Baptism....

[Briguy]

Hi Mef, I think I need to clarify just a little bit more. The placement of a soul into the "church" (Holy Spirit baptism) happens when someone becomes a believer. Water baptism happens when that same person decides to "show", by way of and outward "sign", the Holy Spirit Baptism that has happened already. Here is the thing that puts your view in a tough situation. We all agree that the Holy Spirit must live in the believer for entrnace into Heaven. If the Holy spirit does not enter the person until water Baptism occurs the person is left without salvation and left without all the holy Spirit has for that person. If the persion has what you call a "Baptism of desire" then they have the Holy Spirit from when they believed, not from the moment of water baptism, which is what I am saying. Oh by the way, I am only addressing adults that come to faith, not infants as that is a different subject. It seems hard for me to understand how the "doctrine" is that the Holy spirit enters the person at water Baptism but then the person can have the Holy spirit without water Baptism. Meaning in a nut shell that there is more then one baptism as I have argued. Well, I guess I will let you respond to that.

In Christ,
Brian

[thessalonian]

Brian,

You are very good at coming up with your own "best" interpretation and trying to convince others of it. You evidently are a superior exegete over 2000 years of exegetes and tradition as to what the scriptures mean. You trust in your own understanding. Too bad the scriptures say otherwise. It is you that is the pillar and support of the truth. Again this is sad. There is little point countering your arguements. The Catholic explanations of these matters fit the scriptures like a glove, but of course you in your great wisdom see otherwise. Evidently God only wanted a few in history to come to knowledge of the truth becuase you are one of the few that I know who think this way and historically it is not at all a view of Christianity that has any validity. As I have said before you keep men away from Christ by promoting your own personal views and this is to be condemned. You divide Christianity and lead men away with your errors and the confusion you bring in to the fold. We have been through the debates before, you and I, and I see no purpose at this time. I will leave that to others if they choose.

Edited October 26, 2006 by thessalonian

[jswranch]

Thess,
I ask you to take a break and a deep breath from speaking to Brian for a few days. This is a discussion of a topic. Some of your comments on how he comes to conclusions are non-constructive. I value your knowledge and opinion greatly, but please take a breather and come back.

[jswranch]

Brian,
We just had a new baby, so I am slow to respond (Julie Nicole W. 7lb 6oz, born so fast we had to call 911)

[i]There is certainly a baptism of repentance and a believer water Baptism that are different, in a way. My argument says that what we see in Acts 2:38 is more on the lines with John'a Baptism then with the water baptisms that occurred later in Acts as the church grew and expanded to the Gentiles.[/i]

I disagree strongly. They sound the same in some aspects but are different (see Acts 18:25). Apostles required those who had the baptism of John to be rebaptized, as I mentioned before. They have different effects.

[i]My "proof" above was showing how the water was important as a "sign" that the repentance was real, for those Baptized by John and for those Peter talked about in Acts 2.[/i]

John's baptism was a sign. Peter's (Trinitarian) was not.

[i]Remember a couple things. Water Baptism as a process did not change. [/i]

Sure it does. Jn 3:5... It is the prescribed manner in which we are born again.

[i]The fact that people got dunked in water as a "sign" was the same for John's Baptism and later baptisms.[/i]

I disagree. Please back this up. I can and have showed scripture says they are different. Really, the Baptism of Jesus completes and fullfills the baptism of John. That wich happens before the Gospel is a forshadowing of something greater and bigger to come.

[i]Water Baptism that is. In fact, to clarify, I am only dealing with water Baptism. There is a Baptism done by the Holy Spirit that is not a water Baptism.[/i]

You are losing me here by the term 'Water Baptism.' Since you and I have confusion over Baptism of John and Baptism of Jesus, I ask you state accordingly. To further complicate the issue, the Baptism of Jesus, which is by water(1), can occur by a (2) Baptism of Blood or a (3) Baptism of desire.


[i]We may need to address that soon, but not now. [/i]

Agreed


[i]Water baptism was the same in process but what the "sign" was showing by it, did change. It has always been a way to show the washing away of sins in a tangible way. The water baptisms are different yet hold a commonness as well. The Baptism in Acts 2 was unto repentance which is why Peter said Repent. Even by the time the Ethiopian is baptized in Chapt. 8 he is told he can quailfy for water baptism by believing. There was a shift as to what water baptism showed because there was not a Holy Spirit driven "church" when John the Baptist was around but there was as Acts progressed. [/i]


So you are saying the Baptism God wants us to have changed from Acts 2-Acts8? I dont buy it. The Baptism of Peter in Acts 2 was:
1. of Jesus (Trinitarian)
2. different than the one of John, which is lacking (Acts 19:2-6)
3. was with water
4. Was the same as the one in Acts 8
5. Is the same we practice today
6. Is the baptims Jesus spoke of in Jn3:5
7. Is formulated by being done "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" just as commanded by Jesus in Mt28:19.
8. Is a pathway by which we receive salvation Mk 16:16, 1Pet3:21
9. Initiates miracles and mighty deeds Acts 8:13.
10. Causes us to be born into new life Rom 6:4, and to be freed from sin vs22.
11. Sanctifies and Justifies with its washing 1Cor 6:11.
12. Causes us to become a temple of the HS 1Cor6:19.
... and many more

[quote name='Briguy' post='1100953' date='Oct 25 2006, 02:46 PM']
On Ephesians 4. It makes perfect sense when you look at it with other scripture that clears up the meaning. The Holy Spirit baptism is not some experience that the pentecostals say it is.
It is a simple act by the Holy Spirit of placing us into Christ's "Church". The Baptism in Ephesians and 1Cor. below is the Holy Spirit baptizing the believer into the "church" . As I said the Holy Spirit places us into the "church" and gives us certain gifts to use to build the "church" up.
[/quote]
Agreed.

[quote name='Briguy' post='1100953' date='Oct 25 2006, 02:46 PM']
This is not water Baptism.
[/quote]
WHOA. Disagree. There is one baptism God has given us, which requires water

[quote name='Briguy' post='1100953' date='Oct 25 2006, 02:46 PM']
Remember that baptism is an English word. The Greek word that is translated "Baptism" in English means "immerse" and is translated in several ways throughout the New Testament. When you immerse something it can be said, without any stretch, that you place that thing into something else. That is the picture in the verses below. Sorry to bring this up now but the question was out there and I did not want to leave it hanging.
[/quote]
Yes you should have brought this up earlier:) It is a major dividing point. You may have brought us some material on the English tongue, but this does not change the understanding of meaning. As a matter of fact, no one for the first few thousand years of Christianity ever taught or thought like this. They spoke Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, not English.

[quote name='Briguy' post='1100953' date='Oct 25 2006, 02:46 PM']
Read the verses carefully and I think you will see what I am saying.
Eph. 4:3-7, 1 Cor 12:11-13....
[/quote]
(do me a favor, please leave out the footnote letters in scripture quotes)

I have read these verses twice. I have seen nothing to which proves your conclusion of a non-water baptism. I am also having trouble finding anything to support your case. Here is what I do find:
Eph4 2-3: Importance of unity. Paul then describes some details of this unity.
4. We are of one church (body) coming from the same spirit (HS)
5-7. This stems from the one baptsim. It comes from Jesus. He gives us such gifts

I assume you were trying to prove a point by using CAPS in verse 7. I see how it talks about Jesus ascending from the earth. I do not see how this in any way links to a concept that baptsim does not require water, or that Jesus was once immersed but is no longer... etc.

[Nothing here about baptism, 'immersion' or 'washing' not being with water.]

1Cor12:11-13
I do not see how this is applicable. Christ's body (the church) is one, not many. We are baptized into it. This baptism is of the one HS. However, I find your conclusion that the Baptism of Christ which brings us into his church, is not by spirit alone, but occurs after/with water as seen in Mt3:16 and Jn3:5.


[quote name='Briguy' post='1101390' date='Oct 26 2006, 07:35 AM']
Hi Mef, I think I need to clarify just a little bit more. The placement of a soul into the "church" (Holy Spirit baptism) happens when someone becomes a believer. Water baptism happens when that same person decides to "show", by way of and outward "sign", the Holy Spirit Baptism that has happened already.
[/quote]
I have searched the bible and am yet to find a discussion of Holy Spirit Baptism. I know there is one baptism. I am not sure it exists. I know the Holy Spirit is involved in Baptism. I know Baptism gets one into the Church. I know Baptism places the Holy Spirit within us to dwel in our hearts... etc.

However, I deny there is a Baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is different from the Baptism of Jesus (Trinitarian) which is designed to be with water.


[quote]Here is the thing that puts your view in a tough situation. We all agree that the Holy Spirit must live in the believer for entrnace into Heaven. If the Holy spirit does not enter the person until water Baptism occurs the person is left without salvation and left without all the holy Spirit has for that person. If the persion has what you call a "Baptism of desire" then they have the Holy Spirit from when they believed, not from the moment of water baptism, which is what I am saying.[/quote]
I think your version of Baptism places you in a tough situation when compared to scripture : :

But, I would like to discuss baptism of desire.... Later. We understand Baptism, by way of water, is the norm God has given us by which the HS comes to live in us, along with many other details. Baptism of Desire or by Blood exists, but is the exception for those ignorant or do not have the opportunity. Let us learn and discuss the norm (MK 16:16, Jn3:5) before we get to the exceptions (LK23:43, MK10:38).

[quote]Infant baptism[/quote]
Like the above, we need to work the issue of baptism in the following order:
1. Norm of Baptism (water)
2. Exception (blood, desire)
3. Infant (to be raised in the faith)

Lets keep from #2-3 until we agree on #1.

[thessalonian]

JS,

Have your debate if you like. I have debated brian for a long time and it is ineffective.

[Briguy]

Gerald, I know you think I am some kind of island but really I am not. If you would look into the core beliefs of non-denomination churches, you would see that I am just sharing those beliefs here. Granted, the core belief would say that a believer should be baptized as a act of obedience but I am not convinced of that one point. However, the idea of the Holy Spirit baptizing us into the "church" is preached in churches all over the world. There is a name of the organization my church belongs to, with hundreds of other churches, but the nam escapes me. Anyway, Take care and sorry I upset you with my posts. I want you to know that i am sincere with what I post. I really do believe what I say is what God hastaught us in scripture.

jswranch, First of all congratulations on the birth of your daughter!!
Your life will never be the same. If you already have a another daughter you know what I mean. I have two and they are an incredible blessing. My son is also.

There was a lot in your post and i appreciate the time you spent in the response. I will only be able to take on one thing now and will be back to tackle more later. The reason I believe that Peter was talking about John's type of baptism in Acts 2 is because there really was no "Church" to be Baptized into. This was right after the Holy Spirit came upon the people. Things were just starting. There was no history of baptism, ecept for john's baptism. The winds of change were in the air and this was the beginning of a shift but Peter used John's words and said "Repent". and again the words "Repent and be Baptized" came after a direct question from the "Men of Isreal" that Peter was addressing. Those men of Isreal would have been well aware what John's Baptism was and meant but no written intruction or preached intruction on "believer baptism" had been done yet. Peter would have been saying something to a group of people that would have had no clue what he was talking about. This was the beginning of the church, with no NT writings even thought about yet. All logic points to what I am saying. As I said before, this is not that big of a deal as I think it helps the cause for infant baptism. If I am not right then you must show another way that peter menat what he said, that takes into consideration the audience, what they knew, and the words peter chose to use. Basically you have just used Catholic Church doctrine to show what Peter "must" have meant. More later..... Thanks for the good, fun debate. Oh, btw, the Capitalization in that verse 7 was in the NASB, I did not do it. By your comment I assume it is not capitalized in other translations. I will discuss HS Baptism next.

In Christ, who saves the lost,
Brian

[Winchester]

I'm puzzled why there wouldn't be a Church. At the beginning, the Church was very small, but it did indeed exist. The Apostles were the earliest members of Christ's church.

[jswranch]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1102293' date='Oct 27 2006, 08:25 AM']
I'm puzzled why there wouldn't be a Church. At the beginning, the Church was very small, but it did indeed exist. The Apostles were the earliest members of Christ's church.
[/quote]
There is a debate on when exactly Christ instituted the Chruch.

[thessalonian]

[quote]Take care and sorry I upset you with my posts[/quote]

Acutally no brian, I am not. [mod]unkind generalization of other Christian church groups -777[/mod] It makes me sad that you diminish the great sacrament of baptism. I am sad for you and for those whom you deceive, but I am not in the least angry or upset as you think I am.

As for non-denoms, some might believe as you do (though I don't think they see water baptism as you do). They are as much a mixed bag as you and Euty and Budge among many others. Don't try to paint them all in the same picutre. Further non-denominationalism was an outgrowth of the Campbelites and Church of Christ in the 60's. It doesn't have much history. Interestingly enough the Campbelites and Church of Christ have a very Catholic view of the sacraments. But there are as many "biblical" views' as there are non-denomoninational denominations it seems. That your "not convinced" has little to do with what the truth is.

There are many sincere people in this world. If sincerity were what salvation depended on then Jesus would be wrong when he said "the truth shall set you free". We know better don't we Brian. We also know that truth is not relative so that's not a good out for those who are sincere either.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Seven77

[jswranch]

Brian,
Please hold off on discussing 'baptism of the holy spirit' for now. Lets even stop discussing baptism. Let us discuss the origen of the Church. Earlier you said baptism brings people into the church (body of Christ). Then you said the water baptism Peter speaks of in Acts 2:38 does not specifically bring one into the body of christ (bride of Christ, the church).

1. If the church was not started by Acts 2, when was Christ's Church, his body and bride, instituted?


2. In Acts 2, we see in verse 41 that after accepting the message and Baptism, 3,000 souls were added to the number of Christians.

What were they added to? Some proto-church? Some folks gathering for the start of Jesus marrying himself in a one flesh union to his people?

I say the church started in Jn19:30 when Jesus initiated his kingdom when he consumated the relationship in the total and complete selfgiving of his body, blood, soul, and divinity.

[Briguy]

jswranch, that is fair enough place to continue with. When I said above that there was no "church" to be baptized in to I really did not mean that the way it sounded. I was just trying to emphasize that the Holy Spirit instituted "church" was brand new. The "church" that the Holy Spirit Baptizes (places) the believer into started at Pentecost, with the giving of the "gifts". The spiritual gifts were given to profit the "church" as a whole, not individuals. (1 cor. 12:7) If the Holy Spirit is who gives gifts to the believers and who places the believer in the "church" and who indwells the believer, it makes sense that the "church" as discussed by Paul, began at pentecost, with the grand entry of the Holy Spirit upon the people. The Holy Sirit came in a new way and the "church" with Christ as the head and the believers as the "body", was born. So, I apologize for making it seem like there was no church when Peter said "Repent", because there was a "church" but it had just begun. Baptism, other then John's was not known to the "men of Isreal" that Peter was addressing. Teachings on Baptism would have just been beginning. The 3000 souls were added that day, as they are today, by God's election. We can discuss what I mean by election on a different thread.

In Christ,
Brian

[jswranch]

Ok, I feel we can move back to baptism now that we have the church thing worked out. You think the church started at pentacost, I think it started at the crucifiction.

Anyway:
[quote]Baptism, other then John's was not known to the "men of Isreal" that Peter was addressing.[/quote]
Ok. I can believe this, but so what? The knowledge level of the 'men of Israel' has no impact on the content of the Baptism Peter called them to undergo. Their knowledge level is a non-issue when describing this Baptism.

[quote]Teachings on Baptism would have just been beginning. [/quote]
I could not disagree more. 'Baptism' was mentioned atleast +40 plus time in the gospels. The Baptism of Christ I refer to was initiated long before Acts 2.

I propose we do a bible study on all the references to Baptism in the Gospels. We need to study what jesus brought us before we turn to the other inerrant commentary in scriptures (his disciples).

Do you accept? We can just break down each and every verse in the Gospels on the topic.

[Briguy]

jswranch, your name is John, right? I didn't want to address you by name and be wrong. I accept the study on baptism verse by verse. Perhaps we may both learn a couple things from this. Just a quick response to what you said above. When I said teachings on Baptism had just begun, I again, did not make myself clear. In fact, I didn't explain what I meant at all so your comment was very much true. Sorry about not getting what is in my head, onto my post. I blame it on my fingers
What I meant to say was that what we now call "Believer Baptism" would not have been discussed by the time Peter addressed the "Men of Isreal" in Acts 2. Peter's message to the people of Isreal was on the same day that the Holy Spirit came upon the people in the upper room. There was no time between that event and Peter talking to that group of unbelievers. The people of Isreal that Peter addressed were not believers. They would not have been around Peter and the Apostles to have learned anything from them. In the Bible the audience that things are said to is very very important. Some things are just not meant for us. They are meant for us to learn from but not menat for us. "Tongues" as a "gift of the Spirit" is not a gift that is available today. I can prove that from scripture. It is still something we learn from and should know about even though it does not apply to the "church" in 2006. Peter's audience must be considered when discussing what he meant by the Repent and be Baptized. I contend that peter would meet the people where they were at, not give non-believers meat before theu had drank any milk. We will probably get into this more but this one point is in my head so I want to make it. After Peter says repent .... He then tells them to "save yourself from this perverse generation" Can we now save ourselves? doesn't Jesus do the saving? The Baptism was for that generation that killed Jesus and had become God's enemy. As the people in Ninevah "saved themselves" by putting on sackcloth and ashes, the people of that perverse generation could also by an act of repentance, that is having repentent hearts and the outward sign of baptism (like the sign of sackcloth and ashes).

OK, onto the baptism study. I'll let you find the earliest reference and post it. Thanks for your great attitude and providing a friendly debating enviroment.

In Christ,
Brian

btw, How is your baby daughter? you getting any sleep?

[jswranch]

[quote name='Briguy' post='1100701' date='Oct 25 2006, 06:50 AM']Gearald, just [b]wanted to clarify something[/b]..[/quote]
[quote name='Briguy' post='1100701' date='Oct 25 2006, 06:50 AM'] Maybe we do [b]need to clarify[/b] a little.[/quote]
[quote name='Briguy' post='1104844' date='Oct 30 2006, 07:51 AM']When I said above that there was no "church" to be baptized in to [b]I really did not mean that the way it sounded[/b].[/quote]
[quote name='Briguy' post='1105998' date='Oct 31 2006, 07:48 AM']When I said teachings on Baptism had just begun, [b]I again, did not make myself clear[/b].[/quote]
Just poking fun! I will get to the rest later.


Just curious, how many forms, variations, and types of baptism do you see in the bible? So far, I have seen you list:

water baptism
baptism of the HS
believers baptism

Edited October 31, 2006 by jswranch

[Briguy]

Hey, I deserve for you to poke fun at me for the way I keep having to back track. If this was a judged debate I would be getting creamed right now just on the basis of having to keep clarifying what I mean to say Though content of argument is well on my side I would still be behind.

I have to really think about Baptism to come up with a list of different ones because they are all tied together. Seperate yet still linked. John's Baptism transitioned into a believer Baptism so are they the same? or different? When a child grows up it is still the same person, yet different. As for Holy Spirit baptism, if you remember I said that the word in greek for Baptism has various meanings in the new testement. The word has several forms and is commly translated Baptism, Baptized, Baptist, but also it is translated immerse, dip, immersed, and a couple others that are escaping me. In fact, I should scan in a page I have from a book that has every use of the Greek word and how many times the Greek forms of Baptizmo (not even sure if that is the Greek spelling) are translated into the different words. It is pretty eye opening when you see it layed out like that. Anyway what I call Holy Spirit Baptism is what I said before was the Holy Spirit placing a person into the "body of Christ". So it is an act of the Holy Spirit, not a tangible act of man, like water Baptism.

I'll wait for your next post.

In Christ,
Brian