PDA

View Full Version : Baptism



markedward
Apr 19th 2009, 08:52 AM
This isn't a topic of how to baptize by water. Instead, it is a topic of...

Is water baptism "for today"? I've read some stuff about water baptism, and how Christians now are not subject to it. Here is the line of reasoning. (Note: I'm not necessarily saying I am agreeing with all of these arguments, I am simply presenting them for the sake of discussion and consideration.)

Another baptism


In Matthew 3.11, Mark 1.8, Luke 3.16, and John 1.26-27,33, John the Baptist says, "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

John is specifically contrasting water baptism with Holy Spirit baptism. John is specifically showing that he was a water baptizer, while Christ would, in contrast, be a Holy Spirit baptizer.
In John 1.31-33, John the Baptist makes it a specific point that he was sent to baptize "with water" for the express purpose "that [Christ] might be revealed to Israel".
Acts 1.5 again contrasts John's "bapti[sm] with water" to Christ's "bapti[sm] with the Holy Spirit", which by context, was the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2.
In Acts 2.38, "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"

Water is not explicitly mentioned here; it is something people infer. On the other hand, the receiving of the Holy Spirit is specifically mentioned.
In Acts 8, the baptism of the Samaritans, and particularly the Ethiopian eunuch,were allegedly "proselyte baptisms" (a Jewish practice that had arisen by the time, though I don't think it originated in the OT); this is based on the idea that the Ethiopian, who was a "God-fearer" (a non-Jew who followed the true God without entirely "converting" to Judaism), requested it, rather than Philip requiring it, and likewise with the Samaritans, who were not Jewish.
In Act 10:47, Peter says, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" But in Acts 11, Peter describes the events, "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'"

Here, again, Peter recalls Christ's words, and explicitly contrasts the water baptism as performed by John with Holy Spirit baptism as established by Christ.
Ephesians 4.5 says there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism".

If people are supposed to be baptized in both the Holy Spirit and water, shouldn't Paul instead say there are "two baptisms"? But he doesn't. He distinctly says there is "one baptism".

I think the consistent contrast between John's mode of baptism, that of water, and Christ's mode of baptism, that of the Holy Spirit (), as well as the addition of Ephesians 4.5 (there is "one baptism", not "two baptisms") provide strong points for a "water baptism is not for today" argument, but my specific concerns regarding the points above are these:

Acts 8
Many people (and Simon the magician) are baptized, but after this baptism, Peter and John go to them to "pray for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit". This would mean one of two things: either baptism in the Holy Spirit is different than receiving the Holy Spirit (this would seem contradictory to Acts 1.5, which indicates that the apostles' receiving of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 is the same thing as baptism of the Holy Spirit), or it means that the people were baptized with water, then they were baptized with the Holy Spirit (which would be the same thing as them "receiv the Holy Spirit".

So two alternative questions come from this:
1) If this is a series of water baptisms (by Philip), followed by Holy Spirit baptisms (by Peter and John), what in the text indicates that the water baptism is "proselyte baptism", and not the water baptism that John [the baptist] practiced?

... or...

2) If this is a series of Holy Spirit baptisms (by Philip), followed by a receiving of the Holy Spirit (by Peter and John laying on hands), why does Christ refer to the Pentecost outpouring of the Holy Spirit as both being "baptized" with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1.5) [I]and "receiving" the Holy Spirit (Acts 1.8). According to Christ, being "baptized" with the Holy Spirit is the same thing as "receiving" the Spirit, so if Acts 8 depicts Holy Spirit baptisms followed by one-by-one receiving of the Holy Spirit (through laying on hands), wouldn't this be a contradiction?

Acts 10
Acts 11.15-16 is cited to show that the baptism of Acts 10 involving Peter and the Gentiles was not a water baptism. Yet, in Acts 10.47, Peter clearly states that water should not be "withheld" from those Gentiles, and in 10.48 Peter "commanded them to be baptized".

If Acts 10 is not water baptism, why did Peter so clearly "command" baptism with water? Acts 10.47 is explicitly making water the context of the baptism Peter "commands" in 10.48.



Discuss?

kay-gee
Apr 19th 2009, 12:50 PM
I believe this topic is being discussed at great length in the thread "Questions about Baptism" Not sure there is much value in starting a whole new thread on it. It is an issue that will never reach a conclusion. People seem too widely divided on it.

all the best...

losthorizon
Apr 19th 2009, 01:28 PM
John is specifically contrasting water baptism with Holy Spirit baptism. John is specifically showing that he was a water baptizer, while Christ would, in contrast, be a Holy Spirit baptizer.


Your notion that John advocated water baptism while Jesus did not contradicts what is revealed in the NT. Jesus instituted and commanded baptism in water “until He comes again” as recorded in the Great Commission – “…go…teach…baptize”.
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:15-16 (KJV)This fact alone defeats any notion that "water baptism is not for today”. The ordinance is for today. I think the Baptist statement below sums up baptism in water quite well. Baptism in water is simply an act of obedience that symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Savior and is prerequisite to entry into the Lord’s church – the body of Christ. Baptism is what puts one “into Christ”
“Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Savior, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.” ~ 1963 Baptist Faith and Message Statement There is no denying the essential need of the “cleansing influences of the Holy Spirit” in conversion and the Lord’s words in Mark 16:16 clearly shows the essential nature of the ordinance of baptism in water (today). Where does the cleansing of the Holy Spirit and the need to be immersed in water fit together in God’s word? The answer is found in Titus 3:5 – we are saved - not by works of righteousness – but “by the washing of regeneration, and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”

The Apostle is referring to the ordinance of baptism that puts one “into union” with Jesus Christ and the cleansing of the Holy Spirit as we submit to the Lord’s command to be baptized in water. The physical act of baptism is the “visible sign" that points to the inward cleansing of the Holy Spirit as our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ and the thing signified should never be expected without the outward act of baptism.

Again, water baptism is as essential to the gospel of Christ today as it was 2000 years ago. Baptism is commanded by God. It is to be practiced until Christ comes the second time and man does not have the authority to change God’s word.
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewal of the Holy Spirit ~ Titus 3:5

By the washing of regeneration - Δια λουτρου παλιγγενεσιας· Undoubtedly the apostle here means baptism, the rite by which persons were admitted into the Church, and the visible sign of the cleansing, purifying influences of the Holy Spirit, which the apostle immediately subjoins. Baptism is only a sign, and therefore should never be separated from the thing signified; but it is a rite commanded by God himself, and therefore the thing signified should never be expected without it. ~ Adam Clarke

Butch5
Apr 19th 2009, 02:36 PM
This isn't a topic of how to baptize by water. Instead, it is a topic of...

Is water baptism "for today"? I've read some stuff about water baptism, and how Christians now are not subject to it. Here is the line of reasoning. (Note: I'm not necessarily saying I am agreeing with all of these arguments, I am simply presenting them for the sake of discussion and consideration.)

Another baptism


In Matthew 3.11, Mark 1.8, Luke 3.16, and John 1.26-27,33, John the Baptist says, "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

John is specifically contrasting water baptism with Holy Spirit baptism. John is specifically showing that he was a water baptizer, while Christ would, in contrast, be a Holy Spirit baptizer.
In John 1.31-33, John the Baptist makes it a specific point that he was sent to baptize "with water" for the express purpose "that [Christ] might be revealed to Israel".
Acts 1.5 again contrasts John's "bapti[sm] with water" to Christ's "bapti[sm] with the Holy Spirit", which by context, was the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2.
In Acts 2.38, "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"

Water is not explicitly mentioned here; it is something people infer. On the other hand, the receiving of the Holy Spirit is specifically mentioned.
In Acts 8, the baptism of the Samaritans, and particularly the Ethiopian eunuch,were allegedly "proselyte baptisms" (a Jewish practice that had arisen by the time, though I don't think it originated in the OT); this is based on the idea that the Ethiopian, who was a "God-fearer" (a non-Jew who followed the true God without entirely "converting" to Judaism), requested it, rather than Philip requiring it, and likewise with the Samaritans, who were not Jewish.
In Act 10:47, Peter says, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" But in Acts 11, Peter describes the events, "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'"

Here, again, Peter recalls Christ's words, and explicitly contrasts the water baptism as performed by John with Holy Spirit baptism as established by Christ.
Ephesians 4.5 says there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism".

If people are supposed to be baptized in both the Holy Spirit and water, shouldn't Paul instead say there are "two baptisms"? But he doesn't. He distinctly says there is "one baptism".
I think the consistent contrast between John's mode of baptism, that of water, and Christ's mode of baptism, that of the Holy Spirit (), as well as the addition of Ephesians 4.5 (there is "one baptism", not "two baptisms") provide strong points for a "water baptism is not for today" argument, but my specific concerns regarding the points above are these:

Acts 8
Many people (and Simon the magician) are baptized, but after this baptism, Peter and John go to them to "pray for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit". This would mean one of two things: either baptism in the Holy Spirit is different than receiving the Holy Spirit (this would seem contradictory to Acts 1.5, which indicates that the apostles' receiving of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 is the same thing as baptism of the Holy Spirit), or it means that the people were baptized with water, then they were baptized with the Holy Spirit (which would be the same thing as them "receiv the Holy Spirit".

So two alternative questions come from this:
1) If this is a series of water baptisms (by Philip), followed by Holy Spirit baptisms (by Peter and John), what in the text indicates that the water baptism is "proselyte baptism", and not the water baptism that John [the baptist] practiced?

... or...

2) If this is a series of Holy Spirit baptisms (by Philip), followed by a receiving of the Holy Spirit (by Peter and John laying on hands), why does Christ refer to the Pentecost outpouring of the Holy Spirit as both being "baptized" with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1.5) [I]and "receiving" the Holy Spirit (Acts 1.8). According to Christ, being "baptized" with the Holy Spirit is the same thing as "receiving" the Spirit, so if Acts 8 depicts Holy Spirit baptisms followed by one-by-one receiving of the Holy Spirit (through laying on hands), wouldn't this be a contradiction?

Acts 10
Acts 11.15-16 is cited to show that the baptism of Acts 10 involving Peter and the Gentiles was not a water baptism. Yet, in Acts 10.47, Peter clearly states that water should not be "withheld" from those Gentiles, and in 10.48 Peter "commanded them to be baptized".

If Acts 10 is not water baptism, why did Peter so clearly "command" baptism with water? Acts 10.47 is explicitly making water the context of the baptism Peter "commands" in 10.48.



Discuss?


Hi Mark,

Consider the fact that the apostles had already received the Holy Spirit prior to pentecost. I think pentecost was a manifestation of the Spirit, not necessarily the indwelling of the Sprit.


John 20:22 ( KJV )
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Tomlane
Apr 19th 2009, 03:05 PM
The great commission crowed completely ignore the signs for this commission as found in Mark 16:15-18.

Mark 16:15 *And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 *He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 *And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 *They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

This command I believe was definitely water baptism for this commission was God's grace period for Israel for rejecting their King and left this grace period open while the Church that is Christ's body was dropped down into the middle of God's offer their Jewish Kingdom at that time and be taken up again at a later date. After the offer for the kingdom was temporarily withdraw, God then blinded them as to who Christ is as found in Romans 11 . This partially why Paul says the church is a mystery and not foretold before hand. This commission or command was set aside when God allowed the temple in Jerusalem to be torn down. God set aside the Levitical law and all its ordinances. We have the proof of God setting aside Israel as a national community in Romans the 11th chapter. I believe if a person will read very carefully Chapter 11 they will find God set aside Israel as a nation and through His church that is His body, God is dealing with both Israel and Gentiles as individual believers on a spiritual basis, minus the physical ordinances. Acts 15th chapter proves this. Actually Acts 10 leads up to Acts 15 when the Gentile was included in God's program that let Jewish believers to have a meeting with Paul and Peter and the Holy Spirit to learn if Gentile believers were to be placed under the burden of the Jewish law and its ordinances such as water baptism. Its interesting to note even some believing Pharisees got in on the deal as well and wanted to know if Gentiles were to be circumcised and have to keep the law of Moses as well.

I would highly recommend anyone to read the complete chapters both of Acts 15 and Romans 11 to get the full picture.

So here I'll give the bottom line of that meeting in Acts 11.

Acts 15:28 *For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 *That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Please notice of those four things for Gentiles to do, not one of them mentions ordinances of any kind, not even water. We also must remember many of the letters Paul wrote, there was still two programs still in effect. Jews with there ordinances and Gentiles who I believe many in those early days became proselytes until Paul was given revelation that the Law had been nailed to the cross {Col 2:14-17} and that both Jew and Gentile had been made a new creation in Christ on an individual basis and that both were now a new creation in Christ by spiritual baptism. That means the Jews were not under the law and its many ordinances any longer.

Colossians 2:20 *Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

Hebrews 9:10 *Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Ephesians 2:15 *Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;


AS I afore mentioned the above verses are revelations given to Paul at later dates and not all at once. No wonder they had so much confusion back than its no less true today. I believe God allowed this overlapping period to confound the wise of this world as that separates the wheat from the chaff.

I also don't believe any of our water baptizing friends will ever understand these truths until they can rightly dived the book of acts and admit Paul preaches dispensational truths.

1 Corinthians 9:17 *For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
Ephesians 1:10 *That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Ephesians 3:2 *If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Colossians 1:25 *Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

I also realize this is one of the most unpopular positions in theology because it destroys denominational doctrine that mixes Jewish ordinances with the freedom we have under grace in the Body of Christ.

Tomlane








The results of that meeting is as follows;

Quickened
Apr 19th 2009, 03:19 PM
Is water baptism "for today"? I've read some stuff about water baptism, and how Christians now are not subject to it.

I just dont see how this is possible. Although it was a view point that i originally held I dont see how i could have held it in light of scripture and church history.


# In Matthew 3.11, Mark 1.8, Luke 3.16, and John 1.26-27,33, John the Baptist says, "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

John is specifically contrasting water baptism with Holy Spirit baptism. John is specifically showing that he was a water baptizer, while Christ would, in contrast, be a Holy Spirit baptizer.

# In John 1.31-33, John the Baptist makes it a specific point that he was sent to baptize "with water" for the express purpose "that [Christ] might be revealed to Israel".

John isnt downplaying Baptism here. He is merely pointing to Christ. It is after Jesus returns to heaven that He sends His heavenly Helper to dwell with His people on earth. The baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs with the New Birth that constitutes helpless sinners as sons and daughters of God.

To my understanding the Jews baptised Gentiles if they wished to become part of the people of God. The thing about John's practice was he called on Jews to undergo a ritual that they saw as only fit for gentiles.

Johns Baptism also is different from Christian baptism as we know it today because although it symbolized repentence and purification Christian Baptism is performed in the name of the triune God and symbolizes our union with Christ in His death and resurrection.

Secondly later on in Matthew (28:19) we see Christ instituting the Sacrament of baptism. If Baptism wasnt for today then why would Christ Institute it as a command?

Also


In Acts 8, the baptism of the Samaritans, and particularly the Ethiopian eunuch,were allegedly "proselyte baptisms" (a Jewish practice that had arisen by the time, though I don't think it originated in the OT); this is based on the idea that the Ethiopian, who was a "God-fearer" (a non-Jew who followed the true God without entirely "converting" to Judaism), requested it, rather than Philip requiring it, and likewise with the Samaritans, who were not Jewish.

Sometimes scripture doesnt go into absolute detail. This is one of those cases. In v35 Phillip opened His mouth and beginning with the scripture in question He explained the good news of Jesus. Right after this in the scripture we see that the eunuch sees the water and immediately makes the connection to baptism.

I may differ from other people here but i draw the conclusion that the eunuch's reaction here is based off of Phillip preaching the gospel to him. I see that Christ made the ordinance to baptize. I would be led to believe that Phillip made this part of what he was talking about.

The eunuch prior to this point didnt have this reaction. He was a man that read scripture and tried to study God's Word but his outburst (for lack of a better word) almost displays an epiphany of sorts. I would be led to believe that it would be something that Phillip would have mentioned which would reflect the blueprint that Christ laid out in Matthew 28. Considering the fact that Phillip was being led by the Spirit during this I dont see why He would disregard Christ's ordinance.

And i think you addressed your final bullet point at the end of your post when you acknowledge that Peter refers back to water here.

Acts 10 in my opinion is a good reflection on how the system works as a whole. In verse 34 Peter opened his mouth and began preaching. While he was still preaching in verse 44 the Holy Spirit fell on those that heard the word. It was then that he refered to a water baptism.

I think that follows the blueprint shown in Acts. It usually starts with the preaching of the Gospel, some people are cut to the heart or quickened and then a baptism typically follows.

The bullet point stated


But in Acts 11, Peter describes the events, "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'"

Here, again, Peter recalls Christ's words, and explicitly contrasts the water baptism as performed by John with Holy Spirit baptism as established by Christ.

All i think this really displays is that Johns baptism isnt Christian baptism as we know it today. It also displays that being baptism by the spirit is an event that is separate from water baptism.

Eben
Apr 19th 2009, 03:47 PM
I agree wholeheatedly with Tomlane. We read Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians chapter 1 verse 17 " Christ did not send me to baptize. He sent me to tell the Good News, and to tell it without using the language of human wisdom, in order to make sure that Christ's death on the cross is not robbed of its power. "
If baptism was the order of the day how could he say that? Then he speaks of the one baptism, there is only one that fits and that is 1 Cor 12 verse 13
"In the same way, all of us, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether slaves or free, have been baptized into the one body by the same Spirit, and we have all been given the one Spirit to drink. "
There is nothing about water here.
In Christ

BroRog
Apr 19th 2009, 05:22 PM
I believe this topic is being discussed at great length in the thread "Questions about Baptism" Not sure there is much value in starting a whole new thread on it. It is an issue that will never reach a conclusion. People seem too widely divided on it.

all the best...

To be fair to "Markedward," I believe he is asking a different question here than "thewizter" asked in the thread "Questions about Baptism." In that thread, its a question of whether Baptism is essential for salvation. It would appear that it is intended in this thread to assume, for the sake of argument, that baptism is NOT required or essential to salvation. Assuming that it isn't, "is baptism for today?

Another way to ask this question, assuming that baptism is/was solely meant to be symbolic, is to evaluate whether Baptism, as it is practiced today, connotes the same thing it did in ancient times. If Baptism was symbolic of a believer's desire for a clear conscience, as Peter suggests in his epistle, does it connote that same idea today?

Now, Markedward, if I have misunderstood your question, please correct me.

markedward
Apr 19th 2009, 07:14 PM
Your notion thatPlease pay careful attention what I actually said: "I'm not necessarily saying I am agreeing with all of these arguments, I am simply presenting them for the sake of discussion and consideration."

I will be asking questions regarding both sides (for/against current water baptism).


Jesus instituted and commanded baptism in water “until He comes again” as recorded in the Great Commission – “…go…teach…baptize”.
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:15-16 (KJV)Your assertion that "Jesus instituted and commanded baptism in water" in Mark 16.15-16 is unfounded, since water isn't actually mentioned in the verse, this is something you are simply inferring. Those who would say water baptism is not for today would argue that, since it was repeatedly stated that John "baptized with water" and that in contrast Jesus would "baptize with the Holy Spirit", and that since this verse doesn't mention "water", would show that Jesus was commanding his disciples to baptize with the Holy Spirit. Again, I'm not saying I necessarily believe this argument, I am simply presenting it so I can get an idea from all sides.


Now, Markedward, if I have misunderstood your question, please correct me.You're pretty close. The question I'm getting at is whether or not water baptism is specifically replaced with Holy Spirit baptism, following the ascension of Christ.

losthorizon
Apr 19th 2009, 07:46 PM
Please pay careful attention what I actually said: "I'm not necessarily saying I am agreeing with all of these arguments, I am simply presenting them for the sake of discussion and consideration."


Hi Mark – I was paying attention and your question in the OP was simply this – “"? The answer is…of course baptism is for today – it is part and parcel to the gospel of Christ delivered before He ascended into heaven as stated in the Great Commission. Baptism in water was commanded by God at the beginning of the NT era and is to continue until He comes again. Therefore, water baptism is for today.


Your assertion that "Jesus instituted and commanded baptism in water" in Mark 16.15-16 is unfounded, since water isn't actually mentioned in the verse, this is something you are simply inferring.

It is a statement of fact - the church of God has correctly understood the baptism of the “Commission” as specified by Jesus - …”go…preach…baptize” - to be the ordinance of baptism for over 2000 years. Can you provide even one scholar who thinks that this baptism was anything other than baptism in water?
Mark 16:16. Is baptized - Is initiated into the church by the application of water, as significant that he is a sinner, and needs the purifying influences of the Holy Spirit. It is worthy of remark that Jesus has made “baptism” of so much importance. He did not say, indeed, that a man could not be saved without baptism, but he has strongly implied that where this is neglected “knowing it to be a command of the Saviour,” it endangers the salvation of the soul. Faith and baptism are the beginnings of a Christian life: the one the beginning of piety in the soul, the other of its manifestation before men or of a profession, of religion. Every man endangers his eternal interest by being ashamed of Christ before men. See Mar_8:38. ~ Albert Barnes

markedward
Apr 19th 2009, 08:14 PM
Hi Mark – I was paying attention and your question in the OP was simply this – “"?I don't understand what you mean here...

Baptism in water was commanded by God at the beginning of the NT era and is to continue until He comes again. Therefore, water baptism is for today.I'm not trying to go in circles, but the response to this is that Christ never commanded to be baptized "in water", he simply said to be "baptized", and, in Acts 1.5, he said baptism would be by the Holy Spirit.




It is a statement of fact - the church of God has correctly understood the baptism of the “Commission” as specified by Jesus - …”go…preach…baptize” - to be the ordinance of baptismYou're completely taking the topical question that I presented out of context.

I never said that "go, preach, baptize" wasn't an "ordinance of baptism". The topic of discussion was whether this "ordinance of baptism" was water baptism. Please recognize the difference between what you think the topic is about, and what I'm saying it is about.

I'll repeat the question I laid out in my previous post, so we can all be on the same page. (This is bold, and large, just to grab other readers' attention.)

The question I'm getting at is whether or not water baptism is specifically replaced with Holy Spirit baptism, following the ascension of Christ.

for over 2000 years.You should know very well that time isn't an authority for a doctrine. Just look at (a) the Catholic Church with all of it's "time-tested" doctrines, and (b) every other religion with all of their "time-tested" doctrines.

losthorizon
Apr 19th 2009, 09:44 PM
I'm not trying to go in circles, but the response to this is that Christ never commanded to be baptized "in water", he simply said to be "baptized", and, in Acts 1.5, he said baptism would be by the Holy Spirit.


Then please clarify for me further – is it your position that the baptism of the Great Commission is not baptism in water? Is that the position you are presenting and defending? Do you know any one here who thinks the baptism of Mark 16:16 is not baptism in water? In your opinion is baptism in water essential to the gospel of Christ today?
Now, in the second place, a little CONCERNING BAPTISM:

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

Please observe that I did not make the text. Perhaps, if I had made it, I should have left out that piece about baptism; but I have had no hand in making the Bible, I am obliged to take God’s Word as I find it, and here I read these words of our Lord Jesus Christ, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." "Do not dwell on the baptism," says one; "leave that out." That is what you say, my dear Sir; I cannot see your face, but I do not believe that you are my master. My Master is the Lord who taught holy men to write this Book, and I can only go by the Book; the Book has the baptism in it, so I must stick to the truth as it is in the Book: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

First, let me remind you that our Savior’s words teach us that baptism follows faith: "He that believeth and is baptized." Never neglect the order of things in the Bible. If God puts them one, two, three, do not you put them three, two, one…Remember how Philip put it to the Ethiopian eunuch when that worthy man said, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Philip answered, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." And if thou dost not believe with all thine heart, thou oughtest not to be baptized, thou hast no right to this ordinance of Christ unless thou art a Christian. "He that believeth and is baptized," — that is the Scriptural order. Read the New Testament impartially, and you will always find that those who were baptized were believers. They believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, and then they were baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. ~ BAPTISM ESSENTIAL TO OBEDIENCE by Charles Spurgeon

Tomlane
Apr 19th 2009, 09:54 PM
Markward, Here is something not mentioned yet about water baptism and where this doctrine for the Protestant churches of today actually come from. After studying on it I'm convinced that water baptism for the Protestant churches came from Rome and as different ones broke off from Rome they took much doctrine and tradition with them. Even the history books bare this out. For instance, all of the popular holy days the Protestant system of religion observes comes from Rome, and not the bible. Granted these days are given biblical names and things that happened there such as in Easter, that still makes them no less pagan. I will go as far to state most of what Protestantism has is truth sprinkled with paganism and I do believe the bible supports that in Rev. 17 & 18 where it describes a religion with off shoot religions being the daughters. Anyone care to comment on that? lol

Tomlane

markedward
Apr 19th 2009, 10:15 PM
Then please clarify for me further – is it your position that the baptism of the Great Commission is not baptism in water? Is that the position you are presenting and defending? Do you know any one here who thinks the baptism of Mark 16:16 is not baptism in water? In your opinion is baptism in water essential to the gospel of Christ today?Could you please take into account what I have said previously (twice now). I'm not taking sides, I'm defending the alternate view for the sake of discussion, not because it is my own opinion. I have already said this, so please recognize that this is the case. Twice (or three times?) now you have spoken to me as if the position is my own, when I have said already that it is not.

Partaker of Christ
Apr 19th 2009, 11:30 PM
Hi Mark,

Consider the fact that the apostles had already received the Holy Spirit prior to pentecost. I think pentecost was a manifestation of the Spirit, not necessarily the indwelling of the Sprit.


John 20:22 ( KJV )
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Hi Butch!

Does that mean Thomas missed out then?

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
John 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

also:

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

markedward
Apr 19th 2009, 11:44 PM
Hi Mark,

Consider the fact that the apostles had already received the Holy Spirit prior to pentecost. I think pentecost was a manifestation of the Spirit, not necessarily the indwelling of the Sprit.Here is how Scripture describes the Pentecost event:


It was "baptism with the Holy Spirit" [Acts 1.5]
It was "receiving the Holy Spirit" [Acts 1.8]
It was "the pouring out of the Holy Spirit" [Acts 2.17]

Are you saying that the "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit is different than "baptism", "receiving", and "out pouring" of the Holy Spirit? All three of these instances of phrasing indicate, to me at least, that the Pentecost event was a unique event in which the Holy Spirit was first imparted to the apostles.

John 20.22 doesn't read out like the Holy Spirit is coming upon the apostles at that very momeny, just that he's imploring them to receive the Spirit... whenever the time comes that the Spirit comes upon them.

Butch5
Apr 20th 2009, 01:31 AM
Here is how Scripture describes the Pentecost event:


It was "baptism with the Holy Spirit" [Acts 1.5]
It was "receiving the Holy Spirit" [Acts 1.8]
It was "the pouring out of the Holy Spirit" [Acts 2.17]
Are you saying that the "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit is different than "baptism", "receiving", and "out pouring" of the Holy Spirit? All three of these instances of phrasing indicate, to me at least, that the Pentecost event was a unique event in which the Holy Spirit was first imparted to the apostles.

John 20.22 doesn't read out like the Holy Spirit is coming upon the apostles at that very momeny, just that he's imploring them to receive the Spirit... whenever the time comes that the Spirit comes upon them.


That is what I am asking, Christ breathed on the disciples and said receive the Holy Spirit, why would you think this is not the indwelling of the Spirit. This is just the same as Genesis, when God breathed the breath of life into Adam, wouldn't this be equivalent, Christ breathing life into the disciples???

Also here is another thing that I have been thinking about. Many people quote John the baptist about Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit, however I never here anyone explain about the fire, John the Baptist said that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. This happened at Pentecost, and at the house of Cornelius, I don't see it happening everywhere, so again I wonder if it is the indwelling of he Spirit or a manifestation of the Spirit.

Butch5
Apr 20th 2009, 01:34 AM
Hi Butch!

Does that mean Thomas missed out then?

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
John 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

also:

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.


I would suspect that Thomas received the Spirit when He saw Jesus. Regarding John 14 Jesus made that statement before He breathed on them and gave them the Spirit.

Butch5
Apr 20th 2009, 01:38 AM
I don't understand what you mean here...
I'm not trying to go in circles, but the response to this is that Christ never commanded to be baptized "in water", he simply said to be "baptized", and, in Acts 1.5, he said baptism would be by the Holy Spirit.



You're completely taking the topical question that I presented out of context.

I never said that "go, preach, baptize" wasn't an "ordinance of baptism". The topic of discussion was whether this "ordinance of baptism" was water baptism. Please recognize the difference between what you think the topic is about, and what I'm saying it is about.

I'll repeat the question I laid out in my previous post, so we can all be on the same page. (This is bold, and large, just to grab other readers' attention.)

The question I'm getting at is whether or not water baptism is specifically replaced with Holy Spirit baptism, following the ascension of Christ.
You should know very well that time isn't an authority for a doctrine. Just look at (a) the Catholic Church with all of it's "time-tested" doctrines, and (b) every other religion with all of their "time-tested" doctrines.

Hi Markedward,

I'm not nitpicking but in Acts 1:5, Jesus said you will be baptized "with" the Holy Spirit. Not by the Spirit, that is a big difference.

kay-gee
Apr 20th 2009, 02:01 AM
Hi Butch. Those who refuse water baptism will understand fully what the baptism in fire is all about. Jesus is still the final judge. On judgement day, those who He does not know, (never been united to Him) will recieve the eternal baptism in fire!

all the best...

markedward
Apr 20th 2009, 02:27 AM
I'm not nitpicking but in Acts 1:5, Jesus said you will be baptized "with" the Holy Spirit. Not by the Spirit, that is a big difference.Thanks for noting that. (Though I, personally, was using the two words interchangeably, but this is an important thing to note. I have, however, already used the word "with", such as in my previous post, in the bullet list.)


Hi Butch. Those who refuse water baptism will understand fully what the baptism in fire is all about. Jesus is still the final judge. On judgement day, those who He does not know, (never been united to Him) will recieve the eternal baptism in fire!So you're saying those who do not get baptized in water will be condemned? Isn't this essentially saying that a person's salvation is dependent on their performance of works, instead of only by grace?

markedward
Apr 20th 2009, 03:03 AM
I would also like to bring to focus a verse I mentioned in the OP that has not been addressed yet:

Ephesians 4.4-6 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

For those who believe that there are two baptisms to be practiced today, water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism... how can such a belief of two baptisms even remotely be reconciled with Paul's plain and clear statement that there is one baptism? The implication of Paul's use of the word "one" is that it is the "one and only one".

There is "one [and only one] body"...
There is "one [and only one] Spirit"...
There is "one [and only one] Lord"...
There is "one [and only one] faith"...
There is "one [and only one] God and Father of all"...

I'm sure everyone here would agree that all of the above statements make perfect sense if Paul's use of the word "one" is inferred to mean "one and only one". Yet, for people to claim that Scripture commands two baptisms, one with water and one with the Holy Spirit, this "one [and only one]" statement doesn't work. So if there are two baptisms commanded in Scripture, why does Paul so explicitly say there is only "one" baptism, and since there is only "one" baptism (just as there is only one body, only one Spirit, only one Lord, only one faith, only one God and Father of all)... which baptism is it: water or Holy Spirit baptism?

Tomlane
Apr 20th 2009, 03:13 AM
I've noticed some people think Christ baptized people with the Holy Spirit before he ascended into heaven and that is impossible since the Holy Spirit wouldn't dwell within anyone until the day Pentecost while they patiently waited for it. No jungle beat music, no rolling on the floor, no dancing and arm waving. Just waiting. However the Holy Spirit at times would come upon a person to do God's will but not in them. Only the indwelling spirit in this Church that is Christ's body {one church} that is in this present dispensation.

Tomlane

kay-gee
Apr 20th 2009, 12:11 PM
To be fair to "Markedward," I believe he is asking a different question here than "thewizter" asked in the thread "Questions about Baptism." In that thread, its a question of whether Baptism is essential for salvation. It would appear that it is intended in this thread to assume, for the sake of argument, that baptism is NOT required or essential to salvation. Assuming that it isn't, "is baptism for today?

Another way to ask this question, assuming that baptism is/was solely meant to be symbolic, is to evaluate whether Baptism, as it is practiced today, connotes the same thing it did in ancient times. If Baptism was symbolic of a believer's desire for a clear conscience, as Peter suggests in his epistle, does it connote that same idea today?

Now, Markedward, if I have misunderstood your question, please correct me.
So in other words...the same thing but asked differently? It appears that the same arguments and objections are arising, all over again.

all the best...

BroRog
Apr 20th 2009, 02:55 PM
So in other words...the same thing but asked differently? It appears that the same arguments and objections are arising, all over again.

all the best...

No, the question in this thread was not intended to be more of the same. The fact that it has become more of the same wasn't the intend of the OP. I suggested that the question in this thread HAD to assume that Baptism was NOT a means to salvation or even a Christian ordinance because if one answers these questions in the affirmative, the answer to this question is automatically yes.

That is, if we say that salvation is a means to salvation, then of course Baptism is for today, since salvation is always open to anyone who believes as long as it is called "today".

Perhaps a man disagrees with those who say that baptism is a means to salvation, but he affirms that baptism is a command of Jesus and that baptism is an ordinance for Christians to practice. Even in this case, if a man believes that baptism is an ordinance, he is automatically going to affirm that baptism is for today because obedience is always commended.

Finally, a man believes not that baptism is the means to salvation, neither does he believe that baptism is an ordinance, but he believes that baptism is the occasion for salvation, he will certainly believe that baptism is for today.

If a man or woman believes any one of these three things, he or she will certainly believe that baptism is for today. The question goes without saying.

And so, in order for us to address the question being raised in this thread, one must provisionally suspend their view that salvation is a means, ordinance, or occasion for salvation in order to answer the question.

John146
Apr 20th 2009, 03:53 PM
I would also like to bring to focus a verse I mentioned in the OP that has not been addressed yet:

Ephesians 4.4-6 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

For those who believe that there are two baptisms to be practiced today, water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism... how can such a belief of two baptisms even remotely be reconciled with Paul's plain and clear statement that there is one baptism? The implication of Paul's use of the word "one" is that it is the "one and only one".

There is "one [and only one] body"...
There is "one [and only one] Spirit"...
There is "one [and only one] Lord"...
There is "one [and only one] faith"...
There is "one [and only one] God and Father of all"...

I'm sure everyone here would agree that all of the above statements make perfect sense if Paul's use of the word "one" is inferred to mean "one and only one". Yet, for people to claim that Scripture commands two baptisms, one with water and one with the Holy Spirit, this "one [and only one]" statement doesn't work. So if there are two baptisms commanded in Scripture, why does Paul so explicitly say there is only "one" baptism, and since there is only "one" baptism (just as there is only one body, only one Spirit, only one Lord, only one faith, only one God and Father of all)... which baptism is it: water or Holy Spirit baptism?The baptism that places us in the body of Christ is Holy Spirit baptism.

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Since we know that Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit, "by" would be better translated as "with" in that verse and some translations do have a footnote saying "Or with; or in". Regardless, it's still speaking of Holy Spirit baptism rather than water baptism. So, my answer to your question is Holy Spirit baptism.

markedward
Apr 20th 2009, 05:59 PM
John146,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. If I understand you, you're saying that the "one baptism" that Paul speaks of is Holy Spirit baptism? So, in response to my main question, would you say that Holy Spirit baptism replaced water baptism? (The time-frame in which this would have had to have taken place, I think, would have been following Christ's ascension, and probably at Pentecost.)

John146
Apr 20th 2009, 07:47 PM
John146,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. If I understand you, you're saying that the "one baptism" that Paul speaks of is Holy Spirit baptism?Well, I did say "my answer to your question is Holy Spirit baptism", so yes, that's what I'm saying. ;)


So, in response to my main question, would you say that Holy Spirit baptism replaced water baptism? (The time-frame in which this would have had to have taken place, I think, would have been following Christ's ascension, and probably at Pentecost.)No, I don't believe it replaced water baptism. I'm not aware of any scripture that teaches that. When you see the reference to "one baptism" I don't believe that it's literally saying that there's only one baptism. Scripture clearly speaks of water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism as separate baptisms. So, in one sense there are two baptisms (or three - baptism with fire being the third), but in another sense there is one.

But I believe Holy Spirit baptism, which is performed by Jesus Christ with (by way of) the Holy Spirit is the "one baptism" that places us in the body of Christ. Water baptism follows that and is meant for those who already have put their faith in Christ and have been saved and baptized by the Holy Spirit, like we see in Acts 10:44-48. I think 1 Cor 12:13 makes it pretty clear that the baptism that places us in the body of Christ is the baptism with the Spirit.

Ephesians 4
1I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

In this passage he first points out that there is one body and one Spirit. What is the baptism that places us into the one body? The baptism with the Holy Spirit, who is the one Spirit that he mentions. I just don't think he was intending to say that there was only one baptism that was valid or being performed at that point. We can clearly see that in the early church people were being both baptized with the Holy Spirit and baptized in water and the baptisms happened separately (not at the same time). So, again, I believe he is saying there is one baptism (with the one Spirit) that places us into the one body of the one Lord, Jesus Christ.

markedward
Apr 20th 2009, 10:45 PM
Well, I did say "my answer to your question is Holy Spirit baptism", so yes, that's what I'm saying. ;)

No, I don't believe it replaced water baptism. I'm not aware of any scripture that teaches that. When you see the reference to "one baptism" I don't believe that it's literally saying that there's only one baptism.But then, couldn't someone just as easily say "I don't believe that it's literally saying that there's only one ______" and but "body" or "Spirit" or "Lord" or "faith" or "God" in the blank? If "one" means "one" in these other cases, and we're adamant about it, why is baptism allowed to be singled out and it said that "one" doesn't mean "one" in that case?


So, again, I believe he is saying there is one baptism (with the one Spirit) that places us into the one body of the one Lord, Jesus Christ.This is a good explanation, though; it makes sense in regards to what Holy Spirit baptism accomplishes.

Tomlane
Apr 20th 2009, 11:01 PM
John146, you stated:
No, I don't believe it replaced water baptism. I'm not aware of any scripture that teaches that. When you see the reference to "one baptism" I don't believe that it's literally saying that there's only one baptism. Scripture clearly speaks of water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism as separate baptisms. So, in one sense there are two baptisms (or three - baptism with fire being the third), but in another sense there is one.

Wow your statement about one baptism is so full of contradiction. You don't believe Ephesians 4 is literally saying there is only one baptism then you say in one sense there is three baptism then in another sense there is one baptism. How confusing, sorry to say.

The reason I know Ephesians 4:5 is stating one baptism is because Paul listed so many other things that are one as well. One, God, one faith, one body, one spirit. We do not have a divided God and he is not the author of confusion. Man's religions are what is divided.

1 Corinthians 14:33 *For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

God;s inspired word is very decisive in content when we study it and compare it with other scriptures. Such as when did water baptism end.

Ephesians 2:15 *Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 *And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

The law and all it ordinances were nailed to the cross including water baptism and new water baptism was never given to the church. But it wasn't until later through the letters of Paul did anyone learn it was abolished. There never was a fourth baptism ordained by God for men to demonstrate their faith with. Actually God said just the opposite.

Philippians 3:3 *For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Just as it says we are to worship God in Spirit that is very decisive statement don't you think, just as having no confidence in the flesh is a very positive and an easy statement to understand. Just as one baptism is very decisive statement as there is one God, one spirit.

To be dunked in water we have to have confidence in our flesh for the flesh is the only thing you can get wet. Nothing on the spiritual realm with water since the dunkee and the dunker are all physical as is the water, physical.

Perhaps your reluctance to admit totally to one baptism as that it create a rather large hole in denominational doctrine in regards to water baptism for the church or should I say churches?

Also if there was such a thing as water baptism for believers in the church that would make four baptisms instead of the three you mentioned. A baptism after putting your faith in Christ. Where is that found in Scripture? That sure goes against what Paul stated doesn't it?

Paul spoke of two baptisms and both were mentioned but not in a positive light that would hold water.

Romans 6:3 *Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? {Spiritual baptism. you got that one correct John. :pp}

1 Corinthians 1:13 *Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? {Confusion among carnal Christians at Corinth using water baptism along with spiritual baptism.}
1 Corinthians 1:14 *¶I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; {Just think if water baptism was needed don't you think Paul wold have baptized more then what he did? The reason he baptized the ones he did was before he got the revelation concerning water baptism . The first inkling we have on no water baptism was first given in Acts 15th chapter when it was found there was only four things required of Gentiles. Water was not one of them}
1 Corinthians 1:15 *Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
1 Corinthians 1:16 *And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

It very evident Paul didn't waver about there being one baptism now did he?

I believe if we are faithful to God's word we won't be either.

Romans 10:17 *So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Romans 14:23 *And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

If all would take their faith and doctrines out of denominations and put it in the simplicity that is in Christ's and their trust just in Christ's word and his marvelous plan of oneness that speaks of unity then our faith wouldn't be damned as set forth in Romans 14:23. One positive thing for all of us, is regardless if our faith be in error we won't loose our salvation but we will suffer a great lose of reward and if we come out from among those who walk not according to God's word we will have a closer walk with the Lord in this life.

2 Corinthians 6:16 *And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 *Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 *And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Tomlane

losthorizon
Apr 20th 2009, 11:02 PM
I would also like to bring to focus a verse I mentioned in the OP that has not been addressed yet:

Ephesians 4.4-6 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

...So if there are two baptisms commanded in Scripture, why does Paul so explicitly say there is only "one" baptism, and since there is only "one" baptism (just as there is only one body, only one Spirit, only one Lord, only one faith, only one God and Father of all)... which baptism is it: water or Holy Spirit baptism?
Regarding Ephesians 4.4-6 - there is but One Baptism commanded by God applicable to all beleivers today. There can be no doubt that the One Baptism in Ephesians 4:5 is the ordinance instituted and commanded by the Lord in the Great Commission. The One Baptism is the baptism administered by the hands of men as the believer is immersed in water – born again “of water and the Spirit".

Even John MacArthur who holds the traditional Baptist view of baptism recognizes the One Baptism of Ephesians to be exactly what it is – immersion in water as commanded by the Risen Lord “until He comes again". To confuse the meaning of the baptism of Ephesians 4:5 with anything other than immersion in water is to misunderstand much.
Eph 4:5. The one baptism of verse 5 is best taken to refer to water baptism, the common New Testament means of a believer’s publicly confessing Jesus as Savior and Lord. This is preferred because of the way Paul has spoken specifically of each member of the Trinity in succession. This is the Lord Jesus Christ’s verse, as it were. ~ John MacArthur

markedward
Apr 20th 2009, 11:15 PM
Regarding Ephesians 4.4-6 - there is but One Baptism commanded by God applicable to all beleivers today. There can be no doubt that the One Baptism in Ephesians 4:5 is the ordinance instituted and commanded by the Lord in the Great Commission. The One Baptism is the baptism administered by the hands of men as the believer is immersed in water – born again “of water and the Spirit".

Even John MacArthur who holds the traditional Baptist view of baptism recognizes the One Baptism of Ephesians to be exactly what it is – immersion in water as commanded by the Risen Lord “until He comes again". To confuse the meaning of the baptism of Ephesians 4:5 with anything other than immersion in water is to misunderstand much.Except, again, this requires inferring "water" into the context of the "the Great Commission" when Jesus never actually referred to water, whether explicitly or implicitly.

Butch5
Apr 20th 2009, 11:24 PM
So you're saying those who do not get baptized in water will be condemned? Isn't this essentially saying that a person's salvation is dependent on their performance of works, instead of only by grace?

Actually, I do believe that to be ultimately saved in the end, one must perform works, if one has the ability to do so. Whether we do works or not does not change the fact that God will save us by grace.

Butch5
Apr 20th 2009, 11:33 PM
I've noticed some people think Christ baptized people with the Holy Spirit before he ascended into heaven and that is impossible since the Holy Spirit wouldn't dwell within anyone until the day Pentecost while they patiently waited for it. No jungle beat music, no rolling on the floor, no dancing and arm waving. Just waiting. However the Holy Spirit at times would come upon a person to do God's will but not in them. Only the indwelling spirit in this Church that is Christ's body {one church} that is in this present dispensation.

Tomlane


Tomlane---I've noticed some people think Christ baptized people with the Holy Spirit before he ascended into heaven and that is impossible since the Holy Spirit wouldn't dwell within anyone until the day Pentecost

Could you provide some Scripture to support that claim?

Luke 1:13-16 ( KJV )
But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.
And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.

Tomlane
Apr 20th 2009, 11:33 PM
losthorizon stated:
Regarding Ephesians 4.4-6 - there is but One Baptism commanded by God applicable to all beleivers today. There can be no doubt that the One Baptism in Ephesians 4:5 is the ordinance instituted and commanded by the Lord in the Great Commission. The One Baptism is the baptism administered by the hands of men as the believer is immersed in water – born again “of water and the Spirit".

There are many reasons why the above statements are in error. For the sake of time I will address two of the more obvious ones.


The so called Great Commission never applied to the Church as that happened before the church was revealed and one would have to still have the signs that followed then that were in said commission as found in

Mark 16:16 *He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 *And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 *They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So I guess if you can have a anti-freeze cocktail or speak in a new language, cast out devils, lay hands on the sick you may have a valid point except for one other thing.

Christ does no baptize with water and never did. Also baptizing with water to wash your sins away or to be put into Christ never will happen. So much for that theory.

Its amazing to me how the water crowed ignore so much of God's word to try and make their doctrine fit.

Tomlane

Butch5
Apr 21st 2009, 01:43 AM
[quote=Tomlane;2048715]Acts 15:28 *For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 *That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Please notice of those four things for Gentiles to do, not one of them mentions ordinances of any kind, not even water. We also must remember many of the letters Paul wrote, there was still two programs still in effect. Jews with there ordinances and Gentiles who I believe many in those early days became proselytes until Paul was given revelation that the Law had been nailed to the cross {Col 2:14-17} and that both Jew and Gentile had been made a new creation in Christ on an individual basis and that both were now a new creation in Christ by spiritual baptism. That means the Jews were not under the law and its many ordinances any longer. [quote]

Tom,

Can you please put this passage in context? It appears you are using it to say that gentiles are not required to be baptized, correct? Do you know the background behind this statement??? Because without understanding the background you cannot understand what the passage is saying. It appears to me from your usage of the passage that you do not understand the background, because the verse does not support your claim.

losthorizon
Apr 21st 2009, 02:17 AM
The so called Great Commission never applied to the Church as that happened before the church was revealed
Your confusion continues – Jesus spoke about and revealed His *church* long before he gave the “Commission” – He told Peter - upon Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ – “upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” You may want to study your Bible a bit more. The command to be baptized in water was given to all who will be disciples of Jesus Christ – from Pentecost until today and until He comes again. “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved”. It cannot be any plainer. The NT does not know of an unbaptized believer from Pentecost on.
"Jesus asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others Jeremias or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said [B]THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter. And upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. 16:13-18.

losthorizon
Apr 21st 2009, 02:26 AM
Except, again, this requires inferring "water" into the context of the "the Great Commission" when Jesus never actually referred to water, whether explicitly or implicitly.
Actually it simply takes a degree of biblical knowledge and common sense. I will take the same position of Charles Spurgeon on the “water of baptism”. I am content to take the view that baptism signifies the burial of believers in water in the name of the Lord, and I shall so interpret the text.
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."—Romans 6:3-4.

I shall not enter into controversy over this text, although over it some have raised the question of infant baptism or believers' baptism, immersion or sprinkling. If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it. I myself am quite incapable of performing such a feat, or even of imagining how it can be done. I am content to take the view that baptism signifies the burial of believers in water in the name of the Lord, and I shall so interpret the text. ~ Baptism - A Burial, Charles Spurgeon

Butch5
Apr 21st 2009, 11:38 AM
losthorizon stated:

There are many reasons why the above statements are in error. For the sake of time I will address two of the more obvious ones.


The so called Great Commission never applied to the Church as that happened before the church was revealed and one would have to still have the signs that followed then that were in said commission as found in

Mark 16:16 *He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 *And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 *They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So I guess if you can have a anti-freeze cocktail or speak in a new language, cast out devils, lay hands on the sick you may have a valid point except for one other thing.

Christ does no baptize with water and never did. Also baptizing with water to wash your sins away or to be put into Christ never will happen. So much for that theory.

Its amazing to me how the water crowed ignore so much of God's word to try and make their doctrine fit.

Tomlane

Hi Tomlane,

If you read 1 Corinthians 12-14, you will find that Paul tells us the supernatural gifts would cease. Therefore they no longer follow believers.

Butch5
Apr 21st 2009, 11:58 AM
Except, again, this requires inferring "water" into the context of the "the Great Commission" when Jesus never actually referred to water, whether explicitly or implicitly.

Hi Markedward,

Jesus may not have used the word water in the great commission. However, after spending three and a half years water baptizing disciples what would be the logical conclusion they would draw from Jesus, command to baptize? At the point of the Great Commission the disciple were not yet able to give the Spirit by laying their hands on people. The only logical conclusion for the disciples to draw from Jesus command would be water baptim. Also, since the disciples had spent three and a half years water bapizing believers, they woud automatically assume water when baptim is spoken of, so if Jesus meant Spiiritual baptism He would need to differentiate the two so that the disciples would know the differnce, but He did not. Another thing to consider is this, if Jesus did mean for them to baptize with the Spirit, the. No one could be save after John the Postle died, since they were the only men who could give the Spirit

Partaker of Christ
Apr 21st 2009, 02:43 PM
Hi Tomlane,

If you read 1 Corinthians 12-14, you will find that Paul tells us the supernatural gifts would cease. Therefore they no longer follow believers.

So how do we evangelise, preach, teach, build one another up.

How can we be the Body of Christ, without the anointing.

Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luke 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Has the work stopped?

Tomlane
Apr 21st 2009, 03:09 PM
Butch, you stated:
Hi Tomlane, If you read 1 Corinthians 12-14, you will find that Paul tells us the supernatural gifts would cease. Therefore they no longer follow believers.

Yes they did cease right along with water baptism and all the other ordinances. And what has your statement have to do with anything I have posted since I see no connection in subject matter as stated in Mark 16?

Butch stated:
Tom,

Can you please put this passage in context? It appears you are using it to say that gentiles are not required to be baptized, correct? Do you know the background behind this statement??? Because without understanding the background you cannot understand what the passage is saying. It appears to me from your usage of the passage that you do not understand the background, because the verse does not support your claim.

Butch, no way I could take that out of context since I gave just as it reads in the scriptures. Perhaps you should reread it yourself. If after reading it, and you still think I have it out of context why don't you give me the scriptures to support your reasons why I have it out of context. As it is your opinion remains just that; your opinion since you gave no scriptures to back up your statements. Its like you are groping in the dark Butch.

Butch stated:
Quote:
Tomlane---I've noticed some people think Christ baptized people with the Holy Spirit before he ascended into heaven and that is impossible since the Holy Spirit wouldn't dwell within anyone until the day Pentecost
Could you provide some Scripture to support that claim?

Luke 1:13-16 ( KJV )
But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.
And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.

Butch if you take in the full account stated in Luke why John was to be given the Holy Spirit before he was born puts a completely different light on it.

John was given the Holy Spirit before birth to fulfill a pacific purpose for God before he was born! And Christ said after he started his ministry that when he leaves to go back to heaven He will send a comforter the Holy Spirit. But not until after he leaves. Wow, I'm amazed you tried to use that to prove water baptism.

John 14:26 *But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 15:26 *¶But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 16:7 *¶Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Butch, why wouldn't you rather have the Holy Spirit baptism so you will Him to bring all things He teaches you from the word, that is after you study it and rightly divide it as stated in 2Timothy 2:15?

Butch if I have misunderstood any of your replies, I surely would like correction. Thank you,

Tomlane

Tomlane
Apr 21st 2009, 03:58 PM
Partaker of Christ asked:


So how do we evangelise, preach, teach, build one another up.

How can we be the Body of Christ, without the anointing.

Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luke 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Has the work stopped?

Partaker of Christ, if you had followed up with the next two verses you would have had your answers and yes this work by Christ has stopped and he is gone and the offering of the kingdom to the Jews has stopped and we are now in the time of the Gentile that has not ended yet and things have changed.

I'll give the two verses you left out. which explains your questions.

Luke 4:20 *And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 *And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Since those scripture were given as prophesy describing Christ when the spirit {the Holy Ghost} came upon Him when he was water baptized with the baptism of repentance. Its interesting to note, since Christ had never sinned He personally had nothing to repent of. But like Christ told John, suffer for it to be for now, {temporary} so that righteousness will be fulfilled. Since everyone is attempting to emulate John's water baptism nothing is ever mentioned about fulfilling all righteousness as Christ did. That is conveniently left out and practically so since we can't fulfill any kind of righteousness but many seem to want to use John's baptism in a completely different way that adds to God's word.

Christ read that prophesy in the temple to fulfill it. That simple. For only Christ could and would complete that prophesy of Himself because He is God. He preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preached deliverance to the captives, and healed the sight to the blind, set at liberty them that are bruised. Hopefully that should answer your question to all the above items you listed. Only Christ was anointed in that particular passage. Today anointing is not a religious practice in the church for all physical religious practice has stopped since we are under grace and worship in spirit and not use our flesh for worship. Anointing though is a nice practice with married couples in their marriage for each other.

Philippians 3:3 *For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh

Also until the fullness of the Gentile comes in as found in verse Romans 11:25

Romans 11:25 *For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Proper doctrine in the church is just as much a mystery today as it was when Paul wrote about the mystery of the Church. Man's religion uses the word church freely but have no idea as to how to worship God in this special dispensation that is not Jewish in nature but we worship God in spirit and truth as found in the words of Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles, and as verse 25 says that blindness in part is happened to Israel in part until the fullness of the Gentiles is completed or come in.[/B]

This is the reason there is so much confusion in denominational doctrine today because mixing ordinances with Grace has blinded those in part as well who combine ordinances with Grace. Paul admonished the Romans about this as well in the first part of verse 25. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits

Tomlane

Butch5
Apr 22nd 2009, 12:38 AM
So how do we evangelise, preach, teach, build one another up.

How can we be the Body of Christ, without the anointing.

Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luke 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Has the work stopped?

The supernatureal gifts are not given like they were in NT times. In that time believers were given the gifts of healing, prophecy, knowledge, etc. Paul said in 1 Corinthians that these gifts would stop. That doesn't mean that God has stopped using the gifts, only that they are not given to believers as they were. God can still use a person to lay hands on some one and heal them. However, that same person cannot go at will and heal whoever they chose.

Butch5
Apr 22nd 2009, 01:28 AM
Tomlane---Yes they did cease right along with water baptism and all the other ordinances. And what has your statement have to do with anything I have posted since I see no connection in subject matter as stated in Mark 16?

You asked if the signs still followed believers, referring to Mark 16. I said if you read 1 Corinthians you will see that Paul said these gift would cease. That is why they no longer follow those who believe (Mark 16)



Tomlane---Butch, no way I could take that out of context since I gave just as it reads in the scriptures. Perhaps you should reread it yourself. If after reading it, and you still think I have it out of context why don't you give me the scriptures to support your reasons why I have it out of context. As it is your opinion remains just that; your opinion since you gave no scriptures to back up your statements. Its like you are groping in the dark Butch.

It is out of context because you are applying it were it should not be applied. You said,


Tomlane---I would highly recommend anyone to read the complete chapters both of Acts 15 and Romans 11 to get the full picture.

So here I'll give the bottom line of that meeting in Acts 11.

Acts 15:28 *For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 *That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Please notice of those four things for Gentiles to do, not one of them mentions ordinances of any kind, not even water. We also must remember many of the letters Paul wrote, there was still two programs still in effect. Jews with there ordinances and Gentiles who I believe many in those early days became proselytes until Paul was given revelation that the Law had been nailed to the cross {Col 2:14-17} and that both Jew and Gentile had been made a new creation in Christ on an individual basis and that both were now a new creation in Christ by spiritual baptism. That means the Jews were not under the law and its many ordinances any longer.


Then you said,


Tomlane---Please notice of those four things for Gentiles to do, not one of them mentions ordinances of any kind, not even water.

Baptism is not in question in this issue. So to say "not even water" is misapplying the passage. The believers that were being addressed here were already baptized. That is the reason I asked if you knew the background. The issue was this, Paul had started many of these churches, Ephesians, Galatians, etc. There were Jews from the church in Jerusalem that were going behind Paul questioning his authority as an apostle and they were telling the believers in these churches that they had to follow the law. Paul's argument is that they don't have to follow the law. However, Paul decides to go to Jerusalem to the church where these came from and get a letter from the Jewish apostles to show that what Paul was preaching was indeed the correct doctrine and that what these others were preaching was false. If you look at what the Apostles wrote they said that they had sent no one, and Paul says in his letter to the Galatians, "they added nothing to me" speaking of the apostles. Meaning that they did not add to Paul's doctrine, Paul was in fact preaching the same gospel that the Jewish apostles were preaching. At the meeting in Jerusalem when the Apostles were gather together to discuss the issue, Peter rose up and said,

Acts 15:7-11 ( KJV )
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, 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;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
The underlined part is the issue, The yoke is the "law", it was the law that the Jews could not bear. So now the question is should the gentiles be made to observe the law. Peter's answer is no, if we (Jews) couldn't keep it why burden the gentiles.

Then Paul and Barnabas tell how God has worked among the gentiles,

Acts 15:12 ( KJV )
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

Then James speaks,

Acts 15:13-20 ( KJV )
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

These are all elements of the law, James is saying that the gentiles should not be made to follow the law , except for these abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Nowhere in this discussion does the NT commandment of water baptism "ever" enter. The issue was strictly, are the gentiles required to follow the law? So to use this passage to imply that baptism is not necessary is to take it out of context, it simply does not address the issue of baptism.



Tomlane---Butch if you take in the full account stated in Luke why John was to be given the Holy Spirit before he was born puts a completely different light on it.

John was given the Holy Spirit before birth to fulfill a pacific purpose for God before he was born! And Christ said after he started his ministry that when he leaves to go back to heaven He will send a comforter the Holy Spirit. But not until after he leaves. Wow, I'm amazed you tried to use that to prove water baptism.

I did not try to prove water baptism, you said no one was indwelt with the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, I just posted the passage to show that John was indwelt before Pentecost.



Tomlane---Butch, why wouldn't you rather have the Holy Spirit baptism so you will Him to bring all things He teaches you from the word, that is after you study it and rightly divide it as stated in 2Timothy 2:15?


Tom, I believe I have rightoly divided the word, if you think that what I have said is wrong, then please feel free to show mw how acts 15 supports your claim.

Partaker of Christ
Apr 22nd 2009, 02:25 PM
Hi Tomlane,

If you read 1 Corinthians 12-14, you will find that Paul tells us the supernatural gifts would cease. Therefore they no longer follow believers.

Does Paul say when they will cease?

Partaker of Christ
Apr 22nd 2009, 02:27 PM
The supernatureal gifts are not given like they were in NT times. In that time believers were given the gifts of healing, prophecy, knowledge, etc. Paul said in 1 Corinthians that these gifts would stop. That doesn't mean that God has stopped using the gifts, only that they are not given to believers as they were. God can still use a person to lay hands on some one and heal them. However, that same person cannot go at will and heal whoever they chose.

I take it you can show scripture to support this?

Tomlane
Apr 22nd 2009, 02:40 PM
Partaker of Christ, Hi and thank you for your input. I agree with you fully. I was going to reply to Butch a little while ago with that very scripture plus with the fact and give him the scripture that states the signs were given to Israel because they require a sign as the Greeks seek after wisdom. But, my browser died on me right in the middle of it so will have to wait now until later to day to address all of Butch's replies.
I don't think our years are much longer before the time of the Gentile will be full do you Partaker of Christ?
Thanks again for you input and anytime feel free to do so, Tomlane :pp

John146
Apr 22nd 2009, 02:51 PM
But then, couldn't someone just as easily say "I don't believe that it's literally saying that there's only one ______" and but "body" or "Spirit" or "Lord" or "faith" or "God" in the blank? If "one" means "one" in these other cases, and we're adamant about it, why is baptism allowed to be singled out and it said that "one" doesn't mean "one" in that case?I don't believe so. We have to know the context. Is there really only one faith? Not literally. People have faith in all kinds of different things. Look at how many religions and cults there are. But there is only one faith that saves, which is faith in Christ. Is there only one body? Couldn't people of other religions be seen as a body of believers of that religion? But, of course, we know there is only one body of Christ, which is the true church. How do we know that the verse is speaking of the body of Christ? Not from Ephesians 4 alone.

In the same vein, is it really saying there is one and only one baptism of any kind or is it saying that there is only one baptism that places us in the body of Christ? As I explained already, I believe it's saying there is only one baptism that places us in the body of Christ, which according to 1 Cor 12:13 is the baptism with the Holy Spirit, which Jesus performs within us.


This is a good explanation, though; it makes sense in regards to what Holy Spirit baptism accomplishes.Thank you for saying that.

John146
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:07 PM
John146, you stated:

Wow your statement about one baptism is so full of contradiction. You don't believe Ephesians 4 is literally saying there is only one baptism then you say in one sense there is three baptism then in another sense there is one baptism. How confusing, sorry to say. It's confusing to you only because you didn't understand what I was saying. Read the post I just made to markedward and you will see my position more clearly. You shouldn't be so quick to rush to judgment like this without getting clarification first.


Also if there was such a thing as water baptism for believers in the church that would make four baptisms instead of the three you mentioned. A baptism after putting your faith in Christ. Where is that found in Scripture? That sure goes against what Paul stated doesn't it?Here is an example of people being baptized with the Spirit and then being baptized in water after that. I believe they were saved at the moment they received the Spirit. Yet they were still commanded to be baptized in water after that. Should we just ignore that?

Acts 10
43To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

In verse 43, Peter says that whoever believes in Christ would receive remission of sins. While he was speaking those words some of the Gentiles there received the Spirit. Why did they receive the Spirit? Because they believed. I think it's reasonable to say they received the remission of sins at that time as well.

But this didn't stop Peter from commanding them to be baptized in water. Do you have any evidence that what happened there does not apply still today? I'm not saying one must immediately be baptized in water after receiving the Spirit and being saved (what if no water is nearby or no one is there to baptize them), but if the early church felt that people should be baptized in water, why shouldn't we? The problem is that people think it's necessary to be saved, but this is an example where people already received the Spirit and were saved before being baptized in water.

Tomlane
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:21 PM
John146 (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=15677), I understood you perfectly. I will go into detail later today and explain why I believe I understand your errors.

tomlane

John146
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:32 PM
The supernatureal gifts are not given like they were in NT times. In that time believers were given the gifts of healing, prophecy, knowledge, etc. Paul said in 1 Corinthians that these gifts would stop.When would they stop?

1 Cor 13
8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

The context for when these would stop is "when that which is perfect is come" and when we no longer "see through a glass, darkly". When will that which is perfect come and when will we no longer see through a glass, darkly? That will not happen until Christ comes and we see Him as He is and all things are made known.

1 John 3
1Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

If those gifts are no longer given then tell me the exact time when they stopped.

John146
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:33 PM
John146 (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=15677), I understood you perfectly. I will go into detail later today and explain why I believe I understand your errors.

tomlaneOh, that should be fun. ;) :D

Tomlane
Apr 22nd 2009, 08:37 PM
Hi Butch,

Quote:
Tomlane---Yes they did cease right along with water baptism and all the other ordinances. And what has your statement have to do with anything I have posted since I see no connection in subject matter as stated in Mark 16?
You asked if the signs still followed believers, referring to Mark 16. I said if you read 1 Corinthians you will see that Paul said these gift would cease. That is why they no longer follow those who believe (Mark 16) Butch so I can follow your line of thought can you make yourself clearer so I can respond? Is your stance on the gifts still being in effect or just water baptism or both? Your statement was very clouded from trying to figure it out. Thanks.

Tomlane

kay-gee
Apr 22nd 2009, 10:09 PM
If those gifts are no longer given then tell me the exact time when they stopped.[/quote] John146

When the last apostle died. (Acts 8:18)

all the best...

Butch5
Apr 22nd 2009, 10:16 PM
Does Paul say when they will cease?

Yes, he says prophecy and knowledge will cease when the maturity comes and He said tongues would cease of it's own accord. Since tongues was a sign to the leadership of Israel there would be no need for tongues to continue after the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. If you look at church history you will see very little mention of the Spiritual gifts in the church after the apostle John died.

Butch5
Apr 22nd 2009, 10:17 PM
I take it you can show scripture to support this?

Yes, 1 Corintihians 12-14. Paul clearly tells us that knowledge, prophecy and tongues would cease.

Butch5
Apr 22nd 2009, 10:38 PM
When would they stop?

1 Cor 13
8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

The context for when these would stop is "when that which is perfect is come" and when we no longer "see through a glass, darkly". When will that which is perfect come and when will we no longer see through a glass, darkly? That will not happen until Christ comes and we see Him as He is and all things are made known.

1 John 3
1Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

If those gifts are no longer given then tell me the exact time when they stopped.

You have problem with that John, first Paul didn't say when you see clearly, he was referring to himself and the Corinthians, if you can show from Scripture how that applies to you, please do.

Second, your time frame does not work. The cessation of tongues is in the middle voice, meaning tongues will cease of it's own accord. So that leaves prophecy and knowledge, Paul said these would cease when the maturity comes. You say that the maturity doesn't come until Christ returns, however this cannot be, notice Paul's statement,

1 Corinthians 13:8-13 ( KJV )
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Paul contrasts three things which will cease, prophecy, knowledge and tongues, with three things that will remain or continue, faith, hope, and love. When the maturity comes, prophecy and knowledge will cease, however, faith, hope, and love, will continue. Now let's look at what else Paul said.

Romans 8:17-25 ( KJV )
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Paul gives our expectation of hope in the passage above, then he says, but hope that is seen is not hope. So when the Christ comes, our hope will have been realized, we will no longer need hope, we will no longer live by faith, we will live by sight, able to see Christ. So, having said that the maturity "must" come before Christ returns because Paul says that when the maturity comes, faith and hope will continue, yet when Christ comes faith and hope will cease, as Paul said in the above passage, hope that is seen is not hope.

Butch5
Apr 22nd 2009, 10:39 PM
Hi Butch,
Butch so I can follow your line of thought can you make yourself clearer so I can respond? Is your stance on the gifts still being in effect or just water baptism or both? Your statement was very clouded from trying to figure it out. Thanks.

Tomlane

The gifts have ceased, Baptism has not.

Tomlane
Apr 22nd 2009, 10:49 PM
Butch, I'm going to use the Kiss method and keep it as simple as I can.

You stated: You asked if the signs still followed believers, referring to Mark 16. I said if you read 1 Corinthians you will see that Paul said these gift would cease. That is why they no longer follow those who believe (Mark 16)

This is where the contention is at. You claimed the signs no longer follow those that believe. My question to you Butch is, what difference does it make whither a person is a believer or not and why would the signs only stop for a believer? The signs have ceased along with the so called commission as well as people with water on the brain who use this command Christ gave his followers who were under the offering of the Kingdom to spread the good news for the Kingdom was still being offered. When the signs stopped the offering of their King stopped along with it because that mystery the church had been dropped down into the middle of the whole show and God we find out later had set aside {Romans 11} his offering Israel their King and all ordinances including the baptism of repentance were set aside with all the other ordinances. Col 2:14, Ephs. 2:14, 15, 16.

Tomlane

Butch5
Apr 22nd 2009, 11:06 PM
Butch, I'm going to use the Kiss method and keep it as simple as I can.

You stated: You asked if the signs still followed believers, referring to Mark 16. I said if you read 1 Corinthians you will see that Paul said these gift would cease. That is why they no longer follow those who believe (Mark 16)

This is where the contention is at. You claimed the signs no longer follow those that believe. My question to you Butch is, what difference does it make whither a person is a believer or not and why would the signs only stop for a believer? The signs have ceased along with the so called commission as well as people with water on the brain who use this command Christ gave his followers who were under the offering of the Kingdom to spread the good news for the Kingdom was still being offered. When the signs stopped the offering of their King stopped along with it because that mystery the church had been dropped down into the middle of the whole show and God we find out later had set aside {Romans 11} his offering Israel their King and all ordinances including the baptism of repentance were set aside with all the other ordinances. Col 2:14, Ephs. 2:14, 15, 16.

Tomlane

What difference does it make whether they are believer or not???? I don't believe God give the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the lost.

There is no contention Tom, Please explain to me how the offering of the kingdom has been set aside. You say that the mystery was revealed to Paul and this was mystery to the gentiles. OK, for one thing, I have shown you where Paul, says that God establishes us through his (Paul's) gospel "and" the preaching of Jesus Christ. If all of that stopped, why does Paul tell us that it is by his gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ. Jesus told His disciples to go and baptize, that was water baptize. If was only for hte Jews then why did Paul say that we are established by his gospel, "and" the preaching of Jesus Christ. By this statement, Paul is saying that everything that Christ taught and preached "is" applicable to the gentiles.

Can you please show me where the baptism was set aside.

Partaker of Christ
Apr 23rd 2009, 12:22 AM
Yes, he says prophecy and knowledge will cease when the maturity comes and He said tongues would cease of it's own accord. Since tongues was a sign to the leadership of Israel there would be no need for tongues to continue after the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. If you look at church history you will see very little mention of the Spiritual gifts in the church after the apostle John died.

Well just for a start, you have to then believe, that Revelation was pre AD70.

Is the Spirit today, still poured out on all flesh?

John146
Apr 23rd 2009, 12:52 AM
If those gifts are no longer given then tell me the exact time when they stopped.
When the last apostle died. (Acts 8:18)

all the best...Sorry, but Acts 8:18 doesn't say anything about the gifts no longer being given.

18And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

John146
Apr 23rd 2009, 01:14 AM
You have problem with that John, first Paul didn't say when you see clearly, he was referring to himself and the Corinthians, if you can show from Scripture how that applies to you, please do.I guess all the gifts of the Spirit were only given to the Corinthians and no one has any spriitual gifts at all today then, right? And I guess only the Corinthians are members of the body? :rolleyes:


Second, your time frame does not work. The cessation of tongues is in the middle voice, meaning tongues will cease of it's own accord. So that leaves prophecy and knowledge, Paul said these would cease when the maturity comes. You say that the maturity doesn't come until Christ returns, however this cannot be, notice Paul's statement,

1 Corinthians 13:8-13 ( KJV )
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Paul contrasts three things which will cease, prophecy, knowledge and tongues, with three things that will remain or continue, faith, hope, and love. When the maturity comes, prophecy and knowledge will cease, however, faith, hope, and love, will continue. Now let's look at what else Paul said.

Romans 8:17-25 ( KJV )
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Paul gives our expectation of hope in the passage above, then he says, but hope that is seen is not hope. So when the Christ comes, our hope will have been realized, we will no longer need hope, we will no longer live by faith, we will live by sight, able to see Christ. So, having said that the maturity "must" come before Christ returns because Paul says that when the maturity comes, faith and hope will continue, yet when Christ comes faith and hope will cease, as Paul said in the above passage, hope that is seen is not hope.So, will we no longer have love when Christ returns? Nice try, but I'm sticking with what I said before unless you can tell me exactly when those gifts were no longer given. Can you do that?

Also, you spoke directly about when the maturity would come (without saying when it actually came) but you didn't comment on when we will no longer see through a glass darkly. When do you think that will happen? Because whenever that happens, he implies that is also when "that which is perfect is come" and "that which is in part shall be done away.".

Butch5
Apr 23rd 2009, 03:20 AM
Well just for a start, you have to then believe, that Revelation was pre AD70.

Is the Spirit today, still poured out on all flesh?

No, Relation was not pre A.D. 70. The book was written in the late 90's most likely. However, Isaiah and Paul, make it clear that tongues was a sign for the unbelieving Jews.



1 Corinthians 14:21-22 ( KJV )
In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Isaiah 28:9-18 ( KJV )
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.



Partaker of Christ---Is the Spirit today, still poured out on all flesh?

Not in the sense that it was at Pentecost. All believers are given the Holy Spirit, however the supernatural gifts are not. All you have to do is look at the church, where are all of the healers, the interpreters, where are all of the miracle workers? Where are all of the prophets? If prophecy was still a gift given by the Holy Spirit, He would be defying God's written word, the Apostle John himself said,

Revelation 22:18-19 ( KJV )
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

So, if the Gift of prophecy was given, it would be against the word of God. This is another evidence that "that which is perfect" has already come.

kay-gee
Apr 23rd 2009, 03:55 AM
John146 Acts 8:18 says the miraculous powers were passed on by the laying on of apostles hands. No living apostles...no miraculous signs. All due respect John, you gotta start figuring this stuff out on your own.

The perfection referred to in 1Cor 13 is the New Testament. It is the completetion of all knowledge. It CLEARLY teaches God word. Noting is left out that we need to know, for salvation and living the Christain life.

all the best...

Butch5
Apr 23rd 2009, 03:58 AM
John146---I guess all the gifts of the Spirit were only given to the Corinthians and no one has any spriitual gifts at all today then, right? And I guess only the Corinthians are members of the body? :rolleyes:

No, they weren't only given to he Corinthians, they were given to many in that time. However, if you look through the NT at all of the times that the gifts were given, there was always one of the apostles present. Take for instance the church at Corinth, Paul started this church. look at the Spiritual gifts they had.

1 Corinthians 14:26 ( KJV )
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Now compare this to the church at Rome, where none of the apostles had yet gone,

Romans 1:10-11 ( KJV )
Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.
For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;

Paul wants to visit to give a Spiritual gift that the church may be established. Look at the gifts they had,

Romans 12:6-8 ( KJV )
Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.

Notice the only supernatural gift they had at the Church in Rome was prophecy, which was most likely the gift of the person who started the church. They had been given the gift from on of the apostles. Notice all of the other gifts listed are natural gifts and not supernatural gifts. Another thing to consider is the fact that the one who had the gift of prophecy obviously was not able to give the gifts of the Spirit or else the other members would already have gifts and Paul would not need to go there to impart the Gifts.

Consider the incident at Cornelius' house, when they spoke in tongues, Peter was there. Peter and John had to go to Samaria to the believers to impart the Holy Spirit, because Phillip was not able to. The gift that Timothy had was imparted to him by Paul laying hands on him. Over and over we see the gifts of the Spirit given in the presence of the apostles, which should be no surprise since the they were given as a testimony to validate the apostles as coming from God.



John146---So, will we no longer have love when Christ returns? Nice try, but I'm sticking with what I said before unless you can tell me exactly when those gifts were no longer given. Can you do that?

Love will remain forever, Paul said love never fails. However, that is the only one that Paul said would never fail.

Can I tell you the exact day? No. I believe they slowly faded away, probably after the death of the apostle John. However, if memory serves me, Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John, didn't mention having seen anyone personally with the gifts. I think this is significant since he had a close connection to the Apostle John and the fact that his writings date to about 180 A.D. So by 180 there had been a significant reduction in the gifts, this is only about 80 after the Apostle John died.


John146---Also, you spoke directly about when the maturity would come (without saying when it actually came) but you didn't comment on when we will no longer see through a glass darkly. When do you think that will happen? Because whenever that happens, he implies that is also when "that which is perfect is come" and "that which is in part shall be done away."

I believe that which is perfect has come, I believe it was around the time the apostle John died. I believe the perfect, or maturity was the completion of the Scriptures. Paul did not live to see the completion of the Scriptures. However, we know for sure that prophecy ended with John and his Revelation, for he says,

Revelation 22:18-19 ( KJV )
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Prophecy had to end there, if there was prophecy beyond Revelation it goes against God's word. Therefore at this point I believe that "that which is perfect" had come. So I don't think we look through a glass darkly, although Paul did, as did the Corinthians, they did not have the complete word of God, we do.

Partaker of Christ
Apr 23rd 2009, 01:31 PM
No, Relation was not pre A.D. 70. The book was written in the late 90's most likely. However, Isaiah and Paul, make it clear that tongues was a sign for the unbelieving Jews.

Oh right!

So, after AD70 there was no unbelieving Jews left:rolleyes:

John146
Apr 23rd 2009, 07:35 PM
John146 Acts 8:18 says the miraculous powers were passed on by the laying on of apostles hands. No living apostles...no miraculous signs.That's quite a stretch to draw that conclusion. It doesn't say that it can only come by the original apostles' hands, which is the conclusion you're drawing.


All due respect John, you gotta start figuring this stuff out on your own.Who said I was trying to do otherwise? I certainly am not going to rely on figuring it out from you.


The perfection referred to in 1Cor 13 is the New Testament. It is the completetion of all knowledge. It CLEARLY teaches God word. Noting is left out that we need to know, for salvation and living the Christain life.

all the best...So, we no longer see through a glass, darkly, even though Paul included himself among those who see through a glass, darkly?

12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

What time was he speaking about when he would know even as he was known? To me, that will not happen until Christ returns.

Butch5
Apr 23rd 2009, 07:43 PM
Oh right!

So, after AD70 there was no unbelieving Jews left:rolleyes:

Did you read the passage of Scripture from Isaiah?

Isaiah 28:9-19 ( KJV )
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

Tongues was a sign to the unbelieving leadership of Israel when Christ brought His kingdom. After the temple was destroyed there was no longer a leadership of Israel. Therefore the gift of tongues had served it's purpose.

kay-gee
Apr 24th 2009, 11:42 AM
That's quite a stretch to draw that conclusion. It doesn't say that it can only come by the original apostles' hands, which is the conclusion you're drawing.

Who said I was trying to do otherwise? I certainly am not going to rely on figuring it out from you.

So, we no longer see through a glass, darkly, even though Paul included himself among those who see through a glass, darkly?

12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

What time was he speaking about when he would know even as he was known? To me, that will not happen until Christ returns.
The difference is...I take the Bible for what it says...period. You anti-water people take a verse of scripture and then scrounge to find a reason it can't possibly mean what it says.
This verse says the Holy Spirit gifts were passed on at the hands of the APOSTLES. Now show a verse that says it was passed on by anyone else. It is not a stretch. I am simply saying what the Bible says.
This is how you folks fall into error so quickly. Just believe the Bible. That is all you have to do. Stop trying to second guess it!
Are you saying that the Completed written word of God is not perfect? What else is perfect that you know of? If Paul was speaking about the second coming, he would have said when Christ or Jesus or the Lord comes, like he does every other time, when he addresses the second coming.

I don't want you to learn anything from me. If it ain't in the Bible then it doesn't matter what I say or don't say. Stop trying to dis-prove the Bible. Take it at its face value and obey it!

all the best...

SoldierOfChrist
Apr 24th 2009, 03:42 PM
The difference is...I take the Bible for what it says...period. You anti-water people take a verse of scripture and then scrounge to find a reason it can't possibly mean what it says.
This verse says the Holy Spirit gifts were passed on at the hands of the APOSTLES. Now show a verse that says it was passed on by anyone else.

Your theory doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. If it is only the APOSTLES that can pass on gifts as you say... how is it that Paul was able to do so? He certainly wasn't of the twelve. There is no scripture that I know that even says that you have to be an Apostle to pass on a gift. Jesus only said "...He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also...".

Romans 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
Romans 1:12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
Romans 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

John 146 has explained this also quite well. I think when we have scripture that is question we can look to what Jesus said. What Jesus said makes this quite clear I think.

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

1 Corinthians 13:8 is one of the most misinterpreted and misused scriptures I know of. It is often used by the JW's to blasphemy true Christians that have the Spirit moving within them. As far as I'm concerned they don't know any spirit and cannot discern between a good spirit and a false one.



It is the completetion of all knowledge. It CLEARLY teaches God word. Noting is left out that we need to know, for salvation and living the Christain life.

I for one, do not believe that anyone can correctly interpret scripture without the help of the Holy Spirit! But I also believe that the holy Spirit can teach you all you need to know without any Bible at all.

Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Converted... born of spirit, little children asking questions and learning... of the Holy Spirit.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Back to the original topic...

I think this is a very interesting point that Peter commanded them to be baptized after the Holy Spirit had fallen on them Acts 10:44-48.

However this also followed a vision that I'm not sure Peter even understood.

Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Was this baptism in water comandment of Christ?

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Matthew 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Now a baptism in water by man will not fullfill these two commandments.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

You must be born of Spirit. In my opinion John's baptism was symbolic of that which was to come the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Before Christ had risen the comfortor could not come... there is no question as t which is greater a baptism in water or in the Holy Spirit.

I'm not yet ready to say that the baptism in water should not still be practiced.

John 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
John 1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
John 1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Michael

kay-gee
Apr 24th 2009, 10:45 PM
Your theory doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. If it is only the APOSTLES that can pass on gifts as you say... how is it that Paul was able to do so? He certainly wasn't of the twelve. There is no scripture that I know that even says that you have to be an Apostle to pass on a gift. Jesus only said "...He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also...".

Romans 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
Romans 1:12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
Romans 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.


Hi Soldier...I guess you missed it but Paul was an apostle. Rom 11:13 1Cor 9:1 Gal.2:8 1Tim 2:7 2Tim 1:11
As an apostle, Paul had the ability to preform signs and wonders 2Cor 12:12....and the ability to pass them to others as gifts Romans 1:11 (a verse you used yourself) and 2Tim 1:6


John 146 has explained this also quite well. I think when we have scripture that is question we can look to what Jesus said. What Jesus said makes this quite clear I think.

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

1 Corinthians 13:8 is one of the most misinterpreted and misused scriptures I know of. It is often used by the JW's to blasphemy true Christians that have the Spirit moving within them. As far as I'm concerned they don't know any spirit and cannot discern between a good spirit and a false one.



I for one, do not believe that anyone can correctly interpret scripture without the help of the Holy Spirit! But I also believe that the holy Spirit can teach you all you need to know without any Bible at all.

Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Converted... born of spirit, little children asking questions and learning... of the Holy Spirit.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Back to the original topic...

I think this is a very interesting point that Peter commanded them to be baptized after the Holy Spirit had fallen on them Acts 10:44-48.

However this also followed a vision that I'm not sure Peter even understood.

Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Was this baptism in water comandment of Christ?

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Matthew 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Now a baptism in water by man will not fullfill these two commandments.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

You must be born of Spirit. In my opinion John's baptism was symbolic of that which was to come the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Before Christ had risen the comfortor could not come... there is no question as t which is greater a baptism in water or in the Holy Spirit.

I'm not yet ready to say that the baptism in water should not still be practiced.

John 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
John 1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
John 1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Michael
Why is it then that men who supposedly are "led" by the spirit with out the Bible come up with all kinds of contradictory doctrines, even making the Bible look erroneous?

all the best...

Followtheway
Apr 24th 2009, 11:53 PM
Im gonna stir things up a bit, Long ago the Isrealites were asked to cleanse or Immerse(baptize) themselves to be ritually clean. This ritual cleanliness carried over into the baptisms we know now, but a small difference the first century church actually baptized themselves and the baptizer was the witness. The importance of this was to directly keep the command and to show your own devotion by immersing yourself.

Moxie
Apr 25th 2009, 12:05 AM
The difference is...I take the Bible for what it says...period. You anti-water people take a verse of scripture and then scrounge to find a reason it can't possibly mean what it says.
This verse says the Holy Spirit gifts were passed on at the hands of the APOSTLES. Now show a verse that says it was passed on by anyone else. It is not a stretch. I am simply saying what the Bible says.
This is how you folks fall into error so quickly. Just believe the Bible. That is all you have to do. Stop trying to second guess it!
Are you saying that the Completed written word of God is not perfect? What else is perfect that you know of? If Paul was speaking about the second coming, he would have said when Christ or Jesus or the Lord comes, like he does every other time, when he addresses the second coming.

I don't want you to learn anything from me. If it ain't in the Bible then it doesn't matter what I say or don't say. Stop trying to dis-prove the Bible. Take it at its face value and obey it!

all the best...

Although people do believe differently--When I look at scripture I look at context....who, what, where, when, why, and the writer: who was he. I know from having grown up in the CoC that we looked at scripture only from the standpoint of God giving us a command, example or necessary inference. This can make a huge difference in how scripture is revealed to the reader. Hope that helps.

kay-gee
Apr 25th 2009, 01:29 AM
We are in agreement on that!

all the best...

Tomlane
Apr 25th 2009, 11:23 AM
Moxie, Bingo, Dittos! thank you.

Tomlane

SoldierOfChrist
Apr 25th 2009, 02:56 PM
Why is it then that men who supposedly are "led" by the spirit with out the Bible come up with all kinds of contradictory doctrines, even making the Bible look erroneous?
all the best...
You mean the ones that walk around and think they are led by the spirit, but really they don't know any spirit at all and it is there own thoughts that direct them. Sounds like many of the so called prophets, those that claim God told them this or that but never reveal how God told them this or that, sound familiar? They usually say they are inspired and are the leader of the churches. I was going to eat cheerios for breakfast but God stopped me and told me to eat raison bran type.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

If a man is preached Jesus and receives his spirit and lets himself be guided by the Spirit he is saved and needs no bible. If a man receives a bible reads it night and day and does not receive the spirit he is not saved. The bible can’t save you.

John 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

There are only two commandments and the spirit works to strengthen them. God is Love.

Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.

Michael

Butch5
Apr 25th 2009, 11:52 PM
You mean the ones that walk around and think they are led by the spirit, but really they don't know any spirit at all and it is there own thoughts that direct them. Sounds like many of the so called prophets, those that claim God told them this or that but never reveal how God told them this or that, sound familiar? They usually say they are inspired and are the leader of the churches. I was going to eat cheerios for breakfast but God stopped me and told me to eat raison bran type.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

If a man is preached Jesus and receives his spirit and lets himself be guided by the Spirit he is saved and needs no bible. If a man receives a bible reads it night and day and does not receive the spirit he is not saved. The bible can’t save you.

John 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

There are only two commandments and the spirit works to strengthen them. God is Love.

Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.

Michael

I think what kay-gee is getting at is this, how do Christians come up with so many different beliefs and yet all claim to be led by the Spirit? Surely the Holy Spirit is not giving us all different doctrines. Also you said one doesn't need the Bible, I have to wonder then why God has gone to the trouble of keeping His word available for us. If one did not have the Bible and one was lead by a spirit how would one know if the spirit was from God? The problem is many claim to be lead by the Spirit, yet come up with very divergent doctrines, how do we know which Christians really are being lead by the Spirit. I am sure you and kay-gee would not agree on all doctrine, yet each believes they are lead by the Spirit, How do we know who is correct?

kay-gee
Apr 26th 2009, 02:59 AM
I believe Hebrews 4:12 pretty much sums it all up. The word of God is what the spirits are measured by. The Spirit will never be in disagreement with the Bible.

all the best...

Tomlane
Apr 27th 2009, 03:32 AM
Valid point Butch. The only way we can know for sure is to follow God's word where it says to study to show yourself approved by right dividing the word. God says he is not the author of confusion so it must be what we read without rightly dividing or listening to those who don't know either.

Tomlane

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77