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

Status
Not open for further replies.

BG

Puritan Board Junior
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?
 
Last edited:

Gforce9

Puritan Board Junior
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.........
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Graduate
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Graduate
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).
 
Last edited:

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Graduate
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
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

Flatly Unflappable
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.

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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Senior
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 oneinwardly; 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top