SolaScriptura
New Member
I certainly agree with you there, Jerry.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Must we obey the gospel to be saved???
- Thread starter SolaScriptura
- Start date
dhk:
You have built your doctrine on UNSUBSTANTIEATED ASSUMPTION. The definitive article in the original language is NOT used in Jn. 3: 3-5. Furthermore, neither is the word HOLY. The text employs the word PNEUMATOS.The two nouns hudatos and pneumatos are connected by the preposition ek. The rules of greek grammar require the two nouns to go together. They complement one another. Therefore, both water and spirit are essential in the New Birth.( Anothen).
Men are begotten by the spirit when they receive the word of God in faithful obedience to it. This requires on be baptized for the remission of sins.( Act 2:38, I Cor. 4:15, Jn. 6:63).
The Bible is it's best interpreter and commentator. For both interpretation and commentary on Jn. 3:3-5, see Acts 2:1-47.
Frank
You have built your doctrine on UNSUBSTANTIEATED ASSUMPTION. The definitive article in the original language is NOT used in Jn. 3: 3-5. Furthermore, neither is the word HOLY. The text employs the word PNEUMATOS.The two nouns hudatos and pneumatos are connected by the preposition ek. The rules of greek grammar require the two nouns to go together. They complement one another. Therefore, both water and spirit are essential in the New Birth.( Anothen).
Men are begotten by the spirit when they receive the word of God in faithful obedience to it. This requires on be baptized for the remission of sins.( Act 2:38, I Cor. 4:15, Jn. 6:63).
The Bible is it's best interpreter and commentator. For both interpretation and commentary on Jn. 3:3-5, see Acts 2:1-47.
Frank
dhk:
I believe your question was answered in my original post. Can you see the wind? NO. Does one no where the wind goes? No. Does one know where the wind comes from? No. You can see the EFFECTS OF THE WIND? Yes. By the same axiom one can only see the effects of the spirit, we see only man's response to the word of the spirit, unless you are the Lord himself. I hope this answers the question about the spirit and verse 8.
Frank
I believe your question was answered in my original post. Can you see the wind? NO. Does one no where the wind goes? No. Does one know where the wind comes from? No. You can see the EFFECTS OF THE WIND? Yes. By the same axiom one can only see the effects of the spirit, we see only man's response to the word of the spirit, unless you are the Lord himself. I hope this answers the question about the spirit and verse 8.
Frank
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
---In John 1:12, it tells us that those who believe are born of God.
---In John 3:3, it tells us that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, or that which is born of the Holy Spirit is spiritual.
Please don't beat around the bush. Give me a yes or no answer. Is the word "Spirit" with a capital "S" in verse 5 referring to the Holy Spirit: yes or no? If it is not, you make a very blasphemous statement, in that the Holy Spirit is God. Even the KJV translators believed this. For (John 1:13) we are born of God, the Holy Spirt. Does the Spirit in John 3:5 refer to the Holy Spirit: yes or no?
DHK
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
---In John 1:12, it tells us that those who believe are born of God.
---In John 3:3, it tells us that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, or that which is born of the Holy Spirit is spiritual.
Please don't beat around the bush. Give me a yes or no answer. Is the word "Spirit" with a capital "S" in verse 5 referring to the Holy Spirit: yes or no? If it is not, you make a very blasphemous statement, in that the Holy Spirit is God. Even the KJV translators believed this. For (John 1:13) we are born of God, the Holy Spirt. Does the Spirit in John 3:5 refer to the Holy Spirit: yes or no?
DHK
dhk:
The Greek language does not employ capital letters,or indefinite articles, not punctuation marks. Therefore, the capital S or small s is irrelevant. I have already answered the question based on the original language. Prove the Spirit is the Holy Spirit from the text.
I have already provided the word Pneumatos meaning spirit is used without the definitive article and without the word Holy. I have presented the evidence from the original language Ek links the nouns hudatos and pnematos. The two water and spirit are connected in the new birth, not disconnected.
The spirit that brings life is the word.( Jn. 6:63). This is the case no matter which way you perceive pnematos. It is the word( ICor, 4:15, James 1:18,21,I Peter 1:23) that brings the new birth in man.The Spirit uses the word to direct man as to what he must do. ( Hebs 4:12 Eph. 6:17).
What evidence is there to rationalize that John 3:5 refers to the Holy Spirit?
You are attempting to argue with the inspired language. You may not like " hudakos kai pnematos" but it says no more or no less than the language dictates. The water and spirit are connected to the anothen that is the new birth.
Frank
The Greek language does not employ capital letters,or indefinite articles, not punctuation marks. Therefore, the capital S or small s is irrelevant. I have already answered the question based on the original language. Prove the Spirit is the Holy Spirit from the text.
I have already provided the word Pneumatos meaning spirit is used without the definitive article and without the word Holy. I have presented the evidence from the original language Ek links the nouns hudatos and pnematos. The two water and spirit are connected in the new birth, not disconnected.
The spirit that brings life is the word.( Jn. 6:63). This is the case no matter which way you perceive pnematos. It is the word( ICor, 4:15, James 1:18,21,I Peter 1:23) that brings the new birth in man.The Spirit uses the word to direct man as to what he must do. ( Hebs 4:12 Eph. 6:17).
What evidence is there to rationalize that John 3:5 refers to the Holy Spirit?
You are attempting to argue with the inspired language. You may not like " hudakos kai pnematos" but it says no more or no less than the language dictates. The water and spirit are connected to the anothen that is the new birth.
Frank
dhk:
The original language does not indicate that the spirit in JN. 3:5 is the Holy Spirit. God inspired pnematos, not hagion pneuma. Therefore, based on the evidence I believe it is the instrument of the spirit which is the WORD OF GOD in view here. The new birth is brought about by hearing the word of God. One cannot see this happen and is like the wind. We see the effect. Water is the essential element that brings one into a new life in Christ. The best commentary on the new birth is Acts 2:1-47.
Now, can you provide evidence that Jn. 3:5 uses the Holy Spirit?
Frank
The original language does not indicate that the spirit in JN. 3:5 is the Holy Spirit. God inspired pnematos, not hagion pneuma. Therefore, based on the evidence I believe it is the instrument of the spirit which is the WORD OF GOD in view here. The new birth is brought about by hearing the word of God. One cannot see this happen and is like the wind. We see the effect. Water is the essential element that brings one into a new life in Christ. The best commentary on the new birth is Acts 2:1-47.
Now, can you provide evidence that Jn. 3:5 uses the Holy Spirit?
Frank
What does the "Spirit" mean in John 3:5? Scholars of every age have interpreted it to mean the Holy Spirit. Your interpretation is askew. It must have come along with Alexander Cambell. Is it the Cambellite official view that was lost for 1700 years?
I don't agree with John Calvin's theology, as baptizes infants, and believes in reformed and covenantal theology. But consider his view on John 3:5, and his interpretation of it.
25. "Another passage which they adduce is from the third chapter of John, where our Savior's words seem to them to imply that a present regeneration is required in baptism, "Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). See, they say, how baptism is termed regeneration by the lips of our Lord himself, and on what pretext, therefore, with what consistency is baptism given to those who, it is perfectly obvious, are not at all capable of regeneration? First, they are in error in imagining that there is any mention of baptism in this passage, merely because the world water is used. Nicodemus, after our Savior had explained to him the corruption of nature, and the necessity of being born again, kept dreaming of a corporeal birth, and hence our Savior intimates the mode in which God regenerates us — viz. by water and the Spirit; in other words, by the Spirit, who, in irrigating and cleansing the souls of believers, operates in the manner of water. By "water and the Spirit," therefore, I simply understand the Spirit, which is water. Nor is the expression new. It perfectly accords with that which is used in the
third chapter of Matthew, "He that cometh after me is mightier than I;" "he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Matthew 3:11). Therefore as to baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, is to confer the Holy Spirit, who, in regeneration, has the office and nature of fire, so to be born again of water, and of the Spirit, is nothing, else than to receive that power of the Spirit, which has the same effect on the soul that water has on the body. I know that a different interpretation is given, but I have no doubt that this is the genuine meaning because our Savior's only purpose was to teach, that all who aspire to the kingdom of heaven must lay aside their own disposition. And yet were we disposed to imitate these men in their mode of caviling, we might easily, after conceding what they wish, reply to them, that baptism is prior to faith and repentance, since, in this message, our Savior mentions it before the Spirit. This certainly must be understood of spiritual gifts, and if they follow baptism, I have gained all I contend for. But, caviling aside, the simple interpretation to be adopted is that which I have given — viz. that no man, until renewed by living water, that is, by the Spirit, can enter the kingdom of God." (Page 1495, chapter 16, Calvin's Institutes)
Note that faith must precede baptism, and that the water in John 3:5, even by this reformed infant baptizer, could not mean baptism. The facts speak for themselves.
DHK
I don't agree with John Calvin's theology, as baptizes infants, and believes in reformed and covenantal theology. But consider his view on John 3:5, and his interpretation of it.
25. "Another passage which they adduce is from the third chapter of John, where our Savior's words seem to them to imply that a present regeneration is required in baptism, "Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). See, they say, how baptism is termed regeneration by the lips of our Lord himself, and on what pretext, therefore, with what consistency is baptism given to those who, it is perfectly obvious, are not at all capable of regeneration? First, they are in error in imagining that there is any mention of baptism in this passage, merely because the world water is used. Nicodemus, after our Savior had explained to him the corruption of nature, and the necessity of being born again, kept dreaming of a corporeal birth, and hence our Savior intimates the mode in which God regenerates us — viz. by water and the Spirit; in other words, by the Spirit, who, in irrigating and cleansing the souls of believers, operates in the manner of water. By "water and the Spirit," therefore, I simply understand the Spirit, which is water. Nor is the expression new. It perfectly accords with that which is used in the
third chapter of Matthew, "He that cometh after me is mightier than I;" "he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Matthew 3:11). Therefore as to baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, is to confer the Holy Spirit, who, in regeneration, has the office and nature of fire, so to be born again of water, and of the Spirit, is nothing, else than to receive that power of the Spirit, which has the same effect on the soul that water has on the body. I know that a different interpretation is given, but I have no doubt that this is the genuine meaning because our Savior's only purpose was to teach, that all who aspire to the kingdom of heaven must lay aside their own disposition. And yet were we disposed to imitate these men in their mode of caviling, we might easily, after conceding what they wish, reply to them, that baptism is prior to faith and repentance, since, in this message, our Savior mentions it before the Spirit. This certainly must be understood of spiritual gifts, and if they follow baptism, I have gained all I contend for. But, caviling aside, the simple interpretation to be adopted is that which I have given — viz. that no man, until renewed by living water, that is, by the Spirit, can enter the kingdom of God." (Page 1495, chapter 16, Calvin's Institutes)
Note that faith must precede baptism, and that the water in John 3:5, even by this reformed infant baptizer, could not mean baptism. The facts speak for themselves.
DHK
DHK;
I have no idea what Alexander Campbell thought. I realy do not care. The origianl language speaks for itself. F.F.Bruce states, "It is a pity when reaction against the notion of baptismal regeneation by an opus operatum leads to the complete overlooking of the baptismal illusion in these WORDS of Jesus."( The Gospel of John page 84-88). Vincent states," Jesus asserted the obligation of outward rite..." Water" points to the rite of baptism.... Jesus WORDS inclauded a PROPHETIC reference to the complete ideal of baptism... We are not to understand with Calvin, the Holy Spirit as the purifying water in the spirtual sense: water which is the spirit." Vol. II,pp. 91-92. Albert Barnes said on John 3:5," by water here is evidently signified baptism. Thus the WORD is used in Eph. 5:26: Titus 3:5." Barnes on the New Testament, Luke - John. p. 210.
DHK, I do not have the slightest idea what Alexander Campbell taught. I do not have a single book in my library written by Campbell. However, if he is true to the scriptures, I would agree with him. If he opposes the truth, we would disagree.
Frank
I have no idea what Alexander Campbell thought. I realy do not care. The origianl language speaks for itself. F.F.Bruce states, "It is a pity when reaction against the notion of baptismal regeneation by an opus operatum leads to the complete overlooking of the baptismal illusion in these WORDS of Jesus."( The Gospel of John page 84-88). Vincent states," Jesus asserted the obligation of outward rite..." Water" points to the rite of baptism.... Jesus WORDS inclauded a PROPHETIC reference to the complete ideal of baptism... We are not to understand with Calvin, the Holy Spirit as the purifying water in the spirtual sense: water which is the spirit." Vol. II,pp. 91-92. Albert Barnes said on John 3:5," by water here is evidently signified baptism. Thus the WORD is used in Eph. 5:26: Titus 3:5." Barnes on the New Testament, Luke - John. p. 210.
DHK, I do not have the slightest idea what Alexander Campbell taught. I do not have a single book in my library written by Campbell. However, if he is true to the scriptures, I would agree with him. If he opposes the truth, we would disagree.
Frank
SolaScriptura
New Member
Like Frank, I don't care what Campbell said about the passage BUT I do know that Campbell edited a translation of the New Testament called the Living Oracles translation (which is available on the net). Since you made the above misinformed comments, I went and looked up John 3:5 in that translation and I found that the word Spirit is captialized in this translation just like in the AV, so he must have thought it refered to the Holy Spirit.It must have come along with Alexander Cambell.
"Jesus answered, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a man be born of water and Spirit, he can not enter the kingdom of God." (Jn 3:5)
Here is an error which I must point out: the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Baptism of Fire are not the same. Notice the context - after saying "he will baptize with fire" he says "Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (Mat. 3:12) Remember that baptism means "immersion." What is the immersion of fire? In light of the fact that John links the immersion of fire with "unquenchable fire" or terminology that is used by Jesus to describe hell, I would say that the baptism of fire is hell. When a sinner is cast into hell (the lake of fire) he is immersed into fire, is he not? I say then that the baptism of fire is hell and is not synonymous with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This being the case, John the Immerser is not telling these men something that Jesus will do to all disciple - he is not saying "Jesus will baptize all disciples w/ the Holy Spirit and with fire" - rather, he is saying "Jesus will baptize some of you who stand here with the Holy Spirit, but others of you who stand here, he will send to hell."CALVIN: "Therefore as to baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, is to confer the Holy Spirit..."
[ June 11, 2002, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]
No, Sola, I don't think that Calvin believes what you are trying to describe there. In fact I know he doesn't. I read quite a bit of his writings on baptism. He seems to be saying that water is referring to fire, which also refers to the Holy Spirit just as it did on the Day of Pentecost. I have read other commentators who have translated the conjunction "and" as "even." This is the sense that Calvin is giving, although he does not come right out and say it. Nevertheless he does equate both water and the Spirit with the Holy Spirit.
DHK
DHK
SolaScriptura
New Member
Well, he's wrong. Immersion of fire obviously is a reference to hell. On Pentecost there were tongues of fire on the apostles head, but this could not be a baptism of fire since baptism is immersion. They were not immersed in fire; immersion in fire is hell. What happened on Pentecost was a fulfillment of the first Pentecost. When God gave the law back on Sinai, the mountain was on fire due to His presence and the thunderings spoke all the languages of men. In the NT fulfillment, the disciples heads were on fire due to His presence and they spoke the languages of men. It was not an immersion of fire, but a manifestation of God's presence.
[ June 11, 2002, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]
[ June 11, 2002, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]
Sola, You have misquoted Calvin, whether deliberately or not, I cannot tell. The context of the entire quote was John 3:5, of which very concisely he says this:Originally posted by SolaScriptura:
Well, he's wrong. Immersion of fire obviously is a reference to hell.
"First, they are in error in imagining that there is any mention of baptism in this passage, merely because the world water is used."
He goes on to say it refers to the Holy Spirit. The word water is used. No where in this passage is the word baptism used. What are you talking about? You are reading into this passage something that is not there.
DHK
SolaScriptura:
Since the beginning of your post, you seem to imply that we are not SAVED by believing in Jesus as our Lord a savior WITHOUT being BAPTISED.
I have been baptised twice in two different denominations. Does that mean I am really on track?
I will leave you with this question:
Are all who are baptised Christians and really believe in Jesus?
If not, then it seems baptism is not glued to faith as you say because baptism doesn't mean you are a Christian. To me, baptism is great to show, not your faith, but your committment to Christ but even then, this can be faked also and does not in any way take away your salvation.
Something more than baptism, is your repentance as seen by others. Many believe and are baptised but NOT ALL repenet immediately. Maybe in some areas, but some still hang on to many , what you would call, minor sins. Overeating is one that many fail to even think about as a sin, yet it is!!
God Bless...............Alex
Since the beginning of your post, you seem to imply that we are not SAVED by believing in Jesus as our Lord a savior WITHOUT being BAPTISED.
I have been baptised twice in two different denominations. Does that mean I am really on track?
I will leave you with this question:
Are all who are baptised Christians and really believe in Jesus?
If not, then it seems baptism is not glued to faith as you say because baptism doesn't mean you are a Christian. To me, baptism is great to show, not your faith, but your committment to Christ but even then, this can be faked also and does not in any way take away your salvation.
Something more than baptism, is your repentance as seen by others. Many believe and are baptised but NOT ALL repenet immediately. Maybe in some areas, but some still hang on to many , what you would call, minor sins. Overeating is one that many fail to even think about as a sin, yet it is!!
God Bless...............Alex
SolaScriptura
New Member
DHK, I think you misread my latest 2 posts. Notce again:
In my last 2 posts I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about water baptism. I was talking about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit vs. the Baptism of Fire.
DHK, in your quotation of Calvin, he starts talking about Matthew 3:11-12 and says "Therefore as to baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, is to confer the Holy Spirit..."
He says that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the Baptism of Fire are the same (i.e. that they both 'confer' the Holy Spirit) - I disagree (and I gave reasons why I do, showing that the Baptism of Fire must be hell due to context, i.e. the next verse Matt. 3:12, etc). Matt 3:12 links the "Baptism of Fire" to "burning the chaff (wicked) with unquenchable fire" which is so obviously an image of hell. That's all I said in those last 2 posts, so please tell me what YOU are talking about. I don't know where you got the idea that I was saying anything about water baptism in these last 2 posts since I didn't even mention it AT ALL. I might add to this also, that not only does Calvin make these 2 very separate immersions into one, but he wholly destroys the meaning of both. He changes Fire Baptism from hell to the Holy Spirit, and he changes the Baptism of the Holy Spirit into mere reception of the Holy Spirit rather than BAPTISM (which means immersion as you yourself boldly proclaim). There is a clear difference between recieving and being immersed into - in one, something is given to you, while in the other, you are plunged into something (and not merely recieving it). NOTE: I used the word something to explain immersion vs. reception in general. The Holy Spirit, however, is a person and not an object.
My last 2 posts can be very easily summed up by the following 3 equations:
Baptism of Fire = Immersion in hell
Baptism of Holy Spirit = Immersion in the Holy Spirit
Immersion in hell NOT= Immersion in the Holy Spirit
Alex:
[ June 12, 2002, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]
In my last 2 posts I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about water baptism. I was talking about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit vs. the Baptism of Fire.
DHK, in your quotation of Calvin, he starts talking about Matthew 3:11-12 and says "Therefore as to baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, is to confer the Holy Spirit..."
He says that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the Baptism of Fire are the same (i.e. that they both 'confer' the Holy Spirit) - I disagree (and I gave reasons why I do, showing that the Baptism of Fire must be hell due to context, i.e. the next verse Matt. 3:12, etc). Matt 3:12 links the "Baptism of Fire" to "burning the chaff (wicked) with unquenchable fire" which is so obviously an image of hell. That's all I said in those last 2 posts, so please tell me what YOU are talking about. I don't know where you got the idea that I was saying anything about water baptism in these last 2 posts since I didn't even mention it AT ALL. I might add to this also, that not only does Calvin make these 2 very separate immersions into one, but he wholly destroys the meaning of both. He changes Fire Baptism from hell to the Holy Spirit, and he changes the Baptism of the Holy Spirit into mere reception of the Holy Spirit rather than BAPTISM (which means immersion as you yourself boldly proclaim). There is a clear difference between recieving and being immersed into - in one, something is given to you, while in the other, you are plunged into something (and not merely recieving it). NOTE: I used the word something to explain immersion vs. reception in general. The Holy Spirit, however, is a person and not an object.
My last 2 posts can be very easily summed up by the following 3 equations:
Baptism of Fire = Immersion in hell
Baptism of Holy Spirit = Immersion in the Holy Spirit
Immersion in hell NOT= Immersion in the Holy Spirit
Alex:
Baptism is worthless for those baptized prior to belief. But to the one who believes and then is baptized Jesus gave the promise that he shall be saved (in Mk. 16:16). Furthermore, in Acts 2 the Bible says "they that gladly recieved the word were baptized." A person cannot claim to be a disciple of Christ (or Christian) while refusing baptism, since those that recieve God's word get baptized. You act as if I said "baptism alone saves without faith" - come now! I NEVER SAID SUCH A THING! "Baptism saves" says Peter "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 3:21) That is that when one is baptized in faith, he is baptized (and put) into Christ and into Christ's death, buried with Christ, so that he may be resurrected by the Spirit to serve the Living God.Are all people who are baptised really Christians and do they really believe in Jesus? (Your question, paraphrased a bit)
[ June 12, 2002, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]
Mat.3:10 And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Let's consider these passages of Scripture in the light of what you have said, and possibly what Calvin has said. In Matthew chapter three, John the Baptist speaks to the Pharisees and Sadducees (verse 7), about the coming judgement upon those who refuse to repent. Those of the nation of Israel that refuse to repent God will judge, as a tree that brings forth no fruit, and cast it into fire. But for those who do repent (verse 11), John baptizes unto repentance. For them there is one coming that is mightier even then John who will not baptize with water, but with the Holy Ghost and with fire. You do not give the fires of Hell to a saved person!! Look at the context of the verse.
Then in verse 12, he goes back to the theme of judgement on those of the nation of Israel who will not repent.
In Acts 1:5 Jesus refers to the baptism of John, and the same baptism that John referred to: that of the Holy Ghost, that they would receive shortly.
In Acts 2:1 they were filled with the Holy Ghost; cloven tongues like as of fire sat upon each of them, and the Lord gave them power to speak forth His Word. Thus the fire of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled in this verse. How? First, take note that when referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, whereas others may be referring to some kind of "Second Blessing," I am not. There is one baptizer. That is Jesus. Jesus, at the point of salvation "baptizes" us into the Spirit. There is no other baptism, other than water baptism. But we cannot neglect the promise of Jesus to baptize with the Holy Spirit either. Thus there are two baptisms. One happens at salvation. The other (water) is symbolic of salvation.
DHK
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Let's consider these passages of Scripture in the light of what you have said, and possibly what Calvin has said. In Matthew chapter three, John the Baptist speaks to the Pharisees and Sadducees (verse 7), about the coming judgement upon those who refuse to repent. Those of the nation of Israel that refuse to repent God will judge, as a tree that brings forth no fruit, and cast it into fire. But for those who do repent (verse 11), John baptizes unto repentance. For them there is one coming that is mightier even then John who will not baptize with water, but with the Holy Ghost and with fire. You do not give the fires of Hell to a saved person!! Look at the context of the verse.
Then in verse 12, he goes back to the theme of judgement on those of the nation of Israel who will not repent.
In Acts 1:5 Jesus refers to the baptism of John, and the same baptism that John referred to: that of the Holy Ghost, that they would receive shortly.
In Acts 2:1 they were filled with the Holy Ghost; cloven tongues like as of fire sat upon each of them, and the Lord gave them power to speak forth His Word. Thus the fire of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled in this verse. How? First, take note that when referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, whereas others may be referring to some kind of "Second Blessing," I am not. There is one baptizer. That is Jesus. Jesus, at the point of salvation "baptizes" us into the Spirit. There is no other baptism, other than water baptism. But we cannot neglect the promise of Jesus to baptize with the Holy Spirit either. Thus there are two baptisms. One happens at salvation. The other (water) is symbolic of salvation.
DHK
I know there are many scriptures that say we should be Baptised by submersion in water to pubically show our acceptance of Jesus. This I believe but I still do not think it is an absolute MUST. The thief on the cross was not baptised by water as well as many who accept Christ on their death beds and cannot be baptised due to their health status. I also believe that young children who are baptised by the request of their parents bears no fruit in many cases as later on, these children, take a different road......many into cults. So again, baptism, does not "seal the deal". As many have stated, there are two batisms, one by the spirit and the other by water.
It is no wonder why many choose not to become a Christian when we Christians have so many different concepts of what the scriptures mean and thus the many denominations.
What about the "woman at the well". Did Jesus tell her to be baptised by water? If I am correct, He said, " Go away and sin no more". She was baptised in the spirit.
God Bless................Alex
It is no wonder why many choose not to become a Christian when we Christians have so many different concepts of what the scriptures mean and thus the many denominations.
What about the "woman at the well". Did Jesus tell her to be baptised by water? If I am correct, He said, " Go away and sin no more". She was baptised in the spirit.
God Bless................Alex
SolaScriptura
New Member
Duh, but DHK, in the immediate context fire is used in a BAD SENSE.You do not give the fires of Hell to a saved person!!
NOTICE:
--Cutting them down and casting them in the fire represent sending them to hell, right?(Mat 3:10) And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
The chaff represents the wicked (like in the parable of the tares) and burning the chafff with unquenchable fire obviously represents hell, right?(Mat 3:12 KJV) Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Now, if fire in verses 10 and 12 refer to hell, then how can you possibly make fire in verse 11 mean "Holy Spirit"?
Alex:
In such extreme cases God will do as he wishes. BUT it is not up to us to say "if a dying man can be saved without baptism WE CAN TOO." An extreme case does not disprove the normal case. God commands that we be baptized and if we are able to do so we must do so.The thief on the cross was not baptised by water as well as many who accept Christ on their death beds and cannot be baptised due to their health status
(Eph 4:5 KJV) One Lord, one faith, one baptism,As many have stated, there are two batisms, one by the spirit and the other by water.
There is only one baptism that is necessary and intended to last forever - water baptism. The baptism of the Holy Spirit only occured twice (Acts 2, Acts 10) once to confirm the apostles and again to confirm the gentiles. The baptism that is still in use by God today is the one he commanded the apostles to administer - it is administered by human hands and therefore cannot be Spirit baptism (which only Jesus Himself can administer, Mt 3:11) - it is water baptism.
[ June 12, 2002, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]
Originally posted by SolaScriptura:
This is an admission that you do not have the Holy Spirit?The baptism that is still in use by God today is the one he commanded the apostles to administer - it is administered by human hands and therefore cannot be Spirit baptism (which only Jesus Himself can administer, Mt 3:11) - it is water baptism.
Rom.8:9 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.
Do you have the Spirit of Christ? How did you get it?
SolaScriptura
New Member
Did you not read my post about the difference between reception and immersion? It doesn't look like you did.This is an admission that you do not have the Holy Spirit?
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)
Reception of the Holy Spirit follows baptism. Saying that the baptism of the Holy Spirit only ocurred twice (in Acts 2 & Acts 10) does not mean no one today has the Holy Spirit because immersion and reception are NOT EQUAL.
Originally posted by SolaScriptura:
If I understand you correctly: First there is belief; Second there is baptism: third there is reception of the Holy Spirit.Reception of the Holy Spirit follows baptism. Saying that the baptism of the Holy Spirit only ocurred twice (in Acts 2 & Acts 10) does not mean no one today has the Holy Spirit because immersion and reception are NOT EQUAL.
Going on that formula, please tell me what magic there is in water to bring about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer. If I go take a bath, will the Holy Spirit come? Why all this superstition about H2O? You say that the Holy Spirit comes only after you get dunked in water??
Thus you believe in a works salvation, water being the agent whereby your sins are washed away, when the Bible says that the blood of Christ washes away our sin (1John 1:7).
I take you back to Romans 8:9 "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."
I received the Holy Spirit when I believed on Christ. I wasn't baptized (by water) until two years later, but I certainly had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for those two years. My life had completely changed. After baptism nothing much changed. After salvation, a lot changed. I can tell you the reason why, but I hope that you can figure it out.
DHK