# Were the 12 disciples (at least the 11) all regenerate prior to being baptized?



## Pergamum (Oct 8, 2014)

For credobaptists of the independent baptist variety, if one is baptized and then discovers that he was unsaved at the time of his "baptism" then this was not truly really even a baptism and a true baptism (called a rebaptism by outsiders) is then needed.

This brings me to the question concerning the baptism of Jesus' closest disciples. Excepting Judas the traitor, at what point were the disciples converted? Must we assume that all were regenerate believers (though liable to fall and backslide) at the time they were baptized early in the Gospels?

If we were able to say, "At this point they did not believe....but here is where Peter seems to have believed." Then this would lead to the question of whether Peter should have been rebaptized then later in his life. And why would Jesus then be negligent regarding baptist principles if He knew they were unregenerate at the time of baptism? 

Related question: Why didn't Jesus refuse to baptize Judas?

What can these issues teach us in the baptism debate?

I'd love to here especially from RBs.


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 8, 2014)

Since all but John were martyred for their faith I would bet they were regenerate. Your question as to their status brings these verses from the Gospel of John to my mind ;

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. 33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 8, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> For credobaptists of the independent baptist variety, if one is baptized and then discovers that he was unsaved at the time of his "baptism" then this was not truly really even a baptism and a true baptism (called a rebaptism by outsiders) is then needed.



While I understand you've been dealing with indy Baptists given the other thread, why do you say "independent Baptist variety?" This is the belief of all Southern Baptists (except for liberals) and basically all Sovereign Grace Baptists and Reformed Baptists except for those who basically take the Bunyan approach. (Some of the RBs on here who might not rebaptize seem to be exceptions to the general rule based on my contacts elsewhere. And the 1689 necessarily calls for "rebaptism.") Tom Nettles sets forth this belief in the "Four Views on Baptism" book. He refers to a seminary student who was converted while in seminary. The man was baptized afterwards, with the earlier one being considered no baptism at all. 

With regard to conversion, if I'm not mistaken, there are very few examples in the Scriptures where we are told about when a particular individual is converted or regenerated. Outside of the handful in the Gospels and Acts (Paul, Lydia, the jailor, the Ethiopian eunuch, a handful of others plus the multitude in Acts 2 who are not named) how many are there? 

I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that this can teach us a whole lot in the baptism debate. I think those on each side are going to tend to see what they want to see, as with the household baptisms. As you may know, the paedocommunionists also seize on the case of Judas in an attempt to prove their point.

EDIT: While I don't think I've seen anyone argue it, a pedobaptist (or non-"anabaptist") might want to argue that Peter doesn't tell Simon the Sorcerer (evidently a false professor) to believe (or repent) and be baptized when he is shown to be a hypocrite. But is baptism always mentioned in the NT when calling for repentance and belief?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 8, 2014)

Thanks!


----------



## whirlingmerc (Oct 8, 2014)

I am a RB but pretty close to the center

Quite likely and a strong position to say the 11 apostles were regenerate
Paul refers to the church built on the foundation of the apostles (witness and teaching), with Jesus cornerstone
John saw their names on the foundations in Jerusalem, the 12th being not clear, quite likely Paul

Since the apostles didn't receive the spirit till Pentacost, long after Baptism not sure I would build a doctrine of Baptism on how or when they were
Jesus baptism was 'a baptism of repentance' That doesn't scream infant baptism how do infants repent and how do they do works consistent with their repentence..?
If Jesus baptized babies... if the Jerusalem council spoke definitively on it... then it would be more clear
Tonight small group is on Romans 6 and looking at it I cannot say it screams paedobaptism, but I lean heavily toward individual conscience and the priesthood of believers on such matters. Leave it to individual conscience and a person's best understanding. There is also no clear statement against infant baptism, so... I would leave it to individual conscience

Infant regeneration is problematic. Saying all baptized children of believers are elect is problematic.

John clearly was involved in baptizing under John the Baptist. A baptism pointing forward to Jesus.
The other apostles all baptized for repentance under Jesus... Judas was not excluded from that ( suggesting the Donatist position is correct, an unregenerate person baptizing who you thought regenerate is ok to baptize you and you don't need to be rebaptized because you were batized by a Judas)


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 8, 2014)

The original question of the post begs any reading or responding to speculate. There is no mention in the Scriptures (to my knowledge) of one of the 12 being baptized. That is if we are referring to Christian baptism.

John's baptism is not Christian baptism but a baptism of repentance. But that (John's baptism) can't be what you are referring to here. So as it has to do with any baptism debate this is not the question(s) that should be asked. Since one can only speculate. 

It is also not clear concerning the point of saving faith of the 12 in the Scriptures, so that would be speculating as well.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 8, 2014)

What about Abraham's believing before he was circumcised (Rom 4)?


----------



## MW (Oct 8, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> What can these issues teach us in the baptism debate?



One has to distinguish between the validity and efficacy of an ordinance. The former is dependent on Divine institution while the latter is the result of the operation of Divine power and grace on the individual.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Oct 8, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> For credobaptists of the independent baptist variety, if one is baptized and then discovers that he was unsaved at the time of his "baptism" then this was not truly really even a baptism and a true baptism (called a rebaptism by outsiders) is then needed.
> 
> This brings me to the question concerning the baptism of Jesus' closest disciples. Excepting Judas the traitor, at what point were the disciples converted? Must we assume that all were regenerate believers (though liable to fall and backslide) at the time they were baptized early in the Gospels?
> 
> ...



Besides Judas, is there really enough evidence to say they were not converted? I'm not sure there's anything given that makes their conversions seriously suspect.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 8, 2014)

whirlingmerc said:


> I am a RB but pretty close to the center
> 
> Quite likely and a strong position to say the 11 apostles were regenerate
> Paul refers to the church built on the foundation of the apostles (witness and teaching), with Jesus cornerstone
> ...




Let me clarify, I am not asking whether the 11 disciples were regenerate, but whether they were regenerate at the time of baptism.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 8, 2014)

TylerRay said:


> What about Abraham's believing before he was circumcised (Rom 4)?



What about it?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 8, 2014)

Harley said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > For credobaptists of the independent baptist variety, if one is baptized and then discovers that he was unsaved at the time of his "baptism" then this was not truly really even a baptism and a true baptism (called a rebaptism by outsiders) is then needed.
> ...



So you would agree that each of the 12 was baptized upon a credible profession of faith and/or repentance (which proved true for 11 of them)? And that these 11 were regenerate (though they were ignorant, they backslid, and their faith had to grow a lot)?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 8, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > What can these issues teach us in the baptism debate?
> ...



How unbiblically can an ordinance be performed and still be valid? Do you count baptisms by the Catholic Church to be valid? If one were baptized by Mormons, should we count those? If someone was baptized in brandy, sand or jello, this is irregular, but can the wrong element invalidate an ordinance? What are some markers to determine validity, and what factors would count towards invalidating or disqualifying the performance of an ordinance from being valid? How "off" must it be?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 8, 2014)

Romans922 said:


> The original question of the post begs any reading or responding to speculate. There is no mention in the Scriptures (to my knowledge) of one of the 12 being baptized. That is if we are referring to Christian baptism.
> 
> John's baptism is not Christian baptism but a baptism of repentance. But that (John's baptism) can't be what you are referring to here. So as it has to do with any baptism debate this is not the question(s) that should be asked. Since one can only speculate.
> 
> It is also not clear concerning the point of saving faith of the 12 in the Scriptures, so that would be speculating as well.



Can you explain your position more fully? Is my question totally off-base?

Baptists often require rebaptism for one who was previously baptized but who discovered/felt later that they were actually unregenerate. We should assume, therefore, that Jesus also would require rebaptism in at least some cases (and we do have one solitary case of rebaptism in Acts) and that those that Jesus baptised were baptized Scripturally (folks exhibiting a credible profession of faith...I cannot say regenerate folks because we cannot know this for sure, and even Jesus who knew Judas was a traitor, baptized him anyway).


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 9, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Can you explain your position more fully? Is my question totally off-base?



Your OP is asking questions that Scripture does not give answers to (i.e. when the Apostles were saved or when they were baptized). So to ask the question and then ask for answers to it is to ask for speculation which is unneeded when talking about baptism. There are plenty of other passages that give enough information about baptism that do not deal with the Apostles baptisms and when they were regenerated.





Pergamum said:


> Baptists often require rebaptism for one who was previously baptized but who discovered/felt later that they were actually unregenerate. We should assume, therefore, that Jesus also would require rebaptism in at least some cases (and we do have one solitary case of rebaptism in Acts) and that those that Jesus baptised were baptized Scripturally (folks exhibiting a credible profession of faith...I cannot say regenerate folks because we cannot know this for sure, and even Jesus who knew Judas was a traitor, baptized him anyway).



Your first two sentences basically made a practice therefore doctrine argument. I.e. this is what baptists do (rebaptism), therefore Jesus also would require rebaptism. Which is contrary to sola scriptura. But if we are asking what baptists believe and what logically we and they must conclude about what they believe, then yes I suppose they would have to believe that. Where in particular is the example of 'rebaptism' in Acts? 

Where does it say Judas was baptized? Where does it say any of the Apostles were baptized? And where does it say they were baptized by Jesus? 


The way you are phrasing things I am not quite able to determine if this is what you believe or if this is what you believe baptists believe by logical deduction.


----------



## MW (Oct 9, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> How unbiblically can an ordinance be performed and still be valid? Do you count baptisms by the Catholic Church to be valid? If one were baptized by Mormons, should we count those? If someone was baptized in brandy, sand or jello, this is irregular, but can the wrong element invalidate an ordinance? What are some markers to determine validity, and what factors would count towards invalidating or disqualifying the performance of an ordinance from being valid? How "off" must it be?



It must be according to the form required by the institution. Washing with water in the name of the Trinity for baptism, giving and receiving bread and wine according to Christ's appointment for the Lord's Supper. Where the form is followed the ordinance is administered irrespective of how it is received. Romanists administer baptism according to the valid form, though with an admixture of unlawful rites. They do not administer the Lord's supper when given in one kind. The cults are so named because they lack the very form of a Christian church, and therefore their ordinances are invalid. The wrong element certainly invalidates the ordinance because good intention is no part of the validity of the ordinance so far as men are concerned.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 9, 2014)

Matthew, you forgot the "by a minister lawfully ordained" part.


----------



## MW (Oct 9, 2014)

Romans922 said:


> Matthew, you forgot the "by a minister lawfully ordained" part.



Our Catechisms do not require revision.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 9, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > How unbiblically can an ordinance be performed and still be valid? Do you count baptisms by the Catholic Church to be valid? If one were baptized by Mormons, should we count those? If someone was baptized in brandy, sand or jello, this is irregular, but can the wrong element invalidate an ordinance? What are some markers to determine validity, and what factors would count towards invalidating or disqualifying the performance of an ordinance from being valid? How "off" must it be?
> ...



Two questions:
-Is the Lord's Supper still followed if wine is not used? Or is the form not followed?

---I am having trouble understanding your statement, "The cults are so named because they lack the very form of a Christian church, and therefore their ordinances are invalid." How does this not also invalidate the ordinances administered by the Catholic Church? Their very doctrinal foundations since Trent have made heresy their official stance in central matters of salvation?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 9, 2014)

Previously posted by A. Barnes:



> The original question of the post begs any reading or responding to speculate. There is no mention in the Scriptures (to my knowledge) of one of the 12 being baptized. That is if we are referring to Christian baptism.



True.



> John's baptism is not Christian baptism but a baptism of repentance.



Also, true.

Previously posted by Michael


> Since the apostles didn't receive the spirit till Pentacost



Not true; Jesus breathed on the Apostles in John 20:22



> 21*So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22*And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.



That which occurs at Pentecost is an amplification of that Spirit for Kingdom business.

Pergamun states:



> So you would agree that each of the 12 was baptized upon a credible profession of faith and/or repentance (which proved true for 11 of them)?



These Apostles already had the sign placed on them at birth....



> -Is the Lord's Supper still followed if wine is not used? Or is the form not followed?



No. Tis a break in the RPW. I have a paper on this if you wish.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 9, 2014)

Scott Bushey said:


> Previously posted by A. Barnes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Another (sort of related question) from your reply above:

Were the disciples present at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit fell down on everybody, and did this happen to them as well (even if Jesus already blew on them in John's Gospel)?

Yes, I'd love to read the paper on wine in the Lord's Supper. Thanks!


----------



## whirlingmerc (Oct 9, 2014)

regarding.... "Not true; Jesus breathed on the Apostles in John 20:22"

actually Jesus was speaking prophetically and in metaphor , i.e. this is my body broken for you.... 
Did't happen yet


----------



## whirlingmerc (Oct 9, 2014)

regarding "... you forgot the "by a minister lawfully ordained" part. ..."

even in James it says when to put oil on the sick to '...call for the elders...' not just anyone


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 9, 2014)

whirlingmerc said:


> regarding.... "Not true; Jesus breathed on the Apostles in John 20:22"
> 
> actually Jesus was speaking prophetically and in metaphor , i.e. this is my body broken for you....
> Did't happen yet



The distinction between the paraklete (the helper) and penuma hagion (Holy Spirit) must be considered. The Paraklete is an amplification of the HS for kingdom business and the PH the typical indwelling of all believers.

Calvin writes on the event:

"22. He breathed on them. Not one of the sons of men is qualified for discharging so difficult an office, and, therefore, Christ prepares the Apostles for it by the grace of his Spirit. And, indeed, to govern the Church of God, to carry the embassy of eternal salvation, to erect the kingdom of God on earth, and to raise men to heaven, is a task far beyond human capacity. We need not be astonished, therefore, that no man is found qualified unless he be inspired by the Holy Spirit; for no man can speak a word concerning Christ unless the Spirit guide his tongue, (1 Cor. 12:3) so far is it from being true that there is any man who is competent to discharge faithfully and honestly all the duties of so excellent an office. Again, it is the glory of Christ alone to form those whom he appoints to be teachers of his Church; for the reason why the fulness of the Spirit has been poured out upon him is, that he may bestow it upon each person according to a certain measure.
Receive ye the Holy Spirit. Though he continues to be the only Shepherd of his Church, he must necessarily display the power of his Spirit in the ministers whose agency he employs; and this also he testified by the outward symbol, when he breathed on the Apostles; for this would not be applicable, if the Spirit did not proceed from him. So much the more detestable is the sacrilege of the Papists, who seize and claim for themselves the honour which belongs to the Son of God; for their mitred bishops, when they make priests, have the effrontery to boast of breathing the Holy Spirit on them. But the fact plainly shows how different their stinking breath is from the Divine breathing of Christ; for what else is it that they do than to change horses into asses? Besides, not only does Christ communicate to his disciples the Spirit which he has received, but he bestows it as his own, as the Spirit which he has in common with the Father. Consequently, all those who boast of giving the Spirit by breathing lay claim to the glory of Divinity.
It ought to be observed, that those whom Christ calls to the pastoral office he likewise adorns with the necessary gifts, that they may be qualified for discharging the office, or, at least, may not come to it empty and unprovided. And if this be true, there is no difficulty in refuting the foolish boasting of the Papists, who, while they employ lofty terms of commendation in extolling their hierarchy, cannot show a single spark of the Holy Spirit in their bishops. They wish us to believe that they are the lawful pastors of the Church, and, in like manner, that they are the apostles and vicars of Christ, while it is evident that they are utterly destitute of the grace of the Holy Spirit. A sure criterion is here laid down for judging of the calling of those who govern the Church of God; and that criterion is, if we see that they have received the Holy Spirit.
What Christ chiefly, however, intended by it was, to uphold the dignity of the rank of the Apostles; for it was reasonable that those, who had been chosen to be the earliest and most distinguished preachers of the Gospel, should possess uncommon authority. But if Christ, at that time, bestowed the Spirit on the Apostles by breathing, it may be thought that it was superfluous to send the Holy Spirit afterwards. I reply, the Spirit was given to the Apostles on this occasion in such a manner, that they were only sprinkled by his grace, but were not filled with full power; for, when the Spirit appeared on them in tongues of fire, (Acts 2:3,) they were entirely renewed. And, indeed, he did not appoint them to be heralds of his Gospel, so as to send them forth immediately to the work, but ordered them to take repose, as we read elsewhere, Remain ye in the city of Jerusalem till ye are endued with power from on high, (Luke 24:49.) And if we take all things properly into consideration, we shall conclude, not that he furnishes them with necessary gifts for present use, but that he appoints them to be the organs of his Spirit for the future; and, therefore, this breathing ought to be understood as referring chiefly to that magnificent act of sending the Spirit which he had so often promised.
Although Christ might have bestowed grace on his Apostles by a secret inspiration, he chose to add a visible breathing in order to confirm them more fully. Christ took this outward emblem from the ordinary manner of speaking in the Scriptures, which very frequently compare the Spirit to wind; a comparison which we briefly accounted for in the exposition of the Third Chapter of this Gospel. But let the reader observe, that with the visible and outward sign the word is also joined; for this is the source from which the sacraments derive their efficacy; not that the efficacy of the Holy Spirit is contained in the word which sounds in our ears, but because the effect of all those things which believers receive from the sacraments depends on the testimony of the word. Christ breathes on the Apostles: they receive not only the breathing, but also the Spirit. And why, but because Christ promises to them?"


John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 267–269.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 9, 2014)

22. breathed on them] Comp. Gen. 2:7 (LXX.). The same image which was used to describe the communication of the natural life, is here used to express the communication of the new, spiritual, life of re-created humanity.
The “breath” (πνεῦμα) is an emblem of the Spirit, 3:8; and by “breathing,” as Augustine observes, the Lord shewed that the Spirit was not the Spirit of the Father only but also His own.
The act is described as one (ἐνεφύσησε) and not repeated. The gift was once for all, not to individuals but to the abiding body.
on them … unto them] There is nothing to limit the pronoun to “the ten.” It appears from Luke 24:33, that there was a general gathering of the believers in Jerusalem (those with them: in v. 24 “the twelve” are evidently distinguished from “the disciples”). There is a Jewish legend that when Moses laid his hand on Joshua, God said, “In this world only individuals possess the gift of prophecy, but in ‘the world to come’ (the Messianic age) all Israelites shall be seers: Joel 3:1” (‘Midrash Tanchuma,’ 65 c, quoted by Wünsche).
Receive] Literally, Take (λάβετε). The choice of word seems to mark the personal action of man in this reception. He is not wholly passive even in relation to the divine gift. The same word is used of “life” (10:17 f.) and “words” (12:48). The phrase recurs Acts 8:15, 8:17, 8:19, (10:47, ἐλ. τὸ π. τὸ ἁ), 19:2.
the Holy Ghost] Or rather, in order to express the absence of the article, a gift of the Holy Ghost (comp. 7:39), even the power of the new life proceeding from the Person of the Risen Christ. The presence of this new life of humanity in the disciples communicated to them by Christ was the necessary condition for the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. The Spirit which the Lord imparted to them was His Spirit, or, as it may be expressed, the Holy Spirit as dwelling in Him. By this He first quickened them, and then sent, according to His promise, the Paraclete to be with them, and to supply all power for the exercise of their different functions.


Brooke Foss Westcott and Arthur Westcott, eds., The Gospel According to St. John Introduction and Notes on the Authorized Version, Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament (London: J. Murray, 1908), 294–295.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 9, 2014)

Adam Clarke writes:

"Verse 22. He breathed on them. Intimating, by this, that they were to be made new men, in order to be properly qualified for the work to which he had called them; for in this breathing he evidently alluded to the first creation of man, when God breathed into him the breath of lives, and he became a living soul: the breath or Spirit of God (רוח אלהים ruach Elohim) being the grand principle and cause of his spiritual and Divine life.

Receive ye the Holy Ghost. From this act of our Lord, the influences of the Holy Spirit on the souls of men have been termed his inspiration; from in, into, and spiro, I breathe. Every word of Christ which is received in the heart by faith comes accompanied by this Divine breathing; and, without this, there is neither light nor life. Just as Adam was before God breathed the quickening spirit into him, so is every human soul till it receives this inspiration. Nothing is seen, known, discerned, or felt of God, but through this. To every private Christian this is essentially requisite; and no man ever did or ever can preach the Gospel of God, so as to convince and convert sinners, without it. "

Bible Knowledge Commentary:

"20:21-23. Jesus then recommissioned the disciples as His apostles: He was sending them as His representatives, as the Father had sent Him (cf. 17:18). They were sent with His authority to preach, teach, and do miraculous signs (Matt. 28:16-20; Luke 24:47-49). For their new commission they needed spiritual power. So He breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. The image and wording of breathing on them recalls God’s creative work in making Adam (Gen. 2:7). Now this post-Resurrection “breathing” was a new kind of creative work for they would soon become new creations (Eph. 2:8-10). This reception of the Spirit was in anticipation of the day of Pentecost and should be understood as a partial limited gift of knowledge, understanding, and empowerment until Pentecost, 50 days later."

Phillips Commentary:

"We note their enlistment (20:21): “Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” The disciples now became his “sent ones,” commissioned by him as he had been commissioned by his Father. They were to carry on the work he had begun. There was a vast world still lying in the lap of the evil one waiting to be evangelized. Theirs was the mighty ordination of the nail pierced hands.
We note their enablement (20:22): “And when he had said this, he breathed on them and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” The word for “breathed” is emphusao, the same word used in the Septuagint in Genesis 2:7. The Lord as Jehovah Elohim breathed into Adam’s nostrils the breath of life so that he became a living soul. The word means “to breathe with force.” Now as the risen Lord he breathed on the apostles so that they might receive divine power in the person of the Holy Spirit. The task before them was a humanly impossible task: to evangelize a God hating, Christ rejecting world of unregenerate people, dead in trespasses and sins, and organized into a satanically energized system and society. How could they do it? By the Holy Spirit now indwelling their mortal bodies. The Son had received the Holy Spirit for his mission (John 1:32–34; 3:34) and now he gave them the Holy Spirit for their mission."

JFB:

21. Then said Jesus — prepared now to listen to Him in a new character. Peace be unto you. As my Father hath sent me, so send I you — (See note on John 17:18).

22. he breathed on them — a symbolical conveyance to them of the Spirit. and saith, Receive ye the Holy Ghost — an earnest and first-fruits of the more copious Pentecostal effusion."

B.W. Johnson

"John 20:22. Breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Breath is the symbol of life. God breathes into man the breath of life (Gen. 2:7), and Christ breathed upon his apostles as a symbol of the impartation of the Holy Spirit. I suppose that he imparted a measure of the Spirit at this time to guide and strengthen them during this preparatory period, but the baptism of the Spirit, “the power from on high,” was not imparted until the day of Pentecost, after the Lord ascended."


----------



## MW (Oct 9, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Is the Lord's Supper still followed if wine is not used? Or is the form not followed?



If the Lord instituted the use of wine, and wine is not used, the form is not followed.



Pergamum said:


> I am having trouble understanding your statement, "The cults are so named because they lack the very form of a Christian church, and therefore their ordinances are invalid." How does this not also invalidate the ordinances administered by the Catholic Church? Their very doctrinal foundations since Trent have made heresy their official stance in central matters of salvation?



The reformers protested and separated before Trent. They did so without becoming separatist. They recognised that the church was to be found among Romanists and that Rome's baptism was Christian baptism. Trent did nothing to alter this. Protestants are not separatists. We protest the corruptions of the Roman communion. We do not oppose that which is truly catholic (universal).


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Oct 9, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Is the Lord's Supper still followed if wine is not used? Or is the form not followed?
> ...



Is grape juice a "kind" of wine? I admit the likelihood that it is not. But even if not, does the kind of wine matter? Red wine? White wine? Merlot? Cabernet Sauvignon? Champagne?


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 9, 2014)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



I'm sure most would prefer the symbolism of a red wine.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Oct 10, 2014)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



The colour of wine is not an issue - any colour is fine, as long as it's wine


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Oct 10, 2014)

Mr. Scott Bushey, 

With your quote from Calvin, would it be right to say then that the Holy Spirit was only partially given to them? I'm not sure exactly how to read this sentence:


> the Spirit was given to the Apostles on this occasion in such a manner, that they were only sprinkled by his grace, but were not filled with full power; for, when the Spirit appeared on them in tongues of fire, (Acts 2:3,) they were entirely renewed.



Since you previously respond in this manner:


> Previously posted by Michael
> Since the apostles didn't receive the spirit till Pentacost
> Not true; Jesus breathed on the Apostles in John 20:22
> 
> ...



Are you contending that The Apostles had the Spirit in full? If Calvin is saying the Spirit was given in partial... how is this possible? 

Thank you.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Oct 10, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Harley said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



I think so. John came preaching repentance and the subjects were confessing and forsaking not just sin in general but sins in particular, so it would seem that they would be baptized on those terms. I wouldn't doubt their saved state despite their big mistakes.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 10, 2014)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Mr. Scott Bushey,
> 
> With your quote from Calvin, would it be right to say then that the Holy Spirit was only partially given to them? I'm not sure exactly how to read this sentence:
> 
> ...



You need to make the needed distinction between the HS that they all rec'd upon conversion and that which was an amplification for big kingdom business. Personally, I believe the apostles, prior to Jesus breathing on them were regenerated but not actually converted until this 'breathing' on them. The HS came in an abundance at Pentecost, obviously to assist with the transition.

Yea, I don't know if I agree fully w/ Calvin here. I believe he meant that this event was a 'taste' of what was to come and gave the apostles the amplification early-but not in it's full measure.


----------



## MW (Oct 10, 2014)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> But even if not, does the kind of wine matter?



I think the main thing is that it is the fruit of the vine.


----------



## Fender tele 67 (Oct 10, 2014)

Doesn't John 20:22 in which Christ blew on them saying, receive the Holy Spirit be some evidence of their regeneration. For to be baptized in the Spirit is to be born again.


----------

