What is baptism of the Holy Spirit?

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I don't think it will get derailed by answering that question. Now, back to the issue at hand:

What must I do to be saved?

GE:

It is the miracle of salvation, that it is the saved and only the already saved, who will ever ask, 'What must I do to be saved?'

I promise you, no one not saved for eternity, will ask this question. The war starts for the enrolled only; they only, face the enemy. And the battle started no sooner than when the Lord God had seperated them unto Himself. Now the holidays are over -- NO REST FOR THE SAVED! ZUM KAMPFE! "I have fought the good fight and now (at the very end) ..." "godliness with contentment is (gained)".

 

[Snitzelhoff]

You can't believe in the Lord Jesus without repenting of everything else?

Right. Faith in Christ alone--that there is no other name under Heaven by which we must be savd--establishes trusting in Christ as an exclusive thing. So until you have truly stopped trusting in other things for what only Christ can give, you are not truly trusting Christ for it.

Michael

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Right. Faith in Christ alone--that there is no other name under Heaven by which we must be savd--establishes trusting in Christ as an exclusive thing. So until you have truly stopped trusting in other things for what only Christ can give, you are not truly trusting Christ for it.

Michael

GE:

This is the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit, that one would not accept the Only One of Whom He testifies for the forgiveness of sin and salvation, even Jesus Christ, and He exclusively to any rival saviour.

 

[bmerr]

Bmerr,

I don't buy that the "form of the doctrine" was a single act symbolic of the Gospel, but rather heeding the Gospel as a whole--that is, representing the doctrine in their lives.

Michael,

bmerr here. I've been giving the above comment a bit of thought, and it seems to me that Paul has a specific moment in time in mind here. 6:18 begins with "Being then..." When? Whenever he meant, it was then, or at that point that they were made free from sin and became servants of righteousness.

Would not your point of view require that it was only after the doctrine of Christ was represented in their lives, their daily conversation, that they were made free from sin? If that were the case, it would require one to abandon any notion of salvation by "faith only", would it not?

I do not believe that Paul's intention in Romans 6:17 was to speak of baptism, but rather being conformed to the Gospel message.

Again, it seems as though it would be only after their lives had been completely transformed that they would be free from sin and become the servants of righteousness.

However, if my postion is true, then it would only require one to believe, repent, confess, and be baptized in order to be made free from sin, and this pattern is certainly found in each of the conversion accounts we have available.

For your consideration.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Bmerr, it would not require me to give up the notion of "faith only"; rather, it would speak to the very Biblical idea of faith manifesting itself through works. Once one is internally and initially submitted to Christ--that is, fully trusting in Him--the one will be conformed to Him in daily life. The former is the point of conversion--the point of justification, one might say the point of "salvation". The latter is the "working out" of that salvation.

Now, your point of view does have the advantage that "obeyed" is in aorist active indicative--that is, it refers to a specific thing that was done, not a continuous action. But, all that proves is that there is a specific point of justification, and that is something upon which we agree.

However, if my postion is true, then it would only require one to believe, repent, confess, and be baptized in order to be made free from sin, and this pattern is certainly found in each of the conversion accounts we have available.

Is it? If I thought that were the pattern for conversion, I would still hold your view. But there are conversion accounts that, without making assumptions not really warranted by the text, do not lend themselves to that pattern (they do not mention one or more of the steps on your salvation checklist). I would grant that in conversion accounts, people often need not be told what they already know (e.g. someone who has already repented need not be told to repent), but past that I find it dangerous to assume what is not stated simply because our theology demands that it be there. I discovered two main approaches to these passages in Restoration Movement hermeneutics:

1. They should be assumed to include what is not recorded.

2. "Faith" should be redefined to include the missing "steps".

Without redefining Biblical terms according to one's theology or assuming what is not in the text or a necessary inference from the text in many (possibly the majority) of conversion accounts, I do not see your consistent pattern in Acts.

So, to briefly summarize:

The moment to which Romans 6 points is, so far as I can see, the moment of internal conversion, at which one trusts in Christ to the exclusion of others. Thus, one is yielded to righteousness and that salvation becomes "worked out" in one's life.

The consistent pattern of baptism as part of the conversion process does not appear in Acts without first believing that baptism is a necessary part of the conversion process, since there are multiple accounts where baptism is neither stated nor necessarily inferred.

Michael

 

[bmerr]

... it would speak to the very Biblical idea of faith manifesting itself through works.

Michael,

bmerr here. So what is faith that has not yet been manifested through works? Is it not dead (James 2:17, 20, 26)?

Now, your point of view does have the advantage that "obeyed" is in aorist active indicative--that is, it refers to a specific thing that was done, not a continuous action. But, all that proves is that there is a specific point of justification, and that is something upon which we agree.

I was not aware of the tense, I was just going off "Being then made free from sin...", and asking, "When?"

If I thought that were the pattern for conversion, I would still hold your view. But there are conversion accounts that, without making assumptions not really warranted by the text, do not lend themselves to that pattern (they do not mention one or more of the steps on your salvation checklist).

It's true that every step in the pattern is not explicitly stated in each conversion account. I don't see that it would be necessary to list them each time.

If I told my boss that I had a flat tire on the way to work which would cause me to be late, it would be unnecessary to tell him that I had to stop my truck, open the door, get out of the truck, get the jack and lug wrench out, jack up the tire, loosen the lug nuts, remove the tire, get the spare tire out from that accursed holder some sadistic lunatic designed, put it on the truck, tighten the lug nuts, let the jack down, throw the flat tire in the back, stow the jack and lug wrench, get in the truck, close the door, and continue my way to work.

I could just tell him I had a flat, since he knows what it takes to change one.

If we search out all the things given us in Scripture pertaining to becoming a Christian, we can "fill in the blanks" when all of those things are not listed in the text, knowing what is required of one to become a Christian.

I find it dangerous to assume what is not stated simply because our theology demands that it be there.

I would also find this dangerous. However, if the Scriptures demand things, I think we can safely conclude their being there, even if they're not stated.

The moment to which Romans 6 points is, so far as I can see, the moment of internal conversion

What you're going to have to show then, is an instance where someone was "internally converted", had their sins remitted, and was added to the church before and without their having been baptized. At least find someone who rejoiced when he was "internally converted" before he was baptized. Shouldn't be too hard.

The consistent pattern of baptism as part of the conversion process does not appear in Acts without first believing that baptism is a necessary part of the conversion process, since there are multiple accounts where baptism is neither stated nor necessarily inferred.

Michael

If it's not required for some, and is for others, then God is a respecter of persons, or the Covenant of Christ has not been established. Neither of these is true.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Right. Faith in Christ alone--that there is no other name under Heaven by which we must be savd--establishes trusting in Christ as an exclusive thing. So until you have truly stopped trusting in other things for what only Christ can give, you are not truly trusting Christ for it.

Michael

GE:

Amen!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Schnitzelhoff:

".... Once one is internally and initially submitted to Christ--that is, fully trusting in Him--the one will be conformed to Him in daily life. The former is the point of conversion--the point of justification, one might say the point of "salvation". The latter is the "working out" of that salvation."

GE:

I would use the word 'regeneration' for your word, "conversion"; and I would use the word 'conversion' for what you afterwards describe --- thus:

Once one is internally and initially submitted (mark the passive!) to Christ -- that is, fully trusting in Him -- one in daily life will be conformed to Him .

The being submitted -- the moment of being brought to faith -- is the point of REGENERATION -- the point of justification, the point of "salvation": 'ONCE FOR ALL'.

One's constantly being conformed to Christ (Mark the Passive still!), is one's CONVERSION - one's "working out" his salvation.

I think we actually agree deeply.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I always put it like this:

One does not vonvert himself so that he may or can be born again; one is born again so that he may and can be converted.

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Bmerr,

bmerr here. So what is faith that has not yet been manifested through works? Is it not dead (James 2:17, 20, 26)?

The faith that does not manifest itself with works (in a body that is able to do so) is certainly dead. After all, if you believe a truck is heading toward you, you're going to act like a truck is heading toward you and jump out of the way. Right? So if you believe the claims of Christ, then you'll act like it by obeying the commands of Christ.

But I do not believe that James intended to convey the idea that faith is dead until it brings forth its first work. That's like saying that a baby is dead until it takes its first step. The principle in James is that living faith will manifest itself through works, not that faith "comes to life" by working. The difference is subtle, but fundamental.

The principle is demonstrated with Abraham. In Romans 4, Paul uses Abraham to show that he was justified by faith apart from works. In James 2, James uses Abraham to show how living faith produced works.

It's true that every step in the pattern is not explicitly stated in each conversion account. I don't see that it would be necessary to list them each time.

If I told my boss that I had a flat tire on the way to work which would cause me to be late, it would be unnecessary to tell him that I had to stop my truck, open the door, get out of the truck, get the jack and lug wrench out, jack up the tire, loosen the lug nuts, remove the tire, get the spare tire out from that accursed holder some sadistic lunatic designed, put it on the truck, tighten the lug nuts, let the jack down, throw the flat tire in the back, stow the jack and lug wrench, get in the truck, close the door, and continue my way to work.

I could just tell him I had a flat, since he knows what it takes to change one.

If we search out all the things given us in Scripture pertaining to becoming a Christian, we can "fill in the blanks" when all of those things are not listed in the text, knowing what is required of one to become a Christian.

But the Biblical record doesn't work like that. It would be more like you getting a flat tire several times throughout your career. The first time, you tell your boss, "I got a flat, changed it, and drove to work". The second time, you tell your boss, "I got a flat, got the jack and the lugwrench out, loosened the lug nuts, jacked up the car, removed the tire..." The third and fourth times, you say, "I got a flat tire, so I changed it." The fifth time you just say, "I had a flat". The sixth time, you say, "I had a flat, so I called AAA and they came and got me."

What you get is a situation where sometimes you add in many details and sometimes you don't. Sometimes you include this detail, sometimes that one. All your boss would know is that you A) had a flat tire, and B) showed up at work anyway. That's the situation we see in the conversion accounts in Acts. Some of the earlier accounts tell us very little and some of the later accounts include many details. We shouldn't claim that Luke was refraining from repeating information when he did, indeed, repeat the information again in another passage.

Furthermore, as you pointed out, we would have to establish that baptism actually is necessary for salvation before inferring it into every passage that does not mention it.

What you're going to have to show then, is an instance where someone was "internally converted", had their sins remitted, and was added to the church before and without their having been baptized. At least find someone who rejoiced when he was "internally converted" before he was baptized. Shouldn't be too hard.

We've hashed out Acts 10. I find that to be a prime example of someone who was very squarely saved before being baptized. He A) heard enough of Peter's message to believe (Peter had just gotten to the core Gospel message after just starting to speak), B) received the Holy Spirit, indicative of salvation, and C) miraculously manifested the Holy Spirit in order to show the people gathered there that he had, indeed, received the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 3/4, the Apostles are arrested before they can start dunkin' people, but the Scripture says they believed and gives a number, parallel to Acts 2. Are we to assume that this number of believers refers to lost people?

And again, there are many cases in Acts where people are declared saved with no mention of baptism. Unless baptism can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be inseparable from salvation, we should not assume its presence in the account.

So you've got a multitude of passages where people are saved without mention of baptism, or explicitly before baptism.

If it's not required for some, and is for others, then God is a respecter of persons, or the Covenant of Christ has not been established. Neither of these is true.

I fully agree.

Michael

 

[bmerr]

But I do not believe that James intended to convey the idea that faith is dead until it brings forth its first work. That's like saying that a baby is dead until it takes its first step.

Michael,

bmerr here. James intended to convey the idea that faith without works is dead. He conveyed that idea by writing it by inspiration. The baby illustration doesn't work because a baby does not understand the command to walk.

In contrast, an accountable person who understands what Christ has commanded and does not act on it is dead (spiritually, of course).

The principle in James is that living faith will manifest itself through works, not that faith "comes to life" by working.

The principle in James is that works perfect, or complete faith. Faith and works are two sides of the same coin. Neither is complete without the other.

Believing in Jesus and not being baptized is as worthless as being baptized and not believing in Jesus.

Paul and James both make different points in using Abraham as their illustration.

Paul makes the point that Abraham was justified by faith apart from the "deeds of the law" (Rom 3:20, etc), which is what the Judaizing teachers were attempting to bind on the Gentile converts.

James makes the point that Abraham was justified by faith, but not by faith only (James 2:24, the only place you'll find "faith only"). Justification required that Abraham do what God had commanded him to do.

Some of the earlier accounts tell us very little and some of the later accounts include many details.

We need to understand that since the establishment of the NT in Jesus' blood, all men are saved in the same way, or they are not saved at all. Once a pattern for salvation is established, it is not necessary to give full details ineach account of conversion.

This pattern was established from the very first presentation of the gospel of Christ in Acts 2. The word is preached, and the hearers are commanded to repent and be baptized. Those who gladly receive the word obey. It's not that complicated.

He [Cornelius] A) heard enough of Peter's message to believe (Peter had just gotten to the core Gospel message after just starting to speak),

First off, the Spirit fell as Peter "began to speak" (Acts 11:15, not "after just starting to speak".

Secondly, it is pure speculation on your part that Cornelius had heard enough to have faith by which to be saved.

Thirdly, the Scriptures do not indicate that speaking in tongues is evidence of salvation. Remember, there's only one way for all men to be saved. Insisting that tongues is evidence of salvation for Cornelius implies that tongues is evidence for everyone else.

There were six brethren of the circumcision with Peter that needed to be convinced that this break in protocol was ordained of God. Only Peter had seen the "sheet vision".

And when the brethren in Judea heard of the Gentiles conversion, some objected at first (Acts 11:2-3). But when they heard of the Spirit falling on the Gentiles, what was their reaction, "I guess that means they're saved"? No, they glorified God saying, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18).

Beyond all of this, the text does not explicitly say that Cornelius believed Peter's message, only that he was commanded to be baptized. Should we assume that he believed, or would we be unreasonable if we did so?

In Acts 3/4, the Apostles are arrested before they can start dunkin' people, but the Scripture says they believed and gives a number, parallel to Acts 2. Are we to assume that this number of believers refers to lost people?

Only if we assume that the apostles were the only ones who baptized people.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Bmerr,

bmerr here. James intended to convey the idea that faith without works is dead. He conveyed that idea by writing it by inspiration. The baby illustration doesn't work because a baby does not understand the command to walk.

In contrast, an accountable person who understands what Christ has commanded and does not act on it is dead (spiritually, of course).

Well, which acts, specifically, cause spiritual death in a person? That is, the NT binds us to obedience to the laws of the state. If you understand the law not to speed and the NT requirement to obey the laws of the land, and speed anyway (even unknowingly), are you spiritually dead? After all, you have just disobeyed Christ's command.

We must be careful to understand James in light of the rest of the New Testament, rather than over and against the rest of the New Testament. But I think I agree with your general idea up to this point, as I understand what you're saying.

The principle in James is that works perfect, or complete faith. Faith and works are two sides of the same coin. Neither is complete without the other.

Believing in Jesus and not being baptized is as worthless as being baptized and not believing in Jesus.

You get baptism out of this passage? So submitting to baptism is, indeed, a work, and fits into the context of the passage, which speaks to things like helping those in need? It seems the Restoration Movement is somewhat divided over whether to count baptism as a work (and thus, to put it under the highly-eisegeted James 2, but also making it subject to Ephesians 2), or to count it as a non-work, exempting it from the soteriology of Ephesians 2, but also meaning that James 2 cannot be used to support baptismal essentiality.

Decisions, decisions.

Paul and James both make different points in using Abraham as their illustration.

Paul makes the point that Abraham was justified by faith apart from the "deeds of the law" (Rom 3:20, etc), which is what the Judaizing teachers were attempting to bind on the Gentile converts.

James makes the point that Abraham was justified by faith, but not by faith only (James 2:24, the only place you'll find "faith only"). Justification required that Abraham do what God had commanded him to do.

So far as I can see, they were making complimentary points. When was Abraham justified, according to Paul? Before he was circumcised. When was he justified, according to James? When he was going to sacrifice Isaac.

So how do we harmonize the ideas presented by the two books? It seems obvious to me: Abraham was justified when he trusted God. There is no way Paul could have made that point clearer. BUT, that trust in God and subsequent justification was manifested (and thus "made complete") through the out-working (see Philippians 2:12) of it in the scene with Isaac.

We need to understand that since the establishment of the NT in Jesus' blood, all men are saved in the same way, or they are not saved at all. Once a pattern for salvation is established, it is not necessary to give full details ineach account of conversion.

This pattern was established from the very first presentation of the gospel of Christ in Acts 2. The word is preached, and the hearers are commanded to repent and be baptized. Those who gladly receive the word obey. It's not that complicated.

Oh, obviously, those things happened in most of those accounts. My dispute here is not whether repentance, salvation, and baptism happened, and whether those who received the word obeyed it. Rather, it is with the idea that baptism was ever made a condition of salvation and that that pattern is repeated. As is clearly seen in Acts 2:38, it is not.

Instead, what is seen in Acts 2:38 is the following:

"All of you, repent (also, let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of the sins of all of you, and all of you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"

Now, I know Greek does not have parenthesis. What Greek does have, however, is a nifty change in person and tense that separates baptism into, essentially, a parenthetical clause, making it a separate, but closely related, action from repentance and remission of sins.

Incidentally, faith/repentance leading to salvation followed immediately by baptism (Matthew 28:19 does not allow for delays in baptizing new disciples, but at the same time, does not allow for the baptism of anyone except disciples--and what were the disciples first called in Antioch?) is the pattern we find in Acts, with one notable exception, and since that exception is explained in the text itself, there's no reason to worry: it doesn't hurt Acts' theology one bit.

• We've covered Acts 2:38.
• Acts 3/4 would fall into the same pattern (I'll discuss that one more when I get to the part where you mention it).
• Acts 8 is the notable exception. Since the Holy Spirit had not been granted to non-Jewish believers as a whole, they had to receive Him later, individually. I wouldn't argue that the principle of Romans 8:9 should apply to that group; thus, they don't hurt the established pattern of receiving salvation upon belief/repentance and being subsequently baptized.
• The other Acts 8 conversion does not contradict the pattern.
• Acts 10--well, I'll discuss that one momentarily. It is a model example of the pattern I see in Acts.
• Acts 19 is worthy of a whole discussion in itself, but I see no contradiction with the rest of the theology of Acts.

Now, as for your argument that the detail of baptism is left out because it is redundant--that is exactly what I was disputing with my expanded "I got a flat" analogy. Sometimes it's included. Sometimes it's not included. Sometimes the details of the conversion are completely spelled out, and sometimes they are not. By your reasoning, Luke should have just written it out the first time and left it at "And they got saved" all the rest of the times. But he didn't.

I won't copy/paste your points regarding Cornelius for the sake of space.

Your first point: We've been over this. It is perfectly acceptable for a minute's worth of preaching to be the beginning of Peter's sermon. There is no contradiction of the outline of events given in Acts 10 and Acts 11. Acts 10 tells us that the sermon was interrupted by the coming of the Spirit and at what point that happened. Acts 11 tells us that Peter was just beginning to speak when said interruption took place.

Your second point: If my view of the outline of events in Acts 10 (you know, that it happened the way it says it happened...) is correct, then it is not "pure speculation", 'cause we have a record of what Cornelius heard. The last things Peter managed to get out before the Spirit came were the crucifixion, resurrection, and remission of sins of everyone who believes in Him. Cornelius heard that, believed it, received the Spirit to indicate his acceptance by God, and was then baptized.

Third: Why did the Apostles speak in tongues? As a sign that they'd received the Holy Spirit. Why did the Samaritans speak in tongues? As a sign that they'd received the Holy Spirit. Why did the household of Cornelius speak in tongues? As a sign that they'd received the Holy Spirit. Finally, why did the disciples of John speak in tongues? As a sign that they'd received the Holy Spirit. It is not universally the "evidence of salvation"; it was, however, used by God no fewer than four times in Acts to show others that a particular group of people had received the Holy Spirit.

Your idea that God doing something as evidence in one case must necessitate its being universal is unbiblical and illogical, and is the same false dichotomy (but on the other side of it) that Oneness Pentecostals.

As to the Jewish believers with Peter, I agree: they needed to be convinced, but convinced of what? Convinced that Cornelius and Co had received the Holy Spirit and, therefore, had been accepted by God.

Finally, no, we would not be unreasonable to assume that they believed, because, unlike baptism, faith is absolutely inseparable from salvation rather than subsequent to salvation.

Okay, now, on to Acts 3/4. Who did the baptizing, if not the Apostles? Do you mean to suggest, without biblical precedent or authorization, that the unbaptized baptized each other, even without the command to be baptized actually being spoken?

I would love to go into some other passages that, as far as I can see, really illustrate the relationship between baptism and salvation and show it to be something that does not bring about eternal salvation, but for now, we can continue discussing baptism's place in Acts, especially since I seem to have stopped just short of writing you a book.

Michael

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Whoever:

"Believing in Jesus and not being baptized is as worthless as being baptized and not believing in Jesus."

GE:

Believing in Jesus and not being baptized with the baptism of Jesus which is the baptism with the Holy Spirit is an a priori impossibility and therefore 'as worthless as being baptized and not believing in Jesus'.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

But to allege, "Believing in Jesus and not being baptized (with water) is as worthless as being baptized and not believing in Jesus", is presumptuous and the direct denial of justification by faith only.

 

[Snitzelhoff]

But to allege, "Believing in Jesus and not being baptized (with water) is as worthless as being baptized and not believing in Jesus", is presumptuous and the direct denial of justification by faith only.

GE, Bmerr very openly denies justification by faith alone.

Michael

 

[bmerr]

Michael,

bmerr here. Before we continue, I confess I was a bit snippy in my last response, and I think some sarcasm was creeping in as well. I wanted to apologize for that, since, so far our conversational tone has been civil, and mutually respectful. I just don't want our debate to take on the (I'm sorry, but there's no other aptly descript word for it) "p_ssing contest" theme that so many degernerate to. Anyway, I'm sorry.

Well, which acts, specifically, cause spiritual death in a person? That is, the NT binds us to obedience to the laws of the state. If you understand the law not to speed and the NT requirement to obey the laws of the land, and speed anyway (even unknowingly), are you spiritually dead? After all, you have just disobeyed Christ's command.

Spiritually dead? I don't know about that, but one would be unfaithful if he intentionally and willfully disobeyed the speed limit, would he not? Seems like it would be a presumptuous sin. But let's not get too far afield of our topic.

You get baptism out of this passage? So submitting to baptism is, indeed, a work, and fits into the context of the passage, which speaks to things like helping those in need? It seems the Restoration Movement is somewhat divided over whether to count baptism as a work (and thus, to put it under the highly-eisegeted James 2, but also making it subject to Ephesians 2), or to count it as a non-work, exempting it from the soteriology of Ephesians 2, but also meaning that James 2 cannot be used to support baptismal essentiality.

The principle which James spoke of certainly applies to the command to be baptized, though baptism is not what he was speaking of specifically.

Concerning baptism in light of James 2 and Eph 2, I see no conflict either way. It is something commanded which must be obeyed (James 2), but not anything one could boast of (Eph 2). What problems have others had with it?

Agreed that Paul and James made complimentary points. That's how I should have worded it.

In Gen 15:6 Abraham believed in the LORD, and it was counted to him for righteousness, but this scripture was not fulfilled until he offered Isaac (James 2:23). Justification without circumcision or the OT Law (Paul's point), yet not without obedience to God's command (James' point).

Rather, it [the dispute] is with the idea that baptism was ever made a condition of salvation and that that pattern is repeated.

If baptism is not:
for salvation (Mk 16:16, 1 Pet 3:21),
for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38),
to wash away sins (Acts 22:16),
how one comes into Christ (Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27),
to be united in His death (Rom 6:3, Col 2:21),

then why the urgency seen in the accounts of conversion in which it is given? What's the point if not for what these Scriptures state?

"All of you, repent (also, let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of the sins of all of you, and all of you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"

Where did you find this wording of Acts 2:38? It's not in any translation I have (not that I have a ton of them). Everything I have reads pretty much in the same order as the KJV

eek does have, however, is a nifty change in person and tense that separates baptism into, essentially, a parenthetical clause, making it a separate, but closely related, action from repentance and remission of sins.

Certainly baptism is a separate action from repentance and belief. Yet is baptism not joined to repentance by the coordinating conjuction "and", thus making it equally important to the remission of sins? It seems as though if the point you are trying to make were valid, there would be some English translations that worded it as you say it ought to be.

Matthew 28:19 does not allow for delays in baptizing new disciples, but at the same time, does not allow for the baptism of anyone except disciples.

Okay, a cut/paste from Barnes

"Teach all nations - The word rendered "teach," here, is not the one that is usually so translated in the New Testament. This word properly means "to disciple, or to make disciples of." This was to be done, however, by teaching, and by administering baptism."

There is teaching before and after baptism.

Since the Holy Spirit had not been granted to non-Jewish believers as a whole, they [the Samaritans] had to receive Him later, individually.

The "promise" in Acts 2:39 was extended to "all that are afar off", or Gentiles. The miraculous gifts of the Spirit had to be given by the laying on of an apostles' hands (Acts 8:18). The main question regarding the Samaritans in Acts 8 is "Were they saved before the Apostles came down?"

I wouldn't argue that the principle of Romans 8:9 should apply to that group; thus, they don't hurt the established pattern of receiving salvation upon belief/repentance and being subsequently baptized.

Rom 8:9 says "any man", which would include the Samaritans. It is not necessary for one to have miraculous gifts of the Spirit for one to have the Spirit of Christ.

Now, as for your argument that the detail of baptism is left out because it is redundant--that is exactly what I was disputing with my expanded "I got a flat" analogy.

I must have missed your point and perhaps misstated mine. It seems we are agreed on this. The fact that at detail of a conversion account is not explicitly given in the text is not reason to infer that it didn't happen.

The last things Peter managed to get out before the Spirit came were the crucifixion, resurrection, and remission of sins of everyone who believes in Him. Cornelius heard that, believed it, received the Spirit to indicate his acceptance by God, and was then baptized.

I found something that pertains to the Corneilus question, whether Peter had yeet preached the gospel to him or not when the Spirit fell. I still maintain that he had not.

In Acts 15, the question of whether the Gentiles should be bound by the Law and circumcision was adressed. In 15:7, Peter speaks to those assembled and tells them, and us, exactly what the Spirit falling on Cornelius & Co indicated to Peter and those of his company.

"...Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us".

The Spirit falling on Cornelius was God bearing witness that the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. They had not heard it yet when the Spirit fell.

Your idea that God doing something as evidence in one case must necessitate its being universal is unbiblical and illogical, and is the same false dichotomy (but on the other side of it) that Oneness Pentecostals.

OUCH!

Okay, now, on to Acts 3/4. Who did the baptizing, if not the Apostles? Do you mean to suggest, without biblical precedent or authorization, that the unbaptized baptized each other, even without the command to be baptized actually being spoken?

It was only Peter and John that were aprehended by the priests and Sadducees. There were ten other apostles available to complete the instruction, if it wasn't already. The Jews already associated baptism with conversion, and Peter had commanded them to "Repent ye therefore, and be converted..." That's the same as "Repent and be baptized".

These posts do seem to be getting rather lengthy. It almost can't be helped, though. Good stuff, all in all I think.

In Christ,
bmerr

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Bmerr,

This is reply part one. Apparently, my post was too long to post.

About the tone of the posts, I agree... my last post had a point (which you commented on with "OUCH!") that took a rather snappish tone. I'll try to avoid that, too, in the future, and sorry about that one.

The principle which James spoke of certainly applies to the command to be baptized, though baptism is not what he was speaking of specifically.

Concerning baptism in light of James 2 and Eph 2, I see no conflict either way. It is something commanded which must be obeyed (James 2), but not anything one could boast of (Eph 2). What problems have others had with it?

You don't think someone can boast about his baptism? It wouldn't be valid boasting, but neither is anything that would make one boast of his obedience and holiness. Notice also that in Ephesians 2: "Not by works SO THAT no one would boast", not merely "not by works of which one could easily find a way to boast."

So, the question is again put to you: is baptism a work to be done by the baptized person?

If it is a work to be done by the baptized person, then that puts it subsequent to salvation, as per Ephesians 2. If it is not such a work, then one cannot apply James 2 to it legitmately (but there are plenty of other passages do discuss whereby to make your case).

In Gen 15:6 Abraham believed in the LORD, and it was counted to him for righteousness, but this scripture was not fulfilled until he offered Isaac (James 2:23). Justification without circumcision or the OT Law (Paul's point), yet not without obedience to God's command (James' point).

I see their complimentary points differently. I see Abraham declared righteous before God in Genesis 15. However, out of the faith by which he was declared righteous came the obedience. Incidentally, that agrees COMPLETELY with Ephesians 2 that says we are saved by grace, through faith, for good works, and with James 2 that says that faith "has" works.

If baptism is not:
for salvation (Mk 16:16, 1 Pet 3:21),
for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38),
to wash away sins (Acts 22:16),
how one comes into Christ (Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27),
to be united in His death (Rom 6:3, Col 2:21),

then why the urgency seen in the accounts of conversion in which it is given? What's the point if not for what these Scriptures state?

In all those verses, baptism is placed very nearby to the thing in question (I Peter 3:21 excepted, because it directly says that baptism is now saving us; I think the question "saving us from what, and how?" is appropriate, but we can go over that later if you'd like). Mark 16:16, clearly shows that the deciding factor in salvation/condemnation is faith. Acts 2:38 separates baptism from remission of sins, but is right there beside it (I'll go more into this later in the post, lest I post redundantly). Acts 22:16, in any language, makes "be baptized" and "wash away your sins" two separate actions, and connects the latter with "calling on His name". I do not believe that Romans 6 or Galatians 3 refer to water baptism at all, but rather to the spiritual baptism that all believers have received as per I Corinthians 12:13.

So, why the urgency with baptism? For one thing, in Matthew 28:19, it should happen just after one becomes a disciple, not with delay. Furthermore, it is the pledge of a good conscience toward God. Surely one could not delay that? It is the sign that one has repented (remember in Mark 1:4--John's baptism was a baptism "of repentance for remission of sins"; in Acts 2:38, Peter paralled that with having them repent and then be baptized). It is the initial command for a new Christian, and thus should not be put off.

Let me, in turn, ask you a question (I do not hold the view I'm going to present, but to illustrate my previous point): if communion is not really the body/blood of Christ (Matthew 26:26-28), and thus eating it is not really partaking in the body/blood of Christ, and is therefore not a condition of having life in you (John 6:53), why the emphasis on taking it every Sunday morning?

Because it's a command. Not made a condition of salvation in the NT, but it is a command, and you guys take Acts 20:7 as an example by which we should take it every first day of the week, even though all it does is symbolize the real body and blood of Christ that really gives us life.

We (or at least I) see baptism (and for good, Biblical reasons, so far as I can see) along the same vein as communion, and thus take it with the urgency of one of the two ordinances of the church.

Where did you find this wording of Acts 2:38? It's not in any translation I have (not that I have a ton of them). Everything I have reads pretty much in the same order as the KJV

The insertion of "all of you" and "each of you" is to reflect the person of the verbs. English loses the idea of second person singular versus second person plural. The ASV uses "repent ye" and drops the "ye" with "be baptized" to show the same differentiation between person (remember, in archaic English, "ye" referred to a group). The Bishop's uses commas the same way I used parenthesis, to offset baptism from remission of sins and thus connect it only to repentance. The idea that "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" was not meant to be connected to remission of sins, and would not have been heard as such by Peter's audience, does find expression in English translations.

Certainly baptism is a separate action from repentance and belief. Yet is baptism not joined to repentance by the coordinating conjuction "and", thus making it equally important to the remission of sins? It seems as though if the point you are trying to make were valid, there would be some English translations that worded it as you say it ought to be.

Actually, the coordinating conjunction "and" would just make baptism a command to be followed subsequent to repentance. In Greek, word order in a list is done based on importance, so if anything, it would show baptism of lesser importance in obtaining remission of sins. And as I just pointed out, two rather esteemed translations show the same off-setting of that clause that I do.

Okay, a cut/paste from Barnes

"Teach all nations - The word rendered "teach," here, is not the one that is usually so translated in the New Testament. This word properly means "to disciple, or to make disciples of." This was to be done, however, by teaching, and by administering baptism."

There is teaching before and after baptism.

I've heard the argument that there should be an understood "by" in there--"make disciples of all nations by baptizing them". A couple of things wrong with that argument:

1. It doesn't take into account the pronoun "them". "Them" must have an antecedent, can only have two possible antecedents: the disciples understood to be made, or all nations. Those are the only two antecedents either directly seen in or understood by the text. The one Jesus intended is easily seen in the gender of the pronoun: it is masculine, just like "disciples" and unlike "nations". Thus, "baptizing them" can only refer to baptizing disciples, which makes no sense if they're not disciples until they're baptized.

2. The text does not have anything to support the use of the word "by". It speaks to time (one should baptize disciples upon their becoming disciples), not to causation (one is made a disciple by being baptized).

I agree that there is teaching to be done after baptism. After all, one should be baptized while still in "Christian infancy" (if you catch my meaning there...).

The "promise" in Acts 2:39 was extended to "all that are afar off", or Gentiles. The miraculous gifts of the Spirit had to be given by the laying on of an apostles' hands (Acts 8:18). The main question regarding the Samaritans in Acts 8 is "Were they saved before the Apostles came down?"

Indeed, the promise of salvation was extended to Gentiles, and was fulfilled in Acts 10. So the question is, why would the Samaritans need to speak in tongues? The same reason the other groups did: to show that they had, indeed, received the Spirit when it would otherwise have been questionable.

Here's what I see: the Spirit fell on Jews in Acts 2. Thus, whenever a Jew came to Christ, he was immediately given the Holy Spirit. However, the Spirit wasn't poured out on non-Jews until Acts 10. So, when a group of non-Jews came to Christ, since (as the text says) He wasn't poured out on them, they had to receive Him by the laying on of hands. Tongues was a sign that they had, indeed, received Him, since they received Him through different means.

Romans was written after Acts 10, when the Spirit was poured out on everyone, and so every believer would have received the Holy Spirit without laying on of hands or other acts.

Now, I believe they were saved when they believed and were baptized immediately upon becoming disciples, just as everyone else is. Romans 8:39, about not having the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit) does not apply to those Samaritans, because the Holy Spirit indwelling non-Jews who were saved without some special act like laying on of hands did not begin till Acts 10 when He was poured out on the Gentiles. So, what we have is:

1. The outpouring of the Spirit on the Jews (Acts 2)
2. The salvation of Samaritans (non-Jews, on whom the Spirit had not been poured) (Acts 8)
3. The reception of the Holy Spirit by Samaritans through the laying on of hands, signaled by speaking in tongues since it was a special circumstance (Acts 8)
4. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on non-Jews (Acts 10)

To be continued...

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Part 2:

I must have missed your point and perhaps misstated mine. It seems we are agreed on this. The fact that at detail of a conversion account is not explicitly given in the text is not reason to infer that it didn't happen.

We are agreed on your statement, but I would go further and say that because an event is described does not make it essential. If you told your boss that you had a flat and changed the tire, it was not essential to change the tire. You could have called someone else to tow the car. To use an example from Acts, was it essential for those converst who spoke in tongues to do so? I hope you would agree that it wasn't. But it happened and was important, and so was recorded.

"...Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us".

The Spirit falling on Cornelius was God bearing witness that the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. They had not heard it yet when the Spirit fell.

Okay, God made the choice that the Gentiles should hear the Gospel and believe. And then God bore them witness as He gave them the Spirit. It doesn't say that they didn't hear and believe after God made the choice that they should and before receiving the Holy Spirit. Rather, it lends itself to them actually hearing the Gospel and believing it before receiving the Spirit. I see no conflict between the timeline of Acts 10, Acts 11, and the discussion in Acts 15.

[quoted]
It was only Peter and John that were aprehended by the priests and Sadducees. There were ten other apostles available to complete the instruction, if it wasn't already. The Jews already associated baptism with conversion, and Peter had commanded them to "Repent ye therefore, and be converted..." That's the same as "Repent and be baptized".
[/quote]

I don't see where "converted" would be equivalent to baptism. Rather, they would have associated baptism with something for newly converted people to do, so far as I can see in Scipture, assuming they had seen either the baptism of John or the baptism preached by Peter. As for whether they were baptized, I agree that they probably were, but I won't be dogmatic on it since A) I do not see baptism as a biblical condition for salvation and B) it doesn't say they were baptized.

I agree that these posts are getting really long, but it is a good discussion.

Michael

 

[bmerr]

Michael,

bmerr here. In a possibly futile attempt at brevity, I will forego the use of quotes, and scroll to your last submission. Something's gotta give!

There is a 5000 character limit to posts. Man, can we get wordy!

Is baptism a work performed by the baptizee? I don't think so. It is a command that all are to submit to being baptized upon their belief in Christ and repentance from sins. The one being baptized is pretty passive, being lowered into and brought back up out of the water.

To my knowledge, the command is "be baptized", while Christ commissioned the apostles to make disciples, "baptizing them". Baptism is an action done to the believer, not by him. It would be reasonable to class baptism as a work if the command was "baptize yourselves". Sound fair to you?

I would agree that Abraham believed in the promise of God to bless all nations through Isaac before he offered him. I would also agree that it was this faith in God that motivated Abraham to actually offer his son when he was commanded to do so. I would have to maintain, however, that Gen 15:6 was not fulfilled until Abraham had offered Isaac, since that is when James 2:26 says it was fulfilled.

It is indeed a fine distinction between our positions. I hold that the faith that obeys saves. You hold that the faith that saves obeys. It's a matter of whether salvation comes before or after obedience.

I'm skipping down to the verb tense/wording portion. It still seems to me that if the proper wording of Acts 2:38 and other verses is as you suggest, it would have been translated that way more often. I mean no offense here, you've obviously got some training in the ancient languages. It just seems as though some people think that no one has been able to translate Greek into English before they came along.

I don't point this comment at you, Michael. I see this now and then. The English doesn't help a person's position, so an appeal is made to some obscure scholar or translation that seems to lend credence to it, and the bulk of scholarship is abandoned in favor of the obscure.

Granted, the majority is rarely a good place to be, Biblically speaking. But I just find it hard to believe that so many would mistranslate the same words so many times. If I've got to understand the nuances of Greek to be saved, I don't have much hope.

Baptism is, in fact, a command to be obeyed subsequent to repentance. Baptism without repentance would be no more effective than baptism without belief. Repentance is the hard part. It's easy to get people to believe in Jesus. It's easy to get penitent believers to be baptized. It's hard to get people to turn from their way of doing things and commit to doing things God's way. If anything, repentance is a work.

In fact, in Jonah (I don't have an OT with me, pardon the lack of chapter and verse) it says that God saw the Ninevites' works, that they turned from their wickedness and turned to the LORD. If that's not repentance, I don't know what is. The Bible says repentance is a work. Yet, it is not something of which a man could boast. It's simply doing what God says to do.

A person can be a disciple before he is saved. A disciple is just one who is learning, a student, or follower. One learning of Christ and His sacrifice on our behalf can take a while to be convinced that he needs to repent of his sinful ways and follow after righteousness. It wouldn't be the first time that one learned of Christ and found hope, but was unwilling to do what God commanded in order for him to have eternal life (Matt 19:16-22; John 6:66).

Concerning the Samaritans, I can't find where they spoke in tongues. I would agree that in other cases where apostles laid hands on people those people spoke in tongues, but tongues was not the only spiritual gift given by the laying on of apostolic hands.

I think at this point we've actually come back into the neighborhood of the OP, "What is the baptism of the Holy Spirit?" There is no baptism of the Holy Spirit, since the Spirit is not said to baptize anyone (I know, 1 Cor 12:13. Later...).

It is said that Christ would baptize with the Holy Ghost (Mark 1:8). In the instances where this occurred, there was no human action required. These two instances were in Acts 2 and in Acts 10. Paul's being baptized with the Holy Ghost is implied, but never stated.

In both of the stated instances, there were Jews present who needed confirmation that what was happening was from God. I hold that in neither case did the visible/audible manifestation of baptism with the Holy Spirit cause anyone to think that those under His influence were saved, only that God was behind what was taking place.

On the other hand, there are instances where an apostle laid hands on individuals, and they received the Spirit (Acts 8, 19). I do not believe that these occurrences are the same as when people were baptized with the Holy Spirit, since human action was required. Comparing what happened in the two types is like comparing apples and oranges.

Gotta run. Talk to you later.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Bmerr,

We certainly can get wordy, although the BaptistBoard gave me a 10,000 character limit. Maybe it just likes me better. :tongue3:

If baptism is not a work performed by the baptizee, then I think we can leave James 2, as any passage dealing with works no longer applies, but you seem to have already done that.

I can respect your position concerning when Genesis 15:6 was fulfilled, but I disagree because of two passages: both Moses and Paul seem to say it was fulfilled in Genesis 15:6. We can say with James, though, that it was "made complete" through his sacrifice of Isaac. Had Abraham defied God in that, it would have been indicative of a dead faith.

Your summary of our positions is good. I agree, and it is, indeed, a fine line of which many have created a great gulf.

Now, back to the Greek of Acts 2:38. No one, that I know of, has mistranslated the words (paraphrases and borderline translations probably excepted), nor the word order; rather, most translations simply are not carefully nuanced according to the Greek. As for the idea of obscure translations, the two I cited were decidedly not. The ASV was the precursor to the NASB, and the Bishop's was a precursor to the KJV.

You're right: one need not understand Greek nuances to be saved. The Greek need be appealed to when there is disagreement on how to read a particular verse and understand its place in God's revealed plan of salvation.

Your argument that repentance is a work: I thoroughly disagree. Repentance is a state of mind/heart that, like faith, is expressed through works. Repentance without work cannot exist (just as true faith without repentance cannot exist), but it seems fallacious to make the two the same. I think Jesus gave us the basic principle with the idea that "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks". Faith in the heart leads to works of faith; repentance in the heart leads to cessation of "dead works". But the state of the heart is there prior to the physical obedience.

A disciple is a follower. It's not a "student" in the sense of one merely learning, but one who follows. In the new covenant, disciples were called Christians. In fact, of all the times in Acts the word is used, I found only one spot where it was maybe not referring to Christians (19:1). Thus, as far as I can see, when one is made a disciple, one is made a Christian. According to the way Matthew 28:19 is phrased (and you can see this in English), one should be baptized immediately upon becoming a disciple, neither before doing so nor delaying it.

Now, to the Samaritans: You got me. We're not told they spoke in tongues. But, what are we told? We're told that they received the Spirit, and that Simon wanted to buy the apsotles' power. So, whatever happened was obviously something much more awesome than Simon's sorcery. It must have been both visible and miraculous, tongues or not. And, as far as I can tell, the only reason it happened was to demonstrate that they had received the Spirit, same as when tongues and prophecy happened in other cases.

And, finally, back to baptism of/with/in/by the Spirit. You're right again; there is no biblical term called "baptism of the Holy Spirit", and I, for one, get somewhat irked when people call it that. But baptism by or with or in the Holy Spirit (the same Greek preposition is translated all three ways, depending on what translation one uses and in what passage one looks) is Biblical, and I Corinthians 12:13 tells us it happens to every Christian.

Now, the difference is whether or not God sends supernatural evidence that it happens. Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19 come to mind as examples of when He did. I disagree with your view that 8 and 19 were not the said baptism, because, in both cases, it was the time when they received the Holy Spirit. I believe the two (baptism and receiving) are interchangeable, whether accomplished through laying on of hands or through God independently of that action.

Wow. I think I managed to avoid authoring a small book this time.

Michael