Baptism in Romans 6, what is the referent?

[Craigbythesea]

I gave you everything the Scripture says about baptism with the Spirit.

No, you did not! You posted only a small fraction of the verses in the Bible that address the subject of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. If you cannot afford to buy an unabridged edition of the Bible, send me a personal message with your address and I will mail a Bible to you. Please indicate your translation preference:

KJV (King James Version)
NKJV (New King James Version)
RSV (Revised Standard Version)
ESV (English Standard Version)
NASB, 1995 (New American Standard Bible, Updated in 1995)

Sorry, these are only translations into English that I mail to people needing a Bible.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Please point out my Biblical error.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say or imply that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is temporal rather than lasting throughout the Church Age. The Book of Acts takes us up to only about 65 A.D. The Church Age did not end in 65 A.D. The Church Age has continued down to the present time, 2005 A.D. During the past 1940 years, hundreds of thousands of volumes of church history have been written documenting the experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit throughout this span of time. Who am I to believe, a man who knows next to nothing about the subject, or the testimony of hundreds of thousands of witnesses, thousands of whom were or are Baptist pastors who clearly have the anointing of God upon their ministry?

 

[PastorGreg]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I gave you everything the Scripture says about baptism with the Spirit.

No, you did not! You posted only a small fraction of the verses in the Bible that address the subject of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

</font>[/QUOTE]And this huge body of Scripture that I have overlooked is found where? You still have not made one Biblical argument.

[ April 25, 2005, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: PastorGreg ]

 

[PastorGreg]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Please point out my Biblical error.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say or imply that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is temporal rather than lasting throughout the Church Age. The Book of Acts takes us up to only about 65 A.D. The Church Age did not end in 65 A.D. The Church Age has continued down to the present time, 2005 A.D. During the past 1940 years, hundreds of thousands of volumes of church history have been written documenting the experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit throughout this span of time. Who am I to believe, a man who knows next to nothing about the subject, or the testimony of hundreds of thousands of witnesses, thousands of whom were or are Baptist pastors who clearly have the anointing of God upon their ministry?

</font>[/QUOTE]Hundreds of thousands of volumes?

Why do you have to always attack and ridicule instead of just having a discussion? When people have to resort to this it is because they have no logical or biblical argument.

Again, the Biblical term is baptism "with" the spirit, and you are not supposed to believe me or "hundreds of thousands of volumes." "Let God be true and all men liars." I don't know what viewpoint you're coming from, but I am a Baptist. That means the BIBLE is my authority, not what hundreds of thousands or even millions of others have written. You have either refused or been unable to even discuss what the Bible says about the subject. One is in a very tenuous position when his only argument can be made on the basis of this or that scholar and none on the Word of God.

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Baptism in the spirit was a rare event that ended during apostolic times.

WHAT?

I cannot think of single theologian, Baptist or otherwise, who would agree with this most ridiculously and absurdly false belief.

</font>[/QUOTE]===


Craig.

I CAN think of several who say that the literal Baptism w-the Spirit as seen in Acts (in distinction from water bap) is NOT an ongoing doctrine for today:

1) That seems to be the opinion of Brunner whom you reference,

2) The Baptist BH Carroll in his Interpretation of the English Bible says there is now no necessity for it as the Church is accredited,

3) and, Mullins in ISBE (old version).

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by PastorGreg:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Baptism in the spirit was a rare event that ended during apostolic times.

WHAT?

I cannot think of single theologian, Baptist or otherwise, who would agree with this most ridiculously and absurdly false belief.

</font>[/QUOTE]Now, there's an intelligent well-thought out response. Maybe you should consider the Bible as an authority, not just theologians.

The baptism WITH the Holy Spirit (in my earlier post, I incorrectly used the term "in").

Predicted: Mt. 3:11, Mk. 1:8, Lk. 3:16, Jn. 1:33, Acts 1:5.
The baptizer - Jesus
The medium - The Holy Spirit

Fulfilled: Acts 2:4,17,18; 8:14-17; 10:44-48; 19:1-7
In each case:
- The coming of the Holy Spirit was manifested by speaking in tongues.
- There was at least one apostle present.
- God was validating for the Jews the message of salvation through Christ to both Jews and Gentiles. I COr. 14:21,22; Acts 11:15-18

This ends baptism with the Spirit. It is never again mentioned in Scripture.

Obviously, you disagree with me. That's fine. If I'm wrong, show it to me from Scripture, don't just hurl out adjectives and adverbs. But let's consider this like rational human beings and let the Scripture speak for itself. </font>[/QUOTE]===


Hi Greg

So,

1) in contrast to such as Chafer, RA Torrey, and Unger, you do not think that 1 Cor 12:13 is a reference to Spirit baptism even though the Spirit is there mentioned ? Please explain why.

2) please also show me where are the tongues in Acts 8:14-17 manifested (as you said)?

3) also, why is "with" better than "in" ( or "by" ) ?


Thanks,

Bill G.

[ April 25, 2005, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

[Craigbythesea]

UZThD wrote,

I CAN think of several who say that the literal Baptism w-the Spirit as seen in Acts (in distinction from water bap) is NOT an ongoing doctrine for today:

1) That seems to be the opinion of Brunner whom you reference,

2) The Baptist BH Carroll in his Interpretation of the English Bible says there is now no necessity for it as the Church is accredited,

3) and, Mullins in ISBE (old version).

When I wrote, “I cannot think of a single theologian, Baptist or otherwise, who would agree with this most ridiculously and absurdly false belief,” that comment was in reference to this comment by Greg,

“Baptism in the spirit was a rare event that ended during apostolic times.”

Bruner (one “n”) does not agree with any of this nonsense. Indeed, Bruner wrote on page 262,

What God gives once-and-for-all in Christian baptism, freely, by joining believers to Christ in his death to sin and resurrection to life, Pentecostalism subdivides into at least two separable events and makes them the candidate's costly responsibilities.

Pentecostalism relocates what in the New Testament happens in one act in baptism — death to sin and power for life — within a series of acts: first, identification with Christ (conversion), then (water) baptism, followed by the fulfilling of the conditions for the baptism in the Spirit, and thus finally the full identification with the Spirit through the Spirit-baptism with tongues. All along the line, and increasingly, the task of fulfillment lies with the believer.

New Testament initiation is at once simpler and more gracious. The whole is applied to the believer in baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (I Cor. 6:11). The burden of sin is carried away and the condition of righteousness is fulfilled by Christ's historical work; the gift of this fulfillment is conveyed to the believer in the gospel message of faith in Christ; the hearing of faith is enabled by this message; baptism is given; the believer is home.

ii. The Consequences of the Romans Six Doctrine of Baptism.
According to Romans 6 the Christian life has its foundation in the one baptism into Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. This baptism occurs once-and-for-all (ephapax, 6:10) and is not repeated. Therefore, the Christian need not undergo two deaths through two baptisms before he can have spiritual life. His baptism in water into Christ is his baptism in the Holy Spirit and is as fully spiritual as the Christ with whom he has been baptized.

All Christian exhortation for spiritual living is meant to flow out of this one full baptism and to be supported by it and be built upon it (Rom. 6-8). Christian ethical exhortation is not intended to lead the believer to this full baptism. Christian ethic and spirituality is based upon the already given Christian baptism. In the New Testament spiritual baptism is the base, it is not the goal of Christian effort.

(The emphasis in bold type is mine).

As for Carroll and Mullins, please quote them verbatim and provide the page numbers so that I can read their comments in their original context.

 

[Craigbythesea]

[ April 25, 2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]

 

[Craigbythesea]

PastorGreg wrote,

Hundreds of thousands of volumes?

Yes.

Why do you have to always attack and ridicule instead of just having a discussion? When people have to resort to this it is because they have no logical or biblical argument.

When an opponent in a debate, such as UZThD, has enough knowledge of the subject to allow for a discussion, I discuss (as is unmistakably evidenced in this very thread), but when an opponent in a debate has virtually no knowledge at all, and makes wild and totally unfounded comments, discussion with that person is all but an impossibility.

Again, the Biblical term is baptism "with" the spirit,

No, the Biblical term is εν πνευματι αγιω, and the preposition εν is most commonly translated “in” in the KJV, but the correct translation of this Greek preposition is determined by the context, and in John 1:33, for example, Greek scholars do not agree as to the correct translation. Therefore, we find,
(Continued below)

 

[Craigbythesea]

-- King James Version
John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

-- New King James Version
John 1:33 "I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, `Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'

-- American Standard Version
John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.

-- Revised Standard Version
John 1:33 I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'

-- International English Version
John 1:33 I didn't know him, but the One who sent me to immerse people in water said to me, `If you see the Spirit coming down and staying upon someone, this is the one who immerses in the Holy Spirit.'

-- New American Standard Bible
John 1:33 "I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.'

--English Standard Version I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'

-- New Jerusalem Bible
John 1:33 I did not know him myself, but he who sent me to baptise with water had said to me, `The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptise with the Holy Spirit.'

-- New American Bible
John 1:33 I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, `On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the holy Spirit.'

-- New Revised Standard Version
John 1:33 I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, "He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'

-- Young's Bible
John 1:33 and I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water, He said to me, On whomsoever thou mayst see the Spirit coming down, and remaining on him, this is he who is baptizing with the Holy Spirit;

-- Darby's Bible
John 1:33 And I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptise with water, *he* said to me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on him, he it is who baptises with the Holy Spirit.

-- Weymouth's New Testament
John 1:33 I did not yet know Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, "'The One on whom you see the Spirit coming down, and remaining, He it is who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.'

-- Webster's Bible
John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he who baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.

-- International Standard Version
John 1:33 I didn't recognize him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The person on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'

-- William's NewTestament
John 1:33 I did not know Him myself, but the very One who sent me to baptize in water said to me, `The One on whom you see the Spirit coming down and remaining, is the One who is to baptize in the Holy Spirit.'

-- Montgomery New Testament
John 1:33 And I did not recognize him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, `The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and resting upon him, is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.'

 

[Craigbythesea]

PastorGreg wrote,

and you are not supposed to believe me

Absolutely not.

or "hundreds of thousands of volumes."

As a Christian, it is my responsibility to study the data available to me and learn from the data what is true and what is not.

"Let God be true and all men liars." I don't know what viewpoint you're coming from, but I am a Baptist. That means the BIBLE is my authority, not what hundreds of thousands or even millions of others have written.

Such wild statements as this are one of the very reasons why some Baptist Churches are dropping the word “Baptist” for their name. No responsible Christian relies solely upon the Bible for their information on all matters, and all responsible Christians have a respect for other Christians and what they have learned. Perhaps the seminary from which you graduated used only the Bible for its textbook on every subject, and had only one volume in their library, the Bible, but….

You have either refused or been unable to even discuss what the Bible says about the subject. One is in a very tenuous position when his only argument can be made on the basis of this or that scholar and none on the Word of God.

This is not about “this or that scholar;” it is about a view that no Christian scholar that I know of holds, and I am acquainted with hundreds of them.

As for the Bible itself, you have posted NO passages that support your wild assertions. And if you would simply read even one basic Baptist textbook on pneumatology, you would learn that Baptists (with the sole exception of the Charismatic Baptists) believe that we receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit upon being born-again. The Charismatic Baptists often teach that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit most frequently is experienced subsequently to being born-again. This issue involves all of the issues of baptismal regeneration, the modes of Baptism, the typology of Baptism, justification, sanctification, Christology, soteriology, pneumatology, sacramental rites, etc., etc., etc. The issue could hardly be more complex, but all of the theologians agree that the reception of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit was the norm during the New Testament Period and that at least some Christians today are being baptized with the Holy Spirit. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Bible that contradicts anything that I have written here.

If you have no respect for the thousands of scholars who have studied this subject in very great detail, why should any of us have any respect for a man who has not studied and who believes in absolute nonsense.

 

[PastorGreg]

I still don't understand why you have to resort to attacks and name-calling. After all your wordy posts you still have not provided one other Scripture that deals with "spirit baptism" neither have you given a single Scriptural argument, nor dealt with the Scripture that I presented. You also refuse to affirm that the Bible is your ultimate authority - rather you seem to imply that it is indeed man. I did not say I have no respect for scholars, nor did I say I study no other books but the Bible. I simply said there is no other book(s) that determines truth.

 

[PastorGreg]

"Hi Greg

So,

1) in contrast to such as Chafer, RA Torrey, and Unger, you do not think that 1 Cor 12:13 is a reference to Spirit baptism even though the Spirit is there mentioned ? Please explain why.

2) please also show me where are the tongues in Acts 8:14-17 manifested (as you said)?

3) also, why is "with" better than "in" ( or "by" ) ?


Thanks,

Bill G."


Hi Bill,

Let me deal with your last 2 questions first: 2. Tongues is not mentioned in the Acts 8 account. However, there was observable evidence that the Holy Spirit had come upon them. In each of the other passages, that evidence was the speaking of tongues, so it seems a logical conclusion, although it could not be argued dogmatically, that this evidence was also tongues in chapter 8.
3. I say, "with" because that's the way it is translated (I use King James, but you can see in Craig's post that most of the versiosn he posted translate it "with," as well) every time it is predicted, and in Acts 11 when Peter is recounting the experience of Cornelius, which he specifically identifies as that baptism of which Christ spoke. Maybe the preposition isn't a big deal, I was really just trying to use the Biblical language.
Now for question number 1. You are correct. I believe that I Cor. 12:13 refers to water baptism into the membership fo the local church. Several reasons: Ephesians 4:5 says there is one baptism. Spirit baptism + water baptism = 2 baptisms. So we have 2 options - either Ephesians 4:5 is not correct, or one of those baptisms does not exist today. Also, the context is clearly a local church context. Third, the exact same construction, "ev evi pneumati" is translated in Phillipians 1:27, "In one spirit." In fact my NIV even has a marginal note in I Cor. 12:13 saying that "in" is a viable rendering. Obviously there are different legitimate renderings. My point is just that "in one spirit" is a viable translation in I Cor. 12:13. This would simpy refer to the spirit of unity that was necessary in the local church as it does in Phil. 1:27 - clearly this would be something Paul would emphasize with the divisions in the Corinthian church.

Greg

 

[Craigbythesea]

Prov. 1:23. "Turn to my reproof, Behold, I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you.

Joel 2:28. "It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions.
29. "Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.
The Day of the LORD

Acts 2:14. But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words.
15. "For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day;
16. but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:
17. 'AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says, 'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;
18. EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT And they shall prophesy.
19. 'AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS IN THE SKY ABOVE AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BELOW, BLOOD, AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE.
20. 'THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD, BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME.
21. 'AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.'

1 Cor. 12:13. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.


Compare the Word of God quoted above with your silly words,

“Baptism in the spirit was a rare event that ended during apostolic times.”

 

[PastorGreg]

Great verses. They have nothing to do with proving your point, but at least you finally used some Scripture, although you still aren't mature enough to disagree without having to sling belittling adjectives. Acts 2 tells us this was the fulfillment. All mankind = Jews and Gentiles. This (Gentiles) was fulfilled in chapters 8, 10, and 19 and it is never mentioned again in Scripture. I dealt with I Cor. 12:13 above.
I appreciate being able to dialogue with you.

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
reference to this comment by Greg,

“Baptism in the spirit was a rare event that ended during apostolic times.”

Bruner (one “n”) does not agree with any of this nonsense.

As for Carroll and Mullins, please quote them verbatim and provide the page numbers so that I can read their comments in their original context.

[/QB]

===


I think that we agree re Bruner. He says on 195 that Acts does not teach Bap w HS as an ongoing experience. But on 259 he says wat bap IS Sp bap. As I understand B. , IHO there is no Sp Bap which is distinct from wat bap.
Sorry, I don't cut and paste. The BAPTIST seminary presidents EY Mullins and BH Carroll both teach that the Sp Bap is not for today.

BH Carroll, An Interpretation of the English bib, Jas, Thess, cor. NY:Revell, 1916, 222-225.

EY Mullins, "Bap of the HS, article in The International Bible Encyclopedia, vol 1:410.

re the meaning of en in 1 Cor 12:13 , IMO it should be rendered "by" not 'with' or 'in.'

 

[Craigbythesea]

Sorry, I don't cut and paste.

I don’t believe that it is ethical to say that Mullins and Carroll “both teach that the Sp Bap is not for today” but refuse to quote them to document your statement.

The BAPTIST seminary presidents EY Mullins and BH Carroll both teach that the Sp Bap is not for today.

Do these two men deny that we are baptized in the Holy Spirit upon being born again? Or are they simply denying that the manifestations of the Holy Spirit Baptism found in Acts are not for today?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Bill,

Fortunately I have Edgar Young Mullins’ The Christian Religion in my personal library, as well as Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible and also his commentary on Romans. I shall find the appropriate quotes and post them when I have the time. Thank you for the information that you did provide.

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by PastorGreg:
You are correct. I believe that I Cor. 12:13 refers to water baptism into the membership fo the local church. Several reasons: Ephesians 4:5 says there is one baptism. Spirit baptism + water baptism = 2 baptisms. So we have 2 options - either Ephesians 4:5 is not correct, or one of those baptisms does not exist today.

===


Of course, many exegetes say that the baptism with water is closely related to the baptism with the HS. Perhaps Eph 4:5 sees the two as one? It also says "one faith" but faith may be an act or a set of propositions I think.

===


Also, the context is clearly a local church context.

===

I don't understand why that is a good reason. Help me to see it.


===

Third, the exact same construction, "ev evi pneumati" is translated in Phillipians 1:27, "In one spirit." In fact my NIV even has a marginal note in I Cor. 12:13 saying that "in" is a viable rendering. Obviously there are different legitimate renderings. My point is just that "in one spirit" is a viable translation in I Cor. 12:13. This would simpy refer to the spirit of unity that was necessary in the local church as it does in Phil. 1:27 - clearly this would be something Paul would emphasize with the divisions in the Corinthian church.


===


Well, I don't know. So, would you translate the en in 12:3, 12:9 as "in" too?

It seems to me that the passage is intended to say what the HS does. Contextually "by" is supportable.

Could "by" not be a good translation of en in 12:13 as Wallace in "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" suggests even though it occurs with the dative!?

Were this so, then, possibly, if water baptism is a referent in 1 Cor 12:13, as I too think, that ordinance may be the work of the HS!?

Hmmm... then I wonder if Bruner is right to make the two so coincidental/synonomous?

 

[Craigbythesea]

I think that we agree re Bruner. He says on 195 that Acts does not teach Bap w HS as an ongoing experience. But on 259 he says wat bap IS Sp bap. As I understand B. , IHO there is no Sp Bap which is distinct from wat bap.

Bruner believes that we are baptized in the Holy Spirit at the time of water baptism as a part of the sacrament of baptism.