Were they Christians? Can a person that far post crucifixion be saved and not only not be indwelt with the Holy Spirit but not even know of the existence of the Holy Spirit?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The “Rebaptisms” of Acts 19
- Thread starter rlvaughn
- Start date
- Status
Darrell, I want to be clear that I am not in any way suggesting that water baptism was the means of their salvation -- neither here in Acts 19 nor in Acts 8 or Acts 10. What I am suggesting, rather, is that these accounts of "random" order of baptism and the receiving of the Holy Ghost indicate that the coming of the Holy Ghost upon them (especially in Acts 8 and Acts 19, only coming with the laying on of hands) should not be equated with the rebirth and indwelling effected by the Spirit.
Hope that makes sense.
As I said, I take the positions that they were not, because it seems that these men were disciples of John. They were baptized unto John's baptism, and at this time are baptized in the name of Christ.
And that was my point: Christians are not baptized unto John, so they know better, lol.
I take the firm position...no. They were not saved, and this because they had not received the Spirit, through Whom we are given life. The Baptism of John did not save men.
John, Christ, Peter, and Paul all contrast the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with John's Baptism, and we see in the teachings of Christ and the Apostles that reception of the Spirit of God began after Christ returned to Heaven, which coincides with Pentecost, and we are given a description of that coming, and the resulting "new" ministry of the disciples. They began to preach something that they had not before, which is that Christ had died and raised again, that men might be forgiven their sins. John demanded repentance on the part of Israel, but Christ granted it.
God bless.
I know, that is pretty clear, I feel, in most of your posts, so no worries. The point is made just to clarify something we learn from Scripture concerning water baptism.
Not sure why you would think these accounts do not be thought to equate New Birth with the reception of the Holy Ghost, particularly when we are told this:
Acts 11:14-18
King James Version (KJV)
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
The words Peter was to speak, clearly seen to be the Gospel in Acts 10:38-40, are here said to be the words by which they will be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Here the Holy Ghost falls on them, the same way as He did on them "in the beginning." Now what "beginning is Peter speaking about? Well, we have two choices, he is speaking about the Holy Ghost coming on them through Christ's Ministry, or he is speaking about the Holy Ghost coming upon them at Pentecost. And since we know that during Christ's Ministry the Holy Ghost was not yet sent, because Christ was not yet glorified (John 7:38-39), and had not returned to Heaven as He said had to take place (John 16:7), then we can easily conclude that Peter is speaking of the Holy Ghost coming at Pentecost.
Secondly, we know that in view is not simply empowerment, as our Charismatic brethren believe, because (1) the disciples had already been empowered by the Holy Ghost when they preached the Kingdom of God, and (20 because Peter makes this clear in the next statement:
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.
Now, is it unreasonable to see that being saved (v.14) and the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is speaking about the same event which took place for Cornelius and his house?
Can we not see that Peter here is making it clear that "the Holy Ghost falling on them" is the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?
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?
Some will think the "gift" in view was the gift of tongues, but is Peter speaking about gifts, or salvation, when he recounts the events to those of the circumcision?
He makes it clear what he means in the next verse, as he did in the preceding verses:
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.
They received the Holy Ghost, and they received life. The Life Christ taught He came from Heaven to bestow upon mankind.
It does. I don't agree with it, lol, but it does.
Many do not view the Baptism with the Holy Ghost as the immersion into God we understand that takes place at salvation. I think this is in large part a result of the Charismatic Movement, who teach the Baptism with the Holy Ghost as empowerment, or a subsequent event after salvation, or a special "zapping" the Lord performs which makes one Super-Christian (their words, not mine).
I recently called a popular "Bible Teacher" in my area, Hank Hannagraf, who is from what I understand a self described partial preterist. He said basically, "Certainly the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is empowerment. Before I go on air every day I ask the Lord to empower me." I asked him, "So you're saying we are to continually ask to be baptized with the Holy Ghost?" He said "Yes."
And I do not see Scripture presenting this. As we see above, Cornelius and his men are saved, they are not empowered. They receive, like the Ephesian disciples, the Holy Ghost.
The importance of understanding the Baptism with the Holy Ghost and how that impacts our understanding of the New Birth cannot be stressed enough. Salvation is described in a two-fold ministry of God by Paul here:
Titus 3:4-5
King James Version (KJV)
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
If we consider man's primary problem, would you agree that his primary problem is that he is not in relationship with God? And when we see that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, do we not see the restoration of that lost relationship?
Above, Paul speak of the cleansing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. While it is reasonable to view that "renewing" as speaking of the Spirit of God renewing those born again, it is also just as reasonable, and in my view, more likely that in view is the renewing of the relationship with God through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.
Now let's look at the following verse (v.6):
Titus 3:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Now is the "shedding" referring to the mercy, new birth, or the renewing of the Holy Ghost? Well, when we think of Messiah and the Prophecy of the Old Testament, and think of the concept of a "pouring out," what comes first to your mind, RL?
Christ makes a distinction between the relationship the disciples have with the Spirit of God both before and after the Comforter is sent:
John 14:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
John 14:20-23
King James Version (KJV)
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Christ is speaking about what is going to happen. This is the tenor of John 14-16.
So I cannot take a view that the Ephesians disciples were re-baptized, because one is only Baptized with the Holy Ghost once, because the immersion into God is a one-time event never repeated. The baptism of John was not salvific, and John is clearly placed among those of Ages prior to the Age of Grace in which the New Covenant is established, the Spirit sent, and man is reconciled to God.
These disciples were surely familiar with the concept of the Spirit of God, and while what we have in Acts 19 is limited, and it is quite likely that things did not move as swiftly as they appear if we impose a rigid sequence of events, yet we have to consider their response "we have not heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." These men were likely familiar with prophecy, and the promise of God that He would pour out His Spirit. It may be in view is "We have not heard that this had already begun to happen."
But again, it does make sense, RL, because the majority do not equate the Baptism with the Holy Ghost with New Birth. But I ask you, can one be saved according to the statndard presented in the revelation we are given through Christ and the Apostles...and not have that Spirit that was sent to give life? Does not Paul make it clear that if a man have not the Spirit of God, which is equated to the Spirit of Christ (and remember, He said "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.." (John 14:18))...that a man does not belong to God?
I would just suggest that you give this some serious consideration. I believe coming to an understanding of this opens up understanding of Scripture, and many issues which seem controversial are made clear.
God bless.
Where's any mention of water?
11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire: Mt 3
Last edited:
Well, I believe that we are born again, regenerated, saved, sealed at the time we believe and the Holy Ghost comes in to dwell with us (e.g. Ephesians 1:12-14). That seems to be what you are saying as well -- yet in only one of the three instances we've reference in Acts does the Holy Ghost coming on them and their believing happen at the same time. Are you saying the believers in Samaria were not actually saved until the apostles came down and laid their hands on them? Were the Ephesians not saved until Paul laid his hands on them?
I agree that Peter's reference in Acts 11 is to the day of Pentecost. Apparently after that we begin to diverge. Would you agree or disagree that the apostles were or were not saved until Pentecost? I say they already were, and what they received on Pentecost does not equal salvation. Also, while this may be obscure and controversial, there is some way that they received the Holy Spirit after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, before Pentecost:
John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
It may be reasonable, but is it correct? They clearly occurred at the same time in this case. But what of the other cases? They all three (and Pentecost) need to be harmoniously understood.
Again, if the manner in which they received the Holy Ghost means they received spiritual life, must we think that the Samaritans and twelve Ephesians did not automatically receive life when they believed, but only after hands were laid on them?
I do not view the Baptism with the Holy Ghost as the "immersion into God" of salvation (which I never got back to in your other thread). But it has nothing to do with the Charismatic Movement in my case, but something I was taught by Baptists and still maintain based on what I believe the Bible to teach. I do believe the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is an empowerment, but not in the sense the Charismatics believe. For example, Acts 1:8 clearly speaking of this prophesied event says, "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."
I think we can find many old Baptist writers, predating the Charismatic movement, who did not view the Baptism of the Holy Ghost as conversion or salvation. So, while some may be influenced by Charismatics, others are influenced by what Baptists who went before them taught. B. H. Carroll is one example:
http://www.pbcofdecaturalabama.org/bhcarroll/Spirit_Baptism.htm
No disagreement there.
I don't think they were "rebaptized" in any scriptural sense. But they did already have something that was considered a baptism, and they received something else that was a baptism. I'm not as confident as you that John is clearly "placed among those of Ages prior to the Age of Grace in which the New Covenant is established." For examples:
Mark 1:1ff. The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. John did baptize in the wilderness...
Matthew 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
Matthew 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
I agree; no one can be saved and not have the Spirit. So, again, are you saying the Samaritans were not saved until the apostles came from Jerusalem down to Samaria and laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost? Did they belong to God? If one of these believers had died while the apostles were on their way from Jerusalem to Samaria (probably 30 or 40 miles), would they have gone to heaven or hell?
I think it is possible (though I am still thinking about this), that we should equate the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the Acts 1:8 empowerment to preach these gospel in all nations, Jerusalem (Acts 2), Samaria (Acts 8) and the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 10).
kyredneck, are you saying there was not any water baptism that occurred here? That is an idea that I found in John Gill's commentary, but have had problems deciding it happened the way he said.
Gill: "Then said Paul
In reply to their answer, understanding them that they were baptized by John, he takes it up, and gives an account of John's baptism: showing how agreeable it was, and that it was the same baptism with the baptism of Christ...he laid his hands upon them, which was all that was needful to their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, having been already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus: which sense is the more confirmed by the particles (men) and (de) , which answer to one another in verses 4 and 5, and show the words to be a continuation of the apostle's speech, and not the words of the historian, which begin in the next verse."
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/acts-19-5.html
According to this view, verse 5 is a continuation of Paul telling how the people responded to John the Baptist rather than Luke telling how the Ephesians responded to Paul. If Gill is correct, then there is no water baptism here and no conflict with or question of John's baptism, which apparently was acceptable in the case of Apollos, mentioned just a few verses earlier in chapter 18 (and there were no chapter divisions when Luke wrote it, so we probably should see it as a more continuing story than we might if we read to the end of chapter 18 and stop).
I've heard it preached that way.
Question(s): Were all those water baptized by John required to be re-water baptized'?
Was Jesus's water baptism the same as John's?:
1 When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John Jn 4
If you believe "... that we are born again, regenerated, saved, sealed at the time we believe and the Holy Ghost comes in to dwell with us" then you will have to admit that the Old Testament Saints were not "born again, regenerated, saved, sealed" because this did not begin until Pentecost...when the Spirit came.
However, you are equating being "saved" with the other elements of redemption you speak of.
You equating these elements with believing as well, which can be accomplished apart from being eternally indwelt and born again. For example, the Old Testament Saint believed Messiah was coming, and hope in Him, but do you feel the woman at the well, for example...was a born again Christian trusting in the Risen Savior?
She was not, she was someone we could say had faith in the Word of God, and very likely she was "saved" according to the Old Testament standard, and justified by her faith (though not through her works, lol).
We can't equate "believing," "being saved," or "being justified by faith" with the New Covenant standard in which men are eternally indwelt (as opposed to ministered to externally in the Old Testament), eternally forgiven (as opposed to all Old Testament Saints which died offering up animals for their sins to their last breath), and regenerated (which is, I believe, accomplished by the very indwelling of God which takes place when men are reconciled to Him through Christ. In other words, we are regenerated through the process of the eternal indwelling).
Not at all, what I am saying is that they were saved according to New Testament and New Covenant standard, which doesn't mean they were not "saved," it simply means they were not saved to the point men are today, just as we are not saved according to the standard that follows the Rapture, meaning we are saved yet we await the redemption of our bodies.
From the eternal perspective Justification by Faith secures the Eternal Destiny, but, that does not mean one has received the promises of God in full. We do not, for example, offer up animal sacrifices because the fulfillment of the promise of eternal remission was accomplished through Christ.
To contrast the Old Testament Saint's status in regards to this issue we can look at a few passages:
Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version (KJV)
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Here God makes a promise, and I ask you, when was this fulfilled, or, has it been fulfilled? Most Theologians would be in agreement, it has been fulfilled, established by Christ. THat is why we "are made ministers of the New Covenant," not the Old (2 Corinthians 3:6).
Here is the Writer of Hebrews speaking about this:
Hebrews 10:14-17
King James Version (KJV)
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Here Christ's death is made clear as the fulfillment of that promise of eternal remission of sins, this is why "there is no more sacrifice for sins."
Note He will put His laws in their hearts, and compare that to another promise we see, which I will point out is the clearest Old Testament promise of Eternal Indwelling and New Birth:
Ezekiel 36:24-27
King James Version (KJV)
24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Christ teaches this also, which is why He states in Acts 1:4 to await the promise of the Father which they (the disciples) had heard of Him:
John 14:16-18
King James Version (KJV)
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
John 16:7-9
King James Version (KJV)
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
And here we see why Paul could equate the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ, because Christ is God and His unity is seen in His indwelling. He makes it clear we are indwelt by the Triune God:
John 14:20-23
King James Version (KJV)
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Continued...
Now, to bring this back to the focal point, the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, consider Christ still speaking of what will occur in the future for the disciples:
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.
Now correlate the Promise of God with what is yet future, their Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and tell me if you can see this in any way being fulfilled before the "not many days" are fulfilled.
Were the disciples saved? Sure, but according to Old Testament/Covenant standard. They were not indwelt eternally, Christ makes that clear, because the Spirit promised of the Father has still not yet come yet.
One last passage (of focus) to consider in regards to this point, which I have presented numerous times on this, and other forums, yet to this day not one person has ever bothered to comment on:
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.
What this states is that the sins of the Old Testament Saint had to be, and were...redeemed by the Blood of Christ, not the blood of bulls and goats. It states He obtained, through His Sacrifice...their eternal redemption.
The Old Testament Saint was called, but they all...received not the Promise:
Hebrews 11:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Hebrews 11:39-40
King James Version (KJV)
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Being made perfect (complete) is accomplished through the Blood (death) of Christ. While the Old Testament Saint was indeed "saved" through Justification by faith, we cannot impose into the Old TEstament that which Christ, the Apostles, and even the Old Testament states was not occurring.
So let's look at your statement once more:
Yes, "we" are, but they were not. They believed, to be sure, but, we have to maintain precisely what Scripture teaches, and Scripture makes it clear that "we" receive something better than was available to the Old Testament Saint. IT is because we think that regeneration has to occur in all Ages that the concept of who is "saved" and who isn't gets confusing, so, it's easier to create a blanket concept which teaches that as long as one believes they are "saved." But I ask you, is the Jew that "believes" in the Messiah he is still waiting for a Born Again Christ? If not...why not? He is believing exactly the same thing the disciples believed up until the day of Pentecost.
Here is insight to their carnal understanding:
Acts 1:6-7
King James Version (KJV)
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
What "Kingdom" was known to the Old Testament Saint, RL? Here we see an amazing question: after being told they would in a few days be Baptized with the Holy Ghost, they do not marvel at this, they inquire of that physical Kingdom. Christ does not negate that Kingdom, and I believe emphasizes the reality of the Millennial Kingdom in His answer...it's not for them to be concerned about that, be concerned about what is being told is going to happen.
Continued...
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.
Now correlate the Promise of God with what is yet future, their Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and tell me if you can see this in any way being fulfilled before the "not many days" are fulfilled.
Were the disciples saved? Sure, but according to Old Testament/Covenant standard. They were not indwelt eternally, Christ makes that clear, because the Spirit promised of the Father has still not yet come yet.
One last passage (of focus) to consider in regards to this point, which I have presented numerous times on this, and other forums, yet to this day not one person has ever bothered to comment on:
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.
What this states is that the sins of the Old Testament Saint had to be, and were...redeemed by the Blood of Christ, not the blood of bulls and goats. It states He obtained, through His Sacrifice...their eternal redemption.
The Old Testament Saint was called, but they all...received not the Promise:
Hebrews 11:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Hebrews 11:39-40
King James Version (KJV)
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Being made perfect (complete) is accomplished through the Blood (death) of Christ. While the Old Testament Saint was indeed "saved" through Justification by faith, we cannot impose into the Old TEstament that which Christ, the Apostles, and even the Old Testament states was not occurring.
So let's look at your statement once more:
Yes, "we" are, but they were not. They believed, to be sure, but, we have to maintain precisely what Scripture teaches, and Scripture makes it clear that "we" receive something better than was available to the Old Testament Saint. IT is because we think that regeneration has to occur in all Ages that the concept of who is "saved" and who isn't gets confusing, so, it's easier to create a blanket concept which teaches that as long as one believes they are "saved." But I ask you, is the Jew that "believes" in the Messiah he is still waiting for a Born Again Christ? If not...why not? He is believing exactly the same thing the disciples believed up until the day of Pentecost.
Here is insight to their carnal understanding:
Acts 1:6-7
King James Version (KJV)
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
What "Kingdom" was known to the Old Testament Saint, RL? Here we see an amazing question: after being told they would in a few days be Baptized with the Holy Ghost, they do not marvel at this, they inquire of that physical Kingdom. Christ does not negate that Kingdom, and I believe emphasizes the reality of the Millennial Kingdom in His answer...it's not for them to be concerned about that, be concerned about what is being told is going to happen.
Continued...
This should not even be in question, from my perspective, because we can see that on the Day of Ascension (which follows this statement)...the Spirit has not come.
But, if we make the Baptism with the Holy Ghost to mean empowerment only, we can make this the time when the disciples receive the Holy Ghost.
Now let me ask you this, RL, will you cede the point that this would set it clear that the disciples had not received the Holy Ghost while they were ministering with Christ? Now think about that: it still shows a dramatic difference between men receiving the Holy Ghost under New Testament standard as opposed to the Spirit's Ministry under the Law and in previous Ages. There is still no way to equate this ministry with those that came before.
But, this is, in my view, simply the Lord speaking to them a command to receive the Holy Ghost when He comes.
Christ makes it clear, it seems, that the Comforter would not come until after He returned to Heaven:
John 16:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Do we then distinguish between the eternal indwelling He taught and an "empowering?" Sure, but not in a salvific context. The disciples had been on numerous times empowered prior to Pentecost, but, until Pentecost, they had not preached Christ Crucified..
Now look at another proof-text for the Baptism with the Holy Ghost being an empowerment:
Acts 1:8
King James Version (KJV)
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
The receiving of power is not distinguished from the coming of the Holy Ghost upon them. And when we correlate that to other passages dealing with a specifically salvific context, we can see we do err to equate these two:
Acts 11:13-16
King James Version (KJV)
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.
Now I ask you, were these men saved at this time? If so, then why do you not see the disciples being "saved?"
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.
It is the opening of a new Age, RL. It is the Comforter that enlightens the mind to the Mystery of the Gospel, both in bringing men into union with God (His convicting ministry, which is specific to the Gospel (He glorifies Christ)), as well as making those immersed into God understand (His teaching ministry to believers).
We see Cornelius and his household Baptized with the Holy Ghost just as the disciples at the beginning, yet for Cornelius, the Ephesian disciples, and the Samaritans...they are empowered?
Again, there is a validation process going on in these historic accounts we cannot overlook. Remember, Peter was a racist. God had to give him a lesson on what is unclean, and the error of calling that which God has cleansed...unclean. Don't let that element of what is going on in the salvation of Gentiles and Samaritans get left behind.
Continued...
And they can be, but not if one imposes something into an Old Testament Era that wasn't there. The promises of God are given throughout the entire Old TEstament, beginning in GEnesis 3:15, but, it is not until the New Covenant is established that the promises are fulfilled.
That is precisely what Christ taught, RL.
There was no True Bread in the Old Testament, He was not available until He came, died, resurrected, and then sent the Spirit of God in the Ministry prophesied by Christ and the Prophets.
The "laying on of hands" is not how they received the Spirit, for God and eternal life is not dispensed by men. Just as the Levitical Priest did not actually transfer the sins of the "comer thereunto" to the animal being sacrificed, neither did Paul, or any Apostle "transfer" the Holy Ghost into those who received the Holy Ghost:
Leviticus 4:14-16
King James Version (KJV)
14 When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation.
15 And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the Lord: and the bullock shall be killed before the Lord.
16 And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock's blood to the tabernacle of the congregation:
Our Charismatic brethren have done a good job of confusing people in regards to the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. This is why we often see them refer to the Holy Ghost as "it."
The Writer of Hebrews demands that foundational doctrines of the Law are not to be laid again:
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.
If you back up a bit into Chapter 5, you will see that these he rebukes were not going on unto perfection, or at least their behavior warranted a rebuke of still grasping at that which was meant only to be foundational. The First Principles of the Doctrine of Christ are/were not to be abandoned, but, what they are exhorted unto is embracing that which has been made complete. THis is the completion he is speaking about in Hebrews 11:13 and Hebrews 11:39-40.
Continued...
And you are not alone in that. I would venture a guess that perhaps no less than 80% of professing Christians also see the Baptism of the Holy Ghost as an empowering, which, as I said, is a result of the inroads Charismatic doctrine has had in groups we might consider orthodox.
And it's my belief that understanding this as immersion into God clarifies the New Testament for the Bible Student.
Now, the course of action would be to present the Biblical presentation that validates that the Baptism is either immersion into God, or empowering. I feel I have presented on this, and many other forums, enough to validate my view, and have seen that the arguments given to validate empowerment are not only weak, but easily dismantled.
For example, if it is empowerment, then the Baptism with the Holy Ghost must have been happening throughout Scripture, because men have been empowered by God for ministry from the beginning (Genesis).
Whereas every Baptist Church I have been a member of (primarily Independent Baptist Churches and one Southern Baptist, since I was saved in 1995) has always distinguished the Ministry of the Spirit of God among men as distinctly different, usually in terms of "The Holy Spirit came upon people then, but comes into men now."
I see the filling of the Spirit as the ministry God has always performed, basically. When the Holy Ghost came upon people in the Old Testament is identical for the most part when He "comes upon" men today for the purpose of empowerment. One can be indwelt in this Age, but that does not mean they are "filled" with the Spirit.
And I see very little difference between making the Baptism with the Holy Ghost different between Baptists and Charismatics when they teach it is empowering only. I doubt you would view it as a second blessing, or a moment in an indwelt believer's life when they "get more of the Spirit," lol, but, the underlying teaching is identical.
Two things:
1. You rightly say "the event" was prophesied," which again goes to my point that it was not happening prior to Pentecost. That is important, RL.
2. They receive power...after...the Holy Ghost is come upon them. That too is significant, because in view is still the Holy Ghost not yet come upon them. Again...the disciples had previously been empowered, so the proper understanding of this verse is that they will receive the empowerment after they receive the Spirit that was promised. "After that the Holy Ghost is come upon you" is kind of merged into the receiving of power for many.
Doesn't really make much difference what any Baptist writer has to say if it does not reconcile all of Scripture. Scripture has to be in harmony, and because only a few passages are dealt with it is quite easy to see the correlation of the coming of the Spirit and eternal life.
My advice to all Bible Students is to make Scripture the first focus. Commentaries are very helpful for the beginning student, but we must all get to the point where we are able to exegete the Scriptures ourselves. We look first to our Teacher and then we can compare that to the commentator. When you address the points I have raised I would expect Scripture to be presented, not what someone else has to say, because I can go spend my time finding out what these commentators have to say, but...they can't tell me what you believe and why you believe it. You have presented several passages to validate why you believe what you believe, RL, and that is good. It is good when you present Scripture you feel invalidates my own views.
Believe me, I would absolutely love to have some conversations with some of the great men of God of both yesteryear and today. John MacArthur is, I believe, the best teacher available to us, yet he and I are in disagreement on some things. I would love to sit down and have a conversation with him. But I can't. I can, though, have a discussion with you, and we have an advantage over a conversation in which there is not a record of everything said, which we can address specifically. Most of the conversations held in witnessing and just discussion with people lack that. Too often one will not let the other speak, nor address the points they raise to substantiate what they teach. Had a conversation with a Pastor recently that was like that, where my questions were ignored and they jumped to another topic without answering, which is, was...very unprofitable.
Perhaps that remains to be seen? lol
This is a focal issue in understanding the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, in my view. Because it is foreign to most Christians to think of men like Abraham, David, or even the Disciples of Christ as not having been eternally redeemed. The idea that if this is the case then they were not "saved," which is something most will reject. You yourself question my view going directly to the implication of these men not being saved prior to receiving the Holy Ghost.
But when we bring all teaching into harmony, the only reasonable conclusion is that, as God promised to do something in the future, that is precisely what happened. If the benefits of the promise of the New Covenant were taking place under the Law, then Paul spent quite a bit time writing Doctrinal Positions that are irrelevant. Paul. and the Writer of Hebrews (who I think was Paul, lol), both make clear there is a distinct difference between those who were under the Covenant of Law and those under the New Covenant. And it is just my opinion most fail to clearly distinguish between the two.
Then they were re-baptized. If you are considering their baptism unto John a baptism that should be considered, then their Baptism in the Name of Christ is a second baptism.
There's no question they were re-baptized, but in the vein of the premise of the Ana-Baptist, the first baptism is considered meaningless. If it were not, then there was no need for them to be again baptized.
But we keep in mind that Baptism has an element of identification, and association. These disciples were associated with...John. They needed to be identified...with Christ.
And it is interesting that not one of the disciples are ever said to be "re-baptized." Now, here is where we clarify the Baptism with the Holy Ghost with any baptism the disciples had prior to Pentecost: they had not yet been Baptized with the Holy Ghost, hence...we cannot in any way associate that Baptism with any other baptism. The Ephesian disciples had not been baptized with the Holy Ghost, hence...John's Baptism is nullified as being associated with that Baptism. And we have four statements of contrast, first John's, then Christ's, then Peter's, then Paul's. All four contrasting water baptism with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
Continued...
I think Christ makes it clear:
Matthew 11:11
King James Version (KJV)
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
John is an Old Testament Prophet. The Kingdom in view is the Kingdom Christ would establish. The Kingdom which is the spiritual rule and reign of Sovereign God has always been, so what does Christ mean here?
John prophesied about Christ, and in fact identified Jesus as the Christ, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the World," yet, John sent two of his disciples to inquire if Christ were the One they awaited:
Matthew 11
King James Version (KJV)
11 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.
2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,
3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?
Was John trusting in the risen Savior? Were the disciples? Was...any man?
Not sure if I have posted this...
Matthew 16:20-23
King James Version (KJV)
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Think about that, RL: Peter is here rebuking Christ for...giving him/them the Gospel.
We then see Peter try to keep Christ from the Cross with physical means:
John 18:10-11
King James Version (KJV)
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
And I don't need to quote the passages where Peter denies he even knows the Lord, right?
But you might consider this:
John 16:26-32
King James Version (KJV)
26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?
32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
Christ doesn't seem much impressed with their claim of "believing." And He prophesies they will all abandon Him.
Do you really see understanding of the Gospel in the disciples, right here before the Lord is taken? And can we nullify Paul's teaching that the Gospel of Jesus Christ...was a mystery? Previously unrevealed truth?
We can't, but...most do.
Continued...
If no-one can be saved if they don't have the Spirit, how then were the Old Testament Saints...saved?
It's really not up for debate whether eternal life is bestowed through the giving of the Spirit of God to the believer, though it is debated by those who see Old Testament Saints receiving the identical "salvation" as New Covenant believers. But they, the Old Testament Saints...were "saved." They were justified by faith and their eternal destiny as secure as yours and mine. But that doesn't mean they benefited from the promises given by God, were born again, or...had received the Atonement.
And that point is a good starting place to understanding the distinction between being under (the Covenant of) Law, and being in relationship with God through the New Covenant. Can we see Israel as benefiting from the promises made to them? Or was the Promise of the New Covenant something that would take place in her future (and some of us still see that as something that will happen in her future, when those of Israel who come to believe in the Tribulation are born again through trusting the Messiah they are to this day denying as having come).
I am glad you have not done what many do, take up a dogmatic rejection of the view concerning salvation and it's progressive nature as clearly seen in Scripture.
As I said, Acts 11 makes it clear that salvation was imparted through the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. We can say assuredly that Cornelius and his house were not "saved" according to New Covenant standard, because this is made clear in the text. When we understand that validation of salvation given to Gentiles and Samaritans is the primary reason we see some distinction in the process of salvation occurring, it clears up questions as to why the sequence seems to vary (some water baptize before, some after receiving the Spirit of God).
The only think I could hope for, RL, is that you will give some sincere thought to this issue.
God bless.
Brother Darrell, you have written and posted so much that I don't have time to read it all, much less respond. I've got to mow my yard and help in a meeting tonight, so I won't have any more time on the Baptist Board today. But as I scanned through your material I found two things that I want to quickly respond to.
But we are not talking about Old Testament saints, brother. We are talking about the record in the book of Acts after the day of Pentecost. But then you seem to say that those saints at Samaria are in a different dispensation than you and I, writing "they were not saved to the point men are today." What does that mean?
It doesn't make any difference what any Baptist writer has to say if it does not reconcile with the Scriptures. (It also doesn't make any difference what any Charismatic writer has to say if it does not reconcile with the Scriptures.) But it does make a difference when you say that sometime is a result of the Charismatic movement. My comment and link to B. H. Carroll was not to prove what is scriptural, but a discussion of sources. Many can read a different view from yours from Baptists as well as Charismatics. And many who read only the Bible on this topic come to a different view.
And I hope, when you have time, that you will go back and read what has been said. There is enough there to address any question you might raise, or any argument that might be given against it. I have addressed the objections raised, and that gives a basis to develop that and center focus on what you might object to, and in more detail deal with these issues. That way we avoid going in circles because we have a number of issues that have to be taken into consideration.
Why are we not "talking about Old Testament Saints?" The disciples were "Old Testament Saints" until the New Covenant was established. Unless you want to suggest that the New Covenant was established prior to Christ's Death, Resurrection, and return to Heaven, at which time He sent the Spirit of God to perform in a manner in which He had not prior to being sent?
You call the people in Samaria "saints," which I would agree with due to their faith, but, again, there is an underlying assumption of salvation in Christ according to New Covenant standard.
And we know that is not the case, because they had not received the Holy Ghost, which is one of the things you list as a necessity for "salvation." See how things become confused when we take a term and give it a general meaning? David was saved, yet David had not received the Atonement. He prophesied of this future event. So are we "saved" like David was? No, because we have received the Atonement, Reconciliation, and the Holy Ghost only promised to David.
And this is why it is good to produce the quote of what I said that makes you think I implied this. The distinction of Dispensation is at Pentecost, and includes all salvific events found in Acts. Nothing in what I have said places the Samarians in another Dispensation, unless you mean by not yet receiving the Holy Ghost, which doesn't change the Dispensation of Grace beginning at Pentecost.
But to answer what I mean in my statement, I already did that:
Just as we can view the Old Testament Saint as saved from an eternal perspective, meaning he was justified by faith, yet had not yet received the Spirit of God in His New Covenant Ministry, Atonement, or REconciliation, even so we have not yet attained glorified form. That will occur beginning with the Rapture.
But that doesn't mean we will be "more saved" when we receive those bodies. Just like we will not be "more saved" when we enter the Eternal State.
But, just as we do not have those glorified bodies yet, and are saved, even so the Old Testament Saint had not received the Spirit sent on Pentecost.
So we are not "saved" to the point we will be when we are glorified. Hope that clears that up.
Here is what I said:
I'm not going to apologize for my view, and I have never said that there are not former teachers that pre-date the modern Charismatic Movement (this is nothing new to Christianity and is seen in the early centuries as well) who do not also take the view that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is empowerment only, whether they are charismatic, Protestant, or Evangelical.
And that is the reason one should get out of books about the Bible...
...and get into the Books of the Bible.
We can look through past teachers, and current ones, and find someone who agrees with our view. But when we put it to the test of Scripture...it gets a little more difficult to debate whether something is valid or not.
Look, if you want to view the Baptism with the Holy Ghost as empowering only, fine. As I said...you are not alone.
But if you want to challenge that view, for yourself, then you are going to have to bring the Scripture that validates that. When we challenge our views it is for our own benefit. I challenge my own on a daily basis, because it matters to me that I might have a view someone might dismantle by bringing something to my attention that I had not previously incorporated to my basis of that position.
But if you are not going to address the points, which is what it sounds like to me, seeing these posts will be here tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after, lol, then I will withdraw from this thread and you can continue to wonder about these disciples being "re-baptized." I'm not trying to force anything on you, just addressing those issues you have raised.
And it is clear in Acts 11 that Cornelius was saved when He and his house received the Holy Spirit. If that is true in Acts 11, then why would we not find it true in Acts 1, Acts 8, or Acts 19?
God bless.
RL, I repost this for the purpose of pointing out that the Scripture presented in the post you are responding to is, in my view, ignored. I would just challenge you to go back and address the points and the Scripture provided.
God bless.
He's only been told that like a thousand times. He smothers threads. The ignore function does a wonderful job eliminating all the scrolling that he generates.
The problem here is that many refuse to accpt that the book of Acts records to us a transistional era from law to grace for us in the Church, so that the Holy Spirit decided to wait to save some such as samaritans, and other non jewish groups like gentiles in a unique fashion, in order to confirm to the jews that salvation by jesus was intended to be towards all now who called upon name of the Lord jesus!
That is in fact a major issue. The attempt is made to establish a Doctrinal pattern in regards to salvation by using these validating events in Acts. Texts are separated from the Body of Scripture and Doctrine that defies the rest of Scripture is created. The best example of this is perhaps Baptismal Regeneration, in which many groups teach that he Holy Ghost is given when men are water baptized. The arguments presented seem reasonable to the nominal student and believer, but those who take the Whole Counsel into view will see it as absurd.
God bless.
- Status