Where is Spirit Baptism in the Bible?

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist

Here is where Reformed Calvinism goes to seed and departs from the Word of God because it follows flawed human logic over the scriptures. Isaiah 46:10-11 spells the truth out for any honest objective Bible student to see and grasp easily.

You have an axe to grind with reformed Calvinists. That is your personal issue.

you claim it is "flawed human logic", and yet you follow abberent teachings from flawed human logic from 150 yrs ago:laugh:

As if the reformers and puritans did not use scripture:laugh:

All of you men who ridicule these brothers, and their writings, and catechisms ,and confessions of faith....all drift off into error that could be avoided if you stayed within the safeguards of scripture as laid down in these writings....

you drift off as you have these past 2 weeks....people who do agree with you are scripture perverting heretics, the Apostle Paul was a "spiritual schizophrenic,etc

Y1 claims we should only use the bible alone, and yet the last 6 people who answered him asked him to answer with scripture and he goes into the bb witness protection program, never posting scripture anywhere at anytime?

DHK speaks against these writings and has recently posted that Spirit baptism might not exist, the Apostle Paul was a "carnal Christian", repentance of sin is not for unbelievers, and other assorted strange ideas....

I will stick with the historic faith, warts and all. I am not in a hurry to dismiss those who disagree on some doctrines, as God will be who they deal with on that.
You and others who have a certain agenda will be bound up in that and not see as clearly as you should.

 

[DHK]

The Biblicist

All believers from all time were Spirit baptized at one point in time as Jesus has formed the ONE Eternal Church that will assemble on the last day.

just as the cross was a once for all time event...so was Spirit baptism.

Ot saints we are told looked forward to it, Nt saints look back to it.

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect
You do not like this idea that OT saints are partakers of this.That is one of many problems your view has.

Biblicist went through all of that with you and you still don't understand?
We know that Peter was saved because of his Great Confession (flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you, but my Father in heaven).

Then he was told to wait for the coming of the Spirit.
So you are saying he was saved twice?? Once when he was with Jesus, and once on the Day of Pentecost? How do you reconcile that?

 

[convicted1]

for also in one Spirit we all to one body were baptized, whether Jews or Greeks, whether servants or freemen, and all into one Spirit were made to drink,(1 Co12:13 YLT)


When we are placed in Christ, we are immersed...baptized into Him via the Spirit of God. We are dead, and our lives are hid...covered....immersed...with Christ in God.(Col. 3:3)

 

[DHK]

I will stick with the historic faith, warts and all. I am not in a hurry to dismiss those who disagree on some doctrines, as God will be who they deal with on that.
You and others who have a certain agenda will be bound up in that and not see as clearly as you should.

You posted works from Jonathan Edwards as if we should accept them without question. They are not authoritative.
Yet in your own beliefs you deny the existence of the Adamic nature, and in doing so deny one of the most basic tenets of Calvinism itself--the depravity of man. You are not sticking to the historic faith at all. Many of your doctrines are very unorthodox and cannot be found in older commentaries.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Biblicist went through all of that with you and you still don't understand?

B went through many things....I offered him a link to consider, he responded as he felt he needed to. I do not agree with him.While I am thankful he offered his view...it bears out what I suspected.

You accused me of "making unfounded accusations "against him which I did not do....and now let me ask you...do you agree with B then when he posts what he has....

I do believe in the historic definition of "Landmarkism" to be perfectly scriptural and that definition was provided by Dr. James Pendleton and then placed by William Cathcart in his Baptist Enclyclopedia which defines Landmarkism as follows:

The doctrine of Landmarkism is that baptism and church membership precede the preaching of the gospel, even as they precede communion at the Lord’s Table. The argument is that Scriptural authority to preach emanates, under God, from a gospel church; that as “a visible church is a congregation of baptized believers,” etc., it follows that no Pedobaptist organization is a church in the Scriptural sense of the term, and that therefore Scriptural authority to preach cannot proceed from such an organization. Hence the non- recognition of Pedobaptist ministers, who are not interfered with, but simply let alone – William Cathcart, Baptist Encyclopedia (Landmarkism) 1881


This definition is based upon a proper exegetical understanding of Matthew 28:19-20. There are three categories of people described in Matthew 28:19-20 - (1) The authorized "ye"; (2) The nations of unbelievers; (3) Those who respond out of the nations "them."

This commission is given only to the first group ("ye"). This first group "ye" already "have" been through this process and are therefore recognized as "disicples" (Mt. 28:16). This commission is authority to make "disciples" and a "disicple" is a follower, or one who adopts Christ's doctrine and practice. This commission is restricted to the SAME gospel Jesus preached; the SAME baptism Jesus submitted unto and administered through his disciples; and the SAME faith and order "commanded." Any who go with "another gospel" are "accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9). Any who administer another baptism are rejecting the counsel of God against themselves (Lk. 7:29-30). Any who teach another faith and order are to be withdrawn from and considered heretics (Rom. 16:17; 2 Thes. 3:6; 1 Tim. 4:1). In other words, this is a commission to reproduce after your own kind ("disciples" making "disciples" within the boundaries of what is here "commanded."). This commission was never given to anyone but "disciples" in the Biblical sense of the term. The Biblical sense of the term is defined by the Great Commission as those already water baptized believer assembling to observe all things Christ commanded (Acts 1:21-22; 2:40-41).

The administration of this commission is clearly seen throughout the New Testament whereby it reproduces congregations of like faith and order which are commanded to withdraw themselves from "every brother" that departs from "the faith" once delivered (Rom. 16:17; 2 Thes. 3:6; 1 Tim. 4:1; etc.) practicing church discipline on those who stray from this PATTERN set forth in the Great Commission.

Is this what you believe DHK?

I asked you what would you teach about Spirit Baptism much earlier...I did not see your response...offer it if you would.

 

[Iconoclast]

for also in one Spirit we all to one body were baptized, whether Jews or Greeks, whether servants or freemen, and all into one Spirit were made to drink,(1 Co12:13 YLT)


When we are placed in Christ, we are immersed...baptized into Him via the Spirit of God. We are dead, and our lives are hid...covered....immersed...with Christ in God.(Col. 3:3)

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

The only righteousness we have is being covered, veiled, immersed in Christ. God sees us through His Son. Our righteousness is the same as filthy rags...insert menstrual cloth here...not appealling at all.

 

[DHK]

DHK



B went through many things....I offered him a link to consider, he responded as he felt he needed to. I do not agree with him.While I am thankful he offered his view...it bears out what I suspected.

You accused me of "making unfounded accusations "against him which I did not do....and now let me ask you...do you agree with B then when he posts what he has....

Is this what you believe DHK?

I asked you what would you teach about Spirit Baptism much earlier...I did not see your response...offer it if you would.

I gave you an answer to Landmarkism when I rebuked you for assuming what Biblicist believes. At the same time I told you what I believed. Go back and read it for yourself.
I don't agree with what you posted.
On both what you call "spirit baptism" and on landmarkism, my views are very similar to Biblicist's. He has already laid much of that ground work so I don't need to repeat myself.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist
]


All believers from all time were Spirit baptized at one point in time as Jesus has formed the ONE Eternal Church that will assemble on the last day.

just as the cross was a once for all time event...so was Spirit baptism.

Ot saints we are told looked forward to it, Nt saints look back to it.

Your analogy simply does not work. Indeed, saints prior to the cross could look foward by faith to that one time historical event but they did not have to WAIT until that event occurred to obtain salvation. They were "justified" before that event (Rom. 4). They were regenerated before that event (Jn. 3:3-11). They were sanctified before that event (Heb. 11). They did not need to WAIT until that event to be saved.

However, that is not true concerning the historical event of the baptism in the Spirit at Pentecost. Those already saved born again water baptized believers BEFORE that historical event BUT were told that they still were not baptized in the Spirit, but told they had to "wait" for it and wait "not many days hence" for it, and wait no other geographical place but in "Jerusalem" for it. Hence, it was NOT APPLIED prior to anyone prior to Pentecost or else they would not be told to WAIT until they historical event occurred in order to obtain it.

They did not have to WAIT to be born again before the cross. The did not have to WAIT to be justified before the cross. They did not have to WAIT to be sanctified before the cross. So you analogy does not hold up as you don't have to WAIT for something already APPLIED.

Your quote in Hebrews is jerked out of context as the "promise" in the text (Heb. 11:39) is explicitly described and defined in Hebrews 11:13-16. They were not waiting to be saved but waiting to be ushered into the new heaven earth.

 

[DHK]

for also in one Spirit we all to one body were baptized, whether Jews or Greeks, whether servants or freemen, and all into one Spirit were made to drink,(1 Co12:13 YLT)


When we are placed in Christ, we are immersed...baptized into Him via the Spirit of God. We are dead, and our lives are hid...covered....immersed...with Christ in God.(Col. 3:3)

This is one of the more controversial verses in the Bible. It does have alternate explanations. I think I have already given them in this thread.
1. The word "pnuema" or spirit is not capitalized in the Greek; that is a mistake on the part of the translators.
2. As the YLT differs from the KJV "in one spirit" instead of the KJV "by one spirit" I would tend to agree.

The church at Corinth was a very divisive church, and even this chapter was referring to its divisiveness and emphasizing unity with one another. They were to be united in one spirit, not the Holy Spirit, but a spirit of unity and harmony, working together with each other.

The very next verse says:
1 Corinthians 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
And he goes on and explains how the different parts of the body are tied to each other, giving a picture how we each have a different part, a different service in the local church. There should be not division, only harmony.

The second possible interpretation is that it does refer to water baptism which is the gateway or entrance into the local church. Because they were baptized that baptism should be a reminder to them that they are all one body, members of the same church working together for the common good of the church.

There is no evidence that it refers to a "baptism by or in the Holy Spirit."

 

[The Biblicist]

The only righteousness we have is being covered, veiled, immersed in Christ. God sees us through His Son. Our righteousness is the same as filthy rags...insert menstrual cloth here...not appealling at all.

You are now confusing justification by imputed righteousness with the baptism in the Spirit, just as Iconoclast confused it with regeneration.

In Context 1 Cor. 12:12-13 is referring to the congregational body like unto that at Corinth (1 Cor. 12:27). In 1 Cor. 3:5-16 he has resolved the division over different administrators of WATER BAPTISM that existed among them (1 Cor. 1:12-16) by clearly stating that all administrators of water baptism among them had worked as "ONE" together UNDER THE LEADERSHIP of the Holy Spirit. Hence, it is the Spirit of God that ultimately administered water baptism to each member through appointed instruments, just as the congregation at Corinth had been ultimately built by the Holy Spirit.

The very same principle laid down in chapter three is summarized in 1 Cor. 12:13 and used to resolve the problem of division over different spiritual gifts that divided them. Every member in the congregational body at Corinth (1 Cor. 12:27 "ye" not "we") had been WATER baptized under the direction of the Holy Spirit into that one body, and made to "drink" (metaphor for partake of) the gifts designed to make that body functional, unified and practical at Corinth (1 Cor. 12:14-27).

There are other interpretations as suggested by DHK.

 

[The Biblicist]

DHK

I do not agree with him.

You have a DOUBLE baptism in the Spirit thus a DOUBLE salvation.

1. If as you claim the baptism in the Spirit IS spiritual union with Christ then no salvation is possible apart from it. As long as a person is spriitually separated from Christ they cannot possibly be saved, born again, justified, sanctified as all these things are FRUITS of spiritual union.

2. Yet, the apostles and at least 500 others were called "brethren" already had the FUIITS of being spiritually united to Christ (repentance, faith, justification, new birth, sanctification) and yet they are told they need to be baptized in the Spirit. You can't have it both ways! Either they are actually and really spiritually united to Christ and thus benefactors of these fruits or they are not. The fact that they are actually and really spiritually united with fruits proves your theory of the baptism is false as they were not actually and really baptized in the Spirit until Pentecost but told to WAIT to RECEIVE it.

3. They are not told merely to believe they will be baptized, but told to actually wait and where to wait to RECEIVE that promise.

You are confusing the baptism in the Spirit with quickening and justification. Spiritual union IS the reverse of Spiritual separation and is identified in scripture as being "quickened" (Eph. 2:1,5) which is a CREATIVE ACT of God that places you "in Christ" (Eph. 2:10) and not any kind of baptism whether in water or in Spirit. You are simply confused.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

You posted works from Jonathan Edwards as if we should accept them without question. They are not authoritative.

Here you go again DHK....It could be any godly teacher...Edwards, Owen, Murray, ....a link is posted...rather than attempting to interact with the link and agree or disagree with it.....you disparage the person and find something to attack about them , rather than interact biblically with the thought offered.

Did I ever suggest any man is authoritative other than the Apostles?

that is another answer you do not have.

Let me offer you a clue. These men have had millions read their teaching and interact with them, quote them, even question aspects of what they offer.
I do not see anyone copying your posts and your failed ideas and saying...wow that was really thought provoking....

Yet in your own beliefs you deny the existence of the Adamic nature,

This is a flat out lie. A person who tells lies, according to the WOTM is a liar.
I have directly answered you on this false charge several times. For you to repeat this is a lie. Christians should not be lying.

I will find at least one direct answer to you..... on 7-15 -14
here is your accusation...here is my response;

Quote:
There is an old man/old nature. It is the same old nature that we have when we were not saved. After salvation it is not eradicated! Please read any Baptist Confession of Faith under the section "Depravity of man." To say that the Old Man is now dead and cannot struggle with the new man is to deny the depravity of man. In that respect it puts one outside of orthodoxy.


I responded here;
here is total depravity;

II TOTAL DEPRAVITY OR HUMAN ABILITY
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked…” Jeremiah 17:9
The term “depravity” derives from the Latin de, “thoroughly, down to the bottom of, completely” and pravus, “crooked”. “Total depravity” denotes that every part of man’s personality or nature has been permeated by sin and negatively affected by the Fall. Total depravity is not absolute depravity, or the idea that man is as bad as he can be. The major issues concerned in total depravity are that (1) man is depraved by virtue of the inheritance of Adam’s sinful nature, and (2) that the will, as the free expression of the given nature, has been negatively affected by the Fall. Thus, man suffers from both total depravity and a spiritual, moral inability.

here is more of what I believe;
The word “dead” is not a verb, but a noun following a pres. ptc. (o;ntaj nekrou.j) giving the connotation of a continued or unchanging state. The term used in these verses is “corpse” (nekro,j), i.e., wholly and totally unresponsive to spiritual life and realities. The use of the noun rather than the verb for “dead” makes the expression much stronger. The parenthetical expression at the end of this passage emphasizes that salvation by grace is nothing less than the impartation of spiritual life. 402 evn mataio,thti tou/ noo.j auvtw/n


Lit: “in the futility of their thinking evskotwme,noi th/| dianoi,a| o;ntej. The ptc. is placed last, making the terms “darkened” and “the understanding” emphatic by pos. The term “understanding” (dia,noia) denotes the faculty of knowing, understanding or moral reflection. The entire statement (Eph. 4:17–19) demonstrates both the epistemological futility of unregenerate man and the resulting moral judgment of God upon such ignorance. th.n a;gnoian th.n ou=san evn auvtoi/j( dia. th.n pw,rwsin th/j kardi,aj auvtw/n. The term “ignorance” (th.n a;gnoian) denotes want of knowledge or perception. The reason given here is “the blindness of their own hearts”—a willful, culpable blindness. Man does not know God; man does not want to know God. 144


You keep trying to suggest or make a case that I deny total depravity, based on your narrow idea of what that is....This that I post to you is what I feed on... You never post anything close to this, and in fact you post directly opposed to this don't you?

I read this material, I have heard it preached literally several hundred times....so do not continue to suggest such an idea.
Post your ideas...I will post mine.
__________________

and in doing so deny one of the most basic tenets of Calvinism itself--the depravity of man. You are not sticking to the historic faith at all. Many of your doctrines are very unorthodox and cannot be found in older commentaries.

Clearly it is not I who deny this...but you think by saying it on several different threads it will make it so. it is not going to happen.

How many times do i have to go back, do a search and prove your falsehoods??? i have asked you to stop doing this. Don't you get embarrassed by this kind of activity?

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Biblicist went through all of that with you and you still don't understand?

B answers for himself, stop hiding behind Him.
Do you believe Spirit Baptism exists?
How would you teach it?

We know that Peter was saved because of his Great Confession (flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you, but my Father in heaven).

Then he was told to wait for the coming of the Spirit.
So you are saying he was saved twice??

It was a transitional time....Ot saints who were part of the elect remnant...looked forward to the accomplishment of redemption...when it was accomplished, living Ot saints...became NT saints...
Those who had Johns baptism were rebaptized which B denied....

19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Once when he was with Jesus, and once on the Day of Pentecost? How do you reconcile that?

Just like that:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

DHK
Here you go again DHK....It could be any godly teacher...Edwards, Owen, Murray, ....a link is posted...rather than attempting to interact with the link and agree or disagree with it.....you disparage the person and find something to attack about them , rather than interact biblically with the thought offered.

I made an observation. I believe it was the right one, though it offended you.
You took this long post from Jonathan Edwards, and posted it. The content of the post seemed to be irrelevant to the thread. I waded through it. I am not sure of your purpose in posting it. There was nothing there to interact with. Instead of taking up space with lengthy quotes from old tomes why not give us your own arguments.

Did I ever suggest any man is authoritative other than the Apostles?

that is another answer you do not have.

You posted it because you thought it was authoritative. It would have been better if you would have posted the apostles, that is, Scripture.

Let me offer you a clue. These men have had millions read their teaching and interact with them, quote them, even question aspects of what they offer.
I do not see anyone copying your posts and your failed ideas and saying...wow that was really thought provoking....

You haven't proved my theology false.
Quoting from old books is a useless task. If you are going to prove me wrong you are going to have to engage in a debate, not post lengthy passages from old tomes.

This is a flat out lie. A person who tells lies, according to the WOTM is a liar.
I have directly answered you on this false charge several times. For you to repeat this is a lie. Christians should not be lying.

I will find at least one direct answer to you..... on 7-15 -14
here is your accusation...here is my response;

I have told no lie.
You can answer yes or no. Does the believer still have the old nature? Yes or no? BTW, Calvin believes yes.

Clearly it is not I who deny this...but you think by saying it on several different threads it will make it so. it is not going to happen.

How many times do i have to go back, do a search and prove your falsehoods??? i have asked you to stop doing this. Don't you get embarrassed by this kind of activity?

Your quote is meaningless. I will go back to the Catechism if you like and show where you are wrong.
What you did here is only quote depravity as it relates to the unsaved man. There is much more to depravity than that. Depravity also relates to the believer. You never quoted any part of the depravity of man as it relates to the believer, thus your quote is quite insufficient.
I have not posted any falsehood at all. In reference to the believer you deny the depravity of man. True or false?
Do you believe the believer has an old nature?

I don't get embarrassed asking you; I get concerned.
Paul commands us to put off the old man and put on the new man.
That sounds pretty clear to me.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Paul commands us to put off the old man and put on the new man.
That sounds pretty clear to me.

He actually does not. It actually reads having put off the old man,
and having put on the new.....it was already done...not something to seek after...:wavey:

. The believer is not a spiritual schizophrenic comprised at once of an “old man” and a “new man,” but is the “new man,” or regenerate self. The “old man,” or unregenerate self was crucified with Christ.
The source of the believer’s acts of sin do not derive from the reigning power of sin or the “old man,” as in the unconverted, but from indwelling sin and remaining corruption (Cf. Rom. 6:1–23; 7:13–8:4; Eph. 4:22–24; Col. 3:9–10). The use of the aor. inf. of result in Eph. 4:22–24 reveals that this passage is not an exhortation, but rather a statement of fact based on a past act, corresponding to the parallel in Col. 3:9–10. For a full discussion of Rom. 6:1–23; Eph. 4:22–24 and Col. 3:9–10 in relation to definitive sanctification and the crucifixion of the old man, see John Murray, Principles of Conduct, ‘The Dynamic of the Biblical Ethic,” pp. 202–228; Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, comments on chapter 6, pp. 211–226. 228

 

[DHK]

DHK
B answers for himself, stop hiding behind Him.
Do you believe Spirit Baptism exists?
How would you teach it?

Salvation is by grace through faith. It has always been through faith. Abraham was justified by faith. That is a common theme that runs through the Bible.
Jesus commanded his disciples (who were already saved) to wait at Jerusalem.
Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
--The promise of the Father was the coming of the Holy Spirit, which Jesus also promised them and referred to as the Comforter.

When the Holy Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost it was a fulfillment of prophecy. That "baptism" was a one time event. It marked an event. It was accompanied with tongues, a sound as a mighty rushing wind, cloven tongues of fire.
From that time onward those who come to Christ are indwelt (not baptized) by the Holy Spirit (1Cor.6:19,20). It is Christ in you the hope of glory. When one is born again, Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit comes and takes up residence in the body of the believer.

In Acts chapter 11 the same thing happened all over again. It happened a second time because the gospel was going to the Gentiles. So Peter says:
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
This was like a second Pentecost. Peter says here that it happened "as on us at the beginning. Some of the same signs were present. The signs, particularly the tongues were for the Jews, to show them that this was an authentic message from God, going to the Gentiles which they formerly considered unclean.
We are not baptized with the Spirit; we are indwelt with the Spirit.

It was a transitional time....Ot saints who were part of the elect remnant...looked forward to the accomplishment of redemption...when it was accomplished, living Ot saints...became NT saints...
Those who had Johns baptism were rebaptized which B denied....

If course he denied it. Jesus told Peter he was saved. Why would you infer he was lying?

19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Just like that:thumbs:

This is another time in the Bible (the third instance of speaking in tongues).
These were OT saints who had a limited knowledge of Christ. They had learned it from John the Baptist, but their knowledge was limited. They were not saved yet.
1Cor.14:21.22--Tongues are a sign for the Jews, especially the unbelieving Jews. They spoke in tongues. The were saved (as at Pentecost), and the same signs were there again.

There is no baptism of the Spirit today.
When one gets saved the Holy Spirit comes and indwells the believer.

 

[DHK]

DHK

He actually does not. It actually reads having put off the old man,
and having put on the new.....it was already done...not something to seek after...:wavey:

Ephesians 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

There is more than just one reference in the Bible to "the old man."

 

[convicted1]

Ephesians 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

There is more than just one reference in the Bible to "the old man."

So then the believer is schizophrenic, according to you. He just goes into his closet and puts on the "old man" parades around a while and then goes back into the closet and puts on the "new man" for a while, then goes back into his closet....

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Salvation is by grace through faith. It has always been through faith.

agreed

Abraham was justified by faith. That is a common theme that runs through the Bible.

agreed...6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Jesus commanded his disciples (who were already saved) to wait at Jerusalem.
Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.[/COLOR

]

agreed

--The promise of the Father was the coming of the Holy Spirit,

Not to split hairs, but a case can be made that The promise of the Father in Acts 2...was the promise he made to the Son in psalm 16:10.....

25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

which Jesus also promised them and referred to as the Comforter.

AGREED...JN 14, 15, 16

When the Holy Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost it was a fulfillment of prophecy. That "baptism" was a one time event.

Agreed

It marked an event. It was accompanied with tongues, a sound as a mighty rushing wind, cloven tongues of fire.
From that time onward those who come to Christ are indwelt (not baptized) by the Holy Spirit (1Cor.6:19,20).

Agreed

It is Christ in you the hope of glory. When one is born again, Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit comes and takes up residence in the body of the believer.

Agreed

In Acts chapter 11 the same thing happened all over again. It happened a second time because the gospel was going to the Gentiles. So Peter says:
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
This was like a second Pentecost. Peter says here that it happened "as on us at the beginning. Some of the same signs were present. The signs, particularly the tongues were for the Jews, to show them that this was an authentic message from God, going to the Gentiles which they formerly considered unclean.

Agreed...outward sign gifts showed the inner working of the Spirit.

We are not baptized with the Spirit; we are indwelt with the Spirit.

here we disagree...because of our Union with Christ ,all believers from all time were made part of the One eternal body of Christ.

When we are indwelt by the Spirit....that once for all time event, as well as all other benefits were put to our account...as B remarked...in space and in time, as we go from death tom life. The difference was he attributed it to water baptism...saying a quote that he believed was that water baptism precedes the gospel.

I say it is Spirit baptism alone that credentials all the living stones into and as part of the actual body of Christ...so much so that to harm a member of Christ's body is an assault against Christ Himself.

If course he denied it. Jesus told Peter he was saved. Why would you infer he was lying?[/QUOTE]

I did not infer such an evil thing DHK...can you stop with this evil kind of inference.....I just answered you on this...I did not say he was lying at all.. I said he was an OT saint, that was soon to be converted to a NT disciple.

This is another time in the Bible (the third instance of speaking in tongues).
These were OT saints who had a limited knowledge of Christ. They had learned it from John the Baptist, but their knowledge was limited. They were not saved yet.

They were saved...looking forward to the accomplishment of redemption.

1Cor.14:21.22--Tongues are a sign for the Jews, especially the unbelieving Jews. They spoke in tongues. The were saved (as at Pentecost), and the same signs were there again.

There is no baptism of the Spirit today.
When one gets saved the Holy Spirit comes and indwells the believer.

Agreed if you understand that all believers were already included in the Church being transformed into it's eternal position.

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.