Did Paul Rebaptize?

[Tom Butler]

Simply put, there is no distinction to be made between the baptism of John and the baptism of the Apostles and their disciples.

And, there was no essential difference between the message John preached and the one preached by Jesus and his disciples.

The 12 disciples instructed by Paul were immersed for the wrong reasons and had an incomplete gospel. They were not rebaptized, for their earlier baptism was invalid. It was not in reference to the coming Messiah.

The church, the body of Christ wasn't yet revealed prior to Jesus's ascension, even though Jesus 'predicted' it, but without the details. That 'mystery' remained for the NT Apostles (primarily Paul) to yet reveal, via the Holy Spirit, so there was nothing 'rectifying' about it, but rather 'revelation'.

The church was established during Jesus' earthly ministry. It already had the ordinances, it had a message, a head, and a gospel to preach before Jesus' ascension. The church existed before Pentecost because 3000 souls were "added" on that day. Paul was on his way to persecute the church at Damascas when he had his meeting with the risen Christ.

 

[canadyjd]

TCGreek, canadyjd,
The explanation for Acts 19 (if I may enlighten you)....

Please to not presume to "enlighten" me. From our previous discussions on other threads I am convinced you cast more cowpie than light.

peace to youraying:

 

[EdSutton]

Please to not presume to "enlighten" me. From our previous discussions on other threads I am convinced you cast more cowpie than light.

peace to youraying:

In my own defense, I do acknowledge quoting the above, but I did not presume to "enlighten" anyone. That was the post I quoted from and responded to, actually authored by skypair. You should probably address him, actually, which is, I think, your intent here.

And I asked for enlightenment, not presuming to give such.

I do hope you are, at least somewhat, joking about casting cowpie. One may not agree with any or all my (or any other's, for that matter) theological and Biblical positions, but I generally cite Scriptures to back them. And I do not take any disagreemnt personally.

And I don't recall any particular response to you, although I may have commented on some thread.

Peace to all, anyhow. I do intend to cast more light than heat, although I am not above making some attempts at humerous quips, about some things. Many things, actually.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

ain't it great to be enlightened.................

 

[Brother Bob]

My pastor tried to rebaptize me again and again, but much to his dismay, I kept bobbing back up.

You Pastor should of ask for help! You were too full of air to stay under.............

 

[EdSutton]

ain't it great to be enlightened.................

I dunno!

I'm still a-waitin'! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

My pastor tried to rebaptize me again and again, but much to his dismay, I kept bobbing back up.

You Pastor should of ask for help! You were too full of air to stay under.............

Now that is enlightening! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[LeBuick]

ain't it great to be enlightened.................

I didn't know it was dark. Why didn't somebody tell me the lights were out?

Ed, you messing with Bro Bob's switch again?

:laugh:

 

[EdSutton]

Ed, you messing with Bro Bob's switch again? :laugh:

You wasn't supposed to have told!! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[skypair]

Uh, where does Scripture say anything, any time, anywhere, or any place about multiple "saving gospels"? Somehow I must have missed it, so if you would be so kind as to enlighten me, please??

Check out the Gospels, Ed. John the Baptist preached the gospel of the kingdom (Mk1:14-15) (or "kingdom at hand"). Jesus Himself preached it (Mt 4:17) and sent first 12 (Mt 10:7) then 70 disciples out to preach the kingdom was at hand. It is the OT gospel that points to Messiah, the King, coming and everywhere Jesus was preaching that that day was at hand. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it, Luk 16:16.

Why is this somehow assumed to be "wrong", for whatever that is supposed to mean?

Was it "wrong" that God called a particular individual out of the Gentiles for the 'genesis' of a particular people, i.e. Israel?

I think what you are trying to point out is that it is never wrong to preach the gospel (???) No, it isn't. But you could be preaching a gospel, as the Jews still do, that is not applicable.

(BTW, prior to the flood and/or the call of Abraham, I do not think it is ever stated that the Holy Spirit even came upon man, but I admit that I could be wrong on this, not having studied it thoroughly.)

I think you are right. I think preincarnate Christ spoke directly to them when He had something to say.

There is a great deal of difference in some of these things, but in the overall plan of God, none of them are "wrong", per se, only different 'modes' for different times.[/qupte] Yeah - different dispensations.

skypair

Ed

 

[canadyjd]

In my own defense, I do acknowledge quoting the above, but I did not presume to "enlighten" anyone. That was the post I quoted from and responded to, actually authored by skypair. You should probably address him, actually, which is, I think, your intent here.....
Ed

I wasn't addressing you, EdSutton. I have found your comments well thought out and scripturally based. I can't think of any, off hand, that I disagreed with. And even if I did, I believe you would very generous and longsuffering with my ignorance. I love to learn and have learned a great deal from various people on this board.

I don't ever recall you comparing yourself to the Apostle Paul, or saying if I disagreed with your interpretation of scripture that God could consider me to be blaspheming Holy Spirit, or repeatedly questioning whether I am saved or not. Those kinds of comments are the "cowpie" which I spoke of above.

I am very sorry you thought I might have addressed them to you.
peace to youraying:

 

[EdSutton]

I wasn't addressing you, EdSutton. I have found your comments well thought out and scripturally based. I can't think of any, off hand, that I disagreed with. And even if I did, I believe you would very generous and longsuffering with my ignorance. I love to learn and have learned a great deal from various people on this board.

I don't ever recall you comparing yourself to the Apostle Paul, or saying if I disagreed with your interpretation of scripture that God could consider me to be blaspheming Holy Spirit, or repeatedly questioning whether I am saved or not. Those kinds of comments are the "cowpie" which I spoke of above.

I am very sorry you thought I might have addressed them to you.
peace to youraying:

I did not actually think you were addressing me, but thought I would 'defend' my own use of a particular quote.

I'm glad you think I am long-suffering and very generous. Now if some others could only also 'receive enough enlightenment' to 'see the light' to 'enable' them to hold this particular positi... :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[jne1611]

Calvin (IMO) was confused about dispensations and about Spirit "indwelling" vs. "filling." He would have seen Christ in to OT as clearly as in the NT and made salvation in the OT identical to in the NT.

See, Reformer's view of "covenant" is the "Covenant of Grace" made before creation (but nowhere spoken of in scripture) by which Christ agreed to die for the elect whom God would choose from throughout the course of time. That covenant being made before creation meant that there was only 1 covenant people and salvation. We call that doctrine "Covenant Theology" and it is false.

skypair

You mean that there were one way for some to be saved & another way for others?

 

[jne1611]

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.

I agree. Much of dispensation doctrine makes to much of divisions. Though I agree with some of the assertions of it. There is no way to divide the relation of the covenant to all believers.

 

[canadyjd]

I'm glad you think I am long-suffering and very generous. Now if some others could only also 'receive enough enlightenment' to 'see the light' to 'enable' them to hold this particular positi... :laugh:

:1_grouphug:

peace to youraying:

 

[skypair]

You mean that there were one way for some to be saved & another way for others?

We all come the same Way but not the same distance at the same time.

In the OT, believers were JUSTIFIED in soul -- given the righteousness of God -- upon trusting in God. (John the Baptist's gospel and baptism was to justification)

In the NT, believers are JUSTIFIED in soul and SANCTIFIED in spirit -- given the righteousness of God AND given the Holy Spirit indwelling (sanctification of the Spirit, Spirit baptism) -- by trusting in Christ. (Jesus Christ's gospel and baptism is to justification and sanctification. You probably never considered that there was a difference, did you?)

So here's how that plays out in salvation. ALL believers will experience this in the flesh BTW. They will be saved in their SOULS/justified by God --- Saved in their SPIRITS/sanctified by the Holy Spirit -- Saved in their BODIES/glorified by Christ at the rapture!

Now the next question usually is, "When will the OT saints be SANCTIFIED?"

Answer: At the "new birth." Like Christ, they will be born again entirely by the Spirit -- only theirs is a resurrection from the dust, Dan 12:2, Isa 26:19-21, Job 19:25-28. They will live in the MK the sanctifying life that WE LIVE NOW! That is, there will still be sin and death BUT they will have flesh and blood bodies of "terrestrial glory" just as we do now. ("Terrestrial glory?" Indwelt by the Holy Spirit, 1Cor 15:40.)

How then will they be glorified if the rapture is past? There are 2 raptures to come 1) pretrib soon and 2) post-MK in Rev 20:11. If you will, imagine what the rapture would look like from the perspective of a "ratpureee" -- "...from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away;..." This is the 3rd rapture spoken of in 1Cor 15:24 -- "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father;..." Christ delivers up the rest of the saved to heaven. Then God "remodels" the earth so that we all may dwell together there in His kingdom.

skypair

 

[skypair]

I agree. Much of dispensation doctrine makes to much of divisions. Though I agree with some of the assertions of it. There is no way to divide the relation of the covenant to all believers.

Don't you think you oughta first see if there is any such thing named in the Bible??


There AIN'T. It's all discovered by inferences and innuendoes of people who have laid out a theological snare for unwitting "birds," Prov 1:17-18. Stick with the covenants God names and you will see that Israel has yet to receive His promises (Abrahamic, Davidic, new, etc.) in the earth -- but they will. Hence the necessity of 2 "programs"/dispensations at least.

skypair

 

[TCGreek]

1. This thread began with a reflecton on a quote from Calvin's Institutes.

2. No one is claiming any definitive position.

3. This is a difficult passage and I do not claim to have the answers. I am glad to be in a discussion in trying to understand what Calvin was saying, while at the same time remain true to Scripture.

1. I appreciate the simple faith of those who didn't engage in discussion like we are. They just knew God, that he was loving and all-power and took care of the ol' devil.

2. Doing theology is not a requirement for heaven. I thank God for that.

3. And I thank God that I don't have to have a perfect Eschatology either.

 

[jne1611]

Don't you think you oughta first see if there is any such thing named in the Bible??


There AIN'T. It's all discovered by inferences and innuendoes of people who have laid out a theological snare for unwitting "birds," Prov 1:17-18. Stick with the covenants God names and you will see that Israel has yet to receive His promises (Abrahamic, Davidic, new, etc.) in the earth -- but they will. Hence the necessity of 2 "programs"/dispensations at least.

skypair

See if there is any such what named in the Bible?
I understand what you are saying. But I do not believe you can separate the OT saints from the everlasting covenant made in Christ from the NT believers. One fold, One Shepard. No division there. Hence why would they need to ever accept Christ? But they will. Because. All by the blood. No division there. And a lot of people that think they have it all figured out might be surprised to find out how far off the mark they are, if they would only consider the Bible apart from all that systematic jumble of men.

 

[Aaron]

Check out the Gospels, Ed. John the Baptist preached the gospel of the kingdom (Mk1:14-15) (or "kingdom at hand"). Jesus Himself preached it (Mt 4:17) and sent first 12 (Mt 10:7) then 70 disciples out to preach the kingdom was at hand. It is the OT gospel that points to Messiah, the King, coming and everywhere Jesus was preaching that that day was at hand. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it, Luk 16:16.

I think what you are trying to point out is that it is never wrong to preach the gospel (???) No, it isn't. But you could be preaching a gospel, as the Jews still do, that is not applicable.

Check out the Gospels minus the adulterations C.I. Scofield. There is only one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.