Did Paul Rebaptize?

[TCGreek]

1. Calvin believed that water baptism is a sign of the new covenant.
2. You said "Calvin believes that the baptism of John and the Christian baptism are the same".
3. Therefore, I logically concluded that Calvin must find John's Baptism sufficient as a sign of the new covenant.

1. Thanks for your syllogism.

2. There're some debates among Calvin scholars as to whether or not he was a Covenant Theologian. I personally think he was. What became known as Covenant Theology was seminal in the writings of Calvin.

3. I think you are right for assuming that John's Baptism would be a sign of the New Covenant. I do not know whether Calvin wish to imply that or not.

4. But I would make my case that John's Baptism is not so much a sign of the New Covenant but rather that transitional point, leading to the Messiah and therefore has eschatological elements.

a. John's ministry was to prepare the way for the Messiah, whose ministry marked the beginning of the end, and therefore would be eschatological in nature.

b. Therefore one could even argue that John's Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant. (edited)

 

[J.D.]

1. Thanks for your syllogism.

2. There're some debates among Calvin scholars as to whether or not he was a Covenant Theologian. I personally think he was. What became known as Covenant Theology was seminal in the writings of Calvin.

3. I think you are right for assuming that John's Baptism would be a sign of the New Covenant. I do not know whether Calvin wish to imply that or not.

4. But I would make my case that John's Baptism is not so much a sign of the New Covenant but rather that transitional point, leading to the Messiah and therefore has eschatological elements.

a. John's ministry was to prepare the way for the Messiah, whose ministry marked the beginning of the end, and therefore would be eschatological in nature.

b. Therefore one could even argue that John's Covenant is a sign of the New Covenant.

Covenant theology is a wonderful thing. I wish I had studied it long ago. It emphasizes the consistency between the OT and NT, as opposed to the dispensational view that emphasizes, perhaps unintentionally, the differences between the OT and NT.

I would be shocked if Calvin were not CT. I've got to get the Institutes and start learning more about the guy.

 

[TCGreek]

Covenant theology is a wonderful thing. I wish I had studied it long ago. It emphasizes the consistency between the OT and NT, as opposed to the dispensational view that emphasizes, perhaps unintentionally, the differences between the OT and NT.

I would be shocked if Calvin were not CT. I've got to get the Institutes and start learning more about the guy.

1. Christian Book Distributors has a single volume of his Institutes for less than $20.00. It is the translation of Ford Lewis Battles.

2. I agree with your sentiments on Covenant Theology.

 

[J.D.]

1. Christian Book Distributors has a single volume of his Institutes for less than $20.00. It is the translation of Ford Lewis Battles.

2. I agree with your sentiments on Covenant Theology.

Thanks for the tip. I'll check on it.

 

[skypair]

TC, J.D.

Absolutely NOT! Look again:

"Both baptised unto repentance, both for remission of sins, both in the name of Christ, ..." They both baptised unto repentance" TRUE. They both baptised for the remission of sins" TRUE.

They both did NOT baptize in the name of Christ! Not only had Christ not arisen, it did not even appear how He would save sinners, friend, much less to have named Christ for salvation!

Note too, John was baptizing well before he even saw Jesus. There couldn't be a more anachronistic theory than that John the Baptist baptized in the name of Christ!

You know what causes Calvin to make such a sophomoric error? Covenant Theology! Denial of dispensationalsim and of Israel's destiny and of every other covenant that IS in scripture (which the "covenant of grace" is NOT)!

skypair

 

[J.D.]

TC, J.D.

Absolutely NOT! Look again:

"Both baptised unto repentance, both for remission of sins, both in the name of Christ, ..." They both baptised unto repentance" TRUE. They both baptised for the remission of sins" TRUE.

They both did NOT baptize in the name of Christ! Not only had Christ not arisen, it did not even appear how He would save sinners, friend, much less to have named Christ for salvation!

Note too, John was baptizing well before he even saw Jesus. There couldn't be a more anachronistic theory than that John the Baptist baptized in the name of Christ!

You know what causes Calvin to make such a sophomoric error? Covenant Theology! Denial of dispensationalsim and of Israel's destiny and of every other covenant that IS in scripture (which the "covenant of grace" is NOT)!

skypair

1. I'm not convinced that the two baptisms are the same either, but my mind is not made up yet.

2. In TC's OP, point #6, he flatly says that he disagrees with Calvin.

3. When I said that I think Calvin "has a point", I said that in support of Calvins exegisis of Act 19, which I find viable, but again, I don't think I actually agree that water baptism was not involved, but I'm not convinced either way.

4. Covenant Theology has no bearing on Calvin's exegisis of Acts 19. It has much more to do with Calvin's pneumatology. I introduced the question of Calvin's view of CT as only as it relates to his view that the two baptisms were "the same".

5. Refering to John Calvin's views as "sophomoric" reveals something about yourself.

6. I don't see how he could have "denied" dispensationalism, since NNE ever heard of it till the mid 19th century.

7. Can you name for me ANY covenant that John Calvin denies?

 

[Charles Meadows]

Wow,

TC's dug up an interesting one here.

I have to agree with TC on this one - it seems that Calvin's exegesis is strained here. But consider the sociopolitical milieu at the time, particularly as it regards the anabaptists. Calvin would be entrapping himself if he were to admit that Paul actually rebaptized them based on their belief! The anabaptists were doing this and claiming that the infant baptism was not a true NT baptism.

I agree that Calvin was a covenant thinker - but perhaps not as much as the later 17th century Reformers. Still Calvin centered everything around Christ's atonement - even to the point of seeing in the OT and seeing the justification of OT saints only through the work of Christ, which would be imputed to them. For Calvin the baptism was a sign of the covenant. The significance of the one covenant for Calvin is central. Compare this with Luther who felt that we actually can meet and commune with Christ through the sacraments, downplaying the idea that our interaction with Christ is limited to His singular death and resurrection 2000 years ago.


I do however think that the influence of scholasticism did much to center the covenant in reformation theology. The old Franciscan nominalist ideas that God was "a debtor to no one" meant that God could, if He wanted, accept unrighteousness and sin. As such it was His decision to be so gracious to us. The best way to describe this was a "pactio" or covenant in which God agreed to give man eternal life if he were to fulfill the obligations in the agreement - no matter how one-sided they were. This same ability of God to do whatever He wanted allowed Him to declare us all guilty in Adam (federal headship) even if we did not sin yet. As such the picture of God's redemptive plan is seen more and more as a "covenant" as we move from the early thinkers like Zwingli and Calvin to later ones like Turretin.

 

[TCGreek]

TC, J.D.

Absolutely NOT! Look again:

"Both baptised unto repentance, both for remission of sins, both in the name of Christ, ..." They both baptised unto repentance" TRUE. They both baptised for the remission of sins" TRUE.

They both did NOT baptize in the name of Christ! Not only had Christ not arisen, it did not even appear how He would save sinners, friend, much less to have named Christ for salvation!

Note too, John was baptizing well before he even saw Jesus. There couldn't be a more anachronistic theory than that John the Baptist baptized in the name of Christ!

You know what causes Calvin to make such a sophomoric error? Covenant Theology! Denial of dispensationalsim and of Israel's destiny and of every other covenant that IS in scripture (which the "covenant of grace" is NOT)!

skypair

1. This thread is not an Anti-Calvin thread. Neither is this thread designed to promote Dispensationalim. Have you read Calvin?

2. Even scholars who would not agree with Calvin would never call him sophomoric in his views.

3. Do your research on Dispensationalism.

4. John was baptizing, pointing his subject to the Coming One (Matt 3:11; Mk 1:7, 8).

 

[TCGreek]

Wow,

TC's dug up an interesting one here.

I have to agree with TC on this one - it seems that Calvin's exegesis is strained here. But consider the sociopolitical milieu at the time, particularly as it regards the anabaptists. Calvin would be entrapping himself if he were to admit that Paul actually rebaptized them based on their belief! The anabaptists were doing this and claiming that the infant baptism was not a true NT baptism.

1. We oftentime forget this, but it is crucial to our understanding of Calvin.

I agree that Calvin was a covenant thinker - but perhaps not as much as the later 17th century Reformers. Still Calvin centered everything around Christ's atonement - even to the point of seeing in the OT and seeing the justification of OT saints only through the work of Christ, which would be imputed to them. For Calvin the baptism was a sign of the covenant. The significance of the one covenant for Calvin is central. Compare this with Luther who felt that we actually can meet and commune with Christ through the sacraments, downplaying the idea that our interaction with Christ is limited to His singular death and resurrection 2000 years ago.

2. Yes, he was a covenant thinker, and I believe covenant theology was seminal in his writings, but the later Reformers would develop it even more.

However think that the influence of scholasticism did much to center the covenant in reformation theology. The old Franciscan nominalist ideas that God was "a debtor to no one" meant that God could, if He wanted, accept unrighteousness and sin. As such it was His decision to be so gracious to us. The best way to describe this was a "pactio" or covenant in which God agreed to give man eternal life if he were to fulfill the obligations in the agreement - no matter how one-sided they were. This same ability of God to do whatever He wanted allowed Him to declare us all guilty in Adam (federal headship) even if we did not sin yet. As such the picture of God's redemptive plan is seen more and more as a "covenant" as we move from the early thinkers like Zwingli and Calvin to later ones like Turretin.

3. The entrance of theological ideas are often reactionary, but the substance if it so correspond to the Bible must be welcome. Case in point is the Reformation and its recovering of the gospel.

 

[mima]

To my fellow Baptist, from a Baptist who has received the gift of tongues. This is a wonderful subject and one that truly needs to be discussed, but be careful you might yourself might get baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire. Of course it is very obvious to a poor street preacher that there are two baptisms to be received. A confession of faith brings about salvation. Then the water baptism, to be followed after salvation is an indemnifying with Christ event in the life of the believer.
Now as to the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire, while it is not absolutely necessarily accompanied by the gift of tongues (do all speak with tongues) the baptism of Holy Ghost and fire is usually accompanied by this gift. But as Mr. Rankin said, I'll have to resign since I have a prayer language also. Oh that more Baptist preachers had a prayer language. Every one wants more power, to be a witness, to be a soulwinner, to be a prayer warrior but the vast majority deny the power of the Holy Spirit where the power to be a witness a soulwinner and a prayer warrior comes from.
I have prayed for many Baptist preachers to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues, to my knowledge only one of them has, And when last I saw him his word to me was, if it had not happened to me I would never have believed it to be true.

 

[Jarthur001]

6. I don't see how he could have "denied" dispensationalism, since NNE ever heard of it till the mid 19th century.

Calvin did not believe in dispensationalim, because dispensationalim was not around in his day. This is a rather new teaching that cannot be found at any time other then the last 300 years.

 

[Mr.M]

Calvin did not believe in dispensationalim, because dispensationalim was not around in his day. This is a rather new teaching that cannot be found at any time other then the last 300 years.

The 7 age Dispensationalism as taught and promoted initially by Darby and the Ply Breth was not known...but neither was Calvinism until John Calvin (I am not a Calvinist but use that as an illustration for my point and hope no one gets hung up here).

The question or issue should be do other and did other theologians through the ages recognize dispensational distinctives, though not expressed in the identical fashion or with the same system as Darby? And of course the answer is yes, from tepid references and recognitions to clear recognition of such divisions. Martin Luther is a great example of a theological who 500 or so years ago recognized clear distinctions between the protocol of the "church" and that of the OT Theocracy of Israel.

Even the most basic recognition of the differences in economies between the Theocracy of Israel and that of The Church is a form of dispensational recogntion...so to say it did not exist before 300 years ago requires one to dismiss even these basic acknowledgments, albeit far from the Darby System.

 

[TCGreek]

The 7 age Dispensationalism as taught and promoted initially by Darby and the Ply Breth was not known...but neither was Calvinism until John Calvin (I am not a Calvinist but use that as an illustration for my point and hope no one gets hung up here).

The question or issue should be do other and did other theologians through the ages recognize dispensational distinctives, though not expressed in the identical fashion or with the same system as Darby? And of course the answer is yes, from tepid references and recognitions to clear recognition of such divisions. Martin Luther is a great example of a theological who 500 or so years ago recognized clear distinctions between the protocol of the "church" and that of the OT Theocracy of Israel.

Even the most basic recognition of the differences in economies between the Theocracy of Israel and that of The Church is a form of dispensational recogntion...so to say it did not exist before 300 years ago requires one to dismiss even these basic acknowledgments, albeit far from the Darby System.

1. Much of Calvin's thought is dependent on Augustine and Luther.

2. Like students who somewhat develop in greater details the thinking of their teachers, the same can be said of Calvin.

3. So it is not true to say that Calvinism began with Calvin.

 

[Mr.M]

1. Much of Calvin's thought is dependent on Augustine and Luther.

2. Like students who somewhat develop in greater details the thinking of their teachers, the same can be said of Calvin.

Yes, but again my hope is my reference to Calvin would not result in a rabbit trail, it was only an illustration that simply because a specific theological system can be traced to a particular man does not mean it did not exist in some form or fashion before...as is the case of dispensationalism...but I do understand your post by the way (my reference to Calvinism traced to Calvin was actually to support my argument that a theological belief does not have to be seen as beginning with the author of its most popular or most articulate or gifted system but that before him certainly came other contributors and influences).

Hopefully that will shorten this trail...

 

[Charles Meadows]

Calvin did not believe in dispensationalim, because dispensationalim was not around in his day.

Well that depends on what you mean by dispensationalism.

The term dispensationalism as it is used today tends to denote a theology which is fixated on ethnic Israel and its significance in eschatology. This is rather a new development.

But the term in and of itself refers to a scheme in which God can, and in fact does, deal with men differently at different times (different dispensations). This has roots in the nominalism of the early Franciscans. For example God approved the slaughter of the Canaanites. He is God and therefore whatever He says is just. God can say what is and what is not just - and He can change the rules too! Contrary to covenant theology which (especially in Calvin) sees everything as bound up in the one covenant set up around Christ. A dsciple of Calvin might well have looked at Arminius or Amyraut and declared them to be a "dispensationalist hereticks" given their denial of the one covenant!

 

[Jarthur001]

The 7 age Dispensationalism as taught and promoted initially by Darby and the Ply Breth was not known...but neither was Calvinism until John Calvin (I am not a Calvinist but use that as an illustration for my point and hope no one gets hung up here).

The question or issue should be do other and did other theologians through the ages recognize dispensational distinctives, though not expressed in the identical fashion or with the same system as Darby? And of course the answer is yes, from tepid references and recognitions to clear recognition of such divisions. Martin Luther is a great example of a theological who 500 or so years ago recognized clear distinctions between the protocol of the "church" and that of the OT Theocracy of Israel.

Even the most basic recognition of the differences in economies between the Theocracy of Israel and that of The Church is a form of dispensational recogntion...so to say it did not exist before 300 years ago requires one to dismiss even these basic acknowledgments, albeit far from the Darby System.

Hello Mr M,

Calvinism and its ideas have been around for a long time even in part before Augustine. Augustine was the 1st to pull them all together.

Dispensational teaching is no where to be found in any shape or form before Darby.

BTW..I am a Calvinist and so was Darby. Also it sould be noted, the other main founder of dispensational doctrine was Calvinist as well...Scofield.

Being that it is not found before Darby does not mean it is bad doctrine. I was only stating a fact.

 

[Mr.M]

Hello Mr M,

Calvinism and its ideas have been around for a long time even in part before Augustine. Augustine was the 1st to pull them all together.

Dispensational teaching is no where to be found in any shape or form before Darby.

BTW..I am a Calvinist and so was Darby. Also it sould be noted, the other main founder of dispensational doctrine was Calvinist as well...Scofield.

Being that it is not found before Darby does not mean it is bad doctrine. I was only stating a fact.

I just cited Martin Luther who recognized dispensational distinctives that separated the protocol and economies of the OT Theocracy of Israel and The Church. I am not sure what about that you didn't understand and he was LONG before Darby. As for the Calvin reference it was simply an illustration, please don't do exactly what I said someone might do, get HUNG UP and reactionary simply at the mere mention of Calvin. It was an illustration, it has nothing to do with the argument.

Now, again, what part of Martin Luther did you NOT understand? But he is not alone, the varying forms of dispensational distinctives being recognized is present in almost every significant orthodox theologian through the ages, from mild to quite pronounced and that was BEFORE DARBY.

Allow me to give you a statement from ML about the Sabbath:

"Luther criticized the Sabbatarian Carlstadt and certain Anabaptists for their Judiazing of Sunday: "that if Sunday were anywhere made holy merely for the day's sake or its observance set on a Jewish foundation, 'then I order you to walk on it, to ride on it, to dance on it, to feast on it, to do anything that shall remove this encroachment on Christian Liberty' "

This represents a very clear understanding and belief in separate economies...not only he rejected the sabbath but unlike many Covenant Theologians he resists trying the Judiaze the sabbath. This is reflective of some degree of a dispensational mindset.

 

[Jarthur001]

Now, again, what part of Martin Luther did you NOT understand?

It sounds as if you are about to school me.

But he is not alone, the varying forms of dispensational distinctives being recognized is present in almost every significant orthodox theologian through the ages, from mild to quite pronounced and that was BEFORE DARBY.

With such claims it should be rather easy to prove.

Allow me to give you a statement from ML about the Sabbath:

Indeed.

"Luther criticized the Sabbatarian Carlstadt and certain Anabaptists for their Judiazing of Sunday: "that if Sunday were anywhere made holy merely for the day's sake or its observance set on a Jewish foundation, 'then I order you to walk on it, to ride on it, to dance on it, to feast on it, to do anything that shall remove this encroachment on Christian Liberty' "

Am I missing something? This speaks nothing toward dispensationa ages. This is a statement about the Sabbath.

This represents a very clear understanding and belief in separate economies...not only he rejected the sabbath but unlike many Covenant Theologians he resists trying the Judiaze the sabbath. This is reflective of some degree of a dispensational mindset.

If you think that not keeping the Sabbath is dispensational, then you have a case. However most hold to the this teaching (dispensational) as a way to understand the Bible through dividing into history groups. The dispensation or age periods it is tought is how how God is said to have dealt with humanity.

 

[TCGreek]

It sounds as if you are about to school me.



With such claims it should be rather easy to prove.


Indeed.


Am I missing something? This speaks nothing toward dispensationa ages. This is a statement about the Sabbath.


If you think that not keeping the Sabbath is dispensational, then you have a case. However most hold to the this teaching (dispensational) as a way to understand the Bible through dividing into history groups. The dispensation or age periods it is tought is how how God is said to have dealt with humanity.

1. This thread is not about dispensationalism. I know it is difficult to keep to one topic at times.

2. But would you kindly take your dispensational disagreement to another thread.

 

[Mr.M]

It sounds as if you are about to school me.

Forgive me if the schoolmaster in me came out but I sensed a sophomore present that was certain he had already earned his Ph.D. :saint:

With such claims it should be rather easy to prove.

Sure let's start with Justin Martyr who believed in four phases of human history in God's program. The first was from Adam to Abraham; the second was from Abraham to Moses; the the third was from Moses to Christ; and the fourth was from Christ to the eternal state.

Or

Irenaeus whose dispensational scheme was four in number. They are: 1. From the Creation to the Flood. 2. From the Flood to the Law. 3. From the Law to the Gospel. 4. From the Gospel to the Eternal State. He taught that there were four zones of the world and of mankind. He saw a connection between these zones, the faces of the "four living creatures", the four gospels and the four dispensations.

Again, significant early theologians offering dispesnational thought. They both recognized and taught distinctive economies....obviously long before Darby's form.

Am I missing something? This speaks nothing toward dispensationa ages. This is a statement about the Sabbath.
If you think that not keeping the Sabbath is dispensational, then you have a case. However most hold to the this teaching (dispensational) as a way to understand the Bible through dividing into history groups. The dispensation or age periods it is tought is how how God is said to have dealt with humanity.

My friend, the point is that without recognizing dispensational distinctives, the separate economies of the OT Theocracy of Israel and the NT Church and the separate protocols, one would be required to impose upon believers today such practices. Luther's position on the Sabbath was the result of a dispensational mindset...that was the point. Your mining skills here are disappointing.

And for the record, I am gladly willing to end this dispensational rabbit trail that is away from the OP and argue on another thread per the request of another poster, so I will end here on that part of the discussion and wait until an appropriate thread opens to resume dispensational discussions.