Strange Fire

[Martin Marprelate]

How much error is necessary before you would call an erring brother "wrong?"

Rat poison is mostly good wholesome corn. The actual poison is only about 1% of the total.

Would 1% heresy be enough to criticize an erring brother?

Calling someone wrong is not the same as disfellowshipping him. I will and do tell paedobaptists they're wrong, but I won't refuse to call them a church.
'And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth' (2 Timothy 2:24-25).

 

[Yeshua1]

Martin, as far as I am concerned you are anything but a Baptist in the Biblical sense of the word. For any Baptist to respond this way is a clear indication they don't belong among Baptists.

His point is well taken, as since he is a reformed Baptist, would hold to believers baptism...

He would also realise that despire their misunderstanding of baptism, that there are Christians who practice infant Baptism, do you agree with us on that?

 

[TCassidy]

Calling someone wrong is not the same as disfellowshipping him.

2 John 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (the teachings of Christ), receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Did Christ teach believers baptism or infant sprinkling? If they don't teach what Christ taught we are to have no fellowship with them or we become partakers of their evil deeds.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

2 John 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (the teachings of Christ), receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Did Christ teach believers baptism or infant sprinkling? If they don't teach what Christ taught we are to have no fellowship with them or we become partakers of their evil deeds.

You know better than this, Mr Cassidy.
In the context of 2 John 7, the 'doctrine of Christ' is the doctrine about or concerning Christ (objective rather than subjective genitive). Specifically it concerned the false doctrine of Docetism- that the Lord Jesus was not a real Man but only 'seemed' to be so, and that He did not suffer in the flesh for our sins. We can certainly widen this out a bit to cover His Divinity, atoning death, resurrection, ascension etc.. We can have no fellowship with either people or churches that deny such essential and fundamental doctrines (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:12-19). But while a correct understanding of baptism is important, and we should certainly be promoting and teaching it, I have no intention of shunning paedobaptists but rather to show them the 'more excellent way.'

 

[The Biblicist]

You know better than this, Mr Cassidy.
In the context of 2 John 7, the 'doctrine of Christ' is the doctrine about or concerning Christ (objective rather than subjective genitive). Specifically it concerned the false doctrine of Docetism- that the Lord Jesus was not a real Man but only 'seemed' to be so, and that He did not suffer in the flesh for our sins. We can certainly widen this out a bit to cover His Divinity, atoning death, resurrection, ascension etc.. We can have no fellowship with either people or churches that deny such essential and fundamental doctrines (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:12-19). But while a correct understanding of baptism is important, and we should certainly be promoting and teaching it, I have no intention of shunning paedobaptists but rather to show them the 'more excellent way.'

You know better than this Bro. Martin as it includes precisely what you have said but MUCH MORE as the "doctrine of Christ" ultimate includes "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Mt. 28:20) and is synonymous with "the apostles doctrine" (Acts 2:41) and "the faith once delivered" (Jude 3) so that members of the congregations would not be "tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:13-14) and "the doctrine" (Rom. 16:17) and "The doctrine of Christ" (Heb. 6:1), and "the tradition" (2 Thes. 3:6).

 

[percho]

It just hit me. Is the following fire from heaven relative to public worship in the NT, "the house of God"? And is it the only means/guide in conjunction with the word, for true worship?

Acts 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship himin spirit and in truth. John 4:23,24
Even the Spiritoftruth; 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. John 14:17 also 15:26, 16:13 & 1 John 4:6 -- 16:13 very interesting relative to some posts in this thread. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

 

[The Biblicist]

It just hit me. Is the following fire from heaven relative to public worship in the NT, "the house of God"? And is it the only means/guide in conjunction with the word, for true worship?

Acts 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship himin spirit and in truth. John 4:23,24
Even the Spiritoftruth; 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. John 14:17 also 15:26, 16:13 & 1 John 4:6 -- 16:13 very interesting relative to some posts in this thread. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

First, there actually appeared "tongues like as of fire" which actually did "sat upon each of them." This was never repeated again (except at the house of Cornelius). In the Old Testament God sent fire once at the beginning of every new house of God, that fire kindled the wood upon the altar.

Second, that fire was to be kept burning, not by God, but by the human administrators in the house of God. The continuing fire symbolized the truth of God due to the continuing human conformation to the divine pattern. What makes the ekklesia of Christ the "House of God" and pillar and ground of the truth is its continuation IN TRUTH revealed in the New Testament pattern.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You know better than this Bro. Martin as it includes precisely what you have said but MUCH MORE as the "doctrine of Christ" ultimate includes "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Mt. 28:20) and is synonymous with "the apostles doctrine" (Acts 2:41) and "the faith once delivered" (Jude 3) so that members of the congregations would not be "tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:13-14) and "the doctrine" (Rom. 16:17) and "The doctrine of Christ" (Heb. 6:1), and "the tradition" (2 Thes. 3:6).

Like Mr Cassidy, you are ignoring the context of 2 John. You may imagine that John was including all these things so that you can describe paedobaptists as 'deceivers and antichrist,' but verse 7 makes it clear what he meant.

'By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God' (1 John 4:2).

 

[TCassidy]

Like Mr Cassidy, you are ignoring the context of 2 John.

I have a question. You accuse me of ignoring the context because I see a broader meaning of "the doctrine of Christ?"

Or because I disagree with you?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have a question. You accuse me of ignoring the context because I see a broader meaning of "the doctrine of Christ?"

Or because I disagree with you?

Because you are ignoring the context. A text without a context is a pretext.

 

[The Biblicist]

Like Mr Cassidy, you are ignoring the context of 2 John. You may imagine that John was including all these things so that you can describe paedobaptists as 'deceivers and antichrist,' but verse 7 makes it clear what he meant.

'By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God' (1 John 4:2).

That is a proper application of "the doctrine of Christ" as is Hebrews 6:1 but neither exhaust "the doctrine of Christ."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That is a proper application of "the doctrine of Christ" as is Hebrews 6:1 but neither exhaust "the doctrine of Christ."

Where is the head-banging smilie? The context of Hebrews 6:1 is quite different to that of 2 John 9 and TCassidy did not mention Heb 6:1.

 

[The Biblicist]

Where is the head-banging smilie? The context of Hebrews 6:1 is quite different to that of 2 John 9 and TCassidy did not mention Heb 6:1.

I was presenting my own view not T. Cassidy's. Yes, the context is different and that is my point!

 

[Yeshua1]

2 John 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (the teachings of Christ), receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Did Christ teach believers baptism or infant sprinkling? If they don't teach what Christ taught we are to have no fellowship with them or we become partakers of their evil deeds.

That would be an issue to be debated in house among Christians, but would not be an issue to divide over, as it is NOT an essential doctrine of the faith!

We agree on water Baptism as being required in order to be true to the Bible, just disagree on how it is to be administered and to whom!

And infant baptism itself does not mean one is lost, nor that church not a real one, just that on that issue they have wrong understanding!

 

[TCassidy]

NOT an essential doctrine of the faith!

What doctrines which Christ taught do you label as "NOT an essential?" And can you show me where He taught some of His doctrines were not essential? If they were not essential why did He teach them?

 

[The Biblicist]

That would be an issue to be debated in house among Christians, but would not be an issue to divide over, as it is NOT an essential doctrine of the faith!

We agree on water Baptism as being required in order to be true to the Bible, just disagree on how it is to be administered and to whom!

And infant baptism itself does not mean one is lost, nor that church not a real one, just that on that issue they have wrong understanding!

Who gave you authority to say the administrator, mode, design and candidate are not all essential to Scriptural baptism when both Scripture precept and example are clear on all accounts? And who gave you authority to designate as a "true" church what can't be found in scriptures and what both precept and examples in Scripture deny???

1. The designated Scriptural Administrator is the "ye" of the Great Commission - Mt. 28:19

Note that in the text there are THREE different people types. (1) all nations; (2) "ye" (3) "them". Christ did not authorize "all nations" (the lost) to administer baptism. Christ did not authorize "them" (saved but unbaptized and unchurched) people to administer baptism. He only authorized "ye" contextually defined as "disciples" (v. 16) who "HAVE" already been through this threefold process (evangelized, baptized, and assembled to observe all things commanded). The consistent example in the book of Acts and epistles is the administrator is a baptized believing CHURCH MEMBER. Any example where SILENCE exists cannot be used to overthrow precepts plus all other positive examples.

2. The designated mode is IMMERSION - as that is the meaning of the term used. Rantizo and epicheo are NEVER ONCE used to describe the mode of this ordinance - NEVER! Moreover, baptism is designed to be a "figure" of the death burial and resurrection - 1 Pet. 3:21. The value of a figure is that it provides the EXACT FORM to convey the truth it was designed to convey and to pervert the EXACT FORM is to pervert the truth it was designed to convey. Pouring and sprinking PERVERT THE GOSPEL TRUTH both in form and in administration to unregenerate infants and therefore are preachments of a FALSE GOSPEL. Congregations composed of such is congregation by constitution that declares a FALSE GOSPEL by its very application of water as the FORM is perverted and thus the truth it is designed to convey is a FALSE GOSPEL.

3. The designated design is SYMBOLIC identification with the gospel of Christ - 1 Pet. 3:21; Col. 2:11; Rom. 6:4-5.


4. The designated candidate is a repentant believer in Christ - Mt. 3:8; Mt. 28:19; Acts 2:40; 8:35-37

There is no church in the New Testament that is not constituted with materials with this kind of baptism - IT DOES NOT EXIST in the pages of the New Testament. The church is about SERVICE not salvation and the FIRST STEP of service is BIBLICAL baptism as any other thing merely gets a person wet.

Let me spell it out. If you were sprinkled or poured you just got wet and never were baptized and therefore YOU CANNOT BE A MEMBER OF ANY CHURCH IN THE PAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

If water was administered to you as an infant you just got wet and never were baptized and therefore YOU CANNOT BE A MEMBER OF ANY CHURCH IN THE PAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

If water was administered to you by a kid at the swimming pool or baptized yourself or were baptized by any other person than a scripturally baptized believing member of a N.T. congregation you just got wet and never were baptized and therefore YOU CANNOT BE A MEMBER OF ANY CHURCH IN THE PAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT as baptism makes you a FIT candidate for church membership.

If water was administered to you in order to LITERALLY remit sins or save you, then you just got wet and never were baptized and therefore YOU CANNOT BE A MEMBER OF ANY CHURCH IN THE PAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

And for anyone to complain on the basis that baptism is not required to be a Christian is stupid BECAUSE we are not talking about fitness to be a Christian but fitness to be a member of the Lord's churches and YOU CANNOT FIND ANY CHURCH in the new testament that received anyone lacking all four of these characteristics. So your view is based on SILENCE and in opposition to both precept and Biblical examples and we call that HERESY when dealing with any other doctrine in scripture and those who advance it as HERETICAL. Those who oppose the preceptsof the Trinity we call HERESY and those who advance it as HERETICAL. Any doctrine that opposes the clear precepts of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works as HERESY and those who advance it as HERETICAL. Those who advance a doctrine that opposes the clear precepts AND examples of Scriptural baptism are HERETIAL and their doctrine is HERESY.

 

[robycop3]

Bottom line is, Nadab & Abihu, for whatever reason, deliberately disobeyed God's clear command. Maybe they got up feeling lazy & already had a fire in front of them & decided not to make the trip to the altar to obtain embers from God's fire - I don't know.

But they, who shoulda known better, clearly disobeyed God & suffered the consequences.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Reformed and Pentecostal view of "the baptism in the Spirit" is strange fire. Neither one can harmonize with the Biblical description or five Biblical characteristics of the baptism in the Spirit:

1. The Proper administrative order:

a. The Administrator – “he shall baptize” = Christ
b. The Subject – “I baptize you in water but he shall baptize you” = plural water baptized believers
c. The element – “with (Gr. en = in) Spirit”


2. The Proper Candidates:

a. A plural “you” – plural pronoun
b. Water baptized “you” – “I baptize you in water”
c. Repentant believers “you” – “unto repentance”


3. The Restricted time and location

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. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. – Acts 1:4-5

a. The chosen place - "Jerualem"
b. The chosen time - "not many days hence...when Pentecost had fully come"


4. The Audible and Visible Characteristics

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. – Acts 2:1-3

a. It came AUDIBLY - "there came A SOUND..as a rushing mighty wind
b. It came VISUAL - "APPEARED....tongues like as fire


5. Not an individual repetitive action

The very same characteristics occurred at the house of Cornelius "the Holy Ghost fell on them, AS ON US at the beginning" - Acts 11:15.

The nearest reference point that Peter could identify the baptism in the Spirit of the house of Cornelius with was not the thousands that had been individually saved SINCE Pentecost but rather only "AT the beginning" or Pentecost proving it is not a repetitive individual act but a historical action just repeated at the house of Corneilius in keeping with its historical Old Testament design - CONFIRMATION as Peter and the Jews would not have baptized them, thus accepting them as EQUAL members in the congregational house of God.

The Reformed and Pentecostal views are "strange fire" because they pervert both salvation (Reformed) and sanctification (Pentecostal).

Pentecost was God’s attestation to the church that now and henceforth to the end of the age it was to be His chosen house of witness. It was simply the repetition of God’s action when the tabernacle was raised, Ex. 40:33-35, and when the temple was completed, II Chr. 5:13-14. Twice before this the Jews had seen and recorded God’s attestation and certification of a new house of worship. Without the events of Pentecost, most Jews would not have accepted the church as God’s house of witness, or had they done so, they would have considered it vastly inferior in glory to the tabernacle and the temple. This could never be. But who could doubt that a new economy had come in when the Lord repeated His certification. – Davis W. Huckabee, Studies on Church Truth, [Old Paths Tract Society, Inc., Shoals IN, 2002], Vol. 1, p. 26

A. Like the Tabernacle and Temple of the Old Testament, the church of the New Testament was established before it was accredited, credentialed, or filled by the Cloud of God’s approving glory…The church, therefore, was established in the days of Jesus sojourn in the flesh and the work of its construction was begun with the material prepared by John the Baptist, later the twelve apostle of our Lord; and at the close of his earthly ministry we find this little band in Jerusalem began to transact business by the election of a successor to Judas. Also they were assembled together to receive collectively the Holy Spirit, and then to them were added daily such as were being saved.

1. Three Old Testament types:

a. The Tabernacle was built before the Glory cloud filled it – Exodus 40:34-38

b. Solomon’s Temple was built before the Glory cloud filled it – 1 Kings 8:10-11.

c. Ezekiel’s Ideal Temple (after Solomon’s Temple was destroyed) was built before the Glory cloud filled it – Ezekiel 43:1-6; Danile 9:24; Joel 2:28-32.

B. The church was promised the abiding glory of the Holy Spirit – Matt. 3:11-12; Mark 16:17-18; John 1:33; 7:37-39; Acts 1:8

C. The church received the promise of the Holy Spirit – Genesis 11:1-9 cf. Joel 2:28-32.” – Richard Clearwaters, The Local Church of the New Testament [quoted by Davis W. Huckabee, Studies on Church Truth, Old Paths Tract Society, Inc., Shoals, IN 2002, pp. 26-27] pp. 25-26

 

[Yeshua1]

What doctrines which Christ taught do you label as "NOT an essential?" And can you show me where He taught some of His doctrines were not essential? If they were not essential why did He teach them?

The esentials of the faith would include Water Baptism, and as a Baptist, do think that how we view it to be done and what it represents is the correct biblical way, but would also say that if one understands the Bible to allow infant Baptising, that is NOT same as one denying jesus is God for example!

Like what Dr Mohler has wriiten on this, as he sees 3 classes of doctrines Christians agree with, and level one are the essentials of the Faith, as ALL must agree with them...

Level 2 would be like How to administer Water Baptism, if Spiritual gifys still exisr etc...

Level 3 like if KJVO is right, style of Worship etc...

 

[Aaron]

The Reformed and Pentecostal view of "the baptism in the Spirit" is strange fire. Neither one can harmonize with the Biblical description or five Biblical characteristics of the baptism in the Spirit:

1. The Proper administrative order:

a. The Administrator – “he shall baptize” = Christ
b. The Subject – “I baptize you in water but he shall baptize you” = plural water baptized believers
c. The element – “with (Gr. en = in) Spirit”


2. The Proper Candidates:

a. A plural “you” – plural pronoun
b. Water baptized “you” – “I baptize you in water”
c. Repentant believers “you” – “unto repentance”


3. The Restricted time and location

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. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. – Acts 1:4-5

a. The chosen place - "Jerualem"
b. The chosen time - "not many days hence...when Pentecost had fully come"


4. The Audible and Visible Characteristics

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. – Acts 2:1-3

a. It came AUDIBLY - "there came A SOUND..as a rushing mighty wind
b. It came VISUAL - "APPEARED....tongues like as fire


5. Not an individual repetitive action

The very same characteristics occurred at the house of Cornelius "the Holy Ghost fell on them, AS ON US at the beginning" - Acts 11:15.

The nearest reference point that Peter could identify the baptism in the Spirit of the house of Cornelius with was not the thousands that had been individually saved SINCE Pentecost but rather only "AT the beginning" or Pentecost proving it is not a repetitive individual act but a historical action just repeated at the house of Corneilius in keeping with its historical Old Testament design - CONFIRMATION as Peter and the Jews would not have baptized them, thus accepting them as EQUAL members in the congregational house of God.

The Reformed and Pentecostal views are "strange fire" because they pervert both salvation (Reformed) and sanctification (Pentecostal).

Pentecost was God’s attestation to the church that now and henceforth to the end of the age it was to be His chosen house of witness. It was simply the repetition of God’s action when the tabernacle was raised, Ex. 40:33-35, and when the temple was completed, II Chr. 5:13-14. Twice before this the Jews had seen and recorded God’s attestation and certification of a new house of worship. Without the events of Pentecost, most Jews would not have accepted the church as God’s house of witness, or had they done so, they would have considered it vastly inferior in glory to the tabernacle and the temple. This could never be. But who could doubt that a new economy had come in when the Lord repeated His certification. – Davis W. Huckabee, Studies on Church Truth, [Old Paths Tract Society, Inc., Shoals IN, 2002], Vol. 1, p. 26

A. Like the Tabernacle and Temple of the Old Testament, the church of the New Testament was established before it was accredited, credentialed, or filled by the Cloud of God’s approving glory…The church, therefore, was established in the days of Jesus sojourn in the flesh and the work of its construction was begun with the material prepared by John the Baptist, later the twelve apostle of our Lord; and at the close of his earthly ministry we find this little band in Jerusalem began to transact business by the election of a successor to Judas. Also they were assembled together to receive collectively the Holy Spirit, and then to them were added daily such as were being saved.

1. Three Old Testament types:

a. The Tabernacle was built before the Glory cloud filled it – Exodus 40:34-38

b. Solomon’s Temple was built before the Glory cloud filled it – 1 Kings 8:10-11.

c. Ezekiel’s Ideal Temple (after Solomon’s Temple was destroyed) was built before the Glory cloud filled it – Ezekiel 43:1-6; Danile 9:24; Joel 2:28-32.

B. The church was promised the abiding glory of the Holy Spirit – Matt. 3:11-12; Mark 16:17-18; John 1:33; 7:37-39; Acts 1:8

C. The church received the promise of the Holy Spirit – Genesis 11:1-9 cf. Joel 2:28-32.” – Richard Clearwaters, The Local Church of the New Testament [quoted by Davis W. Huckabee, Studies on Church Truth, Old Paths Tract Society, Inc., Shoals, IN 2002, pp. 26-27] pp. 25-26

Blah, blah, blah.

And yet one of the qualifications of a deacon was that he should be "full of the Holy Ghost."

[sarcasm]Oh, wait. There's a difference between filling and baptising, because we have to make the Scriptures fit our dry, legalistic and carnal experiences.[/sarcasm]