Featured The “Rebaptisms” of Acts 19

There are others reading this thread and you have already had a response by one who explicitly told you he did not agree with your position. So lets be honest, ok?

 

But are these not those who were not...


Ephesians 2:11-13

King James Version (KJV)


11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.


...?

You are denying the fact that Israel, as a Nation, enjoyed a relationship to and with God prior to Pentecost.

That relationship ended with the establishment of the New Covenant.

The New Covenant beings both they which were in relationship through the Covenant of Law, and they which were aliens from that Commonwealth, who had no hope, and were without God in the world...

...into the Relationship which did not exist prior to the New Covenant being established. Your point is not distinguishing the giving of the Promises and the realization of those Promises, it is to equate those promises with what men received under the Law and prior.

The New Man, who is the Twain Made One...did not exist in the previous dispensations.

The Church began at Pentecost, that is just a Bible Basic.


God bless.

 

And he was challenged to back up what he agreed with, not only was it pointed out that he had not read the discussion in detail.

If you think that another member agreeing with you sustains or supports an assertion, then that is why you are failing to address the Scripture given. We don't build Doctrine based on what people like to hear, Biblicist.

And unfortunately, I am out of time, but, I would suggest that for you and I, a more brief discussion would be profitable. That is, simply taking a point and threshing it out in short statements.


God bless.

 

We indeed ahve the OT believers as being saved by teh Grace of God, due to the Messiah that was yet to come, but until he came. NONE of them went right into Heaven, and not ALL of them experienced the [resence of the holy Spirit as we all do now, for the new Covenant is FAR superior to the old one!

 

Do you know what the word "dwelleth" means? It is present tense thus PRE-Pentecost. He is speaking to his "church" as Paul makes this clear in Hebrews 2:13 as it is at this time he instituted the Lord's Supper and He sang a song (Mt. 26:30) with them upon departing and that "you" is called his "church" by Paul in Hebrews. The promise to baptise "you" in the Spirit is confined in every case cited to those previously water baptized believers who had been regularly assembling with Christ from the baptism of John until his ascension as Luke plainly tells you in Acts 1:21-22. This same assembly with a roll of 120 names is the "you" assembling in Acts 2:1 in one place and in one accord which was baptized in the Spirit and then added 3000 not by spirit baptism but by water baptism (Acts 2:40) after receving the gospel by faith. They are called "the church" (Acts 2:46).

Hence, the Holy Spirit was dwelling "with you" the church but on the day of Pentecost "you" the church was baptized in the Spirit.

As individuals they already had the indwelling Spirit, already had present tense eternal life, already had their names written in heaven.

Your problem is that you cant distinguish between the "temple" of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor. 3:16 which the context demand is "the church" AT CORINTH (see verses 5-10) and the "temple"of the holy Spirit which is the INDIVIDUAL member's physical body in 1 Cor. 6:19.

Indwelling the individuals physical body of the believer occurs at the moment of regeneration, but being indwelt as "the church" temple occurs when they are WATER baptized into that one body as that is how believers who are personally indwelt by the Spirit at faith (Acts 2:41a) are "added" to the church (Acts 2:41b).

You and all Protestants are confused on this point, you can't see it because you are not able to distinguish between these two different kinds of temples of the Holy Spirit.

 

First, I am not a Protestant, though I often protest against the lifeless commentary to be found on the forums these days.

Secondly, there is no "two different kinds of Temples" in Scripture. There is the Temple which is present under the Law, which was a shadow of the True, and there is the Temple of God that exists...

...only in this Age.

That is...the believer.

When you can understand the difference between the two, you will then see that all that you have just shouted at me is irrelevant. The Church is the Temple of God and the Church began at Pentecost. Prior to that Temple being established there was the Temple made with hands.

Seriously, you need to study Hebrews.




God bless.

 

And could you do me a favor and fix the code on this post. Bad enough your forum etiquette views shouting at people as acceptable, but do you also have to add the difficulty of quoting in the mix?


God bless.

 

You are only advertising your complete ignorance of the Bible. HOwever, I will not allow you to remain in ignorance:

1. The Church Temple of the Spirit - 1 Cor. 3:16-17

16 ¶ Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

A. Notice he said "YE" and "YOU" not "we" or "us" - hence, this is no universal invisible temple consisting of all true believers.

B. In Context he is the "masterbuilder" that laid the foundation of this temple - v. 10

C.In Context this temple is located at Corinth where other ministers built it up - vv. 5-9

D. He is resolving the issue of division over ADMINISTRATORS OF WATER BAPTISM demonstrating that the ministers that worked at Corinth in building the "temple" composed of "ye" at Corinth were all working together as "ONE" under the leadership of the Spirit of God.

2. The Physical Human Body Temple of the Spirit - 1 Cor. 6:19

19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

A. In Context this is the same kind of body that can fornicate with a harlot - v. 15

B. In Context this is the same kind of body that has a "belly" which eats "meats" - v. 13

C. In Context this is the same kind of body that is found in the plural "your bodies" - v. 15 (the church body is never used in the plural).

3. Both are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and they are completely different from one another. The first is an INSTITUTIONAL congregational body of water baptized believers existing at Corinth. The second refers to the individual's physical body.

And yes, you are a Protestant as far as eccesiology.

 

When you can't deal with the facts presented, attack the person or attack trite non-important things

 

Your responses, BIblicist, will be in red.


Darrell C said: ↑
I have addressed and answered every question you have posed in this post, now return the favor and answer these:


1. What is the difference between the Comforter abiding with them forever and their current state at the time of this teaching?

Answered above. However, I will repeat it just for you. He indwelt them as individual temples of the Spirit - their physical bodies as taught clearly in 1 Cor. 6:19 but it was not until Pentecost he indwelt the institutional church as "the temple" of the Holy Spirit as taught clearly in Acts 2:1,40,46 and 1 Cor. 3:10-16).

So He dwelt in them as "temples" but they weren't really temples until Pentecost.

?


Darrell C said: ↑
2. Is Christ dwelling in them at this time?
The SPIRIT of Christ indwelt them at this time individually. They were chosen "in him" before the world began (Eph. 1:4) as were all "elect" including the nation of Israel that is yet to be saved as a nation (Rom. 11:25-32).


So when He foretells that He, the Father, and the Holy Ghost will indwell them, the Lord overlooks the fact that He is already indwelling them.

?

Not to play Captain Obvious here, but I will point out that the Lord Jesus Christ began in time as a physical form when God created that form in the womb of Mary. From the time of the creation until the time of His Death...He was not indwelling them.

Secondly, you are nullifying what He is teaching in this passage...how does that sit with you? You are denying the reality of the Incarnation itself, as well as confusing, as you have before, the Trinity.

Again you deny the Prophetic TEnse of HIs teaching.



Darrell C said: ↑
3. Is the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth...already in the world?
He has always been in the world with regard to personal individiual indwelling and all the characteristics of the term translated "comforter" can be seen with individuals since the garden. He has never been in the world with regard to the "house of God" as a body of water baptized believers until Pentecost. He did indwell previous houses of God (tabernacle, temple) but they were inanimate materials whereas the "temple of the Holy Spirit" at Corinth was made up of PHYSICAL BODIES (1 Cor. 6:17-19) or individual members thereof - 1 Cor. 12:27) which are "lively stones" instead of inaniminate stones.

Okay, so Christ is wrong. There is no distinction between the Comforter only being able to come if He returns to Heaven. Doesn't matter that Christ states clearly He is not present, as long as Biblicist teaches He was...that's what we are to believe.

And here you admit that there was a physical Tabernacle/Temple yet you equate this with the Temple of God only present when this Age began.

And it is interesting you have God indwelling inanimate objects. Paul actually condemns this type of belief in Romans 1. Give it a read.



Darrell C said: ↑
4. Is there a difference between the Spirit of God dwelling with them, as opposed to in them?
Yes. The pre-Pentecost institutional new "house of God" was not indwelt by the Spirit until Pentecost. Prior to Pentecost he dwelt "with" the church but as individuals members he indwelt each believer or they would be "none of his" - Rom. 8:9

And where exactly do we find this "Pre-Pentecost institutional New House of God" you speak of in Scripture, Biblicist?

Where do we find the Church, who is made up of those that confess Jesus the Christ the Son of the Living God because they believe on Him and His Resurrection?

And why would we take Biblicist's word over Christ's that the Comforter was in fact already in the world whether Christ taught He wasn't or not?


Darrell C said: ↑
5. What does Christ mean when He states "I will come to you?"
As explained repeatedly above in every question.

Well humor me, and put it with the question, rather than in the incredibly long carnal lectures you shout at people.

This question remains unanswered.


Darrell C said: ↑
6. Is that different than His ministry at the time of this teaching?
Again, the institutional "house of God" during his ministry was led by him in person. Another comforter took his place on the day of Pentecost. Today the manifestations of the indwelt "house of God" is that it is the pillar and ground of the truth where the ministry, ordinances and mission are in keeping with their divine pattern established by Christ in his personal ministry and expounded and defined by the apostles.

But wait, you just said that the Comforter was present:

He has always been in the world with regard to personal individiual indwelling and all the characteristics of the term translated "comforter" can be seen with individuals since the garden

Now you are saying He is another Comforter.

This is just one obvious point which renders your carnal notions unbiblical, because they contradict and nullify what Christ actually taught the disciples.

Your teaching only serves to confuse, Biblicist, and it will not be until your doctrine comes into correlation with the Doctrine of Christ as presented in the Word of God that you will stop confusing people.

Sorry for the bold, it is an unfortunate consequence of your sloppy posting skills.




God bless.

 

I am waiting with baited breath for you to educate me.

Please start with why I am wrong in actually believing Christ meant what He said when He said the Comforter cannot come unto except that I leave.


God bless.

 

Do you really delude yourself that direct and detailed responses of your doctrine is displaying that I can't deal with the facts? lol

It is going to seem that I am attacking you, BIblicist, because, well, I am. I am attacking you on the basis of your claim to be a BIblicist, and the claim to be a teacher of sound doctrine.

You deny Christ's own teaching...what's not to attack?



But it isn't personal, my friend, just a method of attempting to get your attention. I have piped unto, I have mourned unto you, and have even resorted to, forgive, me...humor.

But you still insist on ignoring the points laid out to you. You are still talking at me, rather than with me.

Now, let's see if a direct focus on one issue can help us to turn this into a conversation.

I will ask you how it is, when Christ states the Comforter is not in the world, and cannot come except He Himself return to Heaven, and then send the Comforter, that you...

...try to impose the Comforter into the world at the time of Christ's teaching?

Have to get going, so I will check in tomorrow morning and see if you are willing to bring this into pointed focus, or, if you simply want to continue catering to an audience you perceive as intently reading your, ahem, correction of me.




God bless.

 

No! There are two completely different types of temples here. One is an institution that is inclusive of a plurality of qualified persons (water baptized believers) that is built according to a divine pattern and whose ministry and ordinances are after a divine pattern. The second is the individual believe as soon as he is regenerated, regardless if he has been water baptized or a member of any institutional church.

The church or that assembly of water baptized believers as an institution had not been indwelt or empowered, or openly and publicly accredited as the "house of God" which would supersede and replace the temple at Jerusalem. As individuals they are not this "house of God." As individuals, each one has a physical body which is a temple of the Holy Spirit and indwelt by the Spirit. As an institution, with officers, ordinances and a commission they had not been baptized in the Spirit and indwelt by the Spirit.

 

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.




God bless.

 

He is addressing them as a WHOLE INSTITUTIONAL BODY of water baptized believers. John 13-17 involves more than the baptism in the Spirit but includes the whole institution of the visible new covenant administration within the professing kingdom of God. The baptism in the Spirit is the final phase of instituting this new covenant kingdom administration - publicly validating it as built to pattern. The baptism and indwelling of the Spirit is just one aspect of this new covenant administration in the professing kingdom. It involves the new body of scriptures and those through whom this body of scripture will be provided. Thus the completion of the Biblical canon fulfills the promise to "lead them into all truth" and that future generations would come to know Christ through their words (Jn. 17:20). It involves the INDIVIDUAL blessings of being part of the Spirit baptized and indwelt institution. It involves their mission to the "world" = Gentiles as predicted by the prophets and clearly included in the Great Commission. So the promise is to the WHOLE INSTITUTIONAL BODY but it is INDIVIDUALS that make up that WHOLE INSTITUTIONAL BODY. So what applies to the institution as a whole benefits every individual within that institution in particular. So those who obey his commandments (as revealed in the new body of scriptures) will experience his abiding presence more intimately.

For example, you don't believe the Holy Spirit can indwell you more quantitively then he already does do you? However, he can indwell you more qualitatively and that is what filling is all about which fulfills this promise both on an institutional corporate level as well as on an indivdual membership level, yet Old Testament saints also experienced this same promise according to their obedience to the written revelation supplied them so that they could be described as "the friend of God" or those who "walked with God" which is equivilent to this institutional promise but on an individual level.

That is precisely why I said that Christ dwelt with THE CHURCH INSTITUTION personally in an incarnate form but the promised Comforter would indwell THE CHURCH INSTITUTION spiritually. However, that is not to be confused with INDIVIDUALIZED indwelling by the Spirit of Christ who has always existed in this world from creation till now calling out his elect.

You are inventing an imaginative straw man. Instead of denying the incarnation I actually asserted and confirmed it. However, the problem is in your mind because you are reading your position into my explanation. Let me spell it out again for you. The INCARNATE (that is why I capitalize because you seemingly don't carefully read what I say) Person of Christ dwelt WITHIN or AMONG his INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH. The Holy Spirit already INDIVIDUALIZED his indwelling with each member but not as a corporate INSTITUTION consisting of officers, ordinances, and a mission that he would oversee. Previously, Christ in his own incarnate person oversaw the officers, ordinances and mission. Get it?

No I am not! The reason you say this is because you are interpreting my explanation within your own framework instead of within the framework I provided for my own explanation. Circular reasoning.

 

Again, you are interpreting my words and explanation from your framework - circular reasoning. I told you that the whole new covenant administration is being discussed here and the baptism and indwelling of the Spirit is but one aspect. The "Spirit of Truth" aspect refers to the prophetic promise in Isaiah 8:16-18 referred to by Paul in Hebrews 2:4-12 where the future tense completion of the Biblical canon would be completed "through my disciples" divinely accredited by signs and wonders as attested in Hebrews 2:4 and referenced to Isaiah 8:18 as in Hebrews 2:11-12. You are lumping everything together when there different aspects involved in "the promise of the Spirit". There is the institutional house of God with its ministry and ordinances aspect, the Biblical Canon aspect, there is the new field of missionary focus aspect ("the world" = gentiles). By confusing these aspects you will never understand any of it.

It is utterly amazing how your mind works. Again, you are either failing to read what I say or simply ignoring what I say. The phrase "house of God" is used almost 80 times in the Old Testament and there are additional synonyms found as well. God indwelt the Tabernacle and Temple and anyone who know the Old Testament should acknowlege that and that is not what Paul is condemning in Romans 1 at all. Certainly God indwelt the inanmiate tabernacle and temple as the pillar of cloud and fire prove that. Solomon was overwhelmed that he could build God a house to dwell in since he was omnipresent. The "church" house of God was different as it was composed of a plurality of living water baptized believers and the epistle prove this as there is "the church of God which is at" etc. and "churches."

 

NEWS FLASH!!! You are the one that believes in church salvation not me! You believe to be in the church is to be saved and to be outside the church is to be lost. That is the doctrine of the universal invisible church if you don't realize that!!

Jesus SUBMITTED to the ministry of John and then propaged it insomuch that he was perceived as being in competition with John (Jn. 4:1-2). Jesus affirmed the baptism of John as "the counsel of God" and those like you, who reject it, are said to "reject the counsel of God against" yourself. Those who submitted to the baptism of John are said to have "justified God."

1. Christ was never baptized again.
2. The apostles were never baptized again.
3. The only water baptism existent which the Lord could say "I HAVE commanded" is John's baptism in the Great Commission to the end of this age and this baptism is administered by people "ye"

That is why jumping nearly 20 years into the future and twisting the text of Acts 19 to be something retroactive to Pentecost is so deceitful and fallacious.

The baptism in the Spirit has nothing to do with regeneration or being "in Christ" either by eternal purpose, positionally or spiritually.

This is a trick question because we do not agree on the nature of the church. The "church" as a visible body of water baptized believers requires the professing of regeneration prior to membership. However, your idea of the church is membership is salvation - thus church salvation. However, the church and the baptism in the Spirit is 4000 years to late to have anything to do with individual salvation from sin and spiritual separation from God - thus the universal church theories are false doctrines that promote a false gospel.

Christ says no such thing as he never utters the word "regeneration" or "new birth" in John 13-17. Why? Because Johbn 13-17 has nothing to do with the new birth or personal indwelling.