The Baptism With the Holy Ghost

[Darrell C]

And is Christ in me or am I in Christ?

Both. Scripture makes that abundantly clear. (You can find this in the preceding cascade)



Recently had a discussion with a group that branded as heresy the teaching of "Asking Christ into your heart." They said this was not taught in Scripture, to which I affirmed that is was indeed taught in Scripture. While we may not see a directive that people are to ask Christ into their hearts, that is precisely what Christ said He would do.

We can go on ad infinitum.

No, not really, not if we actually examine Scripture and bring out of it what it teaches in regards to the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

The Baptism of the Holy Ghost is an operation of Christ.

That is what John said. But as Van and I were discussing, we do not separate God to the point where we have "one God" doing this, and another doing that. This is why Paul equates the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ here:


Romans 8:9-10

King James Version (KJV)


9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.


We have life because He Who is life dwells in us. And if one does not have the Spirit of God, also called the Spirit of Christ...they do not belong to God. So we belong to God when He dwells in us.

That is salvation in Christ.

(And, yes, there are three distinct Persons in our One God. It is not one Person acting in different roles . . . )

On the contrary the Three are One. The use of "Persons" sometimes muddles that singular (no pun intended) truth taught throughout the entirety of Scripture.

Again, as mentioned before, the Incarnation has to be given special consideration when we try to understand the Trinity. It is often thought a blasphemous statement when I say "Christ has a beginning in time, that is, that moment that He took up residence in Mary's womb, and God was...with us."

Now, before declaring me a heretic, lol, let me explain what I mean: while the Messiah has a beginning in time, the Son of God is the Eternal God. See the difference? This is what I mean when I say we need to give the Incarnation special consideration when we discuss the Trinity. The creeds that speak of the "eternally begotten Son" have blundered in a most fundamental way.

He baptizes. And He does so according to His will and His grace, not according to any work or state of holiness (rolls eyes).

I think most of us here would be in agreement on that.

This and any gift of the Holy Ghost can be asked for.

On the contrary, you are now presenting the very concept you objected to:

. . . the primary fallacy of thinking that men can know the things of God and exercise faith without the Spirit of God.

God is Sovereign in salvation, and it is He that enlightens the natural mind to the truth. And while we might consider this "Men asking for the Gift of God," that does not precede God's work in initial contact and enlightenment.

Secondly, you are equating the gifts associated with the indwelling of the Spirit with the Gift of salvation itself, another misconception that arises from Charismatic error. These are two entirely different aspects of salvation, not to be confused, not to be equated. This is why some think the gift of tongues, for example, has to be present to evidence the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

. . . how much more will your Father in Heaven give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?

The Spirit was not being given to men according to the Promise of the Father, at this time. In view of the Model Prayer, it seems more reasonable to consider that what is in view here is the concept of the Spirit ministering in the hearts of men according to the Old Testament standard. In other words, Christ states "This is how you should pray. If you can give good gifts, how much more will your Heavenly Father bless you in regards to your requests to Him." In other words, again, the Lord is not revealing what is still Mystery, but speaking about the superiority of God giving to men when asked, contrasted with men giving when asked. We might consider the statement, "Delight thyself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart." If men delight in God...what will be the desires of their hearts?

So in view is not salvation and receiving the Spirit that would come on the Day of Pentecost, but what must fit within the framework of the Age, and Ages, in which the Gospel of Christ is still Mystery (not revealed to men). The Gospel is seen throughout the Old Testament, but the understanding of the Gospel is not.


God bless.

 

[Aaron]

On the contrary the Three are One. The use of "Persons" sometimes muddles that singular (no pun intended) truth taught throughout the entirety of Scripture.

Are there two distinct persons in a marriage? Are they not one flesh?

And yet you cannot accept three distinct Persons in one God?

That's why I keep saying it's pointless for us to continue the discussion. Having such a fundamental error concerning the nature of God as revealed in the Scriptures, how can you even consider yourself straight in the nature and operation of the Third Person?

 

[Van]

Hi Darrel C, I have come up with, or recalled something I had once held, that puts our views even closer in alignment. I think the Third Person of the Trinity does indeed perform the sanctification (meaning setting an individual apart in Christ), but the Third Person is acting as an agent for Christ. Thus, the "baptize with the Holy Spirit" includes both the immersion into the Spirit of Christ, and being sealed and indwelt forever with the Holy Spirit. After prayer and mediation, I am comfortable with that view.

And I also come up with additional support for your view that the "renewing" refers to regeneration (rebirth) rather than progressive sanctification. We are given a clear conscience (Hebrews 9:14, 10:22 and 1 Peter 3:21.) These verses certainly seem to support a "renewing of our mind."

That then leaves us with only one disagreement, 1 Peter 1:2 which I am convinced refers to being set apart in Christ, rather than progressive sanctification. You do not get "sprinkled with blood" unless you are put into Christ.

 

[Darrell C]

Hi Darrel C, I have come up with, or recalled something I had once held, that puts our views even closer in alignment. I think the Third Person of the Trinity does indeed perform the sanctification (meaning setting an individual apart in Christ), but the Third Person is acting as an agent for Christ. Thus, the "baptize with the Holy Spirit" includes both the immersion into the Spirit of Christ, and being sealed and indwelt forever with the Holy Spirit. After prayer and mediation, I am comfortable with that view.

That is it precisely.

And I also come up with additional support for your view that the "renewing" refers to regeneration (rebirth) rather than progressive sanctification. We are given a clear conscience (Hebrews 9:14, 10:22 and 1 Peter 3:21.) These verses certainly seem to support a "renewing of our mind."

Agreed.

That then leaves us with only one disagreement, 1 Peter 1:2 which I am convinced refers to being set apart in Christ, rather than progressive sanctification. You do not get "sprinkled with blood" unless you are put into Christ.

We aren't actually in disagreement, clearly Peter is speaking about our conversion, as He speaks of the New Birth itself. The benefits of regeneration are listed and shown to be everlasting, which can only speak of positional sanctification, rather than progressive, so...

...three out of three, not bad, eh?




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Are there two distinct persons in a marriage? Are they not one flesh?

Not until they have children. lol

We can distinguish a man and woman becoming "one" from our being made one with Christ. The husband does not indwell the wife, nor vice versa, a God indwells the believer upon salvation.

We step from the physical to the spiritual, the eternal, which our brethren who embrace Baptismal Regeneration do not understand.

And yet you cannot accept three distinct Persons in one God?

On the contrary, I affirm the Trinity, and do not mind using the terminology of Three Persons. My point was simply distinguishing between the physical (in which we see God manifest in human flesh), and the Eternal in which God has always existed.

And the Incarnation is distinct in physical history, even though we see God manifest in human form prior to the Incarnation. So from one perspective we can say Christ (as opposed to the Son of God) has a beginning in time and the physical universe in the Incarnation. When He appeared to Abraham on the plains of Mamre, for example, that was not the body that was created in Mary's womb. But, the Son of God is Eternal, and has no beginning, because He is, after all, the Creator Himself.

And what I think happens (and we, Trinitarians are accused of this by those who deny the Deity of Christ) is that because a clear distinction of the Incarnation is not made, it might be recognized as a "plurality of gods," which we deny firmly based on Scripture. And this understanding is something unique to New Testament Revelation. We see the reaction of the Jews at Christ's affirmation of Deity. They rejected that concept because they had only the revelation provided in the First Principles of the Oracles of God, which maintains, as we do, that there is One God.

That's why I keep saying it's pointless for us to continue the discussion. Having such a fundamental error concerning the nature of God as revealed in the Scriptures, how can you even consider yourself straight in the nature and operation of the Third Person?

The fundamental error here, Aaron, is that you are imposing your understanding of the discussion into your conclusion. You say here I "cannot accept three distinct Persons in One God," which is not even intimated in anything I have said.

And that, my friend...is why it is not pointless to continue in this discussion.


Malachi 3:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.


Hope everyone has a blessed day.


God bless.

 

[Aaron]

K

 

[Darrell C]

a God indwells the believer upon salvation.

Sorry, this should say "as God indwells the believer."


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Presented for discussion:


1 Corinthians 12:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.


Water baptism, or Baptism with the Holy Ghost?


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

"None of the Above."

Amen! None of the above. Those discussing this subject have no idea of the Old Testament background or the New Covenant background with regard to this subject. It has NOTHING to do with salvation. It is an institution immersion promised only to water baptized believers as an institutional "house of God" (Mt. 3:11; Acts 1:4-5). A non-repeatable act that is just one aspect (concluding aspect) of the establishment of a new covenant administration.

 

[Aaron]

Amen! None of the above. Those discussing this subject have no idea of the Old Testament background or the New Covenant background with regard to this subject. It has NOTHING to do with salvation. It is an institution immersion promised only to water baptized believers as an institutional "house of God" (Mt. 3:11; Acts 1:4-5). A non-repeatable act that is just one aspect (concluding aspect) of the establishment of a new covenant administration.

Wow. Now there's a sterile view if ever there was one.

 

[Darrell C]

Amen! None of the above. Those discussing this subject have no idea of the Old Testament background or the New Covenant background with regard to this subject.

Thanks for participating, Biblicist.

First, I would ask that you present the option that has been left out of the Poll, that you would cast your vote for. So far no-one who has said "None of the above" have done so.

Secondly, could you clarify what you think "The Baptism with the Holy Ghost/Spirit" is?

Lastly, I would suggest to you that no baptism/washing of the Law or prior has anything to do with that which is realized in the New Testament, specifically from Pentecost until this day. The disciples are told to await the Promise of the Father which they hear from/of Him," which makes it clear that in view is a new work/ministry of God in the lives of men.

In point of fact, those discussing this subject have all understood that water baptism is not in view, so we haev not needed to lay again the foundational teachings of baptisms, lol.

It has NOTHING to do with salvation.

The Baptism with the Holy Ghost has nothing to do with salvation?

It is an institution immersion promised only to water baptized believers as an institutional "house of God" (Mt. 3:11; Acts 1:4-5).

I think you are confusing Christian Baptism with the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

A non-repeatable act that is just one aspect (concluding aspect) of the establishment of a new covenant administration.

I agree the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is a non-repeatable act, however, I view it as the very act through which the believer is immersed into God. We know it is not simply empowerment, because we see men of faith (and sometimes men who had not faith) empowered throughout the Old Testament, as well as the Disciples themselves. God has always empowered men for ministry, such as Prophet, Priest, and King, so when we see the Promise of the Father spoken of by Christ it makes sense that in view is the reception of the promised Spirit of the Old Testament.

And not sure if you have read very much of this thread, but will present one verse for consideration in that context:


John 7:38-39

King James Version (KJV)

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


Again, thanks for the participation.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Amen! None of the above. Those discussing this subject have no idea of the Old Testament background or the New Covenant background with regard to this subject. It has NOTHING to do with salvation. It is an institution immersion promised only to water baptized believers as an institutional "house of God" (Mt. 3:11; Acts 1:4-5). A non-repeatable act that is just one aspect (concluding aspect) of the establishment of a new covenant administration.

the baptism of the Holy Spirit was not a one time hoistorical even tthough, as it is given to us that ALL of us, so that would be applied towards all who ever will get saved until His Second coming, will experience being placed by the Holy Spirit into both union with Christ, and in union with his body, with each other in the Univeraal church...

And that act happens to ALL in christ, regardless how water baptized, or even if been water baptized!

 

[The Biblicist]

Thanks for participating, Biblicist.

First, I would ask that you present the option that has been left out of the Poll, that you would cast your vote for. So far no-one who has said "None of the above" have done so.

Yes, I will. Summarily stated, I believe the baptism in the Spirit is one aspect of the New covenant public administration that replaced the Old Covenant public administration. In the Old Covenant administration that was instituted at Mount Sinai were many individual aspects. I will contrast these aspects between the old and new administration.

1. Moses was the human archetech/Christ was the human archetect - Prophet like unto Moses
2. There was scripture given by Moses and prophets/Christ and disciples (Isa. 8:16-18).
3. There was instituted public house of worship "house of God"/church (1 Tim. 3:15)
a. Public ordained ministry levites/Apostles, pastors, etc.
b. Public ordained ordinances/baptism and Lord's Supper
4. There was a public immersion of the public institution-Ex. 40:35/Acts 2:1-3
a. Immersed and filled (Ex. 40:35/Acts 2:1-3
b. Fire from heaven on altar
5. Evangelism primarily Israel or making proselying Jews/Gentiles

The "old" forshadowed the "new".

, could you clarify what you think "The Baptism with the Holy Ghost/Spirit" is?

It is the public accreditation that the new public "house of God" and administrator of the keys of the kingdom has been built and commissioned according to a divine pattern, just as it was the very same purpose when the tabernacle, then temple were immersed in the Shekinah glory. This means that the New House of God has been built after a divine pattern. That pattern is revealed in Matthew 16:18-19; 28:19-20; Acts 2:40-41. That means its public ministry has a pattern of qualifications (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:5-13). This means its ordinances have a pattern that must be followed (Mt. 3:6-8; Lk. 7:29-30; Mt. 26:12-30; 1 Cor. 5, 10, 11). This means its mission has a divine pattern to follow (Acts 1:8). The purpose of this baptism is to publicly accredit and confirm the new public administrator in the kingdom is built to specs (pattern).

The Baptism with the Holy Ghost has nothing to do with salvation?

Those immersed in the Spirit were already born again water baptized professors in Jesus Christ who individually were indwelt by the Spirit ("he who DWELLS with you" as individuals "shall be in you" as a corporate body - the institutional church). John required "fruits of repentance" prior to baptism (Mt. 3:8) and preached the gospel (Jn. 3:36) insisting upon a profession of faith in Christ (Acts 19:4).

I think you are confusing Christian Baptism with the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

Actually, it is you that confuses the two. The administrator of the Baptism in the Spirit is not the Spirit but Christ. The element of the baptism in the Spirit is not Christ but the Spirit. The subject of the baptism in the Spirit is a PLURAL body of already water baptized believers (Acts 1:4-5; 2:1).

John told those he baptized in water they (water baptized believers in Christ) will be baptized by Christ in the Spirit (Mt. 3:12; Acts 1:4-5).

On the other hand, the administrator of water baptism is Christ (Jn. 4:1) followed by "another comforter" the Holy Spirit as its administrator (1 Cor. 3:5-16; 12:13). The subject is the individual believer. The element is water.

John 7:38-39

King James Version (KJV)

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

You omitted verse 37 where this water is initially received by non-believers by faith, as with the woman at the well. The well of water INDWELLING the believers occurs at faith. This is when the Spirit "DWELLS" with the believer as "WELL OF WATER SPRINGING up"

Verses 38-39 speaks of one who already has believed, already has this water of life springing up inside him/her. These verses refer to the OUTFLOW not the inflow. "OUT of his belly shall FLOW rivers of water." This refers to the day of Pentecost and the FILLING of the Spirit that occurred in connection with the IMMERSION of the church WITH REGARD TO ITS MISSION (ACTS 1:8).[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, I will. Summarily stated, I believe the baptism in the Spirit is one aspect of the New covenant public administration that replaced the Old Covenant public administration. In the Old Covenant administration that was instituted at Mount Sinai were many individual aspects. I will contrast these aspects between the old and new administration.

1. Moses was the human archetech/Christ was the human archetect - Prophet like unto Moses
2. There was scripture given by Moses and prophets/Christ and disciples (Isa. 8:16-18).
3. There was instituted public house of worship "house of God"/church (1 Tim. 3:15)
a. Public ordained ministry levites/Apostles, pastors, etc.
b. Public ordained ordinances/baptism and Lord's Supper
4. There was a public immersion of the public institution-Ex. 40:35/Acts 2:1-3
a. Immersed and filled (Ex. 40:35/Acts 2:1-3
b. Fire from heaven on altar
5. Evangelism primarily Israel or making proselying Jews/Gentiles

The "old" forshadowed the "new".



It is the public accreditation that the new public "house of God" and administrator of the keys of the kingdom has been built and commissioned according to a divine pattern, just as it was the very same purpose when the tabernacle, then temple were immersed in the Shekinah glory. This means that the New House of God has been built after a divine pattern. That pattern is revealed in Matthew 16:18-19; 28:19-20; Acts 2:40-41. That means its public ministry has a pattern of qualifications (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:5-13). This means its ordinances have a pattern that must be followed (Mt. 3:6-8; Lk. 7:29-30; Mt. 26:12-30; 1 Cor. 5, 10, 11). This means its mission has a divine pattern to follow (Acts 1:8). The purpose of this baptism is to publicly accredit and confirm the new public administrator in the kingdom is built to specs (pattern).








Those immersed in the Spirit were already born again water baptized professors in Jesus Christ who individually were indwelt by the Spirit ("he who DWELLS with you" as individuals "shall be in you" as a corporate body - the institutional church). John required "fruits of repentance" prior to baptism (Mt. 3:8) and preached the gospel (Jn. 3:36) insisting upon a profession of faith in Christ (Acts 19:4).






Actually, it is you that confuses the two. The administrator of the Baptism in the Spirit is not the Spirit but Christ. The element of the baptism in the Spirit is not Christ but the Spirit. The subject of the baptism in the Spirit is a PLURAL body of already water baptized believers (Acts 1:4-5; 2:1).

John told those he baptized in water they (water baptized believers in Christ) will be baptized by Christ in the Spirit (Mt. 3:12; Acts 1:4-5).

On the other hand, the administrator of water baptism is Christ (Jn. 4:1) followed by "another comforter" the Holy Spirit as its administrator (1 Cor. 3:5-16; 12:13). The subject is the individual believer. The element is water.





You omitted verse 37 where this water is initially received by non-believers by faith, as with the woman at the well. The well of water INDWELLING the believers occurs at faith. This is when the Spirit "DWELLS" with the believer as "WELL OF WATER SPRINGING up"

Verses 38-39 speaks of one who already has believed, already has this water of life springing up inside him/her. These verses refer to the OUTFLOW not the inflow. "OUT of his belly shall FLOW rivers of water." This refers to the day of Pentecost and the FILLING of the Spirit that occurred in connection with the IMMERSION of the church WITH REGARD TO ITS MISSION (ACTS 1:8).

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Are non water Baptized beleivers part of that Baptism in the Holy Ghost then? those not members of a local church?

 

[The Biblicist]

[/QUOTE]

Are non water Baptized beleivers part of that Baptism in the Holy Ghost then? those not members of a local church?[/QUOTE]

Acts 1:4-5 restricts the candidates, restricts the time and restricts the place for the baptism in the Spirit.

The Candidates are those water baptized believers John prepared for Jesus and Jesus assembled with him and told them not to depart from Jerusalem as Jerusalem is the restricted place - it did not occur worldwide. It did not occur to any believers outside of Jerusalem. It did not occur to anyone outside that upper room. It was restricted in time to "not many days hence".

So this was no universal baptism in the Spirit upon ALL BELIEVERS in ALL PLACES at ALL TIMES. This was restricted to the congregation habitually assembling with Christ from the baptism of John till he ascended (Acts 1:21-22) and it is this assembly that was in the upper room in Acts 2:1.

It has absolutely nothing to do with obtaining salvation or a second work of grace for individuals. This is an institutional baptism that occurred at least two previous times in the Old Testament.

 

[Darrell C]

Thanks for participating, Biblicist.

First, I would ask that you present the option that has been left out of the Poll, that you would cast your vote for. So far no-one who has said "None of the above" have done so.

Yes, I will. Summarily stated, I believe the baptism in the Spirit is one aspect of the New covenant public administration that replaced the Old Covenant public administration. In the Old Covenant administration that was instituted at Mount Sinai were many individual aspects. I will contrast these aspects between the old and new administration.

1. Moses was the human archetech/Christ was the human archetect - Prophet like unto Moses
2. There was scripture given by Moses and prophets/Christ and disciples (Isa. 8:16-18).
3. There was instituted public house of worship "house of God"/church (1 Tim. 3:15)
a. Public ordained ministry levites/Apostles, pastors, etc.
b. Public ordained ordinances/baptism and Lord's Supper
4. There was a public immersion of the public institution-Ex. 40:35/Acts 2:1-3
a. Immersed and filled (Ex. 40:35/Acts 2:1-3
b. Fire from heaven on altar
5. Evangelism primarily Israel or making proselying Jews/Gentiles

The "old" forshadowed the "new".

This is true, however, there is no denying that the Spirit of Promise is distinguished from the empowering that took place in Israel in the Wilderness.

Surely you are not equating this empowering to the coming of the Spirit that is indeed foreshadowed, as well as foretold...with what has already taken place?

For example, the disciples were empowered to preach the Kingdom Gospel, heal, and cast out devils. James and John seemed to think they could call down fire from heaven.

But it is an interesting option you have provided, I will give you that. Thanks for responding, this is very interesting indeed.

could you clarify what you think "The Baptism with the Holy Ghost/Spirit" is?

It is the public accreditation that the new public "house of God" and administrator of the keys of the kingdom has been built and commissioned according to a divine pattern, just as it was the very same purpose when the tabernacle, then temple were immersed in the Shekinah glory. This means that the New House of God has been built after a divine pattern. That pattern is revealed in Matthew 16:18-19; 28:19-20; Acts 2:40-41. That means its public ministry has a pattern of qualifications (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:5-13). This means its ordinances have a pattern that must be followed (Mt. 3:6-8; Lk. 7:29-30; Mt. 26:12-30; 1 Cor. 5, 10, 11). This means its mission has a divine pattern to follow (Acts 1:8). The purpose of this baptism is to publicly accredit and confirm the new public administrator in the kingdom is built to specs (pattern).

So when men are Baptized with the Holy Ghost it is simply public accreditation? While I agree there is a validation aspect to the events in which men are Baptized with the Spirit, we do not see the disciples themselves publicly baptized with the Holy Spirit, not Cornelius, nor the Ephesian disciples of John (though we cannot deny that the public witnessed this event because it is not stated).

Those Baptized with the Holy Ghost are without question saved at the time of this Baptism.

Christ defines the Baptism with the Spirit as the reception of the Promise of God. Now consider this:


1 Peter 2

King James Version (KJV)


4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.



It would seem that the "public" is ignorant of the spiritual House of Christ. How then is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost public accreditation?

And I will break these up to make them easier to respond to.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

The Baptism with the Holy Ghost has nothing to do with salvation?

Those immersed in the Spirit were already born again water baptized professors in Jesus Christ who individually were indwelt by the Spirit ("he who DWELLS with you" as individuals "shall be in you" as a corporate body - the institutional church).

Okay, hold on, lol...you are saying they are already born again and immersed into God and individually indwelt by the Spirit? Or are you saying they were the former two then indwelt by the Spirit? The wording here makes it a little unclear to me.

What I can see is that you are affirming a very simple truth, that the Spirit dwelt with them but would, at a future time, be in them.

This also comes into conflict, in regards to them already being "water baptized," with Acts 11 in which the Baptism with John is denied as a viable baptism, and the Ephesian disciples are baptized in the name of Christ. Cornelius, those of Samaria, and the Ephesian disciples all had to be baptized in the Name of Christ. The Baptism of John has no validity in a Christian salvation.

John required "fruits of repentance" prior to baptism (Mt. 3:8)

This is true, but not one of those who repented repented outside of the framework of the (Covenant of) Law. This repentance was not the repentance unto life. If it were, then salvation in Christ would have taken place when they repented at that time and there would have been no need for the Ephesian disciples to be baptized again.

and preached the gospel (Jn. 3:36) insisting upon a profession of faith in Christ (Acts 19:4).

Here is your first quote which you say was John was "preaching the Gospel"( which I would agree, though we also see God in the Garden, David, and Isaiah "preaching the Gospel," yet David and Isaiah were not privy to the Gospel Mystery):


John 3:36

King James Version (KJV)

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.


Now could you show me anyone in the Gospels that were trusting in Christ's death? Many people in the Gospels "believed on Christ" but there is a difference between believing Jesus is the Christ and trusting in Christ as Savior.

And let's look at the second quote:


Acts 19

King James Version (KJV)


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.


In reading this, will you say that these people are...

Those immersed in the Spirit were already born again water baptized professors in Jesus Christ

...?

insisting upon a profession of faith in Christ (Acts 19:4).

So one can be this...

Those immersed in the Spirit were already born again water baptized professors in Jesus Christ

...but not Baptized with the Holy Ghost?

I will wait for you to clarify your statement.


Continued...

 

[The Biblicist]

This is true, however, there is no denying that the Spirit of Promise is distinguished from the empowering that took place in Israel in the Wilderness.

Surely you are not equating this empowering to the coming of the Spirit that is indeed foreshadowed, as well as foretold...with what has already taken place?

For example, the disciples were empowered to preach the Kingdom Gospel, heal, and cast out devils. James and John seemed to think they could call down fire from heaven.

Remember, I said I was giving only a summary of my position not a full defense. Also, remember in my summary position I said it was but just one aspect of the institution of a new PUBLIC covenant administration. One of the aspects was the provision of Scripture under both public administrations. Moses provided the first written scriptures followed by the prophets all of which were supernaturally confirmed. The sign gifts in the New Testament were given only to the Apostles (1 Cor. 12:12) who imparted them through the laying on of their hands (Acts 8:15-17; 19:6; Rom. 1:11; etc.). These sign gifts were TEMPORARY until the New Testament Scriptures were provided and the Biblical canon was finished by Christ's disciples (Isa. 8:16-18 with Heb. 2:3-13; Rev. 1:3 with 22:18-20).

Hence, the empowerment in connection with sign gifts was also part of the accrediting of scriptures under both administrations. The Psalmist said "we see not our signs" referring to the accrediting evidence of prophets.

The "filling" was empowerment to witness (Acts 1:8) which is repetitive throughout the New Testament period right up to the present.

However, the immersion of the "house of God" was not repetitive (except in the case of Gentiles, whom the church would not administer baptism and received into the church on an equal basis without repeating the same event at the house of Cornelius).

So in summary. Signs and wonder powers were given to the apostles on Pentecost who in turn conveyed them through the laying on of hands. When the apostlic office ceased so did the ability to convey such gifts. When the last living saints on whom the apostolic hands had been laid died, these apostolic signs and wonders ceased. John lived to about 101 and so the sign gifts could have continued through believers on whom he laid hands until 160 A.D. Power to evangelize still continues but that is simply the "filling" of the Spirit not the baptism in the Spirit. The "promise of the Spirit" had to do with much more than the baptism in the Spirit in confirming a divine pattern for the new house of God with its ministry and ordinances.. (1) empowering signs and wonders to confirm revelatory messages and writings; (2) filling to empower evangelistic witness; (3) Another comforter to lead the church and administer water baptism - 1 Cor. 3:5-8, 9-16.

Those Baptized with the Holy Ghost are without question saved at the time of this Baptism.

This event is not supposed to be the norm or standard but the very opposite. Peter brought six Jewish brethren with him because as he confessed it was not lawful for him to even enter a Gentile house, much less administer water baptism to gentile believers. When the immersion in the Spirit took place,remember Peter asked "Can man forbid WATER...?" In other words, this immersion in the Spirit was in keeping with its original Old Testament design to PUBLICLY ACCREDIT God's house. Gentiles were now accepted as EQUAL members in the new House of God.

1 Peter 2

King James Version (KJV)


4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

The background for this passage is Matthew 16:18 and the intentional characterization of Peter's name IN CONTRAST to the "rock" upon which the church was built. Peter's name provided the characterization of the kind of building materials used by Christ to build the church "upon the rock" of profession in Christ. Here Peter confirms that every member is a "spiritual stone" and not just Peter. Here Peter confirms that the "rock" (petra) upon which the church is built is the profession of Christ, which the Jews stumbled at, refusing to profess him as Christ.

However, the way you are interpreting this passage is to confuse the "rock" of profession with the "spiritual stones" themselves. Having made a profession of Christ ALREADY, they are now "built up" into such a house for ACCEPTABLE WORSHIP which infers a divinely accredited PATTERN that defines acceptable sacrifices, an acceptable house, etc.

You are confusing the stones with the rock as much as Rome confuses Peter with the rock. They are distinct from one another but one is based "upon" the other. First there must be a profession of faith in the rock AS THE BASIS for use in church membership rather than making church membership the basis of salvation.

 

[Darrell C]

I think you are confusing Christian Baptism with the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

Actually, it is you that confuses the two. The administrator of the Baptism in the Spirit is not the Spirit but Christ.

I have actually pointed that out (and this taken from just the first page of the thread):

You rightly identify the Baptism with the Holy Ghost as prophesied by John, and he is quoted by Christ, Paul, and Peter in Acts. In those quotes, in view is the fact that John's Baptism is contrasted with Christ's Baptism. It must be remembered that this Baptism has One Baptizer...and that is always Christ.

A couple things to consider in John's Prophecy would be...


1. Christ is the Baptizer;

2. He Baptizes with Spirit (salvation, "gather the wheat into the garner");

3. He baptizes with fire (judgment (burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire);

4. This is a prophetic utterance, meaning it was not yet occurring.

While because we know the Spirit is God Himself, we would be correct to say the "Spirit baptizes men into Christ," the terminology is specific, that Christ is the Baptizer. What we can say is that when men are saved, they are eternally indwelt by God, and thus are placed into God. We do not differentiate an extreme concerning the Persons of God, because we see that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all reside within us:

However, we have to maintain what Scripture teaches, thus we see that the Baptism with (and you rightly point out with) the Holy Ghost is Christ immersing men into Himself.

So this is not a point I am confused on, but insist on.

The element of the baptism in the Spirit is not Christ but the Spirit.

Agreed.

And the one issue we can say dogmatically is that the Spirit that comes on Pentecost, the the same Spirit of God always referenced in Scripture (Who is God Himself), was not sent until Pentecost.

He is not another Spirit, But "another Comforter," which deals with His ministry, not the public ministry of the Ministers of the New Covenant.

The subject of the baptism in the Spirit is a PLURAL body of already water baptized believers (Acts 1:4-5; 2:1).

No, we generally see those who are Baptized with the Holy Ghost water baptized in the name of Christ. An exceptional exception, lol, are the disciples of Christ Himself. They are never said to be Baptized in the Name of Christ. We could speculate that they were Baptized of Christ during His ministry but this has a few problems in itself:

1. Christ functioned within the framework of the Law, and had to, lest a charge of lawlessness be levied against Him;

2. We are told specifically that Christ Himself did not baptize (John 4:1-2);

3. Four notable preachers, Christ, Peter, Paul, and John himself all contrast being Baptized with the Spirit, which cannot be confused as associated with water baptism, with John's Baptism.


They were not "already baptized believers.

John told those he baptized in water they (water baptized believers in Christ) will be baptized by Christ in the Spirit (Mt. 3:12; Acts 1:4-5).

No, John told them that although he baptized with water, One was coming Who would Baptize with Spirit. There is the contrast, and it is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost that is the focal issue ("fire" is, I believe, a reference to eternal judgment, and if I recall correctly Luke does not mention fire).

You are, if I am reading this correctly, making a case that John's Baptism was Christian Baptism. We can see clearly from Acts 19 this is not the case, and we can understand it is not because these men were baptized unto John, and identified with John. We understand that if John's baptism with water was Christian Baptism, then the Great Commission conflicts with that, meaning men were commanded, and still are, to be baptized in the Name of Christ/the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

But you can clarfiy if that is what you are saying here, in case I have misread you.

On the other hand, the administrator of water baptism is Christ (Jn. 4:1) followed by "another comforter" the Holy Spirit as its administrator (1 Cor. 3:5-16; 12:13).

On the contrary, your proff-text denies that "Christ is the Administrator of water baptism, or that this baptism was salvific:


John 4

King James Version (KJV)

1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)


Giving Him a title of "Administrator" does not make this baptism "Christian Baptism," because if men were being saved through this Baptism, then we must agree with the Baptismal Regenerationist and affirm one is saved simply by being baptized in water.

And to make the Comforter the "Administrator of water/Christian baptism" is not validated by your proof-texts. I will not quote all of the first but just say that nothing in there teaches men were saved by being water baptized, and if we back up we see Paul makes it clear that salvation is due to the Blood (Death) of Christ:


1 Corinthians 1:12-14

King James Version (KJV)


12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;


The division centered on who had been baptized by who, and Paul makes a couple very simple points:

1. It doesn't matter who water baptized you, what matters is your identification with Christ;

2. It doesn't matter who water baptized you, what matters is why you were baptized, that is...Christ died for you;

3. It doesn't matter that you were baptized in water at all...in light of why you are baptized: if water baptism had any associated salvific value, Paul would be saying "I am glad I baptized Crispus and Gaius," or in other words, his statement denies salvific value to their water baptisms. What is important is that in their water baptisms they are identified specifically to the death of Christ, which is a key element in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which, I would remind you again...

...was not being revealed to men during the Age of Law. Not by Christ, not by the disciples of Christ.

In your second proof-text (and this is not a negative term, Biblicist, we all use them)...


1 Corinthians 12:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.


...I would just ask if you really think the Baptism by which we are all made "to drink into One Spirit" is water baptism? God promised to pour out His Spirit, and those who believe are made to drink "into One Spirit."

Secondly, we see here that the Spirit is the Baptizer, right? Not men performing public ministry.


Continued...

 

[The Biblicist]

Okay, hold on, lol...you are saying they are already born again and immersed into God and individually indwelt by the Spirit? Or are you saying they were the former two then indwelt by the Spirit? The wording here makes it a little unclear to me.

What I can see is that you are affirming a very simple truth, that the Spirit dwelt with them but would, at a future time, be in them.

As individuals , they were already born again Spirit indwelt WATER BAPTIZED believers. However, the promise of baptism in the Spirit was not to them as individuals but as the new institution of water baptized believers that had been assembling with Christ since the baptism of John (Acts 1:21-22) and was commanded to not leave Jerusalem but to wait. This assembly is described and numbered in Acts 1. This assembly is in ONE PLACE and IN ONE ACCORD in Acts 2:1 and this assembly is "added unto" by faith and WATER BAPTISM in Acts 2:40 and this same assembly is called the "church" in Acts 2:46.

This also comes into conflict, in regards to them already being "water baptized," with Acts 11 in which the Baptism with John is denied as a viable baptism, and the Ephesian disciples are baptized in the name of Christ. Cornelius, those of Samaria, and the Ephesian disciples all had to be baptized in the Name of Christ. The Baptism of John has no validity in a Christian salvation.

I think you are referring to Acts 19:1-6. John's baptism is not being repudiated here. What is being repudiated is what they called John's baptism. The church alone has been authorized to administer water baptism and the person who administered this baptism to them knew nothing about immersion of the church on Pentecost which accredited it as the administrator of the ordinances, and the person who administered this baptism did not know Jesus of Nazereth was the Christ, but John the Baptist preached both (Acts 19:4) proving the administrator of their baptism was most likely Apollos BEFORE he was corrected on these two very issues. No doubt he was baptized by John BEFORE John pointed out Jesus as the Messiah and so he was not rebaptized. However, when he was told that Jesus was the promised Messiah he began to prove from the Sciptures that Jesus fit that Messiah and when he was instructed about the immersion of the church by the Spirit, he no longer worked outside new testament churches but worked through them beginning by joining the church at Ephesus which sent a letter of recommendation when he came to Corinth.

Here is your first quote which you say was John was "preaching the Gospel"( which I would agree, though we also see God in the Garden, David, and Isaiah "preaching the Gospel," yet David and Isaiah were not privy to the Gospel Mystery):

You are confusing progressive Gospel revelation with Gospel essential. Acts 10:43 declares they had gospel essential "for remission of sins" just as Abraham did (Rom. 4:9-11) and David did (Rom. 4:6-8).

The essence of the gospel - the promise of a redeemer from sins received by repentance and faith has always been preached as even Job says "I know MY REDEEMER liveth and I shall SEE HIM"