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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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 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.
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

Puritan Board Junior
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.


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

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 
Last edited:

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

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

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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!
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
 

Ed Walsh

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

timfost

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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/
 

Ed Walsh

Puritan Board Senior
I will address both statements from two of your posts

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.

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
 
Last edited:

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top