SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Were the disciples born again before or after Pentecost?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 Next Page )
PosterThread
Croref
Member



Joined: 2008/3/18
Posts: 334


 Re:

by Approved on 2012/10/31 6:15:45

Quote:
I fail to see any need to add the word "[afterward]" in this

I apologize for this, I wasn't adding it to the verse, I was merely emphasizing that Paul baptized them afterward. I corrected the previous post by adding [emphasis mine] so that no one will think that I was adding to the scriptures. Thanks for pointing that out to me brother.


No worries, Bro. It wasn't my intent for that reason to point it out. [I have done worse to make a point] but rather why you added it period. Why assume such when it isn't necessary nor suggested from context. That is why I mentioned the house of Cornelius account that it can be compared to.. They weren't "water" baptized until AFTERWARDS.

 2012/10/31 9:21Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi CroRef,

Quote:
Robert, given nothing to support a second water baptism and knowing that the baptism of Jesus Christ was of His Holy Spirit and that by His Name and the laying of hands it could be administered, why assume Paul water baptized them or even had to before the Holy Spirit came "upon" them??



And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (Acts 19:3)

This was their first water baptism, presumably administered by Apollos. Paul then explains that baptism and followed it with:

When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:5)

This is baptism in water #2.

And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (Acts 19:6)

This is baptism in the Holy Spirit (baptism #3) as paralleled by the events in Acts 2:4 and defined by Jesus:

For John truly baptized with water; but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. (Acts 1:5)

So their Acts 1:5-2:4 experience was all played out in Acts 19:1-6. It is my view that they were justified by faith when the met Paul, had believed, but had NOT received. Otherwise, why did Paul ask them? They could not have possibly had an experience so profound that they were new creatures in Christ, no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit, crucified with Christ, etc., and not know it. This is where I think the error is. People are taught to 'reckon' themselves dead to sin, 'reckon' this and that and yet there is no basis for their reckoning. I may write a check 'reckoning' that I have $100 in the bank, but unless a deposit had been made, there is no justification for reckoning it and the check is going to bounce. We risk flooding Christendom with a lot of hot checks by not asking folks, "have you received SINCE you believed?" How can a demand be made on an experience that never took place? So folk strain real hard and turn all red in the face trying to weird out and 'reckon' by faith something that they never had deposited. This is why I believe the masses live lives very similar to sinners. They don't need more teaching- they need to be asked 19:1ff. Paul was a master theologian and did not suggest to them they had a 'secret' experience based on logical deductions of proof texts; but he wanted to know if they KNEW they had received. Hope that helps. Blessings.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2012/10/31 9:27Profile
Croref
Member



Joined: 2008/3/18
Posts: 334


 Re:

by RobertW on 2012/10/31 6:27:32

Hi CroRef,

Quote:
Robert, given nothing to support a second water baptism and knowing that the baptism of Jesus Christ was of His Holy Spirit and that by His Name and the laying of hands it could be administered, why assume Paul water baptized them or even had to before the Holy Spirit came "upon" them??



And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (Acts 19:3)

This was their first water baptism, presumably administered by Apollos. Paul then explains that baptism and followed it with:

When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:5)

This is baptism in water #2.


Again, why assume it when there is no reason to?

Paul asked because he knew there was MORE they had not received that would be of great significance in their ministry. Do you honestly believe that they needed another water baptism __to prove anything to Paul?? Paul only asked, "since you BELIEVED". Believed what? Paul already assumed they would know it was Jesus he was referring to..

 2012/10/31 9:36Profile









 Re:

Quote:
That is why I mentioned the house of Cornelius account that it can be compared to.. There weren't "water" baptized until AFTERWARDS.

I see what your saying. Didn't quite understand your previous question, but it's now more plain.

I truly do not have a concrete answer to give, I can only speculate.

Though I have been baptized in Jesus name, I have never taken real stock in it until I was baptized with the Holy Ghost. I went into the water and came up wet. To me it was just a rite, a ritual. But when I was baptized with the Holy Spirit, that was a different story.

So when I read about Cornelius Household being filled with the Spirit without first being baptized in water, I thought the whole process to be natural that God sees the Baptism with the Holy Spirit to be more paramount than baptism in water.

Since this was the first gentiles to be saved, this gives me hints of why Paul makes the distinction, "My Gospel" in a few places. The revelation that God gave to him for the gentiles, might have excluded the use of water baptism as a rite that had to die so that our emphasis could be on the Spirit baptism hence why he says One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism.




side note: Peter had to be the first to introduce the gospel to the gentiles because he had been given the keys of the kingdom. His job was to unlock the classes that separated the Jews from the Samaritans and the Gentile world. His task was completed at Cornelius house, he than fades away into legend, while Paul now takes the centre stage.

All speculation brother.

 2012/10/31 9:43









 Re: Were the disciples born again before or after Pentecost?

Thanks Robert for patiently answering the 6 points put by awakened. Given the condition of the church in many places and the fact that we are nearing the end of this age it must be wise to understand, even from a personal position, what truly constitutes being born again; without which we all agree that we will not see God. Even though I have met G W North at his “men’s conference” in the 1980’s and have therefore heard him preach and teach up close and personal I never discerned anything about him which gave me cause for concern. I should say however that I didn’t comprehend the “One Baptism” teaching as to its meaning in terms of new birth. The book One Baptism was written in the early seventies and so it predates the article that you posted here on this thread by nearly three decades; and which presents the same belief or teaching. In fact the structure of that article is very similar to Pastor North’s own structure in the last chapter of that book.

The implication that I spoke about earlier in this thread wasn’t just an implication that some younger believers especially might be troubled by this idea of “Pentecostal regeneration”, nor was it a substantive concern about pressing into heresy by making an unreasonable separation between justification, which must follow conviction of sin, as well as faith in the sufferings and resurrection of Christ, and regeneration as a conscious experience which cannot be anything other than evident in a complete change of character and life. It was more especially to do with the possibility that the distinction could lead some brethren to settle for being justified and yet equally settle for no real “God Consciousness” and therefore see no need to desire or even expect any fruit arising from a new life. If one can be justified in the same way Abraham was, as has been stated, and yet not be born again, as a formal doctrine, this idea would necessarily lend itself to the wicked man who for whatever reason believes himself to be a justified sinner. However it has come about, this is definitely what has happened and it is near epidemic amongst believers.

I accept that your continuous efforts have put that “self justification” to bed. It cannot be true and it is not true. It may help to put something in a way that paraphrases something I once read. “God deals with realities. He isn’t concerned in presenting truth from a man’s perspective; He presents truth from His own perspective. The reality of Truth is not Godward, but towards man. It is God’s ways presented to men, and which are true in Him, not Truth presented to God by man and which are therefore true in man.”

I appreciate your efforts Robert and the sincerity in which you have wrestled with your understanding of the reality of the churches in many places. Pastor North’s teaching that the only baptism which “fits” the meaning of “One Baptism” in Ephesians 4 being the same indumenta of power arising from being born from on high, is an undoubted challenge to me although I have said previously that I have no difficulty in believing that the Apostles and the others of the 120 were born again by that means. Though this lack of difficulty has to do with the “time line” of events surrounding the work of The Lord Jesus Himself. (Birth, Life, Death, Burial, descending in Hell, raised from the dead, witnessed by over 500 persons, especially the Apostles, ascended into Heaven, The Lamb newly slain seating down at the right Hand of The Father. I think this is going to be something I will have to wrestle with for some time before I have clarity and therefore the possibility of “being fully persuaded”. But it is in any event a blessing to be sharing and receiving in this way the things of God.

 2012/10/31 9:52
Croref
Member



Joined: 2008/3/18
Posts: 334


 Re:

by Approved on 2012/10/31 6:43:03

Quote:
That is why I mentioned the house of Cornelius account that it can be compared to.. There weren't "water" baptized until AFTERWARDS.

I see what your saying. Didn't quite understand your previous question, but it's now more plain.

I truly do not have a concrete answer to give, I can only speculate.

Though I have been baptized in Jesus name, I have never taken real stock in it until I was baptized with the Holy Ghost. I went into the water and came up wet. To me it was just a rite, a ritual. But when I was baptized with the Holy Spirit, that was a different story.

So when I read about Cornelius Household being filled with the Spirit without first being baptized in water, I thought the whole process to be natural that God sees the Baptism with the Holy Spirit to be more paramount than baptism in water.

Since this was the first gentiles to be saved, this gives me hints of why Paul makes the distinction, "My Gospel" in a few places. The revelation that God gave to him for the gentiles, might have excluded the use of water baptism as a rite that had to die so that our emphasis could be on the Spirit baptism hence why he says One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism.


Quote:
side note: Peter had to be the first to introduce the gospel to the gentiles because he had been given the keys of the kingdom. His job was to unlock the classes that separated the Jews from the Samaritans and the Gentile world. His task was completed at Cornelius house, he than fades away into legend, while Paul now takes the centre stage.

All speculation brother.



Not really, Bro. You're OK. The accounts speak for themselves. We have many more letters from Paul as a result then we do from Peter. That should say something, eh?

"One Baptism" to me, is an "singleness of mind" attitude rather being something we need to labor over for understanding for fear we not don't have it for our salvation. That simply is not good thinking since Jesus in so many instances gets thing "all out of wack" in the way we think things need be done. Forget it. Remember the thief on the cross? Whatta you do with that?

 2012/10/31 9:56Profile
Croref
Member



Joined: 2008/3/18
Posts: 334


 Re:

I believe the biggest reason for confusion in all this is unbelief. Most come into these issues with minds already made up in someway 'mentally' engineered that handicap them to their long established doctrines. It's tough to break through that when sufficient commentaries, viewed as gospel, are out which contribute greatly to their handicap __and for the same reason.

. . . to which I say throw them out__read your Bible__and write your own commentary.

 2012/10/31 10:18Profile









 Re:

Quote:
I believe the biggest reason for confusion in all this is unbelief.

B.I.N.G.O

 2012/10/31 10:36
Croref
Member



Joined: 2008/3/18
Posts: 334


 Re:

LOL!! . . I believe it is true.

 2012/10/31 10:39Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi CroRef,

Quote:
Again, why assume it when there is no reason to?

Paul asked because he knew there was MORE they had not received that would be of great significance in their ministry. Do you honestly believe that they needed another water baptism __to prove anything to Paul?? Paul only asked, "since you BELIEVED". Believed what? Paul already assumed they would know it was Jesus he was referring to..



It is my view that the most probable reason why they were RE-baptized in water, is because they were baptized according to John's baptism after John's ministry had been superseded by Christ's. It was past its sell by date and yet had been employed by Apollos. Paul does not condemn them for doing this, but rather perfects what they had learned and done. they were on the right track, but needed to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, that is with His name called over them as evidence that they had surrendered to and believed Christ. I'm not sure if thats the answer you were looking for.Blessings.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2012/10/31 10:49Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy