BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Acts 1:5, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the spiritual union all believers enter into the body of Christ at conversion. There is only one body. It is universal and invisible, despite the unbelief of others .

 

There is an ongoing debate about it here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=001691

 

GIG, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, according to the bible, was an event which took place on the day of Pentecost. It is not something which is still happening. Unfortunately all too many baptists have been infected with Protestant teaching and have fallen for the "baptismal regenerational" teachings of "spirit baptism." The bible is very clear. There is ONE baptism. And that baptism, still valid today, is water baptism.

 

Paul surely thought the Baptism of the Holy Spirit existed post-pentecost. Just check out Romans 6, 1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4, and Gal. 3.

4 times!!! He mentioned it 4 times. Yes, it still exists.

Despite doccas' assertion, this belief (along with the church starting on Pentecost) isn't some bizarre belief held to by protestants that has effected baptist theology. It is totally biblical and easily exegeted from the Scripture. It is the other position that has to ignore Scripture.

Like the Bengals' superbowl chances, I am out.

 

Well, let's see. As you listed only complete chapters with no verses indicated I will post what you have listed:

No "Spirit baptism" in that chanpter, just water baptism. Let's look at the next chapter you mentioned.

No "spirit baptism" there. Again, only water baptism as led by the spirit into a position of unity with the other believers at Corinth.

No "Spirit baptism" there. And verse 4 clearly says there is only "one baptism." If you think that is "Spirit baptism" then you deny water baptism, and are not a baptist and are on this forum under false pretenses.

No "Spirit baptism" there either! Just water baptism, and the promise of the Holy Spirit's regeneration, presense, gifting, and blessings, but no "Spirit baptism!"

 

Doc, I have corrected your post so no more confusion takes place.

Romans 6:3-4

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

To consider this water baptism would deny reality and the clear teaching of Scripture. It does not specifically mention water baptism or Spirit baptism. So, let us examine the following:

If this is water baptism, then a person is united with Christ by water. Further, water helps you to be a partaker of Christ's death. The ability to live a new life (apart from the dominion of sin) is granted to a person because of water. This is fishy. It is starting to sound like baptismal regeneration. Surely you didn't mean that Doc, so I assume it is an oversight.

If this is Spirit baptism (which takes place at the moment of salvation), then a person is united with Christ by the Spirit. Further, the Spirit makes you a partaker of Christ's death. The ability to live a new life (apart from the dominion of sin) is granted to a person because of salvation. This is Bible. If you continue reading in Romans 8, you will see that the true children of God are those who are led by the Spirit who has set you free from the bondage of sin.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 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 don't want the authority of Scripture to be ignored so I must respond.

Doccas would have me (and others who believe this) to believe that verse 13 should begin - For by one spirit we are led... That is NOT what the Bible says. I thought this was the Fundy forum. This is totally unacceptable. Scripture does not need to be twisted to fit a particular theological persuasion.

Paul uses the local church (and the diversity of gifts) to show that the same is true with Christ's body. Look again at the last phrase in verse 12 - so also is Christ. The question is, how do Jews and Gentiles make up one body? Does water do away racial distinctions? Of course not. Such a distinction is only done away by the Spirit, who makes all believers into one body.

If you let Scripture speak instead of the bias of some, Spirit baptism once again is the obvious meaning.

Ephesians 4:4-6

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

There are three principles of interpretation: context, context, and context. Let us not violate them, hmm? The context is unity. Why should Christians strive to keep (note: not make) unity? The answer is because there is one body (not many, just one Doc), one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one God and Father.

Now, what does "one baptism" mean? Could it mean water? Water baptism is reason for unity? That is a new one. Can unity exist without water baptism? What if you went to a different church (of like faith) that you were not baptized in? You would have to be rebaptized every time you went to another church. That is just totally absurd. I don't even need to comment further on this one.

Galatians 3:26-28

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

What is the context? We are all children by faith. How do you put on Christ? Water baptism of course. How are you in Christ? Water baptism of course.

I think the absurdity has been demonstrated.

Like that one successful argument against Spirit baptism, I am out.

[ October 01, 2002, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Preach the Word ]

 

Actually you correct your own error of being slightly less than specific in your citations of scriputure. My post needed no correcting.

To consider this to be "Spirit baptism" would be to deny the clear teaching of Scripture, and to invent something which does not exist in scripture. Nowhere in the bible is the Spirit ever the (active voice) baptizer.

Herein lies your first error of understanding. The verse is not talking about being united with Christ by baptism of any sort. The verse clearly says that those who have been baptized into (unto) Christ (in water) have been baptized into (unto, with a view to) his death (we have publicly identified ourselves with the death of Christ). In fact, the very formula most Baptists use to admininster water baptism is found in verse 4, "Buried with Him in baptism, raised to walk in the newness of life." This is a statement of public identity, not baptismal regeneration (either water or spirit).

You are correct. I did not say that, and I did not mean that. It is fishy. And false. And the oversight is entirely yours. Shame on your for trying to put words in my mouth you know I don't believe!

You are correct except for your initial statement. The context is not talking about non-existant "spirit baptism." It is talking about water baptism which is our public profession of faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, as symbolized by water baptism. It is an outward profession of an inward regeneration. All that you list is the result of regeneration, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, not some mythical "spirit baptism."

I have not twisted anything. The context is clearly the unity of the local church. To try to twist Paul's teaching regarding unity in the local church to be some sort of mythical "spirit baptism" is what is unacceptable.

No doubt, but not by mythical "spirit baptism" but by indwelling us, and leading us as "guide into all truth" and by our public profession of unity with Christ and with one another in water baptism. We are all "one" in the local assembly, undivided, just as Christ is undivided. Remember the context? Remember the question in chapter 1 verse 13? "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" To try to make that obvious reference to water baptism into mythical "spirit baptism" is to wrest the scriptures out of their context and invent a new doctrine unknown in the New Testament.

I agree. The church at Ephesus was "one body." United together upon profession of faith in Christ and baptized by the ONE baptism, water baptism, as a symbol of their unity with Christ and with one another. It is you who has invented a second, mythical "spirit baptism."

Yes. Now you've got it! Our water baptism symbolizes our unity with Christ and with the local assembly! See? That wasn't so hard, was it. Remember, context, context, context!

Yes, your twisting what I have said is absurd and altogether dishonest too! You join a church based on doctrinal unity. Unless you are a church hopper who doesn't care about doctrine but is just looking for a place to hide out, then any church and any doctrine will do.

I don't blame you! I wouldn't want to post any more absurdity either! [attack agaist this poster made by an editor edited] You tell me which "one baptism" of Ephesians 4 is the baptism you believe in? Which one? The real water baptism of scripture or the false, mythical "spirit baptism" that is foreign to scripture? Which is it? Are you avoiding the question? Are you posting under false pretenses or just out of ignorance and willful misrepresentation? You tell me which it is.

Again, you have a false foundational presupposition which leads to a false conclusion. We are children by faith in Christ. That is a clear statement from verse 26. And those of us who have been baptized into (unto) Christ have "put on Christ." To publicly wear Him like a uniform! To publicly identify with him. When I worked for the Sheriff's Department, I would "put on the badge." I was always a cop, but when I "suited up" and put on the badge and uniform, I was publicly identified as a Peace Officer. When a person is saved, he is an "under cover" Christian until he publicly "puts on Christ" with a public profession of Him in water baptism.

I agree. The absurdity of your unscriptural position has been amply demonstrated.

[ October 01, 2002, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

Doccas, I have noticed a disturbing trend in your posts when discussing this issue. You seem to delight in breaking up someone's flow of thought so you can make it seem like a bunch of thrown together thoughts.

My position on this is quite clear. I listed 4 passages. You offered no exegesis. Your eisigesis was amusing though.

Doccas, I am going to number some questions so you will answer them directly (I hope).

1. Does water baptism supply any ability to overcome sin?

2. Does a person have to be rebaptized every time he/she joins another church?

3. Why did you ignore the plain phrase in 1 Cor. 12:12 - so also is Christ - in my explanation of the baptism of the Spirit?

4. Can unity exist without water baptism?

5. How does water baptism join a person to Christ?

6. Why are you afraid of the Bible's clear teaching about Spirit baptism?

 

But not nearly as amusing, as yours!

No, but it was a nice try at obfuscation.

No, but again, it was a masterful job of misdirection.

I don't. You do. The context is clear, the unity of the local body, and baptism being the symbol of our unity with Christ, and therefore, by implication, with one another. Two people can't be at unity with Christ but divided from one another. I even suppled the quote from chapter one which established the context, "Is Christ divided?" But, again, you seem to ignore context in favor of your mystical interpretation. Remember the three rules of interpretation: Context. Context. Context.

Unity of the local assembly? No, for water baptism is a requirement for membership in every Baptist church I have ever been in.

More obfuscation, which I already answered in my previous post, but which you seem to have ignored.

[Mr. Murphy, if you are going to edit posts, at least do a good job of it. And, if the question asked me stands, why did you delete my questions to him? Double standard?]

[ September 30, 2002, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

I"m Sorry GIG I was a little slow on that one, thank you for your comments.
Murph

 

Well, GIG, I was going to ask you to go back and read what I posted and note that I did not call anyone any names. When I was asked the question "Why are you afraid" I answered with some equally baseless and rhetorical questions. Unfortunately, Mr. Murphy has chosen to delete my words and characterize them as an "attack" when in fact they were not, but has left the question asking me why I am afraid stand, even though that question is baseless and insinuates I fear something about the false doctrine being perpetuated. But, since my statements have been deleted, you will not be able to read them and see that I didn't call anybody any names.

 

DOCCAS,
I suppose satire is a lost art form for Baptists.
I got it if it's any consolation.

 

I am glad someone did. I responded in kind to how I was addressed. If I can be asked a question which presupposes something about me which is not true, why can I not ask similar questions of my questioner? Seems a bit odd to me.

 

I am sorry you misread my post and jumped to an erroneous conclusion. But, in fact, I did not call anyone a fool or a coward. Those are the facts. If the post had remained intact, I could show you that, but, as it has been edited, you will just have to take my word for it.

 

GIG,
In all kindness, you missed the point of what DocCas was doing. I wish we could reconstruct it to show you that. Also, I feel you know very little of the history of this debate on these boards and the debators involved. IMO, the post should have been allowed to stand and answered by the other party in the debate.
Just my opinion.