The Baptism debate

[Davesnothere]

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that speaking in tongues is the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

No... I'm saying that it's a gift of the Holy Spirit, and that a gift can not be given and exercised by the recipient until they are of the body of Christ. Being a member of the body of Christ, comes via the baptism of the Spirit.

 

[98cwitr]

Yes, the Holy Spirit was evident pre-baptism here, just as he was in Acts 2. However, don't you think Peter is referring to the Gentile speaking in tongues just like they did in Acts 2, rather than the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

How can someone legitimately speak in tongues without being baptized with the Spirit? It is by the Spirit they are able to do so.

 

[Davesnothere]

Good morning,

How can someone legitimately speak in tongues without being baptized with the Spirit? It is by the Spirit they are able to do so.

I'm with you! The gifts could not be received until Jesus ascended (Eph. 4:9-13), once Jesus ascended, then baptism of the Holy Spirit was sent/received, (Acts 1:8, 2:1-4). The gifts, were dependent on the birth of the church, the birth of the church was dependent on being immersed into to Christ, which is Spirit baptism... Spirit baptism is internal, water baptism is external.

Kind regards,
Dave

 

[greatdivide46]

No... I'm saying that it's a gift of the Holy Spirit, and that a gift can not be given and exercised by the recipient until they are of the body of Christ. Being a member of the body of Christ, comes via the baptism of the Spirit.

So, help me understand here. Are you saying that God cannot use unsaved people (such as Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, etc.) to accomplish His will through the power of the Holy Spirit?

I agree that being a member of the body of Christ comes via the baptism of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). But I still don't see why that has to be a dry baptism.

 

[Davesnothere]

So, help me understand here. Are you saying that God cannot use unsaved people (such as Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, etc.) to accomplish His will through the power of the Holy Spirit?

Of course not... God is Sovereign, and Omniscient, therefore He can accomplish His will through what-ever means. Whether or not it depends on these historic figures being indwelt or not, is not relevant to the Spirit's ministry of baptism (in my opinion). You could make a case that these historic figures were indwelt, but you can't make a case that they were baptized by the Spirit (baptism of the Spirit was seen as future up to Acts 2), the baptism of the Spirit is unique to the current age, and, unique to the church... that is, the baptism of the Spirit was the beginning/the birth of the church.

I agree that being a member of the body of Christ comes via the baptism of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). But I still don't see why that has to be a dry baptism.

~shrug~ I see no reason to refer to it as a "dry" baptism... But, I do see the need to distinguish it from water baptism; since they are distinct. This distinction is made by observing what happened to the apostles in (Acts 2) and Cornelius in (Acts 10). Once the distinction is noted and recognized, then we can derive doctrine from the epistles...

Edit to add: if water baptism is made to be the definite point of Spirit baptism, then water baptism is a sacrament... This defies the principles laid out in scripture (rites and services of the Law); that is, it can't be proved that God operates in that way, and it makes salvation a work, which is un-biblical.

 

[greatdivide46]

Of course not... God is Sovereign, and Omniscient, therefore He can accomplish His will through what-ever means. Whether or not it depends on these historic figures being indwelt or not, is not relevant to the Spirit's ministry of baptism (in my opinion). You could make a case that these historic figures were indwelt, but you can't make a case that they were baptized by the Spirit (baptism of the Spirit was seen as future up to Acts 2), the baptism of the Spirit is unique to the current age, and, unique to the church... that is, the baptism of the Spirit was the beginning/the birth of the church.

I don't think the historic figures were indwelt any more than I think Cornelius and his household were indwelt prior to their baptism. God doesn't need for a person to be indwelt by the Spirit in order to use them by the power of the Spirit.

~shrug~ I see no reason to refer to it as a "dry" baptism... But, I do see the need to distinguish it from water baptism; since they are distinct. This distinction is made by observing what happened to the apostles in (Acts 2) and Cornelius in (Acts 10). Once the distinction is noted and recognized, then we can derive doctrine from the epistles...

I don't think there is a distinction between baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Davesnothere]

I don't think the historic figures were indwelt any more than I think Cornelius and his household were indwelt prior to their baptism. God doesn't need for a person to be indwelt by the Spirit in order to use them by the power of the Spirit.

Well... No offense, but this proves how irrelevant your original question was.

The gifts of the Spirit are clearly related to the equipping of the church so that the body may be built up (Eph. 4:9-13). Tongues are a gift, and the gift is the proof of the baptism of the Spirit (Acts 11:15-17).

I don't think there is a distinction between baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit.

You may not believe it... but the scriptural references I showed you support it. Cornelius was baptized by the Spirit, before being water baptized.

 

[98cwitr]

Good morning,



I'm with you! The gifts could not be received until Jesus ascended (Eph. 4:9-13), once Jesus ascended, then baptism of the Holy Spirit was sent/received, (Acts 1:8, 2:1-4). The gifts, were dependent on the birth of the church, the birth of the church was dependent on being immersed into to Christ, which is Spirit baptism... Spirit baptism is internal, water baptism is external.

Kind regards,
Dave

Thank you, Dave. You put it much more clearly than I did previously.

 

[98cwitr]

I don't think there is a distinction between baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit.

You've already admitted that you acknowledge the distinction earlier in this thread (post #24)

 

[Davesnothere]

Thank you, Dave. You put it much more clearly than I did previously.

Thank you, and I hope you didn't mind me butting in. I figure iron sharpens iron.

 

[98cwitr]

Thank you, and I hope you didn't mind me butting in. I figure iron sharpens iron.

Nothing wrong with another iron in the fire

 

[greatdivide46]

Well... No offense, but this proves how irrelevant your original question was.

I guess so.

The gifts of the Spirit are clearly related to the equipping of the church so that the body may be built up (Eph. 4:9-13). Tongues are a gift, and the gift is the proof of the baptism of the Spirit (Acts 11:15-17).

I agree that the gifts are related to equipping of the church so that the body may be built up. I'm just not sure that there was much equipping of the church so that the body could be built upon going on at Cornelius' house that day.

Certainly tongues are a gift, but I can't see how you arrive and the conclusion that tongues is the proof of the baptism of the Spirit. If that's true since we have all been baptized in the Spirit (see 1 Corinthians 12:13), why is it that some have never spoken in tongues.

You may not believe it... but the scriptural references I showed you support it. Cornelius was baptized by the Spirit, before being water baptized.

Well, you're right, I don't believe it. I think the most that can be said about Cornelius is that he spoke in tongues that day.

 

[Davesnothere]

I guess so.

Don't be sad... I believe it's a matter of paradigm that really makes the question irrelevant. You're patient, and I appreciate it, I'm patient too... so, if you really want to understand why I'm so confident in this conviction, just hang in there.

Unfortunately, or maybe not, I rarely am able to post over the weekend, so I'll have to try again sometime next week... unless I get some bonus time.

Have a good weekend.

Kind regards,
Dave

I agree that the gifts are related to equipping of the church so that the body may be built up. I'm just not sure that there was much equipping of the church so that the body could be built upon going on at Cornelius' house that day.

Certainly tongues are a gift, but I can't see how you arrive and the conclusion that tongues is the proof of the baptism of the Spirit. If that's true since we have all been baptized in the Spirit (see 1 Corinthians 12:13), why is it that some have never spoken in tongues.

Well, you're right, I don't believe it. I think the most that can be said about Cornelius is that he spoke in tongues that day.

 

[THIS]

[FONT=&quot]I agree that Jesus gives the Holy Spirit to those he accepts. However, there is no mention of that in Acts 10:35. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]That scripture is about Cornelius and his whole household receiving the Holy Spirit before water baptism.[/FONT]
Acts 10:35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.

[FONT=&quot]And part of the doing what is right that is mentioned in Acts 10:35 is to be baptized.

I also agree that Jesus can accept someone before they are baptized, however, I believe that in the vast majority of cases He still expects people to be baptized before they are acceptable to Him. Otherwise why would He say, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16)?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I believe we are to be water baptized, even after having received the Holy Spirit.[/FONT]

 

[greatdivide46]

[FONT=&quot]That scripture is about Cornelius and his whole household receiving the Holy Spirit before water baptism.[/FONT]
Acts 10:35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.

And they did receive the Holy Spirit before water baptism, but it wasn't for the purpose of salvation. What they received was the gift of tongues and not the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I believe we are to be water baptized, even after having received the Holy Spirit.

If that's true, and I don't believe it is, but if it is, what then is the purpose of baptism?

 

[THIS]

[FONT=&quot]And they did receive the Holy Spirit before water baptism, but it wasn't for the purpose of salvation. What they received was the gift of tongues and not the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You have been misled from the truth.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]They were baptized with the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by their tongue speaking.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Baptism of the Holy Spirit happens at the time Jesus saves a person and gives them the Holy Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We can see this in the scriptures about Cornelius and his household. Jesus saved them when they heard the message that saves, see Acts 11:14. That is when the Holy Spirit “came on them”, see Acts 10:44. This is when they “received” the Holy Spirit, see Acts 10:47. This is “baptism of the Holy Spirit” see Acts 11:16.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Acts 11:16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe we are to be water baptized, even after having received the Holy Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If that's true, and I don't believe it is, but if it is, what then is the purpose of baptism?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A person can have a heart that is sorry for sins, and be accepted by Jesus and saved, and given the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is a ceremony, a vow, a promise to God that you will die to the sins of the world.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,[/FONT]

 

[greatdivide46]

You have been misled from the truth.

Perhaps.

They were baptized with the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by their tongue speaking.

I don't see speaking in tongues as evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. If it were everyone would speak in tongues. That everyone does not speak in tongues is obvious yet every believer has been baptized with the Holy Spirit (see 1 Corinthians 12:13).

Baptism of the Holy Spirit happens at the time Jesus saves a person and gives them the Holy Spirit.

This sounds good, but I don't know of any Scripture that actually says to just believe and you'll receive the Holy Spirit.

We can see this in the scriptures about Cornelius and his household. Jesus saved them when they heard the message that saves, see Acts 11:14.

That is not precisely what is said in Acts 11:14. It says they would hear a message from Peter, a message by which they would be saved. It doesn't say they were saved when they heard the message.

That is when the Holy Spirit “came on them”, see Acts 10:44. This is when they “received” the Holy Spirit, see Acts 10:47. This is “baptism of the Holy Spirit” see Acts 11:16.

Yes, the Holy Spirit "fell on all those who heard the word." However, I don't see how this can possibly be the baptism of the Holy Spirit since the purpose of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is salvation, not to speak in tongues.

Acts 11:16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

Yes, and this happened. But it didn't happen until Acts 10:48.

A person can have a heart that is sorry for sins, and be accepted by Jesus and saved, and given the Holy Spirit.

This sounds good, but I've never seen Scripture to back this up.

Water baptism is a ceremony, a vow, a promise to God that you will die to the sins of the world.

Again, this makes sense, but I've never seen anywhere in the Bible that says this is what baptism is.

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Amen. Great verse!

 

[greatdivide46]

You've already admitted that you acknowledge the distinction earlier in this thread (post #24)

No, what I admitted in post #24 is that water baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit are different. When I say there is no distinction, what I mean is that they occur at the same time and are two different aspects of the same event.

 

[THIS]

[FONT=&quot]Perhaps.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That is very humbling, and humbling of you.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]They were baptized with the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by their tongue speaking.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I don't see speaking in tongues as evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. If it were everyone would speak in tongues. That everyone does not speak in tongues is obvious yet every believer has been baptized with the Holy Spirit (see 1 Corinthians 12:13).

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was important, during the laying of the foundation of the Church that the Jews believe the Gentiles were also included in salvation. [/FONT]
Speaking in tongues by the Gentiles showed the Jews that God granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life (Acts 11:18). [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Tongue speaking was a sign to the Jews. The sign has been given, and tongue speaking has ceased.[/FONT]
See Hebrews 2:4, and Acts 2:6.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Speaking in tongues has served God's purpose, God has given the sign (1Cor 14:21), and God has laid the foundation (Eph 2:20).

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This sounds good, but I don't know of any Scripture that actually says to just believe and you'll receive the Holy Spirit.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]They did not just believe, they were God fearing Gentiles who did right.[/FONT]
Acts 10:2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That is not precisely what is said in Acts 11:14. It says they would hear a message from Peter, a message by which they would be saved. It doesn't say they were saved when they heard the message.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe in believing and obeying, not faith alone, not a dead faith, but a living faith. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yes, the Holy Spirit "fell on all those who heard the word." However, I don't see how this can possibly be the baptism of the Holy Spirit since the purpose of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is salvation, not to speak in tongues.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have already proven with scripture that it is during the baptism of the Spirit that they could speak in tongues.[/FONT]

 

[greatdivide46]

It was important, during the laying of the foundation of the Church that the Jews believe the Gentiles were also included in salvation.
Speaking in tongues by the Gentiles showed the Jews that God granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life (Acts 11:18).
Tongue speaking was a sign to the Jews. The sign has been given, and tongue speaking has ceased. See Hebrews 2:4, and Acts 2:6.
Speaking in tongues has served God's purpose, God has given the sign (1Cor 14:21), and God has laid the foundation (Eph 2:20).

I agree with all you've said here.

They did not just believe, they were God fearing Gentiles who did right.
Acts 10:2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly.

Yes, this is true.

I believe in believing and obeying, not faith alone, not a dead faith, but a living faith.

That's good.

I have already proven with scripture that it is during the baptism of the Spirit that they could speak in tongues.

I found your "proof" unconvincing. Speaking in tongues has nothing to do with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.