Union With Christ

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist,



Jesus acting as mediator and surety for all the elect identified with John's baptism of repentance. This was not Christian baptism...

It is utterly amazing that any professing Christian would deny the baptism of John as “Christian” (or Christ-like baptism) especially on the grounds that it was a “baptism of repentance.” Utterly amazing!


1. John demanded fruits of repentance and faith in the coming Christ as the prerequisite for baptism – Mt. 3:6-8; Acts 19:4; Jn. 3:36. That is why it is called a “baptism of repentance.” Tell me, you don’t require repentance toward God and faith in Christ for baptism??????

2. John’s baptism was “the counsel of God” (Lk. 7:29-30) and those who reject it (like you) reject the counsel of God against themselves and those who submit to it (like true Baptist congregations as it alone was the only possible baptism existing when the Great Commission was given that Jesus could say “I HAVE” commanded).

3. Jesus not only submitted to it (Mt. 3:15-17) but based the authority of his entire ministry upon it (Mt. 21:23-25) and administered it through his disciples (Jn. 4:1-2) and commissioned it until the end of the age (Mt. 28:19-20).


4. There is absolutely no record of Christ being rebaptized, or the apostles or any of his disciples ever being rebaptized.


5. Those rebaptized 19-24 years later in Acts 19 could not have possibly been baptized by John as John preached about the Holy Spirit and these did not know about him, and John baptized in reference to faith in Christ (Acts 19:4 as John 3:36 explicitly and clearly asserts) but these were baptized in reference to John. It is only when they heard how John actually baptized in reference to Christ (Acts 19:4) did they seek rebaptism – the baptism of John administered now by the church and its authorized representatives (Paul and Silas).



6. If you believe such garbage, then stop telling people to “follow Christ in baptism” as you don’t even believe Christ had “Christ-like” (Christian) baptism.


7. Only true churches of Christ identify with the Great Commission baptism of John. Those who repudiate it are advertising they are not New Testament churches and are not of New Testament origin. Oh I realize this will offend many - let it offend!

 

[The Biblicist]

.

Complete nonsense. Being found In Christ by Spirit baptism saves.

It does not say....baptized into water...it says baptized into Christ.

So, you don’t believe anyone was saved prior to Pentecost? There is no baptism in the Spirit prior to Pentecost and if being saved in Christ is "BY SPIRIT BAPTISM" then all before Pentecost are OUTSIDE of Christ and SPIRITUALLY DEAD - SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED FROM GOD. Every reference to the baptism in the Spirit prior to Pentecost is future and every reference after Pentecost refers to it in the past (Acts 11:15-16).


You said “being found in Christ BY SPIRIT BAPTISM SAVES.” Therefore, none prior to Pentecost could be saved? None could be in Christ? Is there salvation OUTSIDE of Christ prior to Pentecost? Hence, all died between Genesis and Acts 2 died OUTSIDE of Christ and thus died SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED from God and Christ. Spiritual separation is what the Bible calls SPIRITUAL DEATH and so you believe all who died between Genesis and Acts 2 were SPIRITUALLY DEAD when they were alive and when they left their bodies they were SPIRITUALLY DEAD SPIRITS separated from God. Don’t try to deny it because your belief that salvation in Christ is “BY SPIRIT BAPTISM” FORCES you to that conclusion. Your doctrine forces you to claim there is ANOTHER GOSPEL, another way of salvation OUTSIDE of Christ in a SPIRITUAL DEAD SEPARATED state for all who lived and died between Genesis and Acts 2:1.


Now, that is “complete nonsense”! That is where your church salvation leads you!

 

[Iconoclast]

Just like all Saints before the cross looked forward to the cross work, all Saints are baptized into the one body the church that will assemble on the last day. Why would you think otherwise except it does not c it into your model? Do you have another method of water baptism and salvation for the other saints? Or do you keep them in a separate place?

 

[Van]

These posts continue unabated. Water baptism, the one commanded by Christ, symbolizes our spiritual baptism into Christ. This is basic Baptist doctrine.

Pay no attention to those who deny positional sanctification where God puts us spiritually into Christ, setting us apart within Christ. This results in our union with Christ, being immersed in Christ and Christ indwelling us.

 

[The Biblicist]

Just like all Saints before the cross looked forward to the cross work, all Saints are baptized into the one body the church that will assemble on the last day. Why would you think otherwise except it does not c it into your model? Do you have another method of water baptism and salvation for the other saints? Or do you keep them in a separate place?

We are not talking about FAITH looking forward or backwards but about how one is "in Christ" by spiritual union! So don't change the subject or confuse faith with spiritual union. You claim that being "in Christ" by spiritual union is BY THE BAPTISM IN THE SPIRIT in fact your words were "being in Christ BY SPIRIT BAPTISM SAVES." Those are your words and that is your church salvation.

My view is we are "in Christ spiritually by regeneration in all ages" and NEVER by the baptism in the Spirit - NEVER!

It does not help you to say they looked forward by faith IF THEY WERE NOT IN SPIRITUAL UNION WITH CHRIST as that means they were SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED and thus SPIRITUALLY DEAD and incapable of faith (Rom. 8:7-9). Those "in the flesh" cannot please God (Rom. 8:8) and without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). So none "in the flesh" can have faith. If any man is "in the flesh" they are not "in the Spirit" and therefore are OUTSIDE OF CHRIST spiritually and SEPARATED from God spiritually and are SPIRITUALLY DEAD. So you view is self-contradictory.

Your view forces you to adopt Van's view of salvation prior to the cross. Your view denies gospel salvation is actual before Pentecost. Your view is necessitated by all who embrace Reformed Roman Catholic ecclesiology where church membership equals salvation in Christ. But you have no church, no baptism in the Spirit -prior to Pentecost as even your own position admits your church was begun on Pentecost with the baptism in the Spirit and so YOUR FALSE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION can't precede Pentecost. Your view requires/demands that conclusion.

 

[Iconoclast]

It is utterly amazing that any professing Christian would deny the baptism of John as “Christian” (or Christ-like baptism) especially on the grounds that it was a “baptism of repentance.” Utterly amazing!


1. John demanded fruits of repentance and faith in the coming Christ as the prerequisite for baptism – Mt. 3:6-8; Acts 19:4; Jn. 3:36. That is why it is called a “baptism of repentance.” Tell me, you don’t require repentance toward God and faith in Christ for baptism??????

2. John’s baptism was “the counsel of God” (Lk. 7:29-30) and those who reject it (like you) reject the counsel of God against themselves and those who submit to it (like true Baptist congregations as it alone was the only possible baptism existing when the Great Commission was given that Jesus could say “I HAVE” commanded).

3. Jesus not only submitted to it (Mt. 3:15-17) but based the authority of his entire ministry upon it (Mt. 21:23-25) and administered it through his disciples (Jn. 4:1-2) and commissioned it until the end of the age (Mt. 28:19-20).


4. There is absolutely no record of Christ being rebaptized, or the apostles or any of his disciples ever being rebaptized.


5. Those rebaptized 19-24 years later in Acts 19 could not have possibly been baptized by John as John preached about the Holy Spirit and these did not know about him, and John baptized in reference to faith in Christ (Acts 19:4 as John 3:36 explicitly and clearly asserts) but these were baptized in reference to John. It is only when they heard how John actually baptized in reference to Christ (Acts 19:4) did they seek rebaptism – the baptism of John administered now by the church and its authorized representatives (Paul and Silas).



6. If you believe such garbage, then stop telling people to “follow Christ in baptism” as you don’t even believe Christ had “Christ-like” (Christian) baptism.


7. Only true churches of Christ identify with the Great Commission baptism of John. Those who repudiate it are advertising they are not New Testament churches and are not of New Testament origin. Oh I realize this will offend many - let it offend!

This is one of the major errors of landmark ism.
You have bought into it hook , line , and sinker.
John's baptism of repentance was given to national Israel as John was one of the last of the ot. prophets.....he dies before the new Covenant is instituted.
Those converts of John in Acts 19 had to receive New Covenant baptism....
Your story telling and suggestions find no place in scripture at all.
I believe in biblical repentance, to say otherwise is a falsehood on your part as you try and force your error into the verses.
You did not invent the error, but you promote it.
Jesus had no sin to repent of, so it is obvious what he was doing was mediatorial in nature.
Your error in understanding Romans 6 spills over to a wrong view of sanctification....we have disagreed on that also....that is for another thread.
Of course the Spirit regenerated before Pentecost.....but Spirit Baptism ,.like the cross is a one time event

 

[The Biblicist]

This is one of the major errors of landmark ism.
You have bought into it hook , line , and sinker.
John's baptism of repentance was given to national Israel as John was one of the last of the other prophets.....he dies before the new Covenant is instituted.
Those converts of John in Acts 19 had to receive New Covenant baptism....
Your story telling and suggestions find no place in scripture at all.
I believe in biblical repentance, to say otherwise is a falsehood on your part as you try and force your error into the verses.
You did not invent the error, but you promote it.
Jesus had no sin to repent of, so it is obvious what he was doing was mediatorial in nature.
Your error in understanding Romans 6 spills over to a wrong view of sanctification....we have disagreed on that also....that is for another thread.

You give your OPINIONS without a shed of Scripture. You make charges without a shed of factual basis. You are defending a SYSTEM that has no Biblical basis.

I give both Scripture and detailed analysis that repudiates your SYSTEM ecclesiology.

You forget that John was sent before the Savior to PREPARE A PEOPLE MADE READY.

Try dealing with the evidence placed before you!!!

1. john preached the gospel of Christ - Jn. 3:36; Acts 19:4

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. - jn. 3:36

2. john demanded fruit of repentance prior to baptism - Mt. 3:8

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
.
3. There is no record of anyone having been baptized by John to have been rebaptized

You have to FORCE Acts 19:1-6 to fit your false theory. Who baptized the 3000 on Pentecost? UNBAPTIZED Christians?? That is what your view forces you to accept

 

[The Biblicist]

This is one of the major errors of landmark ism.
You have bought into it hook , line , and sinker.
John's baptism of repentance was given to national Israel as John was one of the last of the ot. prophets.....he dies before the new Covenant is instituted.
Those converts of John in Acts 19 had to receive New Covenant baptism....
Your story telling and suggestions find no place in scripture at all.
I believe in biblical repentance, to say otherwise is a falsehood on your part as you try and force your error into the verses.
You did not invent the error, but you promote it.
Jesus had no sin to repent of, so it is obvious what he was doing was mediatorial in nature.
Your error in understanding Romans 6 spills over to a wrong view of sanctification....we have disagreed on that also....that is for another thread.
Of course the Spirit regenerated before Pentecost.....but Spirit Bapm ,.like the cross is a one time event

Hey, instead of ad hominen attacks that center around a term "Landmarkism" try dealing with the scriptures. Do you see me claiming the term "Landmarkism" as my defense or do you see me using scriptures. You are using a dishonest and cowardly approach as you simply attack an epitaph, a term IN ORDER TO AVOID DEALING WITH SCRIPTURES! that is dishonest and cowardly

 

[The Biblicist]

John was one of the last of the ot. prophets.....he dies before the new Covenant is instituted.

first, he was the last of prophet that predicted the coming Messiah as he was the FIRST to announce the king "is at hand."

second, there is no salvation by the Old Covenant. the only thing that was instituted was the visible kingdom ADMINISTRATION of the New Covenant. Salvation has always been by the same everlasting covenant, which was manifested in the new visible kingdom ADMINITSRATION (keys of the kingdom).

 

[Iconoclast]

You give your OPINIONS without a shed of Scripture. You make charges without a shed of factual basis. You are defending a SYSTEM that has no Biblical basis.

I give both Scripture and detailed analysis that repudiates your SYSTEM ecclesiology.

You forget that John was sent before the Savior to PREPARE A PEOPLE MADE READY.

Try dealing with the evidence placed before you!!!

1. john preached the gospel of Christ - Jn. 3:36; Acts 19:4

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. - jn. 3:36

2. john demanded fruit of repentance prior to baptism - Mt. 3:8

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
.
3. There is no record of anyone having been baptized by John to have been rebaptized

You have to FORCE Acts 19:1-6 to fit your false theory. Who baptized the 3000 on Pentecost? UNBAPTIZED Christians?? That is what your view forces you to accept

I intend to deal with your scripture "offerings" when I get to a keyboard.

 

[The Biblicist]

second, there is no salvation by the Old Covenant. the only thing that was instituted was the visible kingdom ADMINISTRATION of the New Covenant. Salvation has always been by the same everlasting covenant, which was manifested in the new visible kingdom ADMINITSRATION (keys of the kingdom).

Let me put it to you this way. Salvation has always been applied as characterized by the "new" covenant as there has been only one kind, one way, one gospel, one savior and one salvation between Genesis to Revelation.

No one has ever been saved by keeping the Old Covenant.

The New Covenant provided a visible administration that is consistent with the everlasting covenant application of salvation in the sense of clear declaration. The New Covenant VISIBLE administration did away completely with the Old Covenant VISIBLE administration. The Old Covenant administration was not as clear but concealed under types the truth of the everlasting covenant and no one was saved by observing the Old Covenant. The replacement of the Old Covenant administration by the New Covenant administration provided a VISIBLE administration that was CLEARER and MORE DECLARATIVE the consistent with the application of the everlasting covenant from Genesis to Matthew.

Like the Old Covenant administration there were a public "house of God" and a public ministry, public ordinances, public worship but the design of each was different. The visible Old Covenant administration was designed to reveal sin and and salvation through EXTERNAL types while the sacrifices symbolized gospel truths and the coming Christ.The visible administration under the New Covenant clearly declares what the Old concealed in types, and the ministry and ordinances under the visible New Covenant administration declare as fulfilled what the old anticipated and point forward to the final application of salvation with the coming of Christ. Neither visible administration saved anyone, but only declared what saves. The salvation application under the "new Covenant" administration is NO DIFFERENT than actual individual salvation under the everlasting covenant between Genesis and Matthew. The only difference is MORE CLARITY and FULFILLED types.

 

[The Biblicist]

We are not talking about FAITH looking forward or backwards but about how one is "in Christ" by spiritual union! So don't change the subject or confuse faith with spiritual union. You claim that being "in Christ" by spiritual union is BY THE BAPTISM IN THE SPIRIT in fact your words were "being in Christ BY SPIRIT BAPTISM SAVES." Those are your words and that is your church salvation.

My view is we are "in Christ spiritually by regeneration in all ages" and NEVER by the baptism in the Spirit - NEVER!

It does not help you to say they looked forward by faith IF THEY WERE NOT IN SPIRITUAL UNION WITH CHRIST as that means they were SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED and thus SPIRITUALLY DEAD and incapable of faith (Rom. 8:7-9). Those "in the flesh" cannot please God (Rom. 8:8) and without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). So none "in the flesh" can have faith. If any man is "in the flesh" they are not "in the Spirit" and therefore are OUTSIDE OF CHRIST spiritually and SEPARATED from God spiritually and are SPIRITUALLY DEAD. So you view is self-contradictory.

Your view forces you to adopt Van's view of salvation prior to the cross. Your view denies gospel salvation is actual before Pentecost. Your view is necessitated by all who embrace Reformed Roman Catholic ecclesiology where church membership equals salvation in Christ. But you have no church, no baptism in the Spirit -prior to Pentecost as even your own position admits your church was begun on Pentecost with the baptism in the Spirit and so YOUR FALSE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION can't precede Pentecost. Your view requires/demands that conclusion.

Here is the post I would like you to deal with proving my view is wrong and providing scriptures to back up your view.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist,

There is but "one baptism" not TWO

Scripture speaks of at least three baptisms....in the NT.
mt3
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:

lk12;
49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

gal3;27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

and the ONLY baptism promised age long administration and it is the kind that men administer to other humans - Mt. 28:19-20. Try to disprove that fact!

No one questions believers baptism

Second, the baptism in the Spirit is a TIME LOCATED baptism "not many days hence" and a PLACE LOCATED baptism ("do not leave Jerusalem") and a FULFILLED baptism (Acts 11:15-16). So, now there is but "ONE baptism" - water baptism - Mt. 28:19-20

Because Spirit baptism was a once for all time event,does not mean it has disappeared. The cross was a one time event, but it has not disappeared.

Third, spiritual union is effected by new birth BEFORE Pentecost (Jn. 3) and AFTER Pentecost (Rom. 8:7-9) not by any kind of baptism whether "spirit" or "water."

Spiritual Union is the work of the Spirit.It is actual. When we are quickened all of it's benefits

These are three facts impossible to refute IF the Bible is our final authority. Those who suggest otherwise, can only protest, deny and assert THEIR OPINIONS but cannot HONESTLY and DIRECTLY deal with these three Biblical immutable facts.

[/QUOTE]

Your supposed facts do not deal with the issue at all. offering Mt 28 as if it is a news flash proves nothing on this question...everyone agrees with Mt 28....everyone agrees with acts 11....you suggest this is a unique idea to your theories...it is not.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist said: ↑

We are not talking about FAITH looking forward or backwards but about how one is "in Christ" by spiritual union!

Who is talking about faith? Ot.saints looked forward to the work of the promised seed...in whatever means he has purposed to accomplish redemption.
Ot saints did not have a full revelation of how it would be accomplished.
The Spirit of God has always been at work in God's people while here on earth.

Spirit Baptism has to do with God dealing with the whole Church throughout eternity.

The Church is not only dealt with as an institution and abstract.

The Church is made up of of individual living stones indwelt by the Spirit,a and yet corporately are identified as the temple of God in 1 cor3.

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

in eph3
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.

14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

So don't change the subject or confuse faith with spiritual union.

It is you who introduced the idea along with several other strawmen and red herrings.

You claim that being "in Christ" by spiritual union is BY THE BAPTISM IN THE SPIRIT in fact your words were "being in Christ BY SPIRIT BAPTISM SAVES."

There is one common bond that unites all the elect from all time and places them into the eternal body of Christ, that is Spirit baptism. All of the benefits of the work of the cross are conferred upon all the elect at one point in time. What was planned and certain before the world was , is made actual upon the completion of the cross work being applied as the covering over all of the elect as they are quickened by the Spirit of God.

Water baptism does not do that. It can only point to the unseen work of the Spirit which I said earlier.
You would dispense with this and ascribe magical powers to water baptism.

Those are your words and that is your church salvation.

Strawman

My view is we are "in Christ spiritually by regeneration in all ages" and NEVER by the baptism in the Spirit - NEVER!

This is your opinion...not proven by scripture anywhere. While men are regenerated by the work of the Spirit in all ages.....and enabled to welcome and receive the word, no where does it say that it is the means of placing us "in Christ"

It does not help you to say they looked forward by faith IF THEY WERE NOT IN SPIRITUAL UNION WITH CHRIST as that means they were SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED and thus SPIRITUALLY DEAD and incapable of faith (Rom. 8:7-9). Those "in the flesh" cannot please God (Rom. 8:8) and without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). So none "in the flesh" can have faith. If any man is "in the flesh" they are not "in the Spirit"

strawman 2...no one said unsaved men can please God. Now you want to blend the terms....was Noah in Spiritual Union with Christ when he did not even know who He was ?
When can Noah and all other ot saints to be said to be found In Christ?
What means did God use once and for all time to insure that outcome?

and therefore are OUTSIDE OF CHRIST spiritually and SEPARATED from God spiritually and are SPIRITUALLY DEAD. So you view is self-contradictory.

only when you try and put your spin on it.

Your view forces you to adopt Van's view of salvation prior to the cross.

strawman 3....if I agree with Van .....shoot me.

Your view denies gospel salvation is actual before Pentecost.

strawman 4

Your view is necessitated by all who embrace Reformed Roman Catholic ecclesiology where church membership equals salvation in Christ

.

strawman5....baptist bride people are much closer to RC view

But you have no church, no baptism in the Spirit -prior to Pentecost as even your own position admits your church was begun on Pentecost with the baptism in the Spirit and so YOUR FALSE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION can't precede Pentecost. Your view requires/demands that conclusion.

strawman 6

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist said: ↑



Who is talking about faith? Ot.saints looked forward to the work of the promised seed...in whatever means he has purposed to accomplish redemption.

Ot saints did not have a full revelation of how it would be accomplished.

The Spirit of God has always been at work in God's people while here on earth.


Spirit Baptism has to do with God dealing with the whole Church throughout eternity.

How can you be so dishonest with me and with God’s Word. Nobody denies the Spirit has been at work in God’s people while here on earth from Genesis to Acts 1, but scripture denies the baptizing work of the Spirit preceded Acts 2:

1. Mt 3:11 – FUTURE TENSE “shall baptized”
   
   
2. Acts 1:5 – FUTURE “not many days hence”

So the basis for your whole position, the basis for your whole post, which is all the elect from Genesis to Revelation are saved in Christ by the baptism in the Spirit is FALSE as the baptism in the Spirit NEVER existed previous to Pentecost.

So, every single one of your accusations of "Strawman" are false, because they are all based upon you proving that the BAPTIZING WORK of the Spirit preceded Pentecost which is FALSE! You are being dishonest and intentionally deceptive by claiming the generic "work" of the Spirit preceded Pentecost when we are not discussing the regenerating or filling or sealing, or empowering, or fruits, or equipping, or etc., but we are discussing being BAPTIZED IN THE SPIRIT before Pentecost - so either put up scriptural evidence that this particular work preceded Pentecost or shut up!

IF YOU DISAGREE PROVIDE SCRIPTURE THAT EXPLICTLY STATES THE SPECIFIC BAPTIZING WORK OF THE SPIRIT PRECEDED ACTS 2 or admit you are wrong!

 

[The Biblicist]

The Church is not only dealt with as an institution and abstract.


The Church is made up of of individual living stones indwelt by the Spirit,a and yet corporately are identified as the temple of God in 1 cor3.


16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?


17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, twhich temple ye are.

IN CONTEXT this text is describing the specific concrete congregation located at Corinth using abstract language.

1. This “temple of God” is “YE” not “WE”
   
   
2. This “temple of God” can be defiled (v. 16-17) “defile”
   
   
3. This “temple of God” had its foundation laid by Paul as the “masterbuilder” – v. 10s
   
   
4. This “temple of God” described the Corinthians –“ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.” Not “we are”.

Therefore, institutional indwelling is different than individual indwelling. It is the institution that was indwelt and baptized in the Spirit (public confirmation as the new "house of God") on Pentecost – Acts 1:21-22 with 2:1. They had been habitually assembling with Christ from the baptism of John (Acts 1:21-22) and they were all assembled together “in one accord in one place” on Pentecost as His congregation when that institution was immersed in the Spirit and 3000 were “added unto them….the church” (Acts 2:1, 40, 46).


Moreover, the church with the definite article did not exist prior to the life of Christ on earth as its “foundation” consists of only New Testament materials – Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28. The “foundation” refers to the BEGINNING of a structure.

There is no "church OF CHRIST" prior to Christ building it in his own earthly ministry (Mt. 16:18).

There is no baptism of the church of Christ prior to Pentecost - Mt. 3:11; Acts 1:5

You cannot possibly refute what I have just said by sound exegesis. You will only be able to GIVE YOUR OPINION or pit scripture against scripture, which is the hallmark of all ERROR.

 

[The Biblicist]

So, you don’t believe anyone was saved prior to Pentecost? There is no baptism in the Spirit prior to Pentecost and if being saved in Christ is "BY SPIRIT BAPTISM" then all before Pentecost are OUTSIDE of Christ and SPIRITUALLY DEAD - SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED FROM GOD. Every reference to the baptism in the Spirit prior to Pentecost is future and every reference after Pentecost refers to it in the past (Acts 11:15-16).


You said “being found in Christ BY SPIRIT BAPTISM SAVES.” Therefore, none prior to Pentecost could be saved? None could be in Christ? Is there salvation OUTSIDE of Christ prior to Pentecost? Hence, all died between Genesis and Acts 2 died OUTSIDE of Christ and thus died SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED from God and Christ. Spiritual separation is what the Bible calls SPIRITUAL DEATH and so you believe all who died between Genesis and Acts 2 were SPIRITUALLY DEAD when they were alive and when they left their bodies they were SPIRITUALLY DEAD SPIRITS separated from God. Don’t try to deny it because your belief that salvation in Christ is “BY SPIRIT BAPTISM” FORCES you to that conclusion. Your doctrine forces you to claim there is ANOTHER GOSPEL, another way of salvation OUTSIDE of Christ in a SPIRITUAL DEAD SEPARATED state for all who lived and died between Genesis and Acts 2:1.


Now, that is “complete nonsense”! That is where your church salvation leads you!

I have reposted this post because until Iconoclast or any who take his position can PRODUCE ANY SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE THAT THE BAPTIZING WORK OF CHRIST IN THE SPIRIT PRECEDED PENTECOST this post stands irrefutable.

Again, if being saved "in Christ" is BY BEING BAPTIZED IN THE SPIRIT then one must prove that baptism in the Spirit preceded Pentecost or else none could be saved prior to Pentecost IF this view of the baptism in the Spirit is scriptural. It is not scriptural. It is a false view of the baptism in the Spirit as much as the Charismatic view is a false view of the baptism in the Spirit.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

4. There is absolutely no record of Christ being rebaptized, or the apostles or any of his disciples ever being rebaptized.

You take no account of Acts 2:41. 'Then those who gladly received His [Peter's] word were baptized, and that day about 3,000 souls were added to them.' Now we are told that 'Jerusalem, all Judea and all the region......' were baptized by John (Matthew 3:5-6). We allow for some hyperbole, but it must be the case that many of those 3,000 who were baptized at Pentecost had been previously baptized by John. Concerning the Apostles, there is much we don't know. Were Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot baptized by JTB? I don't know and nor do you. Were they re-baptized? Who can say? There is no record of them being baptized at all.

5. Those rebaptized 19-24 years later in Acts 19 could not have possibly been baptized by John as John preached about the Holy Spirit and these did not know about him, and John baptized in reference to faith in Christ (Acts 19:4 as John 3:36 explicitly and clearly asserts) but these were baptized in reference to John. It is only when they heard how John actually baptized in reference to Christ (Acts 19:4) did they seek rebaptism – the baptism of John administered now by the church and its authorized representatives (Paul and Silas).

Whether these people had been baptized personally by JTB or by one of his followers we cannot know, but we do know that on John's own account his baptism was not the same as that of the Lord Jesus. "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I........He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Matthew 3:11). Likewise Paul describes John's baptism in the same way: '"John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, the Christ." When they heard this they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 19:4-5). They realised, on the prompting of Paul, that John's baptism was somehow deficient.

 

[The Biblicist]

You take no account of Acts 2:41. 'Then those who gladly received His [Peter's] word were baptized, and that day about 3,000 souls were added to them.' Now we are told that 'Jerusalem, all Judea and all the region......' were baptized by John (Matthew 3:5-6). We allow for some hyperbole, but it must be the case that many of those 3,000 who were baptized at Pentecost had been previously baptized by John. Concerning the Apostles, there is much we don't know. Were Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot baptized by JTB? I don't know and nor do you. Were they re-baptized? Who can say? There is no record of them being baptized at all.

Like much of our discussion in the past you rely on SILENCE and INFERENCES to overthrow plain and explicit scriptures like Lk.7:29-30; JN.4 :1-2; Acts 1:21-22 and especially Mt. 28:19-20 where no other possible baptism existed or could be included in the "have" commanded administration of Johns' baptism directly under Christ's authority in Jn. 4:1-2.

Your view invalidates God even sending John to introduce believers baptism. It invalidates the multitude baptized by him. Jesus is said to have baptized MORE than John (Jn. 4:1-2) and your theory invalidates all of those baptism. Your theory makes the "counsel of God" (Lk. 7:29)look foolish as it ends up to be worthless and need of replacement.

hether these people had been baptized personally by JTB or by one of his followers we cannot know, but we do know that on John's own account his baptism was not the same as that of the Lord Jesus. "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I........He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Matthew 3:11).

NOT TRUE as JTB is discussing a baptism that is NOT IN WATER in Matthew 3:11 whereas Jesus administered baptism in water in John 4:1-2 through his disciples and commanded baptism in water in Matthew 28:19-20 which refers to baptism in water they "HAVE" already been commanded as in Jn. 4:1-2 and Lk. 7:29-30

Likewise Paul describes John's baptism in the same way: '"John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, the Christ." When they heard this they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 19:4-5). They realised, on the prompting of Paul, that John's baptism was some deficient.

NOT TRUE as there baptism was not John's baptism as JTB preached the Holy Spirit and the baptism in the Spirit which these disciples KNEW NOTHING. When they heard their baptism was not the baptism of John as described by Paul in verse 4, they knew they without Great Commission water baptism, which again could only be John's baptism as no other existed when the commission was given and no other was possible to be included in the "have" commanded you of this commission (jn. 4:1-2; Lk. 7:29-30).

In addition, the Great commission gospel is presented by Luke as preaching "Repentance" (Lk. 24:47) and therefore any baptism following it would identify with that gospel of repentance, making it the "baptism of repentance" or gospel baptism (mt. 3:8).

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist,



Scripture speaks of at least three baptisms....in the NT.
mt3
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:

lk12;
49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

gal3;27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Yes, but there is still but "one baptism" with regard to the church and the Great commission and the "one baptism" follows the "one faith" in Ephesians 4:5 just as it does in Mk 16:15-16.

Moreover, you don't have baptism in the Spirit prior to PENTECOST thus proving that the only baptism related to "one faith" can only be water baptism BECAUSE otherwise you have to demonstrate that same relationship prior to Pentecost and THAT CANNOT BE DONE using scripture.

Because Spirit baptism was a once for all time event,does not mean it has disappeared. The cross was a one time event, but it has not disappeared.

But unless you believe in transubstantiation it is NOT REPEATED EITHER! Your doctrine demands it is repeated.

Second, the fact that it is a one time event proves THE EVENT did not precede Pentecost but the event of personal salvation did precede Pentecost.

Third, it is THE EVENT that your doctrine requires for an individual to be "in Christ" as your doctrine demands they are "In CHrist" BY THE ACTION/EVENT of baptism.

Spiritual Union is the work of the Spirit.It is actual. When we are quickened all of it's benefits

No one disputes that, but the Bible does not call that work the baptism in the Spirit, but calls it REGENERATION.

Your supposed facts do not deal with the issue at all.

They are irrefutable facts and totally annihilate your doctrine by exposing it as unscriptural, thus a FALSE doctrine that actually perverts the gospel of Christ BECAUSE it demands some other way of salvation before Pentecost OUTSIDE of Christ OR condemning all pre-Pentecost people as spiritually dead - spiritually separated from God.