Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Frogman, Sep 15, 2002.

  1. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    The church received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, collectively. Acts 2

    Individuals receive the Holy Spirit, but baptism of the Spirit is upon the church, if individuals received baptism in this way, the theory of the universal, invisible church would be acceptable. Because the church is local, and visible, (spoken of as the bride of Christ), this body is the one receiving the Baptism of the Spirit, thus providing authority to carry out the commission. If not, the idea which is prevalent that "I" could start my own church and enjoy the same authority as any other would be true.

    This should be a distinguishing feature of Baptist churches, if we are not protestant, we then stand with the potential of having the "candlestick moved out of its place" This candlestick is the working of the Holy Spirit within the church.

    Baptism, the ordinance is only given to the church to administer to those making public profession of faith, to "show" their having died with Christ, and to receive them into the church, where the authority of the Holy Spirit works.

    Many of our churches have seemed to lost this authority, because they have forgotten the baptism of the Holy Spirit is upon the church, and not upon the individual. If it were upon me, then I would not have to be "ordained" by my local church before I could perform the ordinances, there would be nothing hindering me from "starting" churches on every corner. When things didn't go the way I wanted them to, I would just pick up, cross the street with as many as I could get to follow me and start again, this is the protestant idea, Let's not forget, there is only one who was able to "start" the church.

    God Bless you all in your walk and service to Him.
    Bro. Dallas Eaton
    Glasgow, KY
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The view you have laid out works great ... except for the text of Scripture. The church is the body and Paul says that we were baptized by one Spirit into the body. Therefore your contention cannot stand. What you are arguing for appears to be essentially landmarkism, which has a number of problems anyway. YOu do not have to be ordained to administer the ordinances or to start a church (unless you have an authority other than Scripture that dictates that). For us Baptists who hold to the sole authority of Scripture, we don't have that issue. It may indeed be wise to be ordained, but it is not necessary, scripturally.
     
  3. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then there is no foundation for the church sending me forth? What about Acts 13

    vs. 1 lists certain prophets and teachers;

    Barnabas, Simeon, and Saul.

    vs. 2 "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Seperate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." The definite calling of the Holy Spirit, made known to the body, this calling is for service of the two individuals called.

    vs. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

    They were sent away only after vs. 3

    vs. 4 So they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

    They definitely are called to their work, and all ministrations for that work are through the Holy Spirit, even so, they were nevertheless not "sent away" without the church approval. Notice, the Spirit worked through the local church, not through Barnabas and Saul, individually.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    [/.qb]I agree with you but that's not what you said.
     
  5. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    YOu do not have to be ordained to administer the ordinances or to start a church

    Still we find Acts 13 records the "ordination" of Paul and Barnabas before being sent.

    If this is scripture, then the authority of the church is scriptural, and so the idea that I am limited by the approval of the church to "go of myself, though the Spirit has seperated me for this work, and start "other churches."

    This perhaps is landmarkism, but it is simply what I read in the scripture. Apart from the local body sending me forth, signifying the believe of that body of the work of Grace in my own heart, the calling of God to the work of the ministry, the work I would do would be unscriptural.

    Bro. Dallas Eaton
    Glasgow, KY
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    By the very principle of local church autonomy, the church can decide whoever it wants, ordained or not, to administer the ordinances. It is up to the church. I have no issue with the authority of the local church. In fact, it is my contention that it is the local church that has the authority and the ordinances can be administered by whomever the congregation desires. It may be unwise, but it it their decision. Overall, I don't think we have a big disagreement on that. The bigger issues was the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is not corporate as I see it in Scripture. It is individual and deals with the incorporation of the individual into the body so that he can serve.
     
  7. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    o.k. your point is taken, back to my subj.

    If the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not corporate, but individual, there is no need of a local church for any to serve in. The local church would be non-existent, as individuals would serve independently of the church.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    That seems a total non-sequitur however. The body is the place, according to 1 Cor 12, where spiritual gifts are exercised in. They are for the good of the body. The local church is the visible manifestation of the body of Christ. To me, your statement is like saying, because the apple is red, there is no reason to drive on the right side of the road. These are two totally unconnected things. YOu will have to do more work to convince of me of your position.
     
  9. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    o.k.

    Back to Acts 2:

    vs. 1: And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

    who is they, individuals? or the church. I would answer this is the church, the same group of disciples spoken of in Acts 1.3 who are told in vs. 4 & 5 "...that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly bapized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. and again at vs. 8: "But ye shall reveive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

    When we come to chapter two we find this body (the church) receiving this baptism.

    As individuals we receive the Holy Spirit, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit is in the Church, this is one baptism, and needs not be repeated, as the Spirit, through the church is in the world, because we receive the Holy Spirit as believers we can witness to the truth, but the "promise of the Father, which,..., ye have heard of me." is the power received "after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:..." Thus the baptism of the Holy Spirit is upon the church,

    I understand your statement about apples, they have nothing to do with roads, however, apart from the church, individuals in service cannot please God, the Holy Spirit works through that local body, which we as believers enter into, by public profession, and water baptism and it is this body which, becomes "...witnesses unto me [Christ]...unto the uttermost part of the earth."

    In trying to explain my position, a chunk of blacktop is truly a chunk of black-top, but it is not a road, and cannot function as a road. An apple is truly an apple, but only a fruit of the tree, and cannot be the tree.

    If this were not true, then we have no reason to continue in our churches.

    Bro. Dallas

    [ September 16, 2002, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    "They" are not the church until after the baptism. The baptism of the Spirit is what brings us into the body (1 Cor 12:13). In Acts 1, there is as yet no "Body" because there has been no baptism. Therefore, there is not church. Therefore, they were gathered there are individuals.

    Technically speaking this is not true. We can please God in our personal lives outside the church. It is God's plan for all believers to be an active part of a local church. I do not deny that. But they become a member of the body by Spirit baptism. There is no place for believers to minister outside the authority of the local church.

    But I can't see how this follows. We continue in our churches to obey God and to minister to the body. That is all the reason we need.
     
  11. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro. Larry,

    Please understand, I am not trying to be argumentative, I only want to voice my view. I appreciate your patience thus far and your open discussion of this issue, which I believe to be a valid issue. I believe you are right, as far as being a child of God, we are in this capacity able to please God, because ultimately that pleasure is found in Christ, and in no way ourselves. However, I still maintain the church was in existence prior to Pentecost, and this is what I am driving at, that body did exist, because it consisted of 1. believers; 2. receiving water baptism, which brings us into the church.

    My thought is, the church is as important to Christ as the individual, (not implying your thoughts are different) because the church is important, it matters where I go to church, how I think about that body, and these things bear upon my attitude in other areas. I believe it is unnecessary to continue the ordinance of Baptism, if in fact the church is universal and invisible and all saved individuals are members of that church, because this idea is contrary to the purpose of water baptism. For this reason I believe water baptism is distinct from baptism of the Holy Spirit.

    I believe the "one baptism" in Eph. 4.5 is an expression of this distinction, speaking of the one-time baptism of the church by the Holy Spirit.

    God Bless
    Bro. Dallas
     
  12. Graceforever

    Graceforever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen Larry, Jesus said, “If I go away I will send you another comforter”…… That Comforter is the Holy Ghost….. We are baptized into Christ and that very same day the Comforter takes abode in our hearts…
     
  13. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes,
    We are indwelled by the Holy Spirit as believers, but this is not the Baptism of the Spirit. The body of believers were all assembled on the day of Pentecost and at this time received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

    This body is the church prior to Pentecost.

    Christ organized the body; prior to Calvary.

    Remember John's Baptism looked forward to the Messiah; those receiving this baptism did so acknowledging their sins and looking to the one to come after John

    The rock upon which Jesus built his church is Himself, and in context to the revelation from the Father, obviously through the Holy Spirit, to Peter concerning the true personage of Christ, is the foundation of the church,

    Apart from experiencing this knowledge of Jesus as the "...the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
    An individual cannot be received into the church,

    Notice further the context from vs. 13 and vs. 15 compared. "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" and "But whom say ye that I am?" If this group of disciples were no different than any ordinary group of people, why does Christ make the distinction in this context?

    I still maintain the church existed before Pentecost and the church received Baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost; individuls receive the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation, but this is the power given to them to "become the sons of God." John 1.12.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  14. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this unpopular because it is controversial, or is it controversial because it is unpopular?

    I believe many do not address this issue because it seems to put salvation in the backseat.

    I have a cousin who is a preacher in the "First Church of God" and my wife's uncle is a minister in the "Church of God" both go to Pentecost as the "time" for the foundation of the Church and not before.

    Why can the body not be seen as the "body" which received that baptism of the Spirit at Pentecost? This body was assembled for a definite purpose, to "wait for the promise of the Father,..." "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." Acts. 1.4 & 5.

    This is almost too obvious as the assembled body for the purpose to "...receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:..."

    This view is perceived to deny the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (indwelling of believers)

    But it does not deny this, it only says the authority belongs to the body, that is in the original case the local body found at Jerusalem and then by authority of Christ extending where ever they were pushed because of persecution etc. This is scriptural, and shows the denial of man of scripture, in support of self-made works, in an effort to justify as "gospel" works that which is really from man.

    This is controversial, and for that reason many shy away from it. However, it is also biblical and should be stood upon from that perspective.

    God bless all in your walk and service to Him.

    Bro. Dallas Eaton

    Glasgow, KY
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think it is that controversial. I think it is unpopular because there is virtually no evidence to support it. It is a position that only stands when you assume your conclusion and explain the obvious texts from that perspective.

    Because no one in that body no longer exists. Spirit baptism is individual, not corporate. 1 Cor 12:13 clearly references Spirit baptism to people who were not at Pentecost, Paul himself included, and can hardly be seen as referring to either water baptism or to an event that happened some 30 years prior. It just won't stand up to the text of exegesis and that is what must be our text of theology.
     
  16. Optional

    Optional
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll throw in my .02.
    The Baptism of the Spirit was a one time event recorded in the Acts.
    Since then, the Spirit comes to "indwell" - not to "baptize".
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then why does Paul tell the Corinthian believers who were neither present nor saved at Acts 2 that they were baptized by the Spirit? This verse cannot be so easily dispensed with. Nor is there any good reason why it should.
     
  18. Optional

    Optional
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then why does Paul tell the Corinthian believers who were neither present nor saved at Acts 2 that they were baptized by the Spirit? </font>[/QUOTE]Because the body was.
     
  19. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Optional, I hate to have to say it, but I believe you are wasting your time. Larry has a presupposition which forbids him from even considering our position. He absolutely cannot consider that the body spoken of is the local assembled body of believers belonging to Christ. His universalism forbids him from even considering that possibility even though the vast majority of bible references make it abundantly obvious. His position can stand only when he assumes his conclusion and explains the obvious texts from that perspective. He knows what he has been taught and cannot consider the possibility he was taught wrong. :(
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The body is made up of people though. Your position sounds an awful lot like corporate election, the election of people without electing people. It just doesn't make sense. How can a body be baptized without the people in the body being baptized? Its like saying the children are water baptized because the parents were. None of us here agree with that and all of us see the obvious problems with it. It is also like saying that Scripture is inspired but the words are not. Thomas himself uses the idea of verbal plenary inspiration to argue that the words themselves are inspired. These are so obvious in other realms, it is amazing they are missed here.

    As for my position and my presuppositions, as I have told Thomas many times, I am willing to consider any exegetical evidence that he or anyone else will put forth. Since he has put forth no exegetical evidence in favor of his position, I find it very hard to consider any. It is not about what I have been taught. It is about what I have studied and found to be consistent with Scripture. I wrote a paper on this very topic for the reason that I wanted to find out more about it. I did find out, considering every passage in the NT on Spirit baptism. I am not a universalist. He knows that. I firmly believe in that the local church is the visible manifestation of the body of Christ. He knows that too. I will gladly consider the possibility that I am wrong when someone can put forth exegetical and theological evidence to support it. As soon as Thomas or anyone else is willing to put forth exegetical evidence and then talk about it, I will be glad to consider it ... so step up to the plate, Thomas.

    The point of 1 cor 12:13 is clear from the words of the text. We cannot simply deny the words because we don't like what they say. The invisible church most definitely exists as is evident from the texts of Scripture that refer to the church, the body of Christ. That, of exegetical and theological necessity, can only be an invisible body. Surely you do not believe that your local church and my local church are one and the same (or do I know you and you are not telling me???). Obviously there are two different bodies. Then you throw in Thomas church and there are three. Christ does not have two bodies or two thousand. He only has one and it is made up of every Spirit baptized believer in this age.

    But as I previously said, this is not a fundamental issue. Both you and Thomas, based on your profession of faith in Christ, have been Spirit baptized (in accordance with what Paul said) and are a part of the invisible church ... like it or not. :D I am not going to climb into the mudpit to argue it unless someone wants to talk exegesis.

    [ September 28, 2002, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...