Featured The Baptism With the Holy Ghost

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



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

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

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


Romans 8:9-10

King James Version (KJV)


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

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


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

That is salvation in Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


God bless.

 

That is it precisely.

Agreed.

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

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




God bless.

 

Not until they have children. lol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Malachi 3:16

King James Version (KJV)

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


Hope everyone has a blessed day.


God bless.

 

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


God bless.

 

Presented for discussion:


1 Corinthians 12:13

King James Version (KJV)

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


Water baptism, or Baptism with the Holy Ghost?


God bless.

 

Thanks for participating, Biblicist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


John 7:38-39

King James Version (KJV)

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

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


Again, thanks for the participation.


God bless.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


1 Peter 2

King James Version (KJV)


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

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

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

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

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



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

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


Continued...

 

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

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

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

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

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


John 3:36

King James Version (KJV)

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


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

And let's look at the second quote:


Acts 19

King James Version (KJV)


4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.


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

...?

So one can be this...

...but not Baptized with the Holy Ghost?

I will wait for you to clarify your statement.


Continued...

 

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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


They were not "already baptized believers.

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

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

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

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


John 4

King James Version (KJV)

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

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


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

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


1 Corinthians 1:12-14

King James Version (KJV)


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


1 Corinthians 12:13

King James Version (KJV)

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


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

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


Continued...