What is the “one baptism” mentioned in Ephesians 4:5? (I have an answer, but I would like input).

[Guojing]

What is the “one baptism” mentioned in Ephesians 4:5?

I believe the “one baptism” mentioned in Ephesians 4:5 is Spirit baptism (Which automatically takes place generally when a person receives Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior). I believe Spirit baptism is the New Covenant form of baptism that has replaced water baptism in God's new program. Now, that said, before you throw down a hammer of verses to refute me, please realize that I believe Peter was mistaken about baptism in Acts chapter 2. In addition, in Acts 10-11: I believe that when Peter recalled the Lord's words on Spirit baptism (from Acts of the Apostles 1:5) he did not fully understand yet that water baptism was no more yet and he was just learning for the first time about Spirit baptism. By the time Peter wrote his letters, I believe that is when he knew that Spirit baptism was the one and only true baptism and that water baptism no longer applied. The same is true for Philip. Philip did not know the true baptism of the New Covenant yet when he encountered the Ethiopian enuch. For we have to remember, that it took time for the Jewish apostles to come out from under the Law of Moses. For the book of Acts is not an account of the apostles getting everything correct or right, but it was an account of their lives in growing and learning in the ways of God. For the disciples did not fully understand Christ's death and resurrection before the cross. So the apostles had to grow in their learning. I believe this to be the case with baptism, as well.

Jesus was on Earth to fulfill the promise of a kingdom to the Jews, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew 4:17).

Under that Kingdom, all Jews are supposed to accept Jesus as their King, and then be priests that will spread the message of the King to every nation.

This was prophesied in many OT prophets, some examples would be

Zechariah 8 explains

3 “Thus says the Lord: ‘I will return to Zion, And dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. Jerusalem shall be called the City of Truth, The Mountain of the Lord of hosts, The Holy Mountain.’

Later on, in the chapter in Zechariah 8:20-23 New Living Translation (NLT)

20 “This is what the Lord of Heaven’s Armies says: People from nations and cities around the world will travel to Jerusalem. 21 The people of one city will say to the people of another, ‘Come with us to Jerusalem to ask the Lord to bless us. Let’s worship the Lord of Heaven’s Armies. I’m determined to go.’ 22 Many peoples and powerful nations will come to Jerusalem to seek the Lord of Heaven’s Armies and to ask for his blessing. 23 “This is what the Lord of Heaven’s Armies says: In those days ten men from different nations and languages of the world will clutch at the sleeve of one Jew. And they will say, ‘Please let us walk with you, for we have heard that God is with you.’”

A similar prophecy was given in Micah Chapter 4 (NLT)
In the last days, the mountain of the Lord’s house will be the highest of all—the most important place on earth. It will be raised above the other hills, and people from all over the world will stream there to worship.
2 People from many nations will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of Jacob’s God. There he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths.” For the Lord’s teaching will go out from Zion; his word will go out from Jerusalem.

Finally, the same prophecy was given in the book of Isaiah chapter 2:2

In the last days, the mountain of the Lord’s house will be the highest of all—the most important place on earth. It will be raised above the other hills, and people from all over the world will stream there to worship.

So, based on these 3 accounts, the timeline was supposed to be Jews are to be saved first, once they accept Jesus as the Messiah, then the Kingdom will be established in Jerusalem and the Jews will then be priests spreading that blessings to all the Gentiles.

So in order for Jews to fulfill the role of priests, all of them must be water baptized. This was not a requirement before John and Jesus came on Earth, but because both of them came in preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, water baptism became required as part of the salvation process.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Jewish apostles were not aware of the new Spirit baptism teaching replacing the old one yet. It took time for the apostles to come out from under the Old Law. Remember, in Acts of the Apostles 22:17-26 that Paul was pressured to go through an Old Testament ritual rite that involved an animal sacrifice by his fellow Jewish apostles. So they were still figuring things out. I mean, even Christ's own disciples did not know about His death and resurrection in what they meant until AFTER the cross. Paul rebuked Peter for trying to get the Gentiles to live as the Jews. The book of Acts is not an account of men always perfectly getting everything right or correct. So we have to compare Scripture with Scripture to see what is really going on.

The only places in the Bible that mention baptism with the Holy Spirit are the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.

And the Acts of the Apostles is the only place that mentions when it happened.

So I don't know what you're talking about when you speak of "the new Spirit baptism teaching", because that doesn't mean anything biblically speaking.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit, as identified in Scripture, was the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, which is what Jesus very plainly and explicitly told His disciples before He ascended as recorded in Acts chapter 1. The first time the Apostles talk about it--and indeed the only Apostle who mentions it at all--is Peter who refers to it when talking about the "mini" Pentecost that happened at Cornelius' house.

If you are aware of something else being referred to as "baptism with the Holy Spirit", you can, by all means point it out in Scripture. Except that, of course, it doesn't exist.

What you are doing is attempting to justify a very obviously and plainly wrong theology and interpretation by dismissing the very plain statements made in Scripture. Because that is the only way to get around the fact that Baptism is Baptism.

When I was a young child my parents sent me to a KJV-only independent Baptist private school. Every day, from Kindergarten onward we had a full class dedicated to reading and learning from the Bible. When we got to passages about Baptism in the Bible I remember being concerned, because I hadn't been baptized, and the Bible seemed to make Baptism a pretty important thing. But my teachers would have to tell me that it's actually not that important.

That's something I was able to recognize pretty easily as a child, because even as a child with an archaic translation of the Bible it was actually pretty clear that Baptism was important according to the Bible. But, instead, I trusted my teachers, and over years of theological conditioning, and simply my own ignorance of Scripture, the combination of my school teachers, parents, Sunday school teachers, and pastors got me to a place where I simply didn't think Baptism was important. And those Christians that did think Baptism was important were to be understood as legalistic, grace-denying, believers in good works salvation.

It wasn't until I was finally well into my 20's that I was able to go back and do an honest examination of Scripture, and make an effort to understand the historic understanding of the Christian faith. And that stuff rocked my world, it blew my mind, it shattered dozens (if not hundreds) of preconceptions I had come to subscribe to.

I don't believe that the Bible is always very clear, there are many times and many ways where Scripture is ambiguous, difficult to understand, and where legitimate disagreements over interpretation can occur because of the ambiguity.

On the subject of Baptism this isn't one of those. The Bible is exceptionally clear about Baptism. It is so clear about Baptism that from the time of the New Testament until the extremists of the Radical Reformation there was a unanimous consensus among all Christians about Baptism and it's importance in the life of the Church. And that has nothing to do with church politics being mean and nasty forcing people to believe--it's simply the natural, organic, normative faith of the Church. It is the apostolic faith of the New Testament, always confessed since the beginning.

It requires an active attempt to wholesale disregard what Scripture says to come up with a view that Baptism isn't Baptism, and that Baptism isn't a central component of the life of the Church.

Baptism is how God makes us born again.

That isn't a controversial statement. It is no more shocking or controversial in Christianity to say this than to say that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. It is among the most basic of the basics of Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[ViaCrucis]

To all:

For those who say that water baptism is necessary for salvation:

Jesus never water baptized anyone (John 4:2). If water baptism is essential to salvation, then why did Jesus never water baptize anyone? Seeing Jesus did not water baptize anyone, how did He save anyone? Yet, we know from Scripture that Jesus saves.

Nobody received Christian Baptism until after Jesus ascended. This is like saying that if the architect wanted people to use the elevator, why didn't he use it when he was drafting the blueprints. Can't use the elevator until the building is built. Christ gave us the blueprint, and then built it when the Holy Spirit was poured out on Pentecost. That is why St. Peter--full of the Holy Spirit--told those gathered at Jerusalem to repent and receive Holy Baptism for the forgiveness of their sins.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was born again spiritually long before I was water baptized. I even at one time argued against this very position I hold to now here at Christian forums. I thought the idea was crazy and far out there. Then a fellow brother brought up Acts of the Apostles 19:1-7. I was going to try and use this passage against my friend, but after rereading it more closely, it gave me pause. Then over time I started to do some research on my own on the topic. The more I digged, the more I discovered. Anyways, if you are interested in digging, I provided verses in defense of my position in post #2.

I've been a Christian my entire life. I have no memory of a time when I haven't been a believer. But because of my upbringing, I didn't receive Holy Baptism until I was 17 years old.

Do I think that I wasn't saved before I was baptized? No.
Do I think that I hadn't been born again before I was baptized? No.
Do I think that a Christian who has not yet received Baptism is not saved, or not born again? No.

But none of that changes anything, that God gives us new birth through Baptism.

This is not a problem from the vantage point of historic, orthodox Christian teaching. It only seems to be a problem for those who subscribe to more modernistic absolutist views where things must be understood in firmly either-or categories. Hence those who would argue that if it is possible for a person to be saved without having received Baptism, therefore Baptism must not be necessary; or conversely those who would argue that anyone who isn't baptized simply can't be saved. That simply has never been the way Christians have, historically, saw things, or what has been believed, taught, and confessed.

It's why the Church has never taught that children who die before they are able to be baptized can't be saved. It's why the Church has never taught that those who die without baptism can't be saved. The Christian Church historically even has language to describe these sorts of things: baptism of blood and baptism of desire. It basically goes something like this: A man is on his way to be baptized but is hit by a car and dies instantly, what does that mean? Is he not saved? No, of course not, because had he not tragically lost his life he would have been baptized.

And speaking from a Lutheran POV, we are always quite clear about the fact that God's Means of Grace are Word and Sacrament. The word creates faith (Romans 10:17), so the one who hears and believes the Gospel is saved. But note that we do not say Word or Sacrament, as though these are two things, and it is either one or the other; we say Word and Sacrament, because they are one thing. The Sacraments are God's word, or to use the words St. Augustine uses, they are Verbum Visibilis--Visible Word. God's word connected to and comprehended in and under the material element; thereby Baptism is a Sacrament because it is God's word connected to and comprehended in and under the water. Water without the word isn't Baptism, it's just getting wet; it is water with the word that makes it Baptism, a Holy Sacrament.

This is the same reason why the repentant thief on the cross was saved, because Christ by His word says so, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with Me in Paradise". That is the saving word of Christ, the same word which we preach, the same word in the Sacraments. And that's why baptism saves, because the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God to save us, to save all who believe. For this reason "all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" and if we believe in our heart and confess with our mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and God raised Him from the dead we are saved. Not because our assent to a theological proposition, or our feelings, or our own words somehow can save us--but because God saves us by His grace, through faith which He gives us, and He does this through the Means He has given: Word and Sacrament. Thereby appropriating to us the once and perfect work of Jesus Christ, imputing His righteousness to us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….

 

[Isilwen]

The inspired Bible writers had it all wrong and you've got it all right.

Yep, it's another of Bible Highlighter's I am right and everyone else is wrong including theologians, apostles, and even those well versed in the original Greek and Hebrew!

You nailed his MO and you are only 130 posts into being a member here.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yep, it's another of Bible Highlighter's I am right and everyone else is wrong including theologians, apostles, and even those well versed in the original Greek and Hebrew!

You nailed his MO and you are only 130 posts into being a member here.

You can either contribute to the thread in a positive and loving way with offering your own verses as to why you feel you are correct, or you can attack me as a person and offer only opinion. There are obviously things you believe you are 100% correct on in the faith. So criticizing my beliefs is not nice. I disagree that we have to look and agree with the majority of theologians or a church in order to have a correct doctrine or teaching from God's Word. I don't believe any man can determine what His Word says. God's Word itself is the authority.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

F.F. Bruce: “baptism in the New Testament is always baptism in water unless the context shows it to be something else; that is to say, the word is always to be understood literally unless the context indicates a figurative meaning” (Questions Answered, p. 106).

There is nothing in Ephesians 4:5 that proves baptism in this verse is anything other than a literal immersion in water. To place a figurative meaning on baptism in this verse is due to nothing more than a personal theological bias against the necessity of water baptism.

FF Bruce an excellent scholar, theologian and linguistic expert on the original languages.

 

[Isilwen]

Men do not determine what is true in the Bible. Only God's Word is the final word of authority.

Something we can agree on!

One of the other reasons why I don't bother explaining it because I am not good at explaining myself on things that I believe. I know what I believe and that's it. I don't go explaining it to anyone because they won't understand why I believe what I believe. I have changed my beliefs over the years because of something someone has said. I have yet to do that with you, nor am I very vocal when I do change my belief.

I was basically agreeing with the person that I replied to because he nailed your MO. These threads of yours, even when someone explains what they believe using scriptures always has one result, you disagreeing with them and believing that you are right. I am not the only one who sees this BH. I am not the only one that has called you out on it either.

 

[Mr. M]

Two baptisms, given as types in the OT
1 Corinthians 10:
1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were
under the cloud, all passed through the sea,
2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
3 all ate the same spiritual food,
4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that
followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

The parting of the Red Sea was miraculous, but the sea is a part of nature nonetheless.
You might think that baptizing in the sea will only "get you wet,"
but in Truth, water baptism is miraculous.
For the scripture says repent and be baptized for the remission of sin...
Baptism in a cloud that falls from heaven, now that has to be Spiritual. Not only that,
water baptism was once for all of them. They walked under the cloud the entire time
they were in the wilderness.
Galatians 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[ViaCrucis]

Also, folks were Spirit baptized even without water baptism. We see this with Cornelius and his house (See: Acts of the Apostles 10:44-45), and we see this with the Ephesian believers in Acts of the Apostles 19:1-7. For the Ephesian believers had received John's baptism in water, and yet you would have thought that they would have received the Holy Spirit baptism automatically at some point after Christ was glorified. But they had to learn by the apostle Paul about the Holy Spirit, and they had to learn from the apostle Paul about being baptized into the Holy Spirit. This baptism of the Holy Spirit happened when he laid his hands upon them (Just as Peter and John laid their hands on the new converts in Samaria for them to receive the Holy Ghost).

Granted, I understand you believe the water baptism before was different before the cross because you believe that they did not baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. I can see it from your perspective that they are different even though they both are a baptism in water. But I believe Jesus was telling us to baptize others into the Spirit as a part of the great commission in Matthew 28:13 by our proclaiming the gospel. For Paul said he came not to baptize but to preach the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:17). I believe the Jewish apostles misunderstood God's instruction at the time on baptism, and they had to catch up with God's way of doing things. God let them do things imperfectly for a time, until the time of reformation with Paul giving us the real reality behind water baptism (Which is Spirit baptism).

For it is Spirit baptism that unites us to one body (1 Corinthians 12:13).
I believe we are saved by Spirit baptism because this is a uniting with the Holy Spirit who is the downpayment of our inheritance (See: Ephesians 1:13-14).

For the sake of argument, let's say you're right. And that the Apostles were just really confused, but then later on they got it right.

Would you agree that if the Apostles did teach what you are saying here, that the people they personally taught, and worked with understood and believed what they were saying?

To better clarify, was what you are saying believed in the early Christian communities established by, and cared after by the apostles?

If that is the case, where can we find the things you are saying in the things Christians were writing and believing at the same time and shortly after the Apostles?

Should we expect to find a continuation of apostolic belief and teaching in the first and second centuries after the death of the apostles?

If not, why not?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Isilwen]

I don't see any Bible verses.

Did you even bother to read what I said? I gave an explanation as to why I won't.

Not everyone is good with words. I am one of those that struggle with explaining things to a degree that someone else can understand. That is why you don't see me give big long replies to you.

I also know you well enough to know as you have done it in this thread. You tell people they are wrong even when they give their explanation with scripture. Why would I, someone who has problems explaining myself even bother trying?

This is my last post in this thread. Maybe this time you'll read what I wrote and at the very least say you understand and leave it at that?

 

[bling]

Also, folks were Spirit baptized even without water baptism. We see this with Cornelius and his house (See: Acts of the Apostles 10:44-45), and we see this with the Ephesian believers in Acts of the Apostles 19:1-7. For the Ephesian believers had received John's baptism in water, and yet you would have thought that they would have received the Holy Spirit baptism automatically at some point after Christ was glorified. But they had to learn by the apostle Paul about the Holy Spirit, and they had to learn from the apostle Paul about being baptized into the Holy Spirit. This baptism of the Holy Spirit happened when he laid his hands upon them (Just as Peter and John laid their hands on the new converts in Samaria for them to receive the Holy Ghost).

Granted, I understand you believe the water baptism before was different before the cross because you believe that they did not baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. I can see it from your perspective that they are different even though they both are a baptism in water. But I believe Jesus was telling us to baptize others into the Spirit as a part of the great commission in Matthew 28:13 by our proclaiming the gospel. For Paul said he came not to baptize but to preach the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:17). I believe the Jewish apostles misunderstood God's instruction at the time on baptism, and they had to catch up with God's way of doing things. God let them do things imperfectly for a time, until the time of reformation with Paul giving us the real reality behind water baptism (Which is Spirit baptism).

For it is Spirit baptism that unites us to one body (1 Corinthians 12:13).
I believe we are saved by Spirit baptism because this is a uniting with the Holy Spirit who is the downpayment of our inheritance (See: Ephesians 1:13-14).

New Christians may not tap into everything that is available to them to help them experience the transformation:

I do not know of any Christian group, who believe the water itself saves you, since all believe it is God who saves and God is not limited by water.

Water baptism is not a “requirement” for salvation since God does the saving, but is something Christians get to do in order to help them and others.

I know that I needed everything God could provide to assure me of my conversion, both outwardly and mentally. God wants you to physically feel the experience of what is going on Spiritually.

You need to add to your conversion a definite time place and physical experience, which God has provided for you.

Adult believers water immersion is to be a physical outward representation of what had or is happening spiritually in the person being baptized. It is mainly to help the individual being baptized to better grasp what is going on, but it can “witness” to others observing the baptism. It has the elements of going down under the water (burying the old man), placing your dependence in another; the person baptizing you (surrendering your life to God), being washed (having your sins washed away), rising out of the water (rising from the old dead body), and stepping forth out onto the earth (a new person). The person is walking out into the hugs of his new family. It is also a sign of your humility, since it is a humbling act anyone can simple allow someone to do to them (so not a work) and since humility has been shown in the accept of charity (God’s free gift of undeserving forgiveness) it should just support and add to the memory of that acceptance. To refuse Christian water baptism when it is readily available might mean you are not ready to handle other responsibility like having the indwelling Holy Spirit and you are hurting yourself.

I would say there are lots more than just the two types of “baptism”:

John’s baptism

Christian baptism

Holy Spirit baptism

Baptism of fire

Baptism of the Jews going through the Red Sea.

Baptism of Noah and family and the earth in the flood.

Jewish cleansings

And maybe even more.

A baptism of the Holy Spirit seems to be a very unique event since Peter when he sees it happen to Cornelius and his house hold has to go back years to the

Acts 10: 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

Acts 11: 15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

Peter in his explanation to the Jerusalem Jews had to go back years to the beginning to get a similar “Holy Spirit” baptism, which would mean it was unique.

We know followers before Pentecost had a portion of the Spirit John 20:22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit

But Christ said specifically: John 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

After Pentecost there is the indwelling portion of the Holy Spirit.

Christian water baptism as seen in scripture seems to fit the “born again” scenario Christ was talking about since it: Is always adult (there are examples that “might include infants” but nothing definite, all the others are adult believers) water immersion to be a physical outward representation of what had or is happening spiritually in the person being baptized. It is mainly to help the individual being baptized to better grasp what is going on, but it can “witness” to others observing the baptism. It has the elements of going down under the water (burying the old man), placing your dependence in another; the person baptizing you (surrendering your life to God), being washed (having your sins washed away), rising out of the water (rising from the old dead body), and stepping forth out onto the earth (a new person). The person is walking out into the hugs of his new family. It is also a sign of your humility, since it is a humbling act anyone can simple allow someone to do it to them (so not a work) and since humility has been shown in the accept of charity (God’s free gift of undeserving forgiveness) it should just support and add to the memory of that acceptance. To refuse Christian water baptism when it is readily available might mean you are not ready to handle other responsibility like having the indwelling Holy Spirit and you are hurting yourself.

Though it's worth pointing out what may be obvious and that's that it's a very clear case that they had received John's baptism, not Christian baptism. Christian baptism, which the text describes as being "in the name of the Lord Jesus" was administered to them. It's not a re-baptism, but their first baptism, the first time they received that Baptism which until Pentecost had never been done. One who has been baptized into Christ is always baptized into Christ.

Holy Spirit Baptism: There appears to be different “portions/measures” of the Holy Spirit: Christ had a huge continuous portion and could do anything and give the miraculous portion of the Spirit to others, the apostles had a large portion, but it may have come and left them and they could lay hands on people giving them a miraculous portion of the Spirit, some first century Christians had a miraculous portion of the Holy Spirit for at least some time period. All Christians seem to have the indwelling portion of the Holy Spirit (this is the most important portion). It appears the earliest Christians did not fully comprehend the power and mission of the indwelling portion of the Holy Spirit and to begin with refer to the Holy Spirit only when outwardly visible as they were experiencing themselves. As the Church matures they came to a greater understanding of the gentile’s position, the second coming, the new covenant, and the indwelling portion of the Spirit.

For a better understanding of Holy Spirit baptism, look what Peter says in Acts 11: 15"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"

And the description in Acts 10: 44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

This type baptism, was not the normal since Peter had to remember way back to get a similar occurrence. This type of Baptism Peter describes as Holy Spirit Baptism and fitting John’s prophecy. If this had been the norm than there would be no reason to think back or reference it for those in Jerusalem. They were also water baptized by Peter so both happened to them at this time and it was not either/or.

John’s baptism and teaching did not include the indwelling Holy Spirit, since that was not available to the masses until Pentecost and Acts 2:38. The miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit could come with Holy Spirit baptism that occurred Acts 2, 4 and 10, or with the laying on of the apostles’ hands or it can come whenever the Spirit needs it to come (I do not have a problem with this). Also look at Acts 8. Philip has outward miraculous power from the Holy Spirit and is preaching truth or the Spirit would not be with him. The Bible says the people believe and were baptized (water) so I believe what the Bible says. Acts 8: 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. The apostles are needed to provide outward miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of their hands unless the Holy Spirit comes down directly like in Acts 2, 4 or 10. The Christian at this time and Luke does not edit or comment on their thinking, express the Holy Spirit coming just one way and that is with outward miraculous signs. The Holy Spirit is also coming to all saved Christians in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit that is not seen by others readily through miracles. This “laying on of hands” to receive the outward miraculous portion of the Holy Spirit is never revered to as “baptism” the only “baptism” of the Holy Spirit is found in Acts, 2, 4 and 10. When Peter talks about Cornelius to the Jews in Jerusalem in Acts 11 being “baptized” with the Holy Spirit, he has to reach back to the begin of the Church in Acts 2 and possible Acts 4 to give a similar example of Holy Spirit baptism, suggesting it was not the norm. If “baptism” of the Holy Spirit was happening all the time and every time then there would be no need for Peter to remember back to the beginning.


Conjunctions in the Greek: Between Acts 19 verse 5 and 6 there is a conjunction (and) which means these are two separate acts and not the same act being expressed two separate ways. In verse 5 they are baptized (this would mean Christian water baptism) and in verse 6 Paul is laying hands on them so they can receive a miraculous portion of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

…

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Did you even bother to read what I said? I gave an explanation as to why I won't.

Not everyone is good with words. I am one of those that struggle with explaining things to a degree that someone else can understand. That is why you don't see me give big long replies to you.

I also know you well enough to know as you have done it in this thread. You tell people they are wrong even when they give their explanation with scripture. Why would I, someone who has problems explaining myself even bother trying?

This is my last post in this thread. Maybe this time you'll read what I wrote and at the very least say you understand and leave it at that?

I read what you wrote. I just don't agree with it and I am not going to indulge the discussion because it is off topic to this thread. The thread topic is discussing what you believe the one baptism is with Scripture. Does the thread topic say: “Discuss & Criticize Bible Highlighter's Modus Operandi”? Surely not. So you are not only being unkind, but you are off topic, and being disruptive.