The Church BEFORE Pentecost

[Bible-belted]

Doc,

"And that is, or course, the crux of the whole matter. The bible says there is "one baptism." You say there are two baptisms. Who should I believe? Well, the bible, of course!"

I don't say there are two baptisms. You are making an assumption here, both of the text, and my posts.

""One Lord, one faith, one baptism." I can't do any better than that. I don't wish to sound unkind, but you either take it or leave it when the bible speaks. I choose to take it. You may leave it if you wish."

I do take it Doc. Just not as you do. I take it as the context indicates. you are free to have your acontextual interpretation if you wish though.

I note that rather than actually providing valid evidentiary arguments to support your position, you are simply attempting to to use prejudicial language (not believing the Bible, not taking God at face value etc.). It's a logical fallacy of appealing to motive. No good, Doc.

"Of course there is! I have already pointed it out."

Of course ther isn't! You have never done so!

Got anything else that is substantial to offer beyond assertions Doc? If nt, then I'll see ya elsewhere!

 

[DocCas]

As I said earlier, you either take it or leave it. You seem to have left it, so there is no further basis for intelligent discussion.

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by DocCas:
As I said earlier, you either take it or leave it. You seem to have left it, so there is no further basis for intelligent discussion.

Nice cop out Doc. You don't provide evidence so I am the problem. ROTFLOL!

You seem to be unable to actually discuss the issue rationally or porvide evidence. That is your problem.

 

[DocCas]

I provided the evidence, you rejected it. What more can I say.

Water baptism = 1

Spirit baptism = uh, well, uh, that is 1 also.

Total baptisms = Uh, well, uh, just one?

As I said. You reject the evidence. Nothing more can be said. End of discussion. You may engage in as much ad hominem as you please. You may make as many false accusations as you please. You may say I have "copped out" or that I refuse to "actually discuss the issue" all you please. It it makes you feel better, have at it. If it makes you feel superior, be my guest, but if you reject the evidence I posted, and are not even willing to consider it, what else can be said. End of discussion.

 

[Bible-belted]

I provided evidence to the contrary. You rejected it. What more can I say?

Spirit baptism is 1 baptism. It's the only one being referred to in the context of 1Co 12;13. By Spirit baptism we enter into the body of Christ (certainly not by water baptism unless you advocate that baptism saves).

Since water Baptism doesn't bring us intot he body of Christ, it is still true that we have one Lord one faith one baptism.

Total baptisms to get into the Body of Christ, 1. Just like the Scripture says.

Like I said, you reject the evidence I provided, and engage in specious argumentation and a lack of evidence from context to support your claims. You do not bother to explain how a text that says we are "baptised byt he Spirit" can mean we are "led to be baptised by someone else by the Spirit."

You want to claim that I have left the text. Brother, I can claim the same of you.
Again, you have not provided evidence that supports your view. You cited the need for unity. But thatdoes not supportive of your view over against mine in any way. What you have failed to do is provide evidence from the immediate context (necessary for a sound exegesis).

Your comment about saying things to feel superior is comical considering how much you have said in order to make yourself appear to have the superior argument (leaving the text and all that). That is something YOU started. If it tastes bitter in your mouth perhaps you ought to stop serving it to others.

I have not said I will not listen to evidence. That is something that you have put in my mouth. I have simply said that you have nt provided any evidence that supports your view. The evidence you have provided can support my view as well.

So if you have evidence, real evidence and not just assertions, I'll look at it. But you're going to have to stop the silly grandstanding about who has left the text, how people who don't agree with youmust not understand, and all that. Such tactics do not prove your point.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by DocCas:
In order to understand what I wrote, you have to actually read what I wrote!

I did read what you wrote and have read it several times before (when we disagreed on it). I am still curious though, not to cause problems, but to really understand exactly what you are saying. As I mentioned, Mark 1:8, Matt 3:11, Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, all very clearly talk about being baptized "en" the Spirit. What is that talking about if there is no Spirit baptism?

And on what basis of verbal, literal translation do you get, "gar ev eni pneumati hemeis pantes eis en swma evbaptisthemen to read something like "lead by the Spirit" that you seem to indicate? Does "en" ever have that kind of connotation in Scripture. It just seems such a stretch to the text.

As I said, i think you are absolutely right about the context being unity but the Spirit baptism seems to make more sense in the immediate context. The Spirit gave gifts to each one as he wished. That same Spirit baptized them into one body. Therefore, their gifts are not reasons for divisions in the body; they are reasons for unity in the Body because they come from the same Spirit that baptized them.

 

[Optional]

It appears to me to be a case of semantics.
Doc says one Spirit baptism. This is not the only manifestation of the spirit. I doubt the Doc would say there is no Spirit indwelling. What about it Doc?

I agree with Doc on this one. There was one baptism. Thereafter, it is indwelling - receiving if you will.

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Optional:
It appears to me to be a case of semantics.

Translation: "I lost the argument."

Sorry, I just couldn't resist!

[ September 12, 2002, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

[Daniel David]

Perhaps a better way of naming thread could have been: Did the body of Christ exist before Pentecost?

Those who embrace the invisible church doctrine define the church as the body of Christ. Usually, those who embrace this do not deny that the local church is the primary teaching in the N.T.

Those who embrace the local church only doctrine define the church as a group of baptized believers in an organized, local assembly.

Out like Darryl Strawberry from rehab (again).

 

[rlvaughn]

PreachtheWord, your last post makes me wonder - are you now saying that the church as an assembly of baptized believers existed before Pentecost, but that the church as a universal invisible body of saved people began on the day of Pentecost?

Are you trying to change horses in midstream?

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
PreachtheWord, your last post makes me wonder - are you now saying that the church as an assembly of baptized believers existed before Pentecost, but that the church as a universal invisible body of saved people began on the day of Pentecost?

You are actually right about your post. The local assembly of believers has existed for a very long time. That is what the word "church" includes. It is a called out people that gather together. In this sense, there was a "church" in the wilderness (as the author of Hebrews states). However, Christ said that He would build His church. He did not say that He would add to it or even continue to build it.

Christ's church is called out from the world and assembled in one body. BTW, Christ's church is made up exclusively of saved people. The local church can be (in theory) mostly lost people. Is it really Christ's church if unbelievers are part of it? NO .

The kind of Church Christ built began on Pentecost and is on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

Did a local assembly of believers exist before Pentecost? Yes.

Did Christ do something to that group on Pentecost that united them all in one body? Yes. That means that believers in the Ukraine and China and Japan and Canada and England (if there are saved people in England ) are part of one body. The Scripture always speaks of one body. There is not more than one body.

As far as changing goes, I am a fundamentalist and a Baptist; I don't change.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
Did a local assembly of believers exist before Pentecost? Yes.

Great, it looks like we're making some progress. At least you believe part of the truth now! (Just Kidding, not intended to be serious)

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
As far as changing goes, I am a fundamentalist and a Baptist; I don't change.

But seriously - this sounds like a nice sentiment, but when analyzed it means that we are either already correct on everything or unwilling to be corrected on anything.

 

[rlvaughn]

I'm bumping this back to the top, since we are discussing this on another thread also. Some new members may want to read this as well.

 

[Bible Student]

You are right on DocCass.

 

[DocCas]

I know.

 

[Optional]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
I'm bumping this back to the top, since we are discussing this on another thread also. Some new members may want to read this as well.

Who could add to what you've already said? Excellent rebuttals!

Since the Spirit Baptism thread was locked, I'd like to sneak a question or 2 in here.

I f the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was not a one time event - just when does it occur again?
In a conversation with a co-worker, I was told that each time a person is saved and is "filled" with the Holy Spirit, this is being baptized into the Holy Spirit. OK. What a bout other times you are "filled" with the Spirit? Is this baptism also?
Are there other ways to be baptized in the Spirit?

[ October 01, 2002, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Optional ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Optional:
I f the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was not a one time event - just when does it occur again?

It occurs at the moment of salvation, when one is judicially placed into the body of Christ since "we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body." It is how we got into the body of Christ.

 

[DocCas]

Optional, excellent question. When we are saved, we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. We are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. We an illuminated by the Holy Spirit. We are guided by the Holy Spirit. We are comforted by the Holy Spirit. But the bible nevers says we are baptized by the Holy Spirit. That is a concept foreign to scripture. I suspect the major problem is one of sloppy terminology. Being indwelt or being filled by the Holy Spirit is often mistaken for being baptized by the Holy Spirit. This has caused a lot of confusion among Christian people. There is only one baptism, according to Ephesians 4. With my view, I just take Ephesians 4 literally. But if someone believes in two baptisms, one water and one Spirit, he has to do gymnastics with Ephesians 4 to make the bible fit his dogma. I would much prefer to adjust my doctrine to fit the bible.

See Helen's post for an example of this type of confusing terminology.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

I wonder if we should get this thread back on track. If anyone wants to start another please do so.
Murph

 

[rlvaughn]

Optional, I was going to post a link on the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" thread, but since it is locked, I'll post it here.

The Baptism in the Holy Spirit by Carl Sadler

Sadler's work may be interesting to any of you who are following this debate. He does discuss such things as confusing the terminology "indwelling of the Spirit" with the "baptism in the Spirit." Haven't read all of Sadler's comments yet, so I can't comment on whether I think it is good. It is from the viewpoint of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit being a one-time event.

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
Perhaps a better way of naming thread could have been: Did the body of Christ exist before Pentecost?...Those who embrace the invisible church doctrine define the church as the body of Christ...Those who embrace the local church only doctrine define the church as a group of baptized believers in an organized, local assembly.

Those who embrace the local church only doctrine also define the church as the body of Christ. The difference is in what these two groups believe the body and church is, not that only one defines the church as the body of Christ. One group believes the church, the body of Christ, existed before Pentecost; the other group believes the church, the body of Christ, was "born" on Pentecost. But one does not have to deny the "body of Christ" invisible church idea to believe the church existed before Pentecost. I have known some people who embrace both. In my opinion, whether the church began before Pentecost is amply shown by numerous scripture references. Whether it is a universal invisible body is a related, but different, question. I do see that certain beliefs about the baptism of the Holy Spirit make it hard to entertain the possibility that the church existed before the day of Pentecost.