Could you say the same?

By the way, I agree with this statement completely. That very idea was what brought me out of "Restoration Movement" churches.

Michael

 

That's similar to saying that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God -- the faith that comes necessarily being an ingredient of the conviction of one's lost estate -- and that one then symbolically dies, is dead and buried, and is resurrected.

Some of those Jews who heard were convicted, crying out "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" They were, after all, God's chosen people who had rejected their Messiah! "Oi Weh, vat shall ve do?!?" They were accustomed to making things right by the daily ritual of washing their face, hands, and forearms, normally figuratively immersing :laugh: themselves in that ritual. Now read Acts 2:38, remembering WHO Peter is talking to (see Acts 2:22 and following).

Now this:

Then this:

I'd phrase it this way: Hearing, conviction-belief, and following him in Believer's baptism.

"Vot shall ve do, mensch und bredern?" Paul continues to lecture in verse 40 and 41. He instructs and accomodates them. They hear. They're convicted-believe. Whoosh! Holy Spirit. Now they go do as he said: symbolic water cleansing. 3,000 are added to the church.

And the Heavens ERUPTED with the sounds of a heavenly orchestra and choir!! That's in Matthew 17:50. :laugh:

:godisgood:

 

HP: It is true as you say that one cannot embrace the gospel without repentance. In that we totally agree. That still does not make faith and repentance one condition. It simply implies that one will not receive salvation apart from repentance and faith. Salvation is indeed one dynamic, but that one dynamic is made up ultimately of at least three conditions, i.e., repentance concerning sins that are past, faith in the atoning work of Christ, and ultimately, continued obedience until the end.

 

bmerr,

Mike here. :thumbs: You said...

We need to consider the whole of scripture, and not just one verse. As a natter of fact it is important to always interpret scripture in light of the whole of scripture.

In Mark Ch 1 we find...

"There comes one after me who is mightier than I, whose saldal strap I am not worthy to loose. I indeed baptized you with water, be He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

There is clearly more than one baptism. There is the Spirit baptism that occures when someone is regenerated through the indwelling Holy Spirit, there is water baptism which symbolises the new birth which has taken place, and there is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit...sometimes accompanied by the gift of tongues.

I personally was Spirit baptized into the body of Christ several months prior to being water baptized.

Note that Cornelius and those with him were indwelt by the Holy Spirit...they spoke in tongues...prior to being water baptized. Peter clearly told them that the reason they were being water baptized is because it was already evident that they had recieved the Holy Spirit, and were now born again people.

Its just so very clear.

God bless,

Mike

 

Bmerr,

Thanks for the reply. It's good sometimes to compare notes with my CoC brethren (whether you consider us such or not). Iron sharpens iron, after all, and it's good to keep studying.

But you're claiming the existence (or at least the validity) of only one baptism. That puts the emphasis on the "there is" and takes it away from the rest of the chapter.

I'm glad you agree. I didn't want to argue that one if you didn't, so I thought I'd stick with the passage at hand.

The phrase "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is not used in Scripture. There is baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2/10) and baptism in/by the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13), all of which use the same preposition--"en". I'm guilty of using the term at times, but I think there's a reason prepositions are used as they are. From I Corinthians 12:13, we will see that all believers do, indeed, receive the baptism "en" the Holy Spirit.

I agree that a Pentecostal experience is not common to all believers. That's not my point, although the main point of comparison was that the Holy Spirit had been generally poured out on the Gentiles as He had been on the Jews at Pentecost, not the miraculous manifestation of tongues and prophecy. There are, in fact, two other places in Scripture (that I can think of off the top of my head) where such manifestations occur--the Samaritans in Acts 8 and the disciples in Acts 19--but no comparison is made, because it is not accompanied by a general outpouring of the HS on a people. Acts 8:15-16 explicitly says that the Holy Spirit had fallen on none of the Samaritans and that, therefore, they had not received Him at their conversion. Even after the laying on of hands, the Holy Spirit was only received in individual cases, not in the general God-accepting-a-people sense of Acts 2 and 10. In Acts 19, it was the opposite case: He HAD already been poured out on the people as a whole, so no general outpouring took place then, and thus no need for comparison.

You state as a premise your conclusion. That is somewhat circular. Obviously, I disagree.

Here is the crux of our disagreement. You say that being baptized by the Spirit indicates merely that the Spirit gives the message of water baptism. The verse, with the preposition "en," indicates one of two things: the Holy Spirit is actually the baptizer (as opposed to, say, Acts 8:38, where Phillip indisputably is the baptizer), or the Holy Spirit is the element into which we were baptized. Because we were baptized into the Body, making the Body the element or substance of that baptism, I'm inclined to the former. Either way, it doesn't allow for the concept that "baptism preached by one inspired by the Spirit" equates to being baptized by/in/with the Spirit.

We are baptized "en" the Spirit. All believers of all places and all times have been baptized "en" the Spirit. Baptism "en" the Spirit was promised by both John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. It is the unifying baptism of Christians.

Yep. Just one baptism in which ALL believers in all ages have been unified... even when they couldn't get to water. :thumbs:

Michael

EDIT: I think I corrected my lexical blunder with the prepositions used in the various accounts of Spirit baptisms.

 

Snhf: We are baptized "en" the Spirit. All believers of all places and all times have been baptized "en" the Spirit. Baptism "en" the Spirit was promised by both John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. It is the unifying baptism of Christians.

HP: Michael, I would like to hear your response to a question concerning baptism of the Holy Spirit. Scripture commands the believer to be ‘filled with the Holy Spirit.’ What is your take on this command in light of the Holy Spirit being promised, at least in measure, to all believers? Thanks.

 

I would have said "Love God and be a good neighbor. God has regenerated you."

 

Let's look at places this term is used in the Scriptures.

In Acts 4:8, 4:31, 13:9, and 13:52, people who had already received the indwelling Holy Spirit were "filled" with the Holy Spirit. This filling always preceded a bout of speaking and/or praising God. In Ephesians, where the verse you quoted is located, we are told we were "sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise" when we believed (Ephesians 1:13).

With that in mind, let's take a look at the verses in question: "And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another in the fear of God"--Ephesians 5:18-21, nKJV.

What follows "be filled with the Spirit" here is a description of what being filled with the Spirit is like: singing, praising and thanking God, mutual submission. Such things are the Spirit's natural inclination, and doing them is simply following His leading. I would group this command with the command to "quench not the Spirit" in I Thessalonians.

The question, then, is whether Paul's usage of the term here and Luke's usage of it in Acts signify separate things. Both clearly happen after the initial baptism in/with/by the Holy Spirit at salvation. The Scriptures are quite plain on that. However, in Acts, being "filled" with the Holy Spirit seems to be some special move of the Holy Spirit which causes the person being filled to speak out--either to an audience or in praise to God--and seemed to be quite separate from the volition of the one being filled. In Ephesians, on the other hand, it is contrasted with drinking into dissipation, which seems to indicate that it is something that is done by our choice.

An in-depth study of the subject would seem to go beyond the scope of this thread, but as I said, the Scriptures are quite clear that "being filled" with the Holy Spirit is a post-salvation experience whether or not the use of the term in Acts and its use in Ephesians are two different things.

Michael

 

Perhaps I did word my thought poorly, and I apologize for that. I meant that true faith and true repentance are so interlinked that they cannot be practically separated. I see them as flip sides of the same coin. Thus, I can claim "faith only" and mean the dynamic of faith and repentance, since I believe that true faith in Christ cannot exist without repentance.

I don't believe that good works (what I think you meant by "obedience") are a condition of salvation so much as a result of salvation; that is, the truly saved person will have good works (cf. James 2 and Ephesians 2:10), but the works neither cause nor maintain salvation. That, again, is a discussion quite beyond the scope of this thread.

I think, essentially, we agree, but I worded my position over-simplistically.

Michael

 

Thanks Michael for your well thought out responses. You bring to the table much for all of us to consider.

 

Well, thank you. I enjoy sharing what I have studied and learning what others have studied.

 

Bmerr,

We agree on that fact that there is only one baptism received by EVERY believer in EVERY age and EVERY place, but you disagree that it is the baptism en the Holy Spirit as per I Corinthians 12:13.

I don't know whom you quoted with regard to the household of Cornelius, but let's take a look at your comments here.

I agree with everything you said up until this point:

I disagree on a few grounds. First, the term Peter used, "received the Holy Spirit", is a term used to indicate not only the general outpouring, but the indwelling Holy Spirit which signifies salvation (see John 7:39; Acts 19:2; Romans 8:15; II Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 3:2, etc.).

Secondly, I believe that both Acts 10 and Acts 11 are chronological in nature. That is, the transcript of the sermon recorded in Acts 10 was maybe... fifteen, twenty seconds of sermon? Certainly less than a minute. If I were interrupted that soon into preaching, I would say it was just as I was beginning to speak. Furthermore, Acts 10 doesn't lend itself to a non-chronological interpretation: "While Peter was still speaking these words..." indicates an interruption in what he was saying, and what he was saying was what was previously transcribed. Acts 11 does not contradict that. Just as he was beginning to speak--just a few seconds into the sermon, just as soon as he got out the essentials of the Gospel--Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit.

It is interesting the point at which the interruption came was just after Peter had shared what, exactly, Cornelius and his household needed to hear and believe to be saved. From what we can gather, Corenlius et. al. were ready to believe whatever Peter told them. Thus, as soon as Peter got the words out of his mouth, they believed it, and as soon as they believed it, they received the Holy Spirit.

Michael

 

I think you have some assumptions about me and the scripture that are not true.

I would state it Just the way Paul did, because the statement is true. The Jailer "WILL BE" saved IF he believed. But who is Jesus to this jailer????? Pauls statement does not indicate that this man understood what "believing in Jesus" meant. And if by chance the man already understood what this meant the man may have came and said "I belive now, please prayer for me, come baptize me and my familiy!"

Instead the mans first question is what must I do to be saved. You should not assume that the man understood what beliving in Jesus mean. He was not saved just because Paul gave him that answer.

So as you can see Paul taught the Jailer and the nature of that conversation you and I do not know, but one things for sure he was baptized as Paul was for the same reasons that Paul was baptized (forgiveness of sins).

Your assumption is too premature! In the end at his baptism what Paul told him was true He believed in the Lord Jesus and was saved. Pauls statement was simple to you and I but not to the jailer or the Jailer would not have asked "What must I do to be saved?" and then require further teachings and finally baptism.

 

Okay, well lets see if you are saying the same thing or interject what you think Peter means:

The Apostle Peter would say:

Doesn't look the same to me.

Ya know, for some one with "new eyes" reading the above passage would in no way shape or form see what you suggest. And if they have any fear of God they will keep it that way.

 

HP: Sorry for not responding to your posts. I was not trying to avoid you in any way. I have just been a bit overwhelmed.

My hope is that I as well maintain an open and honest approach to Scripture as to be open to any new or corrective light God might have for me. I desire to be a seeker of truth, not an echo of established dogma.

 

Tazman,

I apologize for any false assumptions I may have asserted about you. However, it was ridding myself of false assumptions concerning the Scriptures that led to my exodus from Restoration Movement churches.

Not from your perspective. He will be saved IF he believes/repents, confesses, is baptized FOR the remission of sins (and not merely out of obedience), and whatever other things you might say are necessary for salvation.

Good question. Similarly, what is his idea of salvation? Most likely, he knows only what he's heard from Paul and Silas while they were in jail praising God.

Okay, except in a lexical sense, of course. He would know he had to trust this Lord Jesus Christ for his salvation. "Trusting" is something he would have understood. What needed to be explained was why he should trust Jesus and who this Jesus was.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." He probably understood "believe on," assuming he spoke the language (please tell me whether I'm wrong in that assumption). "The Lord" he'd have gotten. "Jesus Christ" he might have had some trouble with. That's where the "word of the Lord" comes in.

First, there is nothing in the text that indicates his reason for being baptized. Secondly, there is nothing in the account of Paul's conversion (including Acts 22:16) that indicates such a purpose for his baptism. Thirdly, you're assuming as a premise your conclusion, the same thing Bmerr did--that is, that baptism is necessary for salvation. That is the crux of this whole debate. My position is that repentance is shown in Scripture as "for the remission of sins" and that baptism, when it is included, is not connected to that dynamic lexically, but is rather left out of it, and is thus a physical expression of it instead of a cause of remission of sins.

So, where is your textual evidence that the jailor was baptized for the remission of his sins?

Michael