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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Senior
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:
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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.
 

kainos01

Puritan Board Senior
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!
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritanboard Commissioner
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

  1. 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
  2. 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

  1. 1Co 1:2; Rom 1:7-8; Act 11:26; Mat 16:18; 18:15-20; 1Co 5:1-9
  2. Original, particular
  3. 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

  1. 1Co 1:11; 5:1; 6:6; 11:17-19; 3Jo 1:9-10; Rev 2:1-3:22
  2. Rev 2:5 with 1:20; 1Ti 3:14-15; Rev 18:2
  3. 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.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

Cymro

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

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
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?
 

BG

Puritan Board Junior
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
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top