Featured Inter-Denominational Fellowship

Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; John 1:26; Acts 1:5; 11:16.

 

Your understanding of the texts is incorrect (for one thing, cf. Acts 19:6), but the point of my post was to show that there are in fact not fewer than two baptisms:

'I indeed baptize you with water......' That's one.
'He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.' That's at least two, and I think it is actually three.

So we then need to ask ourselves why Paul says that there is only one. But not now, because it's bed-time in Britain.

 

How in the world can his understanding be incorrect? All but Acts11 is future tense and prophetic and Acts 1:4-5 pinpoints not only the precise time but the precise place of fulfillment if words mean anything at all. He is correct concerning Acts 11 as well as the nearest point of reference Peter could identify the baptism in the Spirit was "at the beginning" of the Spirit's manifestation on Pentecost.However, thousands had been saved SINCE Pentecost and if this was an individualized baptism he would have this has been going on since the beginning but he did not say that.

Your interpretation of Acts 19:1-6 does not make sense. John the Baptist was not ignorant of the Holy Spirit and so they could not have possibly been baptized by him. John the Baptist did not baptize in reference to himself but as Paul says with reference to repentance AND Faith in Christ(v. 4).

The problem with Apollos and these 12 is almost the same except Apollos was not rebaptized. They both did not know of the baptism of the church in the Spirit, public accredation as the authorized administrator of the Great Commission confirmed by signs and wonders. Paul was a church sent missionary with authority to administer the ordinances and consitute churches and he reported back to his sending church after every missionary journey and submitted to their authority over him when back at his home church (Acts 15:1-3).

At the time Ephesians had been written there was but "one" baptism and it is the baptism that follows "one faith" or water baptism as water baptism is the ONLY baptism promised to the end of the age (Mt. 28:19-20) whereas baptism in the Spirit happened TWICE (ACs 2, 10) and NEVER AGAIN because it was not a repeating baptism, but a confirmation baptism of the new "house of God" as the house of public worship and administration of the ordinances. Once confirmed, there was no need to keep reaffirming.

Moreover, neither you or anyone on this forum as overturned or had a reasonable or rattional response that spiritual union is merely the reverse of spiritual separation and separation is death while union is life. Here it is again:

ALL "in Adam" are "in the flesh" BECAUSE they are "BORN of the flesh" which has its origin in being CREATED "in Adam."

ALL "in Christ" are "in the Spirit" BECAUSE they are "BORN of the flesh" which has its origin in being CREATED "in Christ" - Eph. 2:1-10.


The baptism in the Spirit as you interpret it is 4000 years too late to be the solution to spiritual separation from God.

The church is 4000 years too late for anyone between Genesis to Pentecost being in it as it cannot precede its own "foundation" composed FIRST of NT materials. Your theory simply vanishes into thin air when scripture is handled reasonably and exegetically corrrect.

This promise is NEVER made to anyone else but WATER baptized believers in Christ prior to Pentecost but that does not fit your theory so you ignore it.

 

Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin, I want to go back and make an observation on this part of your opening post, regarding the way this community church building concept worked here in East Texas (and much of the South, based on research in church minutes). There was an agreement or sort of fellowship in which the churches worked together in using the same building. Sometimes they might go in together to finance the building of it. People in the community might visit churches of the other denominations when they were meeting on the different weekends. BUT -- for the Baptists at least -- their internal operations, faith and practice were completely distinct from the other churches. For example, they might cooperate with the Methodists in sharing the same building, but if a member of the Baptist Church joined the Methodists, they were summarily excluded from the church for "departing from the faith" (the faith, as in set of beliefs, not as in personal faith in Jesus). With only rare exceptions -- e.g. "union churches" which shared a preacher, finances, etc. -- this is the way it worked around here.

 

Acts 11:44, 46. 'While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.........For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.'

Acts 19: 6. 'And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.'

If Acts 11 is the 'baptism of the Spirit' ('as upon us at the beginning'- v.15) then so is Acts 19. So there is at least one event that TCassidy did not mention.

But I want to look at JTB's words in Matthew 3:1-12. The context is very important. It is one of condemnation. 'But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Saducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance........"' Matthew gives the impression that these words were spoken only to the Pharisees and Saducees, but Luke makes it clear that the same words were spoken to the 'multitudes' (Luke 3:7-9). JTB continues (vs.10-11), "Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I indeed baptize you [in the context, the Pharisees and Saducees] with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with [literally 'in'] the Holy Spirit and fire."
So what is this 'Holy Spirit and fire'? Well look at v.10: "Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Then look at v.12: "His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Here are the two baptisms of the Lord Jesus Christ. His own people (the 'wheat') He will baptize in the Holy Spirit; the others (the 'chaff'- cf. Psalm 1:4-6) will end up in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15). There is, of course, only one baptism for the Christ's people: 'One Lord [Jesus Christ], one faith [in Him for salvation],one baptism' [by the Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit] The baptism spoken of in Ephesians 4:5 is not water baptism; water baptism pictures it.

 

Acts 18:25. 'This man [Apollos] had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in Spirit, he spoke accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John.'
Apollos had been accurately taught, but there was something he did not understand about baptism. We might argue about what it was, but surely we can agree that there was something about baptism that he was not clear about.

My only point here is that Aquilla and Priscilla did not ostracize him or debar him from the church at Ephesus on account of his faulty understanding. On the contrary, they helped him to a proper understanding (v.26).

My assumption (and it can only be an assumption because the Holy Spirit has not seen fit to tell us more) is that Apollos had been baptized correctly in a Trinitarian manner, and so it was not necessary or proper to re-baptize him. However, wrong teaching is like a game of Chinese whispers, and if, as I suspect, Apollos had taught the Ephesian 'disciples' of Acts 19, he had given them this baptism of John which was deficient in some way, and so Paul found it necessary to re-baptize them The 'sign gifts' that came upon these disciples after their baptism was a reassurance to both them and Paul that he and they had done the right thing.

 

Let us be true to the texts. The first text in Acts 11 is specifically identified as the baptism in the Spirit while the second is not specfically defined as the baptism in the Spirit and for good reasons as I will now explain.

On the day of Pentecost the baptism in the Spirit is described in Acts 2:1-3 while tongues was in addition to it as was being "filled" with the Spirit.

I just want to now explain the baptism in the Spirit from my perspective so you will see why I disagree with you, so just humor me for right now and follow my line of thinking.

1. If the baptism in the Spirit is the same thing that had previously occurred to the tabernacle in Exodus 40:35 AFTER it was completed, and to the Temple in 2 Chron. 7:1-3 AFTER it was completed and now to the church of God in Acts 2:1-3 AFTER it was completed, then it would have been necessary to prove to Israel that a new house of God had been completed to replace the temple as the public house of worship or else they would not accept it as a new "house of God."

2.God repeated this divine authentication upon the BELIEVING Gentiles BECAUSE believing Gentiles in the former "house of God" were divided from believing Jews by a "middle wall of separation" but God required in his new house of public worship for believing Gentiles to be "added unto them" exactly as described in Acts 2:40-41 on EQUAL BASIS thus removing the "middle wall of partitition" that was errected between believing Gentiles and believing jews in the former house of God so water baptism could be administered to them bring them to church membership, and this explains Peter's question "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized"

3. The gift of tongues and being "filled" with the Spirit was in ADDITION to the baptism in the Spirit and the gift of tongues was designed to be THE SIGN TO THE JEWS that their Messiah had come, rather than preaching a gospel that he is yet to come. When the believing Gentiles manifested this sign gift it was for THE JEWS PRESENT as an additional confirmation that God accepted them as equal members in the new house of God whose mission was FIRST to the Jews (Jerusalem, Judaea..) and then to the Samaritans and Gentiles.,God did this for the JEWS present to let them know they ought to receive them into church membership and on an equal basis or else they NEVER WOULD.

4. Hence, the immersion in the Spirit was a ONE time event upon the new house of God as it had been a ONE time event on every previous house of God, but the exception was to confirm Gentiles on an equal basis in this house of God. Tongues along with other sign gifts were the CONTINUING affirmation of this baptized in the Spirit house of God until the purpose of tongues ceased by the rejection of Israel as a nation of their Messiah and the purpose of other sign gifts ceased with the completion of the Biblical canon.

Notice, that it is not "tongues" alone that occurs in Acts 19:6 but also the sign gift of "prophecy" both as confirmation of idenity with the new baptized house of God in the Spirit. There is no further mention of any repeated baptism but only the repetition of SIGN gifts that characterized the true churches of God until Israel rejected the messiah and the biblical canon was completed.

Acts 19: 6. 'And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues AND PROPHESIED."

Conclusion: Your view requires the repetition of the baptism in the Spirit as much as the repetition of tongues. However, with regard to the baptism in the Spirit the nearest reference point Peter could offer was "at the beginning" upon the church whereas for the gift of tongues that was a continuing ministry toward the Jews. Also the very same language used for the baptism in the Spirit is repeatedly used from Matthew 3:11 to Acts 11:15-16. However, after Acts 11:15-16 we never hear this same descriptive language ever again in Scripture.

Martin the languague is clear in all passages that two distinct groups of people are before him. There are those standing before him whom he had baptized in water professing their sins and faith in Christ (Messiah - Jn. 3:36; Acts 19:4). There were those who rejected his gospel and gospel ordinance whose end would be firey destruction by being immersed in the Lake of Fire. Hence, he was preaching the typical Jn. 3:16 message - believe and have eternal life OR PERISH!

However, you are failing to see that the baptism in the Spirit is directed ONLY to water baptized believers in Christ "I baptized YOU with water, but he shall baptize YOU.." On the day of Pentecost the only recipients were those baptized believers in Christ (Acts 1:21-22; 2:1).

Martin, the baptism in fire was never a baptism connected with water baptized beleivers in Christ but Ephesians 4:5 is about "one baptism" connected with water baptized beleivers in Christ in the congregation at Ephesus and other NT. congregations. The only baptism of PROMISE that endures to the end of the age is water baptism in the Great Commission. No other baptism is PROMISED to endure to the end of the age.

The baptism in the Spirit was only promised to "water baptized beleivers in Christ" and it is impossible to deny that for every single text from Mt. 3:11 to Acts 2:1 proves they were the only objects of this baptism - already saved people - already water baptized people. The one exception is in Acts 11 BECAUSE without that baptism in the Spirit Peter and the church at Jerusalem would NEVER have baptized them in water and accepted them EQUALLY as members in NT. congregations but would have regarded them as SECOND class people of God. So there is but "ONE BAPTISM" for NT Christianity as characterized in the New Testament Scriptures - water baptism.

 

However, if the proper interpertation of this passage is embraced your whole argument not only vanishes but is proven to be false.

Your whole argument assumes there was a problem with his baptism when there was no problem with his baptism at all as he was never rebaptized. The problem was with his knowledge as he "knew ONLY" about water baptism but did not know about the baptism of a new house of God in the Spirit which authorized that new house of God as the only authorized administrator of the ordinances and maker of disciples through a three fold Great Commission process. Once instructed in that, his self-authorized ministry ceased, he joined the disciples or the congegation at Ephesus and after a sufficient time they gave him a letter of recommendation to the church at Corinth.

 

You have not read my post. I specifically said that there was NO problem with his baptism. His problem was with his understanding of baptism. 'He knew only the baptism of John.'

 

No, he had no misunderstanding about WATER baptism at all. He did not understand that there was another baptism not of water that authenticated the proper administrator of water baptism which was not him, but the church

 

When? date and time? Empty accusation. How about providing actual proof, you don't even provide fake proof.

If it was never the church it was never to be "reformed".

There is a church started by Jesus Christ PERIOD. Whether its packed with sinners and thieves or angels and saints, is not my concern.

You folks would argue a person CAN'T "seal its doom" only God can. That a person has to accept the GOOD WORK of preaching the truth or accepting "God sent reformation"


It doesn't matter if we went corrupt EVEN by your standards so what if the church "backslid".

Our CHURCH <--"once saved always saved" on your own standard.

Its your own condemnation and ideas flipping back on you!

 

Nobody denies the church at Rome was not at one time a true church of Christ as the book of Romans proves it was. However, Rome departed from and perverted the doctrine of salvation plainly spelled out in the book of Romans.

Nobody responds to you because your responses are irrational and without the use of sound exegetical evidences.

 

Revelations 5

9And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
10“You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.”

Romans 16

23Gaius, host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer greets you, and Quartus, the brother.

Matthew 28
19“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations


You can't make disciples of all nations, cause the moment you do YOUR CATHOLIC.
You have gone worldwide, universal, throughout all.

Throwing away the baby with the bath water.

The church is Catholic. The bible says it is a CATHOLIC CHURCH.



Acts 20
28“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

You going to argue he was talking about one particular local called church of God?

And how can holy spirit make them authorities? Shouldn't the bible be the overseer?


If someone argues there is a catholic church and your not it, that I can give a thumbs up to.

If someone says there is not catholic church at all, There is no scripture for this.



Catholic isn't a brand name tag.

Romans 16
23Gaius, host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer greets you, and Quartus, the brother.

In latin whole church is "universal church" , Catholic.

Rose by any other name is still a rose.

Your going to argue this is just the local universal church? Even the epistle is called ROMANS.

So your going to argue that its a local ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH?

 

"Nobody denies the church at Rome was not at one time a true church of Christ"



The church is one body, one spirit, one faith.

Ephesians 4
2with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, 3being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.


There is no "THEY" departed if it is the TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST!
Because we, you inclusive, are in the True church. Did you sign anything saying hey lets depart and pervert the doctrine?

Jesus Christ said look here is your church. You walk in it. To your surprise there are sinners, That means they do things wrong. And by some miracle you realize everyone is doing everything wrong. So the light bulb turns on in your head, clearly Jesus put me in the wrong place. The place he gave me is a mistake. Let me leave and make my own place it will work better because we will follow the rules.


Jesus gives you a boat. Take this boat, it is my boat, across the sea. You get in the boat. The crew is mutinous and crazy, sinners everywhere. They sail the wrong direction. The boat itself is leaking water all the time!

Clearly Jesus has made a mistake. Let me build my own boat. We're not going to let sinners in it. We are going to do things the right way.

For folks who swear by FAITH ALONE your going to have to come to me for tips.

 

I'd like people to understand that I'm not pointing out which is the one true church, but that the bible says there is ONE TRUE universal church.

So if you say there is one and I'm not in it. That can fly with me. But insisting there is not one is a flaw.


Ephesians 2

18for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.


God's household, above verse and below.


1 timothy 3

15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.




Divisions are a not allowed.

1 Corinthians 11
17But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.


1 Corinthians 1
10Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.


In other words I don't care what congregation you come from, Your not allowed to leave. Your better off making a case that THEY left or kicked you out, who ever your in opposition with.

What you can't do is start your own thing, that would be disobedience to the holy scripture.


Example; Jesus Christ never left the Jewish faith. He didn't say well Pharisees and Sadducees is false religion lets start a new one. The Christians are the complete Jews the ones who remain obedient. They didn't leave. You even see in scripture when Pharisees within the church come to debate the necessity of circumcision.


Acts 15

19“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
22Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23and they sent this letter by them,


Here we see a authoritive judgment with the WHOLE CHURCH. Just the fact this issue is even IN the bible just shows how universal it is.

Suppose one denomination says well we need to be circumcised, chances are you would actually point at this scripture to where obviously the whole universal church stands.

 

]

Acts 10:44, 46. 'While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.........For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.'
Acts 19: 6. 'And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.'
I am very happy for people to consider these two texts and make their own minds up. In Acts 10, the identification with the baptism of the Spirit is not given. The explanation is only given in 11:15-16 when Peter is being cross-examined. But the two events are two similar not to have the same meaning. To prophesy means to forthtell as well as to foretell. To magnify God is, if it is done Biblically, prophecy.

To try and divorce v.4 from Acts 1-3 is very artificial. Verses 3-4 are joined by the conjunction kai and there is no reason why all four verses should not be one sentence.

OK.

I can agree with most of this, I think. There seems to be another mini-Pentecost in Acts 8:14-17 with the coming of the Gospel to the Samaritans. There must have been something visible in the receiving of the Holy Spirit for Simon Magus to observe in v.18.

As I have already said, I see no difference between Acts 10:44, 46 and Acts 19:6. When the Shekinah Glory came down to the temple in 2 Chronicles 7:1-3, it remained until Ezekiel saw it leave in Ezekiel 10. The priests who entered the Holiest Place once a year were entering the very presence of God whether they were aware of it or not. Likewise, at Pentecost, the Spirit came down 'on all flesh' (Joel 2:28) but He did not disappear again. Every believer is baptized in the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9). 'He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.' The 'you' here applied to the Jews of Matt. 3, to the as yet unbaptized Cornelius and his friends of Acts 10, and to the recently baptized disciples in Ephesus, and it applies to new believers today. It is true that Pentecost can never be repeated, but Pentecost has never been rescinded.

I think you misunderstand what I am arguing for here. I agree that there is only one Pentecost, with a small number of mini-repetitions to bring the news to various different areas and/or peoples. The 'sign gifts' were there to bring attention to it (and to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah 28:11-12). Those gifts have served their purpose and disappeared. The Holy Spirit remains in and with believers forever (John 14:16).

You have been very naughty here. Baptizo in Matthew 3:11 is Present Tense, not Aorist. Luke 3:7 shows that he spoke to the people before baptizing them. The whole point of what John is saying is that water baptism will do them not a penny's worth of good unless they possess what water baptism signifies- baptism in the Holy Spirit. And the very same thing is true today. What distresses me most about Baptist churches today is that they baptize people who show no signs at all of being converted. That is a dreadful wickedness, sending people to hell with a pocket-full of false promises in their hands, and the Pastors of such churches will not escape judgement for it (Ezekiel 2:18; James 3:1).

There is no promise whatever attached to water baptism unless one is converted. Simon Magus could tell you that.

 

There is no prohecy at the house of Cornelius, but there is in 19:6. There is no stated baptism in 19:1-6 but there is in Acts 11.

I am not trying to divorce any of these actions from happing on the day of Pentecocst. I am distinguishing between being immersed in the Spirit which happened in Acts 2:1-3 as the house was filled in which they were sitting - thus immersing them. This is distinct from the Spirit's work of being "filled' as filling has occurred previous to Pentecost and therefore cannot be interpreted to be the promised baptism which did not occur before Pentecost. It is AFTER they were "filled" that these gift of tongues occurs again showing this is not the baptism in the Spirit but an additional work of the Spirit which Paul later explains in 1 Cor. 14:20-22 with Isaiah 28:11-14 that has to do with SPIRITUAL GIFTS not the baptism in the Spirit. You fail to make these distinctions.

No, He did not come down on "all flesh" on the day of Pentecost but upon only 120 that had gathered on the Day of Pentecost "in one accord in one place." If the Holy Spirit had come down upon "all flesh" on that day there would have been no need for them to wait in Jerusalem, as they could have waited anywhere. The Joel prophecy is referring to the extent of the commission or salvation that would extend to the Gentiles as described in Acts 1:8 which is another work of the Spirit after His coming.

Luke 3:7 shows only that he refused to baptize a certain group that came to him - unrepentant Jews. However, the use by Jesus shows it refers only to those who had been water baptized by John (Acts 1:4-5). Furthermore, the practice of John shows that this promise is directed only to water baptized believers. As for the present tense it shows concurrent action or action in progress whereas your are attempting to interpreted as a future action.

Nothing in any of these texts even imply your conclusion. Your conclusion is drawn from theological deductions from other passages and then read back into this text. You are obviously wrong because it was not baptism that obtained eternal life PRESENT TENSE but their belief in the gospel (Jn. 3:16; 3:36; 5:24; 10:27-29) and so the baptism in the Spirit HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR SALVATION - meaning "eternal life." Hence, it must be interpreted as someting totally apart from personal salvation. Your view would have to deny their present tense possession of eternal as you are claiming they could have no such salvation apart from the baptism in the Spirit. Your view contradicts the Biblical doctrine of salvation that PRECEDES the baptism in the Spirit proving the baptism in the Spirit has nothing to do with salvation and agrees with my position.

You are perverting what I said. I said the only baptism promised to continue in this age is the baptism in the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19) which if you will note FOLLOWS faith in the Gospel, where savlation - eternal life has already been obtained PRIOR to baptism.

 

I don't have time this morning to go through the whole of 'Biblicist's' post, but I must comment on this briefly.

The Holy Spirit did come down on 'all flesh' on the day of Pentecost.
Acts 2:15-17. 'For these are not drunk as you suppose.......but this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh........' This is it, says Peter, this is the fulfilment of Joel's prophecy, here today! The reason that the Apostles waited in Jerusalem was precisely that this pivotal event would take place before a vast crowd of Jews, not only from Judea but from all over the Roman world.

More later D.V.