The Baptism With the Holy Ghost

[The Biblicist]

Gentleman, Please forgive me for having to leave the forum for a while. My wife and I are on vacation and she is in her final stages of Alzheimers and I have got to tend to her and do some driving. I promise I will return and answer the questions.

 

[Darrell C]

The subject is the individual believer. The element is water.

Which has nothing to do with immersion into God, which takes place at salvation.

You said...

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

...which seems to suggest you believe we are immersed into God, but, that you do not correlate the Baptism with the Holy Ghost as the means or event at which time that takes place. A couple of your assertions come into question, one being they were born again believers but...

...they were not immersed into God?

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.

How can these non-believers have received the living waters if they were non-believers?

Secondly, we know this isn't true because of what is actually said:


John 7:37-39

King James Version (KJV)


37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

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.)


1. The "living waters" flowing from those who would believe is clearly identified as the Holy Ghost, which means...

2. They did not yet have the Holy Ghost, which means...

3. They did not yet believe;

4. The Holy Ghost is not yet given;

5. Their receiving of the Spirit would not be until Christ was glorified.

Tell me where I am wrong on any of these points, and reconcile these points to your statement:

You omitted verse 37 where this water is initially received by non-believers by faith, as with the woman at the well.

You are suggesting they received the living waters and the Baptism with the Holy Ghost allows them to...let them living waters out?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Gentleman, Please forgive me for having to leave the forum for a while. My wife and I are on vacation and she is in her final stages of Alzheimers and I have got to tend to her and do some driving. I promise I will return and answer the questions.

Brother, you break my heart with this news, and my prayers are going out to God for you both. I pray he strengthen you in this time.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Biblicist, I too will be taking my leave of the forum for a while, and will just address the posts you have offered so far. Again, my prayers are with you and your wife.

The well of water INDWELLING the believers occurs at faith.

According to John they would occur when Christ was glorified and the Spirit sent/given:


John 14:15-18

King James Version (KJV)


15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


John 16:7

King James Version (KJV)

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

This is when the Spirit "DWELLS" with the believer as "WELL OF WATER SPRINGING up"

I agree, and that takes place at salvation. Yet not even the disciples had that well springing up, which means that they had not yet received eternal life. Not one of them...believed on the Risen Savior.



John 16:28-32

King James Version (KJV)


28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.

30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

Verses 38-39 speaks of one who already has believed, already has this water of life springing up inside him/her.

Can't be possible, because Christ spoke of the Spirit Who was not yet given, and would not be until He, Christ, was glorified.

The soonest that could be argued would be after His Resurrection, and it is my position that the glorification in view is in fact His return to Heaven from whence He came. We can see this as the time because it is still not until not many days after the Ascension of Christ that the Spirit, Who is the well-spring of "living waters," which represents eternal life...is sent/given.

And when we see Cornelius and his house saved, we see that it is unto the very life Christ speaks of:


Acts 11:13-18

King James Version (KJV)


13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


The disciples, when they received the Spirit, received repentance unto life, which negates the baptism of repentance preached by John was salvific.

Cornelius is saved when he is baptized with the Holy Ghost. We cannot impose any other meaning into this text.

. These verses refer to the OUTFLOW not the inflow. "OUT of his belly shall FLOW rivers of water."

They refer to the future time when men would actually believe the Gospel and receive the Spirit Christ sent after He returned to Heaven.

It is at that time they receive life by being brought into union with God. It is at that time they are immersed into God.

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).

The disciples, and many Old Testament Saints, were filled with the Spirit and empowered to minister. Prophets. Priests. And Kings.

Yet not one of them received the Promise, the Promised Spirit...until Pentecost.


God bless.

 

[TCassidy]

Gentleman, Please forgive me for having to leave the forum for a while. My wife and I are on vacation and she is in her final stages of Alzheimers and I have got to tend to her and do some driving. I promise I will return and answer the questions.

Our thoughts and prayers are with you. My God give both you and your wife peace during this time of trial.

By the way, you are doing a great job of defending the biblical account of baptism in the Spirit.

I was going to contribute but so far I will just say, "What The Biblicist said!"

 

[Darrell C]

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. T

Understood.

But it doesn't change the fact that so far there have been some issues for you to reconcile in making the Baptism with the Holy Ghost simply a public accreditation. But as I said, this is a little better of an argument than I am used to seeing, when the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is denied as the very act of God immersing believers into Himself.

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.).

Actually we see the sign gifts employed by numerous people baptized with the Holy Ghost, Cornelius and the Ephesian disciples being two prime examples. They were not Apostles.

Secondly, Paul is speaking to the general population of the Church at Corinth when instructing, and rebuking them. He was speaking to "all who were in Rome" in your last proof-text. So this point will not stand.

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).

I am a Partial Cessasionist, and believe that while the validating aspect of the sign gifts employed by the Apostles and others are not prominent today, I do believe that these gifts may still occur at times, and this is just based on numerous testimonies of Missionaries that have been part of and witnessed events such as one speaking a language he has never learned. I have seen miraculous recoveries of healing which can only be attributed to God (not healers, but through the prayers of righteous men).

But for the record, I reject ecstatic speech and the "tongues" of the Charismatic Movement.

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.

And I agree with that. I think it must be understood that the specific events, at least most of them, were recorded for the specific purpose of validation of Gentile and Samaritan Inclusion.

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

And when men are filled they are not said to be Baptized with the Holy Ghost. I view the filling of God to be the same ministry the Holy Spirit performed in the Old Testament. There is a difference between one being filled and being Baptized with the Spirit. One took place in the Old Testament, one clearly did not, and the one which didn't is clearly spoken of by Christ, John (the Baptist), Peter, and Paul.

And that Baptism is the moment when the believer is immersed into God, and immersed into the Body of Christ (which is the result of being immersed into God).

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).

The "Church administering baptism" has nothing to do with the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. Men are not saved when they are immersed in Christian Baptism.

I agree with your first statement but can't see how you correlate, after we have already clarified and both believe, that the Baptism with the Spirit involves the Spirit of God, not water.

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.

Again, the laying on of hands has nothing to do with the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, because, again...Christ is the Baptizer. Simon made this mistake and thought he could buy what the disciples did, which took place after those of Samaria were baptized in water:


Acts 8:12-17

King James Version (KJV)


12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.



The sequence of events has led many to assume that the Apostles transferred the Holy Ghost, but, then we would remove Christ as the Baptizer and install the Apostles as the baptizers with the Holy Ghost.

The laying on of hands has nothing to do with sign gifts, in view is their receiving of the Spirit Who is the Ssame Spirit received by the disciples at Pentecost, Cornelius and his house, and the Ephesian disciples (all of these events specific to the Baptism with the Holy Ghost).

Simon is corrected in improperly identifying what is going on here:


19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.


20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.


Simon believed the Holy Ghost being given was a result of something the Apostles controlled, and he wanted to buy the secret to their "magic." We simply look at every instance concerning the Gift of God and we can understand, from all relevant Scriptures, that the Gift of God is eternal life, which is what they receive when they receive the Holy Ghost.

We see that here...


Acts 11:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


This sequence occurs for the very reason you state previously, it is the validation, the accreditation...of the reality that these people too had been saved, for they received the same thing, and this is an important point...that the disciples themselves received at the beginning, which is reference to the Day of Pentecost, when the disciples themselves were also Baptized with the Holy Ghost, as Christ said they would be. And He taught them of that on that day, as well as before (Acts 1:4-5; John 14:16-18; John 7:38-39).


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

By the way, you are doing a great job of defending the biblical account of baptism in the Spirit.

So you too see the Baptism with the Holy Ghost as an empowerment and public accreditation. Was that the option you have supplied prior when you said "None of the above?" This is actually in the poll (because the bottom line is what Biblicist is saying is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is an empowering), so if you don't mind, could you cast your vote?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Power to evangelize still continues but that is simply the "filling" of the Spirit not the baptism in the Spirit.

Doesn't this conflict with what you have already said?

You are saying that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is an empowering which accreditates the ministry being performed in this Age. That is the basic meaning.

So how can the Baptism be something that will not happen until after Christ is glorified not be the empowering of Moses and those filled with the Spirit in the wilderness? The empowering of men to be Kings and Prophets? The empowering of the disciples to preach the Gospel (which most equate with the Gospel of Christ though Paul teaches was a mystery)?

And I will separate this question so that @TCassidy, who affirms your view, can also answer.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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;

To the first statement...I agree, lol. But that seems to be what you are saying the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is.

As for (1), we do not see men Baptized with the Spirit to perform these things (though contrary to a previous assertion those who are Baptized with the Spirit do speak with languages), but that they might receive the living waters Christ taught about, as well as the eternal indwelling (contrasted with the Old Testament ministry of the Spirit in which He came upon them, rather than in them, and dwelt with them, rather than in them).

(2) filling to empower evangelistic witness;

Only after they receive the Spirit. Christ distinguishes the two aspects of what would take place:


Acts 1

King James Version (KJV)


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.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


Now I ask you...what was it they were doing when they "preached the Gospel" before...apart from the Spirit they would receive when they were Baptized with the Holy Ghost?

I will tell you the difference in their ministry, brother: after they receive the Promised Spirit, Who would enlighten them to the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ (rather than the Gospel of the Kingdom they preached before)...their ministry would be specific to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, meaning...they would preach Christ Crucified, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ (as opposed to the Gospel of the Kingdom, which worked within the framework of the revelation provided to men in that Age).

Paul speaks of this in 1 Corinthians 2, and unless we distinguish the difference between the Ages in which the Mystery is not revealed (eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, nor has it entered into the hearts of men that which God hath prepared for them that love Him), and the Age in which it is revealed, we will fail to understand the magnitude of what takes place on the Day of Pentecost, and in the lives of believers when they are immersed into God. If we, like most, equate the salvation in the Old Testament with salvation in Christ, we will utterly fail in our attempts to convey the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

(3) Another comforter to lead the church and administer water baptism - 1 Cor. 3:5-8, 9-16.

The Spirit does not administer water baptism, brother.

And that is not even relevant to the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

This event is not supposed to be the norm or standard but the very opposite.

I agree with that, the sequence we see in various salvation events is not to be the norm, and at times there was a shift in sequence for the purpose of validation that salvation was given unto all groups of people, as we see in the Gospel given through Abraham (in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed: Genesis 12:3) and Isaiah (I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles: Isaiah 42:6)

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.

Peter has just been instructed by the Lord...not to be a racist, which is something, as we see in his dealings with the Galatians, that he seemed to struggle with.

Thier coming was indeed for validation and as witnesses, but let's keep in mind that Peter should have already known that God had made it clear concerning cleansing.

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.

Nothing in what takes place is "in keeping" with the foundational doctrines of the Law. God validated their Inclusion through Baptizing them with the Spirit, rather than Peter and his witnesses validated their Inclusion by their witnessing the events. Secondly...this was not a public event, at least, I cannot see how the text implies this. Third, it is Peter who testifies of the events, and we don't really see a group testimony that includes those who went with him. It is Peter's testimony alone given in Acts 11.

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.

Not sure where this came from. My point was that when one is a member of the House of Christ they are...members. As opposed to subsequent "acts" of believers.

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.

Again, no confusion, the point is that they are in the House as members. In view is conversion and becoming a "living stone." But since you bring it up, it is true that His Church, that House of Christ, the Body of Christ...is built upon confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Now who did that prior to Pentecost who, like every living stone, every member...had received the Spirit of God in the eternal indwelling Christ foretold in John Chapters 14 and 16?

I can already tell you...not one man can be found.

There was no previous "infilling with living waters," to paraphrase what you said. The living waters would be received when the Spirit was sent, that is not open to debate, it is simply a Biblical truth missed by many.

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.

Hardly, the point was simply directed at the fact that the Baptism with the Spirit is the time in which those who believe are immersed into God.

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.

And where do we see those in the days before Pentecost doing that?

What is being confused is thinking that having faith in the Messiah, and confessing Jesus as the Messiah, as Peter does through the enlightening of the Father...equates to being immersed into God.

But it is confession of Christ as the Risen Savior that men are called to do. When Peter and the disciples are given the Gospel, here is Peter's response:


Matthew 16:20-23

King James Version (KJV)


20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


Peter had it revealed to him that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, but...

...Peter did not have the Mystery of the Gospel revealed to him.

This would not happen until after the Spirit is sent and the Gospel is revealed to them. A simple search of "mystery" on BibleGateway will show that God did not reveal the Hidden Wisdom in previous Ages. While the Gospel of Christ is given over and over throughout the Old Testament and the Gospels, it is not until the Spirit begins revealing the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that we see the disciples believe that which would make them members of the Body of Christ.

That is when Christ began building His Church. That is when they became living stones in the House of Christ, which is not a public matter, but a spiritual one.

They are at that time born of God, and that is not something, like water baptism, that can be witnessed with the eye. The sign gifts did testify that they had been saved, but no man witnessed that Baptism.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

As individuals , they were already born again Spirit indwelt WATER BAPTIZED believers.

One can be "born again" without having the Spirit of God?

Paul seems to refute that clearly in Romans 8:9-10 as well as in Titus 3:4-5.

This creates two types of Christians: those who are born again, and those who are born again and Baptized with the Holy Ghost.

This make the Baptism with the Holy Ghost one of the other three options given in the Poll, and I am still wondering why you have not voted in it.

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)

So the Promise of the Father, which Christ defines as the Baptism with the Holy Ghost...was not to individual believers but to the corporate Church? This is true in the sense that all who have the Promised Spirit are indeed the Church, but, not all who have received the Promise of the Father minister, wither publicly or privately.

This would conflict with Scripture on a number of points, such as being many members, and that not all are in leadership.

You are also validating John's Baptism as Christian Baptism, which makes little sense, seeing John not only contrasts his baptism with the Baptism Christ would perform, but we see that the Baptism which Christ would perform would be with the Holy Ghost...not water. Water has no relevance to the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. None whatsoever.

and was commanded to not leave Jerusalem but to wait.

Wait for what? The Baptism with the Holy Ghost, which was the Promise of the Father, and taught them by Christ Himself:



Acts 1:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

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.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

This assembly is described and numbered in Acts 1.

And they had not yet received the Spirit.

Now do they receive a water baptism which makes it clear that John was performing a valid Christian Baptism.

And another thing to consider is that the disciples themselves baptized. Why is John's Baptism quoted instead of it being, "I (Christ the administrator.) verily baptized with water, but you shall be Baptized with the Spirit not many days hence..."

...?

The reason is that it would not fit with the teachings of the Old Testament, nor of Christ, nor are those baptisms correlated to a Baptism which is spiritual.

There is no physical quality or correlation to water baptism in regards to the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

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.

No, the assembly is added unto through belief in the Gospel of Christ which generated repentance. They are commanded to be baptized that they might be identified with Christ.

Salvation is a spiritual process, and nothing physical can be imposed into that process. The New Birth is not something witnessed by the eye.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I think you are referring to Acts 19:1-6. John's baptism is not being repudiated here.

It's not a matter of repudiation, it is a distinguishing between what John effected by baptizing and what Christ effects by Baptizing with the Holy Spirit:


Matthew 3:11-12

King James Version (KJV)

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.



Acts 1:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

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.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.




Acts 11:15-16

King James Version (KJV)

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.



Acts 19:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

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.

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)

So you are saying that John's Baptism was Christian Baptism and all that had to be done was someone needed to be a member of the Church, thus have the authority, to Baptize in the Name of Christ?

As I said, your argument is interesting.

But can I ask you, does not John say that the Baptism which Christ will perform is a future event, and distinguished from his in that it would be with the Holy Spirit?

Secondly, is not the repentance demanded of John clearly within the Framework of the Law, rather than the framework of the New Covenant?

Were the works that the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jews to perform...works of those created in Christ Jesus and under the New Covenant?

See the problems with this argument brother?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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.

Again, this is interesting: Apollos was properly baptized in the Name of Christ even though he was not, hence did not need to be baptized again. Can we really come to this conclusion from Scripture?

John was performing Christian Baptism?

Those baptized by John were born again believers who simply needed to be Baptized with the Spirit?

I guess I can see how some might think that based on this:


Acts 18:24-28

King James Version (KJV)


24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.


Now one thing I would suggest is that if the Ephesian disciples were baptized by Apollos, and it was before Apollos had the Scriptures opened unto him, we still have a problem with what you are suggesting, because the Ephesian Disciples had not heard whether their be any Holy Ghost, and, they were themselves baptized in the Name of Christ, thus denying John's Baptism as a valid baptism, or Christian Baptism, and we still know...

...neither of those are the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

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.

Are you here acknolwedging your belief that Apollos...had not confessed Jesus as the Christ? Doesn't that also conflict with what we know about salvation in Christ?

And it is unlikely, I might add, that seeing that John clearly instructed concerning the difference between his own baptism and that of Christ (with the Holy Ghost), that Apollos somehow missed that. Don't you think?

And lastly...you speak yourself of the "immersion of the Church...by the Spirit."

?

You are confusing progressive Gospel revelation with Gospel essential.

On the contrary, brother...I am very clear about what I mean about progressive revelation and the Essentials of Christian Doctrine.

I have mentioned in every thread speaking about the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and New Birth, the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to this day not one person has ever bothered to comment on this Basic New Testament Essential.

It is absolutely essential to distinguish between the First Principles of the Doctrine of Christ and the Foundational Principles set forth in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, which are also ministered within in the Gospels. If one imposes understanding of the Hidden Wisdom of God, the very Mystery of the Gospel of Christ, and confuses that with the Gospel of the Kingdom...they're just not going to understand the Gospel of Christ in a Biblical Context.

Christ sent His disciples, in public ministry...to the Lost Sheep of Israel only.

Why? Answer that question, my friend, and you will understand why I am not confusing the progressive nature of Scripture (which all of it holds the Gospel of Christ) with Gospel Essentials.

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).

Sorry, no.


Romans 16:25-27

King James Version (KJV)


25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

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"

If we equate faith in the Messiah as salvific in a New Covenant and Testament sense then we must say that everyone who has that faith is saved, just not, according to what you say in these posts, Baptized with the Holy Spirit. If that is the case, then the woman at the well was saved, and the Jews of today who also have hope that one day Messiah will come are also saved, and they do not in fact need to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ.

But Scripture clarifies even beyond that, because we know that Job, and Abraham, both died still in need of Atonement. This too is not open for debate, is simply a basic truth Scripture make clear.

So it is interesting to me to see you saying men can be saved apart from the indwelling of God, or confession of the Risen Savior.

Are not the essentials of the Gospel given us by Paul?


1 Corinthians 15

King James Version (KJV)


3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:


And when we can see that not only did no man understand this, but that Peter himself was in opposition to the Gospel, it makes it hard to think that Peter and the disciples were already saved on the Day of Pentecost, simply waiting to be empowered so they could publicly minister the Gospel.

But, brother, you are not alone in your view, though you do a better job of some by a focus on public accreditation. Most view the Baptism of the Holy Ghost as a subsequent event in the lives of those saved.

All I would ask at this point is why you have not voted on this option in the Poll?

Lastly, again my prayers are with you and your wife. I hope you don't think I am being too antagonistic as your antagonist, and again I will be taking my leave of this forum for a while. I will finish up those posts before me today and maybe check in tomorrow morning, but with work and other projects I have set aside to enjoy some discussion here it is time for me to redirect my focus elsewhere. Perhaps at a later date I will start another thread on the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and have been a little disappointed with the participation in this one, and again thank you for yours.


God bless.

 

[tyndale1946]

Again, this is interesting: Apollos was properly baptized in the Name of Christ even though he was not, hence did not need to be baptized again. Can we really come to this conclusion from Scripture?

John was performing Christian Baptism?

Those baptized by John were born again believers who simply needed to be Baptized with the Spirit?

I guess I can see how some might think that based on this:


Acts 18:24-28

King James Version (KJV)


24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.


Now one thing I would suggest is that if the Ephesian disciples were baptized by Apollos, and it was before Apollos had the Scriptures opened unto him, we still have a problem with what you are suggesting, because the Ephesian Disciples had not heard whether their be any Holy Ghost, and, they were themselves baptized in the Name of Christ, thus denying John's Baptism as a valid baptism, or Christian Baptism, and we still know...

...neither of those are the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.





Are you here acknolwedging your belief that Apollos...had not confessed Jesus as the Christ? Doesn't that also conflict with what we know about salvation in Christ?

And it is unlikely, I might add, that seeing that John clearly instructed concerning the difference between his own baptism and that of Christ (with the Holy Ghost), that Apollos somehow missed that. Don't you think?

And lastly...you speak yourself of the "immersion of the Church...by the Spirit."

?




On the contrary, brother...I am very clear about what I mean about progressive revelation and the Essentials of Christian Doctrine.

I have mentioned in every thread speaking about the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and New Birth, the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to this day not one person has ever bothered to comment on this Basic New Testament Essential.

It is absolutely essential to distinguish between the First Principles of the Doctrine of Christ and the Foundational Principles set forth in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, which are also ministered within in the Gospels. If one imposes understanding of the Hidden Wisdom of God, the very Mystery of the Gospel of Christ, and confuses that with the Gospel of the Kingdom...they're just not going to understand the Gospel of Christ in a Biblical Context.

Christ sent His disciples, in public ministry...to the Lost Sheep of Israel only.

Why? Answer that question, my friend, and you will understand why I am not confusing the progressive nature of Scripture (which all of it holds the Gospel of Christ) with Gospel Essentials.




Sorry, no.


Romans 16:25-27

King James Version (KJV)


25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:





If we equate faith in the Messiah as salvific in a New Covenant and Testament sense then we must say that everyone who has that faith is saved, just not, according to what you say in these posts, Baptized with the Holy Spirit. If that is the case, then the woman at the well was saved, and the Jews of today who also have hope that one day Messiah will come are also saved, and they do not in fact need to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ.

But Scripture clarifies even beyond that, because we know that Job, and Abraham, both died still in need of Atonement. This too is not open for debate, is simply a basic truth Scripture make clear.

So it is interesting to me to see you saying men can be saved apart from the indwelling of God, or confession of the Risen Savior.

Are not the essentials of the Gospel given us by Paul?


1 Corinthians 15

King James Version (KJV)


3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:


And when we can see that not only did no man understand this, but that Peter himself was in opposition to the Gospel, it makes it hard to think that Peter and the disciples were already saved on the Day of Pentecost, simply waiting to be empowered so they could publicly minister the Gospel.

But, brother, you are not alone in your view, though you do a better job of some by a focus on public accreditation. Most view the Baptism of the Holy Ghost as a subsequent event in the lives of those saved.

All I would ask at this point is why you have not voted on this option in the Poll?

Lastly, again my prayers are with you and your wife. I hope you don't think I am being too antagonistic as your antagonist, and again I will be taking my leave of this forum for a while. I will finish up those posts before me today and maybe check in tomorrow morning, but with work and other projects I have set aside to enjoy some discussion here it is time for me to redirect my focus elsewhere. Perhaps at a later date I will start another thread on the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and have been a little disappointed with the participation in this one, and again thank you for yours.


God bless.

As TC said "None Of The Above"... Brother Glen

 

[Darrell C]

As TC said "None Of The Above"... Brother Glen

Perhaps you can do a little better than TC and state what the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is. Biblicist gives this as the definition (though has left some leeway in that he does not mean this to be his full statement, which is understandable):

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.

How would you define it?

I see the above, which TC said was his view, lol, as covered in the Poll. Further, we see specific statement from Biblicist that cannot be understood except in terms of a subsequent event in the life of a believer.

Now, it is curious you are not responding to the OP, but to a post directly addressing part of Biblicist's address of what the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is. Could you explain, if there is something in the post you give your "none of the above" assertion in, what it is exactly you disagree with? And perhaps contribute to the understanding of those who might actually be interested in what the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is...what you think it is?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

By the way, you are doing a great job of defending the biblical account of baptism in the Spirit.

So if you believe he is teaching the Biblical account of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, then you cannot say "None of the above." You can choose that it is a subsequent event in the life of a believer, for example. He is teaching that.

I was going to contribute but so far I will just say, "What The Biblicist said!"

Fair enough. Now explain why what you have contributed so far contradicts itself.

And if you have such a knowledge of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, and I am in error, is it not your responsibility to set me straight? Or is it okay that people teach error on this forum? That might be assumed, seeing we have seen in recent days "Baptists" teaching Annihilation and that men are angels who take up bodily form.

The importance of this issue cannot be overstated, and as I have said before, the reason why few can actually "contribute" is because their doctrine is so obscured by the errors of Charismatic doctrine that has crept into the mainstream groups. At least Biblicist backs up his "none of the above."

You can't say "none of the above" in truth, because what Biblicist is teaching is covered in the Poll.


God bless.

 

[tyndale1946]

So if you believe he is teaching the Biblical account of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, then you cannot say "None of the above." You can choose that it is a subsequent event in the life of a believer, for example. He is teaching that.



Fair enough. Now explain why what you have contributed so far contradicts itself.

And if you have such a knowledge of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, and I am in error, is it not your responsibility to set me straight? Or is it okay that people teach error on this forum? That might be assumed, seeing we have seen in recent days "Baptists" teaching Annihilation and that men are angels who take up bodily form.

The importance of this issue cannot be overstated, and as I have said before, the reason why few can actually "contribute" is because their doctrine is so obscured by the errors of Charismatic doctrine that has crept into the mainstream groups. At least Biblicist backs up his "none of the above."

You can't say "none of the above" in truth, because what Biblicist is teaching is covered in the Poll.


God bless.

I have a question does one receive the Holy Ghost at baptism or does the one being baptized already possess it?... I heard a well known minister of our people put it this way... If the subject has not been regenerated before they are immersed in the baptismal waters then they go in a dry devil and come out a wet one... When does this regeneration take place?... If you are saying the baptismal water then you make baptism to be a Salvation mode instead a of servitude mode... Follow me as I follow Christ... Does flesh and blood reveal Christ?... John when he was baptizing said this Their was one coming after him who would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire... Are we baptized with this Holy Ghost and with fire or did this apply to a certain group of people?... I answered none of the above because none of the above applied to my understanding of it... John to my understanding received the baptism of the Holy Ghost in his mothers womb... The thief received it in his 11th hour on the cross... One did and one didn't... I received my belief in my Lord at an early age at age 6 am now 70... I believed and the brethren I associate with also believe that somewhere between the cradle and the grave that the Holly Ghost will visit those that are his... And he will not lose a one... He will change their wicked a deceitful heart and make it a heart of flesh... I don't label who are his and who are not he knows his own and I leave it in his hands... In the hands of the Sovereign Grace of Almighty God!... Brother Glen

 

[Darrell C]

I have a question does one receive the Holy Ghost at baptism or does the one being baptized already possess it?...

Now wait a minute, you have already said "None of the above" so it is now time for you to say what the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is.

I am not completely sure you do that in the following.

Secondly, most of this is covered int his thread, and some of it in the very post you quote as "None of the above."

But, I give you vredit, you are the second None of the abovers that has taken time to at least...say something. Even if most of it is already covered, lol.

I heard a well known minister of our people put it this way... If the subject has not been regenerated before they are immersed in the baptismal waters then they go in a dry devil and come out a wet one...

Not sure why you would even bring this up. It is irrelevant to the OP.

When does this regeneration take place?... I

Well, if you had read the thread, perhaps you might have not said none of the above, lol.

You tell me...when is one regenerated. New Birth is dependent on the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. Scripture has been given to show that when men were Baptized with the Holy Ghost, they were saved. They were given life.

You might actually read the post, and posts, that you said none of the above to.

My answer to your question? Men are born again when they are Baptized with the Holy Ghost.


And I will break this up to make it easier for you to respond to.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

If you are saying the baptismal water then you make baptism to be a Salvation mode instead a of servitude mode...

Thanks for admitting you are saying none of the above to something you haven't even read. Don't read it now, because you will have to retract your statement.

This thread has nothing to do with water baptism, lol.

Follow me as I follow Christ...

Who said this? What relevance does it have to the OP or anything that is said in response or address of response?

Does flesh and blood reveal Christ?...

Yes. We call that The Incarnation.



And on a side note, as mentioned to Biblicist, we do see that sign gifts did play a part in validating salvation in the lives of Gentiles and those in Samaria.

John when he was baptizing said this Their was one coming after him who would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire...

Now were talking...

Are we baptized with this Holy Ghost and with fire or did this apply to a certain group of people?...

Now this is my view, Glenn, and you can take it for what it is worth, but, no...

...we are not Baptized with the Holy Ghost and fire, lol.

We are either baptized with the Holy Ghost...or...with fire.

Consider:


Matthew 3:11-12

King James Version (KJV)


11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


First I would point out John's preaching. What did he say? Was he not rebuking those who falsely came to him to be baptized, who he demanded that they bring forth fruits meet unto repentance, or in other words...prove it!?

Now look at his statement above. Those who are Baptized with the Holy Ghost are those who are "gathered into His garner," and those baptized with fire are those who will be burned up as chaff.

This has an eye to Christ's return, and the establishment of the Kingdom He and His disciples will preach about. This is seen in the Lord's encounter with Nicodemus as well, in that only those who are born from above and Born of the Spirit (same thing, and the same concept as being born again) will enter into that Kingdom.

Unfortunately Charismatic Doctrine has so skewed the understanding of so many that the fire here is thought to be in regards to those Baptized with the Spirit. It is not. The Baptism with the Spirit speaks of Christ immersing men into God, and the baptism with fire speaks of Christ judging and executing sentence on unbelievers, namely seen in the Pharisees and Sadducees that John denied baptism because their lives did not evidence repentance.

The point, "I baptize you with water, but take heed, One is coming Who will Baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire," has nothing to do with water, because Christ baptizes with the Spirit and with fire.

Another reason we would not view the fire as applicable to those Baptized by Christ with the Holy Ghost is that Mark (and I think I actually put Luke in earlier in this or a similar thread, sorry, was running off a fallible memory) does not mention the fire:


Mark 1:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.


Continued...