What is baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Michael,

bmerr here. I see the point of your analogy, but I still maintain a difference between the happenings in Acts 2 and 10, and Acts 8 and 19.

As I've stated before, the biggest difference is the manner in which the Spirit came upon those involved, 8 and 19 requiring the laying on of an apostles' hands, resulting in people speaking in tongues and prophesying, and 2 and 10 happening without any human intervention, (since it was Christ Himself Who administered baptism with the Holy Spirit), also resulting in people speaking in tongues.

There is also the fact that in Acts 10, Peter had to recall all the way back to Pentecost in Acts 2 for something to compare to. If Holy Spirit baptism were common to all believers, why would it have caught his attention at all? And he still commanded water baptism in the name of the Lord (10:47-48).

On the other hand, in cases where there was no miraculous Spiritual action, water baptism is spoken of "matter-of-factly", as in Acts 16:15, for example. If either of the two baptisms is shown by the Scriptures to be common to all, it's water baptism.

Gotta go. I hope you didn't do as good a number on your thumb as I did on mine. Went through the tip and my thumbnail about halfway to the cuticle and everything. Not as sore as I would have thought. Thank God for small blessings...:thumbs:

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Regarding my thumb, no, it wasn't quite as severe as yours. Pretty nasty cut, though. Quite a bit of blood. At least I know my knife's sharp.

As for the 2/10 and 8/19 thing, I wasn't really referring to that in my analogy. I was actually referring to the idea that "the promise" was the promise of the HS being made available for all people, and that if that were the case, then "the promise" was fulfilled in stages. I can see how that would have implications for 8 and 19, though, or at least for 8. In 8, my explanation (and the text's, incidentally) is that they needed hands laid on them because the Spirit hadn't fallen on them yet. I posit that the Spirit fell on Jews during Pentecost and non-Jews at Cornelius' house, and that was the completion of the "All flesh" promise. So it went something like this, as far as I can see:

1. Holy Spirit falls on the Apostles in Acts 2 and fulfillment of Joel's promise begins, recognized by Peter and proclaimed as such. Because of that, all those on whom the Spirit was poured receive Him as soon as they convert.

2. Samaritans in Acts 8 convert, but do not receive the Holy Spirit immediately, because He has not been poured out on non-Jews yet. So they receive Him through the laying on of the Apostles' hands. Charismata occurs to signify that they had, indeed, received the Holy Spirit. I see it as God's way of answering the question, "Well, when have we laid on hands/prayed enough to make sure they really do have the Spirit?"--"When they start speaking in tongues!"

3. Holy Spirit falls on Cornelius and his household, making the Holy Spirit available to non-Jewish believers. This is the completion of the Joel promise, and thus the potential completion of the promise of receiving the Holy Spirit.

4. Disciples of John realize they need to trust Jesus for their salvation. They don't know who/what the Holy Spirit is, so to show them that they'd received the Holy Spirit, hands are laid on them and they start speaking in tongues.


Each time charismatic phenomena occur in Acts, it occurs around someone receiving the Holy Spirit. The difference in 2 and 10 that 8 and 19 don't have is that the Holy Spirit is being poured out a section of "all flesh" in those. That's why they're truly comparable only to each other. I do not believe that Spirit baptism is necessarily accompanied by miraculous phenomena, but that in those individual cases, God used it to signify that it had, indeed, occurred; I would posit that Spirit baptism is the reception of the indwelling Spirit.

In light of that, it would make sense that every believer would receive that baptism, because while it is conceivable that a believer not be water baptized due to whatever circumstances, it is inconceivable for God to be unable to spiritually baptize someone.

Don't worry--I'm not pulling out the old, "Johnny believes and repents and calls up his mom and confesses and gets hit by a car on the way to church to be baptized and I just don't believe he could go to Hell" argument. Rather, I'm saying more along these lines: it is conceivable to have a believer who has not been immersed in water; the Scriptures are clear that all believers receive the Holy Spirit.

Either you have to show that not all believers receive the Holy Spirit, or you have to show that those who aren't water-immersed aren't really believers.

And as far as the Scriptures clearly saying which baptism is common to all, I'm afraid you've still given me no good reason from the text to accept your view of I Corinthians 12:13 in light of what it plainly says in English and Greek (and Spanish... just looked it up).

Michael

 

Michael,

bmerr here. Regarding differences between 2/10 and 8/19, we might consider the fact that in 8/19, those receiving the Spirit by the laying on of hands had also already believed and been baptized. From Jesus' words in Mark 16:16, they were saved before the Spirit came upon them in a miraculous measure.

In 10, those upon whom the Spirit was poured out by Christ had not yet been baptized for certain, and as we have discussed in the past, it cannot be acertained if they had even heard the gospel message, either. Looking back to Mark 16:16, could we say they were saved when the Spirit fell on them? I could not.

(In 2, the apostles were already clean before the crucifixion (John 13:10), so this point doesn't really apply to 2.)

We should also remember that in 2/10 there were Jews who needed convincing, while there is an absence of such in 8/19.

We may have talked about this stuff already, I don't remember, and I bring it up only to demonstrate the differences between 2/10 and 8/19. I just don't think the same thing was going on in the respective cases.

If it is the case that in every instance of the Spirit either being poured out by Christ, or imparted through the laying on of an apostles' hands the gift of tongues accompanied it, (and from the Scriptures, it is), why do you not think it would be necessary for tongues to be present in every case of Holy Spirit baptism, if that is the baptism common to all believers?

On the flip side, tongues are not manifested in every case where a person simply obeys the gospel, merely submitting to water baptism, and each of us would agree that in each of those cases the person was saved and had received the promised gift of the Holy Spirit.

Apart from making ungrounded assumptions, the only way I see to make sense of it all is that the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:38), the impartation of miraculous gifts of the Spirit (Acts 8:15-18; 19:6), and baptism with/in the Spirit (Acts 2:2-4; 10:44-46) are separate, distinct things, not to be confused with each other.

Concerning 1 Cor 12:13, since it does appear to be a bit at odds with other Scriptures that speak of baptism under the NT, (when taking the words at face value), it is best to view it in light of other passages that speak on the same subject in order to determine its' meaning. Or, we need to find where the Bible says the Spirit would baptize anyone.

The notion of an unbaptized believer is foriegn to the NT from what I can tell. While it is clear that all believers receive the Holy Spirit, it is equally clear that baptism in water is prerequisite to ones' reception of the Spirit (Acts 2:38).

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Indeed, we have discussed the variations between 2/10 and 8/19.

I agree that those in 8/19 were definitely saved before the Spirit was miraculously manifested. "All flesh" hadn't yet been fulfilled in 8, and in 19, they needed to know that they had the Holy Spirit.

I also agree that those in 2 who started speaking in tongues (the Apostles) were definitely saved before the Spirit was miraculously manifested.

Incidentally, in light of three of the four Biblical cases of speaking in tongues occurring in undisputably saved people, and at worst the text is ambiguous in the other one, following the pattern elsewhere would lead one to conclude that those who started speaking in tongues in 10 were also saved when it happened to them. Just a thought.

You're partially right about the same thing not going on in each case. In two cases, the Spirit was being poured out on a general part of humanity (thus fulfilling "all flesh") as He was being received by individual believers and manifested via speaking in tongues. In two cases, the Spirit was only being received by individual believers and manifested via speaking in tongues.

As for your differentiation of terminology, here's how I see it: the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) is the Holy Spirit Himself. The gifts of the Holy Spirit (spiritual gifts--I Corinthians 12) are things that come from the Holy Spirit. The baptism in/with/by (again, the same preposition in Greek every time) the Holy Spirit is the point at which we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and was sometimes in Scripture manifested by the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Now, you asked me why, with the definitely recorded cases of Spirit baptism involving tongues, I don't believe every case of Spirit baptism (or even many cases of Spirit baptism) involve tongues. My answer is going to sound terribly circular, but it's that the spiritual baptism of I Corinthians 12:13 happens to every Christian, but not every Christian speaks in tongues.

Now, you said that I Corinthians 12:13 seems a bit at odds with what the Bible teaches elsewhere about baptism; I disagree. Every verse, when taken in its proper context, with the language of the verse taken into consideration, works together perfectly. Your proposed solution--looking at other Scriptures on the baptisms--sounds great to me, and that's what we've been doing.

There is another verse that teaches some sort of universal (among believers) spiritual baptism, and that is Matthew 3:11. John the Baptist says of Jesus, "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." The you there is the key: not only the Apostles and the household of Cornelius and a handful of Samaritans and Johanine disciples are baptized in/with/by the Holy Spirit, but John's audience.

Now, as for the unimmersed believer, you don't really seem to have answered the question. An unimmersed believer can exist unless you can prove conclusively that he can't. I mean, a believer is one who believes. If faith precedes baptism, then every baptized believer was once an unbaptized believer. The Ethiopian Eunuch was an unbaptized believer until Philip baptized him (Acts 8:37).

So, if all believers receive the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13), then that includes the undunked ones, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that undunked believers are really not believers or that not all believers receive the Holy Spirit.

I've shown grammatically before that the promises of Acts 2:38 are contingent upon repentance rather than baptism, that baptism is grammatically separated from repentance and remission of sins which are grammatically connected in that verse and in several others (which, incidentally, would go along with Jewish thinking that the ceremony was a reflection of the spiritual reality rather than the later Catholic idea that the ceremony caused the spiritual reality).


Michael

 

Michael,

bmerr here. I'm sorry, bud, but I've got to use a couple of quotes. I'll try to keep it short, though.

Don't all believers need to know they have the Spirit, and wouldn't the gift of tongues be perfect for letting them know?

Only if one had already concluded that the Spirit could only fall on one to indicate that they were saved, or that HSB was common to all believers...

Again, I think you're arguing from your conclusion, you know, like I do half of the time. And you were right, the next answer sounded awfully circular!

You'd almost have to throw the whole bunch into the baptism of fire then, if we're going to apply this promise like that, wouldn't you?

I would say that a believer is one who obeys. In 1 Pet 2:7, "believe" and "disobedient" are presented as opposites. Their opposites are "unbelief" and "obedient", respectively.

Faith does indeed precede baptism, else, what's the point? But those who believed the gospel were baptized immediately, without delay, as if they had been told the reason for it was extremely important. And, in both cases where we are told the convert rejoiced (Acts 8:39; 16:34), they did not do so until after they had been baptized. If saved prior to baptism, why not rejoicing prior to baptism?

And let's not forget Lydia (Acts 16:14-15), who did not consider herself faithful until after she had been baptized.

The text says they were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise after they believed.m How long after? I would submit it was when they were baptized. Big suprise, huh?

Tense change or not, both repentance and baptism were enjoined upon those who responded to Peter's message in Acts 2. They were all to repent, and each one of them was to be baptized, the result would be the remission of their sins. Either without the other is insufficient.

Gotta run.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Bmerr: you seem to misunderstand "obedience" as "works" rather than its normal meaning, which is submission of will.

I teach college and substitute teach elementary school on the side. Imagine I have a situation where a class has a posterboard project to do. Junior is not doing it. I tell Junior that if he does not get the project done by lunch, I would take away recess. Immediately as he is headed to the stack of posterboard by the door to get started, his parents show up by the door; junior is leaving school until lunch. If I take Junior's recess away, Junior's parents would rightly protest, and I would be in trouble. Why? Because Junior did obey me; he submitted his will to mine.

You cited Abraham and Isaac at James 2. Per Genesis 22:2, God commanded Abraham to do “a burnt offering” (JPS 1985) of Isaac. Coming to the end of the narration, Genesis 22:9 says “They arrived at the place where God had told him” (JPS 1985), then 22:10 says “And Abraham picked up the knife to slay his son” (JPS 1985) -- but at 22:12 God says to Abraham “`Do not raise your hand against the boy, or do anything to him” (JPS 1985). Later, Genesis 25:8-9 tells us “And Abraham breathed his last, dying at a good ripe age, old and contented; and he was gathered to his kin. His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him” (JPS 1985). It is necessary to conclude that Abraham’s “burnt offering” sacrifice of Isaac was NOT COMPLETED, yet James 2:14-26 considered it a positive example of a faith that did work. The obedience was that Abraham would have done it; he had submitted his will to the Lord's will.

Obedience is part of faith. It is the submission of the will because we genuinely believe Jesus Christ is Lord. That is exactly why "unbelief" and "obedience" are opposites in Scripture.

Exactly: baptism is extremely important. A faithful follower of Jesus Christ should want to please the Lord by being baptized.

Bmerr: when I was baptized, I WANTED to be baptized. It did not take a `have to' in order to get me in the water. I hope it did not for you either.

Exactly. At Acts 2, the audience knew that any rebellion against baptism would not be acceptable.

Acts 2:38a “Arrependei-vos, e seja batizado cada um de vós em nome de Jesus Cristo, para | remissão dos vossos pecados” (DA ERC|DA ERA) somewhat "You people-must-repent-you, and so let-s/he-be baptized each one of you in name of Jesus Christ, in-order-for remission of-the your sins."

As translated into the foreign language, the Greek conveyed that the repentance was for remission of sins. That repentance obligated baptism. Hence, any refusal to be baptized indicated no genuine repentance at all.

 

This is correct.

Per Mark 1:7-8, John the Baptist “preached, saying, `After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit’ (ESV). John baptized only with water, but Jesus Christ was going to baptize with the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ would actually be involved with baptizing in both. John 3:22-3 says “After these things, Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people were coming and were being baptized” (NASB). John 4:1 says “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John” (NASB) and clarifies “although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were” (NASB).

This is similar to the post-Crucifixion New Covenant. Nowhere in Scripture is Jesus portrayed as baptizing Christians in water; mortals are attributed the responsibility of baptizing throughout the book of Acts. In the present New Covenant system, Christians baptize in water, while Jesus Himself does not. Jesus does, however, baptize in the Holy Spirit, as anticipated at Mark 1:7-8.

1 Corinthians 12:13 says “For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit” (ASV). All Christians are baptized “in one Spirit,” the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ does that, as anticipated at Mark 1:7-8.

An effect of when Jesus Christ baptizes us in the Holy Spirit is described in two passages. At Acts 15:8-9 Peter said regarding the first Gentile conversions “And God, who knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us; and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith” (ASV). Titus 3:5 by Paul has “él nos salvó, no por nuestras propias obras de justicia sino por su misericordia. Nos salvó mediante el lavamiento de la regeneración y de la renovación |of the Holy Spirit” (NVI|ASV) = “He us He-saved, not by our own works of righteousness but by His mercy. Us He-saved through the washing of the regeneration and of the renovation/renewal of the Holy Spirit.” When Jesus Christ baptizes in the Holy Spirit, it cleanses with “washing of the regeneration and of the renovation/renewal.”

Afterward, the matter of baptizing in water as an initiation rite to accompany conversion is left to mortals. Ephesians 4:2-6 is sometimes cited against the existence of Holy Spirit baptism, but wrongly so. In ancient religions of the Near East, human-administered baptisms were frequently considered initiation rites. The "one baptism" in this passage means this: there are not multiple initiation rites assigned to Christians so that we can create a caste system among ourselves; all Christians share that one assigned initiation rite, and are therefore to share the same status from the very beginning.

However, returning to the subject at hand, Holy Spirit baptism is salvation. That is exactly right. It is the baptism Jesus Christ administers Himself to us upon our genuine belief in the Gospel.

 

Thanks, Darron. Your posts in these threads are always enlightening.

Bmerr, yes, all believers need to know that they have the Spirit. Tongues, however, is unnecessary, because now we have the Word that says we have the Spirit.

If you get to quote, I get to quote :tongue3::

No, that time I didn't base anything on an a priori conclusion, but rather on just the observed pattern. Pentecost: the ones who started speaking in tongues were the Apostles, and they were definitely saved prior to speaking in tongues. Samaria: the ones who started speaking in tongues were baptized believers, a group we can certainly both agree were saved. Disciples of John: the ones who started speaking in tongues were, again, definitely saved. I see a pattern here that, perhaps, would be helpful in the single (somewhat) ambiguous case of Cornelius and his household.

That time, I was just explaining how I saw the relation of those terms. I wasn't trying to make an argument for that relation, but rather to show how I see them fitting together.

Baptism of Fire is a whole 'nother can of worms. To my knowledge, there's no Scripture that says, "Hey, this is the baptism of fire spoken of by John!", so no one can authoritatively tell what it is, exactly. But, wouldn't it be more proper to say baptism with fire?

The bit about the believer being one who obeys, I think Darron answered rather well.

At a wedding ceremony, people don't applaud until the kissing of the bride. The couple, however, makes their vows, are given to their betrothed by their families, exchange rings, and are pronounced officially "man and wife" all before the kiss. If the wedding were interrupted between "man and wife" and the kiss (except by Princess Bride logic), the couple is still married.

If salvation is analogous to a wedding, I see baptism as analogous to the kiss.

A more literal rendition of Ephesians 1:13 would be, "In Whom also, believing/trusting [or, having believed/trusted], you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise", and seems to show an immediacy rather than the KJV's "after that ye believed". There's a good deal in the translation tradition to support such a rendition:

Analytical-Literal: "in whom also having believed [or, having trusted], you* were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise"

American Standard Version: "in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise"

Concordant-Literal: "in Whom on believing also, you are sealed with the holy spirit of promise"

ESV: "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit"

NASB: "having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise"

NIV: "Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit"

And, just for fun, Wycliffe: "in whom ye bileuynge ben merkid with the Hooli Goost of biheest"

At any rate, I think I made my point (with enough translations backing me up to convince you, I hope!)--"after you believed" is a somewhat misleading translation and is better rendered "having believed" and is best rendered simply "believing".

Darron covered Acts 2:38 better than I did.

And the text doesn't say that Lydia didn't consider herself faithful to the Lord till her baptism, only that the dialog took place immediately subsequent to her baptism.

Michael

 

Michael:

"As for the 2/10 and 8/19 thing, I wasn't really referring to that in my analogy. I was actually referring to the idea that "the promise" was the promise of the HS being made available for all people, and that if that were the case, then "the promise" was fulfilled in stages. I can see how that would have implications for 8 and 19, though, or at least for 8. In 8, my explanation (and the text's, incidentally) is that they needed hands laid on them because the Spirit hadn't fallen on them yet. I posit that the Spirit fell on Jews during Pentecost and non-Jews at Cornelius' house, and that was the completion of the "All flesh" promise. So it went something like this, as far as I can see:

1. Holy Spirit falls on the Apostles in Acts 2 and fulfillment of Joel's promise begins, recognized by Peter and proclaimed as such. Because of that, all those on whom the Spirit was poured receive Him as soon as they convert.

2. Samaritans in Acts 8 convert, but do not receive the Holy Spirit immediately, because He has not been poured out on non-Jews yet. So they receive Him through the laying on of the Apostles' hands. Charismata occurs to signify that they had, indeed, received the Holy Spirit. I see it as God's way of answering the question, "Well, when have we laid on hands/prayed enough to make sure they really do have the Spirit?"--"When they start speaking in tongues!"

3. Holy Spirit falls on Cornelius and his household, making the Holy Spirit available to non-Jewish believers. This is the completion of the Joel promise, and thus the potential completion of the promise of receiving the Holy Spirit.

4. Disciples of John realize they need to trust Jesus for their salvation. They don't know who/what the Holy Spirit is, so to show them that they'd received the Holy Spirit, hands are laid on them and they start speaking in tongues."

GE:

Perhaps I'm doing what I shouldn't, interupting without having followed the discussion properly.
But maybe you might find my understanding revealing some aspect perhaps overlooked.

I see the baptisms in Acts (of both by the Holy Spirit and with water) as one-time phenomena. The baptism by the Holy Spirit IN ACTS being Prophecy fulfilled once for all; and the baptism with water being Christ's given sign of Apostleship and authority to the chosen disciples of His once for all.
Only the baptism by the Holy Spirit -from the nature of its case - goes on beyond the Apostles' own time, but no longer in that original significance, only as the necessary indispensible for all believers to come to faith and salvation.
From the nature of its case, water-baptism being the sign of Apostleship and authority to and of the Apostles and their generation(s) only, stopped with the last of this generation and authority. The Genesis of the Christian age being completed.

The baptism by the Holy Spirit though, within the whole Apostolic dispensation, is marked by two stages of prophetic fulfilment.
The first is the Pentecostal 'Outpouring' (in fulfilment of espaecially prophecies like Joel's).
The second stage is marked by the prophetic fulfilment on the Day of Atonement - the Pisidia incident, read 26-27 of ch. 13.
From here on the 'age of the gentiles' began, and overlapped with the (short but significant) Apostolic age, until the generations of it no more were present.

 

Darron,

bmerr here. At what point is the submission of one's will evident? When did you know that little Junior had submitted to your authority in regard to the poster board project? Are you sure he was going to do his work, or was he simply walking away from you when his parents came in?

Faith is evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1). The submission of the will cannot be seen until the person obeys. Even in the case of Abraham, God said, "...for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing that thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen 22:12).

I believe you said it well, "Obedience is part of faith". I would certainly agree with that. I would elaborate and say that faith apart from obedience is worthless. They're two sides of the same coin. Neither is complete without the other.

Michael and I have boiled it down to two positions:

His - The faith that saves obeys.

Mine - The faith that obeys saves.

Simply believing that Jesus is the Son of God is of no avail apart from repentance, is it? Certianly it is not. Why not? Because the will of the person has not submitted to the command to repent, for starters.

I'm sure we both know scores of people who would agree that Jesus is the Son of God, but who continue to live sin-filled lives nonetheless. These people are not saved. They are as lost as anyone, even though they acknowledge the facts of Jesus Christ.

You acknowledge the importance of baptism, but deny that it's essential for salvation. What is its' importance, then? Why did you want to be baptized?

Michael has given similar word-for-word translations of the Greek, and similar explanations, but I still don't see that your position is supported by them. If no genuine repentance is possible apart from baptism, then how is baptism not essential?

Regarding baptism in the Holy Spirit, if it is administered by Christ to everyone who believes, why did Peter have to recall all the way back to Pentecost for a reference for what happened to Cornelius? Why would it catch his attention at all?

There are only two recorded instances of baptism with the Holy Spirit: Acts 2 and Acts 10. These are the only places where it can be said for sure that that was what took place. Michael had attempted to argue that miraculous signs did not accompany every occurence of HSB, but I think that gets into the realm of speculation, at best.

The one baptism that does show up in nearly every conversion account is water baptism. This is administered by men, and was commanded to continue until the end of the world (Matt 28:19-20).

Baptism in the Holy Spirit was promised to the apostles (Acts 1:8 - follow the pronouns), not to believers of all time.

In Acts 15:8, we read that God bore witness about the Gentiles by giving them the Holy Ghost just like He did to the apostles. But what was God bearing witness to? That the Gentiles had believed and were saved? No, and the preceding verse bears this out.

15:7 says, "...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."

The Spirit falling on the Gentiles did not mean they were saved, but that they should hear the gospel so they could be saved.

The washing of regeneration is also described as a "washing of water, by the word" in Eph 5:26. Water baptism is commanded by the word of God, which was brought by the Spirit. I believe this is the proper meaning of 1 Cor 12:13.

Just like in John 4:1-2, where it is said that Jesus was making and baptizing disciples, even though He did not baptize personally, those who were baptized were baptized by His command.

Eph 4:2-6 speaks of seven "ones" with repect to the unity of the Spirit. I agree that the one baptism is water baptism. I believe it is the one baptism common to all Christians. However, if you insist that both water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism are common to all, then you no longer have one baptism, but two baptisms, and thus a conflict with the Bible.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

This was a fictitious account to make another point. I do not have to know Junior was going to do anything for Junior to be obedient. Reality is not determined by what I know.

You actually go contrary to that verse by essentially stating that faith is not faith until you see it.

I would say that faith without obedience is not what Scripture means by "faith."

Correct: the assenter does not genuinely believe the truth about Christ.

Because He called us to do it, and I wanted to do what would please Him. This has not changed.

Does why He wants us to be baptized really matter? I am always concerned about people who say `Why would I do this-or-that?' I really worry about `Why would I do this-or-that unless it was a salvation matter.' They are essentially saying `I do not want to do anything for the Lord unless I have to' and `It would take Hellfire to get me to do this-or-that for the Lord.'

Why not do things for the Lord just because He wants us to? I think this attitude is most fitting for His disciples.

You are very works-oriented, and this causes us serious communication problems.

I believe that Scripture teaches that salvation is by biblical faith at the very moment it arises. Such biblical faith motivates baptism with right information and known opportunity.

Genuine faith can exist without completed baptism. However, if a person has genuine faith, s/he will be willing to be baptized with proper information and known opportunity.

Please clarify what you are talking about.

Per the verses I cited, every conversion involves baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 5:25-6 is within a passage describing human marriage.

It is also a reference to the pre-nuptial ceremonial baths that were a part of Near East marriage customs. These washings were to prepare for marriage.
--Life Application Bible, page 1270.

I have already addressed this passage. You chose to ignore that.

I am in no means contradictory to Scripture, as I have shown. I believe that by denying Holy Spirit baptism, you are.

Oh, and if you notice, the Gentile believers of Acts 10 were baptized in the Holy Spirit, and then in water. It was not `one or the other' as far as substance is concerned. If your interpretation of the passage is correct, Peter himself went against this passage. If mine is correct, Peter did nothing contrary to this verse.

Bmerr: my rebuttals to you are brief. You are here mostly to defend the party lines of a segment of the Churches of Christ. I believe complete rebuttals of your posts are fruitless because of the unlikelihood of changing your mind. I acknowledge that I do not give your posts the attention that they really deserve, but I have limits on my time, and I apologize. I mainly rebut for third-party viewers.

 

Michael,

bmerr here. Agreed that since we have the word of God there is no more need for the miraculous, or "charismatic" gifts of the Spirit. However, if miraculous gifts were necessary to confirm one's reception of the Spirit before the completion of revelation, would it not require that every conversion account should give some indication of a miraculous gift? Otherwise, how would the new converts know they had the Spirit, since none of them had the complete, revealed word of God?

I see your point about observing a pattern. That is exactly what I have done in concluding that water baptism is common to all believers, rather than baptism with the Spirit. In most every case of conversion, the pattern is preaching, hearing, repentance, and baptism. While some have more and some have less, just about all have baptism.

Acts 2 - preaching, belief, repentance, baptism
Acts 3,4 - preaching, belief
Acts 6 - word increased, priests obedient to the faith
Acts 8 - preaching, belief, baptism: preaching, confession, baptism
Acts 9 - baptism
Acts 10 - preaching, Spirit falls, baptism
Acts 13 - preaching, belief
Actrs 16 - preaching, baptism: preaching, repentance, baptism
Acts17 - preaching, beleif
Acts 18 - preaching, belief, baptism
Acts 19 - preaching, baptism

The wedding analogy was neat, but I'd go with a larger view and liken baptism to the wedding ceremony in stead of just the "first kiss".

It's late. Time for bed.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Darron,

bmerr here. I don't think any of us who have been on these boards for very long really expect to change anyone's mind. Maybe at first, but not for long.

At the end of it all, we each have very strongly held beliefs that we are unwilling (for either good or bad reasons) to surrender. If anything, time spent here is good excercise in becoming familiar with the Scriptures, and learning the views of others. Some are easily dismissable as false, while others (like yours and Michael's) bear serious thought.

The time spent is much appreciated, as are posts free from the hostility which we all stoop to occasionally. Just part of the show...

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Bmerr: I appreciate your kind remarks, and forgiving me for not paying your posts all their due response time/attention.

Good night.

 

bmerr:

"Acts 2 - preaching, belief, repentance, baptism
Acts 3,4 - preaching, belief
Acts 6 - word increased, priests obedient to the faith
Acts 8 - preaching, belief, baptism: preaching, confession, baptism
Acts 9 - baptism
Acts 10 - preaching, Spirit falls, baptism
Acts 13 - preaching, belief
Actrs 16 - preaching, baptism: preaching, repentance, baptism
Acts17 - preaching, beleif
Acts 18 - preaching, belief, baptism
Acts 19 - preaching, baptism"

GE:

Mind to repeat this list indicating where, when baptism is mentioned, water is mentioned as well; and, where, when baptism is mentioned, the Holy Spirit or Christ or the Name is mentioned as well?