Rebaptism?

[Darrell C]

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/the-“rebaptisms”-of-acts-19.100018/page-9#post-2238916

The "new" is better than the "old" covenant public administration because the former anticipates the latter and therefore the latter invalidates any covenant of anticipation.

You do understand what "anticipates" means right? I know you do.

So why do you equate anticipation with actually receiving that which was promised?

Secondly, the New Covenant does not "invalidate any covenant of anticipation." The simple truth we see in the Harmony of the Promises of God is that all Covenants anticipate the New Covenant.

Do you really see the New Covenant as "invalidating" the Abrahamic Covenant, for example?

Do you not see that these promises are revealed as being fulfilled in the New Covenant?


http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/the-“rebaptisms”-of-acts-19.100018/page-9#post-2238916

The whole Mosaic covenant anticipated a greater prophet than Moses, anticipated the fulfillment of all its ceremonial ordinances by the coming of Christ.

And Moses is not "invalidated" as a Prophet, nor is that which he revealed invalidated...

...because these are the First Principles of the Doctrine of Christ.


Hebrews 6:1-3

King James Version (KJV)


1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3 And this will we do, if God permit.


You really need to learn what the Writer of Hebrews means when he speaks about Perfection.



http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/the-“rebaptisms”-of-acts-19.100018/page-9#post-2238916

The gospel is essentially the same (Heb. 4:2)

Oh, so now you are saying it is "essentially" the same. We just might be making some progress here.

Of course, you are still faced with the problem of the simple truth that the Gospel was not revealed in that Age, or any other.

That the Gospel threads it's way throughout Scripture is not the same as it being revealed to the understanding of men.

Again, a simple point which you have kicked against, which is one reason why your carnal understanding becomes more easily seen.


Romans 16:24-26

King James Version (KJV)


24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

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:


This is why the very Disciples of Christ did not believe that Christ had arisen from the dead. Because it was not given unto them to understand that which eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, nor that which had not entered into the hearts of those that remained unaware of the Hidden Wisdom of God.

That mystery was revealed to men by the Comforter...even as He said it would be. It involves the convicting ministry among unbelievers for the purpose of salvation through Christ, Who, I would remind you, is the One the Spirit of God glorifies.

So when we see carnal lectures glorifying the Church and her authority, we have to give special attention to such doctrine.

And that is all the time I have today, sorry. But don't worry, as I said, I care about you, and plan on giving you the attention you need.

I may check back in after I get ready, but if I do not, just understand, this process is not because I do not care, but because I do.


God bless.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I love the bravado you two guys have in presenting your arguments, but can't you make them smaller? It's like trying to read two novels on here.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is the Link.




God bless.

Here is his post (Post #155)

Okay, so one can be regenerated and not part of the Church.

Curiouser and curiouser.

You know that's funny, because John's disciples, as well as Christ's disciples were baptized, and baptizing, yet nowhere do we see the two groups equated, except in carnal commentaries.

And just for the record, would you please clarify for the Public Record that here you are affirming that one can be born again but not baptized with the Holy Ghost, and...

...one can be regenerated but not part of the Church.

Which you say already existed prior to Pentecost by reason of the indwelling of Christ which Christ states is a future event.

Really leaving this time, I hope, lol. You just make it difficult for me.

As you can see he completely ignores the evidence presented just as he continues to do. He has no response because there can be no response. There are two different types of temples of the holy Spirit and he simply will not admit it even though the evidence continues to stare him right in the face. He will continue to ignore, redirect, and ask questions instead of dealing with the facts of these texts.

 

[The Biblicist]

While the average Sunday School attendee might be impressed with what, on the surface, seems to be an orderly presentation of "spiritual truths," it is not going to keep the bible Student from noticing that there is a difference between the Temple of the Covenant of Law and the Temple of God being built by Christ.

One is carnal, the other spiritual.

The contention is not whether the Church is the spiritual abode of God in this Age, the contention is your equation of this Temple with the Tabernacle/Temple of the Old Testament, and the butchering of the teachings of the Book of Hebrews you commit.

God bless.

He continues to ignore the text. Now, he jerks the text out of its context and tries to place it in the book of hebrews when it is found in the book of first Corinthians. He infers that Paul is making some kind of contrast with the Old Covenant temple.

Again, there are two PRESENT temples of the Holy Spirit - the INDIVIDIDUAL physical body and the INSTITUTIONAL church, the kind of church built and located at Corinth as the context clearly teaches.

 

[Darrell C]

That is correct! The baptism in the Spirit in Acts 2:1 is consistent with the baptism in the Spirit in Exodus 40:35

Absurd, lol.

You are still missing the distinction between the Holy Spirit abiding in a building made with hands, and God abiding in men.

That is a primary thrust of the Writer of Hebrews' teaching, to make it clear there is no "consistency."

No, I am not! This promise is to the New Covenant public administrator (the public house of God) alone, but it is in keeping with its Old Testament application to the "house of God."

The Promise is to all families of the earth.

Not some Church Official.

Your position is altogether carnal.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is the Link.




God bless.

If he had an answer he would give it. You can go to his link and you will find nothing.

 

[Darrell C]

As you can see he completely ignores the evidence presented just as he continues to do. He has no response because there can be no response. There are two different types of temples of the holy Spirit and he simply will not admit it even though the evidence continues to stare him right in the face. He will continue to ignore, redirect, and ask questions instead of dealing with the facts of these texts.

Hard to imagine that direct response to what you say is ignoring and not a response, lol.

You boast of "presented evidence," yet that presented evidence is repeatedly responded to, accompanied by my own questions...

...which you still do not answer.

Please address them:



Okay, so one can be regenerated and not part of the Church.

Curiouser and curiouser.

You know that's funny, because John's disciples, as well as Christ's disciples were baptized, and baptizing, yet nowhere do we see the two groups equated, except in carnal commentaries.

And just for the record, would you please clarify for the Public Record that here you are affirming that one can be born again but not baptized with the Holy Ghost, and...

...one can be regenerated but not part of the Church.

Which you say already existed prior to Pentecost by reason of the indwelling of Christ which Christ states is a future event.


If you feel you have already addressed this, please give the post#.

The questions above arise from the carnal lectures you have presented. Your hollow appeal to an audience hardly affirms what has been addressed and what has not.

You need to learn to talk to people, my friend, not at them.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Notice he did not say the way "into the holiest was not yet obtainable" but only that it was not yet "manifest."

So can you impose this attainability in this passage...



Romans 3:20-22

King James Version (KJV)


20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:


...as well?

Secondly, are you publicly declaring with this statement that the Way in the Holiest was attainable?

I would greatly desire to have you answer this question.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Absurd, lol.

You are still missing the distinction between the Holy Spirit abiding in a building made with hands, and God abiding in men.

That is precisely what a New Testament church is - an assembly of water baptized believers - a spiritual assembly. 1 Corinthians 3:5-10 tells you in explicit language that the congregation existing at Corinth was built by the Holy Spirit - just read it or better yet here it is:

5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

Paul eliminates the division over administrators of water baptism by simply delcaring they all work for one boss and they work together with God as "one" - therefore, the Holy Spirit is actually saving, water baptizing and forming them into the "house" of God at Corinth. The former Comforter was ascribed the very same thing in John 4:1-2. His disciples preached the gospel and baptized believers but Christ is given the credit, thus the same with the second Comforter.






The Promise is to all families of the earth.

Not some Church Official.

Your position is altogether carnal.


God bless.[/QUOTE]

 

[Darrell C]

Notice also he says this is true as long as the "first tabernacle was YET STANDING." It was still standing AFTER the cross was it not???? It was still standing until A.D. 70 was it not?

So the Temple standing indicates...what?

It was still an accredited Public Ministry indwelt by God until men tore it down?

Curiouser and curiouser.

You need to slow down, and actually think about what you're saying. Your just making this far too easy.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hard to imagine that direct response to what you say is ignoring and not a response, lol.

You boast of "presented evidence," yet that presented evidence is repeatedly responded to, accompanied by my own questions...

...which you still do not answer.

Please address them:



Okay, so one can be regenerated and not part of the Church.

Curiouser and curiouser.

You know that's funny, because John's disciples, as well as Christ's disciples were baptized, and baptizing, yet nowhere do we see the two groups equated, except in carnal commentaries.

And just for the record, would you please clarify for the Public Record that here you are affirming that one can be born again but not baptized with the Holy Ghost, and...

...one can be regenerated but not part of the Church.

Which you say already existed prior to Pentecost by reason of the indwelling of Christ which Christ states is a future event.


If you feel you have already addressed this, please give the post#.

The questions above arise from the carnal lectures you have presented. Your hollow appeal to an audience hardly affirms what has been addressed and what has not.

You need to learn to talk to people, my friend, not at them.


God bless.

Readers, consider the post and the explicit details I provided. Now look at his response, if you can call it that. He simply ignores all the detailed evidences provided in the text and context. Instead he responds by shifting the focus to a completely different matter that the texts provided. He asks philosophical questions that have no bearing to the detailed Biblical evidnce provided. Why? Becausee he has no answers. Provide some exegetical reasons why the contextual based evidence I provide is wrong? He can't do it!

 

[Darrell C]

That is precisely what a New Testament church is - an assembly of water baptized believers - a spiritual assembly.

The New Testament Church is an assembly of...water baptized believers?

Yet this is the inevitable result of carnal understanding, equating water baptism with the spiritual truths taught in the Word of God.

We are going to, when I return to the carnal lecture of yours that I am working on, look at the implication of Baptismal Regeneration in your doctrine.

But thanks for this statement.

Keep 'em coming.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Readers, consider the post and the explicit details I provided. Now look at his response, if you can call it that. He simply ignores all the detailed evidences provided in the text and context. Instead he responds by shifting the focus to a completely different matter that the texts provided. He asks philosophical questions that have no bearing to the detailed Biblical evidnce provided. Why? Becausee he has no answers. Provide some exegetical reasons why the contextual based evidence I provide is wrong? He can't do it!

Could you just address the questions posed in the post? lol

That you would deny I have given you a Scriptural Basis for my position as well as a Scriptural address of your assertions may seem credible in your mind, but, it cannot be denied in the Public Record.

Now slow down, and give some thought to the arguments presented, rather than whipping out responses based in emotion. You are only going to make the hole you have dug yourself into deeper.



God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

So the Temple standing indicates...what?

It was still an accredited Public Ministry indwelt by God until men tore it down?

Curiouser and curiouser.

You need to slow down, and actually think about what you're saying. Your just making this far too easy.


God bless.

Your point, which you underlined and made bold as that as long as the temple was still standing the way into the heavenly had not occurred. Your point is pointless because the temple was still standing LONG AFTER THE CROSS had occurred. Anyone can see your point is not supported by the text, because if your point was supported by the text, it would not be defined by the temple still standing.

The temple still standing shows that the actual application of the cross does not depend upon the TIME of the cross. The application of the cugh the cross was being made even though the temple was still standing 40 years AFTER the cross just as the application of the cross was being made 4000 years before the cross occurred.

 

[The Biblicist]

The New Testament Church is an assembly of...water baptized believers?

Yet this is the inevitable result of carnal understanding, equating water baptism with the spiritual truths taught in the Word of God.

We are going to, when I return to the carnal lecture of yours that I am working on, look at the implication of Baptismal Regeneration in your doctrine.

But thanks for this statement.

Keep 'em coming.


God bless.

You are showing such a huge display of ignorance. There were other types of ekklesias during New Testament times other than those of Christ. There were secular types (Greek city - Acts 19) and Jewish types but the Christ type was "spiritual" not "secular" with regard to the requirements for membership and business it was engaged in. It's member had physical bodies but were "spiritual" and so just because the ekklesia at Corinth was composed of physical bodies that actually assembled together in a physical place (1 Cor. 11:18,20) does not mean it was not a "spiritual" assembly or an assembly defined by spiritual gifts, spiritual business, and those born of the Spirit.

The churches required SPIRITUAL characteristics and profession of spiritual new birth for membership as it was a spiritual body. Don't confuse invisible with spiritual as one does not need to be invisible to be spiritual OR are you invisible? Do you have to be invisible to be spiritual? If so, then we can conclude you are not spiritual according to your definition of spiritual.

 

[Darrell C]

Your point, which you underlined and made bold as that as long as the temple was still standing the way into the heavenly had not occurred. Your point is pointless because the temple was still standing LONG AFTER THE CROSS had occurred. Anyone can see your point is not supported by the text, because if your point was supported by the text, it would not be defined by the temple still standing.

The point remains, and again we see a carnal understanding of what the Writer is saying.


Hebrews 9:8-9

King James Version (KJV)

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;


Two things I want you to consider:

1. Take a look at the Greek;

2. The writer never mentions...

...the Temple.

The reason is that he did not want the Student of Scripture to make the same carnal conclusion you are offering as...an argument.

The temple still standing shows that the actual application of the cross does not depend upon the TIME of the cross.

Sorry, but the statement of the Writer stands, despite the uproar you raise.



Again, the earthly Tabernacle did not provide Eternal Redemption.

That is just a Biblical Truth most Christians understand.

I can understand why a First Century Jew would have a problem with such a clear statement, but someone who says he is teacher of babes?

The application of the cugh the cross was being made even though the temple was still standing 40 years AFTER the cross just as the application of the cross was being made 4000 years before the cross occurred.

So explain, if the "application of the Cross" was being made 4000 years prior to the Cross...

...the purpose of animal sacrifice.

That is what God provided men until the Cross, and it was the Cross, and the Cross alone...

...that provided Eternal Redemption.

Again, it is quite clear:


Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)


12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


Both Abraham and you have received the Promise of Eternal Inheritance.

Yet these are two entirely different receptions.

Until you understand that, you will continue to give carnal lectures rather than preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Sounds harsh, but it is true.

That does not mean I question your salvation, my friend...just your carnal doctrine.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Could you just address the questions posed in the post? lol

That you would deny I have given you a Scriptural Basis for my position as well as a Scriptural address of your assertions may seem credible in your mind, but, it cannot be denied in the Public Record.

Now slow down, and give some thought to the arguments presented, rather than whipping out responses based in emotion. You are only going to make the hole you have dug yourself into deeper.



God bless.

Can you believe this!!!!???? He completely ignores the text, context and details of the evidence I set before him, and responds with questions that have nothing to do with the context, text or details presented him and then has the gall to ask me to "just address the questions" while he continues to ignore the evidences! Why? Because he can't deal with the evidences so he attempts to change the discussion. Unbelievable!!! Why don't you practice what you preach and "just address" the context, text and details presented and then I will address your questions that are intended to derail and change the subject from the contextual based evidence presented you?

 

[The Biblicist]

Readers, this man is completely irrational. He offers ridicule instead of thoughtful discussion. He ignores contextual based evidence. He changes the subject matter. There is no point in wasting my time dealing with a person who simply wants to argue for the sake of argument.

 

[Darrell C]

Don't confuse invisible with spiritual as one does not need to be invisible to be spiritual OR are you invisible? Do you have to be invisible to be spiritual? If so, then we can conclude you are not spiritual according to your definition of spiritual

Okay, maintain your Public Accreditation, and I will maintain the same doctrinal position I have since we engaged in this discussion:


John 3:7-8

King James Version (KJV)

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


Teach men they must be baptized with water, and I will teach them...

...they must be born again.

And in the meantime, again, thanks for the responses.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Can you believe this!!!!???? He completely ignores the text, context and details of the evidence I set before him, and responds with questions that have nothing to do with the context, text or details presented him and then has the gall to ask me to "just address the questions" while he continues to ignore the evidences! Why? Because he can't deal with the evidences so he attempts to change the discussion. Unbelievable!!! Why don't you practice what you preach and "just address" the context, text and details presented and then I will address your questions that are intended to derail and change the subject from the contextual based evidence presented you?

You boast you have addressed my arguments, yet...where are they?

Where is the address of what you yourself posted? I asked you for a link...where is it?


God bless.