Strange Fire

[The Biblicist]

The esentials of the faith would include Water Baptism, and as a Baptist, do think that how we view it to be done and what it represents is the correct biblical way, but would also say that if one understands the Bible to allow infant Baptising, that is NOT same as one denying jesus is God for example!

Like what Dr Mohler has wriiten on this, as he sees 3 classes of doctrines Christians agree with, and level one are the essentials of the Faith, as ALL must agree with them...

Level 2 would be like How to administer Water Baptism, if Spiritual gifys still exisr etc...
t as.

Dr. Mohler's opinion is about as good as anyone elses opinion if personal opinion is your final authority. I would prefer to have an inspired opinion to base my view on. For example, consider these three principles which are Biblical based.

1. Every doctrine/practice the Bible explicitly states or implicitly demands is a "must" or offers no other option or demands is non-negotiable must be regarded as essential.

2. Every doctrine/practice that is essential to distinguish NT Christianity from other world religions or predicted apostate Christianity must be regarded as essential.

3. Every doctrine/practice that is necessary to preserve the essentials of NT. Christianity must be regarded as essential.

If one removed the local church, its ordinances, its officers, its worship, its mission from the pages of the New Testament there would be very little New Testament Scriptures left to read.

The very meaning of the term "baptizo" is immersion and one cannot say that baptism is essential and at the same time deny the very meaning of the term they are using to claim it is essential and that is precisely what you and dr. Mohler are doing.

Where there is no scriptural baptism there can be no true New Testament ekklesia, as its very constitution is dependent upon baptized materials as the ekklesia is not about salvation but about proper SERVICE! So to argue that salvation can be the only essential is to confuse the purpose and function of the ekklesia with salvation when it demands salvation as just one prerequisite for membership and not the only prerequisite.

 

[The Biblicist]

Blah, blah, blah.

And yet one of the qualifications of a deacon was that he should be "full of the Holy Ghost."

[sarcasm]Oh, wait. There's a difference between filling and baptising, because we have to make the Scriptures fit our dry, legalistic and carnal experiences.[/sarcasm]

When a person cannot deal with evidence, then the only thing left to do is to ridicule and attack the person providing what they cannot deal with substantively.

 

[Aaron]

When a person cannot deal with evidence, then the only thing left to do is to ridicule and attack the person providing what they cannot deal with substantively.

Lol.

And yet, when you speak of the evidence of the "filling," it will sound very much like someone else describing the "baptism."

(Not talking about tongues.)

 

[TCassidy]

All of Christ's Truth is important. There are NO unimportant Truths.

 

[The Biblicist]

Lol.

And yet, when you speak of the evidence of the "filling," it will sound very much like someone else describing the "baptism."

(Not talking about tongues.)

I really have no idea what you are talking about. My post was about the "baptism" in the Spirit not "filling." So what is your point?

 

[TCassidy]

[sarcasm]Oh, wait. There's a difference between filling and baptising, because we have to make the Scriptures fit our dry, legalistic and carnal experiences.[/sarcasm]

If you don't understand the difference between filling and baptism perhaps you ought not be involved in this discussion.

Baptism = you in the water.
Filling = the water in you.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit = you in the Holy Spirit.
Filling of the Holy Spirit = the Holy Spirit in you.

 

[Aaron]

If you don't understand the difference between filling and baptism perhaps you ought not be involved in this discussion.

Baptism = you in the water.
Filling = the water in you.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit = you in the Holy Spirit.
Filling of the Holy Spirit = the Holy Spirit in you.

And so, how do I know that one is filled, and another is not?

 

[Aaron]

I really have no idea what you are talking about. My post was about the "baptism" in the Spirit not "filling." So what is your point?

The distinction is really artificial. So I'll pose the same question.

How do I know one is filled, and another is not?

 

[The Biblicist]

The distinction is really artificial. So I'll pose the same question.

How do I know one is filled, and another is not?

Are you really serious???? You think the "filling" of the Spirit is merely an artificial distinction from the "baptism" in the Spirit? Didn't you read Cassidy's post? Ok, then do this for me. Find ANYONE baptized in the Spirit prior to Pentecost while there are accounts of being "filled" prior to Pentecost. Explain, why the "baptism" in the Spirit is always future tense prior to Pentecost or why they must wait in Jerusalem for something that already occurred prior to Pentecost (according to your theory) as John the Baptist was "filled" with the Spirit from his mother's womb.

Explain what you think "filling" of the Spirit means?

 

[Aaron]

I asked first. You're the "Biblicist."

 

[The Biblicist]

I asked first. You're the "Biblicist."

Obviously you can't respond as your theory will not hold up as there are those "filled" prior to Pentecost but the "baptism" is always future tense prior to Pentecost proving they are not one and the same.

Ok, I think I spelled out fairly clearly what I believe the "baptism" in the Spirit is in the post you are reacting to. Besides the essential distinctions in the very meaning of the words employed "immersion" in the Spirit as contrasted by "filling" of the Spirit, the "filling" of the Spirit is fairly explained by Paul in Ephesians 5:18. When a man is intoxicated he is completely dominated or under the influence of wine, likewise, filling of the Spirit is being brought under complete submission to the Holy Spirit so that your walk, talk, attitude reflects the will of the Spirit of God.

The baptism in the Spirit is institutional for public attestation while the filling of the Spirit is individual for overcoming indwelling sin.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Reformed and Pentecostal view of "the baptism in the Spirit" is strange fire.

First of all, I am sick of people describing things they dislike as 'strange fire.' Just read Matthew 7:1-5 and Romans 14:4, 10 through several times until the urge goes away.

Neither one can harmonize with the Biblical description or five Biblical characteristics of the baptism in the Spirit:

The Reformed paedobaptist fails on the ground that all the males baptized in Acts 2:41 would already have received what paedobaptists describe as the 'covenant sign' when they were circumcised. Therefore they didn't need another.
But the Landmarkist view fails for much the same reason. If JTB's baptism was sufficient, why were they baptized again? 'Those who gladly received his words' were baptized. That must have included many who had previously been baptized by JTB.

 

[The Biblicist]

First of all, I am sick of people describing things they dislike as 'strange fire.' Just read Matthew 7:1-5 and Romans 14:4, 10 through several times until the urge goes away.

sound more like a personal problem.

T

he Reformed paedobaptist fails on the ground that all the males baptized in Acts 2:41 would already have received what paedobaptists describe as the 'covenant sign' when they were circumcised. Therefore they didn't need another.
But the Landmarkist view fails for much the same reason. If JTB's baptism was sufficient, why were they baptized again? 'Those who gladly received his words' were baptized. That must have included many who had previously been baptized by JTB.

You talk about sick and tired, I am sick and tired of hearing outright lies. There is no evidence anyone was baptized again. Your theory is so weak it has to take a text 20 years after Pentecost and then twist and turn it until it fits. Those baptized again in Acts 19 were not baptized by John the Baptist as they were ignorant of basic things that characterized John's ministry. They had been baptized in reference to the name of John the Baptist whereas John the Baptist administered baptism in reference to the coming Christ, requiring repentance and faith in that Christ as prerequisites for baptism (Mt. 3:8; Jn. 3:36; Acts 19:4).

You are simply perverting scriptures, jerking them out of context and abusing them to defend your false doctrine.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You talk about sick and tired, I am sick and tired of hearing outright lies. There is no evidence anyone was baptized again. Your theory is so weak it has to take a text 20 years after Pentecost and then twist and turn it until it fits. Those baptized again in Acts 19

First of all, try to keep a civil tongue in your head. I do not tell lies. Secondly, I did not mention Acts 19. Read the post again and try to understand it.

 

[The Biblicist]

First of all, try to keep a civil tongue in your head. I do not tell lies. Secondly, I did not mention Acts 19. Read the post again and try to understand it.

No one accused you of lying. What you were teaching is a lie, regardless, if you are sincere or not in promoting it. Second, you did say they had to be "baptized again." Ok, if Acts 19 is not your text for this assertion then what text of scripture are you basing this assertion on? Silence again???

 

[The Biblicist]

Matthew 28:19-20 is given as an AGE LONG commission of things Jesus claimed to "HAVE" already commanded them and practiced. Baptism is listed. The ONLY baptism received by Christ (Mt.3:15-17) and administered under his authority (Jn. 4:1-2) is the baptism of John (Lk. 7:29-30). Hence, he is authorizing the BAPTISM OF JOHN to be administered unto the end of the age AS THERE IS NTHER BAPTISM IN EXISTENCE when giving this command.

To ASSUME on the basis of pure SILENCE that this "counsel of God" was rejected by God on the day of Pentecost and that all who had been baptized by John were the 3000 or among the 3000 is pure presumption without a single text of scripture to support while overthrowing many clear texts to the contrary. Anyone who takes such a position is running scared and trying to defend the undefendable.

Not only is this pure PRESUMPTION but contrary to the immediate context of Acts 2:5-11. These men were not from Palestine but OUTSIDE of Palenstine from the different countries explicitly stated that had travelled into Palestine to observe the Passover and Pentecost.

Those baptized John were IN PALESTINE and years before and those Jesus baptized were from within Palestine.

 

[TCassidy]

And so, how do I know that one is filled, and another is not?

You don't.

 

[TCassidy]

If JTB's baptism was sufficient, why were they baptized again?

Who says they were?

'Those who gladly received his words' were baptized. That must have included many who had previously been baptized by JTB.

Why "must" there have been?

Is there any scriptural record of anyone baptized by John the Baptist being re-baptized?

 

[Jerome]

First of all, I am sick of people describing things they dislike as 'strange fire.'

People like Benjamin Keach?:

Benjamin Keach, Gold Refined: Baptism in Its Primitive Purity (London, 1689) pp. 111-112

"You may as well ask, why Nadab and Abihu might not have offered Strange Fire, or why might not the Priest? carry the Ark in a Cart—The Reason why they ought to do neither of those things were, because God commanded them not so to do. In like manner, say we, Children must not be baptized, because God hath given no Command to do it."

 

[The Biblicist]

The distinction is really artificial. So I'll pose the same question.

How do I know one is filled, and another is not?

You know by the manifest fruit (Gal. 5:16-23). Of course, Satan can counterfeit such fruit to a certain superficial point, so in some cases you might not be able to know for sure.