Answer to the issue of water-baptism - last part.

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Page 1

PastorGreg:

Baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, all of which He did ONCE. He wasn't buried and resurrected three times.
Crabtownboy:

There are baptisms where the person is laid back under the water. Others are laid forward under the water, and I have seen videos or a movie where there person performing the baptist simply laid their hand on the head of the person and that person bend their knees down until their head disappeared under the water.

To me all these symbolize death to the old life and resurrection to the new life in Christ.
Webdog:

If baptism is symbolic of us being buried and resurrected in Christ, I don't recall this happening to Jesus 3 times. It's pointless and shows a certain amount of ignorance concerning the symbolism involving it.
Jerome:

Romans 6:3-4
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Can a Christian an associate, and worship with anyone if that person believes on our Lord Jesus Christ?

Page 2

I personally will not condemn anyone that is saved, and has never been baptized.
If they are baptized according to the great Commission as shown in scripture, are they not still Christ's?
Are they still not Christians if they do not baptize as says the great Commission?

GE:

This 'baptism' – (Jerome Romans 6:3-4) – can only be an act in faith by faith of faith. There is NO WAY this 'baptism' can be done by a human being, physically or 'literally'; There consequently is NO WAY this 'baptism' can be undergone by a human being physically of literally IN OR WITH OR BY OR THROUGH _WATER_!

And after all, this 'baptism' Paul refers to here, IS CHRIST'S BAPTISM HE only underwent and which he bestows on others than himself through the operation and power of the Holy Spirit by FAITH ONLY . It is spiritual or it 'is', not at all in believers, as in Christ Jesus ONLY it was BOTH spiritual and physical.

One Word stands fast, all the controversy about baptism despite: "ONE Lord, ONE baptism— the baptism whereby "there is: ONE Faith". The baptism that PRECEDES Faith. There's no such thing in Christian Faith as a 'baptism' that 'has got nothing to do with salvation'. There's no such thing in Christian Faith as a 'baptism' that FOLLOWS faith except the baptism through suffering with in the suffering of Christ. The Christian Baptism is the ONE ALL believers share “IN CHRIST”, “TOGETHER WITH HIM”.

Page 3

Just like at Pentecost when AFTER the people HAD been "pricked in their hearts ... when they had HEARD" through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit ALREADY and immediately ASKED: what they could do, JUST SO in Acts 8, the eunuch ASKED, and Philip answered, If thou ALREADY believest with ALL thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I DO ALREADY believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

No DUTY AS a believer saves; repentance and desire to serve FOLLOW salvation; and are not conditional to salvation. All the GOOD deeds of obedience of the righteous are like filthy rags were it not for the merit of Jesus Christ RECKONED to them. The newly being born again receives the same reward or credit as the life-long follower of Christ --- which is the FORGIVENESS OF SIN the CROWN of their salvation. The only fitness of the redeemed 'for heaven' as the saying goes, is their FORGIVENESS OF THEIR SINS through and in Jesus Christ. They have NO other beauty or virtue or merit than the Author of their salvation .... NOTHING!
DHK:
Jerome, “Can a Christian an associate, and worship with anyone if that person believes on our Lord Jesus Christ?”

Yes, why not?
Baptism does not affect one's salvation.
What does baptism have to do with salvation? I don't understand your question here. There are Christians I won't fellowship with because they live in a state of disobedience. But that is another matter. That has nothing to do with baptism, per se.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Page 4

Ituttut:

His crucifixion, and that alone is His.

Jesus was baptized just as was HIS PEOPLE. Jesus was fulfilling prophecy while He was here, and to further implement the plan of God, He had to show the way to Pentecost.

Acts 8:36-37, "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Yes we are baptized into His death, and this baptism is done without the hand of man. "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

preacher4truth:

Why wouldn't a Baptist require one, baptized under authority of a cult, to be Scripturally baptized? Their cultic baptism is not identifying said person with the true Christ, nor with the true Gospel.

Page 5

Can a man un-baptize one while baptizing that one again. Was that person unsaved, and now saved, or just changed churches? What did the person expect to gain in his thinking of baptism, if it is not necessary to salvation?
Ituttut;
Are you saying that Baptism is after all demanded in order to be saved?

Verse 37 is lacking in the earliest manuscripts.
In any event both of these happenings were before Damascus Road, which means they were covered under that Old economy.

We today are not saved as those in the Apostolic church. Salvation is of God, and applied as we live, and as He directs.

Are we told today to live as the Israelite, being circumcised in the flesh, following the gospel Law of Moses, or necessary to be baptized in Repentance, and water Baptism for the Remission of Our Sins?

Salty:

I think I'd be more concerned with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, than getting technical or legalistic with the water baptism.
DHK:

The baptism referred to in Mat.28:19,20, i.e., the Great Commission is none other than water baptism. Water baptism is absolutely necessary in our time--not for

Page 6

salvation, but for obedience. It is the first step of obedience for a Christian after salvation.
Repent and be baptized.
Believe and be baptized.
Great importance is placed on the doctrine of water baptism.
In almost every denomination--from the RCC, CoC, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc., Baptism (for different reasons) has been the door, the entrance into the church. Why should your opinion stand against all the denominations of all of history?

Salty:

Just making the point baptism should not be a factor if one in Christ Jesus wants to join a church, and the church refuses unless they are re-baptized.

DHK:
Your point is moot. You give an opinion without Scripture. It is given against historical evidence of all history. It is given against all Scriptural evidence. For all who were baptized became members of local churches, including the 3,000 who were baptized on the Day of Pentecost. Your opinion is just that--opinion, and it has no foundation in fact.
DHK:
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Page 7

They were baptized with water as every believer is, as the Ethiopian eunuch was in Acts chapter 8, as the Philippian jailer was in Acts chapter 16. The word means immersion. They were immersed into water. To deny water baptism is to deny the totality of Scripture on this subject.
GE:

Acts 2:41
"They therefore indeed the ones WELCOMING THE WORD WERE BAPTIZED. And there were ADDED in that day about three thousand SOULS."

In Acts 2:41 "they WELCOMING-THE-WORD-WERE-BAPTIZED", 'apodeksamenoi ebaptisthehsan'— NO 'water' no matter how!

First observation through just reading what is written:

It doesn't mention water anywhere, any how.

It doesn't say "the 3,000 who were baptized".

It says 3000 "were ADDED" because "They indeed" were, "THEREFORE THE ONES WELCOMING THE WORD".

It says CLEARLY HOW, they were baptized: "WELCOMING THE WORD THEY WERE BAPTIZED".

Anything else or anything more or anything different, is "opinion" --- "is just that--opinion, and it has no foundation in fact" or Scripture, but is the fiction and traditions of "almost every denomination--from the RCC, CoC, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.", that teach for Scripture-truth "Baptism has been the door" while Christ

Page 8

said He is the Door, "the entrance into the church" despite Christ said He is the Way.

Why should one's individual "opinion stand against all the denominations of all of history"? ---
BECAUSE IT STANDS ON SOLA SCRIPTURA, SOLUS CHRISTUS, SOLA FIDEI, SOLA GRATIA! ....
and is UNTO SOLI DEO GLORIA ...

which is good for and INCLUDES and APPLIES to
BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE: 'the baptism absolutely necessary for' and prerequisite of: "SALVATION" BY AND WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT;
and AFTER: the obedience of faith unto repentance and perseverance in faith and righteousness until the end.
In Acts 8 Philip immersed the eunuch (Philip himself having been authorized directly by Apostles within the Apostolic Age) on REQUEST of the candidate and not by precept of Christ. (Philip, 'Okay, if you wish; it won't hurt anyone I guess...'. But long after the water-factor proved to have caused more harm than any could foresee.)

In Acts 16 the jailer was NOT commanded by either of Paul and Silas to be baptised, but to believe only. Also the word for 'was baptised' may just as well apply to the jailer's treatment for his wounds, 'he', "himself", 'autos', being the subject of all Verbs and 'he', "himself" the object both "washed", 'elousen' and 'baptised', 'ebaptistheh'. "...And all of his there and then brought them (Paul and Silas) into his house". (Where the eunuch received washing and baptizing of his wounds remains an open question; but it was before any entered the house and the family members got involved.)
Page 9

Ituttut:

Quoting DHK: “Your original statement on this is:
Answer--Why not.”

Now you say--Even if a cult?

DHK:

Let me stress: Cult members are not believers!
Thus your question is moot.

Ituttut:

But when they believe, are they still "cult"?

DHK:

This is a heretical statement. The baptism referred to in Mat.28:19,20, i.e., the Great Commission is none other than water baptism. Water baptism is absolutely necessary in our time--not for salvation, but for obedience. It is the first step of obedience for a Christian after salvation.
Repent and be baptized.
Believe and be baptized. Great importance is placed on the doctrine of water baptism.

Ituttut:

I Corinthians 17, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." If baptism is of the utmost importance today, then why doesn't John include it in his gospel, or other writings? All we see in his gospel is before the crucifixion.

Page 10

DHK:

In almost every denomination--from the RCC, CoC, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc., Baptism (for different reasons) has been the door, the entrance into the church. Why should your opinion stand against all the denominations of all of history?

Ituttut:
I had much rather believe scripture than man. Can you find in His Word baptism after the Old is put aside in order for New to be believed. For it is By Grace that we are Saved Through Faith (his baptism), a Gift from God, and we shouldn't try to attach anything else to our salvation

Why do the denominations, and the mother church water baptize? They do it because the mother church did, and the denominations also brought out Christmas and Easter frrom that church. Is it not because they try to mix and match the Old with the New? Didn't certain signs, and gifts cease? Baptism drops out of sight from the only apostle to the Gentile, and the last apostles to the Jew.

DHK:

Your point is moot. You give an opinion without Scripture. It is given against historical evidence of all history. It is given against all Scriptural evidence. For all who were baptized became members of local churches, including the 3,000 who were baptized on the Day of Pentecost.

Your opinion is just that--opinion, and it has no foundation in fact.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Page 11

Ituttut:

Above is of scripture, but some think it opinion. God gives us the Facts, and it is up to us to believe His Word, and not man’s. I believe on His Word, rightly divided. When we can see this we can allow the Bible to interpret itself, without our added input. Can you deny what I say above that John thought it not important enough to mention, or that Paul gives thanks to God that he didn't baptize any more? They all had to go through a learning period, and they did learn the NEW, and left the OLD behind.

Dr. Walter:
Quoting Ituttut: “I Corinthians 17, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."”

You are ignoring the fact that just before Paul said this (1Cor. 1:17) he not only admitted but named members at Corinth he did administer baptism to. Hence, Paul is not denying the need for baptism but he is denying that baptism takes priority over preaching the gospel.

Ituttut:

Well said for baptism (water) has nothing to do with our salvation. If it does, then there are other churches that are Right, and we are Wrong.

If baptism is of the utmost importance today, then why doesn't John include it in his gospel, or other writings? All we see in his gospel is before the crucifixion.

Page 12

DW:
Each gospel has its own emphasis and all four are necessary to get the whole picture. John's emphasis is present Christ as more than a man, but God in the flesh. This emphasis does not deny baptism as most of the first chapter is about John the Baptist and Jesus identifying with the ministry of John the Baptist. John 3:21-36 is about John and his baptism. John 4:1-2 tells us explicitly that Jesus baptized more than John but through his disciples.

You miss the fact that the command to baptism is part of the age long commission in Matthew 28:19-20. The baptism in this commission is water baptism because it is a baptism that men administer to other men. It is not a suggestion or recommendation but a command and that command is to be followed "until the end of the world. Amen." Your argument is with Christ!

Gentleman, Nobody can deny that John the Baptist administered water baptism. No one can deny that Jesus submitted to water baptism. No one can deny that water baptism was administered under Jesus through his disciples (Jn. 4:1; Lk. 7:29-30).

Ituttut:
Right on every count.

DW:

The Great Commission is a command not a request and the baptism in the Great commission is the kind that "ye" or that men administer to others (Mt. 28:29) and therefore


Page 13

cannot possibly be anything but water baptism. In addition, they are commanded in the Great Commission to simply administer to others what they themselves "have" submitted to and they submitted to water baptism.

Ituttut:

Must again agree. And this is exactly what some other religions believe.. for the remission of sins.

DW:

Last but not least, this is a commission to administer water baptism until the "end of the age" and even if you have the warped idea that he means to the end of the Apostolic age (which he does not) that would include the whole book of Acts, the epistles and the book of Revelation and so arguing that it is not water baptism in Acts 2, 8, 16, 19, etc. is foolish.

Ituttut:

Yes, again agree is water baptism that was necessary for Israel, in order to receive remission of sins.

DW:

The baptism in the Spirit was an historical act predicted in the gospels and pinpointed to occur on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:5). It was not an individual application (Acts 11:15-16) but it was the common ordinary immersion in the shikinah glory that occurred AFTER the completion of every new house of God (Ex. 40; 2 Chron. 7:1-3; Acts 2:1-

Page 14

3) and repeated with the Gentiles (Acts 10) to accredit them as members of the new house of God. It was completed and finished and that is exactly why Ephesians 4:5 says there is now only "one baptism" and that is the baptism that is commissioned unto the end of the age (Mt. 28:19-20).

Ituttut:

Are you not mixing and matching here, blurring the meanings of Jesus on earth, and what He says to Paul from heaven? Jesus speaks to the end of the age (time). Paul speaks of eternity being spent with Christ Jesus in heaven.

DW:

If you have an open mind, and will deal with immediate context honestly, it can be easily shown that 1 Cor. 12:13 refers to the building of the local visible congregation and water baptism as described in 1 Cor. 3:4-16 and is the immediate solution for division in the body at Corinth over spiritual gifts as well as over party divisions in 1 Cor. 1:12.

Ituttut:
Can't see the point you are trying to make here.
Dr. Walter:

The Great Commission is given to baptized believers in Christ. Israel rejected Christ. The Great Commission is given to be administered "until the end of the world" and the book of Acts and the epistles are not written to Israel but to the congregations of Christ. The Great Commission was not given to Israel but "unto all the world" (Mt. 28:19).

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Page 15

Paul was not speaking to God in heaven in 1 Cor. 1:17 but to the congregation located in Corinth on earth. Jesus was not speaking to His Father in heaven in Acts 1:5 but to his appostles on earth.

1 Corinthians 12:13 is a summary verse of 1 Corinthians 3:5-16. The first problem of division at Corinth was a denominational party division within the body over the administrators of their baptism (1 Cor. 1:11-13). Paul resolves this party division in the congregation by pointing out that all the Baptismal administrators they were divided over were working together as "one" UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE SPIRIT (1 Cor. 3:5-8) in building the congregation at Corinth as a "temple" of God (1 Cor. 3:16). This is how God builds each and every one of his congregations on earth - through human instrumentality, preachers, who preach the gospel and baptize the believers and either constitute a congregation or add them to an existent congregation through baptism. The same problem existed in 1 Corinthians 12 over spiritual gifts and the relative value of members in the body at Corinth. Paul simply applies the same principle and reminds them that "under the leadership ("by") one Spirit we are all baptized in water into one kind of congregational body and made to partake of the Spiritual gifts within that body through its membership (1 Cor. 12:14-26) and the congregation at Corinth is such a body and was formed in such a way (I Cor. 12:27).
You (Ituttut) miss the fact that the command to baptism is part of the age long commission in Matthew 28:19-20. The baptism in this commission is water baptism because it is a baptism that men administer to other men. It is not a suggestion or recommendation but a command and that
Page 16

command is to be followed "until the end of the world. Amen." Your argument is with Christ!
Ituttut:

You are right it is a command to those He said He came for, and it is to those He preached to, as did John the Baptist, and all the earthly Apostles. They did not associate or preach to, or directly at any Gentile. We should know this for He tells us so.
Dr. Walter:
The Great Commission is to the Gentiles not the Jews "teach ALL NATIONS" and therefore baptism in this commission is for GENTILES.
Dr. Walter:
Quoting GE: “Christ did not 'command US' on baptism; He commanded those He addressed, in person on baptism: they were the eleven disciples the Risen Christ thus commissioned and made Apostles --- THE ONLY Apostles of Christianity and Paul with them.”

If Christ did not command US on baptism because he said it to those he addressed - the eleven disciples and Paul, then Christ NEVER COMMANDED US ON ANYTHING because EVERYTHING He commanded and said was addressed to the audience before him or to Paul. This is the absurd and rediculous conclusion you are forced to take if you reason this way. Paul tells the Corinthians to only follow him as He follows Christ! Wouldn't this be equally true for the other eleven?????

Page 17

Quoting GE: “If Jesus commanded 'with water', He would have SAID: "with in water". HE DID NOT.”

Was Jesus baptized "in water"? Did Jesus baptize others through his disciples "in water" (Jn. 4:1-2; Lk. 7:29-30). The Great Commission demands a baptism that MEN ADMINISTER TTHER MEN "go YE...baptizing THEM." To say that what he commanded was not "in water" simply because he did not use the words "in water" is absurd and rediculous rationalization! The only way MEN could baptize other MEN was "in water" as no man can baptize other men "in Spirit." Hence, the Great commission is the COMMAND OF CHRIST to baptize other men "in water."
Quoting GE: “He who does not in the Spirit worship does not worship in Truth; he who does not worship God in the Holy Spirit under the baptism of the Holy Spirit, knows not the Truth which is Jesus Christ --- he does not worship at all but puts up a show in the works of man-made laws of ceremonies and rituals.”

Jesus said this LONG BEFORE the baptism in the Spirit (Jn. 4:24). The baptism in the Spirit has nothing to do with the regenerate condition of a child of God. Old Testament saints were regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of God and could worship God "in Spirit and in truth." Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for failing to understand as a teacher of Israel the doctrine of new birth (Jn. 3:10). Paul classified all mankind in two categories - those "in the flesh" and those "in the Spirit" and if you did not have the Spirit indwelling you it is because you are "in the flesh" (Rom. 8:9). The new birth was figured under the terms "circumcised in heart" in the Old Testament.

Page 18

The baptism in the Spirit has nothing to do with INDIVIDUAL salvation but with the "house of God" (Ex. 40; 2 Chron. 7:1-3; Acts 2:1-3; 11:15-16). It is the public accreditation and indwelling of the "house of God." It was done ONCE at the completion of every new "house of God." The new house of God - the congregation - is composed of a plurality of members and the baptism in the Spirit is an INSTITUTIONAL accreditation that occurred to the congregation on the day of Pentecost. It occurred in Acts 10 accrediting the GENTILES as approved members in the congregation at Jerusalem. It has nothing to do with individual salvation before or after Pentecost. It has only to do with public certification of the public institutional house of God as the approved place for public worship and administration of the ordinances.

Quoting GE: “I clearly stressed where I spoke about John’s story OF JESUS’ BAPTISM, “Now carefully and clearly SEE: that "He" who WAS thus "baptised" with the Holy Spirit, also "_IS THE SAME WHICH _BAPTIZETH_ WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT".”

The only past tense "baptized" in reference to Christ occurred "in Jordan" by John (Mk. 1:9). There is not one scripture that teaches that Jesus was "baptized" in the Holy Spirit as He is the one who baptizes in the Spirit and the baptism in the Spirit is always future in the gospels right up to Acts 1:5. The Spirit lighting upon him as a dove is NEVER called a baptism and NEVER described as baptism. That is purely a figment of your imagination. The Spirit lighting upon him as a dove was the visible sign given to John that Jesus was the promised Messiah:

Jn 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Page 19

water.32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Spirit coming UPON him (not immersing him) and remaining on him was the sign by which God told John he could recognize the Messiah. He was the one that would baptize in the Spirit not that he himself was baptized in the Spirit or that he was baptizing anyone in the Spirit. The Baptism in the Spirit was always presented as FUTURE in the gospels right up to Acts 1:5.

Quoting GE: “Does the Church baptise with the baptism OF JOHN the Baptist or with the baptism of Christ? Clearly it baptises with the baptism of JOHN!”

The baptism of John is the baptism of Christ (Jn. 4:1-2; Lk. 7:29-30; Mt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15; Acts 2:41). Jesus not only submitted to the baptism of John but administered it through his disciples and then commissioned it to the end of the age, whereas your interpretation directly contradicts Matthew 28;19-20 which can only be baptism in water because it is administered by men to men and it is age long.
The facts are that the Holy Spirit came "UPON" him not that he was IMMERSED in the Spirit. The purpose for the Spirit coming "UPON" him was to reveal to John who was the Messiah as John says twice "I KNEW HIM NOT" and this was given to identify the Messiah.
The Greek preposition is "en" and when used with "baptizo" and its forms should be translated "in" not "with" as

Page 20

baptizo is immersion "in" water not "with" water just as Jesus was baptized "en" Jordan not "with" Jordan. These "technecalities" simply expose your dishonest handling of the Scriptures.

Quoting GE: “However, have you noticed how legalistic your arguments have become? E.g., "The Great Commission is a command not a request and the baptism in the Great commission is the kind that "ye" or that men administer to others..."”
What I pointed out is so obvious and so clear that it requires intentional abuse of Matthew 28;19-20 to discredit it. This is not "legalistic" but FAITHFULNESS to the text of the Scripture.

What you are teaching is so absurd and requires such an abuse of the Biblical text that only a person with an agenda to defend would be driven to such an extreme abuse of the scriptures.
The Problem of Spirit Baptism Advocates

There are a number of problems for those who advocate Spirit baptism as an inseparable aspect of salvation. According to this position, baptism in the Spirit or with the Spirit or by the Spirit unites the believer spiritually with Jesus Christ or according to the invisible church theory, places the believer in union with the mystical body of Christ.

At the very minimum such a doctrine necessarily demands that baptism in the Spirit makes the believer a participant of spiritual life found "in Christ" through the Holy Spirit. (I
Page 21

believe they are confusing baptism in the Spirit with regeneration by the Spirit).

However, it should be asked is there any salvation OUTSIDE of Jesus Christ? Has God ever made a provision for sin and eternal life APART from Jesus Christ? Has the human nature and problem of sin changed after Pentecost than before Pentecost? Can the human fallen nature have another cure before Pentecost than after Pentecost? Can sin be dealt with differently before Pentecost than after Pentecost? Is there another salvation before Pentecost different than after Pentecost? The Bible speaks directly to these questions both before and after Pentecost.

Before Pentecost, Jesus says there is no other way to the Father but by him (Jn. 14:6). Peter says that remission of sins prior to the cross was received through faith in His name (Acts 10:43). Paul says there is but one gospel and it is the same gospel preached in the days of Moses as in the days of Paul (Heb. 4:2). Paul explicitly states that his gospel proclaimed "none other things" than what Moses and all the prophets preached (Acts 26:22) and in Acts 26:23 he details what the gospel they preached proclaimed.

Furthermore, Paul selects Abraham as "the father" of all who believe in the gospel (Gal. 3:6-8) and the role model or "the father" of all who are justified by faith without works (Rom. 4:11).

Jesus rebukes Nicodemus as a teacher of the Jews for being ignorant of the new birth BEFORE Pentecost - Jn. 3:10

Moreover, Peter denies that God provided any other way under heaven for men to be saved other than through Christ (Acts 4:12) in perfect keeping with Christ's own words


Page 22

before Pentecost (Jn. 14:6).

There is no salvation OUTSIDE of Jesus Christ before or after the cross. All the elect were chosen "in him" before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4) and that necessarily included the Old Testament saints as well as the New Testament saints as the election took place before either.

Paul quotes Old Testament scriptures to define the sin problem of all mankind (Rom. 3:10-18). Paul claims Isaiah preached the same gospel of salvation in Christ (Rom. 10:15). Philip took Isaiah chapter 53 and preached Christ to the Eunuch (Acts 8:32-35).

1. The Same gospel in both testaments - Heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43; Gal. 3:6-8
2. The same new birth in both testaments - Jn. 3:10
3. The same doctrine of justification by faith in both testaments - Rom. 4
4. The same Savior in both testaments - Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:43
5. The same sin problem in both testaments - Rom. 3:9-18
6. The same provision for sin in both testaments - Rom. 3:24-26
7. The same way in both testaments - Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12

In Romans 8:8-9 Paul classifies all mankind into two categories just as Jesus did and all the prophets before. All human beings are either "in the flesh" or "in the Spirit" and if they are not "in the Spirit" it is because they are "NONE OF HIS" or "children of God" as the text goes on to describe those "in the Spirit" (Rom. 8:14-16). Jesus claimed

Page 23

all mankind were either saved or lost, children of God or of your father the devil (Jn. 6:44). Born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:3-10) or not born of the flesh (Jn. 3:6). They are either in the kingdom of God or the kingdom of Satan; They are either spiritually dead or spiritually alive. There are no THIRD category in any of these contrasts.

There is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ and therefore the only salvation provided by God is "in Christ" and all who are chosen unto salvation before the world began were chosen "in Him" (Eph. 1:4; 2 Thes. 2:13).

Therefore, baptism in the Spirit is the same in both Testaments or it has nothing to do with individual salvation in Christ.

This brings the Spirit baptism advocate to another problem. All the gospel accounts of the baptism in the Spirit point forward as something yet to be fulfilled (Mt. 3:11, Acts 1:5) on the day of Pentecost. Hence, the baptism in the Spirit cannot be identified with salvation.

In the account of the house of Corneilus Peter explicitly states that what occurred at the house of Corneilius was the baptism in the Spirit as promised by John the Baptist (Acts 11:15-16). However, the nearest reference point that Peter could give for what happened in the house of Corneilius was "AT the beginning" on the day of Pentecost - proving this was not the ordinary continuing application to all the saved as there were thousands saved between pentecost and the house of Cornelius.

The baptism in the Spirit has nothing to do with individual salvation. Nothing to do with spiritual union with Christ

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

(regeneration). Nothing to do with individuals per se. It is the common ordinary divine accreditation of the House of God after the house was finished by the appointed builder designating it by the miraculous manifestations that this is the approved place of public worship, with the approved ordained ministry and approved administration of the ordinances to represent God publicly within the professing kingdom of God.

1. The Tabernacle: -Ex. 40:33 "So Moses finished the work.
34 Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

2. The Temple: - 2 Chron. 7:1-3 "1 Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the LORD filled the house.
2 And the priests could not enter into the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD had filled the LORD’S house.
3 And when all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the LORD upon the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped, and praised the LORD, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever.
3. The Congregational house of God (1 Tim. 3:15) - Acts 2:1-3 " And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

The baptism in the Spirit has to do with divine accreditation as the house of God for public worship, public


Page 25

administration of the ordinances by a qualified ministry (1 Tim. 3:1-15). It happens once to each new house of God AFTER the house has been finished by the assigned builder (Moses, Solomon, Christ) and that public institution remains God's House until HE DESTROYS it.

In Matthew 23:39 Jesus no longer called the temple in Jerusalem His house or the Father's house but "YOUR house" and claimed it was "void" and the ripping of the inner veil from top to bottom was a public disclaimer that God no longer owned the temple as His house of public prayer, worship and administration of the ordinances within the professing kingdom of God.

The baptism in the Spirit was predictive in the gospels in regard to the new house of God. It was the baptism in the Spirit of BAPTIZED BELIEVERS. Both John the Baptist and Jesus spoke of it in connection with the plural "YOU" who had believed in the gospel and submitted to baptism. It is this PLURAL "you" that had the comforter with them but "another comforter" that was now with them INDIVIDUALLY as believers but would be "IN" them as a public temple of God (1 Cor. 3;16) as a corporate congregational body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27) and as a visible assembly of "spiritual stones" gathered together in order to offer up "acceptable sacrifices."

I have proven from CONTEXT that John the Baptist's words concerning the descending of the Spirit on Christ had NOTHING to do with the baptism in the Spirit but WAS THE HISTORICAL IDENTIFICATION MARK GIVEN TO JOHN BY THE FATHER IN ORDER TO KNOW WHO THE CHRIST WAS.

Page 36

Your personal confusion about "which water baptism" is simply due to a lack of scholarship and study.

GE:

And due to a lack of scholarship and study it should be! Thank God!

DHK:
Are you serious?
It was Jesus who said:
Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God.

It was Paul who said:
Study to show yourselves approved unto God, a workman not needs not to be ashamed but rightly dividing the word of truth.

Are you ashamed?
Do you err?
Is this what you thank God for?

GE:

Obviously.

If one usurped the sign of Apostleship one usurped Apostleship with apostolic credentials, command and supremacy. And it always shows. Thus to pit ‘baptism IN the Holy Spirit’ and ‘baptism WITH the Holy Spirit’ against one another as though they are mutually exclusives, is the work and achievement of ecclesiastical effrontery,

Page 27

‘scholarship’ and authoritarianism. ‘Pentecostal baptism IN the Spirit’ as though it is something else and different and greater than ‘individual baptism WITH the Holy Spirit’, has become the pretentious feigning of the water-baptism apostles of our own time. By studying the issue, one begins to better understand the Reformers’ implacable attitude towards the Anabaptists.

Dr Walter:

“There is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ and therefore the only salvation provided by God is "in Christ" and all who are chosen unto salvation before the world began were chosen "in Him" (Eph. 1:4; 2 Thes. 2:13). …Therefore, baptism in the Spirit is the same in both Testaments or it has nothing to do with individual salvation in Christ.”

GE:

To say “baptism in the Spirit” is the “_SAME_ in both Testaments” implies “baptism in the Spirit” SAVED, “the “same in both Testaments”, and declaring “baptism in the Spirit … has nothing to do with individual salvation in Christ”, denies itself.

If “…baptism in the Spirit” “is the same in both Testaments”, “…baptism in the Spirit” always must have had EVERYTHING “to do with individual salvation in Christ.” One and the same ‘baptism’ as the one and only “Christ” as the one and only “Spirit” all along SAVED because it “had to do with salvation”, or has been of no effect or worth, ever. “Salvation” has been by the Christian faith of the “baptism in the Spirit … in both Testaments”— the one true and saving “baptism in the Spirit” in all times,

Page 28

in all epoch making events and in all eras or “Testaments”.

There is no such thing in Scripture as a ‘shekina’ “baptism in the Spirit” residing over a physically congregating ‘Ecclesia’ – past or future, in Congregation or not – that was locally restricted and without saving effect on and in the hearts of individual believers! That is what it means that “baptism in the Spirit is the same in both Testaments”.

Dr Walter talks of “chosen unto salvation”, and “therefore” “chosen unto salvation-baptism in the Spirit”. “Baptism in the Spirit … has … to do with individual salvation”. WHAT ELSE?! Or “Baptism in the Spirit” is a misnomer.

Why and how does “baptism in the Spirit” have “to do with individual salvation”? Dr Walter answers, “Therefore” – i.e., because, “baptism in the Spirit is the same in both Testaments”.

“Baptism in the Spirit”, “in both Testaments”, “is the same”,
because “in both Testaments”, “baptism in the Spirit” means the “individual” is found “in Christ”.

Whether he likes it or not according to Dr Walter himself “Baptism in the Spirit … therefore”, is “individual” and has “to do with individual salvation”— EVERYTHING “to do with individual salvation”!

Nevertheless, DENIES Dr Walter, “The baptism in the Spirit has nothing to do with individual salvation. Nothing to do with spiritual union with Christ (regeneration). Nothing to do with individuals per se.”

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Page 29

Then just listen to Dr Walter contradicting himself, denying his own stance and statement…

Dr Walter:

“If Christ did not command US on baptism because he said it to those he addressed - the eleven disciples and Paul, then Christ NEVER COMMANDED US ON ANYTHING”

GE:

Which confirms baptism in or with the Holy Spirit has EVERYTHING “to do with individual salvation”.

Christ commanded the Apostles, to baptise “in the Name”, and to “go and teach”. Therefore, what Christ teaches any through the Holy Spirit, He teaches as his Apostles taught through the Holy Spirit.

“Going, teach you, all …baptizING them / Going, make you all, disciples …baptizING…” (‘poreuthéntes mathehteúsate baptídz-ONTES’). Matthew 28:19. Christ teaches all individually, viz., personally and in our hearts through “the Spirit of Christ”— which is through the “One Baptism” of the Christian Faith: ‘Rebirth’!

“You need not that any man teach you; but as the same Anointing teaches you of all things … you shall abide in Him. … Every man that does righteousness is born of Him”— “born of Him”, “The Anointing” which in “the Baptism” of, and or in, and or by, and or with, the Holy Spirit. 1John 2:27,29.

“The anointing” OF the Holy Spirit is “the anointing” WITH the Holy Spirit “the Spirit of CHRIST”— the

Page 30

BAPTISM “in the NAME”. The baptism of Christ is with the Spirit of Christ— is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which Christ commanded the Apostles “going”, to “teach”, “baptising in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.

The baptism of Christ is the Baptism with the Anointing Holy Spirit of God Tri-Une that SAVES— or it’s a baptism that avails nothing and COULD NEVER FULFIL PENTECOST! And so water-baptism cannot be meant in Matthew 28 because neither water-baptism nor the baptism of the Apostles can save one’s soul— which is the ultimate purpose of the ‘baptism’ meant in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16 “IN THE NAME” …although ‘scholarship’ will say WATER-baptism is the ‘anointing’, necessary for salvation— one must only ‘study’ hard enough to receive the enlightening anointment.

But water-baptism cannot be meant in Matthew 28 because neither water-baptism nor the baptism of the Apostles can save one’s soul— which is the ultimate purpose of the ‘baptism’ meant in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16… which exactly is ALSO the ultimate purpose of the ‘baptism with / in the Holy Spirit “shed forth” on PENTECOST! Or the ‘baptism’ in Acts 2 and 10 negates and contradicts the power of the Holy Spirit to SAVE!

If not the ‘baptism of / in / with the Holy Spirit’ SAVED the souls of men on the day of Pentecost, it also had no power “to accredit … members of the new house of God.” One is ‘accredited membership of the new house of God’ through regeneration through the baptism by the Holy Spirit, the baptism of Jesus Christ and of his teaching. “Except a man be born of water (of mother’s womb) AND

Page 31

of the Spirit (of God and Christ) he CANNOT enter the Kingdom of God. … Except a man be born AGAIN, he cannot (even) SEE the Kingdom of God.” John 3:5,3.

What is “the new house of God” for you, Dr Walter?
Not “the Kingdom of God”? Or are other conditions laid down in order to become ‘accredited’ “members of the new house of God” than in order to “enter into the Kingdom of God” for the citizens of it?

Is it not the SAME Holy Spirit? Is it not the same WORK of the Holy Spirit in both cases, Pentecost and ‘individual’— the same work of to be “BORN AGAIN”? To be “born again” with the POWER of the Holy Spirit? Is it not the same work of the Holy Spirit – Pentecost and ‘individual’ – to be “BAPTIZED in the NAME of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”?

There are differences, which we shall look at soon. But ESSENTIALLY there is NO difference or mutual exclusiveness between to be “BAPTIZED in the NAME of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” and “The baptism in the Spirit … in regard to the new house of God … the baptism in the Spirit of BAPTIZED BELIEVERS”.

Are we talking about opposing adversities and not about the ultimate work of salvation through the “ONE baptism” “with” / “in” / “of” / “through” / “by” the “One” and “Holy Spirit” “of God”, the “Spirit of God’s Son”? Is “the Kingdom of God” divided? Are the “members of the new house of God” not all BORN OF THE SAME SPIRIT? “Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ being Himself the chief corner stone, ye now therefore are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow

Page 32

citizens with the saints and fellow citizens of the household of God.”

There is no such thing as a purely collective household or kingdom of God of no individual reborn and saved “members” and “fellow citizens”. Therefore there is no such thing as a baptism ascribed to Christ and of which He is both the Commander and Baptiser, that not ultimately SAVES. The truth of this naturally and inevitably excludes that water-baptism could be the baptism of Jesus Christ the baptism which He is Himself the Baptiser of. Christ does not baptise with the baptism of John the Baptist or the Apostles which is baptism with water. Just as there is no baptism of John’s which is Christ’s also, so is there no Spirit of Christ that He not baptises “in” and “with”, and not ultimately SAVES with, or would not allow at Pentecost.

Yes, there was the ONCE for all Pentecost baptism “in” or “with the Holy Spirit”. Many aspects distinguished it from the baptism “in” or “with the Holy Spirit” in the limitless case of “individual salvation”. But baptism “in” or “with the Holy Spirit” will always be indispensable for and sole requirement of salvation because that is the ESSENCE of the baptism which is the baptism of Christ with the Holy Spirit.

“In”, or, “with”?

It betrays typical scholar’s desperation to say the baptism “in” or “with the Holy Spirit” “has nothing to do with individual salvation” and base the aversion on the supposition that the Greek preposition ‘en’ must be interpreted, “in the Spirit”, and not “with the Spirit”.

Page 33

A contextual example… Let’s look up the cases of occurrence of the Preposition ‘en’ in Acts used in context of the word Pneuma, ‘Spirit’. But let us start from the English of the AV where we meet the word, ‘with’ for which Dr Walter uses the word ‘in’.

Quoting
Dr Walter:
“The facts are that the Holy Spirit came "UPON" him not that he was IMMERSED in the Spirit. The purpose for the Spirit coming "UPON" him was to reveal to John who was the Messiah as John says twice "I KNEW HIM NOT" and this was given to identify the Messiah.
The Greek preposition is "en" and when used with "baptizo" and its forms should be translated "in" not "with" as baptizo is immersion "in" water not "with" water just as Jesus was baptized "en" Jordan not "with" Jordan. These "technecalities" simply expose your dishonest handling of the Scriptures.”

GE:

Acts 1:5, “John baptised with water (‘pneumati’, Dative); but ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost (‘en Pneumati’, Preposition and Dative) not many days hence.” The reference “not many days hence” clearly is to ten days after Ascension, and to Pentecost.

In the first clause in Acts 1:5a, “John baptised with water” (‘pneumati’, Dative, no Preposition)…

According to Dr Walter, when “"en" … (is) used with "baptizo" …(it) should be translated "in" not "with" as baptizo is immersion "in" water not "with" water…”.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Page 34

So, because the Preposition is NOT used in the first clause,
we – on Dr Walter’s recommendation – must change
the AV’s rendering of the first clause to, “John baptised IN water”—
“John baptised IN water” “…as baptizo is immersion "in" water not "with" water…”.

It doesn’t sound odd to me at all. Quite logical, I should say.

In the second clause, Acts 1:5b, “…but ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost (‘en Pneumati’, Preposition and Dative)”…

According to Dr Walter, when “"en" … (is) used with "baptizo" …(it) should be translated "in" not "with" as baptizo is immersion "in" … not "with" …”. So, because the Preposition IS used in the second clause,
we – on Dr Walter’s recommendation – must change
the AV’s rendering of the second clause to,
“But ye shall be baptised _IN_ the Holy Ghost” “…as baptizo is immersion "in" … not "with"…” which to me, sounds mighty odd and is quite illogical, to say the least! If the Holy Spirit baptises one, though he is baptised “in” the Holy Spirit, is he “not” baptised "with" the Holy Spirit?
Well, that is what Dr Walter wants us to believe— that baptism with the Holy Spirit is not baptism in the Holy Spirit and vice versa, that baptism in the Holy Spirit is not baptism with the Holy Spirit: “…as baptizo is immersion "in" … not "with"…” Ah! “…as BAPTIZO is immersion "in"”! When it is “with”, it is “not”, “BAPTIZO”; it is not “immersion”!
‘En’ – “in”— one two-letter word that makes all the difference. One two-letter word, not found in Acts 1:5a!

Page 35

“John baptised with water (‘pneumati’, Dative, no Preposition). So “"baptizo" … should be translated … "with" … water”; not "in" … water

According to Dr Walter, when “"en" … (is) used with "baptizo" …(it) should be translated "in" not "with" as baptizo is immersion "in" water not "with" water…”.
YET… John 1:26,
“John answered, I baptize WITH water”, ‘_EN_ hudati’.
So, because the Preposition ‘en’ IS used in John 1:26,
we – on Dr Walter’s recommendation – must AGAIN,
CHANGE the AV’s rendering of John 1:26,
“John baptised WITH water”,
into,
“John baptised IN water”.

Now is it “John baptised IN water”,
or, is it, “John baptised WITH water”?!

And because Dr Walter does not have a clue himself what he is talking about, I would say I accept the KJV, three out of the three times that we had to CHANGE it to Dr Walter’s ‘scholarship’ WHIMS!



Dr Walter:

“The facts are that the Holy Spirit came "UPON" him not that he was IMMERSED in the Spirit. The purpose for the Spirit coming "UPON" him was to reveal to John who was the Messiah as John says twice "I KNEW HIM NOT" and this was given to identify the Messiah.”

Page 36

GE:

John the Baptist knew before who the Messiah would be. He preached his coming for SIX MONTHS in advance, in John 1:1-24.

Then on a certain day “beyond Jordan in Bethabara”, John the Baptist declared: “There standeth one among you; He it is. … This is He whom I said, After me cometh a Man.” (26-30) John had already recognised Jesus— that He was the Christ BEFORE he baptized Him.

“I knew Him not: but THAT He should be made MANIFEST to Israel, THEREFORE, I am come _BAPTIZING_ with water”!

By having BAPTISED the Christ “with water” = “in water” = “was IMMERSED”, Dr Walter, John SHOWED to everyone WHO Jesus was— that He was the Christ! Therefore AFTER that John had had acquainted Jesus as the Messiah of God by having had baptised Him in / with WATER, said he, I, “John (the Baptist) swear that I saw the Spirit descending … and abode upon HIM” …this One Whom I have introduced to all Israel by having baptised Him “in and with WATER”. (31-32).

And AFTER THAT, the same John the Baptist goes on to witness, “Though I had not known Him (before, before I had baptized Him), He that had sent me to baptise with / in water, the same (God) had had said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same is He which BAPTISES WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT. And I saw (tells the Baptist) and swear that This One (in fact) IS, the Son of God!”

Page 37

This written here in verses 32 and 33 therefore is no making known to John the Baptist who the Messiah was; he had already known who Jesus was: that He was the Christ. And John witnessed the truth of his acquaintance by oath. John baptised the Christ and Son of God with water! Everybody, See!

If John knew Him not he would not have baptised Jesus.

In verses 32 and 33 it is the Baptist telling the Jews, that the baptism the Christ would baptise with, would be the baptism “with / by / in / through the HOLY SPIRIT”, and not like the Baptist’s baptism, with water. John tells the unbelievers and unrepentant This One, “the Christ”, whom he had baptized with WATER, was the Messiah who would baptise with the HOLY SPIRIT. The descending upon and remaining on Jesus of the Holy Spirit “like a dove” is what John the Baptist “saw”, and what “taught” him and what “proved” to him, the Christ’s baptism, is going to be “with the Holy Spirit”!

In John 1:32-34 the Baptist tells the Jews and contrasts the baptism with water with the baptism of the Christ. His idea was: The baptism with water would cease; the baptism of the Christ would soon be the only Baptism of the Christian Faith.

“The purpose for the Spirit coming "UPON" him” therefore was NOT, “… to reveal to John who the Messiah was…”; . That was the purpose with John’s baptism with WATER; to show to the people who the Messiah was and that the Baptist – with WATER! – marked the END of the Prophetic age. “The purpose for the Spirit coming "UPON" him” was to show who the Baptiser of the FUTURE would be, and what HIS Baptism would consist of— because He was the

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Page 38

Beginning of the New Age of the Gospel.

“The purpose for the Spirit coming "UPON" him”, says Dr Walter, was “given to identify the Messiah”— merely “…to reveal to John who the Messiah” was. “The purpose for the Spirit coming "UPON" him”, according to Dr Walter, was of sole benefit to John the Baptist, and worthless to God’s Eternal Purpose in Christ, namely the ANOINTING of “the Son of God” through the baptism of and with his Holy Spirit, “the Spirit coming "UPON" him” (outside and without any water).

Therefore, after a little bit of perspective has been gained, Who says “… that he was IMMERSED in the Spirit”? It’s Dr Walter! Because GE, never said it. GE would not even try to prove He was “IMMERSED” in water while it is only written the Baptist “baptised with water”.

By the way, Why would it say “in water” if the Baptist ‘immersed’ persons? Because ‘to immerse’ is the basic meaning of the word ‘baptidzoh’ it is totally unnecessary to write “en hudati” if one meant ‘immersed’. The Gospels would not have stated “with water”, ‘en hudati’ because just ‘immersed’, ‘baptidzoh’ would say it all! But since it is more often than not specifically stated “en hudati”, “with WATER”, it suggests ‘baptism’ was APPLIED “by means of water”, rather than a procedure of being ‘immersed’. But I don’t want to engage in the endless strivings about the methodologies of the different water-baptisms which all only show the speculative nature of the whole dogma of water-baptism. Now – as seen above – Dr Walters wants to introduce the same sort of contentiousness into the deeply spiritual subject of the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Page 39

Dr Walter:

There is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ and therefore the only salvation provided by God is "in Christ" and all who are chosen unto salvation before the world began were chosen "in Him" (Eph. 1:4; 2 Thes. 2:13).

Therefore, baptism in the Spirit is the same in both Testaments or it has nothing to do with individual salvation in Christ.

This brings the Spirit baptism advocate to another problem. All the gospel accounts of the baptism in the Spirit point forward as something yet to be fulfilled (Mt. 3:11, Acts 1:5) on the day of Pentecost. Hence, the baptism in the Spirit cannot be identified with salvation.

GE:

What nonsense!

“There is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ …Therefore, baptism in the Spirit is the same in both Testaments or it has nothing to do with individual salvation in Christ.” Who said differently? Affectation!

“There is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ …This brings the Spirit baptism advocate to another problem.” What on earth for? Why would “Spirit baptism” be a “salvation OUTSIDE of Christ”?! Just pretence!

“All the gospel accounts of the baptism in the Spirit point forward as something yet to be fulfilled (Mt. 3:11, Acts 1:5) on the day of Pentecost. Hence, the baptism in the Spirit cannot be identified with salvation.” So, weren’t those

Page 40

baptised with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost and after Pentecost, saved thereby? Another affectation!

To say “All the gospel accounts of the baptism in the Spirit point forward as something yet to be fulfilled … on the day of Pentecost. Hence, the baptism in the Spirit cannot be identified with salvation” is virtually the same as to say “…the only salvation provided by God is "in Christ" and all who are chosen unto salvation before the world began were chosen"…” means no one was saved after the world began. Saying nothing but to impress!

What’s this? “…all who are chosen unto salvation before the world began were chosen" …”? And what does it ‘have to do with’ “the baptism in the Spirit … to be fulfilled … on the day of Pentecost”?

Enough of ‘this’! It echoes DHK, “…Water baptism is absolutely necessary in our time--not for salvation, but for obedience”— as if salvation and obedience have nothing to do with one another!

Re:
DR Walter, “You miss the fact that the command to baptism is part of the age long commission in Matthew 28:19-20.”

GE:
No; I haven’t ‘missed’ “the command to baptism”; nor that Dr Walter added his own trick, “the age long commission”. “…the age…” Which “age”? There’s NO “age long commission … to baptism”. Jesus’ PROMISE to be “with you” is for “always unto the end of the age” which age is to end with his Return. Jesus never said ‘Baptise until the end

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Page 41

of the world / age.” THAT, is “the fact missed” by Dr Walter; not by GE.

Another bare fact missed by Dr Walter is how Christ would be with his children until the end of the world. Christ would “be with you” through the Holy Spirit, and with every individual child of the Father— that individual child having been born again a child of God by the Holy Spirit --- having been BAPTISED with the baptism of Christ which is the baptism with the Holy Spirit. NTHER WAY! Or one must be born again through WATER-baptism, and become a Roman Catholic and forsake Protestantism in order to be saved.

To think that I have more than once avouched I was prepared to succumb to this dragonish teaching for the sake of the peace and harmony in Christ’s Church! What peace and harmony would that be? I recant! Help me God that I never will!

Thank you Dr Walter, that you opened my eyes in time!

Re:
Dr Walter, “The baptism in this commission is water baptism because it is a baptism that men administer to other men. It is not a suggestion or recommendation but a command and that command is to be followed "until the end of the world. Amen." Your argument is with Christ!”

GE:

“… water baptism because it is a baptism that men administer to other men.” What irony! The Church would let no ‘ordinary’ “men administer … water baptism … to

Page 42

other men” (they must be ‘ordained’ priests and preachers, says the Church), but it refuses the PERSONALLY commissioned APOSTLES OF CHRIST the exclusive right to “baptize every nation … IN THE NAME” and what is WORSE, it refuses the Apostles the exclusive right to baptize WITH WATER!

After telling you again, Dr Walter, I never denied the APOSTLES had the (exclusive) right to baptise with _WATER_, I again ask you, Dr Walter, QUOTE me anywhere where Christ said or as much as implied, “The baptism in this commission is water baptism”! It cannot be as much as implied by your bogus assumption, “because it is a baptism that men administer to other men”. The Baptism Christ commissioned the APOSTLES, HE, commissioned THEM, to administer “IN THE NAME”. The baptism in this commission THEREFORE, is CHRIST’S baptism which He in PERSON commanded and commissioned his own elected, appointed and commissioned Apostles in PERSON in audible words with his own mouth to proclaim, but HE, Himself, only, shall and can, perform!

Are you an Apostle, Dr Walter? And DHK, are you an Apostle of Christ?
I am not worth or worthy even to be called a disciple of Christ. So I shall be happy to be allowed to be a learner from the Apostles of Christ “according to the Scriptures” of the Apostles’ age, and try obey what the Apostles taught from their age: which was, To confess Christ with my mouth and to believe with my heart in the Lord Jesus Christ, and never to assume the role of an Apostle and suppose myself to be the teacher of all nations while THEY received that honour and were appointed that position and

Page 43

were commissioned that task by Christ HIMSELF… and NO “men to other men” BY OTHER MEN, EVER.

Dr Walter:
“It (“water baptism”) is not a suggestion or recommendation but a command and that command is to be followed "until the end of the world. Amen." Your argument is with Christ!”

GE:
I shall let Christ have the last word. “Baptize YE (the Apostles) IN THE NAME… of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”— and optional: “Baptize YE”— the APOSTLES!— “IN THE NAME…” ‘with water’— as they a few times also did.

For the sake of the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the nearer to the end of the age the further I stay away from water-baptism based Church Organisations, the better.


END of LAST part of answer to Dr Walter on the issue of water-baptism. It is a bickering-around without end or aim; a waste of precious time.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Page 41

“… water baptism because it is a baptism that men administer to other men.” What irony! The Church would let no ‘ordinary’ “men administer … water baptism … to

When I said it is a baptism administered by men to men, I was referring to the pronouns "ye" and "them."

This is extremely simple. The only kind of baptism that "ye" can administer to "them" is baptism in water. The only kind of baptism this same "ye" had previously administered to men was baptism in water (Jn. 4:1-2; Lk. 7:29-30). The only baptism they continued to administer to "them" is baptism in water (Acts 2:41). Acts 2:41-42 is Matthew 28:19-20 in action.

You omit the pronoun "them" in your reinterpetation of Matthew 28:19 as the object of this baptizing action and must do so for your interpretation to make any sense. You change God's Word to suit your error.

This command for "ye" to administer baptism to "them" continues until the end of the age. You are simply blind to the explicit and clear statements of God's Word.