What place does baptism have in Biblical salvation?

OK ladies and gentleman, I am posting this for discussion. Time to get out our Bibles and revisit this very important topic. I think we can all agree that when we read the book of Acts, the goal is to baptize someone in water as soon as they repent and turn to Christ in faith. But what place does it have in salvation?I found an extremely well thought out defense of the point of view that says that Baptism is essential for salvation. They reject the term "baptismal regeneration" and say that salvation happens "in" the water, not "by" the water. I would bet that many of you have never heard it put quite this way.(BTW, this guy rejects the Alexandrian stream, but isn't exclusively KJV - I knew that would come up, so there it is)OK, here's the link:http://www.pfrs.org/baptism/baptism01.htmlLet's talk.RT

Lahry,The immersion or immersed does not always mean in water, beloved.How did Jesus have his disciples baptize? After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.[John 3:22]When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)[John 4:1,2]Sounds like in water to me.What about this one?Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.[Acts 2:38]Obviously from this Scripture we must see that baptism in water and the gift of the Holy Ghost (Spirit baptism) are two different things. Water baptism here says "for the remission of sins." What did the early apostolic church teach? Listen to Justin Martyr (around A.D. 150):"Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father, ... the name of Jesus Christ, ... and in the name of the Holy Ghost..." Interesting. Baptism for the remission of sins? Scripture...Early Church...do we know more today than they did then?OK, let's hear all of your responses. :-D RT

Neilgin1,isnt that a shame, according to these folks, anybody who thinks that Jesus gives them the power to heal is deluded.I am not a cessationist. But just because someone is doesn't make them wrong about everything. I wonder how much you are wrong about right now? I'm sure you still must have something right in your theology. Truth is truth.BTW, Warner isn't anti-miracles and healing the sick. He believes in praying for the sick. He just believe the "gifts" ceased. He separates the two. How do I know? I asked. Key word in your quote, "gifts."RT

dorcas,A few things come to mind. First, John 15:3 3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you...'First, this is pre-Calvary so you picked a tricky one, since the Holy Ghost was not yet poured out on all flesh at this time. And if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. So here they were clean, but they were also baptized. And they had "acted" on the word spoken up to that point. So this one isn't helpful in this particular position. Same with the theif on the cross.(rather than believing into the spirit of John's baptism)"Believing into the spirit of John's baptism" is a new concept. Maybe I don't get you, but this is not found anywhere in Scripture. All throughout the gospels and the book of Acts, people were baptized by being submerged in water. (See John the baptist; Jesus - Jn. 4:1,2; the Ethiopian eunuch) It is this way that we tangibly make a "profession" along with our "confession" of faith in Christ and thereby are dead and buried with Him and our life is hidden with Him in God. Water doesn't save. Obedience to the gospel does.Then, speaking of those who believed in Acts 2, how can it be possible to believe, but not have sins forgiven at the moment of faithIs faith, faith if it isn't acted upon?Here I'd like to ask yet another question. Under the Old Covenant which was still technically operational during Jesus's earthly ministry, as the system of sacrifices was still in operation (for the forgiveness of sins and other offerings, I believe), would water baptism have been repeated again and again for those who had responded early to John's call to repentance, supposing these dear ones sinned again? Is not this the BIG difference between the outward washing by baptism which remains an Old Covenant concept with a New Covenant meaning, and, 'washing by the word' which gets inside one's skull, as does the washing in the blood of the Lamb, both of which can be applied effectually only by the Holy Spirit?Of course regeneration is by the Holy Spirit. But when can a person qualify for receiving the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 says: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."[Acts 2:38]OK, let me be clear now. Water doesn't save. Jesus saves. The reason I am revisiting this is because I am revising Acts 2:38 and other such Scriptures. At times I may argue a probable position. This doesn't mean I have espoused it. We must be humble and recognize that truth is truth whether WE espouse it or not. We should all just want the Truth.I find it interesting that the early church seems to teach baptism as THE means of obeying the gospel. (Different than baptismal regeneration or sacrimental baptism where it is believed that baptism saves) Again, obedience is the issue here.One more note. Most scriptures don't have all of the conditions for salvation listed, but assume the other concepts such as: 1) Repent, 2) Believe (faith), 3) Baptism (?), 4) Receive the Holy Ghost (essential - see Rom. 8:9)Lets keep this going.RT

I think we need to know a bit about the historical practice of baptism in order to understand its significance in John's preaching. Here is a quote from the Revell Bible Dictionary: "Like many ancient peoples, Jewish people practiced ceremonial washings. Non-Jews who were converted to Judaism would immerse themselves in water (a once-for-all ceremonial washing), probably under the supervision of a religious expert. …Repenting or turning from a wrong way of living to a right way of living …when a non-Jew decided to obey the teachings of Israel's God. **In those days, the only ones who were required to be baptized where the pagans who converted to Judaism. When John the Baptist told the Jews that they needed to repent and be baptized, he was essentially treating them as pagans. He was challenging their entire view of salvation. That would have been very offensive to them. I believe that if John the Baptist were to come into our churches today, he'd preach the same message. And it would be equally offensive to be told to repent and be baptized. It would be like saying that we Christians are no better than pagans; it would be a challenge to our entire view of salvation. I also believe that we have been putting too much trust in baptism. It has become like an insurance policy - guaranteeing our entrance to heaven - whether it is said outright, or not. The heart is trusting in baptism. Like the bronze snake on the pole, it loses its original symbolic meaning, and becomes an object of trust (idol). I have been baptized both ways, so I am acceptable to just about any Christian denomination. However, in my heart, I consider all my past baptisms, or any other aspects of my religious heritage as "rubbish" Phil 3:8 "But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. ...compared to the surpassing greatness of KNOWING Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own..... " Diane

I think we need to know a bit about the historical practice of baptism in order to understand its significance in John's preachingThere is an article here at Sermonindex that deals with the origins of Christian Baptism.You cannot do with water what only the blood can do. Baptism in water cannot take away sins. It is an essential act of obedience that those who truly pass from death to life will desire to do as they have learned it is the Father's will. It is the 'milk' of the commandments that the newly regenerated can perform. It is an 'ordinance' of the New Testament church. The question invariably comes about this point from the article:Baptism was the point where the change of life occurred. And, it was the means of procuring freedom from past sin, both its guilt and power. “John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for (eis – “unto”) the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4). The result of baptism was the remission of sins. This statement seems to suggest that men were regenerated under the Old Covenant. This is false. Regeneration is not possible without the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. The New Testament dispensation was characterized by this 'promise' and it is Christ in you the hope of glory. We must use caution here not to overstate what was happening under the Old Covenant. Just as this author has tried to emphasize baptism for remission of sins another author could have emphasized faith or the blood or grace, etc.. The baptism of Jesus, with the immediate descent of the Spirit, was the clear indication of what it would soon mean to be baptized into Christ. That is, water baptism would provide more than only the “remission of sins.” The act of water baptism was an outward act of repentance, faith, and obedience. But, something else that was invisible (the baptism in the Holy Spirit) was illustrated by a visible form for all to see. The descent of the dove upon Jesus at His baptism in water was the sign meant to forever link the promised invisible “baptism in the Spirit” with visible water baptism. This sign pointed to a time when those being baptized in water for the remission of sins would also immediately receive the invisible baptism in the Spirit. This is obvious from a comparison between baptism before and after the passion of Christ.This is a natural deduction that does not square with all the accounts of water baptism in Acts. Water is in no wise essential to the receiving of the Holy Spirit. For example:While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:44-48)According to the article the person must have been washed in water and then renewed in the Spirit in that order. What are we to make of Acts 10? BTW I am baptistic, repentance, and pentecostal in terms of doctrine. If you read through the article of philologos on propitiation and the red heifer you will find that the Holy Spirit appropriates the sacrifice at regeneration. When we turn to Christ in saving faith in cooperation with the Holy Spirit the blood is applied to us by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit regenerates or if I might so say unites us to Christ as one Spirit. The water of a baptismal tank or river or lake is merely the means of symbolizing in public expression of obedience what has happened in the unseen. Why was Christ baptised? He answered that question; "But Jesus answered and said to him, 'Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.' Then he allowed Him." Christ's 'meat' was to do the will of Him that had sent Him. Not just pick and chose- but every jot of the will of God. He hungered and thirsted for righteousness as a matter of course. Doing the will of the Father as His 'meat' was evidence of Divine Nature. We as partakers of the Divine Nature also have an appetite to do the will of Him that saved us. If we have passed from death unto life we have the nature of God through the Holy Spirit and will desire to straitway do the will of our heavenly father. Some who are newborn babes in Christ are on the milk and other's who have exercised their senses to discern good and evil are on strong meat. Some if I might so say walk close to God in such a way as to eat of the hidden manna. Others turn to their own vomit again in apostacy. Why? It was their meat. God Bless,-Robert

dorcas,As to Acts 19, it is clear that John's baptism was to prepare the way of the Lord, but it wasn't the full way of the Lord. When Jesus came, he baptized through his disciples (Jn. 4). This was baptism of repentance and faith in Himself. But apparently these men weren't baptized into Christ Himself as the apostles were. They were still looking for the one coming after John, whomever he may be.As to your question of whether these men were Jews, I think at best we can only speculate. You may want to e-mail Tim Warner and ask him why he said that.He was still struggling with this new thing that had happened to him when he had the vision at Joppa in Acts 10, and then the Holy Spirit fell on the entire household of Cornelius, giving him yet more food for thought. As Cornelius was a Gentile, in the light of the extract from Revell's dictionary, it would not have crossed Peter's mind not to baptise them. He was still very Jewish in outlook.God was not rushing him. Slowly, he was receiving a greater and greater revelation of God's heart.This is very dangerous thinking. It is a very great assumption to say that Jesus did not effectively communicate the way of salvation to His apostles during the forty days after His crucifixion and before His ascension into Heaven. This assumption flies in the face of clear Scriptural teaching of the apostles, and apostolic early church (the churches the apostles planted). There is no progressive revelation. We are told to earnestly contend for the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints by Christ and the twelve apostles (Paul included). Peter said that baptism saved us (1 Pet. 3:21). Paul said it was our circumcision made without hands (Col. 2:11,12). He further said that it was how we were dead, buried, and raised with Christ. (Rom 6)Col. 2:11,12 "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."Baptism is the circumcision of Christ, our sign of receiving the covenant. The Bible says that during baptism in water "the operation of God" takes effect when we trust it to happen.Something has been bothering me lately. I don't think there are any Gnostics here. But it seems that an element of Gnostic belief has crept into the church. I'm talking about a belief that the physical is inherently evil or unnecessary and only the spiritual is needed. The more I study this, I realize that the idea of salvation without baptism in water is a NEW doctrine. And since the apostles had a COMPLETE gospel that was to be preserved NOT added to, whatever is new is not true. And whatever is not true is new. This logic was used against the early heretics of the church. It was obvious that if something was not taught by the apostles who had been personally taught by the Lord in the flesh, then it could not have any bearing on the church of Christ. The Bible says "repent and be baptized...for the remission of your sins." Baptism is not something anyone can go do. It is the work of God. So there is no way to obey this command if it means only spirit. But if it means water (which the context demands that it is), then a person can "do" it. They can have a part in obeying it tangibly. They could "obey" this command. When they acted on their faith, the Lord worked a miracle "in" the water because of obedience, not because the water was magic. This is what the early church taught and believed. The more I hear the arguments here against this, the more I see that the "baptism in water as unnecessary" position is indefensible. (So far)I think we should take the Bible at face value and believe it and read it like a child would. If a child reads "repent and be baptized...for the remission of your sins", they are going to ask you to baptize them for the remission of their sins as an act declaring their repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.To say otherwise is to espouse a "progressive revelation" view of scripture instead of a "complete revelation" view, and that is unacceptable. (for me)This is a new position for me. Still ironing out kinks and such. But I am always willing to bow to the truth.OK, your turn.RT

A great failing in the Body of Christ has been to discern the meaning of Water Baptism. So far it seems that we have discussed what it isn't, more than what it is. Baptism is the funeral of the old man. Whether by burial (immersion), or cremation (sprinkling), the baptism is the sign post that we look toward, to remember that we're dead. Not just that, but the point at which we "raised into newness of life". There is symbolism, and reality all rolled into one.For some interesting thoughts on Baptism, check outChristliche Busse um Israel (I think it's translated "True and False German Repentance Toward the Jews") by Art Katz.

ReceivedText wrote:dorcas,As to Acts 19, it is clear that John's baptism was to prepare the way of the Lord, but it wasn't the full way of the Lord. When Jesus came, he baptized through his disciples (Jn. 4). This was baptism of repentance and faith in Himself. But apparently these men weren't baptized into Christ Himself as the apostles were. They were still looking for the one coming after John, whomever he may be.This reminds me of something the J Edwin Orr said, "Repent and Believe somes like two commands. It's kind of like saying 'I'm going to leave New York, on an aeroplane, and go to London.' That may sound like two things, but let me assure you that you can't go to London, without leaving New York first." (paraphrase) Same would be true to say, that it is possible to leave New York, but not go to London. Obviously, these men didn't place their trust in Jesus for their righteousness (Baptised into the Lord Jesus Christ) after repenting (realising and turning from) of their sin (Baptism of John).(I know it's the same thing. Just in laymans terms.) :-)

RTThis may not be speaking of water baptism but it may shine a different light on our understanding of the word baptism.But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. matt 20:21 What baptism is Jesus talking about?But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!Luke 12:50What baptism? He's been baptized in water, he's been baptised with the holy ghost, what is he talking about?To my understanding, baptism is a immersion into something, like a cucumber into brine changes the cucumber into a pickle; so is baptism into christ. However, by this do we mean to say that by the pouring of water, or by the immersing into water that we become like christ, that the nature and life of christ becomes a part of us.Who among us has had this experience? That when we were baptized, whatever the mode, the nature of christ became a part of us?Lyndon

well... my opinion on this subject is that "water" baptism is NOT esential. i mean look at the theif that hung next to Christ. Jesus said to him you will be with me in heaven. now... unless your a mormon and believe in baptism of the dead, which is rediculous then... there you go... just my thoughts

Isn't this also why Jesus said John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. This, I believe, is what had been happening to Peter. I believe it also happens to us. I've always thought of it as 'progressive revelation' but, maybe that term means something different in theological jargon. Could you please explain whether it is the same as you meant when you said, "There is no progressive revelation."OK, let me re-word this to be extremely clear. There is no progressive revelation TODAY. God has communicated to us using an undeniable progression through different periods of time, based on His covenant with us. Each new covenant brings not only new laws, but a new understanding of God that builds on the last.Here's the difficulty of using John 16:12 to annul Peter's sermon at Pentecost and his command for all to "repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins." Peter preached under the power of the Holy Ghost. If there was ever a sermon that was preached under the power of God's precious Spirit, that was it! If that message was not accurate, then we cannot trust ANY message to be accurate. To say that Peter's personal hypocrisy in Gal. 2 or his vision of the sheets prior to preaching to Cornelius was NEW revelation is not an honest assessment to even a child reading the Scriptures.We know that Jesus told His disciples in Mark 16:15 to go into "all the world" and to preach the gospel to "every creature." This necessarily included Gentiles. Just because the Spirit was being kind to Peter by re-affirming this command so he wouldn't mess up (He is able to keep us from falling), doesn't mean it was NEW to Peter.To say that the first New Testament sermon preached by an apostle is not accurate, not for today, not necessary is a very serious charge that needs to be re-considered.I have been indoctrinated myself in what "baptism is not." So I know where everyone is coming from. But please follow me here:We have scriptures that say that faith is necessary for salvation, but say nothing about REPENTANCE being necessary for salvation (i.e. Jn. 3:16, 5:24 etc.). Yet we know that repentance is necessary for salvation because Jesus said it was (Luke 13:3,5 etc.). The truth is that there is an implied understanding of the proper response of OBEDIENCE to the gospel message. I have seen recently that we cannot continue discounting clear Scriptures (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6; Col. 2; 1 Pet. 3; etc.) that say that baptism is the proper response of the penitent sinner whereby he puts on Christ spiritually (see Rom 6:1ff). Saying that just because this is not included in other scriptures opens the door for those who say repentance is not necessary to put their foot in the door. You can't have it both ways.The theif on the Cross won't work. During Jesus' life the command was to believe on Him as the messiah. The Holy Ghost was not yet given to all flesh. And we know that NOW if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. So we really need to start our NT soteriology (doctrine of salvation) at Pentecost to get the full picture. Yes, what Jesus said is essential. But it was completed, paid for, and availible at Pentecost. From THAT time, the promise of eternal salvation was made availible for all people everywhere:Acts 2:39 "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call."This was the beginning of a new covenant (sealed by the Spirit). Col. 2:11,12:"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."So the circumcision of Christ takes place when we are buried with Him in baptism. Just as circumcision was the seal of the first covenant, so baptism is the seal of the second covenant. This is what the early apostolic church taught. Anything else is a new doctrine. Again, there are no new doctrines today (progressive revelation).Will we find out more revelation after Christ comes? Of course. But the apostolic doctrine of Christ and how to receive Him does not change for us here and now. After the judgement all who will have received Christ will have done so and we will enter a new world and time shall be no more. (Looking forward to it)Blessings,RT

OK, as far as needing to receive the Holy Spirit for salvation, I believe this scripture:"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." - Rom. 8:9bSo the case is closed there. As far as baptism and salvation, from John the Baptist to the Resurrection of Christ was a transition period between covenants. Pentecost was the fullness of the new covenant. Acts 2:38 teaches that BOTH repentance and baptism are FOR the remission of sins. I have argued with that for too long. Just want to stop arguing with Scripture (personally). Rom. 6:1ff teaches that we are dead and buried with Christ in and through baptism. I want to stop arguing with that too (personally). There is nothing to suggest that baptism is only spiritual and needs nothing physical. Scripture, history, and apostolic tradition deny it. For me to say that I know more than the apostles and the churches they planted is pride on my part and I repent of it. Anyway, our bodies have not yet been resurrected as our spirit was in the circumcision of the New Covenant: Baptism. (See Col. 2,3)This is more than a "spiritual marker." It is where the "operation of God" takes place. (see Col. 2:12)You wrote:It is very difficult, though, to find a scriptural reason, since baptism in the Holy Spirit, to justfiy any suggestion that a person is not 'saved' if they have not been baptised in water. Wow! You sound like I used to. But personally I decided to stop arguing with Scripture:"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" - (1Pet. 3:21)The Bible says that baptism saves us. Not the washing of the water itself, but "answer of a good conscience" whereby a person says, What doth hinder me to be baptized? It is a spiritual act that happens "in" the water, not "by" the water. BTW, this seems to be where OUR spirit is born again. This could differ from when we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Still working on that one. But we can't wait to baptize folks.Every scriptural example was done right away. Why? because it was necessary. Now, maybe I don't like that in my flesh and my understanding. But I am just going to have to deal with it, because I want the Truth more than my own tradition or ideas.A child reading the scriptures can't get anything else, but "repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins." This won't be fun telling all my friends and loved ones in the flesh, but a joy in the Spirit because I am NOT ashamed of Jesus or His words. (see Mk. 8:38 & Lk. 9:26)Blessings,RT

Yes we can agree that baptism in water is a spiritual act. I believe it cuts both ways, as the believer is already in a relationship with God.So is baptism in water necessary "for the remission of sins?" (Acts 2:38) What say you?I'm not going to assume what you mean by "in a relationship with God." Do you mean in a saving relationship with God? Or do you mean that God is dealing with them and speaking to them?RT

ReceivedText, I wouldn't mind going back and forth with some KJV stuff. I have found some stuff on my own that is pretty wild, but most people don't like to hear about it. Anyway, yes (to other threads I have read) I know about Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, but Paul seemed to put emphasis on faith, seen here in 1 Corinthians 1:17, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but preach the gospel..." Bob Jones used to say, "Let's get 'em to heaven, anyway, if you can't get 'em in the tank." The thief on the cross does say much, guys. Here is another thought of mine (free of charge). Everyone knows John 3:16, what about Luke 3:16, "John answered onto them all, I indeed baptize you with water, but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." That pretty much says it all to me. However, I am planning on being immersed (I was sprinkled as a baby) after much study on the subject (buried unto baptism, history of baptism, etc). I'm not doing it to obtain the Holy Ghost, but because I believe this is the way Jesus was baptized, and I want to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. Oddly enough, it was Wesley's commentary on Romans 6:4 that pushed me over the edge, "We are buried with him - Alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." However, if I see the dove descending upon me, I will let you know.

letsgetbusy,A hearty hello to you. What "KJV stuff" would you like to go "back and forth" with me about? Here are two links to two great books on the subject that you can read for free online on our site:"Which Version Is The Bible?" by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jonesand"Crowned With Glory" by Dr. Thomas HollandIf you have any particular issues you would like to bring up, feel free.On baptism, I posted earlier in this thread the point that you don't find "repentance" in many salvation "promise" scriptures. Yet Lk. 13:3,5 tell us plainly that we can't get to heaven without repenting. Yet we all must admit that it is possible to "believe" and not "repent." Just because one point is not mentioned in one scripture doesn't mean it is not necessary.Acts 2:38 doesn't mention "believe" or "faith" in Christ. Yet it is a salvation "promise" Scripture. I think we need to really seek to understand the doctrine of Christ.So when IS a person "buried" with Christ? At the point of faith, repentance, or water baptism? Spirit baptism? I think we can agree that all are necessary. But at what time is the human spirit "born again?" That is the question.I am really excited that you are being baptized by immersion (Biblical way). Any other way doesn't make as much sense out of Rom. 6:1ff. The early church seemed to believe that the "operation of God" (Col. 2) happened "in" the water. Our Protestant view has proven to be quite new it would seem.Blessings,RT

Yet we all must admit that it is possible to "believe" and not "repent." Sorry if I seem to be 'nitpicking' but I don't at all believe that it is possible to believe without repenting. A true belief will always lead to an action. I'm not an expert on greek but I'm told that the word implies an action accompaning it. However I do believe that it is possible to repent without believing, but such repentence is not toward God. I have to echo dorcas last comment:I'm not disagreeing with believer's baptism, just the notion that one's sins have not been dealt with until one has been immersed.One question though, does this (immersion) nullify any other forms/types of water baptism eg. sprinkling, pouring.

Remember, I'm not disagreeing with believer's baptism, just the notion that one's sins have not been dealt with until one has been immersed.Yes, I have understood that this is your position.Here is something from a Greek Interlinear, which may be helpful, looking at possible translations of 'for'.You are trying to use an interlinear/lexicon as a dictionary. It doesn't work that way. You may not understand that among those "possible translations" for the word, only one will do. The lexicon is a tool used by Bible translators. It is not a Bible dictionary. A.T. Robertson tried to say that "eis" (the Greek word you are referring to) could refer to past tense. But it NEVER does. You need another Gr. word. The word "eis" ("for" in the KJV) takes on the forward direction "into" or "unto". Meaning you are going from the outside to the inside. Also note that the Granville-Sharp rule links repentance with "be baptized". So IF the meaning of "eis" was referring to the remission of sins happening prior to water baptism, it would necessarily say that the remission of sins happened "before" repentance. Let me ask you, can a person be saved withot repenting? Of course not. So you really can't go there.You know I usually don't go to the Greek, but I did just for you. Let's stick to the KJV and not try to re-translate the Bible. They knew what they were doing.But, in the questions you throw out, you are hazy about two things. One is that God deals with individuals in the order which He sees fit. This confuses anyone who wants everyone to go through the process of salvation in a fixed order and to have a testimony that is pretty much like the next guy's. It just doesn't happen like this. I've been trying to get you to acknowledge this.I really can't agree with you there. The Scriptures are clear that we all get in the same way. We all have to believe, we all have to repent, we all have to be baptized, we all have to receive the Spirit. God is not a respecter of persons. Everyone DOES have to go through the process of salvation in the same way, no matter what the order, meaning all aspects must be present. I will deal with this further down.This is why I have such a big problem with carrying forward the idea that water baptism after having been born again, has something to do with the remission of sins IN FACT. To say so, suggests faith is not enough to save us. But, if faith does not lead to a change in our behaviour, the object believed in or the operation of faith (the operation of God in Col 2 and Eph 1 - to raise us from the dead as the Father raised the Son from the dead) then its impact on the life and future conduct of that life can be questioned. Many people experience the remission of their sins in the presence of the Lord when they give Him their lives.To use "experience" alone to dictate doctrine is weak at best. Dangerous at worst. You are assuming that someone is "born again" the minute they believe. We know that Paul was not born again the minute he believed on the road to Damascus. It wasn't until Ananias arrived three days later that he was commanded to rise and be baptized washing away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord. What was he doing with sins? Hadn't he seen the Lord, calling Him Lord? Yes. Hadn't he believed? Yes. Then why weren't his sins washed away until he was baptized?The first act of faith in Christ is not "conduct of life", but baptism in water. Being baptized is the act of repentance and faith commanded by Christ. To say that Peter was not right when he said that baptism was necessary for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) is quite a charge. One I used to make, I might add. But I repent.I am not suggesting Peter was speaking figuratively, but, I hope you will concede that it is not possible to receive the Holy Spirit unless sins have already been taken away from that life in that person's spiritual reality.I know you are speaking of the Cornelius experience here. Your premise that the Holy Spirit wouldn't fill a dirty vessel is a point well worth taking. But I'm not sure that receiving the Holy Spirit and the working of the regeneration of our spirit always happen simultaneously. As I said before, I don't know yet. It may be possible to have our spirit regenerated (born again) and not have received the indwelling Holy Spirit. I don't know yet. Still working on this. But, again, to discount CLEAR Scriptural teaching is not right for you or me to do.Romans 6 says that we are buried with Christ through baptism, not faith alone. We have to take ALL of scripture. We can't discount any part of it because it doesn't fit our theology.RT

So what is your interpretation of Acts 2:38. I'd like to see you take this text and tell me what you think it means.After that, let's move to John 3:5RT

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (KJV)Acts 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (ASV)Acts 2:38 and Peter said unto them, ‘Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, (Youngs)the underlined words are all version translations of 'eis'. It ought never to have been translated 'for'. It is a preposition of motion and is often used with a sense of destination or target. In other words water baptism is a step towards 'remission of sin' not the necessary or automatic cause.

There has been alot of talk about steps to or process of salvation/remission of sins (do you consider those 2 different things?) 1- believe 2-repent 3-baptized 4-recieve spiritI think thats the order. I'm just curious why scripture never states this plainly? No where in the Bible does it include all 4 together, and if I remember correctly it never states more than 2 together. (ok it does say 3 in acts 2:38) Take John 3:16 for example. I think you all know that one. ;-) Jesus plainly states (infact twice if you add 3:15 KJV) that whosoever believes shall have eternal life. That is only step one. Does Jesus have it wrong? Did he forget to mention step 2,3 and 4? I'm curious what your thoughts/ideas are on this. Where along the line does everything need to be pulled together?

modivarchJesus plainly states (infact twice if you add 3:15 KJV) that whosoever believes shall have eternal life. That is only step one. Does Jesus have it wrong? Did he forget to mention step 2,3 and 4? The tenses of 'believing' make it clear that Jesus did not regard this as a 'step' at all, but as a continuing process.

I thought a quick look at this might help us with our prepositions...“Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under (hupo) the cloud, and all passed through (dia) the sea; And were all baptized unto (eis) Moses in (en) the cloud and in (en) the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” (1Cor. 10:1-4, KJV)If we can get a feel for what is being said here it should stand us in good stead for “For by (en) one Spirit are we all baptized into (eis) one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into (eis) one Spirit.” (1Cor. 12:13, KJV)The preposition 'eis' is the one often used with the phrase 'remission of sins' (Matt. 26:28; Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14) I reading of these verses will make it clear that Christian water-baptism is never a 'trigger' for 'remission of sins' but is 'with a view to' as regards its inner purpose. These verses show that John's water-baptism was also 'for the remission of sins'. and the the shedding of Christ's blood was also 'for the remission of sins'. The enablement to receive 'remission of sins' is plainly stated in “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43, KJV)So what is the significance of 1 Cor 13:1,2? We know from Romans 6:4,5 that 'the baptism into the death' effects a union with Christ. (another reason for doubting whether the baptism in view in Rom 6 is water-baptism. As someone quoted on these pages some time ago "if you immerse a sinner into water the only guaranteed consequence will be a wet sinner".) The 'method' (or instrumentality) by which Israel was 'baptised into Moses' was 'cloud and water'. Consequently the preposition 'en' is used. The observant will note that although the preposition 'en' is used the Israelites actually remained 'bone dry'. The sense would be carried with the phrase 'by means of'. I will try to show the Greek idiomatic use of 'en' with a simple illustration; Rev. 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. the three underlinings are the preposition 'en'. The 'instrument' of the 'killing' is said to be 'sword, hunger and death'. The Greek word 'en' is used in the phrase "shall be baptised 'in' the Holy Spirit not many days hence". The 'instrument' of that coming baptism would be the Holy Spirit, but the 'agent' of that Baptism would be Jesus Himself. He is the Baptizer in the Holy Spirit. John was a Baptizer in Water only. This is why we should never use the phrase 'The Baptism of the Holy Spirit' it swtiches the focus of the whole doctrine.Through the 'instrument' of cloud and water Israel was baptised 'into' (eis) Moses. Moses was the target or destination of that 'cloud and water baptism'. The counterpart to 1 Cor 10:1-4 is in 1Cor. 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Here the target/destination of the 'baptism' is 'one body', but the instrument of that 'baptism' is the 'one Spirit'. the attempts to drive a wedge between this reference to 'Baptism in the Spirit' and the other 6 in the gospels and the Acts is a mistake.

Philo thanks for the reply, but your response had nothing to do with my question. There is no question as to whether belief needs to continue or not. My question is that Jesus ONLY says believe so when do the other "steps" come in to play? And if there are other steps why does Jesus not state them right then and there? He says that believing = eternal life. One has to be wrong. Either you don't need to be baptised to go to heaven or Jesus is leaving out vital information and you do.

modivarchthe point I was making is that our current terminology is focusing on 'crises' ie steps. Believing, in the way that John uses it (and he never uses the noun 'faith') is an abiding characteristic not a 'step'.

I have no idea what you are trying to say about the question that I posed.

OK. one last try...There has been alot of talk about steps to or process of salvation/remission of sins (do you consider those 2 different things?) 1- believe 2-repent 3-baptized 4-recieve spiritI think thats the order. I'm just curious why scripture never states this plainly? No where in the Bible does it include all 4 together, and if I remember correctly it never states more than 2 together. (ok it does say 3 in acts 2:38) Take John 3:16 for example. I think you all know that one. Jesus plainly states (infact twice if you add 3:15 KJV) that whosoever believes shall have eternal life. That is only step one. Does Jesus have it wrong? Did he forget to mention step 2,3 and 4? I'm curious what your thoughts/ideas are on this. Where along the line does everything need to be pulled together?Several questions here.Q1 not really a question.Q2 does Jesus have it wrong? Of course not, but the way this question is framed makes me think you are referring to 'believes' as a single event. My point was that the tenses uses mean the 'believer'. It is a reference to a man's character not to a passing experience in which he believed.Q3 did He forget steps 2,3 and 4. Of course not but then step 1 is not a step but a continuing process so step 2 would have to be step 1 at which point the question falls to pieces.Q4. Where along the line does everything need to be pulled together?If you mean 'how can we reduce this to a formula?' there can be no answer. Regeneration is not the result of implementing a formula.If you are referring to the first paragraph ... is remission of sins and salvation the same thing? They are not synonyms. Remission of sins is an event, which may be repeated as necessary.Salvation is a process which has past, present and future expressions.

If you are referring to the first paragraph ... is remission of sins and salvation the same thing? They are not synonyms. Remission of sins is an event, which may be repeated as necessary.Salvation is a process which has past, present and future expressions.Agreed here completely. So when, in your view, does remission of sins take place?Maybe you could explain how you go about preaching the gospel and calling for response.Also, to be clear, how would you answer someone who asked, "What must I do to be saved?"Blessings, brother,RT

Agreed here completely. So when, in your view, does remission of sins take place?At the moment of true faith.Also, to be clear, how would you answer someone who asked, "What must I do to be saved?" I don't want to be difficult here but it depends entirely on who the 'I' is? The words "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house" were not a universal prescription but a word from God addressed to a man who had just witnessed the power of God in remarkable ways. It is followed by a statement that says Paul and Silas 'spoke to him, the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.' then, after Paul and Silas' wounds had been attended to, the man was baptised. There are many implications to this passage that need careful thought. eg the jailer would have to know who Christ was before he could put his trust in Him. It is interesting that the injunction of Peter to the crowds at Jerusalem also followed on the heels of them 'being pricked to the heart'.In the case of the Phlippian jailer, I cannot believe that the man continued under the weight of sin through his tending to wounds and was only released at the point he entered the water.

I think it's best to just state. That it is TRULY just like a Ring in a Marriage. I got this by revelation The ring and the honeymoon are good illustrations but water-baptism is not an illustration in the same sense. It is a royal edict and not subject to the vagaries of culture and century; it is spirtual sign-language.

YeshuaIsMyGd,You missed Ron's point. He wasn't bashing your illustration. He was trying to bring your thoughts more into line with the Word. You mentioned how some refuse the "ring" but can still be married. Jesus is the King. You can't refuse His ring. You just don't have that right.It wasn't your parable. It was that you got a little off track.(Am I wrong, Ron?)RT

Hi Modivarch, I hope this answers your question. I like to speak plainly..so I hope my point comes across. I personaly do not think Jesus is interested in steps! He is interested in one thing...our hearts! Did he say to the theife on the cross; ok you believe me, now you have to get baptised, repent, recieve the spirit?? Absolutely not!! He saw the man's heart. He did say if you Love Me you will obey me. And if you love Jesus, He will show you what is right. The only thing we can really do for Jesus is lay down our life and let Him become our everything. I became baptised about a year after I was saved. I didn't feel that my salvation hung on me being baptised, but it was something that I wanted to do. I felt that it was an outward expression of the love I had for the Lord. I think we try to complicate things. Didn't Jesus say that we needed to become like these (little children) to inherit the kingdom. ;-) p.s. Just an after-thought...He is no respector of persons, so if He let the theife into heaven without a babtism, I guess it's safe to say that salvation does not depend on baptism.

You missed Ron's point. He wasn't bashing your illustration. He was trying to bring your thoughts more into line with the WordI was not even trying to bring it 'into line'. I was just making the point that personal 'revelation' must never be used to prove biblical revelation, (unless your name is Jake, of course!} The ring 'revelation' is an intereting illustration for western culture but most of the world is not western and know nothing of wedding rings or engagement rings. We must not impose our 'revelations' on others and I am sure you were not implying this. But 'water baptism' is not the same kind of cultural illustration, it is a universal commandement from Christ Himself. Wedding rings and the like are only applicable to certain cultures; water-baptism is cross-cultural and universally applicable.Here's little bit of 'language trivia' for you. Paul refers to the coming of the Spirit as an earnest or pledge; the Greek is arrabOn... 2Cor. 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. 2Cor. 5:5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Eph. 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. The word is still used in modern Greek. It is the word for an engagement ring. This is actually a better illustration than water-baptism as an engagement ring. water-baptism can be administered by another but Spirit-baptism, like an engagement ring, is a personal gift from the hand of the Beloved One.

Stever's response:There are indeed two Baptism's. Christ was focused on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and so was Paul. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit empowers the believer to witness to the lost and go about the work that Christ has commanded us to do for His Kingdom.It is actually the baptism "in" the Spirit, not of. It is Jesus who baptizes.Let me ask you something. What is the difference between receiving the "indwelling" of the Spirit and receiving the "baptism" in the Spirit SCRIPTURALLY?Before you answer, please know that I was raised and educated in Classical Pentecostalism. So I am well familiar with this issue. I am a Biblicist above all and will go with Scripture on any given issue. You seem to be the same way. So let's talk about this. Should be edifying for both of us.RT

Let me ask you something. What is the difference between receiving the "indwelling" of the Spirit and receiving the "baptism" in the Spirit SCRIPTURALLY?Can I start the answer with a question? Can you compare a process with an event?

We all receive the “gift of the Holy Spirit” when we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. SteverThis is not a hostile comment but just one to explain why I find some of these issues difficult to discuss. The phrase 'accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour' has no biblical meaning. I no longer have any idea what it is supposed to mean. It seems to mean some kind of personal response to the presentation of the gospel but is without precedent in the scripture.This is almost where SI began with Tozer's questioning of evangelical phraseology and its consequences in genuine experiences of God. I think it is safe to say that if we did not have the phraseology of 'accepting Christ' in so much of our modern evangelicalism it would be impossible to reconstruct its meaning from scripture.The phrase has become a standard axiom of evangelical expresssion but I cannot find anything scripturally that even approximates to it. It seems to reduce to 'heard some basic truths and prayed a basic prayer'. But I can't find this experience in the Bible so I don't understand what can be meant by saying that any who have gone through this process have 'received the Holy Spirit'.

Stever writes:In regards to having "received the Holy Spirit after being saved, there are many verses to choose from- I'll just use one here:Ephesians 1:13-14" 13. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,14. Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."This verse could equally be referring to an event post-belief and in fact Paul's earlier word to the Ephesians is significant 'having believed did you receive?' Acts 19. This verse plainly indicates that whatever 'believe' means in Acts 19 it is not a quarantee that the Spirit has been received. If it were the question would make no sense.I know the verses you have quoted but the problem is that most of the verbs and nouns have now be dramatically devalued in modern evangelicalism. For example, what does it mean to 'believe in thine heart' and why would Paul add the qualifying phrase 'in thine heart' if some other kind of belief were not possible. The question then is 'is evangelical belief a "in the heart" belief?''Calling upon the name of the Lord' is certainly not repeating a 'sinner's prayer' as Jim Cymbala has made very clear.

Stever writes:Christ examines our hearts. He is the one that knows what is there, not you, nor me. When the Holy Spirit leads me to witness to someone, Christ knows if it is for real or not.So does that mean we can know whether or not we have received the Spirit? Incidentally, it is not possible to 'receive the Spirit' and not be a witness. Jesus said so very plainly...“But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8, ASV) I question whether or not we have all been 'commanded to witness'. We have been told that we shall 'be witnesses' which is something quite different.You will notice that He did not say 'you ought to' but 'you shall'. I repeat, it is not possible 'to receive the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon you' and not to witness.Incidentally, too, you have still not explained to me what you think 'accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour' actually means.

Christ has commanded us (believers) to Witness to the Lost. It sounds very clear to me.Stever, if Christ commands us to do something, can we choose not to obey him? - YesWhen Christ says that you shall do something (or that the end shall come) - will you do it? - YesTherefore there is a difference, a big one.On another note, the Holy Spirit does not soften our heart, our heart is incurable (Jeremiah 17:9 - Crooked is the heart above all things, And it is incurable -- who doth know it?)The Holy Spirit has to remove out heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26 - A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.)

but these are not the imperative use of the English 'shall' but the simple future tense of the verb to witness. Both of the verses you quote are using the future tense. The Matt 24 reference has the future tense in the passive mood. 'it will happen'. In neither of these instances is the verb in the imperative ie a command but in each case is a statement of what will surely take place.You have misunderstood what Webster is telling you about language. This is always the danger of getting our interpretations from Dictionaries. I have frequently drawn attention to this danger in these forums.

I take it by your various posts on this subject that you do not believe in witnessing to the lost. and that, my friend, is just another of your mistaken presumptions.

Stever,I take it by your various posts on this subject that you do not believe in witnessing to the lost.This is a good opportunity to once again bring up something of import here, the use of the search function on the main page. It can go a long way in helping to not make rash assumptions and help clarify many things. Stever, if you were to do a bit of research the gentleman you are referring to here has been a pastor for over 40 years, has quite a bit of knowledge and a wonderful heart for teaching, though that often gets missed strangely enough... By the way, "we" are not primarily Charismatic in the image of what that conjures up anymore, some may not have a problem with that labeling, just some prefer no labels whatsoever, including abominations, I mean denominations (Ravenhill) ;-)

I am not a Greek grammer expert. What I see from God's word tells me that the Disciples witnessed to the lost until their dying days- all of them. Starting at Pentecost and continuing all the way through the New Testament, that is what believers were all about. I choose to err on the side of example, than on the side of Koine Greek that I really know nothing about.The issue has not been their example but whether or not all believers have received a 'command to witness'. I know what the disciples did but to make a promise into a command is to bring in a law-yoke not a blessing. If you know 'nothing' about koine Greek I would caution you again regarding the danger of finding your answers from an English dictionary.

My question for you, Pastor Ron B. is: At the end of each service, do you have an altar call? Do you invite those that would like to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior to come forward?I would really like to know."The book of the Acts" is an aptly named manuscript. I have often heard it said that it should be called the acts of the believers or the acts of the Holy Spirit. It is, of course, a record of the work of the Holy Spirit- but its his work demonstrated in and through the apostles actions. Its not a book primarily about church meetings, government or practice. It is a book that describes the ministry of those "sent out" to bear witness to the ressurection of Christ.All believers are called to "show forth the praises of him...", to "be ready to give an answer...". But all are not sent out either as apostles or evangelists.Many of the 'gatherings' described in Acts are not church meetings per se. They are 'outreaches' of the ministry of certain ones that God had equipped to do the work whereunto he called them.There are some examples of meetings of the church; Acts 15 is the most striking. Here we see the church really functioning as the ecclesia that it was called to be. Reaching a conclusion to a dilema with the words "it seemed good to the holy Spirit and to us..." this is a church meeting!. Also the conversation between Paul and the believers in Troas (acts 20) would be an example. Our best window into the meeting of a church is to be found in 1Cor chs 11-14 (particularly 14). Here the possibility of an unbeliever coming amongst the gathering is ackowledged but it is the prophetic word that convicts him; not an evangelistic message.

Stever For what reason would you give an altar call? So that people can come forward and feel better about themselves because they go through a three step process with some counceler? Mabye some questions you should be asking are What is the New Birth?, How does a person enter into a relationship with God?. I'm sure you know the stats as well as I do for people who take an altar call. A full 90% are repeat visitors to the altar, now why is that? What is happening? What is wrong that so many people struggle with assurance, sin, ect... I know in my own experience I went through a three step process that didn't change a thing in my heart, and I'm still struggling today to put things into their proper perspective. Brothers and Sisters such as Mike, Greg, Ron, Robert, Chanin, and many others who frequent this site and share their hearts with those of us who stay in the background watching and listening, have been instrumental in my seeing the true gospel. Anyway I would like to say that only God can change/renew a heart, and God will not do that work simple because we repeat a few words after somebody else. To do this and to teach others so is very dangerous.I do not mean to sound harsh but this cup-a-soup style of instant christianity needs to be rebuked.Lyndon

If you will go back and review the statements that Ron B. made in regards to "heart", etc. etc. and his specific reference to Tozer and Cymbala you might come to the same conclusion that I did- that he is more focused on scholarship and being "right" that on winning souls for Christ.Oh my, this kind of characterization can not come to any good. If we are considering ones past statements, then let's consider all of them. Let's remember the very best of them. Otherwise this place will turn into a stage where only the best performers dare enter the spotlight...Dear brother Stever, you are mistaken about Ron. There are many posts that validate this, but why bother even doubting and needing to read these posts? Spend a little time with Ron in these forums and you will know that he does indeed tend to the sheep. We say we love more then our brothers? Then feed Jesus' sheep. That is the measure of our love.I know you do these things Stever...yet it stings the heart to think that we so easily doubt each other.MC

I have known many Pastors who are great teachers and students of God's word, but at the same time have never had an altar call in their entire life.Stever, can you show me where there has been an "alter call" in the bible?If you will go back and review the statements that Ron B. made in regards to "heart", etc. etc. and his specific reference to Tozer and Cymbala you might come to the same conclusion that I did- that he is more focused on scholarship and being "right" that on winning souls for Christ.Stever, the forum you are in at the moment is called "scriptures and doctrine", this is where we (Christians) can discuss different parts of the bible. This is not an area for "winning souls for Christ", it is an area for "scripture and doctrine".I know Ron personally and know his heart for the lost, ask him why he is used to standing very still when he is preaching/teaching.

After being Spirit filled I have found that the Holy Spirit compels me to do so. He has put the love in my heart for the lost, He is the one that has put the joy that I have in my heart for doing this...This does create division because many people (and I used to be one of them) think that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost was something that only happened to the early Church.I hear your heart Stever. There is an immediacy and sincerity to your words. May the Spirit-born love you have for the lost be found in me.How this issue of baptism is so troublesome. The mechanics of spiritual things often takes center stage over the life of the Spirit. This is not to say that there is no controversy or to belittle searching the scriptures for understanding...only that I am weary of graphing out these things instead of working them out. For my little part in the body, I am coming to a conclusion that my filling is in keeping with my emptying. For instance, I believe your love is a result not just of your filling, or even baptism, but of your pouring out. It is like a house that needs a second window opened before the breeze can be felt inside, flowing through. The important thing is that you are sharing Stevers...I believe this is why the Lord's love is abundantly poured into you.If this reality can be fitted within a template of a second baptism, so be it. If ever we debate the finer points of the gospel we can still affirm the reality of Christ in us. With that I pray that the love you and I share for Jesus be shared with each other as we discuss these things!Bless you bro,MC

If I am mistaken about my views, then I surely apologize.I accept your apology, but what is really needed on your behalf is repentance and forgiveness from God. This is between you and Him..

What about George Whitefield and the Great Awakening that took place in the America starting in 1734 by Jonathan Edwards, and continued by George Whitefield in 1739?. You know, I hope, that neither of these men ever had 'altar calls'. They were much more apostolic where the 'appeal' always comes from the congregation... what must we do to be saved?

t would also be helpful if you responded to my questions that were and directed specifically to you on this thread. I will always try in good faith to answer whatever questions you or anyone else ask of me.Was that about giving people opportunity to respond to the preaching? I have conducted hundreds (no exageration) of what you call 'altar calls'. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them were before you were born. I have been preaching the gospel and encouraging people to respond since 1958. I always try to give some kind of opportunity for people to respond to the preaching of the word. This may not be in the mechanistic way which will satisfy your criteria, but I believe it is important that people have that opportunity.I prefer to encourage response from the body of the meeting by enouraging people to pray in response to what God has said to them, although at times I will encourage people to 'come out' in response. My preference for prayer would actually fit your 'confession with the mouth' much better than walking to the front of a meeting.

Stever, I don't understand your post, I asked you "Stever, can you show me where there has been an "alter call" in the bible?", all you have done is say something about the body of Christ not witnessing and then quote reams of scriptures about preaching.One of these scriptures is where Philip preached to the Ethiopian and it was the Ethiopian that said "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?", again another situation where the response comes from the one who was preached to, not the preacher giving an "alter call"

Stever's final response to the above: Pastor Ron, you cannot have it both ways. You either believe in the value of an altar call, or you do not. You mention that you have been a Pastor since 1958. That means that from May, 1958 until May 2005 you would have had the opportunity to give approximately 2,444 altar calls. You have told me in this thread that you have given "hundreds" of them. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, and going with 300 Altar calls, that means that of the 2,444 Sundays available over the past 47 years, you have provided altar calls for a total of 6 years maximum. That means that for 41 of the 47 years that you have been a Pastor you have not given altar calls.Wow, you 've obviously got a lot of time on your hands! There are so many assumptions in this statement I would hardly know where to start. I will move straight to the conclusion; every single assumption you have made about me in this thread has been mistaken.I could defend myself, but life is short... The real reason we are having difficulty communicating is that we have totally different ideas of what pastoring, preaching, evangelising, witnessing, response, and salvation really mean. Please provide me with a single biblical example of an 'altar call'.

If I would have been hit by a freight train, prior to 1990 do you think that I would have gone directly to the Lord- to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord ---IF YOU ARE A BELIEVER IN GOD AND IN JESUS CHRIST, HIS MESSIAH. I would be willing to bet that you would say no, you would go straight to hell because you had not come to a complete understanding of who and what Jesus Christ is and what He did for you.I would have to disagree with you. When I gave my life to Jesus at that altar call, I was sincere. It took many, many years to eliminate the New Age that was imparted to me by my parents and their parents as well. The Holy Spirit was doing this work within me. You now seem to be able to conduct this argument without me being part of it. I am a dangerous man to bet on, you would have lost your money!ps. Please provide me with a single biblical example of an 'altar call'."

I must add my hearty "Amen" to the affirmation that "altar calls" don't exist in the Bible. They are a modern invention from the mourner's bench until today. It is interesting to note the the front of the RCC is called the altar because they believe that Jesus is perpetually sacrificed there. Yuk. :-? But this is a GREAT place to bring this all around to the subject of this thread: baptism in water.I can almost see the apostles preaching by the river. At the close of their message I can imagine them back up into the water and call for men to confess and put their faith in Christ and be united with Him in the waters of baptism having repented of their sins.It is absolutely amazing that carnal man has figured out on his own that there must be SOME way of responding to Christ. A great many don't call for men to believe and be baptized at their events. Thus we have replaced the Biblical response and means of "obeying" the gospel with the "altar call." Pity.RT

Stever,My issue is mostly with your label, "altar call." I still give opportunities for response to the word, but try not to call them "altar calls." (Roman Catholic in origin) But in the case of preaching the gospel to sinners and calling them to repentance, baptism is the Biblical response...NOT crying on the stairs of the platform.This thread is about water baptism. Let me ask you, Do you call sinners to believe and be baptized? And then baptize them right then and there? This is the Biblical way. We are commanded to do it. Do you do it?RT

The altar call is nothing more than that call of repentance, given in the same order- preach first, then call for repentance.----what the Church has to offer is total forgiveness for all sin, past, present and future.Oh, I am all for 'calls for repentance' but I don't confuse repentance with 'altar calls'. Your post pretty much admits that there is not a single instance of a modern 'altar call' in the scriptures. I don't think they should be banned, I will call for a response when I feel it appropriate. What I object to is being told that I must adopt a practice which has no scriptural precedence. Like I said before- show me where altar calls are prohibited, and then we have something to talk about. This is the line adopted by those who support infant baptism, dancing, animal noises, a man-ordained priesthood, smoking and any number of things. I don't think you would be happy to see it used in these practices?I don't object to your 'opinion'; you are welcome to keep it. But if you then set your opinion as the necessary pattern for the church of God worldwide I shall have something to say about it.

Nasher said:Hi Stever, I didn't, RT did.I also believe that the Baptism that Christ refers to in Matthew 28 refers to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as well:How can we baptise anyone in the Holy Spirit?

I also believe that the Baptism that Christ refers to in Matthew 28 refers to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as well:19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.curiouser and curiouser. Not only do you insist on non biblical practices but you also deny biblical practices. Cornelius and his household were baptised in the Holy Spirit in Acts 10 and this is made very clear; “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 11:15-16, KJV) However Peter had insisted that the newly Spirit-baptised household should be water-baptised. “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” (Acts 10:47-48, KJV)

Stever's response: We are not commanded to water baptize anyone. It is a practice today, as well as during the early Church, but it is not a command. It is a public statement by the believer that he has indeed received Christ, but it is not necessary for salvation. Paul only baptized one or two if I remember correctly, and he is the model for us, the Gentile Church. Paul was more involved in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit than water baptism. This is simply not true. Paul did only baptize a few at Corinth, but the record of Acts clearly shows a pattern of water and Spirit baptism as philologos clearly demonstrates. They are distinct- not one and the same. What passages are you using to substantiate that 'water' baptism and 'Spirit' baptism are one and the same?

Nasher said:This thread is about water baptism. Let me ask you, Do you call sinners to believe and be baptized? And then baptize them right then and there? This is the Biblical way. We are commanded to do it. As Nasher pointed out, this was my quote.Stever's response: We are not commanded to water baptize anyone.So I suppose you don't think that the Great Commission is a command? O...I guess you do. You said that the baptism Jesus told us to perform was Spirit baptism. Here's your quote:I also believe that the Baptism that Christ refers to in Matthew 28 refers to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as well:19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.This is quite a claim. One which has no Biblical support, nor early church witness. Do you really think that you can take your 21st century thoughts and culture and impose them upon a gospel which was first given, perpetuated, and preserved in the first century? Now I admit that Christ transcends culture and time. But what I am referring to is a clear concensus that we possess of early church practice (Both Biblical and first and second century). This clearly removes doubt as to what the Scriptures mean and what is to be implemented.As my brother so truly pointed out, How can WE baptize anyone in the Holy Spirit? And of course the answer is: We can't. Jesus is the baptizer in the Holy Ghost. Remember what John said? He will baptize you with the Holy Ghost. (Luke 3:16) On the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter clearly pointed out that it was Jesus who poured out the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:33)philologos also pointed out the house of Cornelius. We could add more if you wish.The whole picture of baptism in water by immersion is the union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Though it is a physical act, yet it is spiritual for those whose consciences and hearts are trusting in God.The command of Acts 2:38 to all who would be saved is "repent...and be baptized...for (or "into" if you will) the remission of sins..." Then the promise of the Father comes, "and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Notice it doesn't say either "baptism" or "indwelling" here. It just says gift. Now let me ask you, Why do you need to receive something you already have?? The answer is, of course, you don't. The Holy Ghost here is the "gift" that was poured out.This seems to be the pattern we see in Acts 8 in Samaria:Acts 8:12 "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women."(v.14-17) "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:15\tWho, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:16\t(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)17\tThen laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."OK, notice that first they believed (repentance is assumed). Then they were baptized in water. Then later they "received" the Holy Ghost Himself. Verse 16 makes this extremely clear. It says that the Holy Ghost was fallen upon NONE OF THEM. Only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.So, my friend Steve, why were they baptized in water, but not receive the Holy Ghost according to what we read here?We know that if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Rom. 8:9) Just when DID they get born again? Just when DID they FIRST receive the Holy Ghost. This Scripture seems to say that it wasn't until AFTER they believed and were baptized. What say you?RT

You have to be kidding. Is this the way that you try to manipulate opinion, trying to make your point? The "Altar Call" has nothing in common with "infant baptism, dancing, animal noises, ---------------, smoking and any number of things". How sad, and you are a Pastor?It was no attempt to manipulate opinion, as God is my witness. I would never engage in such. One of the watchwords of my life is 2Cor. 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. It was simply showing that your position of 'if the Bible doesn't forbid it, it's OK' is open to serious problems. I regard 'manipulation of opinion' as a grave sin in preachers. Now that you have descended to the level of personal abuse, I will withdraw from this thread.

In regards to you inlclusion of "a man-ordained priesthood" in the above wacko list ---it tells me all about who you really are. You are a LIBERAL who doesn't realize that God is the one who set up the MAN ORDAINED PRIESTHOOD. It is men like you who are trying to tear it down. It is not "politically correct" right now to BELIEVE GOD'S WORD, is it? Is it just England that is going along with this insanity in such intensity, or is it throughout Europe as well? I suppose the next thing that you will be posting here is that God is a woman! That seems to be the latest new craze with the feminists who consider themselves to be Christians in Europe. At least with your opinion mirroring theirs they won't be angry with you. The problem is that Jesus Christ is shedding tears over what you have posted here.I doubt very much that tears in heaven are being shed over what my brother Ron has posted here. And I have read a lot of his posts. Now yours??? I'm not the judge of that.But I just wanted to come to my brother's defense and say that he is NOT a liberal and shouldn't have to defend himself from such off the wall lunacy such as you have written.RT

Stever's response: We are born again when we believe that Jesus Christ is LORD. That is when we receive the Holy Spirit that lives in our hearts.Chapter and verse please? And Jn. 3:16 doesn't count. Please provide a single verse that says, in effect, "when a person believes, the Holy Spirit enters him."To this point, much of what you have written lately is not Scripturally supported, but sounds like you are re-gurgitating something you have been taught by a preacher, not what you have gleaned by your own Bible reading.Now WHO is the liberal???Look at all of the millions of people that receive Jesus Christ with their dying breath. Do they need water baptism to be saved, to receive the Holy Spirit? The answer is no, and again the example is the thief on the cross.No one is saying that you need water to receive the Spirit. Cornelius evidently didn't, though he was immediately immersed in water after this experience.Last time I checked, the theif on the cross died before the day of Pentecost. So how could he have received the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit was not yet poured out on all flesh?The baptism in the Holy Ghost is a EXPERIENCE THAT WE NEVER CAN FORGET. Time starts all over at that point---- Certainly we can be gradually filled with God's Spirit, but one day that "filling" will spill over (I call it the overflow)into a baptism or complete immersion in the Holy Ghost.Chapter and verse?? Where do you see this taught in Scripture? Namely that we are baptized, but it doesn't "spill over" into a "complete immersion"?? This is YOUR teaching and I challenge you to prove me otherwise.While this is true in the sense that the Holy Spirit comes upon us, and in us, to plant the seed of life in Christ, it is not true that we are completely filled with His Spirit unless we ask for it. "...How much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (Luke 11:13).This Scripture doesn't prove your point. It simply says that in order for the Holy Spirit to be "given" ("given" implies "for the first time" - you don't need to ask for what you already have), you may ask and God will give.Where is your Scriptural support? I'm really trying hard to see your points here, but it is pretty weak.I suggest you taking your preserved KJV and reading it again, but this time try reading it like it were the first time you had ever read it. (Of course adding proper logical hermeneutic to your reading)Just a suggestion.RT

Steve,I think you don't get what Ron was saying. Here's his own explanation of what he said:It was simply showing that your position of 'if the Bible doesn't forbid it, it's OK' is open to serious problems. I regard 'manipulation of opinion' as a grave sin in preachers. Now that you have descended to the level of personal abuse, I will withdraw from this thread.Get it? Your LOGIC was way off. Not any one subject like "priesthood" in comparison to "animal noises." He was checking you on your very bad logic.And I will echo him. You can't say, "If you can't show me where the Word prohibits THIS (altar calls, fill in the blank), it can't be wrong." The Bible doesn't directly prohibit smoking marijuana!! So if the Bible doesn't specifically prohibit it, can we do it??? Should we do it??The Bible doesn't say we CAN'T go out in the woods, sit in a circle with our legs crossed, paint our faces, paint our left toe red, and hum the tune to "Amazing Grace"!!!! It doesn't say we CAN'T do that. But if someone DID do that, I would think that the practice is a bit STRANGE and definitely UNNECESSARY!!If you told me that somehow it HELPED bring the "red toe cult members" to Christ, I would still say, "You don't have to do that to lead people to Christ."It isn't the THING or SUBJECT, it is your LOGIC that says, "If it doesn't say anything against it, then I'm gonna do it." Fine. Just don't ask the rest of us to join you. Get it?RT

Do you agree with Ron's statement that the Male Ordained Priesthood, established by God at Mt. Sainai is equal to the error of : infant baptism, dancing, animal noises, & smoking and any number of things?God-ordained priests are ordained by God. man-ordained priests are ordained by man. Man-ordained has nothing to do with male or female. I do not believe that men can ordain priests. Hope that makes things more clear for you.

Steve,You only have to go to our website and look under our church and family issues to see that I am not an egalitarian, nor an evangelical feminist (EF). I am a Bible-only preacher.Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman. There is no such thing as a woman bishop or deacon. (the two named offices in the local church)I am not a Jezebel advocate. And I will take this opportunity to say that in order to have a Jezebel, you must also have an Ahab. I don't want to be an Ahab. I won't!!EF's love to use the example of Deborah. But in order to have a Deborah, you have to have a nation full of cowardly Barak's. I don't want to be a Barak! "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."[Isaiah 3:12]The Scripture above is NOT meant to be a blessing upon those who have women rule over them. It is quite the opposite.Women in the church of God should be daughters of Sarah, completely obedient to their own husbands as unto the Lord as the Scriptures say.I am deeply troubled at the women teachers in the churches and even on TV today. Did they miss this Scripture:"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."[1 Timothy 2:12]The NT is FILLED with support for God ordained Male leadership. But so many churches today have ignored this for the sake of pragmatism. And they have reaped a powerless church and ruined homes. Where are all the men of God today??? Are they ALL Barak's??? Are they ALL Ahab's??? God help us.RT

I do not expect you to agree with what I have to say. If you ever receive this baptism, then we will have something to talk about. Right now, since you haven't, it seems that we just have to agree to disagree, like Christian brothers have been doing since the beginning.Now you have crossed the line. You seem to take great ease in making broad assumptions about people.FYI, I have received the baptism. I DO speak in tounges ALL THE TIME!!! What on the face of God's green earth are you talking about???? I used to hold your theology of two separate definite works of the Spirit. While we are to be continually filled with the Spirit, when He comes, HE COMES!!!This really betrays that you prove your theology through experience first instead of the word first.You flabbergast me, sir.RT

Do you agree with this practice that Pastor Ron is seeming to endors?. How about you, RT, do you agree with the ordination of women as well?You are not listening. Not only do I NOT agree with the ordination of women I don't agree with the ordination of men either. I accept one ordination which is available to 'all and only' those who are in Christ where there is neither male not female.

You are not listening. Not only do I NOT agree with the ordination of women I don't agree with the ordination of men either. I accept one ordination which is available to 'all and only' those who are in Christ where there is neither male not female.Amen, bro. Ron! Ordination as it relates to salvation has nothing to do with ministry. It has everything to do with eternal life and salvation."And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." [Acts 13:48]But most of the uses of the word "ordained" in scripture have to do with ministry. And this is reserved for men only. Christ "ordained" twelve men:"And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach," [Mark 3:14]The apostles "ordained" elders as the male leadership of the local body in the early church:"And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." [Acts 14:23]RT

My question to you RT- Did you have the experience of Cornelius, and get this power immediately? Or, were you baptized in water and then shortly after that receive the Baptism of the Holy Ghost? Is that why you cannot relate to me?I was baptized in water, then later had the experience you mentioned. But when I was baptized in water, I was so young I didn't have a good enough understanding of baptism. So to answer you is very hard. I was later baptized "into the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of my sins" according to Acts 2:38 in water. My experience is one of a pilgrim. Seeking truth and being led of the Lord into it (or should I say into Him?). The Bible is my authority, the Holy Ghost is my guide.Let me quote something you said:(over 37 years after I accepted the Lord as my LORD & SAVIOR & was water baptised)I think that this is where our problem lies. You seem to think that "accepting the Lord" as Lord and Saviour is when a person FIRST receives the Holy Ghost. But there are no Scriptural grounds for such a statement.Go read of the Samarians in Acts 8. The Bible says they didn't receive the Holy Spirit UNTIL AFTER they both believed and were baptized. Now the Baptists and most pentecostals say that when a person believes, they get the spirit of God. I don't have ONE SINGLE verse I can think of that says this.Can you point me to one?So yes you must be baptized in water. Yes most are baptized in the Spirit after this. This seems to be the seal of salvation itself, not merely an experience of power. It seems to be the FIRST time we receive the Holy Spirit. SCRIPTURALLY speaking of course. ;-) RT

I think that this is where our problem lies. You seem to think that "accepting the Lord" as Lord and Saviour is when a person FIRST receives the Holy Ghost. But there are no Scriptural grounds for such a statement.Go read of the Samarians in Acts 8. The Bible says they didn't receive the Holy Spirit UNTIL AFTER they both believed and were baptized. Now the Baptists and most pentecostals say that when a person believes, they get the spirit of God. I don't have ONE SINGLE verse I can think of that says this.No scriptural grounds? Everywhere you look the conversion of sinners is traced to His influence.Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;(Titus 3:5)For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)The laying on of hands in Acts 8 was clearly something additional to the "renewing of the Holy Ghost". It was spoken of as the "gift of God" in Acts 8:20 and must have referred to some kind of external effects because it was something that Simon "saw"(8:18). Probably tongues and/or miracles.In Christ,Ron

No scriptural grounds? Everywhere you look the conversion of sinners is traced to His influence.I didn't say His influence was absent. I said that "accepting" Jesus doesn't seem to equal "receiving the Spirit" Biblically. None of the Scriptures you quoted said that. In fact, "accepting" Jesus doesn't exist in Scriptural salvation teaching.You have repent, believe, etc. but no "accept." People don't get saved by "accepting" Jesus. They get saved when Jesus "accepts" them. And the evidence that He has "accepted us is that we have His Spirit. (1 Jn. 3:24; 4:13)Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)When does being born of God ACTUALLY HAPPEN?? No "accept" Jesus here.For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)This Scripture tells us that the Baptism in the Spirit is what puts us into the body of Christ. Quite a different concept from the "second work" of grace (after salvation) idea. You are quoting some GREAT Scriptures here. Listen to them.The laying on of hands in Acts 8 was clearly something additional to the "renewing of the Holy Ghost". It was spoken of as the "gift of God" in Acts 8:20 and must have referred to some kind of external effects because it was something that Simon "saw"(8:18). Probably tongues and/or miracles.What in the world do you think the "gift of God" is??? Recognize this Scripture?"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." [Romans 6:23]Let's look at Acts 8 one more time:Acts 8:12\t"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women."(v.14) "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:15\tWho, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:16\t(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)17\tThen laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."Now did you get that? They believed. They were baptized. But until the apostles came and layed hands the Holy Ghost "was fallen upon none of them." (v. 16) And verse 15 says that the apostled prayed that "they might receive the Holy Ghost." So we see that they hadn't even received Him yet.There is ONE baptism in the Holy Ghost. Your Bible says that it is THAT baptism that puts us into the body of Christ. To say that a person receives the Holy Ghost and then receives the Holy Ghost again doesn't make sense. And you can't use this Scripture to say they merely were "filled" with the Spirit because it plainly and redundantly says that they "received" Him.I think it's time for you to do what this Pentecostal boy did: Change your theology to fit the Bible. I still speak in tongues and love the gifts of the Spirit. But to provide for a second work of grace is indefensible if you are using Scripture to try to prove it. (Which I hope we all do)Think about it.RT

Pastor Ron, do you agree with RT on this issue?Would like your comments.Why? you never listen to them. Why do you persist in referring to me as 'Pastor' when I have specifically asked you not to do so?

Philogos said:You are not listening. Not only do I NOT agree with the ordination of women I don't agree with the ordination of men either. I accept one ordination which is available to 'all and only' those who are in Christ where there is neither male not female.Stever's question to Pastor Ron (AKA Philogos)My question to you still stands, Philogos----Since we are all "Priests" and Jesus is our High Priest, do you believe in the ordination of women as Pastors and Leaders in the Church (on this earth)?What part of 'Not only do I NOT agree with the ordination of women I don't agree with the ordination of men either.' don't you understand?

Hi RT,You have repent, believe, etc. but no "accept." I believe the proof text used for 'accepting' or more commonly called 'receiving Christ' is:But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:The question is- what does this receiving entail?This Scripture tells us that the Baptism in the Spirit is what puts us into the body of Christ. Quite a different concept from the "second work" of grace (after salvation) idea. You are quoting some GREAT Scriptures here. Listen to them.I have to ask RT, are you UPC in your doctrine? If you assert that the baptism in the Spirit places us in the Body AND that one must speak with tongues to have the initial evidence of the baptism in the Spirit (which is the AG, PCG, CGC position) your doctrine is essentially the same as Oneness Pentecostal. The equation is simple: tongues = salvation. I cannot accept this view.There is ONE baptism in the Holy Ghost. Your Bible says that it is THAT baptism that puts us into the body of Christ. To say that a person receives the Holy Ghost and then receives the Holy Ghost again doesn't make sense.There are other ways at reconciling this without resorting to the UPC position.God Bless,-Robert

Robert asks:The question is- what does this receiving entail?I think I started this somewhere and lost track of it. The phrase 'receiving Him' as taken from John is in reference to 'his word' or testimony. The earlier verses of John's gospel have to do with witnesses. This language of the receiving of the truth or the witness is repeated in “And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” (John 3:32-34, KJV) The language of 'receiving Him' as taken from Paul in Colossians is a very important passage.“As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.” (Col. 2:6-7, KJV) This is a vital passage because we know Paul had not met these people and that his statements were thus based on the evidence provided by Epaphras. This means that, to a degree, we can gather together the information given by Epaphras which caused Paul to say these people had 'received Christ'. They make an interesting list...1. Col 1:4. Paul had "heard of your faith in Christ Jesus". It is important to understand that this is not referring to 'facts about Christ'. In the preaching of Epaphras they had encountered the living Son of God and had put themselves into His hands. This is genuine faith; faith in the person of Jesus Christ. They had not been taken through 4 steps or a counselling procedure they had met Christ in the preaching and responded personally to Him.2. Col 1:4. Paul had also heard "of the love which ye have to all the saints," and he expands this by saying plainly that Epaphras had "declared unto us your love in the Spirit". Col 1:8. This is nothing less that the 'love of God' shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Spirit. It is referred to by John in his letter "we know that we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren". “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.”(1John 3:14, KJV) 3. Col 1:5. Paul has also heard that they had heard "the word of the truth of the gospel" which came to them. This is linked to the first statement. Epaphras had brought the 'word of God' to them. This is not a reference to Bible verses but to the fact the these men and women had heard God's word. It was as though God had spoken and they responded correspondingly. New Testament preaching was not the stringing together of Bible verses but the means whereby Christ the Word was manifested. “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?”(Gal. 3:1, KJV) and this vivid 'setting forth of Christ crucified' was not the result of eloquence which Paul consciously rejected. (1 Cor 1:17, 2:1) It was 'the word' being manifested in the preaching. Titus 1:34. Col 1:6 From the beginning the 'word of God' had brought forth 'fruit' in the lives of these new believers. Fruit is the final proof the nature. They had received the word of God in the preaching, the life of God in the Spirit and the proof was clearly visible.This is all the evidence Paul needs; these people had 'received Christ'. We should observe that there are no techniques employed. No 'altar calls' or 'counseling rooms'. They had encountered Christ personally and had surrendered to Him. As a consequence He had given them His Spirit. This is the New Testament definition of 'receiving Christ'.

Bro. Ron wrote: They had encountered Christ personally and had surrendered to Him. As a consequence He had given them His Spirit. This is the New Testament definition of 'receiving Christ'.So we are back again to the passage:So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the 'word' (rhema) of GodIn my studies of this word it seems to indicate an 'utterance' as opposed to a written word. It seems to be words proceeding from the mouth of God. If that is so- then I am now thinking of the word "oracle." If I add this all up then I must conclude that if our ministry be not the oracles of God then they will not produce faith. When I say oracles I am thinking of freshness or 'application'. I am thinking of the sword of the Spirit. Not the word of God turned into natural proof texts by the mind of mens reasonings and deductions: but the very oracle of God... the Word weilded by the Holy Ghost as the speaker is being carried along by the Holy Spirit. Am I any where near to what you mean by Christ being evidently set forth among the people?

Am I any where near to what you mean by Christ being evidently set forth among the people?Yes, the only thing I would add is to draw attention to this kind of phraseology which we find in the NT...“Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds: That I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak.”(Col. 4:3-4, KJVS) Here the word translated 'utterance' is 'logos'. But Paul is asking for prayer that the 'logos' might be 'manifested'. I think this is the special focus of 'rhema'. (but in saying this I must distance myself from those who have built whole theologies on this!)In that Titus reference we have “But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;” (Titus 1:3, KJVS) Here too the word 'word' is 'logos' which Paul sees as being 'manifested' in/by preaching. I fear that not all preaching manifests the logos. Much is the transfer of information; good accurate information but information nevertheless.'oracle' is a good word. Paul calls the scriptures the 'oracles of God'; the place where God speaks.

“But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;”So then as we follow along in this- is it possible that merely 'reading' the word of God would be suffucient to bring saving faith? I know the immediate answer will likely be 'yes', but it is important I think because so many have used Gospel Tracts as a means of "winning souls to Christ" and Paul seems to place a great importance on "utterance being given unto him." Maybe this is why so many have said that they read the Bible and do not get anything out of it or understand it. It is mere words on the page to them. There has to be something (someone) bringing forth the word of God as an Oracle in preaching so that saving faith may be acquired. Once regenerated then there can be a passing from the "milk" of God's word to the 'meat'. When I say milk here I am referring to the substance of the word of God that has been prepared for feeding "babes in Christ" through the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the one ministering under the utterance. A babe in Christ may not have the means of taking the 'meat' and breaking it down usefully. For the born again Holy Spirit filled believers- it seems that they can 'read' the logos and God quicken it to them as 'rhema'. Not to go off the deep end here- but I think it is important for us to pray a similar prayer to Paul's. We need utterance- not so much for the believer- but for the unbeliever. This would then jibe with the necessity of the gift of prophecy in meetings.Make sense?

I believe the proof text used for 'accepting' or more commonly called 'receiving Christ' is:But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:The question is- what does this receiving entail?Well, "accepting" and "receiving" can be two very different things. You can "accept" facts which is different than "receiving" items. But you are right, what does "receiving" entail. Evidently this is receiving a PERSON and not ACCEPTING FACTS. Very important. Sounds to me like an experience! ;-) RT: This Scripture tells us that the Baptism in the Spirit is what puts us into the body of Christ. Quite a different concept from the "second work" of grace (after salvation) idea. You are quoting some GREAT Scriptures here. Listen to them.Robert: I have to ask RT, are you UPC in your doctrine? If you assert that the baptism in the Spirit places us in the Body AND that one must speak with tongues to have the initial evidence of the baptism in the Spirit (which is the AG, PCG, CGC position) your doctrine is essentially the same as Oneness Pentecostal. The equation is simple: tongues = salvation. I cannot accept this view.No, I am NOT UPC in my doctrine. I hope by what you wrote about the AG, PCG, etc. you weren't saying they believed that speaking in tongues was necessary for salvation. Because that is the farthest thing from the truth. I used to be a licensed AG minister and know from first hand knowledge. They preach against UPC doctrines. But if you were simply saying that they teach that tongues is the initial, physical evidence for the baptism in the Holy Ghost, you are correct.The equation is simple: tongues = salvation. I cannot accept this view.That is not my view. I had to take a hard look at the tongues issue once I saw that the Bible clearly taught that receiving the Spirit was necessary for salvation and that there was no distinction in Scripture between being baptized with the Spirit and receiving the Spirit. It really messed me up. I was a good AG boy. I spoke (and still speak) in tongues.But I had to take another hard look at Scripture. I looked at a Scripture I had categorized as being "only for the gifts" and "not for the evidence.""Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"[1 Corinthians 12:30]It doesn't say "do all have the GIFT of tongues." It says, "do all speak with tongues?" That seems pretty clear to me. And the answer he is begging to the question is NO.So receiving the Spirit is a crisis experience. Everywhere you look in Acts that we are given detail, this is the case. So something is going to happen, but what? This is up to God regarding manifestation. But is manifestation the issue?? No way! I've had the Spirit of God on me so strong it felt like from my belly to my mouth I was like a fire hose and living water was shooting out of my mouth. Just try and get words out then! :-P Take it from me. It's not so easy. And you really don't care. All you care about is that the God of heaven is coming down and filling and touching and indwelling you. In that moment it is all about Him. And you can't deny what you experienced. You KNOW you have Him. Now does this experience continue on a day to day basis in such an extreme manner? No. After the experience I described to you happened, my body felt the effects for about a week afterwards. My whole body felt like it had ruptured or something. What I am saying is that our mortal bodies can't take the presence of God all of the time. He's just too awesome!Excuse me while I praise Him.....Hallelujah!!!! OK, I'll try to finish this up. Here's what I wrote:There is ONE baptism in the Holy Ghost. Your Bible says that it is THAT baptism that puts us into the body of Christ. To say that a person receives the Holy Ghost and then receives the Holy Ghost again doesn't make sense.How can you dismiss this as, "well I know that this is what the Bible says, but this sounds too much like the UPC so I won't receive it." What's the deal? Truth is truth. Who cares who believes what?? You don't have to say tongues=salvation to agree with this Scripture!! :-? You just have to be willing to believe the truth no matter what it will cost you. You've got to be willing to believe what the Bible says even if you are the only one you know who believes it. Truth is most important. Who cares what the AG, or UPC, or any other denomination or fellowship says?? I'm just going to believe the truth. At least that is my passion and goal.I hope it is yours as well. Look forward to your response.RT

I didn't say His influence was absent. I said that "accepting" Jesus doesn't seem to equal "receiving the Spirit" Biblically. None of the Scriptures you quoted said that. In fact, "accepting" Jesus doesn't exist in Scriptural salvation teaching.I agree that the phrase "accept Jesus" is probably not the best choice of words however,I don't care to get into semantics and that was not the point of my post,The Samartians heard the gospel as preached by Philip and believed and were baptized(Acts 8:12).Based on the verses I quoted from John, Titus, and 1 Corinthians, doesn't New Testament baptism presuppose the "renewing of the Holy Ghost"? Isn't baptism a symbol, a wedding ring if you will, declaring you to be of the Bride of Christ. Isn't it a picture of entering into His death, burial, and resurrection? Does that happen outside of the inward "renewing" work of the Holy Ghost?Also, why do you suppose that Philip didn't lay hands on the Samaritans? Why did the apostles have to come? Is the Holy Spirit given by men?In Christ,Ron

SteverWith all due respect, in your communications with brother Ron, you are being offencive and it seems deliberatly so. If you would bother to read the posts that brother Ron has made in this thread alone, he has answered every one of your questions. Is it so hard to understand?I am seeing a lack of christian charity in the posts you are making. To me they (your posts) seem to be lacking in humility and I find it hard to believe that the Holy Spirit which you are proclaiming so loudly is leading you in the writing of these posts.I know I am being harsh, but I am being grieved over the lack of thought that you give your posts concerning philogos. Please examine your motives in this matter.Lyndon

What I do not understand is you inability to answer a direct question about women's leadership in the Church. Are you, sir, an ordained Minister? Yes or no?1. by 'ordained' do you mean formally approved by a denomination and prayed over by their officers? 2. Why do you persist in the use of the phrase 'pastor Ron'? when you have been requested not to do so?

InTheLight,I agree that the phrase "accept Jesus" is probably not the best choice of words however,I don't care to get into semantics and that was not the point of my post,I understand that. While it is a bad choice of words, it IS what people think of when they think "receive Christ." Receiving Christ happens WHEN YOU RECEIVE CHRIST. When you receive HIS SPIRIT. No great semantics here. This is not something WE DO. This is something He does.Believing is what WE DO. Repenting is what WE DO. Being baptized in water is something WE DO. Giving us the Holy Ghost is something Jesus does as a response to our repentance and faith. It is His approval of us and His earnest given to us. This is an EXPERIENCE. That is what I am saying.Why do we tell people who merely pray a prayer yet have NO EXPERIENCE of receiving God's Spirit and NO WITNESS of the Spirit "Welcom to the family of God???" What right do we have to do this? What Scriptural grounds. And for those that know better than to tell someone "welcome to the family of God," why do we think praying a prayer equals salvation? Whatever happened to receiving the Holy Ghost?The Samartians heard the gospel as preached by Philip and believed and were baptized(Acts 8:12).Based on the verses I quoted from John, Titus, and 1 Corinthians, doesn't New Testament baptism presuppose the "renewing of the Holy Ghost"?This is your assumption. This is what a lot of folks assume. But this is NOT what the Bible says. If you want to see what receiving the Spirit looks like, read the book of Acts. It is an experience.Isn't baptism a symbol, a wedding ring if you will, declaring you to be of the Bride of Christ. Isn't it a picture of entering into His death, burial, and resurrection? Does that happen outside of the inward "renewing" work of the Holy Ghost?Baptism in water is a commanded activity whereby the believer is untited with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. (Rom. 6:1ff) It is the answer of a good conscience toward God. It is the only physical means of obeying the gospel.So it is more than just a picture or symbol. It is the action that evidences saving faith. Faith w/o works is dead. It seems to be the activation of faith. (Scriptually of course)Also, why do you suppose that Philip didn't lay hands on the Samaritans? Why did the apostles have to come? Is the Holy Spirit given by men?Whatever "I" think doesn't really matter. The Bible says that up until the apostles came, they hadn't received that Holy Ghost. The Bible says that.You haven't dealt with the substance of my post. Please deal with WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS in Acts 8. I took good time to lay it out for you. Before we go on, please deal with it.Blessings,RT

inthelight writes:Based on the verses I quoted from John, Titus, and 1 Corinthians, doesn't New Testament baptism presuppose the "renewing of the Holy Ghost"? Isn't baptism a symbol, a wedding ring if you will, declaring you to be of the Bride of Christ. Isn't it a picture of entering into His death, burial, and resurrection? Does that happen outside of the inward "renewing" work of the Holy Ghost?RonI know we have talked about this before but I do wonder whether 'water batism' presupposes the Holy Spirit. Do I understand you right? are you saying that Spirit baptism is 'biblically' a prerequisite of water baptism? The pattern of Acts, with the single exception of the Cornelius incident, would seem to suggest that 'generally speaking' water baptism was a prerequisite of receiving the Spirit. How do you see this? After all the original proclamation was “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”(Acts 2:37-39, KJVS) and in every instance, but that of Cornelius, water-baptism occured before Spirit baptism.The Cornelius incident forbids us ever making a hard and fast rule that this pattern must be adhered to, but there does seem to be a 'pattern' nevertheless.

Hi RT,Thanks for clearing that up. How can you dismiss this as, "well I know that this is what the Bible says, but this sounds too much like the UPC so I won't receive it." What's the deal? Truth is truth. Who cares who believes what?? You don't have to say tongues=salvation to agree with this Scripture!We have had this whole discussion on other forums and there is a growing movement towards the UPC position in repentance circles. Some are saying that a person does not have biblical salvation until they repent, are baptized in water, and are baptized in the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues. When asked if whether or not Wesley or Finney was really saved if they did not speak in tongues- the answer is generally that- "they did speak in tongues we just have no record of it." I do not buy this at all. So as Pentecostals we have to understand biblically how this plays out soteriologically. The issue gets even more complicated because there must be a point in linear time when a person is justified by faith. Would you consider yourself 'saved' (in the general sense of the word) before you had the crisis experience of this "Baptism in the Holy Spirit"? There are likely to be many reading this that can attest to no such experience and are serving God with great zeal with the fruit of the Spirit evidenced in their life. Understand that I am not in complete disagreement, I am saying that we have yet to fully understand how this very complex issue ultimately plays out. God Bless,-Robert

RT wrote,You haven't dealt with the substance of my post. Please deal with WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS in Acts 8. I took good time to lay it out for you. Before we go on, please deal with it.This passage is generally used by Pentecostals to demonstrate the sequence of the second blessing doctrine. Let's look at Acts 8 one more time:Acts 8:12 "But when they believed (1) Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized[2), both men and women."(v.14) "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost(3):16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."Now did you get that? They believed. They were baptized. But until the apostles came and layed hands the Holy Ghost "was fallen upon none of them." (v. 16) And verse 15 says that the apostled prayed that "they might receive the Holy Ghost." So we see that they hadn't even received Him yet.There is ONE baptism in the Holy Ghost. Your Bible says that it is THAT baptism that puts us into the body of Christ. To say that a person receives the Holy Ghost and then receives the Holy Ghost again doesn't make sense. And you can't use this Scripture to say they merely were "filled" with the Spirit because it plainly and redundantly says that they "received" Him.The problem I see in this theory is that it neglects the operation of the Holy Spirit throughout the entire process leading the sinner to repentance and saving faith. The Holy Spirit is long at work in salvation before the Baptism in the Holy Ghost. I am not arguing against the necessity of receiving the Holy Spirit; I am trying to understand chronologically at what point the persons in Samaria had believed and been baptized were actually 'saved.' Reason being, if there had been no Apostles coming down from Jerusalem- then what?God Bless,-Robert

... and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”When scripture speaks of "the gift" in this passage as "a promise" and even as "the earnest of our inheritance" (Eph 1) are we to think of this 'gift' or 'promise' or 'earnest' as a special operation of the Holy Spirit or are we to think of the 'promise', 'gift' or 'earnest' as the Holy Spirit Himself? God Bless,-Robert

philologos, I'm wondering about the eunuch in Acts 8?In what sense? There is no specific reference to the Spirit's work in the eunuch, but as always 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.

RTwhile I have a lot in common with your views here I think this statement is somewhat overstating the issue.There is ONE baptism in the Holy Ghost. Your Bible says that it is THAT baptism that puts us into the body of Christ. To say that a person receives the Holy Ghost and then receives the Holy Ghost again doesn't make sense. And you can't use this Scripture to say they merely were "filled" with the Spirit because it plainly and redundantly says that they "received" Him.What 'my' Bible actually says is “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” (1Cor. 12:13, KJVS)“for also in one Spirit we all to one body were baptized, whether Jews or Greeks, whether servants or freemen, and all into one Spirit were made to drink,” (1Cor. 12:13, YNG) Here Young's Literal Translation states that the 'purpose' or 'direction' of that 'Baptism in(by) One Spirit' is 'One Body'. This particular construction does not necessarily mean that it has been thoroughly achieved. The same construction is found in John Baptist's words “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:” (Matt. 3:11, KJVS) I don't think you would want to say that John's water baptism inevitably brought people 'into repentance', but it was most certainly its 'purpose/direction'.However I do believe you are right in saying that this is the only agency by which we can be brought into One Body. The problem we face in discussing this is that 'evidence' of the Baptism in the Spirit is always lurking at the edges of our conversation. For some readers the very phrase 'Baptism in the Spirit' will mean a 'Pentecostal/Charismatic' type of experience.

Hi Stever,The issue is one that has been discussed on these forums much in the past. For starters we are dealing with several words (issues) that need to be defined and explored. What is a pastor? Who is in authority? How is authority delegated by God? Does man have the right to delegate authority biblically? Why did the King James translators opt for certain English words in translating the original tongues when other more clear words could have been used to describe 'offices'? For example, most of the KJV (AV) is the works of William Tyndale. Yet, the KJV translators opted to use a different word for poimen than Tyndale. Here we read:And the very same made some Apostles some prophetes some Evangelistes some Sheperdes some Teachers: (Tyndale 1525 on Ephesians 4:11).Only once does the KJV use the word 'pastor' to translate the Greek word that clearly means 'shepherd' (feeder of the sheep). This is a very significant move because it defines the greatest part of the "five-fold ministry". Why? It goes back to the issue of retaining authority. Words have histories. Who was the first shepherd in scripture? Was it not Abel? Why was he killed? Because his brothers works were evil and his was righteous. We have here the age old issue of Cain and Abel. It is a matter of authority and acceptance with God. Does God want a man to 'lord' over a people as a totalitarian dictator, establishing his version of religious expression; or does He want a person who will "feed the flock of God that is among them taking the oversight thereof"? Oversight here is episkopeo and it means to "watch over". It deals with provision and protection- not lordship. The word is used in Hebrews:Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; (Hebrews 12:15).This is a lot different than what happens in modern times. unfortunately the word has come to mean the "top dog" or the man to whom "the buck stops." This comes about perhaps because of the rendering of Romans 12:8:Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulnessYoungs translates the same passage:or he who is exhorting -- `In the exhortation!' he who is sharing -- `In simplicity!' he who is leading -- `In diligence?' he who is doing kindness -- `In cheerfulness.'This follows the flow and use of the term "shepherd". A shepherd 'leads' the flock. Leadership is something quite different in the Kingdom than in the secular world. Authority may be passed around with titles and such in the world- but the Kingdom is under God's authority and He distributes it severally as He wills. The Greek word here is Hegeomai and it means "to lead". I would recommend a deep study of how leadership plays out in the Body of Christ. Remember how the Holy Spirit said "seperate unto me Barnabus and Saul"? This is ordination biblically. God Bless,-Robert

stever asks...Do you support the leadership of women in the Body of Christ, in the Church? Do you support Women Pastors & Ministers that shepherd a congregation? This, of course, is the first time you have asked the question in this form. As with many of your questions it muddles up things which must be kept separate for a proper understanding of scripture.1. Do you support the leadership of women in the Body of Christ, in the Church? 'the body' of Christ is the Universal Church. 'a body' of Christ is a local entity. 'the body' of Christ is under His personal headship and what He chooses to do is not within my right to judge. In that 'Universal Body' I note that He has often used women to 'lead'. You don't need me to list them; history bears its own testimony. My opinion is of no consequence in this; it is His right as head of 'the body of Christ' and whatever He chooses to do with 'the body' which is under His jurisdiction is fine with me.2. Do you support Women Pastors & Ministers that shepherd a congregation?I distinguish between leadership and authority, but I do not formally recognise the concept of 'a pastor or minister' who is responsible for 'shepherding' a congregation. I know you don't understand what I am saying here but you are asking me to describe 'apples' with questions like 'how many wings does it have?'.Let me share my experience. In the congregation to which I belong we would never consider sisters in roles of overall "authority" for that congregation. However we discover 'leadership' gifts in our sisters in many contexts, not least the meetings. Our meetings are open and without structure. We have a company of elders who are answerable to God for the particular 'house of God' in which He has made them stewards. They 'watch over' the gatherings of the saints and give account to God for our condition as a congregation. Sometimes a sister will pray and the prayer will capture the meeting which will follow; she has just exercised 'leadership' but not 'authority'; the 'elders' will 'follow' her 'lead' if they discern the Spirit of God in her prayer. Sometimes a sister will bring a prophecy or an interpreted tongue which will direct the course of the meeting; again the elders will 'follow' her 'lead' as appropriate.The responsibility for 'pastoring' the flock of which I am part does not rest with one person; I am not convinced that in the 1st century it ever did. The elders have joint responsibility for the oversight of the church. So the concept of 'a pastor' in a local congregation is not the way I ever consider things. Some others of our congregation have shepherd hearts and shepherd gifts; the elders encourage such to enrich the church with those gifts. Some of them are sisters. However these are not 'roles' or 'positions' they are simply instinctive functions in our local body. If God has put such giftings within our midst we would be churlish to refuse them.Some years ago an English preacher/teacher wrote a very controversial book called "Leadership is Male'. I am in broad agreement with almost all that he wrote but I object to the title. I would have called it 'Authority is Male'.I hope you can see now why it is not possible to answer your questions with simple 'yes' or 'no'. You and I have completely different working definitions of almost all the terms in your questions. I disagree with your presumptions contained within the question; how can I answer 'yes' or 'no'. On a lighter note let me show you what I mean; here is an old English joke..."Do you still beat your wife?" "yes" or "no"?

Ron I know we have talked about this before but I do wonder whether 'water batism' presupposes the Holy Spirit. Do I understand you right? are you saying that Spirit baptism is 'biblically' a prerequisite of water baptism?I believe that water baptism presupposes the "renewing" of the Holy Ghost. I believe that at the point of "believing" Ezekiel 36:25-27 is fulfilled, this is what I consider the "renewing".In Christ,Ron

I believe that water baptism presupposes the "renewing" of the Holy Ghost. I believe that at the point of "believing" Ezekiel 36:25-27 is fulfilled, this is what I consider the "renewing".Hi RonI am having difficulty believing you really mean this. I even went to my dictionary to confirm what 'presupposes' means. One of the defintions is 'to require as a prerequisite'. I actually used the word 'prerequisite' in my earlier post hoping to 'flush' you out into the open. ;-) Thinking, he will surely jump on me and say 'no, I mean it assumes that Spirit baptism will follow.' But you didn't!I love Ezekiel 36 so I am more than happy to see it as regeneration. I see regeneration as God's response to 'believing' but then we really need to know what 'believing' means in this context. And what are we to make of the Samaritans? “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.”(Acts 8:12-13, KJVS)I also wonder how baptism could have been administered if this is the case. Does this not put the task of discerning the 'believing' of the candidates into the hands of the apostles? Did they discern that every candidate had 'believed' properly before they baptised them? and in our own day it would put the task of discerning genuine 'faith' into the hands of the baptisers. Can we do this? I am not pleading for frivolous, easy baptism, but to effectively guarantee someone's regeneration before water-baptism... can we do that?

Can we do this? I am not pleading for frivolous, easy baptism, but to effectively guarantee someone's regeneration before water-baptism... can we do that?I don't think we have been asked to do it biblically. Who can say who is God's elect? My point being that even Demas (depending on how you view the passage) 'forsook' Paul having loved this present word. He was in the camp with Paul who essentially rejected John Mark and then later in Colossians and II Timothy was finding him profitable for the ministry. When the smoke cleared Demas forsook Paul and Paul was sending John Mark into other areas of ministry. Sometimes it seems that God will veil the fulness of the revelation of things to even His prophets so that His purposes can be carried out. I can't see that God would even provide the level of discernment to do this.God Bless,-Robert

I am having difficulty believing you really mean thisI really mean this. Here is the meaning I am applying, from Webster's; "To suppose as previous; to imply as antecedent." Can we do this? I am not pleading for frivolous, easy baptism, but to effectively guarantee someone's regeneration before water-baptism... can we do that?Not unless you're God. But, do we baptize just anyone off the street? We baptize upon the confession of faith, It is believe, "with all your heart" as Philip told the eunuch, and be baptized, not the other way around. In Christ,Ron

I really mean this. Here is the meaning I am applying, from Webster's; "To suppose as previous; to imply as antecedent."OK let's start again. The earliest reference we have is Acts 2 where we see1. conviction, pricked in their hearts2. the command to repentgenuine repentance always includes 'belief' so there is an implication here that they had 'believed'3. the command to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ with remission of sins in view.4. the promise of the Spirit is given to be received, apparently, after water baptism.At what point here do you see your Ezekiel 36 'faith' being manifested?

At what point here do you see your Ezekiel 36 'faith' being manifested?I believe that the grace of the Holy Ghost, as regenerator, is given at point 2.In Christ,Ron

I believe that the grace of the Holy Ghost, as regenerator, is given at point 2.So even though you read in Acts 8 that the Samaritans didn't receive the Holy Ghost at point 2 or 3, you still persist in confessing something different? Where in Scripture do you place step 4 as a "filling" or "baptism" AFTER regeneration???Chapter and verse please. (Preferably from the book of Acts)RT

InTheLight writes:I believe that the grace of the Holy Ghost, as regenerator, is given at point 2.Hi RonWould you follow the Reformed understanding that regeneration precedes everything, and that conviction, faith and repentance are all the consequences of God's prior act of regeneration? Or would you see regeneration as a 'response to a response'? ie God speaks, man responds and God responds to that word.I will wait to see your response to RT too.

First off, God is not the Father of the evil people, Satan is their father! Secondly, if God is your Father you are His child. If you are a child or a son of God then you are born again, i.e. saved.Well boys, I think we just hit a snag. Stever is right here, the Holy Spirit is given as a gift to God's children according to the words of our Lord. And if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none His. I had not heard this argument before, but it seems to be pretty water tight as a simple matter of logic. "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ASK Him?If one must have the baptism in the Holy Spirit to be a child of God then this passage is a complete contradiction.God Bless,-Robert

So even though you read in Acts 8 that the Samaritans didn't receive the Holy Ghost at point 2 or 3, you still persist in confessing something different? Where in Scripture do you place step 4 as a "filling" or "baptism" AFTER regeneration???As I have already stated, I believe that what occured in Acts 8 by the laying on of hands was something 'additional' as evidenced by the fact that it came with external manifestations that Simon "saw", probably tongues or miracles.I have already quoted several scriptures that point to the fact that we are born into the body of Christ by the grace of inward renewing of the Holy Ghost. Are you saying that the believers in Samaria were not born into the body of Christ until the Apostles layed hands on them? Were they born of the will of the flesh and the will of man, or of God?In Christ,Ron

“If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”(Luke 11:13, KJVS)Hi RobertThe power of your argument, of course, lies in the personal pronoun 'your' which is not in the original. A close look at a good KJV will show the word in italics. Young's Literal Translation corrects this. “If, then, ye, being evil, have known good gifts to be giving to your children, how much more shall the Father who is from heaven give the Holy Spirit to those asking Him!’”(Luke 11:13, YNG) This reference is not a 'your heavenly Father' but to 'a heavenly Father'. It is contrasting an earthly father with a heavenly one. You may recall that this discourse seems to have to have been delivered to the 12 disciples which included 'Judas Iscariot'. Do you want to make Judas a 'child of his heavenly Father'?In fact, part of the glory of this contrast is that the heavenly Father will give to 'anyone'; all they have to do is 'ask'.The 'heavenly Father' title is used throughout the Sermon on the Mount and was particularly relevant for the people that God called 'my first born son'. See also “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?”(Mal. 2:10, KJVS)

Good answer. The question that keeps looming is at what point does one become a child of God? I think that inthelight has consistently been articulating the evangelical view that the Holy Spirit comes when saving faith is exercised. The evidence for this being the fruit of the Spirit and the naming of Christ, etc.. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. (I Corinthians 12:3)It seems evident that there is a spirit (breath) of some sort behind all words. Either the spirit of man, an evil spirit, or the Spirit of God. What are we to make of one that names the name of Christ and seems to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit, but does not believe in a 'Spirit baptism"? God Bless,-Robert

RonActs 8 is a struggle which ever way we look at it. The record seems to go out of its way to equate Simon with the rest of the 'believers' in Samaria. 'they believed' and 'Simon himself believed also'. (Acts 8:12,13) This puts no distinction between his 'faith' and 'theirs'. It goes on to tell us that he was similarly 'baptised'. So far we are being led to suppose that his experience and theirs were the same. It continues in stating that he 'continued with Philip'. This word 'continue' is the one sometimes translated 'continue steadfastly'. There seems to be no doubt as to the genuineness of his faith, his baptism or his zeal.And yet Peter's description of him is devastating.1. he was 'perishing' 8:202. his heart was not right in the sight of God 8:213. he was in the 'gall of bitterness' 8:234. and the 'controlling bonds of iniquity' 8:23There is another intriguing point. Peter refers to 'the gift of God' 'tEn dOrean tou theou' This exact phrase is only used in one other place in the Bible; “Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.” (John 4:10, KJVS) - 'tEn dOrean tou theou'. This is a fascinating link as it also took place in Samaria.What do we think Christ was referring to when He spoke of 'the gift of God' in John 4:10? The answer must surely be 'the living water'. John uses this phrase 3 times in his record“Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.”(John 4:10-11; 7:38, KJVS)But of the second time the record add “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)”(John 7:38-39, KJVS) In other words when this promise was made it was 'postdated'. It would not be payable until Jesus was 'glorified'.So the trail goes on... when was He glorified? His glorification was more a process than one specific event. It included the cross but culminated in being 'received up in glory' (1 Tim 3:16) Not 'into' glory as in the KJV but 'in' glory. This was his 'glorious ascension'. His arrival in the throne was what precipitated the coming of the Spirit. “Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.”(Acts 2:33, KJVS) This is seen in the symbolism of the Revelation where the 'throne of God and of the Lamb' becomes the source of 'living water' “Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.”(Acts 2:33, KJVS) It seems that Christ's promise to the woman of Samaria was not fulfilled until they received 'the gift of God' in the giving of the Holy Spirit.

Stever's response: What you have pointed out above was a description of me until God put it on my heart to have a deeper walk with HIM. When I finally met a man that was "Spirit Filled", that had been baptised into the Holy Spirit- I wanted that Spirit Baptism as well. I actually knew this guy when I was in High School, and now, in my 50's I meet him again. What a difference! What a walk he has with the Lord, the same kind of walk that I wanted, that I had been praying for. Hi stever,So do you consider yourself to have been 'saved' before your 'baptism in the Holy Spirit"? BTW I suppose I would fall into the classical pentecostal camp. God Bless,-Robert

Stever's response:It seems to me that she is saved by the same "belief" that Saved Abraham. Christ saw her heart, and HE knew she "believed on/in HIM".This may not be quite so plain as it appears. “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,”(John 2:23-24, KJVS)The underlined words are the same Greek word. Here some believed in ("eis" towards/into) Him but He did not reciprocate their faith knowing what was in man. This is the same expression used in this Samaritan passage “And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.”(John 4:39, KJVS) this is the same construction; they believed on ("eis" towards/into) Him. I am not suggesting that the Samaritan 'believing' was inadequate but just that the word 'believe' is often a process in John's gospel. This may be why he never uses the noun 'faith' but persists in the verb 'believe'.John's earlier use of 'believe' too is interesting; “He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”(John 1:11-12, KJVS) This is captured much better in more modern versions; “He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:”(John 1:11-12, ASV)“to his own things he came, and his own people did not receive him; but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God — to those believing in his name,”(John 1:11-12, YNG) Young brings out the construction of the definite article and present participle which signifies - the believing ones. This is not an 'act' of 'faith' but an abiding characteristic of believing. John is referring to 'believers' and says to these 'the believing ones' He (that is 'Christ') gave 'the right to become'. This is not 'dunamis' which would be inherent power but 'exousia' which means 'authority'. These verses do NOT say that anyone who 'received' Christ became 'sons' of God, it says that those who 'received' Him, those believing ones, He gave 'the right to become' the children of God. This verse speaks of people who received 'the right' - another postdated cheque - to become the children of God by regeneration.

The problem I am having in all this is wondering how this plays out in terms of the multitudes of people over the centuries who may not fit this model. What about them?

The problem I am having in all this is wondering how this plays out in terms of the multitudes of people over the centuries who may not fit this model. What about them?Robert, this should never be a problem where faith in the Word is concerned. We should never reject truth because of its consequences. We should simply recognize our own finite understanding and thank God for revealing His truth to us.It would be a grave error to reconcile the Scriptures in our hearts and minds, but then go back to living in doubt because we cannot receive what they say.Let's all receive the truth of the word like a child hearing it for the first time. Let's take it, believe it, and receive it. Amen.RT

philologos,Your last couple posts have been dynamite! I have copied and pasted them onto a Word document for future reference. Thank you for your time.Blessings,RT

Absolutely, I was saved when I received Jesus Christ as my Savior, the same pattern that the Disciples were part of. First, Christ blew on them, imparting the Holy Spirit into each believer/Disciple.This statement contradicts Scripture. John 20:22 was the text I used to use for the indwelling at the time of initial faith proceeded by a later baptism in the H.S.But to say they received the Spirit when Jesus blew is to contradict His very words just a few chapters previous. Listen:John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."Did you get that? Jesus said that if He didn't go away, the Comforter WILL NOT COME TO YOU. So let me ask you a simple question:Had Jesus gone away yet when He breathed on the disciples? And the answer is NO. Then why did he say, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost:"?? This may seem confusing if you are from a Pentecostal type persuasion and you are used to the healing line where the preacher says, "Receive..." over you. But this is really a command.I think this Scripture should also be understood as part of the same commands given in Luke 24:29 and Acts 1:4: tarry and be endued with power from on high. "Receive ye the Holy Ghost."RT

This statement contradicts Scripture. John 20:22 was the text I used to use for the indwelling at the time of initial faith proceeded by a later baptism in the H.S...I think this Scripture should also be understood as part of the same commands given in Luke 24:29 and Acts 1:4: tarry and be endued with power from on high. "Receive ye the Holy Ghost."While it may appear to be a contradiction, there is a possible reconciliation that provides a much stronger interpretation than the one you have offered (in my humble opinion).Please take the time to carefully read the following excerpt from The Significance of Christ by T. Austin-Sparks;A PRE-ASCENSION ASCENSION The passage we read in John 20 - the words to Mary - is a remarkable one. "Touch me not" - that is, lay not hold of Me - "for I am not yet ascended unto the Father." There has been much speculation as to this pre-ascension ascension. The fact that this very woman was allowed to take hold of Him later (Matt. 28:9) gives much point and strength, with other things, to there having taken place an ascension.INSTALLED AND ACCREDITED AS THE PROTOTYPE OF THE NEW CREATION This ascending to the Father was also the installing and the accrediting of Him as the Prototype and Beginning of the new creation. Remember that His resurrection and ascension always go together - they are not two separate things. Paul puts them together in his letter to the Ephesians: "he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenlies" (Eph. 1:20). There is no space between: He is raised and exalted in one act. That is how it is here in John 20: He will return for forty days, and then the ascension, as it is called by us, will take place - the great ascension. This resurrection-ascension was His accrediting - "declared to be the Son of God with power... by the resurrection from the dead" - and His installing as the Prototype and Beginning of the new creation. In His resurrection-ascension, He not only presents Himself to the Father's pleasure and is accepted to the satisfaction of God; He not only includes all who believe in Him afterward in that presentation; but He there and then becomes the Image, the Model, the Pattern, of the whole of that creation - that new creation which is coming in through faith in Him. Jesus Christ is Man still. The New Testament Church believed that He did not let go His humanity when He went to heaven. Stephen saw the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:56). The Apostle writes: "There is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5), and He is still mediating as Man. The whole system of Christianity hangs upon this very thing, that there is now a Man glorified to answer to God's original thought and intention. So He is now installed as God's model and pattern for the whole creation.In Christ,Ron

It seems that Christ's promise to the woman of Samaria was not fulfilled until they received 'the gift of God' in the giving of the Holy Spirit.That's an interesting thought you have there but I think it's more likely that the gift being referred to in John 4 is Jesus Himself, as Jesus had just said of Himself in John 3:16, God gave His only begotten Son. Jesus is the ultimate gift, the greatest gift of God's love we can ever know. The phrase following "gift of God" in John 4:10 would tend to support this, "and who it is that saith to thee, give me to drink" In other words He's saying, "if you knew who I am".In Christ,Ron

InTheLight writes:That's an interesting thought you have there but I think it's more likely that the gift being referred to in John 4 is Jesus Himself, as Jesus had just said of Himself in John 3:16, God gave His only begotten Son. Jesus is the ultimate gift, the greatest gift of God's love we can ever know. The phrase following "gift of God" in John 4:10 would tend to support this, "and who it is that saith to thee, give me to drink" In other words He's saying, "if you knew who I am".I am very comfortable with this but how is the 'gift of Jesus Himself' given to us other than by His Spirit.If we think of the physical facts of these records we know that Christ was there in the flesh 'with' them. Could He then be 'in' them at that time? Surely this is the significance of His saying“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”(John 14:16-17, KJVS) This 'and shall be in you' is certainly 'future' at the time of saying it. The change from 'with you' to 'in you' was going to occur at the coming of the Comforter. This is plainly Acts 2 rather than John 20:22. The transition from 'with' to 'in' in that case takes place at Pentecost. The word 'with' here is 'para', literally 'alongside' while the word 'in' is 'en'. The move from 'alongside' to 'within' is dynamic movement accomplished by the 'coming of the Spirit'.I do think that 'if you knew the gift of God, and who is it that saith to thee' is a double condition rather than a Hebrew type parallelism. The 'gift of God' is the life that is 'in' Christ. This is not separable from the person of Christ; 'he that hath the Son hath life' but how do we receive that life? Only by receiving the Son, but how do we 'receive the Son'? Surely we receive the Son in the person of the Spirit. This is the signficance of “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”(John 14:16-23, KJVS) The apparent confusion of persons in this passage is easily explained in that it is 'by the Spirit' that God is known. They had known the ministry of the Spirit in that the Son was 'with' them; similarly they would know His internal work by the ministry of the Spirit making real the presence of the Son 'within' them."At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." 'that day' is clearly the day in which the Spirit would arrive, having been sent by the Son. The phrase 'in that day' is repeated several times in this section of John; John 14:20; 16:23,26

Hi Bro. Ron,In our circles sometimes I hear ministers say that when a person is saved they receive "the Spirit of Christ" and later receive the Holy Ghost as a second blessing. I know you could jump all over this and I am not at all condoning it, but I thought of it after reading inthelight's post. Pedantically and biblically they are on very thin ice- but they use the expression to make the distinction between what happens at salvation and what happens at the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (in classical pentecostal theology). Any thoughts?

RobertYes, some of the early AoG folk here went in that direction too.Nelson Parr hammered out his conviction that only the baptism with the Holy Spirit was to be equated with the believer's first reception of the Holy Spirit. He argued vehemently that, on the basis of Acts 8, the Samaritan believers, who had been baptised by total immersion, had not received the Holy Spirit in any measure. He did not, of course, deny that they had received Christ. Parr's argument was based on the text that Acts 8:15 says Peter and John travelled specifically so that the Samaritan converts "might receive the Holy Spirit". In order to pursue his case logically Parr made a distinction between the Spirit of Christ (Galatians 4:6) and the Holy Spirit and he insisted that the reception of Christ, though it accompanies the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, is quite distinct from the reception of the Holy Spirit. It is not, Parr contended, that the believer receives a part of the Holy Spirit at conversion and a fullness of the Spirit at the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Rather there are two different receptions: the sinner needs a Saviour and the believer needs a Comforter. (Redemption Tidings 23 June, 1 Sept 1950)Parr's views, shared as they were by W P F Burton (Redemption Tidings 27 Sept 1946) were hardly likely to facilitate co-operation between Pentecostals and other evangelicals. "Inside Story" William K KayMy thoughts? As it stands it is very complicated. Newberry has some points about the use of the definite article in reference to the Spirit that I will dig out and share. The 'Spirit of the Son' is a solid biblical concept Gal. 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. but to distinguish this Spirit from the Spirit that the Father sent is close to Trinitarian chaos I think! Although Revelation does speak of 'the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth' (Rev 5:6) I'm going to bed now, that should give you something to think about until tomorrow. ;-)

Quote:I object to the title. I would have called it 'Authority is Male'.In this are you referring to church life specifically? (In other words, you are not extrapolating it to outside the Church, to situations in which non-Christian men and Christian women interact?)yes and yes and I have my wife's permission to say so! :-D

philologos,I am very comfortable with this but how is the 'gift of Jesus Himself' given to us other than by His Spirit.If we think of the physical facts of these records we know that Christ was there in the flesh 'with' them. Could He then be 'in' them at that time? Surely this is the significance of His saying“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”(John 14:16-17, KJVS)I'm really glad that you brought this out. Andrew Murray wrote a great book that has been published under a lot of different titles. But the book is "The Believer's Blessing of Pentecost." I think he nails it on the head. He points out this passage of Jn. 14 and makes this point you have made. Jesus was externally with them and would be "in" them at Pentecost. (In US today)Now I have a question. How many Spirit's does God have? Does the Father have a different Spirit than the Son? Just who IS Jesus' Father? The Bible says that the angel told Mary that "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." [Luke 1:35]This brings up a topic on the thread here about Oneness Pentecostals. While they may be accused of oversimplification, Trinitarians could be accused of believing in three entities, or three Gods. Remember, it was Tertullian who first came up with the Trinity. The apostles never to our knowledge confessed this, nor did Christ.How can we justify confessing something that neither Christ nor the apostles confessed?? THEY laid the foundation, NOT US. We must be careful how we lay on that foundation.I still contend that the MYSTERY of godliness is the incarnation, or God manifest in the flesh. I've got a really good question. What is so wrong with sticking to Scriptural confessions concerning the Godhead?? How about this one?"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." [1 Corinthians 8:6]You see? We can read the OT and know that there is "but one God." The issue is who is the Lord Jesus Christ?Just how many Spirits does God have?? Check out this Scripture:"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." [John 4:24]Notice the indefinite article "a." God is a (singular) Spirit. How many Spirits?Please, lets put our Trinitarian assumptions aside and not let them blind us to what we could learn outside of that non-Biblical box.I think both the Trinitarians and the Oneness folks have communication problems. Personally, I think both terms need to be trashed and replaced with Biblical words like "Godhead." Just my humble opinion."Now the Lord is that Spirit:" - 2 Corinthians 3:17 (It doesn't say "those Spirits" here)RT

Gal. 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.but to distinguish this Spirit from the Spirit that the Father sent is close to Trinitarian chaos I think! Although Revelation does speak of 'the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth' (Rev 5:6) So are you agreeing that the Holy Ghost is the "Spirit of his Son"? In my previous post, I tried to deal with Trinitarian chaos. Interested in your thoughts. BTW, isn't this the seven spirits of God?Isa. 11:2\t"And (1) the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of (2) wisdom and (3) understanding, the spirit of (4) counsel and (5) might, the spirit of (6) knowledge and of the (7) fear of the LORD;" (numbering added)Is this seven aspects, characteristics of God's Spirit? What do you think?RT

Just how many Spirits does God have?? Check out this Scripture:"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." [John 4:24]Notice the indefinite article "a." God is a (singular) Spirit. How many Spirits?I think you have misunderstood the nature of this verse. The Greek language does not have an indefinite article (a) but it does have a definite article (the). Consequently although, in English, we might choose to add an indefinite article in fact there is none in the original which simply reads 'God (is) Spirit' This has to do with His nature not His constitution. To the woman who thought God was located in this mountain or that, Christ simply states that God is not that kind of a being; He is spirit.Newberry says 'the absence of the article (the) before a word in Greek, signifies, that this word is not be understood as objective, but characteristic; that is, it is not simply an object before the mind, but it expresses the character of something with which it is connected.'

In my previous post, I tried to deal with Trinitarian chaos. Interested in your thoughts. Before we start the feeding frenzy :-? let me make it clear that I was saying that a certain view of the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit causes Trinitarian chaos. I am a solid Trinitarian and am happy with the pronouncements of the various classical creeds thought not with the way in which they were often used. They were designed to exclude error; too often they were used to exclude people.

My thoughts? As it stands it is very complicated. Newberry has some points about the use of the definite article in reference to the Spirit that I will dig out and share. The 'Spirit of the Son' is a solid biblical conceptGal. 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.but to distinguish this Spirit from the Spirit that the Father sent is close to Trinitarian chaos I think! Although Revelation does speak of 'the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth' (Rev 5:6) I'm going to bed now, that should give you something to think about until tomorrow.Yes. and so it is whenever the issues in Pentecostal circles start playing out. When are we going to realize that any doctrine we come up with to explain our experience almost always leads to a misconstrusion of God?Point well received!God Bless,-Robert

This brings up a topic on the thread here about Oneness Pentecostals. While they may be accused of oversimplification, Trinitarians could be accused of believing in three entities, or three Gods. Remember, it was Tertullian who first came up with the Trinity. The apostles never to our knowledge confessed this, nor did Christ.How can we justify confessing something that neither Christ nor the apostles confessed??Hi RT,I am quite surprised that you would cast doubt upon Trinitarian Doctrine. The danger I see in this mindset is that suddenly everything is up for grabs. The fundamentals of Christianity are anvils that have worn out many of hammar.Remember, it was Tertullian who first came up with the Trinity.This is simply not true. It was the ante-nicene apologists that had to come in and stamp out the heresy that was cropping up like weeds. The Church had to defend itself against all types of "Wolves" that were coming in not sparing the flock. The codification of the doctrine (One Ousia- Three Hypostases) was essential to stopping the spread of all sorts of heretical teachings stemming from the Trinity to the Deity of Christ. Like pulling the loose thread in a sweater- we go pulling on these things and the whole thing begins to unravel into a mass of confusion. All of the cults have a misunderstanding of God. Lets not start any new ones.

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." [1 Corinthians 8:6]You see? We can read the OT and know that there is "but one God." The issue is who is the Lord Jesus Christ?Questioning the Deity of Christ?Compare Isaiah 44:24 to Colossians 1:16 for starters. Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone, (NASB)TOHe is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. (NASB)

Hi dorcas,Based upon what I read I cannot come up with any other rendering of what was being said. RT's entire post alarmed me. Understand from my vantage point revival, repentance, and the sermon issues addressed here on sermonindex are secondary to the basic fundamentals of the Christian Faith. If we don't have the foundation of who God is- we don't have anything at all. Some things are simply not up for grabs. All of my Christian life I have studied and taught the fundamentals of the faith from an apologetics viewpoint- before any of the come lately things that I involve myself with now. I mentioned earlier that certain Pentecostal's made a distinction between the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I did not intend at all or forsee that it would lead to the questioning of the Trinity or the Deity of Christ. If I misread what was said concerning the Deity of Christ or the Trinity- disregard the earlier post please or keep it in mind for the next time you meet up with a Jehovah's Witness.God Bless,-Robert

Is this seven aspects, characteristics of God's Spirit? What do you think?Your post is the classical evangelical understanding or interpretation of the whole Seven Spirits question. I would opt here to say that it is a reference to the plurality of His (the Holy Spirit's) working in the earth.

This is a good point, because the 7 lights burn from oil in one single interconnected channel.Yes and is seated upon the earth as the only light source within the Holy Place. The light that is in us is the light of the Holy Spirit. This is different than the 'light' that is in the world which is actually 'darkness.' I see it also as a picture of Isaiah 61:The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.Here the Holy Spirit is performing many works through the one in which the Spirit of the Lord is 'upon'.

I think both the Trinitarians and the Oneness folks have communication problems. Personally, I think both terms need to be trashed and replaced with Biblical words like "Godhead."This would work well if everyone could come to a consensus on who/what the "Godhead" consists of. If there is not more than simply saying "GOD" then a term like Godhead would never be needed. Moreover men tend to try to do exactly what the passage says not to do:Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.We cannot comprehend God, but we can apprehend God. This is why I gave the illustration of Space, Matter, and Time. I received that from an apologist/scientist friend of mine. When we talk about the Godhead we are always thinking in terms of ONE 'what' and THREE who's. Again the three items "length, width, and height" make up one "what"... SPACE. This corresponds to Romans"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.... Godhead is Theiotis and is translated as divine or divinity in other forms. Not only is the whole of creation in the form of a Trinity- so also is man (spirit, soul, and body). It takes the three to make ONE. God Bless,-Robert

RT: This brings up a topic on the thread here about Oneness Pentecostals. While they may be accused of oversimplification, Trinitarians could be accused of believing in three entities, or three Gods. Remember, it was Tertullian who first came up with the Trinity. The apostles never to our knowledge confessed this, nor did Christ.How can we justify confessing something that neither Christ nor the apostles confessed??Robert: Hi RT,I am quite surprised that you would cast doubt upon Trinitarian Doctrine. The danger I see in this mindset is that suddenly everything is up for grabs. The fundamentals of Christianity are anvils that have worn out many of hammar.I am not casting doubt on ANY concept or doctrine per se. At least not to any alarming degree. I am only contending for terms that are Biblically based. What is so alarming about that??Nothing is "up for grabs." We are all responsible to believe the Truth. The "fundamentals of Christianity" are what Christ and the apostles taught and confessed. No term of "trinity" there. This is simply not true. It was the ante-nicene apologists that had to come in and stamp out the heresy that was cropping up like weeds. The Church had to defend itself against all types of "Wolves" that were coming in not sparing the flock.Do you really think the Jesus had a lack of foresight concerning the heresies that would spring up in the second century? That is unthinkable.The Bible is the anvil that has worn out many a hammer, NOT SECEOND CENTURY WRITINGS!RT

Questioning the Deity of Christ?I have done NOTHING to deny the deity of Christ here. I confess the Jesus is God most readily.Go back and read my post. I am contending for Biblical terminology and doctrine. The mystery is the incarnation, not a concept of trinity. You cannot start with something the Scripture never directs us to. The new revelation of the NT is Christ. It is Jesus who declares the Father. (Jn. 1:18 KJV) "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." [1 Corinthians 8:6]Start in a place like this, not with Tertullian. Just a helpful suggestion.RT

RT's entire post alarmed me.Only because it was outside of your religious box. I was on firm Scriptural ground. Do you believe your creeds and church doctrinal statement above Scripture? No word "trinity" or attempt to teach "trinity" in Scripture. No apple illustrations in the Bible.If we don't have the foundation of who God is- we don't have anything at all. Some things are simply not up for grabs.Amen. It's called the Bible. And it is definitely NOT up for grabs.If I misread what was said concerning the Deity of Christ or the Trinity- disregard the earlier post pleaseNo problem. I totally disregard it.As to the JW's. You might want to stick with the Bible and not try your "trinity" terms if you want to win them. They'll point out that the Bible never contends for a "trinity" and they'll be right. Sinner lost.RT

This would work well if everyone could come to a consensus on who/what the "Godhead" consists of.This would be easy if we all stuck to confessing Scripture as you have gone on to do. We'd all have a consensus.I have a problem with us trying to go way beyond Scripture and get all tangled up trying to explain some things for which the Bible gives limited explanation for. We must be silent where Scripture is silent. We must be content with the revelation we now possess, longing for the day in which we will no longer know in part.Just think how much more unified the body of Christ would be if we all agreed to stick to confessing what the Bible says about things like this.Yes interpretation is important, but it would sure be a WHOLE LOT EASIER if we wouldn't try to add new concepts and new terms. This only brings division, as men are bound do disagree with one another about so-called "essentials" that have their origin in the mind of man.How much more authority is there when we can boldly teach and interpret the very words of God??Please don't go and say that I am saying that our interpretation of the Bible isn't important. It is essential. But adding non-Biblical terms and ascribing to them Biblical authority is not wise and WILL bring confusion.RT

Before I start out, I want to make a distinction. Water baptism is the baptism (gasp!) that takes place in the water. It’s the outward sign of an inward change, representative of being buried in death with Christ (going under the water) and rising again to a new life (coming up from the water) as a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). That inward change is what I’d refer to as the spiritual baptism, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Those of you familiar with the Pentecostal doctrines and their form of “Christian-ese” might think of my use of that phrase, “baptism of the Holy Spirit” in those terms, specifically related to the doling out of spiritual gifts…but set that aside, because I’m solely referring to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within a reborn believer.Christ teaches Nicodemus in John 3 that a person must be born twice – once physically, and once spiritually – before they could see God’s kingdom. Paul tells the Galatians that it doesn’t matter if a person is circumcised or not; all that matters is that they’re a new person in Christ (Galatians 6:15).My point in citing those two examples is this: the physical does not matter…it is on the spiritual that our salvation depends.God would not let our salvation depend upon the presence of water. Perhaps you’ve heard the example of a man being saved in the desert, with no water in sight. Does he not get to worship God at the throne because he died of thirst before being able to find that oasis to be baptized in? Is a man who accepts Christ on his deathbed, then dies before a vat of water could be brought to his room, denied Heaven? God is just. He’s not going to look at a person on the Judgment Day and turn them away because they weren’t able to be baptized.But note my keywords there! “Weren’t able to be”. Jesus DID command His followers to be baptized (Matthew 28:19). If a Christian is able, they must obey Christ’s command, lest it be counted as a sin. Yes, we’re forgiven our sins by the blood of Christ, but I don’t want it on my conscience (or on the conscience’s of my capable brother’s and sister’s) that I set one more sin unnecessarily upon His shoulders.

I'm a little unclear on baptism of the Holy Spirit in the fashion that you describe...what I mean to say is, I know what you're talking about, but I was never quite certain if I accepted that doctrine or not. In any case, that's a discussion for PMs, because this thread is about water baptism.I do think it's important to encourage believers to be water bapitized. Perhaps it is unclear as to which baptism Christ was speaking of in Matthew 28, but what is clear is what the early church did, and they believed themselves to be following Christ's command in baptizing new believers in water. And since they were actually THERE when Christ spoke those commands, I'll trust them on it. ;)

...golly, there's an awful lot of posts on this thread... :eek:

Just how many Spirits does God have?? Check out this Scripture:"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." [John 4:24]Notice the indefinite article "a." God is a (singular) Spirit. How many Spirits?Additional to my original response...The phrase should really be 'God is Spirit' there is no definite article but this, unlike in English, does not mean that we should always supply an 'in-definite article. This phrase of John's is one of a fascinating trio of revelation..1John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 1John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. these are revelations of the 'character' of God not of His 'essential' constitution.

Hi RT,The Bible is the anvil that has worn out many a hammer, NOT SECEOND CENTURY WRITINGS!So you're familiar with that quote. I know the original, but in this case I believe that we do well to use caution when it come to fundamental truths even if the terms are not in scripture 'per-se'. This is true with many concepts and doctrines. Although I will say, that I also wish we could utilize biblical terms. It is defining those terms that creates so much controversy.God BLess,-Robert

I have done NOTHING to deny the deity of Christ here. I confess the Jesus is God most readily. Go back and read my post. I am contending for Biblical terminology and doctrine. The mystery is the incarnation, not a concept of trinity. You cannot start with something the Scripture never directs us to. The new revelation of the NT is Christ. It is Jesus who declares the Father. (Jn. 1:18 KJV) "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." [1 Corinthians 8:6]Start in a place like this, not with Tertullian. Just a helpful suggestion.I agree with you and I have done this. That is why I spent those years studying Jewish Roots with the Messianics. The thing that we neglect in my estimation is Christ as Messiah. We use the name 'Christ' and often forget the full force of what is being said in that name. How about here:One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:6)I understand full well where you are coming from and what you are saying. But I can say with great certainty that the whole of Scripture utterly teaches the Trinity as a fact of scripture whether the term is used or not. I have an apologetic on this that is quite formidable and will share it in its fulness if it comes down to it. I just don't have it in a file that I can cut and paste and I don't type that well :-( I have done NOTHING to deny the deity of Christ here. I confess the Jesus is God most readily.I was pretty sure you did believe in the deity of Christ. When I read the post it appeared that you were prepared to discuss even who Christ is and how we should relate to Him. He is Emmanuel. He is God with us. Before Abraham was I AM. His name shall be called MIGHTY GOD, etc. God Bless,-Robert

Only because it was outside of your religious box. I was on firm Scriptural ground. Do you believe your creeds and church doctrinal statement above Scripture? No word "trinity" or attempt to teach "trinity" in Scripture. No apple illustrations in the BibleI wish you would clarify this for me. The last time I read a post a face value I misread it. It appears that you said that the Bible does not teach the Trinity? I will not jump to conclusions here, but would enjoy a fuller understanding of just what you are saying. Only because it was outside of your religious box. I was on firm Scriptural ground. Do you believe your creeds and church doctrinal statement above Scripture?I have met some hard core iconoclasts this year. Wrecking ball to the church buildings, wrecking ball to the institutions, and now it appears I am standing betwixt another wrecking ball and the basic fundamentals of the Christian Faith. Not that I would much slow the speed of such a blast. I just have to wonder why the very foundations of everything we have come to know and believe is under the gun?Amen. It's called the Bible. And it is definitely NOT up for grabs.A wise man once asked me "who I thought I was" to be able to take on certain men and their teachings? Many of those men I took on had forgotten more about the Bible than I knew. Since that time I have learned not to shoot first and ask questions later. As to the JW's. You might want to stick with the Bible and not try your "trinity" terms if you want to win them. They'll point out that the Bible never contends for a "trinity" and they'll be right. Sinner lost.True. Yet, I'm sure you would agree, that the fact that the term is not there does not negate the reality of the triunity of God. God Bless,-Robert

RT,This would be easy if we all stuck to confessing Scripture as you have gone on to do. We'd all have a consensus.This would be easy if we all stuck to confessing Scripture as you have gone on to do. We'd all have a consensus.I have a problem with us trying to go way beyond Scripture and get all tangled up trying to explain some things for which the Bible gives limited explanation for. We must be silent where Scripture is silent. We must be content with the revelation we now possess, longing for the day in which we will no longer know in part.I agree whole heartedly with you here. In a perfect world where everyone will play by this rule we would be OK. But we do not live in a perfect world and people are always coming up with something that requires a biblical rebuttal and possibly a 'term' to define the specific biblical counsel with which to identify the truth. We may have to use a 'term' that is not found in the Bible.Consider this short list:1) Infallibility2) Omnipresent3) Omniscience4) OmnipotenceYes interpretation is important, but it would sure be a WHOLE LOT EASIER if we wouldn't try to add new concepts and new terms. This only brings division, as men are bound do disagree with one another about so-called "essentials" that have their origin in the mind of man.I do not agree that the essentials have their origin in the minds of men. RT, you valiantly defend the infallibility of scripture, right? What if an atheist asked you to show him where the Bible teaches that itself is infallible or uses that term? We believe that scripture is infallible in its original tongues; yet does that belief have its origin in the minds of men? Of course not. Man may have named the truth with his own term, but that is no different than if I were the person that named the Mountains in the Western United States "The Rockies". Did the Rocky mountains originate in the 'namers' mind or did they merely discover the mountains and their 'rockiness' and call them as they saw it? Man saw the Trinity in scripture and called it Trinity- not because it originated in their mind- but because they described what they were seeing. How much more authority is there when we can boldly teach and interpret the very words of God??Please don't go and say that I am saying that our interpretation of the Bible isn't important. It is essential. But adding non-Biblical terms and ascribing to them Biblical authority is not wise and WILL bring confusion.If any other names had been ascribed to the truths we are discussing we had held to them instead. It has nothing to do with the 'term' but what the term means and represents. Names are very important. We gather a lot from a name and we gather a lot from 'terms'. It is how we communicate. For 1850 years these terms have been forged and used. Who would we think we were to think that 1850 years of God's ministers had it wrong? That list is so long I would weary to begin to start. It is to assume that our interpretation of scripture might just reveal something different than it has for 1850 years. I am sorry, I simply do not have the fortitude to challenge a Truth that has been so thoroughly established within the Body of Christ. Study it? Yes. Verify it? Yes. Undermine it? Never. God Bless,-Robert

Okay we were challanged to get into our Bibles and do some research on the subject. I am not a Bible scholar or anything like that, but I do love to study the word of the Lord so please bear with me. I have found some verses that I feel deserve mentioning in regards to this subject. The first one I want to point out would be Ephesians 4:5 which says that there is "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" So there cannot be two baptisms that we are baptized into. It is only one baptism that brings about salvation. So if our salvation is based upon the water baptism, then it seems to me that would mean we don't get baptized by the Holy Spirit and vice-versa. "One baptism" not two. Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, and John 1:33 all say essentially the same thing, but in order to keep this from being too long, I will quote from Mark 1:8 which says "I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." This is clearly shows two different baptisms, that of water, and that of the Holy Spirit. Only one of these baptisms are important to our salvation or the verse would have read "One God, one faith, two baptisms". Again, Jesus Christ Himself also made the distinction in Acts 1:5 where he said "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." The next passage I wish to share with you is 1Peter 3:20,21 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" This verse says that it is not our washing of the flesh that saves us, but our conscience toward God. The washing of the flesh is merely superficial. What God wants is the cleansing of the inside, otherwise we become nothing more than a "whited sepulchre" beautiful on the outside, and full of uncleanness on the inside. With all that being said, I do believe that water baptism does have it's place. Water baptism is a public confirmation of our faith. It is a way of getting out and publically declaring "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour" like it says in Matthew 10:32 "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." Which shows that the "confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus" which we find in Romans 10:9 is more than just a private "Jesus be my Lord" deal, but an open public confessing of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. Acts chapter 10 is an important chapter to read concerning this subject, for the people had already received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized with water. Verse 47 says "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" It seems at this point that the baptism would be nothing more than a confirmation of their faith, seeing as they had already been "sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise". I believe that we should all be water baptized if for no other reason than that. Unless a person is allergic to water there is no good reason not to.Resisting being baptized, to me seems like resisting God. If a person's reason for not getting baptized is merely because "I don't have to be baptized in water in order to be saved" then that is nothing more than rebellion and that person should really examine themselves and see if what they're doing is of God. It's rejecting an opportunity to get out and make known your faith in Jesus Christ who has bought and redeemed you with His precious blood, just because one may wish to make a statement to those who believe that you must be water baptized. I admit that I do not know a lot about the Bible, and if I have made any mistakes I am always open to correction because I don't really care if I'm right or wrong. What matters is knowing the truth of God's word, and I am willing to accept correction if I am shown to be wrong. Your comments are very much welcomed. Thank you for your time.

i only have a second.... but.... if we believe baptism is where our salvation is, then we must not believe Jesus when He said to the man next to Him on the cross "today you will be with me in paradise" (i dont have my bible in front of me... not exact quote)what do you think ?

I think most here would agree that water baptism as an ceremony effects nothing. But baptism is something that declares a fact which already exists. What's interesting is that every sinner in the world has been baptized, not in water, but in the death of Jesus Christ, where the whole world was given a chance at right relationship with God. The whole world was redeemed by Christ, but each one must accept their redemption or they haven't taken the position that Jesus won for them. Therefore, our baptism is the testimony that we have moved to that position of a new relationship in Christ, that we are new creations, that we are "accpeted in the beloved", praise God!I know I really need to remember this meaning of our baptism on a daily basis. It is much more than just a declaration of faith, it is a testimony that we are dead to ourselves and alive unto God! In Christ,Ron

InTheLight writesWhat's interesting is that every sinner in the world has been baptized, not in water, but in the death of Jesus Christ, where the whole world was given a chance at right relationship with God. Whoa, steady here my brother... :-) While Christ has indeed been baptised into the death that passed to all men and, as a consequence, 'our old man was co-crucified with Christ' this is not the same as saying ''every sinner has been baptised into the death of Christ". He united with our ( joint) old man in His death and redemption is available for every sinner in the world. (I do not subscribe to the Calvinist view here) But if we follow the strick logic of your statement every sinner is 'already dead in Christ'; do we want to say this?

(I do not subscribe to the Calvinist view here) But if we follow the strick logic of your statement every sinner is 'already dead in Christ'; do we want to say this?Whoa there my pedantic brother... :-D I'm surprised you struggle with this statement. I don't mean that everyone has gone into a baptismal pool, I mean that in the baptism-the death-of Christ, the whole world was given the chance of a new relationship. That relationship was provided for them, carried out for them, effected on their behalf. If men and women remain lost it is not because they were not redeemed but because they did not accept their redemption. That is the point of our call to the lost, to enter into that which God has provided and secured in and through Jesus Christ.I think the following, from Watchman Nee, will help explain my meaning; "The Cross was the means God used to bring to an end ‘the old things’ by setting aside altogetherour ‘old man’, and the resurrection was the means He employed to impart to us all that was necessaryfor our life in that new world. “We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4).The greatest negative in the universe is the Cross, for with it God wiped out everything thatwas not of Himself: the greatest positive in the universe is the resurrection, for through it Godbrought into being all He will have in the new sphere. So the resurrection stands at the threshold of the new creation. It is a blessed thing to see that the Cross ends all that belongs to the first regime and that the resurrection introduces all that pertains to the second. Everything that had its beginning before resurrection must be wiped out. Resurrection is God’s new starting-point.We have now two worlds before us, the old and the new. In the old, Satan has absolute dominion.You may be a good man in the old creation, but as long as you belong to the old you are undersentence of death, because nothing of the old can go over to the new. The Cross is God’s declaration that all that is of the old creation must die. Nothing of the first Adam can pass beyond the Cross;it all ends there. The sooner we see that, the better, for it is by the Cross that God has made a way of escape for us from that old creation. God gathered up in the Person of His Son all that was of Adam and crucified Him; so in Him all that was of Adam was done away. Then God made, as it were, a proclamation throughout the universe saying: ‘Through the Cross I have set aside all that is not of Me; you who belong to the old creation are all included in that; you too have been crucified with Christ!’ None of us can escape that verdict."In Christ,Ron

Whoa there my pedantic brother...Whom? I? :-D My pedantry foundered on the phrase 'every sinner'. This points to individual responsibility and individual destiny. The 'whole race' points to the corporate nature of mankind. My point is that Christ's putting to death of 'our old man' (a fascinatinng combination of plural pronoun and singular noun - who me, pedantic? ;-)) We share a single 'old man' there is not an old man for 'every sinner' but just one 'old man' for the whole race. Adam was the federal head of our race and all that he did 'man' did' and all that he experienced 'man' experienced. Christ is a new head of a new race and all that He experienced 'the new man' experienced. We are 'in' the first man as a result of Adam's offence, but we are only 'in' Christ as a result of personal (every/each man) being baptised into Him. the 'new man' this is a corporate entity in Christ, but only those who are 'in Christ' are part of that corporate man; not 'every sinner'.Christ was united to 'our old man' by His Calvary baptism and, in Himself, brought it to a full end. It is only 'in Him' that the old man is co-crucified. and only those who are 'in Him' enjoy the consequences of the fact. But 'every sinners' enjoyment of this single act can only be as a result of that 'particular' sinner being baptised into Christ; once 'in Christ' they are no longer 'in Adam".The redemption price, of course, was for the whole world and 'every sinner' too but that is redemption accomplished which waits its 'application' through personal faith in Christ.

The redemption price, of course, was for the whole world and 'every sinner' too but that is redemption accomplished which waits its 'application' through personal faith in Christ.To which the Holy Spirit will then appropriate the finished work of the cross to the one exercising 'saving faith' individually. As many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death. Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4). It seems here that "raised from the dead" and regeneration are one and the same thing?