What is baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Correction:

I posted:

The Samaritans in Acts 8 had believed and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, which means that they had received the gift of the Holy Ghost in whatever sense it was meant in Acts 2:38.

IT WAS THEN, that ".... it required apostles to come and lay hands upon the Samaritans (Acts 8:15-18) for them to be given the ability to perform wondrous works as Phillip had done."
This, was the 2:38 Promise re-enacted upon the Samaritans.


It should be:

The Samaritans in Acts 8 had believed and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, which means that they had received the gift of the Holy Ghost in the very sense it was meant by John, "The same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost".

IT WAS THEN, that ".... it required apostles to come and lay hands upon the Samaritans (Acts 8:15-18) for them to be given the ability to perform wondrous works as Phillip had done."
This, was the 2:38 Promise re-enacted upon the Samaritans.

 

Gerhard,

bmerr here. I suppose I'm as prone to "conditioned thinking" as anyone, but my conclusion that Peter commanded baptism in water in Acts 2:38 is based on the evidence for water baptism in Acts 8:36-39, and Acts 10:47-48, both of which indicate that baptism was commanded and administered by man.

Additionally, the baptism which saves (1 Pet 3:21) and makes free from sin (Rom 6:17-18) is described as a burial and a raising up again, in the likeness of Christs' burial and resurrection (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12).

The people who received baptism with the Holy Spirit were not buried in the Spirit and then raised up out of the Spirit. That's ludicrous. Only water baptism fits the description.

Again, since Jesus commanded a baptism that was to be administered by men, and was to last unto the end of the world, it is only logical that we accept water baptism as what Jesus commanded.

Only in Acts 2 and Acts 10 do we find people given the gift of tongues apart from the laying on of apostolic hands. In every other case, either Paul or one of the other apostles laid hands on people that had already believed and submitted to water baptism, and the person spoke in tongues, or was given some other gift.

If the Samaritans had been baptized with the Holy Spirit, they would have been able to speak in tongues before Peter and John came down to lay hands on them.

The baptism of fire is a reference to Judgment. It's not something anyone in their right mind wants to partake of.

Miraculous spiritual gifts were not given to everyone. That's Paul's point in 1 Cor 12:27-30.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

bmerr:

".... my conclusion that Peter commanded baptism in water in Acts 2:38 is based on the evidence for water baptism in Acts 8:36-39, and Acts 10:47-48, both of which indicate that baptism was commanded and administered by man."

GE

in Acts 8:36-39, and Acts 10:47-48, 'water-baptism' was commanded and administered by Apostolic and / or Pentecostal Authority -- it wasn't for any or every 'man' -- not for mere disciples -- what each and every believer afterwards became!

Even then, what actually qualified the 'convert' to receive this Sign of Gospel-Authenticity, was that he first had received the Spirit-baptism, having heard (effectually), having been 'born again' (actually -- and therewith 'saved', irretrievably), having come to faith, to obedience and to willingness or desire to SUBMIT ALREADY, to Apostolic Authority, and now, being sealed with this seal of Apostolic Veracity and Authenticity. The Gospel had started with THAT, Authority. We live by / according to (kata) it, until this day which no longer is that "prepared day" of Pentecost and of the Apostles' Commission.

 

bmerr:

"The people who received baptism with the Holy Spirit were not buried in the Spirit and then raised up out of the Spirit. That's ludicrous. Only water baptism fits the description."

GE:

Is it ludicrous? Not at all. You only haven't yet given it proper thought! You haven not yet seen the baptism by the Spirit of Christ -- the baptism BY the Holy Spirit, "IN the Name ..." for what it in truth is - a spiritual baptism, a spiritual, faith-matter "CO-baptism"; a spiritual, faith-matter "CO-burial", and a spiritual, faith-matter "CO-resurrection", literal quote: "WITH / IN Christ". The believer, IN HIM. Only baptism "with fire power" - the baptism of or with the Spirit, fits the description -- the baptism of Christ what Christians need in order to be saved and redeemed from sin and its reward and grip upon him, death.
God's wisdom is foolishness to the world; I trust not to you.

That was and is still the ONLY way anyone shall be saved -- or not at all.

 

John the Baptist described Jesus' (future) baptism as with fire and power. He made no distinction, but identified fire and power with simply the baptism wherewith Jesus would baptise, "The Same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost".
I personally understand 'fire' to mean not only the Spirit in His fervour of faith, but also the sufferings of Christ wherein the believer surely as the New Life itself, shall partake. Paul makes it very clear that whoeve does not partake in Christ's sufferings, also cannot partake in His glory. So yes, 'fire' indicates judgment, but that judgment faith certainly will desire.

 

bmerr:

"Again, since Jesus commanded a baptism that was to be administered by men, and was to last unto the end of the world, it is only logical that we accept water baptism as what Jesus commanded."

GE:

As much as I don't deny the Apostles received their mandate from Christ to baptise in the Name - with or without water - it makes no difference - as much, do I not deny that all believers untill the last day will have to be immersed in Christ, in His death, and in His resurrection in order to be saved. So will they have to baptised by and in and with the Holy Spirit, "the SAME, is He which baptizeth".

 

"The SAME, is He which baptizeth"; "One Lord, one Faith, on Baptism" --- none of which is of man or by man; only to man and in man, as to Christ and in Christ through faith.

 

bmerr:

"If the Samaritans had been baptized with the Holy Spirit, they would have been able to speak in tongues before Peter and John came down to lay hands on them."

GE:

Who knows? the Spirit gives to the measure He wills to whom He wills, even in the Pentecostal phenomenonal case of the giving of Himself. But the Spirit reserves nothing necessary unto salvation and keeps nothing from whomever He engulphs in the mercy and love of God through Christ to create in him the new man to the likeness of Christ.

 

bmerr

"Miraculous spiritual gifts were not given to everyone. That's Paul's point in 1 Cor 12:27-30."

That wasn't Peter's point in Acts 2:38.

 

Gerhard,

bmerr here. In Acts 8, it is not the apostle Phillip, for in 8:1 we see that the apostles stayed in Jerusalem. The Phillip in Acts 8, who baptized the Samaritans and the Ethiopian eunuch was probably Phillip the deacon found in Acts 6:5. He was not an apostle, but he had received miraculous spiritual power through the laying on of apostolic hands, just as the Samaritans did in Acts 8.

The baptism that the apostles administered and taught others to administer was simply an immersion in water. It is done in, or into, the authority, or name, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit was never commanded. Not ever.

Those who were converted in the NT were those who were born of water and of the Spirit. To be born of the Spirit is to believe the word of God. If this belief spurs one to be converted, he will repent of sins and submit to baptism, or be born of water.

It's the pattern found in each conversion.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Gerhard,

bmerr here. Do you mean "proper" as in "properly conditioned"? It's a fact that the baptism which puts one into Christ, where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3) is described as being buried and raised up (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12) in the likeness of Jesus' burial and resurrection. In what way did baptism with the Holy Spirit resemble that?

Consider Rom 6:17-18,

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

The Romans had received a doctrine, and they had obeyed a form of it. Upon doing so, they were made free from sin.

Two questions:

1. What was the doctrine that had been delivered to the Romans?

2. What was the form of that doctrine that they obeyed?

Where in all of Scripture did you find all of that?

Agreed, it seems quite foolish to most, the idea that one must be immersed in water in order to have his sins washed away, yet, the Bible so states in no uncertain terms.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

There is no such thing as baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 3:11: I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit, and in fire:

In considering baptism, we have to keep in mind the one who is baptizing, the one being baptized, and the element into which one is being baptized. In the preceding passage, John was the baptizer, repentant sinners were the ones being baptized, and water was the element into which they were baptized. This is similar to Christian baptism.

Spirit baptism finds Jesus the Christ doing the baptizing, believers being baptized, and the Holy Spirit the element into which they are being baptized. There has been much confusion caused by the translation of “εν” as “by” and not “in” in 1 Corinthians 12:13. [For by [in] 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.] We are all baptized into the Holy Spirit, not by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit baptizes no one. However, Jesus the Christ baptizes all believers into the Holy Spirit; they are one body.

John said that not only would Jesus the Christ baptize in the Holy Spirit, but He would also baptize in fire. This will happen at the end of the age in connection with the Judgment Seat of Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:12-15 tells of the trial of a Christian’s works by fire. This is not talking about salvation; you are not saved by your works! You are saved by “believe”. This is judging works. Only saved people will be there and all saved people will be there. Our spiritual salvation cannot be lost, nor can it be forfeited, but we can lose reward and even suffer great loss.

1 Corinthians 3:12-15
Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. [wages] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss [forfeiting something he has]: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

The word for "reward" in verse 14 is "wages". It's something you earn. You certainly don't earn being saved. The wages of sin is death, but the wages for faithfulness is life in the age to come.

So, if your works are burned, you will forfeit something, but the next phrase says you will be saved, so what are you forfeiting?

 

Hope,

bmerr here. Let me begin by commending you for your points about the fact that the Spirit does not baptize anyone, and that there is no "baptism of the Holy Spirit". Lots of people overlook that. I'm not sure which translation you cited from, but the KJV uses "with" instead of "in". Either one seems to work.

I would disagree with the idea that Christ baptizes all believers with the Spirit. As I've stated in earlier posts, those baptized by Christ with the Spirit manifested miraculous spiritual gifts, which were not common to all converts.

The one baptism that was (and is) common to all have become Christians is baptism in water for the remission of sins. It is the baptism commanded by Christ in the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20). It is the "one baptism" of Eph 4:5.

Concerning your comments on 1 Cor 3:15, I think if you back up and begin in 1 Cor 3:5, you will see that vv 5-15 put the work of the Christian minister into perspective.

Paul and Apollos (in context) are the laborers, and the work of each laborer is to be tried by fire. So what does the work in this passage represent?

I would submit to you that the work to be tried by fire represents the converts of each minister.

In 1 Thes 3:5, Paul expresses concern for the faithfulness of the Thessalonians, lest his "labour be in vain".

In Phil 2:16, Paul exhorts the Phillipians to be faithful so that he may rejoice in the day of Christ, and that his labour would not be "in vain".

In Gal 4:11, Paul says that he is afraid for the Galatians, lest he have bestowed labour upon them "in vain".

And in 1 Cor 9:1, Paul asks the question, "are not ye my work in the Lord?"

Seems to me that if the Corinthians were Paul's work, and it is Paul's work that would be tried by fire in 1 Cor 3:12-15, then it is the Corinthians themselves, and not Paul's physical works which will be tried by fire and determine whether Paul would receive a reward, or be saved yet so as by fire.

For your consideration.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

bmerr:

"The Romans had received a doctrine, and they had obeyed a form of it. Upon doing so, they were made free from sin.

.... it seems quite foolish to most, the idea that one must be immersed in water in order to have his sins washed away, yet, the Bible so states in no uncertain terms."

GE:

Let us for argument's sake 'agree', then only one 'baptism' can do what you here claim it does, and that is the spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit. Wate-baptism cannot, 'have one's sins washed away'; only 'upon' the baptism of regeneration by the Holy Spirit -- the baptism of Christ -- is it possible to be 'made free from sin'.

Also the word 'immerse' is a spiritual, faith-matter immersion. It does not imply immersion into water at all. It is a figurative word used figuratively for a spiritual, faith-matter thing whereby the believer is in fact saved, wherein and through which he truly is washed and freed from his sins. God initiates it and finishes it from a to z.

 

Hope of Glory quoted:

"Matthew 3:11: I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit, and in fire:"

GE:

Either John the Baptist is mistaken or he here states as truth baptism in or with water will stop. That stop arrived as soon as Jesus began to baptise with the Holy Spirit. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is how Jesus would be true to His promise that He would be with us (believers) even until the end.

Bmerr fails to distinguish (I point it out once again) between the once for all outpouring of the Holy Spirit in fulfilment of the Passover-prophecy and promise of Pentecost unto the Apostles exclusively, and the subsequent fulfilment of Jesus' promise to be with all believers until the end through the Holy Spirit. Christ makes His promise true by beginning with the heart of every convert -- by His Baptism, the baptism with the Holy Spirit -- without which NNE SHALL be saved. "ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism" that SAVES, that is.

 

Is the fruit of a Christian another Christian? Is the fruit of a vine branches? I’ve heard it taught most of my life that the fruit of a Christian is another Christian, but when you look at the Scriptures, I don't think that idea is supported. As branches, if all we produce are more branches, we will not have been profitable branches. I’ve actually heard it taught that we will produce seeds. But what does a seed produce? Another vine. I don’t think we’re to produce more Christs. If we’re not to produce branches, and we’re most certainly not to produce vines, what are we to produce?

Judges 9:13 tells us, "And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?" The fruit of a child of God is not another child of God, but fruit that will cheer the hearts of both God and man. If I am producing the kind of fruit that glorifies the Father, I am being a blessing to you. If you are producing the kind of fruit that pleases the Lord you are blessing me. We are to be a blessing to each other and to the saints.

Look at Hebrews 6:7-10: For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.



These verses deal with blessing the saints and the ministers; fruit bearing. The earth bears fruit, God bears fruit, and we bear fruit; we are to bear good fruit and not thorns and thistles.

This passage doesn’t quite convey the full meaning of the Greek. The way this is translated, it puts the contrast between two kinds of soil; one is well watered and fertile and the other is not watered and is sterile. This sort of contrast would illustrate the difference between those who have enjoyed hearing the gospel and those who have not. To the contrary, this passage puts the contrast between two classes of Christians under equally favorable conditions, out of which they develop into opposite results. A little expounding would better render it, “but if it (the ground that receives the rain) bear thorns or thistles,” it’s rejected or disqualified or near unto a curse.

This enhances the idea of “rejected”. This land that has benefited from the rain, if it continues producing thorns and thistles, is exposed to the possibility of abandonment to perpetual barrenness.

The Greek word translated as “thistle” (briars), is “tribolos”. It comes from the Greek words for “three” and “dart”; having three darts or points. It’s talking about a star thistle. It’s a word that describes a ball that rested on three iron spikes with a forth one that projected upward. They were scattered over the ground by Roman soldiers in order to impede the enemy’s cavalry. A “tribulus” is a kind of thistle. It’s referring to the exact opposite of fruit-bearing; it’s talking about hindering the saints.

If we are ministering to the saints, by bearing fruit, we are doing it by a work and labor of love.

Now, remember, not all saved people are referred to as "saints". Saints are those individuals in the family that obey the commandments of God. They’re being holy in their practical, day-to-day living. That doesn’t mean that you're perfect; it means that you love God and you love His commandments. And when you do fail; when the temptation, the monster gets in the armor because you put down the shield of faith for a moment and that dart comes in and hits you and your garments are spotted like it says in Jude 23, you go to Jesus Christ, your high priest and you confess your sins. And He is faithful and just to forgive you of your sins and to cleanse you from all unrighteousness. If you do this, you’ll be set apart as a sanctified one for an inheritance in the coming millennial kingdom. These are saints.

If we are ministering to the saints, that ministry will not be forgotten by God. We bear fruit by labor.

Just as the fruit of God is not another God and the fruit of the Holy Spirit is not another Holy Spirit and the fruit of the vine is not another Messiah, the fruit of a Christian is not another Christian. The husbandman cultivates another branch. The fruit of the vine, if Jesus is the vine, and the word says he is, is not another Messiah. The fruit of a Christian is the ministry that you produce for others. If God is the husbandman and Jesus is the vine and we are the branches that produce and bear fruit, then the Holy Spirit can be likened to the sap that flows through the vine into the branches to sustain them and help them be fruitful.

[FONT=&quot]Fruit is how you treat your brother.

Galatians 5:22-24 tells us, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."

God, through the Holy Spirit expects us to do works that are a blessing to our brethren. Who are our brethren? Matthew 12:50 tells us that our brethren are those who are obeying God. No place in the Scriptures ever refers to all saved people as "brethren".

(Hmm... for some reason, when I copied from Word, this post shows up as two different type faces on my monitor, but the window says it's all the same.)
[/FONT]

 

Gerhard,

bmerr here. So what did the Romans obey that was a form of the doctrine they had received?

Why then the numerous explicit references to water in connection with baptism (Acts 8:38-39; 10:47; 1 Pet 3:21)?

This all sounds very impressive, but I cannot find any references to a "faith-matter thing" in the Scriptures.

Whatever it is that makes one free from sin, it's what the Romans obeyed, which was a form of the doctrine that had been delivered to them. Again, two questions:

1. What was the doctrine they had received?

2. What is a form of that doctrine?

Anyone is welcome to answer.

In Christ,

bmerr



[/quote]

 

Gerhard,

bmerr here. John the Baptist spoke these words in response to questions about who he was. Some thought he might be the Christ. In no way, shape, or form does John indicate that water baptism was coming to an end.

Considering the fact that Jesus commanded a baptism which was to be administered by men, and the fact that the apostle Peter and Phillip the evangelist both baptized people in water by the authority (in the name) of Christ, what is the basis for your claim?

Where is this written?

Where is this "subsequent fulfillment" promised?

Why did you have to add, "that SAVES, that is"? Because it's not in the text. The texts says there is "one baptism". You're right in saying that the one baptism saves. It does.

But it's hard to hang on to water baptism, while denying its' neccessity, and forcing Jesus to baptize everyone with the Holy Spirit, all the while only being able to have "one baptism".

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Here, I have to partially agree and partially disagree with bmerr.

Baptism has nothing to do with getting you born into the family.

However, baptism is necessary for obedience.

It's a work on the part of the saved individual.

How does the saved individual have anything to do with baptism in the Holy Spirit?

 

[/quote]

I finally couldn't resist. After our last thread died the death of negligence, I had to come back and meet you on this subject (which is approximately where we left off last time, I believe).

1. The Gospel, obviously--the death of Christ for our sins, His burial, and His Resurrection (the Gospel as defined by Paul in I Corinthians 15).
2. Not a form, but the form. Let's see what ol' Mr. Thayer had to say about the word "Form" (the Greek word has several translations, but under the meaning "Form," Thayer said)--"the teaching which embodies the sum and substance of religion and represents it to the mind, manner of writing, the contents and form of a letter". They obeyed the teaching which embodied the sum and substance of Christianity and represented it to the mind. Any guesses on what the form of Christian doctrine might be? I'll give you a hint: in my Bible, it starts with, "Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the Gospel..."

Now, let's talk about the word "obey". This is, in this case, not "obey" as in "obey an order", though it can have that definition. This Greek word means, more precisely, "heed". They heeded the Gospel, and by so doing they were made free from sin.

So, yeah, I think I answered your two questions.

Michael