Featured Strange Fire

You are not! You believe that an assembly of unbaptized persons (infants with adults) is a true ekklesia as much as one of immersed believers and you have consistently defended that error. Collins is denying the very thing you are defending.

You are one very confused man. You would make an excellent Roman Catholic Priest but not a Baptist. Salvation is not the only requirement to be a true assembly of Christ, however, that is precisely what you are arguing. You don't distinguish between salvation and church membership. If the Bible only demanded salvation to be a member of New Testament congregations you would have a point. but from the Great Commission to every application to the congregations found in the New Testament, Biblical baptism is also required as a prerequisite for membership. Where there is no scriptural baptism there is no true congregation of Christ is the consistent teaching of both Biblical precept and example of the New Testament. As far as I am concerned you are a Protestant Reformed Catholic in ecclesiology and not a Baptist by any stretch of the imagination.

 

You are kidding right? The explanation fits perfectly. Jesus was led by the Spirit or came to that area by following the leadership of the Spirit, meaning his mind was under the controlling influence of the Spirit. Likewise, Peter mouth was under the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit gave him the words to speak.

However, your addition "being brought under" does not convey my meaning as it is a willful surrender rather than any kind of forced surrender as your explanation may infer.

Second, you have proved my point by providing a pre and post Pentecost account of being filled, while the baptism in the Spirit is always a FUTURE PREDICTIVE prior to Pentecost. Now, see if your view fits, find any pre-Pentecost example of any individual baptized in the Spirit.

 

Below you claim to take in the "evidence as a whole" but willing ignore that John the Baptist clearly taught that repentance was accompanied with faith in Christ as John 3:36 and Acts 19:4 explicitly demand this. Your evidence here is nothing but silence and assumptions without a shred of hard facts. You have NOTHING but your own vivid imagination you are reading into the text (eisgesis).

Read on and see what Jesus said about John at this very moment! Jesus thought much more highly of John at this very moment of weakness than you do.

You have NOTHING but presumption based on absolute silence again as you READ INTO the text what you want rather than what it says, but not honest enough to admit it as you are being driven to defend your false doctrine.

Not a word in this text or context that these had been baptized by John or by the disciples of Jesus. You are again READING INTO the text what it neither says or even suggests, but not honest enough to admit it as you are being driven to defend your false doctrine.

I

Those John baptized repented and confessed faith in Christ but there is not even a hint in these passages that these are John's or Jesus disciples. Again you are READING INTO the text what it neither says or suggest but not honest enough to admit it as you are being driven to defend your false doctrine.

John 20 tells you they were hiding for fear of the Jews. Acts 1:15-26 tells you where they are. You are grasping at not even straws but thin air and desperately trying to READ INTO any scripture what is not there but simply exists in your vain imagination.

Your whole defense is nothing but absolute foolishness based upon pure silence and forced interpretation but you are too proud to admit it because you are driven to defend what has no defense.

Any objective reader of your so-called "evidence" will find NOTHING but what you choose to READ INTO every text you have offered as not a single text you have offered even remotely suggests what you are forcing upon it.

It would either take an absolutely stupid person or one full of bias to even consider your "facts" as anything but pure eisegesis built wholly upon pure silence.

Hardly, as the only comment I made about the text was the call to repentance and those whom John and Jesus (through his disciples) had baptized already repented and already believed in Christ.

This is such an absurd statement it is almost beneath the dignity of even responding to such nonsense. John was "filled" with the Spirit and operated under the same power as Elijah as he came in the POWER of Elijah.

Lu 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Tell me Martin what kind of power does it take to "turn the hearts" of people???? He preached in that kind of power. So don't give this absolute nonsense that John's ministry was without the power of the holy Spirit in changing lives.

Provide one text that says the church began on Pentecost - just one? My bible says the 3000 were "added unto them" and the "them" are those who were united and assembled in one place (Acts 2:1) who already had a church business meeting in Acts 1:15-26 and installed another man into the "church" office of apostle as the apostles were set first in the church (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20) and that was BEFORE Pentecost.

 

It is no insult or bluster to call a cat a cat or a dog a dog or a horse a horse because that is what it is. Your ecclesiology is Reformed Roman Catholic not Baptist. Just because a person chooses to call themselves a "Baptist" or a "Methodist" means nothing as it is their doctrine and practice that defines them. Your doctrine is not Biblical and thus not "baptist."

 

Here is evidenced based upon clear scripture unlike Martin's evidence that is completely silent concernling the very point he is wishing to make as not a single text he uses even suggests much less states anything remotely near what he attempts to READ INTO it.


Acts 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

1. Note the contrast between the audience and those speaking.

a. The audience defines "all" who are speaking to them as Galileans or those who live INSIDE Palestine.

b. The audience identify themselves as those who live OUTSIDE Palestine "every man in OUR OWN TONGUE" and then give the names of the countries they came from.

c. These are males who have come INTO palestine into Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover and Pentecost as commanded by Moses.

d. These are the ones being addressed by Peter

e. These are the ones that Peter charges with crucifying Christ as they were present during the crucifixion.

f. These are the ones that asked Peter what they must do (Acts 2:37)

g. These are the ones that Peter responds to that very question calling on them to repent.

h. These are not the disciples of John the Baptist who had been baptized by John IN Palestine over a year ago.

i. These are not the disciples of Christ who had been baptized IN Palestine long before the Passover.

CONCLUSION: Martin ignores the explicit contextual identity provided in the context and READS INTO this text what it neither says or even suggests but adamantly demands to be contrary to his whole theory.

2. The ONLY possible baptism existing when the Great Commission was given was the baptism of John. The ONLY possible baptism which Christ could "HAVE" commanded (Mt. 28:20) was the baptism of John. Thus, the only baptism promised to be administered by men to other men to the end of the age is the baptism of John.

a. There is no mention of any kind of new water baptism between Mt. 28:19 and Acts 2

b. There is no mention of anyone having to be rebaptized prior to Acts 2

c. The term "Christian" is never used to distinguish baptism after Pentecost from baptism before
Pentecost.


3. The rebaptism 20 years later in Acts 19 was not administered by John the Baptist.

a. John could not have possibly baptized them as they lived 20 years or more after the ministry of
John the Baptist and they are spoken of as newly found disciples in Ephesus.

b. John preached the Holy Spirit but these did not even know about Him.

c. They were asked "unto" (Gr. eis "into" "in" with reference to) WHOM or "what person" (Gr. autous "he" "him" ) were they baptized. They replied "unto" (Gr. eis "into" in" with reference to) John (John's name stands first in the text a the immediate object of the preposition) or a baptism characterized by John (anathrous construct can convey characterization).

d. However, John baptized "unto" (Gr. eis "into" "in" with reference to) Christ not in reference to himself. When they hear that John did not baptism "eis" with reference to himself but to Christ, they realized they did not have John's baptism.

CONCLUSION: This cannot be used as a proof text against the baptism of John as Paul corrects them about the very nature of John's baptism. Moreover, Paul demands that John required both repentance and faith in Christ as John's own words demand in John 3;36.

Now I have provided actual contextual based facts in contrast to Martin's texts which say NOTHING about the very point he is trying to prove but contradict the above facts.

 

Ok, my oversight but willful surrender was my intent.

No, no, no, we can't have any meaningful conversation when you totally ignore the response I gave to your challenge. I said NOTHING about the kingdom of God being different than the kingdom of heaven.

B

I most certainly did tell you and told you in plain language in post #60 and here it is repeated:

You know by the manifest fruit (Gal. 5:16-23). Of course, Satan can counterfeit such fruit to a certain superficial point, so in some cases you might not be able to know for sure.

One thing is certain, if one is under the leadership of the Spirit their words and actions will conform to the Scriptures and that is one way of knowing.

 

No, the reason is that you keep avoiding the real issue. There is no baptism in the Spirit prior to Pentecost. Every single text on the baptism in the Spirit prior to Pentecost is future tense. There are no present tense applications of the baptism in the Spirit prior to Pentecost. However, filling of the Spirit can be found prior to Pentecost and there present tense applications of filling. THIS IS YOUR PROBLEM which you refuse to deal with but nevertheless is an indisputable Biblical fact that destroys your whole contention.

Yes, it most certainly is the proper response as not all Christians act like Christians and no Christian acts like a Christian apart from the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 7:14-25; Gal. 5:17). Filling is a command (Eph. 5:18) whereas there is no command to seek or be baptized in the Holy Spirit either before or after Pentecost.

You are confusing me with someone else. No man can come to Christ except they are given to him by divine election and internal drawn to him by the Spirit (Jn. 6:37-39; 44). The human will is a slave to sin in the unregenerate (Rom. 8:7) and most importantly for our discussion the human will in the saved is POWERLESS to overcome indwelling sin in the regenerate (Rom. 7:18; Philip. 2:13) as "without me ye can do nothing."

You are wholly mistaken

Try your theory out at the gas station next time you are in town. Tell the gas attendent to immerse your gas tank in gas until it is filled!!

Again you are avoiding the Biblical facts that the baptism in the Spirit prior to Pentecost is ALWAYS future tense - ALWAYS while the filling is a present action prior to Pentecost. Sorry, but you simply can't rewrite the Scriptures.

To be "full of the Holy Spirit" is to be EMPTY of self-will, and self-dependence leaning wholly upon the Spirit's power, wisdom, guidance as manifested in the believers words and actions. If you can't understand this, you need to go back to sunday school and learn the basics.

 

You have no point! You are speaking of one of many results of filling not the only result. In Ephesians 5:18 the contextual manifestation is SUBMISSION - Eph. 5:18-6:9 - submission to one another, submission to your husband, submission to your parents, submission to your employer or master.

Ephesians 5:18 uses the imperative mode making it a command. It is synonymous with walking in the Spirit. This is not an option. Tell me, are you obedient to this command and do you manifest supernatural powers at all times??????

 

So please explain the difference between a glass FULL of water and a glass that has been FILLED with water?

You are reversing the cause and effect order found in the context. Singing, actions and submission are the effects of being full/filled with the Spirit not the causes for obtaining it.

I never said it was a formula for being filled, but what I said it is a command as it is found in the imperative mode. When you are not filled/full of the Spirit you are filled/full of yourself.

So, again, performing miracles are just one of many effects of being "filled/full" of the Spirit, Just as "singing" in the Spirit, submitting to authorities, manifesting the fruit of the Spirit, preaching and teaching God's word in power and in truth, etc.