration of life.

Is the salvation in view, in any of these occurrences in Acts...referring to water baptism?

Did their water baptism in these events declare they already had life because baptism is the baptism of repentance or the declaration of life?


Maybe you missed these posts, so now you are given opportunity to affirm whether you decisively agree or not. General agreement is an affirmation of this doctrine just as much as a decisive affirmation is.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Here's another I would ask you to agree with or not:


John 7:38-39

King James Version (KJV)


38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


Does this speak of those already having the Spirit and the Lord is teaching here that what is future is an out-flowing of the Spirit? If you say yes, then you agree with Biblicist.

But if you say this speaks of the Promised Spirit coming in the future, and that the rivers of living waters speak of eternal life, then you would have to agree with me.

If you say that this teaches that those Christ is speaking to couldn't possibly have the Spirit because it says so right there in the verse, lol, and that their receiving of the Spirit would not take place until after Christ is glorified, then you would have to agree with me.

So who do you agree with, RL?

Does John make it clear that rivers of living water flowing out of those who believe on Christ is a future event rather than the present tense Biblicist insists is in the passage?

Does John make it clear that the Spirit was not given at this time?

Does John make it clear the Spirit could not be given because Christ was not yet glorified?

Please answer.

And for the record, you can tell me if you agree that adding v.37...


John 7:37-39

King James Version (KJV)


37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


"...proves" that men were already believing on Christ, receiving the Spirit, and they were just waiting until Christ was glorified so there could be an outflow of what they already had?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

One more, RL:

Do you agree with Biblicist that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was revealed in past Ages?

And by revealed I mean that God had opened their understanding to Christ dying on the Cross to make atonement for the sins of the world.

Do you agree that this...


Romans 16:25-26

King James Version (KJV)


25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:


...can be ignored?

Is Paul saying that the Gospel of Christ which he is preaching is according to the revelation of the Mystery?

That it was kept secret since the world began?

That it is now...made manifest?

Or do you agree with Biblicist that it was only the Gentiles that needed to have this revealed to them?

This is just a start, RL, to what you generally agree with.

So one last question: is it really a good idea to voice a conclusion publicly...without understanding everything involved?


God bless.