Featured Two baptisms: Which is which?

I don't know why you can't get it through your head that this is one time where the giving of the HS was delayed so that the apostles could give personal witness to the Jews to the fact that the Gospel was indeed for non-Jews. This was the first instance of non-Jews receiving the Gospel. Have you forgotten how despised the Samaritans were by the Jews? Do you not remember the parable of Jesus about this? God delayed giving the HS to these Samaritans so that the apostles could confirm firsthand by eyewitness account that the Gospel was for the Samaritans, as well. Do you think that if the Jews had heard that the Samaritans had received the Gospel that they would have believed it without the eyewitness testimony of the apostles? No! That's why the giving of the HS to the Samaritans was delayed until the apostles could witness it firsthand.

But instead of admitting this, Charismatics want to take it and build an entire movement on a misrepresented doctrine and make two classes of Christians, those who have received the HS baptism and those who have not. This is a blatantly false doctrine!

What I have said is fact. You willingly ignore the truth to keep your false doctrine. This doctrine divides the body of Christ, makes two classes of Christians, and does great harm.

 

Jesus was water baptized to 'fulfill all rightousness", but he did NOT have a "baptism in the Holy ghost", as He full of the Holy spirit, as he was and is God!

Again the bible commands us to be filled withby the HS NEVER to get baptized in him!

Do you have a verse saying we need to be?

 

See the part I bolded which shows just how foolish you are. That is NOT what I said, and those are not the facts, and you know it. The Jews would not have believed the Gospel was for the Samaritans if the apostles had not been there personally to confirm it; that's why the HS was not given until then.

I don't post theories unless I identify them as such.

 

See my first responses above, in red.

I have figured something out about you: You are either too dumb or dishonest to have a conversation with, as what you have said above shows. Now I may get an infraction for that, but that is what I believe, and your posts bear it out.

 

He isn't. Study the context and the Greek. The context of the chapter is the local church. The Corinthian church (ekklesia) is an assembly consisting of many members, as is every local church/assembly. Every member has its own unique gift or God-given ability that God has gifted him with. In the first century some of these were the gifts of the Spirit, but not all of them. He addresses this problem because it was a carnal church, but it was a problem specific to the Corinthian church, not to any of the other churches. The principle to learn is that each local church has many members. These members need to use their gifts and work in harmony one with another.
Here is 1Cor.12:13

1 Corinthians 12:13 και γαρ εν ενι πνευματι ημεις παντες εις εν σωμα εβαπτισθημεν ειτε ιουδαιοι ειτε ελληνες ειτε δουλοι ειτε ελευθεροι και παντες εις εν πνευμα εποτισθημεν
--The spirit is not the Holy Spirit, but rather a spirit of unity among the believers. The body is the body of believers of the Corinthian church. The baptism is water baptism.
The Greek word ev is used, meaning "in one spirit" suggesting that we are not baptized by the Spirit, but rather in one spirit, referring to the spirit of the church.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
1 Corinthians 12:27 υμεις δε εστε σωμα χριστου και μελη εκ μερους
--The same is true here. The definite article was inserted by the translators. It is more accurately translated "a body of Christ," which the local church at Corinth is. Each of the members made up one body. This is what was being described here.

1 Corinthians 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
--This can only apply to one local church, whatever that local church may be. We know, who in our church are sick, who has cancer, who has injured themself at work and therefore is temporarily out of work, who is about to give birth, who may soon be married, etc. We suffer with each other; we rejoice with each other. These verses can only apply to the local church into which each member has been physically baptized by water. Look through history. Virtually every segment of Christendom has used baptism as the gate to church membership.

What Scriptural evidence can you give that makes sense in its given context. For example the baptism of Jesus doesn't make sense does it, for his baptism has nothing to do with ours.

Paul emphasizes water baptism.

For in one spirit (of unity) we were all baptized into this one body or local church. That is the Biblical way of doing things. First salvation. Second baptism. Third church membership.

But Paul did not say that. Only you said that. That is simply your interpretation of what you think Paul said.

In reference to the second half of verse 13, I refer you to the Greek scholar A.T. Robertson:

He is describing believers being in unity with each other in the local church. This was a church in which division and schism was a problem. Paul was teaching unity. There needs to be unity in the local church.
This passage does not talk of a universal church. Such an animal does not exist.

The only baptism there is is that of water.
Drinking of the Holy Spirit is no doubt a reference back to when one was indwelt with the Spirit, and from that time onward we drink of the Spirit from His Word.
The "one body" is the "body of the Corinthian Church," the church that Paul was writing about, the one with unity problems.

You last statement is true. But not because there is a subsequent baptism or subsequent blessing of any kind.
Here is an important command of Scripture:

Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
Being filled with the Holy Spirit will bring the power of the Holy Spirit.
The verse is a command to be continually filled with the Holy Spirit, as one should strive to do so on a day by day basis. It involves submitting to Him and yielding to Him; saying no to self, denying yourself of your desires and giving yourself to the desires of Christ. In this manner Paul called himself "the slave of Christ."

When Peter was filled with the Spirit:
He spoke with tongues, he preached with power, he spoke before the Sanhedrin, he preached fearlessly. It is the filling of the Holy Spirit that brings the power of the Holy Spirit. However, the power of the Holy Spirit is primarily for the purpose of preaching.

 

Well, other than that "he" is a "she", I agree with you.

 

You are dishonest because you post that I said something I did not say. You take what I said and modify and twist it into something else to deflect from your untenable position.

YOU are the one who ignores scripture and context; you have to because it totally refutes you. You have absolutely no basis for your claims; it is YOU who are theorizing. You have to do that to provide some kind of excuse to defend your unscriptural doctrine and practice.

Here is an affirmation of the interpretation of the verses and instances in question regarding the instances of the delayed baptism of the HS in scripture, and tongues being given as a witness. This is taken from the influential and scholarly book, The Religious Bodies of America, by F.E. Mayer. About speaking in tongues, the author says,"Relatively little space is given in the New Testament to speaking in tongues. In the light of this fact it seems rather strange that such extreme Biblicists as the Pentecostals can consider this phenomenon indispensable for the church and the Spirit's work. It is noteworthy that when St. Paul describes the Spirit's work, e.g., Gal: 5:22,23, he makes no reference whatsoever to speaking in tongues. In fact, this phenomenon was not present in every New Testament church. It is mentioned only three times in the Book of Acts, and only in 1 Corinthians 14 does St. Paul discuss it. The three references to this phenomenon in Acts indicate clearly that it was given purely as a witness to the Gospel proclamation. On Pentecost Day it was one of the signs to convince Israel that the crucified Jesus is Savior and Lord. In the home of Cornelius the phenomenon helped to show Peter that the Gospel is for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews. At Ephesus (Acts 19: 1-7) this charismatic gift served to persuade the disciples of John the Baptist that the Christian era had replaced the Johannine era."

One who simply refuses to accept the scriptural truth when confronted with irrefutable evidence is foolish indeed. The teaching that the baptism of the HS is separate from conversion and that it is evidenced by tongues is false doctrine. The three times it was mentioned in Acts were exceptional, specific, unrepeatable events.

 

can you point out ONE verse that command NT believers to seek the baptism in the Holy Spirit, as neing a seperate working of His after salvation ?

 

Some boys were specially-called in the OT ... the prophets had the God's Spirit come UPON them.

But, dis NEVER EVER EVER happened with the normal-every-day Jews.

2 groups in the OT ... (1) Spirit-UPON boys anointed for special tasks ... and ... (2) the non-anointed.
2 groups in the NT ... (1) Spirit-UPON boys anointed for special tasks ... and ... (2) the non-anointed.

Hi, DHK, what's happenin', bro?
.

 

sorry ..................