# Acts 19:1-6 and the Re-Baptism of John’s Disciples?



## Ed Walsh

Note: This is an email I sent to my Pastor last night after spending some face-to-face time with him on Thursday.

Dear Pastor *****

I enjoyed our time together yesterday afternoon. Thanks.

Regarding our discussion of Acts 19:1-6 and my contention that the disciples were NOT re-baptized as verse 5 is translated to say:

I am getting clobbered on my take of verse 5. Everyone and I mean everyone, I checked (except Calvin) stated that they were re-baptized, or actually, they were baptized for the first time since their first "baptism," maybe by one of John's disciples after John was either dead or in prison, was defective or incomplete somehow.

vs.5 "and they, having heard, were baptized--to the name of the Lord Jesus," YLT
vs.5 "When they heard _this_, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." NKJV

I maintain that the word '_this_' is not in the original. It could just as well have been the word 'that' that was added. Or maybe better yet, no inserted word at all making the verse say the following:

After Paul stated, in verse four, that John's baptism was in essence Christian baptism, those that heard Paul had the following response.
vs. 5 "When they heard they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," etc. ELW (Ed L Walsh 
vs. 6 “And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. NKJV

If they were re-baptized, this is the only place I can think of in the New Testament that even hints that the followers of the Baptist had to be baptized a second time by Christ’s disciples. Is this not true?

What do you all think?


----------



## timfost

John's baptism was not NT baptism. Their "rebaptism" was not of the same substance as the first.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Ed, I know that Rev. Matthew Winzer contended for the view you have espoused here. I don't know who else besides Calvin also espoused it, but Calvin's take on any issue regarding baptism is one to soberly consider. Didn't this topic come up recently? If not, I must have just been interested in it and went searching through old threads. If you have the time, maybe you could find the discussion of it where Rev. Winzer proposes this view. It is rather compelling. 
He says that "And when they heard this, etc." is a continuation of Paul's narrative, I think. Is that what Calvin says?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ed Walsh

Jeri Tanner said:


> Is that what Calvin says?



Here's part of Calvin's take from his commentary on Acts:

5. On hearing this, they were baptized. Because people in those days had the mistaken idea that John’s baptism was different from Christ’s, there was nothing absurd about people being baptized again if they had only been prepared with John’s baptism. But the two were pledges and signs of the same adoption and new life that we have in our baptism today; that is why we do not read of Christ rebaptizing those who came to him from John. Moreover, Christ received baptism in his own flesh, in order to associate himself with us by that visible sign (Matthew 3:15); and if John’s baptism were different from that of Christ’s, we would not have the blessing of a common baptism with the Son of God.

Was it right to rebaptize? The introduction of anabaptism relies on this evidence. Some people take the word baptized to mean they were newly instructed; but I do not agree with them, because the construction is too forced and smacks of evasion. Others deny that they were rebaptized, because they had been wrongly baptized by some rival of John’s. But there is no substance to this conjecture; indeed, Paul’s words imply that they were true disciples of John, and Luke honors them with the name of disciples. I do not subscribe to this opinion, *and yet I do deny that baptism with water was repeated, because Luke’s words imply only that they were baptized with the Spirit.* It is nothing new for the word “baptism” to be used of the gift of the Spirit (see 1:5 and 11:16). If you understand the baptism here to mean only the external sign, it is surely absurd that it was given without any fuller teaching. If, however, you take it metaphorically for instruction, the expression will be harsher still, and the following sentence about the Holy Spirit coming on them would be inappropriate.​


----------



## Dachaser

Ed Walsh said:


> Note: This is an email I sent to my Pastor last night after spending some face-to-face time with him on Thursday.
> 
> Dear Pastor *****
> 
> I enjoyed our time together yesterday afternoon. Thanks.
> 
> Regarding our discussion of Acts 19:1-6 and my contention that the disciples were NOT re-baptized as verse 5 is translated to say:
> 
> I am getting clobbered on my take of verse 5. Everyone and I mean everyone, I checked (except Calvin) stated that they were re-baptized, or actually, they were baptized for the first time since their first "baptism," maybe by one of John's disciples after John was either dead or in prison, was defective or incomplete somehow.
> 
> vs.5 "and they, having heard, were baptized--to the name of the Lord Jesus," YLT
> vs.5 "When they heard _this_, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." NKJV
> 
> I maintain that the word '_this_' is not in the original. It could just as well have been the word 'that' that was added. Or maybe better yet, no inserted word at all making the verse say the following:
> 
> After Paul stated, in verse four, that John's baptism was in essence Christian baptism, those that heard Paul had the following response.
> vs. 5 "When they heard they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," etc. ELW (Ed L Walsh
> vs. 6 “And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. NKJV
> 
> If they were re-baptized, this is the only place I can think of in the New Testament that even hints that the followers of the Baptist had to be baptized a second time by Christ’s disciples. Is this not true?
> 
> What do you all think?





Ed Walsh said:


> Note: This is an email I sent to my Pastor last night after spending some face-to-face time with him on Thursday.
> 
> Dear Pastor *****
> 
> I enjoyed our time together yesterday afternoon. Thanks.
> 
> Regarding our discussion of Acts 19:1-6 and my contention that the disciples were NOT re-baptized as verse 5 is translated to say:
> 
> I am getting clobbered on my take of verse 5. Everyone and I mean everyone, I checked (except Calvin) stated that they were re-baptized, or actually, they were baptized for the first time since their first "baptism," maybe by one of John's disciples after John was either dead or in prison, was defective or incomplete somehow.
> 
> vs.5 "and they, having heard, were baptized--to the name of the Lord Jesus," YLT
> vs.5 "When they heard _this_, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." NKJV
> 
> I maintain that the word '_this_' is not in the original. It could just as well have been the word 'that' that was added. Or maybe better yet, no inserted word at all making the verse say the following:
> 
> After Paul stated, in verse four, that John's baptism was in essence Christian baptism, those that heard Paul had the following response.
> vs. 5 "When they heard they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," etc. ELW (Ed L Walsh
> vs. 6 “And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. NKJV
> 
> If they were re-baptized, this is the only place I can think of in the New Testament that even hints that the followers of the Baptist had to be baptized a second time by Christ’s disciples. Is this not true?
> 
> What do you all think?


I think that those disciples of John were instructed by him to prepare for the coming Messiah, but did not actually know that Jesus had now come and been the Messiah foretold, and so they were indeed baptized into Jesus, and the Holy Spirit did indeed come into them at that time, as they heard the preparation message, but still needed to hear the gospel message,. Reminds me of Apollos needed to be taken aside and given the full message of Jesus that he was trying to peach and defend.


----------



## Ed Walsh

timfost said:


> John's baptism was not NT baptism. Their "rebaptism" was not of the same substance as the first.



It seems that it was, as I said, in essence, the same. It was both a baptism of repentance and one of the remission of sin. That's why I think John's baptized followers did not need a second baptism.

Luke 3:2b, 3
[T]he word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance *for the remission of sin*s;

Q. Do you think that all those baptised by John were baptised again when they beleived in Christ in a fuller sence? If so, it seems odd to me that there is not a hint of this practice anywhere in the New Testament except for this one (I think poorly translated) verse.

Acts 19:4
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that *they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus*.

Sounds to me that John did indeed preach Christ to those who responded to his message. Consider also, that it was John's baptism that Jesus submitted to.

So that you know; I am not 100% sure of the interpretation I lean to in the OP.


----------



## iainduguid

Ed Walsh said:


> Note: This is an email I sent to my Pastor last night after spending some face-to-face time with him on Thursday.
> 
> Dear Pastor *****
> 
> I enjoyed our time together yesterday afternoon. Thanks.
> 
> Regarding our discussion of Acts 19:1-6 and my contention that the disciples were NOT re-baptized as verse 5 is translated to say:
> 
> I am getting clobbered on my take of verse 5. Everyone and I mean everyone, I checked (except Calvin) stated that they were re-baptized, or actually, they were baptized for the first time since their first "baptism," maybe by one of John's disciples after John was either dead or in prison, was defective or incomplete somehow.
> 
> vs.5 "and they, having heard, were baptized--to the name of the Lord Jesus," YLT
> vs.5 "When they heard _this_, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." NKJV
> 
> I maintain that the word '_this_' is not in the original. It could just as well have been the word 'that' that was added. Or maybe better yet, no inserted word at all making the verse say the following:
> 
> After Paul stated, in verse four, that John's baptism was in essence Christian baptism, those that heard Paul had the following response.
> vs. 5 "When they heard they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," etc. ELW (Ed L Walsh
> vs. 6 “And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. NKJV
> 
> If they were re-baptized, this is the only place I can think of in the New Testament that even hints that the followers of the Baptist had to be baptized a second time by Christ’s disciples. Is this not true?
> 
> What do you all think?


A point of clarification. In your translation, are you suggesting that the content of what they heard was that they had already effectively been baptized into the Lord Jesus? If so, that is extremely hard to justify from the Greek. The construction _akousantes de_ is common in Acts and seems always to indicate something like "When they heard this, ..." ( see 2:37, 4:24 etc). Where it is followed by the content of what they heard, the Greek indicates this with _hoti _(9:38; 16:38). That's why Calvin and all of the English translations render it something like "When they heard _this_, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. But perhaps I am misunderstanding your point?


----------



## Ed Walsh

iainduguid said:


> That's why Calvin and all of the English translations render it something like "When they heard _this_, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. But perhaps I am misunderstanding your point?



Maybe I'm just grabbing at straws here. My "translation," with the smiley face, is more of a theological assumption than an educated Gk translation. I know almost no Greek. Thanks for your input.

Same question that I asked above. Do you think all those who John baptized had to be baptized again when they followed Christ?


----------



## timfost

Ed Walsh said:


> It seems that it was, as I said, in essence, the same. It was both a baptism of repentance and one of the remission of sin. That's why I think John's baptized followers did not need a second baptism.
> 
> Luke 3:2b, 3
> [T]he word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
> And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance *for the remission of sin*s;
> 
> Q. Do you think that all those baptised by John were baptised again when they beleived in Christ in a fuller sence? If so, it seems odd to me that there is not a hint of this practice anywhere in the New Testament except for this one (I think poorly translated) verse.
> 
> Acts 19:4
> Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that *they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus*.
> 
> Sounds to me that John did indeed preach Christ to those who responded to his message. Consider also, that it was John's baptism that Jesus submitted to.
> 
> So that you know; I am not 100% sure of the interpretation I lean to in the OP.



Your interpretation also brings in another problem. Since the new covenant wasn't in effect at this point, Christ still under the old one, John's baptism would be a part of the old covenant, not the new.

NT baptism represents the washing away of sin through the blood of Christ. John's baptism was more akin to the Nazarite vow.


----------



## timfost

It may also help to see JTB as the last of the OT prophets. It's easy to view him as part of the new covenant because we read of him in the NT.


----------



## TylerRay

Poole takes the same line as Calvin.

Gill has an interesting take on the passage. He understands v5 to be a continuation of Paul's words, so that it would read (I'm using contemporary conventions for clarity here):


> Then said Paul, "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard _this_, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." And when Paul had laid _his_ hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve.



So, according to Gill, the baptism in the name of Jesus which is referred to is John's baptism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh

TylerRay said:


> So, according to Gill, the baptism in the name of Jesus which is referred to is John's baptism.



That's at least half of what I am suggesting. Thanks


----------



## Ed Walsh

Jeri Tanner said:


> maybe you could find the discussion of it where Rev. Winzer proposes this view. It is rather compelling.



Below are three quotes from Rev. Matthew Winzer in the Thread, _The 12 Apostles and Rebaptism_
https://goo.gl/D9ESC4

In Acts 19:5 Paul's says to the disciples of John that those baptised by John were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Concerning Acts 19:5, is there any indication that Paul has ceased speaking and the narrator has resumed his narrative of events? The beginning of verse 6 appears to be a more natural way of introducing what occurred after the speech of Paul.

Please read Acts 19:5 again, not as the narrator's words, but as Paul's words, and it will be seen that no baptism took place at that time. I recommend Gill's comments in loc.


----------



## TylerRay

Ed Walsh said:


> Below are three quotes from Rev. Matthew Winzer in the Thread, _The 12 Apostles and Rebaptism_
> https://goo.gl/D9ESC4
> 
> In Acts 19:5 Paul's says to the disciples of John that those baptised by John were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.
> 
> Concerning Acts 19:5, is there any indication that Paul has ceased speaking and the narrator has resumed his narrative of events? The beginning of verse 6 appears to be a more natural way of introducing what occurred after the speech of Paul.
> 
> Please read Acts 19:5 again, not as the narrator's words, but as Paul's words, and it will be seen that no baptism took place at that time. I recommend Gill's comments in loc.


That is Gill's argument exactly.


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> Your interpretation also brings in another problem. Since the new covenant wasn't in effect at this point, Christ still under the old one, John's baptism would be a part of the old covenant, not the new.
> 
> NT baptism represents the washing away of sin through the blood of Christ. John's baptism was more akin to the Nazarite vow.


The water baptism of the NT had to wait for the Messiah, Jesus, to actually died and be raised again and ascended, as those who were then saved by Him took on that Baptism, so whatever they had experienced was not the NT rite. I tend to see them as receiving the teaching of John as regarding coming messiah and to repent, but that the Apostles gave them the Gospel, and that is when they received Jesus and was saved.


----------



## Ed Walsh

Dachaser said:


> The water baptism of the NT had to wait for the Messiah, Jesus, to actually died and be raised again and ascended, as those who were then saved by Him took on that Baptism, so whatever they had experienced was not the NT rite. I tend to see them as receiving the teaching of John as regarding coming messiah and to repent, but that the Apostles gave them the Gospel, and that is when they received Jesus and was saved.



Whatever the difference is between John's and NT baptism, to say that John's disciples were not saved until after Pentecost is a little strange. Was King David saved? How about Danial and the rest of the Old Testament saints? As we will see below, John's gospel and Jesus' gospel were very similar.

What is in common in these verses? Well, let me tell you, so you don't miss it. Three things: baptism, repentance, remission of sins, which equals full salvation.

John’s preaching included salvation for all the believed:
Luke 3:3 (KJV)
And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;​
John’s preaching included faith in the Christ Jesus:
Acts 19:4
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.​
Peter’s first sermon was in the main the same as John’s preaching:
Acts 2:38 (KJV)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,​
The last words Jesus said to his disciples were that they should preach “repentance and remission of sins” just as John did.
Luke 24:47 (KJV)
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.​
If the subjects of John's baptism were not fully saved when they believed his teaching, it would be an unprecedented exception to all the stories of salvation in the whole Bible.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> I tend to see them as receiving the teaching of John as regarding coming messiah and to repent, but that the Apostles gave them the Gospel, and that is when they received Jesus and was saved.



Dispensationalism. 

The gospel is not a NT phenomenon. Many people in the OT had the gospel and were 'saved', long before Christ and the apostles.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Something must be said in relation to a transition time and the covenant sign that was already on the flesh of the OT saint.....


----------



## Scott Bushey

For example: What if you were an OT believer and a week before Pentecost, you circumcised your infant son. Were u now obligated to place another sign on your child, a week afterwards? If so, why don't we see this resigning of any infants or children in the NT writings?


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Here is a link to the thread I read recently. I believe all the issues raised are addressed; it's interesting. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/calvin-vs-murray-on-baptism.54183/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

timfost said:


> It may also help to see JTB as the last of the OT prophets. It's easy to view him as part of the new covenant because we read of him in the NT.


Tim, a quote from that thread I mentioned which provides food for thought on that issue: "...the law and the prophets were until John; from the time of John's ministry the kingdom of heaven advanced militantly. Also, the Gospel of Mark tells us the gospel commenced with John as the messenger of Christ."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

Baptism is a multifaceted word.


----------



## Afterthought

Scott Bushey said:


> For example: What if you were an OT believer and a week before Pentecost, you circumcised your infant son. Were u now obligated to place another sign on your child, a week afterwards? If so, why don't we see this resigning of any infants or children in the NT writings?


A thought. The blood of Christ was on them and their children. To save themselves from the untoward generation, they were to repent and be baptized. The promise was to them and to their children. If the children were not baptized, the children would have remained guilty of the murder of Christ. It seems unlikely the parents would have saved themselves while leaving their children guilty of their sin. So here is evidence that they were baptized. As for why not seeing any of this later, I don't know. I'm not sure what bearing the silence has one way or the other on whether they were baptized; I suppose for those that had been baptized by John, if that was in fact Christian baptism, they had no need to be baptized again.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> It seems unlikely the parents would have saved themselves while leaving their children guilty of their sin.



Ramon,
I wholeheartedly agree; considering federal headship, one would think the obvious; bit to me, it is strange that we see no indication of any mass families being baptized.


----------



## Cymro

How about this Ed?
John's baptism had all the hallmarks of NT baptism. "Repentance", "belief", and remission of sins."
It has been estimated that John baptised 250,000, but cut that by half, or even a quarter,---that's a lot of rebaptising to do!
Apollos was not rebaptised18: 24-25, neither John's disciples or crucially Christ himself.
They had knowledge of Holy Ghost through the dove, and John's preaching of the baptism of fire. But were limited concerning the gifts and display of HS having an imperfect knowledge.
They were baptised in the Name of Christ, because------
If you read v5 as a continuation of v4, and do so by putting a comma between the two, then both speak of John's ministry and not Paul's.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Polanus1561

https://purelypresbyterian.com/2016/04/24/was-johns-baptism-christian/


----------



## Dachaser

Ed Walsh said:


> Whatever the difference is between John's and NT baptism, to say that John's disciples were not saved until after Pentecost is a little strange. Was King David saved? How about Danial and the rest of the Old Testament saints? As we will see below, John's gospel and Jesus' gospel were very similar.
> 
> What is in common in these verses? Well, let me tell you, so you don't miss it. Three things: baptism, repentance, remission of sins, which equals full salvation.
> 
> John’s preaching included salvation for all the believed:
> Luke 3:3 (KJV)
> And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;​
> John’s preaching included faith in the Christ Jesus:
> Acts 19:4
> Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.​
> Peter’s first sermon was in the main the same as John’s preaching:
> Acts 2:38 (KJV)
> Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,​
> The last words Jesus said to his disciples were that they should preach “repentance and remission of sins” just as John did.
> Luke 24:47 (KJV)
> And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.​
> If the subjects of John's baptism were not fully saved when they believed his teaching, it would be an unprecedented exception to all the stories of salvation in the whole Bible.


I am just saying that those disciples of John had not heard yet the gospel message,and Jesus had not yet been killed and resurrected, so that is why the heard, believed, and received then the Holy Spirit, and that enabled them to get water baptized.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Dispensationalism.
> 
> The gospel is not a NT phenomenon. Many people in the OT had the gospel and were 'saved', long before Christ and the apostles.


No, would rather see this as how Reformed Baptists would tend to see it.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Something must be said in relation to a transition time and the covenant sign that was already on the flesh of the OT saint.....


The transition from OT to NT was in the person of Jesus, as John the Baptist was the last of the OT prophets.


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> How about this Ed?
> John's baptism had all the hallmarks of NT baptism. "Repentance", "belief", and remission of sins."
> It has been estimated that John baptised 250,000, but cut that by half, or even a quarter,---that's a lot of rebaptising to do!
> Apollos was not rebaptised18: 24-25, neither John's disciples or crucially Christ himself.
> They had knowledge of Holy Ghost through the dove, and John's preaching of the baptism of fire. But were limited concerning the gifts and display of HS having an imperfect knowledge.
> They were baptised in the Name of Christ, because------
> If you read v5 as a continuation of v4, and do so by putting a comma between the two, then both speak of John's ministry and not Paul's.


NT Baptism was not inaugurated until the time after Jesus ascended though.


----------



## Cymro

Dachaser said:


> NT Baptism was not inaugurated until the time after Jesus ascended though.



So the Lord went to the right hand of the majesty on High without the NT baptism? And his Apostles similarly. The Baptist argues that He follows Christ in being baptised, so do they revert back to OT ,JB, baptism?


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> So the Lord went to the right hand of the majesty on High without the NT baptism? And his Apostles similarly. The Baptist argues that He follows Christ in being baptised, so do they revert back to OT ,JB, baptism?


water Baptism is not required to be saved, and the Lord Himself was born under the law, and so that baptism that he undertook was to fulfill all righteousness, but the NT water Baptism of the Great Commission waited until he died and rose again to be initiated.


----------



## hammondjones

I rather propose that Johannine baptism, Jesus' early baptism (via the Apostles), and his later "Baptism of the Great Commission" are all the essentially the same. You'll forgive me if I like the way Kline puts it:



> When Jesus began his public ministry, God’s lawsuit with Israel was in the ultimatum stage. At this point, the judicial function of Jesus coincided with that of John. Jesus’ witness had the effect of confirming John’s witness of final warning to Israel, especially to Israel’s officialdom in the Judean area. And since the meaning of the baptismal rite administered by these messengers of the covenant derived from the official nature of their mission, the import of Jesus’ baptism, though separately conducted, would also be essentially the same as John’s...
> 
> In brief, then, the early baptism authorized by Jesus was a sign of God’s ultimatum to Israel. When that ultimatum was emphatically rejected, a new phase in the administration of the covenant was entered, Jesus’ ministry of baptism ceasing along with the Johannine message of ultimatum which it had sealed.
> 
> The difference between the earlier and the later baptisms authorized by Jesus was the difference between two quite distinct periods in the history of the covenant. The later baptism was of course ordained as a sign of the New Covenant; it was not part of the old lawsuit against Israel. Nevertheless, this new water baptism, appearing so soon after the other and still within the personal ministry of Jesus, would hardly bear a meaning altogether different from the earlier one.


*Kline, By Oath Consigned*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh

Dachaser said:


> the Lord Himself was born under the law, and so that baptism that he undertook was to fulfill all righteousness,



I have heard this before, but I have yet to hear what law Jesus was fulfilling. I agree that he was fulfilling all righteousness, (Matt. 3:15) but is it a law that Jesus was fulfilling?

I thought this comment was interesting:

The point that made it so proper is stated: “it is proper for us to fulfill all righteousness.” “For us” = John and Jesus. The matter pertains to them alone. This, then, is neither the moral nor the ceremonial law. By associating himself with John in this matter of the baptism Jesus is thinking of their respective offices. It was proper that they should carry out whatever their respective positions required. It is thus that Jesus views his baptism. The view that it is an act of “righteousness” only in so far as it marks the willing obedience of Jesus, God having ordered John to baptize and Jesus (though not needing the baptism) submitting to it, makes the baptism a formality and misunderstands what John’s baptism was. It was not law but gospel, not a demand to obey but a gift of grace to be received and accepted as such. *By accepting John’s baptism Jesus is in no sense obeying a law, a useless law in his case;* and in no sense accepting grace and pardon, since he is, indeed, sinless. Jesus is choosing baptism by John as the right way by which to enter upon his great office, and he is doing this with a fine sense of propriety including John as well as himself. He, the Sinless One, the very Son of God, chooses to put himself alongside of all the sinful ones for whom John’s sacrament was ordained. He thus connects himself with all instances of John’s baptism; for it is his mediation that makes these truly efficacious for sinners. By thus joining himself to all these instances of John’s baptism he signifies that he is now ready to take upon himself the load of all these sinners, i.e., to assume his redemptive office.​
Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (p. 126). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh

hammondjones said:


> I rather propose that Johannine baptism, Jesus' early baptism (via the Apostles), and his later "Baptism of the Great Commission" are all the essentially the same.



I agree.

At one point, were not John and Jesus (via his disciples) baptizing in the same place and at the same time? At this point were not their baptisms even more than "essentially" the same? What am I misunderstanding something? 

John 3:22-23
22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.


----------



## Dachaser

Ed Walsh said:


> I agree.
> 
> At one point, were not John and Jesus (via his disciples) baptizing in the same place and at the same time? At this point were not their baptisms even more than "essentially" the same? What am I misunderstanding something?
> 
> John 3:22-23
> 22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
> 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.


The water baptism of the NT though is something to me brand new, and had to do into effect once the Messiah came,died, raised, and ascended back to the Father . This new baptism was put into effect when the church was born on Pentecost.


----------



## Cymro

When Christ said ,"suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness," what was He meaning ? The word righteousness is often used as a synonym for the word, or law. He being born under the law was subject to it and needs fulfil it. Psalm 119 shows this use of righteousness as another description of the law. So what law did he fulfil?
Numbers 8: 6-7 explains it. The Levites had to be purified and set apart for the ministry, which the Lord also had to be. "Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean." So the baptism of Christ qualified Him for the ministry, and also as flesh of flesh and representative of His people he had to undergo all that they were subject to. The Lord then was sprinkled according to the rule, no doubt through the use of a bunch of hyssop.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ed Walsh

Dachaser said:


> The water baptism of the NT though is something to me brand new



It is better and more complete but "brand new?" What do you think about my post you just replied to? Do you think the people that Jesus baptized (John 4:1,2) had to be baptized again after Pentecost?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> No, would rather see this as how Reformed Baptists would tend to see it.



Preposterous! I was a particular baptist for half of my walk. All PB's are fully aware that the gospel started in Gen 3 and was given to Abraham. Gal 3:8

This is not the first time you have been corrected on this idea using scripture. Are you listening?

LBC of 1689:
*Chapter 20: Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace Thereof*
1._____ The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.
( Genesis 3:15; Revelation 13:8 )

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> NT Baptism was not inaugurated until the time after Jesus ascended though.



As has been noted, all major commentators all agree that John's baptism was a Christian baptism.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ed Walsh said:


> It is better and more complete but "brand new?" What do you think about my post you just replied to? Do you think the people that Jesus baptized (John 4:1,2) had to be baptized again after Pentecost?



Ed,
I don't believe Jesus baptized anyone...at least according to the citation you use.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Did John the Baptist, baptize in the Trinity as the commission commands?


----------



## Ed Walsh

Scott Bushey said:


> I don't believe Jesus baptized anyone...at least according to the citation you use.



I know that. I was using it in the same sense as the Bible uses it in Jn. 4:1 - "Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John" The Bible is simply stating that the baptisms were done under Jesus' authority. I'm not stupid.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ed,
Forgive me if my question came off as condescending; I know you are not stupid, pal. I figured I was misunderstanding.


----------



## Scott Bushey

*Romans 6:3 *

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 

If John's baptism was Christian baptism, how were the OT saints, baptized into Christ's death?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Scott Bushey said:


> Did John the Baptist, baptize in the Trinity as the commission commands?



The Esteemed John Lightfoot says no:



> Secondly, In reference to the form of John’s baptism [which thing we have propounded to consider in the second place], it is not at all to be doubted but he baptized “in the name of the Messias now ready to come:” and it may be gathered from his words, and from his story. As yet he knew not that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias: which he confesseth himself, John 1:31: yet he knew well enough, that the Messias was coming; therefore, he baptized those that came to him in his name, instructing them in the doctrine of the gospel, concerning faith in the Messias, and repentance; that they might be the readier to receive the Messias when he should manifest himself. Consider well Mal. 3:1, Luke 1:17, John 1:7, 31, &c. The apostles, baptizing the Jews, baptized them “in the name of Jesus;” because Jesus of Nazareth had now been revealed for the Messias; and that they did, when it had been before commanded them by Christ, “Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” So you must understand that which is spoken, John 3:23, 4:2, concerning the disciples of Christ baptizing; namely, that they baptized in ‘the name of Jesus,’ that thence it might be known that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias, in the name of whom, suddenly to come, John had baptized. That of St. Peter is plain, Acts 2:38; “Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ:” and that, Acts 8:16, “They were baptized in the name of Jesus.”
> 
> But the apostles baptized the Gentiles, according to the precept of our Lord, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” Matt, 28:19. For since it was very much controverted among the Jews about the true Messias, and that unbelieving nation denied, stiffly and without ceasing, that Jesus of Nazareth was he (under which virulent spirit they labour even to this day), it was not without cause, yea, nor without necessity, that they baptized in the name of Jesus; that by that seal might be confirmed this most principal truth in the gospel, and that those that were baptized might profess it; that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messias. But among the Gentiles, the controversy was not concerning the true Messias, but concerning the true God: among them, therefore, it was needful that baptism should be conferred in the name of the true God, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
> 
> We suppose, therefore, that men, women, and children came to John’s baptism, according to the manner of the nation in the reception of proselytes; namely, that they standing in Jordan were taught by John that they were baptized into the name of the Messias, that was now immediately to come; and into the profession of the doctrine of the gospel concerning faith and repentance; that they plunged themselves into the river, and so came out. And that which is said of them, that they were baptized by him “confessing their sins,” is to be understood according to the tenour of the Baptist’s preaching; not that they did this man by man, or by some auricular confession made to John, or by openly declaring some particular sins; but when the doctrine of John exhorted them to repentance and to faith in the Messias, they renounced and disowned the doctrine and opinion of justification by their works, wherewith they had been beforetime leavened, and acknowledged and confessed themselves sinners.
> 
> Ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ· _In Jordan_.] John could not baptize in any part of Jordan, so it were within the bounds of Judea (which the evangelists assert), which had not been dried up, and had afforded a passage to the Israelites when they came out of Egypt, and were now entering into the promised land.





John Lightfoot, _A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark_, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 65–67.

I give some leverage to the fact that the commissional command had not yet been given...


----------



## Scott Bushey

I encourage everyone to read Lightfoot on the matter as he goes into great detail on John's baptism, agreeing that the baptism was actually a Proselyte ritual but as well, calling it the same baptism as the Church today; though, he describes the act itself as a plunging under the water-even going to the extent of saying that if a pinky finger were left out of the water, it is no baptism.


----------



## Scott Bushey

If John's baptism is the same as Christian baptism, would it not have to follow a trinitarian formula?

Lightfoot says that it wasn't trinitarian:

"
III. The baptism of proselytes was an obligation to perform the law; that of John was an obligation to repentance. For although proselytical baptism admitted of some ends,—and circumcision of others,—yet a traditional and erroneous doctrine at that time had joined this to both, that the proselyte covenanted in both, and obliged himself to perform the law; to which that of the apostle relates, Gal. 5:3, “I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”

But the baptism of John was a ‘baptism of repentance;’ Mark 1:4: which being undertaken, they who were baptized professed to renounce their own legal righteousness; and, on the contrary, acknowledged themselves to be obliged to repentance and faith in the Messias to come. How much the Pharisaical doctrine of justification differed from the evangelical, so much the obligation undertaken in the baptism of proselytes differed from the obligation undertaken in the baptism of John: which obligation also holds amongst Christians to the end of the world.

IV. That the baptism of John was by plunging the body (after the same manner as the washing of unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes was), seems to appear from those things which are related of him; namely, that he “baptized in Jordan;” that he baptized “in Ænon, because there was much water there;” and that Christ, being baptized, “came up out of the water:” to which that seems to be parallel, Acts 8:38, “Philip and the eunuch went down into the water,” &c. Some complain, that this rite is not retained in the Christian church, as though it something derogated from the truth of baptism; or as though it were to be called an innovation, when the sprinkling of water is used instead of plunging. This is no place to dispute of these things. Let us return these three things only for a present answer:—

1. That the notion of washing in John’s baptism differs from ours, in that be baptized none who were not brought over from one religion, and that an irreligious one too,—into another, and that a true one. But there is no place for this among us who are born Christians: the condition, therefore, being varied, the rite is not only lawfully, but deservedly, varied also. Our baptism argues defilement, indeed, and uncleanness; and demonstrates this doctrinally,—that we, being polluted, have need of washing: but this is to be understood of our natural and sinful stain, to be washed away by the blood of Christ and the grace of God: with which stain, indeed, they were defiled who were baptized by John. But to denote this washing by a sacramental sign, the sprinkling of water is as sufficient as the dipping into water,—when, in truth, this argues washing and purification as well as that. But those who were baptized by John were blemished with another stain, and that an outward one, and after a manner visible; that is, a polluted religion,—namely, Judaism, or heathenism; from which, if, according to the custom of the nation, they passed by a deeper and severer washing,—they neither underwent it without reason; nor with any reason may it be laid upon us, whose condition is different from theirs.

2. Since dipping was a rite used only in the Jewish nation and proper to it, it were something hard, if all nations should be subjected under it; but especially, when it is neither necessarily to be esteemed of the essence of baptism, and is moreover so harsh and dangerous, that, in regard of these things, it scarcely gave place to circumcision. We read that some, leavened with Judaism to the highest degree, yet wished that dipping in purification might be taken away, because it was accompanied with so much severity. “In the days of R. Joshua Ben Levi, some endeavoured to abolish this dipping, for the sake of the women of Galilee; because, by reason of the cold, they became barren. R. Joshua Ben Levi said unto them, Do ye go about to take away that which hedges in Israel from transgression?” Surely it is hard to lay this yoke upon the neck of all nations, which seemed too rough to the Jews themselves, and not to be borne by them, men too much given to such kind of severer rites. And if it be demanded of them who went about to take away that dipping, Would you have no purification at all by water? it is probable that they would have allowed of the sprinkling of water, which is less harsh, and not less agreeable to the thing itself.

3. The following ages, with good reason, and by divine prescript, administered a baptism differing in a greater matter from the baptism of John; and therefore it was less to differ in a less matter. The application of water was necessarily of the essence of baptism; but the application of it in this or that manner speaks but a circumstance: the adding also of the word was of the nature of a sacrament; but the changing of the word into this or that form, would you not call this a circumstance also? And yet we read the form of baptism so changed, that you may observe it to have been threefold in the history of the New Testament.

Secondly, In reference to the form of John’s baptism [which thing we have propounded to consider in the second place], it is not at all to be doubted but he baptized “in the name of the Messias now ready to come:” and it may be gathered from his words, and from his story. As yet he knew not that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias: which he confesseth himself, John 1:31: yet he knew well enough, that the Messias was coming; therefore, he baptized those that came to him in his name, instructing them in the doctrine of the gospel, concerning faith in the Messias, and repentance; that they might be the readier to receive the Messias when he should manifest himself. Consider well Mal. 3:1, Luke 1:17, John 1:7, 31, &c. The apostles, baptizing the Jews, baptized them “in the name of Jesus;” because Jesus of Nazareth had now been revealed for the Messias; and that they did, when it had been before commanded them by Christ, “Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” So you must understand that which is spoken, John 3:23, 4:2, concerning the disciples of Christ baptizing; namely, that they baptized in ‘the name of Jesus,’ that thence it might be known that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias, in the name of whom, suddenly to come, John had baptized. That of St. Peter is plain, Acts 2:38; “Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ:” and that, Acts 8:16, “They were baptized in the name of Jesus.”

But the apostles baptized the Gentiles, according to the precept of our Lord, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” Matt, 28:19



John Lightfoot, _A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark_, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 63–66.


----------



## TylerRay

Scott Bushey said:


> If John's baptism is the same as Christian baptism, would it not have to follow a trinitarian formula?
> 
> Lightfoot says that it wasn't trinitarian:
> 
> "
> III. The baptism of proselytes was an obligation to perform the law; that of John was an obligation to repentance. For although proselytical baptism admitted of some ends,—and circumcision of others,—yet a traditional and erroneous doctrine at that time had joined this to both, that the proselyte covenanted in both, and obliged himself to perform the law; to which that of the apostle relates, Gal. 5:3, “I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”
> 
> But the baptism of John was a ‘baptism of repentance;’ Mark 1:4: which being undertaken, they who were baptized professed to renounce their own legal righteousness; and, on the contrary, acknowledged themselves to be obliged to repentance and faith in the Messias to come. How much the Pharisaical doctrine of justification differed from the evangelical, so much the obligation undertaken in the baptism of proselytes differed from the obligation undertaken in the baptism of John: which obligation also holds amongst Christians to the end of the world.
> 
> IV. That the baptism of John was by plunging the body (after the same manner as the washing of unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes was), seems to appear from those things which are related of him; namely, that he “baptized in Jordan;” that he baptized “in Ænon, because there was much water there;” and that Christ, being baptized, “came up out of the water:” to which that seems to be parallel, Acts 8:38, “Philip and the eunuch went down into the water,” &c. Some complain, that this rite is not retained in the Christian church, as though it something derogated from the truth of baptism; or as though it were to be called an innovation, when the sprinkling of water is used instead of plunging. This is no place to dispute of these things. Let us return these three things only for a present answer:—
> 
> 1. That the notion of washing in John’s baptism differs from ours, in that be baptized none who were not brought over from one religion, and that an irreligious one too,—into another, and that a true one. But there is no place for this among us who are born Christians: the condition, therefore, being varied, the rite is not only lawfully, but deservedly, varied also. Our baptism argues defilement, indeed, and uncleanness; and demonstrates this doctrinally,—that we, being polluted, have need of washing: but this is to be understood of our natural and sinful stain, to be washed away by the blood of Christ and the grace of God: with which stain, indeed, they were defiled who were baptized by John. But to denote this washing by a sacramental sign, the sprinkling of water is as sufficient as the dipping into water,—when, in truth, this argues washing and purification as well as that. But those who were baptized by John were blemished with another stain, and that an outward one, and after a manner visible; that is, a polluted religion,—namely, Judaism, or heathenism; from which, if, according to the custom of the nation, they passed by a deeper and severer washing,—they neither underwent it without reason; nor with any reason may it be laid upon us, whose condition is different from theirs.
> 
> 2. Since dipping was a rite used only in the Jewish nation and proper to it, it were something hard, if all nations should be subjected under it; but especially, when it is neither necessarily to be esteemed of the essence of baptism, and is moreover so harsh and dangerous, that, in regard of these things, it scarcely gave place to circumcision. We read that some, leavened with Judaism to the highest degree, yet wished that dipping in purification might be taken away, because it was accompanied with so much severity. “In the days of R. Joshua Ben Levi, some endeavoured to abolish this dipping, for the sake of the women of Galilee; because, by reason of the cold, they became barren. R. Joshua Ben Levi said unto them, Do ye go about to take away that which hedges in Israel from transgression?” Surely it is hard to lay this yoke upon the neck of all nations, which seemed too rough to the Jews themselves, and not to be borne by them, men too much given to such kind of severer rites. And if it be demanded of them who went about to take away that dipping, Would you have no purification at all by water? it is probable that they would have allowed of the sprinkling of water, which is less harsh, and not less agreeable to the thing itself.
> 
> 3. The following ages, with good reason, and by divine prescript, administered a baptism differing in a greater matter from the baptism of John; and therefore it was less to differ in a less matter. The application of water was necessarily of the essence of baptism; but the application of it in this or that manner speaks but a circumstance: the adding also of the word was of the nature of a sacrament; but the changing of the word into this or that form, would you not call this a circumstance also? And yet we read the form of baptism so changed, that you may observe it to have been threefold in the history of the New Testament.
> 
> Secondly, In reference to the form of John’s baptism [which thing we have propounded to consider in the second place], it is not at all to be doubted but he baptized “in the name of the Messias now ready to come:” and it may be gathered from his words, and from his story. As yet he knew not that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias: which he confesseth himself, John 1:31: yet he knew well enough, that the Messias was coming; therefore, he baptized those that came to him in his name, instructing them in the doctrine of the gospel, concerning faith in the Messias, and repentance; that they might be the readier to receive the Messias when he should manifest himself. Consider well Mal. 3:1, Luke 1:17, John 1:7, 31, &c. The apostles, baptizing the Jews, baptized them “in the name of Jesus;” because Jesus of Nazareth had now been revealed for the Messias; and that they did, when it had been before commanded them by Christ, “Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” So you must understand that which is spoken, John 3:23, 4:2, concerning the disciples of Christ baptizing; namely, that they baptized in ‘the name of Jesus,’ that thence it might be known that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias, in the name of whom, suddenly to come, John had baptized. That of St. Peter is plain, Acts 2:38; “Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ:” and that, Acts 8:16, “They were baptized in the name of Jesus.”
> 
> But the apostles baptized the Gentiles, according to the precept of our Lord, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” Matt, 28:19
> 
> 
> 
> John Lightfoot, _A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark_, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 63–66.


Scott, note that he claims that John and the Apostles baptized the Jews in the name of Jesus, and that they baptized the Gentiles in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh

Scott Bushey said:


> If John's baptism is the same as Christian baptism, would it not have to follow a trinitarian formula?
> Lightfoot says that it wasn't trinitarian:



We had a good discussion last night, at a small group I belong to, that was helpful to me. We were on Luke 3:1-18 about John the Baptist call to active duty.

I stated in a previous post _"At this point were not their baptisms even more than 'essentially' the same"_? I guess I implied that the two baptisms were _exactly_ the same. They were not. John knew about the Holy Spirit after Jesus' baptism, but I agree that there is no evidence that he performed Trinitarian baptism. My contention is and had been that John's baptism was saving to those who truly repented and believed and that the baptisms that John and his disciples and Jesus' disciples were the same and needed not to be repeated. I admit that I could be wrong, but this is what I have thought for some while. From Genesis 3:15 and the very early believers through to Abraham's circumcision there was a lot of changes--lots more revelation--, and the changes continued under Moses where the sacrifice of redemption for the firstborn was added. But the sacrament was no more and no less effective under Moses than under Abraham.

BTW - Did you ever notice the change in the wording of the fourth commandment from Exodus 20 to Deuteronomy 5? The reason for remembering the Day in Exodus wasCreation, while in Deut. 5:15 it was their deliverance from bondage. So even during Moses ministry, there were some changes.

Anyway, I think we are at a stalemate so I will probably not be posting to this thread anymore.

God bless you and thanks for your input.

Ed


----------



## timfost

Ed Walsh said:


> BTW - Did you ever notice the change in the wording of the fourth commandment from Exodus 20 to Deuteronomy 5? The reason for remembering the Day in Exodus wasCreation, while in Deut. 5:15 it was their deliverance from bondage. So even during Moses ministry, there were some changes.



Interesting conversation!

Just a comment on the above. The change from creation to redemption is a demonstration that what the Sabbath commemorates can change. The Christian Sabbath operates according to the same principle.

I'm not sure if the change from Exodus to Deuteronomy is evidence of an actual change from one to the next. In other words, the second was not an annulment of the first but expanded it. The Christian Sabbath celebrates creation as well as redemption and the resurrection, though the resurrection is in the forefront.

But that's another subject.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Preposterous! I was a particular baptist for half of my walk. All PB's are fully aware that the gospel started in Gen 3 and was given to Abraham. Gal 3:8
> 
> This is not the first time you have been corrected on this idea using scripture. Are you listening?
> 
> LBC of 1689:
> *Chapter 20: Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace Thereof*
> 1._____ The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.
> ( Genesis 3:15; Revelation 13:8 )


I agree that the Covenant of Grace was found in the OT, but the church itself was not, and that water baptism of the NT came in with the birth of the church.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Did John the Baptist, baptize in the Trinity as the commission commands?


Not from my understanding, as that command came from Jesus once raised up and church set up.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> I encourage everyone to read Lightfoot on the matter as he goes into great detail on John's baptism, agreeing that the baptism was actually a Proselyte ritual but as well, calling it the same baptism as the Church today; though, he describes the act itself as a plunging under the water-even going to the extent of saying that if a pinky finger were left out of the water, it is no baptism.


NT water baptism was into the trinity, and was done when one had received Yeshua as their messiah, so how would the Baptizer be doing that, as Trinity not used among the Jews on the whole, and Messiah had not yet died and rose again?


----------



## TylerRay

@Scott Bushey, I'm having trouble understanding just what you're arguing for, and maybe that's my fault. Do you believe that John's baptism was substantially the same as Christian baptism, or no?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> NT water baptism was into the trinity, and was done when one had received Yeshua as their messiah, so how would the Baptizer be doing that, as Trinity not used among the Jews on the whole, and Messiah had not yet died and rose again?



(loop started) You do understand that the OT saints were saved in the same fashion as we are? (loop completed)


----------



## Scott Bushey

TylerRay said:


> @Scott Bushey, I'm having trouble understanding just what you're arguing for, and maybe that's my fault. Do you believe that John's baptism was substantially the same as Christian baptism, or no?



Hi Tyler,
I'm not really arguing for anything per se-just discussing and sweeping up some dust I find; Do I believe John's baptism was a Christian baptism? Yes and no. Since it was not trinitarian, that may pose a small, inconsequential problem. As well, the issue of Jewish washings plays a part in the equation-which have always been (as Lightfoot notes); like, they were germane to the faith of the Jews from early on and what John was doing may have not been seen as anything odd at that point. Ultimately, just thinking out loud. I am well aware that most prominent commentators say that the baptisms of John were Christian-to which, ultimately, I am not losing sleep over-however, I am a thinking man, hence I try and not leave many stones unturned.


----------



## TylerRay

Scott Bushey said:


> Hi Tyler,
> I'm not really arguing for anything per se-just discussing and sweeping up some dust I find; Do I believe John's baptism was a Christian baptism? Yes and no. Since it was not trinitarian, that may pose a small, inconsequential problem. As well, the issue of Jewish washings plays a part in the equation-which have always been (as Lightfoot notes); like, they were germane to the faith of the Jews from early on and what John was doing may have not been seen as anything odd at that point. Ultimately, just thinking out loud. I am well aware that most prominent commentators say that the baptisms of John were Christian-to which, ultimately, I am not losing sleep over-however, I am a thinking man, hence I try and not leave many stones unturned.


Thanks for clarifying, brother. I think we can all agree that there are elements of continuity and discontinuity between the two. Those elements are all worth discussing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Lighfoot cites Maimonides:

II. All the nation of Israel do assert, as it were with one mouth, that all the nation of Israel were brought into the covenant, among other things, by baptism. “Israel (saith Maimonides, the great interpreter of the Jewish law) was admitted into the covenant by three things,—namely, by circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt; as it is said, ‘None uncircumcised shall eat of the passover.’ Baptism was in the wilderness before the giving of the law; as it is said, ‘Thou shalt sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments.’ ”

III. They assert, that that infinite number of proselytes in the day of David and Solomon were admitted by baptism: “Thex Sanhedrims received not proselytes in the days of David and Solomon: not in the days of David, lest they should betake themselves to proselytism out of a fear of the kingdom of Israel: not in the days of Solomon, lest they might do the same by reason of the glory of the kingdom. And yet abundance of proselytes were made in the days of David and Solomon before private men; and the great Sanhedrim was full of care about this business: for they would not cast them out of the church, because they were baptized,” &c.

IV. “Whensoever any heathen will betake himself, and be joined to the covenant of Israel, and place himself under the wings of the divine Majesty, and take the yoke of the law upon him, voluntary circumcision, baptism, and oblation, are required: but if it be a woman, baptism and oblation.”

John Lightfoot, _A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark_, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 55.

One can see that washings were the norm; it is the particular washing that is important in John's case-a shift had occurred. 

Consider the gospel that Abraham rec'd, the apostles and Christ preached and the gospel of our age. All, very different in application, but yet, the same in essence.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> (loop started) You do understand that the OT saints were saved in the same fashion as we are? (loop completed)


Yes, as there were saved by same method NT saints are, but the Church itself started at Pentecost.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Lighfoot cites Maimonides:
> 
> II. All the nation of Israel do assert, as it were with one mouth, that all the nation of Israel were brought into the covenant, among other things, by baptism. “Israel (saith Maimonides, the great interpreter of the Jewish law) was admitted into the covenant by three things,—namely, by circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt; as it is said, ‘None uncircumcised shall eat of the passover.’ Baptism was in the wilderness before the giving of the law; as it is said, ‘Thou shalt sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments.’ ”
> 
> III. They assert, that that infinite number of proselytes in the day of David and Solomon were admitted by baptism: “Thex Sanhedrims received not proselytes in the days of David and Solomon: not in the days of David, lest they should betake themselves to proselytism out of a fear of the kingdom of Israel: not in the days of Solomon, lest they might do the same by reason of the glory of the kingdom. And yet abundance of proselytes were made in the days of David and Solomon before private men; and the great Sanhedrim was full of care about this business: for they would not cast them out of the church, because they were baptized,” &c.
> 
> IV. “Whensoever any heathen will betake himself, and be joined to the covenant of Israel, and place himself under the wings of the divine Majesty, and take the yoke of the law upon him, voluntary circumcision, baptism, and oblation, are required: but if it be a woman, baptism and oblation.”
> 
> John Lightfoot, _A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark_, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 55.
> 
> One can see that washings were the norm; it is the particular washing that is important in John's case-a shift had occurred.
> 
> Consider the gospel that Abraham rec'd, the apostles and Christ preached and the gospel of our age. All, very different in application, but yet, the same in essence.


We are back once again to the difference between how reformed Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists tend to see this issue.


----------



## Ed Walsh

Dachaser said:


> but the Church itself started at Pentecost.



I wasn't going to write anymore but...

Acts 7:38 (KJV)
This is he, that was in the church (ἐκκλησίᾳ) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> No, would rather see this as how Reformed Baptists would tend to see it.


I have to disagree with this. Not to sound unkind, but have you ever met a Reformed Baptist?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

Dachaser said:


> No, would rather see this as how Reformed Baptists would tend to see it.



How RB’s see what? Salvation, baptism, or both? Salvation has always been in Christ, regardless of whether it is OC or NC. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> How RB’s see what? Salvation, baptism, or both? Salvation has always been in Christ, regardless of whether it is OC or NC.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



I agree with you on this, as we both would see that there is but one means to salvation, and that both Ot and NT believers will be part of the one Body of Christ, but I was just saying that the NT water baptism is associated with the NT church , that was founded on Pentecost.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> I have to disagree with this. Not to sound unkind, but have you ever met a Reformed Baptist?


I have yet to meet a Baptist, reformed or another label, that would not see the Church as now being started at Pentecost, or else during the ministry of Jesus and His Apostles.


----------



## Steve Curtis

Dachaser said:


> I have yet to meet a Baptist, reformed or another label, that would not see the Church as now being started at Pentecost, or else during the ministry of Jesus and His Apostles.



Actually, I think that you have likely met such here on the PB!


----------



## Dachaser

kainos01 said:


> Actually, I think that you have likely met such here on the PB!


That would be very interesting, as again, have yet to know any baptist who sees the Church here on earth before the Lord Jesus actually came as the Messiah.


----------



## Herald

Dachaser said:


> I have yet to meet a Baptist, reformed or another label, that would not see the Church as now being started at Pentecost, or else during the ministry of Jesus and His Apostles.



God has always had one called out people. The term “church” is ubiquitous with the New Covenant. Dispensationalists have a different view of Old and New Covenant believers which confessional Baptists reject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> God has always had one called out people. The term “church” is ubiquitous with the New Covenant. Dispensationalists have a different of Old and New Covenant believers which confessional Baptists reject.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I agree with church being in the NT, used to be Dispensational, but reject that viewpoint totally now.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> That would be very interesting, as again, have yet to know any baptist who sees the Church here on earth before the Lord Jesus actually came as the Messiah.


There were some very recent discussions, in which you took part, where many of the RBs on this forum hashed out that very issue. Most of us RBs here (I believe) would affirm that God has one people in all ages. Given what the LBCF says, it seems impossible to believe otherwise. See chapter 26, paragraph 1. If you want to have two different peoples of God, then admit to being dispensational, but please don't muddy the waters by ascribing unconfessional views to confessional people.


----------



## Cymro

ACTS 7:38


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> There were some very recent discussions, in which you took part, where many of the RBs on this forum hashed out that very issue. Most of us RBs here (I believe) would affirm that God has one people in all ages. Given what the LBCF says, it seems impossible to believe otherwise. See chapter 26, paragraph 1. If you want to have two different peoples of God, then admit to being dispensational, but please don't muddy the waters by ascribing unconfessional views to confessional people.


We all believe that God has just one people saved out for Himself under both OT/NT, but we still can and do differ on to when the Church actually was established by God here on the earth.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> We all believe that God has just one people saved out for Himself under both OT/NT, but we still can and do differ on to when the Church actually was established by God here on the earth.



The above goes against any Particular baptist position on the church:

The LBC says that all those saved (whether old or NT) are part of the visible church:
THE CHURCH

26.1 The universal church1 (brought into being by the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called the invisible church. It consists of the complete number of the elect who have been, who are, or who shall be gathered into one under Christ its Head. The church is the bride, the body, the fullness of Christ who fills all in all.2


Mat 16:18; 1Co 12:28; Eph 1:22; 4:11-15; 5:23-25,27,29,32; Col 1:18,24; Heb 12:23
Eph 1:22; 4:11-15; 5:23-25,27,29,32; Col 1:18,24; Rev 21:9-14
26.2 All people throughout the world who profess the faith of the Gospel and render obedience to God by Christ according to the Gospel, and who do not destroy their own profession by any fundamental errors, or by unholy behavior, are and may be called visible saints.1 All local2 congregations ought to be constituted of such people.3


1Co 1:2; Rom 1:7-8; Act 11:26; Mat 16:18; 18:15-20; 1Co 5:1-9
Original, particular
Mat 18:15-20; Act 2:37-42; 4:4; Rom 1:7; 1Co 5:1-9
26.3 The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error,1 and some have degenerated so much that they have ceased to be churches of Christ and have become ‘synagogues of Satan’.2 Nevertheless, Christ has always had, and always will have to the end of time a kingdom in this world, made up of those who believe in him and profess his name.3


1Co 1:11; 5:1; 6:6; 11:17-19; 3Jo 1:9-10; Rev 2:1-3:22
Rev 2:5 with 1:20; 1Ti 3:14-15; Rev 18:2
Mat 16:18; 24:14; 28:20; Mar 4:30-32; Psa 72:16-18; 102:28; Isa 9:6-7; Rev 12:17; 20:7-9

John Gill writes:

"Ver. 38. _This is he that was in the church in the wilderness_, &c.] Which must be understood of the children of Israel, who were the then church of God, whom he had chosen and separated from the rest of the world, to be a peculiar people to himself, to whom were given the word and ordinances, the service of God, and the promises; and God always had, and will have a church, though that is sometimes in the wilderness; which has been the case under the Gospel dispensation, as well as before; see Rev. 12:6, 14 and it was a peculiar honour to Moses, that he was in this church, though it was in the wilderness; even a greater honour than to be in Pharaoh’s court."

John Gill, _An Exposition of the New Testament_, vol. 2, The Baptist Commentary Series (London: Mathews and Leigh, 1809), 204.

Spurgeon:

"Acts 7:38-39. _This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: to whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,"_

Your idea of the church is the Arminian baptist position-it is not 'particular' and definitely not Reformed.:

"*1. Concept of the church*

_Reformed position: _The church has existed since the earliest days of the Old Testament period and has consisted always of believers and their children as family units. Hence, membership in any local church must be counted in terms of families, not individuals.

Children in such “covenant” families are automatically members in the covenant of grace and should be recognized as proper members of the church, though not as full members until making professions of faith.

_Baptist position: _The church has existed only since Pentecost and is constituted solely of believers. Membership, then, in the local church must be on an individual basis, and children may not be counted as members until they have experienced salvation, have been baptized, and have joined the church."

The above is contra LBC 1689. If I may offer an opinion-and take it for whatever it's worth to you:

If I were you, I would spend more time reading things here on PB than posting as your posts are all over the map. It would do u well, to just sit back for a time and read; get things more organized in your head so as you may properly land on a valid position. I suggest studying through the LBC and catechisms and sift through those things against what you believe to be true.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Herald

Herald said:


> God has always had one called out people. The term “church” is ubiquitous with the New Covenant. Dispensationalists have a different view of Old and New Covenant believers which confessional Baptists reject.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Point of clarification. While the term "church" is typically used to describe a New Covenant institution, its roots are back in Genesis.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Cymro

One faith, one covenant of grace, one church under two dispensations. What about Acts 7: 38?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> Point of clarification. While the term "church" is typically used to describe a New Covenant institution, its roots are back in Genesis.


Israel was the called out for God, but that was not the same as the NT Church though.


----------



## timfost

Dachaser said:


> Israel was the called out for God, but that was not the same as the NT Church though.



You may want to look at the LXX and the Hebrew/Greek understanding of "congregation" and "assembly" and "church."

You're making a distinction without a difference.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

I’ve mentioned this in the past as well. No one seems to want to do that


----------



## Herald

Scott Bushey said:


> I’ve mentioned this in the past as well. No one seems to want to do that


Not no one, some.


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> Not no one, some.


There to me still seems to be something distinct and different for the NT church that came about at Pentecost, and no, I no longer hold to Dispensational theology regarding 2 separate saved bodies any more.


----------



## Cymro

Hebrews plainly calls the believers in the OT, the church! It lived under a typical arrangement of that dispensation, and were under tutelage of shadow and type. Nevertheless they were part of the general assembly,and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven. As a church they lived in anticipation, we in realisation. The form of the church as to its practice altered in the new dispensation, but it still remained the church. As in the consumation of all things, the church in heaven will be different, but it will still be the Church.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> Hebrews plainly calls the believers in the OT, the church! It lived under a typical arrangement of that dispensation, and were under tutelage of shadow and type. Nevertheless they were part of the general assembly,and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven. As a church they lived in anticipation, we in realisation. The form of the church as to its practice altered in the new dispensation, but it still remained the church. As in the consumation of all things, the church in heaven will be different, but it will still be the Church.


There is but one Body of believers in the Bible, but national Israel was under the OT, and the new Spiritual israel is the church, founded on Pentecost.


----------



## Cymro

I rest my case.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## timfost

David,

Could you define the word "church," please?

Thanks!


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> David,
> 
> Could you define the word "church," please?
> 
> Thanks!


It is the Bride/Body of Christ, that was formally instituted here at Pentecost. The NT Church is the real and spiritual Israel of the scriptures since that time.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> It is the Bride/Body of Christ, that was formally instituted here at Pentecost. The NT Church is the real and spiritual Israel of the scriptures since that time.


Did the Church replace Israel, or is the Church the same body as Israel?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

Dachaser said:


> There to me still seems to be something distinct and different for the NT church that came about at Pentecost, and no, I no longer hold to Dispensational theology regarding 2 separate saved bodies any more.



Paul said the very opposite when he was on trial before Agrippa

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> Did the Church replace Israel, or is the Church the same body as Israel?


The church did not replace Israel, as the saved Jews and Gentiles were now both saved in the Church, which was set up under the new Covenant of God. The Church is now what I would call spiritual Israel, as unlike under the Old Covenant , only saved are now part of that group.


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> Paul said the very opposite when he was on trial before Agrippa


I think that Paul stated in Romans though that Israel of the new Covenant would be the true spiritual people of God, due to the circumcision of not their flesh, but of the heart, and of the Holy Spirit indwelling them.


----------



## BG

Dachaser said:


> I think that Paul stated in Romans though that Israel of the new Covenant would be the true spiritual people of God, due to the circumcision of not their flesh, but of the heart, and of the Holy Spirit indwelling them.




Is Israel the bride of Christ or is the church the bride?


----------



## Gforce9

If one admits to "one people of God", there is no room for a second category.... We are as united to Abraham as we are to Luther, by virtue of union to the one Savior of all men.........

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> The church did not replace Israel, as the saved Jews and Gentiles were now both saved in the Church, which was set up under the new Covenant of God. The Church is now what I would call spiritual Israel, as unlike under the Old Covenant , only saved are now part of that group.


Who is Israel?


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> Is Israel the bride of Christ or is the church the bride?


The Church would include those saved under both he Old and the new Covenants, but that institution became functioning under the new Covenant at time of Pentecost.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> If one admits to "one people of God", there is no room for a second category.... We are as united to Abraham as we are to Luther, by virtue of union to the one Savior of all men.........


The Church was/is the Covenant of Grace being manifested here among the saved of the Lord, as only saved are now part of that Church.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> Who is Israel?


Under the old Covenant relationship with God, it was the jewish nation and peoples, but now under the new Covenant, includes now the gentiles.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> Under the old Covenant relationship with God, it was the jewish nation and peoples, but now under the new Covenant, includes now the gentiles.


So the Church is Israel?


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> So the Church is Israel?


2 Israels, under the Old Covenant, was national Jewish nation, now under the NC, it is the spiritual Israel of both saved Jews and Gentiles.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> 2 Israels, under the Old Covenant, was national Jewish nation, now under the NC, it is the spiritual Israel of both saved Jews and Gentiles.


So, the NT Israel (the Church) replaced OT Israel?


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> So, the NT Israel (the Church) replaced OT Israel?


I would see it more that the Church is now Israel, but with the gentiles now being brought in under the same flock, with both having Good Shepard, Jesus now.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> I would see it more that the Church is now Israel, but with the gentiles now being brought in under the same flock, with both having Good Shepard, Jesus now.


So, the Church _Is _Israel, then?


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> So, the Church _Is _Israel, then?


Spiritual Israel, as there is still the nation of Israel, but Gods Israel as in saving sinners is the church!


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> Spiritual Israel, as there is still the nation of Israel, but Gods Israel as in saving sinners is the church!


Is the NT church the same spiritual body as OT Israel?


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> Is the NT church the same spiritual body as OT Israel?


The saved under the OT are now included in it.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> The saved under the OT are now included in it.


Is the NT church the same spiritual body as OT Israel? That is, has OT Israel continued as the NT Church?


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> Is the NT church the same spiritual body as OT Israel? That is, has OT Israel continued as the NT Church?


Not the same, as one was physical descendants under Old Covenant, while the spiritual descendants now under the new Covenant.


----------



## TylerRay

So


Dachaser said:


> Not the same, as one was physical descendants under Old Covenant, while the spiritual descendants now under the new Covenant.


The Spiritual descendents of Abraham were not part of OT Israel?


----------



## Dachaser

They were included to be among those in the New Covenant of Grace Spiritual Israel, the Church!


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> They were included to be among those in the New Covenant of Grace Spiritual Israel, the Church!


David,

In the OT, the body of God's people was Israel, which was primarily made up of ethnic Jews. That body took on a civil government after the exodus which furthered their distinction from other ethnicities, as a general rule. Throughout that period, Gentiles were occasionally brought into the worshipping body of God's people, that is, Israel. When the New Testament came, the civil establishment of the OT nation-state was destroyed, the majority of the Jews were cast out from the worshipping body (that is, Israel), and a large number of Gentiles were brought in. In the Old Testament, the body was sometimes called the Church, but was usually called Israel. In the New Testament, the body is sometimes called Israel, but is usually called the Church.

To put it another way, Israel/the Church is like a tree (Rom 11). Most of the old branches of the tree (the Jews) were cut out, and wild branches (the Gentiles) were grafted into that tree. It's still the same tree, but many of the branches have been changed.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> David,
> 
> In the OT, the body of God's people was Israel, which was primarily made up of ethnic Jews. That body took on a civil government after the exodus which furthered their distinction from other ethnicities, as a general rule. Throughout that period, Gentiles were occasionally brought into the worshipping body of God's people, that is, Israel. When the New Testament came, the civil establishment of the OT nation-state was destroyed, the majority of the Jews were cast out from the worshipping body (that is, Israel), and a large number of Gentiles were brought in. In the Old Testament, the body was sometimes called the Church, but was usually called Israel. In the New Testament, the body is sometimes called Israel, but is usually called the Church.
> 
> To put it another way, Israel/the Church is like a tree (Rom 11). Most of the old branches of the tree (the Jews) were cut out, and wild branches (the Gentiles) were grafted into that tree. It's still the same tree, but many of the branches have been changed.


The main distinction between us seems to be that as a Baptist, I would see the church as instituted on Pentecost, while you see it in the OT. We both seem to see spiritual Israel, the redeemed, as now part of the NT Church.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> The main distinction between us seems to be that as a Baptist, I would see the church as instituted on Pentecost, while you see it in the OT. We both seem to see spiritual Israel, the redeemed, as now part of the NT Church.


No, sir, the difference is that you understand the Church to be the NT replacement for OT Israel, while I understand them to be the same body, though under different circumstances. Whether you want to admit to holding to replacement theology or not, it is implicit in your statement that the church didn't begin until the New Testament. You are maintaining that there are two bodies of God's people, one in the OT, and one in the NT. That's not covenant theology; it's New Covenant Theology, and NCT is outside of the bounds of Reformed Orthodoxy.

If you want to know more about the error of New Covenant Theology that you have unwittingly embraced, you can read about it here: https://www.theopedia.com/new-covenant-theology (Qualification: The "History" section of the article is clearly written by someone who holds to NCT, and is seeking to vindicate it historically; note, also, that he doesn't cite his sources. The rest of the article is helpful, though, especially the portion which contrasts NCT with Covenant Theology).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> No, sir, the difference is that you understand the Church to be the NT replacement for OT Israel, while I understand them to be the same body, though under different circumstances. Whether you want to admit to holding to replacement theology or not, it is implicit in your statement that the church didn't begin until the New Testament. You are maintaining that there are two bodies of God's people, one in the OT, and one in the NT. That's not covenant theology; it's New Covenant Theology, and NCT is outside of the bounds of Reformed Orthodoxy.
> 
> If you want to know more about the error of New Covenant Theology that you have unwittingly embraced, you can read about it here: https://www.theopedia.com/new-covenant-theology (Qualification: The "History" section of the article is clearly written by someone who holds to NCT, and is seeking to vindicate it historically; note, also, that he doesn't cite his sources. The rest of the article is helpful, though, especially the portion which contrasts NCT with Covenant Theology).


I did my own study into what NCT teaches and holds with, and to me it is basically Dispensational lite, and I do not hold with their basic beliefs!
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/good-books-on-historic-premil.57482/

There are some who seem to agree with me and would hold to historical premil, as I don;t think that view is as you described it being on this last posting.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> I did my own study into what NCT teaches and holds with, and to me it is basically Dispensational lite, and I do not hold with their basic beliefs!
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/good-books-on-historic-premil.57482/
> 
> There are some who seem to agree with me and would hold to historical premil, as I don;t think that view is as you described it being on this last posting.


It's not your premillennialism that I'm addressing--it's your view of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> It's not your premillennialism that I'm addressing--it's your view of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.


There are 2 main positions held, the Presbyterian one that there is pretty much continuity between them, and the baptist one that the New really was a New Covenant.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> There are 2 main positions held, the Presbyterian one that there is pretty much continuity between them, and the baptist one that the new really was a New Covenant.


Please read the article I posted on New Covenant Theology.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> Please read the article I posted on New Covenant Theology.


I will, but I still do not agree with them on how their view the Church and Israel, and especially their view on the Law of God as it is applying to us today.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> I will, but I still do not agree with them on how their view the Church and Israel, and especially their view on the Law of God as it is applying to us today.


Please explain how it is that you disagree with NCT on the Church and Israel. I haven't seen any differences.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> The main distinction between us seems to be that as a Baptist, I would see the church as instituted on Pentecost, while you see it in the OT. We both seem to see spiritual Israel, the redeemed, as now part of the NT Church.





Dachaser said:


> There are 2 main positions held, the Presbyterian one that there is pretty much continuity between them, and the baptist one that the New really was a New Covenant.



David,

Is it your view that the church did not begin until the New Testament times?

Is it your view that there are two bodies of the people of God, one the OT, the other the NT?

Please elaborate.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> Is it your view that the church did not begin until the New Testament times?
> 
> Is it your view that there are two bodies of the people of God, one the OT, the other the NT?
> 
> Please elaborate.


No, there is only one saved group of people, that would have been saved in both the OT/NT times by the Cross of Christ, but I do not see the Church instituted until time of Pentacost, as the Messiah had to come and die, be raised up and ascended, and sending back the Holy Spirit to Earth to have the church set up. I don't know how to say this exactly right way, but the Church is under the fulness of the administration of the Covenant of Grace, as the New Covenant is in some fashion New. I do not see it as say my Presbyterian brethren do, as a full continuity coming over from the Old Covenant, as that is why would not see water baptism as a direct analog to circumcision, but as believer sin messiah who have been already saved and under new Covenant taking that ordinance now.
No two separate saved bodies with God, just a single one.


----------



## timfost

Dachaser said:


> No, there is only one saved group of people, that would have been saved in both the OT/NT times by the Cross of Christ, but I do not see the Church instituted until time of Pentacost, as the Messiah had to come and die, be raised up and ascended, and sending back the Holy Spirit to Earth to have the church set up.



Certainly their are _differences _between the church under the OT and NT. 



> I don't know how to say this exactly right way, but the Church is under the fulness of the administration of the Covenant of Grace, as the New Covenant is in some fashion New. I do not see it as say my Presbyterian brethren do, as a full continuity coming over from the Old Covenant, as that is why would not see water baptism as a direct analog to circumcision, but as believer sin messiah who have been already saved and under new Covenant taking that ordinance now.
> No two separate saved bodies with God, just a single one.



So here is what I'm struggling with: You say there is one body of believers, OT and NT. "The saved under the OT are now included in it [the spiritual body of believers]." Do you believe that this inclusion is retroactive? In other words, do you believe that the elect of the OT are included in the body of Christ (the church, Col. 1:24) only after Christ? If so, by what righteousness was Abraham justified?

Have you considered Rom. 2:24-3:4:a?

"For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, _even_ with _your_ written _code_ and circumcision, _are_ a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who _is one_ outwardly, nor _is_ circumcision that which _is_ outward in the flesh; but _he is_ a Jew who _is one_inwardly; and circumcision _is that_ of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise _is_ not from men but from God. What advantage then has the Jew, or what _is_ the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar."

These verses deal with both the physical aspects of those under the CoG as well as the spiritual. What was Paul trying to teach his NT hearers if there is the distinction you are making between the a) OT and NT body of believers and b) physical/spiritual?

Thank in advance for your help.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> Certainly their are _differences _between the church under the OT and NT.
> 
> 
> 
> So here is what I'm struggling with: You say there is one body of believers, OT and NT. "The saved under the OT are now included in it [the spiritual body of believers]." Do you believe that this inclusion is retroactive? In other words, do you believe that the elect of the OT are included in the body of Christ (the church, Col. 1:24) only after Christ? If so, by what righteousness was Abraham justified?
> 
> Have you considered Rom. 2:24-3:4:a?
> 
> "For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, _even_ with _your_ written _code_ and circumcision, _are_ a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who _is one_ outwardly, nor _is_ circumcision that which _is_ outward in the flesh; but _he is_ a Jew who _is one_inwardly; and circumcision _is that_ of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise _is_ not from men but from God. What advantage then has the Jew, or what _is_ the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar."
> 
> These verses deal with both the physical aspects of those under the CoG as well as the spiritual. What was Paul trying to teach his NT hearers if there is the distinction you are making between the a) OT and NT body of believers and b) physical/spiritual?
> 
> Thank in advance for your help.


OT saved are indeed part of the NT saved, for we are now all one in Christ, part of the Spiritual Israel, but how we view the New Covenant is different, as I see it not as so much a carry over continuity, but a New Covenant, the full expression of the CoG now being manifested.


----------



## BG

David you do know that the word church never appears in the text of Scripture, right?

The false idea that Israel and the church are two different things is a result of bad translation, not fact.

When ever God saves someone (Old or New Testament) they are made members of the commonwealth of Israel the Body of Christ, no longer strangers to the covenant of Promise made to Abraham.




Dachaser said:


> OT saved are indeed part of the NT saved, for we are now all one in Christ, part of the Spiritual Israel, but how we view the New Covenant is different, as I see it not as so much a carry over continuity, but a New Covenant, the full expression of the CoG now being manifested.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

BG said:


> David you do know that the word church never appears in the text of Scripture, right?



Do you mean the English word?


----------



## BG

No, the translators of the English Bible made a bad decision when they decided to use the word church over the actual word congregation. It is the root cause of dispensationism and probably the baptism debate also. Christ and the Apostles would have had no concept of the church this new entity that is not Israel. Kyriakos is the Greek word for church.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> No, the translators of the English Bible made a bad decision when they decided to use the word church over the actual word congregation. It is the root cause of dispensationism and probably the baptism debate also. Christ and the Apostles would have had no concept of the church this new entity that is not Israel. Kyriakos is the Greek word for church.


The saved group of israel under OT was to be included into the church body of the NT, but the OT Israel was not spiritual Israel as in the NT Church, as both saved and lost were part of Israel under Old Covenant, but just saved now part of the NT Church.


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> David you do know that the word church never appears in the text of Scripture, right?
> 
> The false idea that Israel and the church are two different things is a result of bad translation, not fact.
> 
> When ever God saves someone (Old or New Testament) they are made members of the commonwealth of Israel the Body of Christ, no longer strangers to the covenant of Promise made to Abraham.


I would simply hold that the church is spiritual Israel in the NT. so both saved under the OC/NC now part of it, but that it actually instituted at Pentecost.


----------



## BG

You have it backwards we are brought into their group. That is what scripture says. 


Dachaser said:


> The saved group of israel under OT was to be included into the church body of the NT, but the OT Israel was not spiritual Israel as in the NT Church, as both saved and lost were part of Israel under Old Covenant, but just saved now part of the NT Church.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## KMK

Dachaser said:


> The saved group of israel under OT was to be included into the church body of the NT, but the OT Israel was not spiritual Israel as in the NT Church, as both saved and lost were part of Israel under Old Covenant, but just saved now part of the NT Church.



Are you speaking of the invisible or visible church?

LBC 26:1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, *consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one*, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that fills all in all.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

KMK said:


> Are you speaking of the invisible or visible church?
> 
> LBC 26:1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, *consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one*, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that fills all in all.


Invisible church, only the saved persons are included in that Group!


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> You have it backwards we are brought into their group. That is what scripture says.


How much of a continuity do you see between the Old and New, as how New was the New Covenant?


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> How much of a continuity do you see between the Old and New, as how New was the New Covenant?


It was an almost entirely new covenant, but it was made with the same people. Jeremiah states that there would be a new covenant made with the house of Israel and Jacob. So the New Covenant is made with God's Covenant People, but the rules have changed as to what constitutes God's Covenant People. Though the elect is the same group in all ages, the way God relates to them is different. The root to which we all get grafted in conversion is the same People of God whom He has always maintained. It's just that things keep getting more and more glorious and God unfolds His redemptive plan.
To sum up: the New Covenant is how God relates to His people now; the Old Covenant was how He related to His people then. But the elect are not two different groups: we are one People.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh

BG said:


> You have it backwards we are brought into their group. That is what scripture says.



Here's one of those scriptures:

Romans 11:17
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Here's another:

Ephesians 2:12
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Please see these verses in their context.

As I said in the private message I sent to you, you are asserting something you should be trying to prove. As I see it, you are doing this over and over again while ignoring posts with evidence to the contrary. Just stating that the Church began at Pentecost is not a proof. At least two posts offered the following verse as proof that you are wrong. Please show us why this verse is not speaking of the Church in the OT.

Acts 7:38 (KJV)
This is he, that was in the church (ἐκκλησίᾳ) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Thanks

PS - And I said I wasn't going to participate anymore. Oh well.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## timfost

Ed Walsh said:


> As I see it, you are doing this over and over again while ignoring posts with evidence to the contrary. Just stating that the Church began at Pentecost is not a proof.



Yes. The more we get away from "I think" to "scripture says" the better.


----------



## KMK

Dachaser said:


> How much of a continuity do you see between the Old and New, as how New was the New Covenant?



You are equating the NC with 'the church'. They are not the same thing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Except that under the Old Covenant, there were both saved and lost included under its administration, but just the saved now are under the new Covenant.


----------



## Dachaser

KMK said:


> You are equating the NC with 'the church'. They are not the same thing.


I am equating the NC as now being the final/full manifestation of the CoG now, and that would be seen in the NT Church.


----------



## Dachaser

Ed Walsh said:


> Here's one of those scriptures:
> 
> Romans 11:17
> And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
> 
> Here's another:
> 
> Ephesians 2:12
> That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
> 
> Please see these verses in their context.
> 
> As I said in the private message I sent to you, you are asserting something you should be trying to prove. As I see it, you are doing this over and over again while ignoring posts with evidence to the contrary. Just stating that the Church began at Pentecost is not a proof. At least two posts offered the following verse as proof that you are wrong. Please show us why this verse is not speaking of the Church in the OT.
> 
> Acts 7:38 (KJV)
> This is he, that was in the church (ἐκκλησίᾳ) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
> 
> Thanks
> 
> PS - And I said I wasn't going to participate anymore. Oh well.


The called of of God and saved under the old Covenant relationship were part of the NT Church body, being spiritual Israel, but the Church was not the exact same thing both OT/NT.
The Baptist viewpoint, as expressed in the 1689 Confession, seems to hold to the Church being founded and initiated by Jesus at that time.
1689commentary.org/2012/08/21/chapter-26-of-the-church/


----------



## TylerRay

David,
Do you acknowledge a distinction between the visible church and the invisible church?


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> David,
> Do you acknowledge a distinction between the visible church and the invisible church?


Yes, as there are many who sit in the pews in many churches who were never saved and part of the real church of Christ.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> Yes, as there are many who sit in the pews in many churches who were never saved and part of the real church of Christ.


So you don't believe that the visible church is "the real church of Christ?"


----------



## Ed Walsh

I will address both statements from two of your posts



Dachaser said:


> Except that under the Old Covenant, there were both saved and lost included under its administration, but just the saved now are under the new Covenant.





Dachaser said:


> The Baptist viewpoint, as expressed in the 1689 Confession, seems to hold to the Church being founded and initiated by Jesus at that time.



I suppose you will say that the kingdom of heaven is not the church. But if not then what is it?

Matthew 13:24,30
24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Please read Matthew 13 for the context and the parable of the sower for Jesus' view of the modern church visible.

If you are saying the Old Covenant invisible church had unbelievers in it, then you are misled. The verse below shows that the OC had both a visible and invisible church. Just like today. So what's the difference?

Romans 9:6
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

==================
As to your statement about the 1689 Confession, I need your help. I did not read the whole page of notes, but I did read the confession itself.

Chapter 26, Of the Church - Paragraph I
The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called [1]invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. (Hebrews 12:23; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:10, 22, 23;Ephesians 5:23, 27, 32)

The invisible, [church] _consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one_.
I didn't see where the church is an entirely new creation after Pentecost. Please help me out. I have shown above that there was a visible and invisible church in the OC. The NC church has better everything than the OC church, but it still is the same animal.

Anyway, We are still waiting for you to explain the Acts 7:38 verse. Why does the Bible call the OC church the _church_ using the very same word (ekklesia) that describes the NC church? Please try not to evade this last question.

Thanks

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK

David, you need to take a break and consider what has been said in light of your confession. 

Thanks to all who participated, but we are getting no where.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

